TransWikia.com

Can "that" introduce a clause that contains unecessary information?

English Language & Usage Asked by Skater on March 2, 2021

I was wondering if it was acceptable to make a sentence less choppy by using “that” without a comma to introduce a clause that could be introduced with a comma followed by “which,” because the sentence would still be grammatically correct without the clause.

For instance, if the nonrestrictive clause in sentence (1) was removed, the sentence would still be grammatically correct, even though it would then be less instructive. However, (2) flows better than (1) because that clause is written as if it were nonrestrictive.

(1) The painting depicts a priest drowning the girl in a lake, which the avowedly anti-Christian artist may have used ambiguously to represent water’s ability to free the soul by killing the person.

(2) The scene depicts a priest drowning a girl in a lake that the avowedly anti-Christian artist may have used ambiguously to represent water’s ability to free the soul by killing the person.

Thanks very much for clarifying this issue for me, even though I may not have phrased my question in the best way possible.

One Answer

Non-restrictive relative clauses -- the kind that take comma intonation and use which -- are not grammatical with that. If you omit the comma intonation and use that, it's no longer a non-restrictive relative clause, but rather a restrictive relative clause, which has different syntax, and the different function of defining the noun it modifies, instead of giving extra information about its antecedent.

In the case of the two example sentences, (1) has several senses that (2) lacks. For instance, in (2) the restrictive relative clause with that must modify the noun phrase a lake.

However, in (1) the non-restrictive relative clause with that could refer to the noun phrase a lake, or to the whole clause a priest drowning the girl in a lake, or even to the resultant proposition that the girl drowned in a lake. These senses are not available with (2), but they change the interpretation of the rest of (1).

Answered by John Lawler on March 2, 2021

Add your own answers!

Ask a Question

Get help from others!

© 2024 TransWikia.com. All rights reserved. Sites we Love: PCI Database, UKBizDB, Menu Kuliner, Sharing RPP