Answer: When is it appropriate to use "that" vs. "who"?
...with examples from Stargate Atlantis, Stargate SG-1, Bones, NCIS, Psych, Burn Notice, Due South, Supernatural, and Shakespeare...
t_verano and tejas ask: When is it appropriate to use "that" vs. "who"? Does this change when referring to animals rather than people?
Many if not most educated and well-spoken people would likely tell you who refers to people, while that refer to groups or things. For example:
Shawn is the one who bought the pineapple.
SG-1 is the team that just went off-world.
Gus belongs to an organization that focuses on model making.
Oh, if only it were that straightforward. There are some ten thousand "experts" out there with very strong opinions on the usage of that versus who, and those opinions encompass hundreds of thousands of disagreements. To attempt to answer the question, I'll talk about why the two words cause so much debate, along with my suggestions on how to decide for yourself on appropriate usage.
Common Points of Contention
Perhaps the most prevalent debate involves people versus animals or things. In addressing this issue, the official definitions aren't even that straightforward:
That is a relative pronoun that can be used as the subject or object of a relative clause, especially one defining or restricting the antecedent, sometimes replaceable by who, whom, or which.
The dog that McGee found now has a new home.
The comic book that he's had since he was a kid is Booth's most precious possession.
Who is a relative pronoun that can be used relatively in restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses to represent a specified antecedent, the antecedent being a person, persons, or sometimes an animal or personified thing.
The client who came by yesterday stole a yogurt from Michael's fridge.
Diefenbaker, who should have been helping Fraser look for clues, was distracted by an all-you-can-eat buffet.
So, that can be replaced by who sometimes, and who can be used with animals or things? Huh? That right there throws the simple grammarian "rule" out the window.
Another disagreement in usage involves number. Some people argue that who should be used when referring to people, regardless of how many are involved, and that refers to inanimate objects and such. Others, however, insist who should be used only when referring to a single person, with that used when referring to more than one person or thing.
Sam glared at Dean (singular), who was busy stealing all the free mints at the cash register.
The people (plural) who work with Dr. Brennan sometimes wonder if she's from another planet.
The people (plural) that work with Dr. Brennan sometimes wonder if she's from another planet.
This issue does have a definite answer, as the definition for who clearly states that it is used with a person or persons. Thus, grammatically, using that or who has nothing to do with whether it refers to something singular or plural, making who the correct word to use in the example above with Dr. Brennan.
Other people argue about usage in contemporary works versus usage in the classics. When some writers insist that should never be used to refer to a person and rail against anyone who uses it "improperly," others argue that such usage has been around since the Angles met the Saxons. Yes, such literary masters as Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, and Dickens didn't follow "the rule."
"So excellent a king that was to this
Hyperion to a satyr . . ." (Hamlet)
". . . He that hath a beard is more than a
youth; and he that hath no beard is less than a man -- and he that is
more than a youth is not for me, and he that is less than a man, I am
not for him." (Much Ado About Nothing)
While the hardcore followers of "the rule" might say that just because the old boys ignored it doesn't make it right, nor does it, however, make it wrong. You'll be able to find a "master" who has broken any or all of the rules we discuss in this community. It's important that you understand that they break the rules on merit of knowing how use them, not just in total disregard for the rules themselves. You must know the rules before you can break them. If works by notorious "rule-breakers" such as Shakespeare and Milton can be considered venerable, so, too, must their "nonstandard" usage. Nit-picking rules with no clear basis in the language only makes the enforcer look silly.
Appropriate Usage
While I could literally go on and on about the various arguments, the issue of that versus who comes down to a matter of usage, rather than grammar. Grammar is analytical and non-evaluative. Usage, however, analyzes the status of grammatical patterns within a community. Traditionally, only who was used to refer to people, but because usage changes over time, attempts to redefine words are made every few years, and agreement on usage occurs slowly, often after a period of debate. Thus, using that to refer to people isn't a horrible error and may one day be considered completely standard.
To choose between traditional and recent usage rules keep in mind these guidelines:
The Audience
For whom are you writing your piece? Will your readers be grammar freaks like the members of this community? Will your readers be young kids who, in all likelihood, couldn't care less about usage? Know your audience, and always keep them in mind.
The Character
Get into the minds of your characters. Would a nonnative English speaker, such as Radek Zelenka, know to distinguish between people and things? Would the average murder suspect being interrogated by Gibbs know the difference? How about Dr. Mallard? Would Benton Fraser ever refer to Dief as a who? Always think about what your characters would say, even when it may not be what you'd say personally.
Consistency
While usage is ultimately a style choice, that doesn't give you permission to be sloppy. If you use who to refer to the Air Force Colonel in one sentence, don't use that a few sentences later to refer to the same person. Decide on a usage, and stick with it.
Summary
I think Arthur Plotnik brilliantly summarizes my feelings on the matter: "All [writers] need not become fanatics or high priests of the language; but most would do well to wade with some fervor in the Ganges of human expression, analyzing anew the thousands of words that flow each day from friends, family, merchants, government, punkers, rockers, lovers, and literati. To know who uses which words when is the proper study of [writers]."
Resources:
The Blue Book: That vs. Which
Carpe Diem
Dictionary.com
The Elements of Editing: A Modern Guide for Editors and Journalists (Arthur Plotnik)
General Writing and Grammar Help
Hodges' Harbrace Handbook, Fifteenth Edition (Cheryl Glenn, Robert Keith Miller, and Suzanne Strobeck Webb)
t_verano and tejas ask: When is it appropriate to use "that" vs. "who"? Does this change when referring to animals rather than people?
Many if not most educated and well-spoken people would likely tell you who refers to people, while that refer to groups or things. For example:
Shawn is the one who bought the pineapple.
SG-1 is the team that just went off-world.
Gus belongs to an organization that focuses on model making.
Oh, if only it were that straightforward. There are some ten thousand "experts" out there with very strong opinions on the usage of that versus who, and those opinions encompass hundreds of thousands of disagreements. To attempt to answer the question, I'll talk about why the two words cause so much debate, along with my suggestions on how to decide for yourself on appropriate usage.
Common Points of Contention
Perhaps the most prevalent debate involves people versus animals or things. In addressing this issue, the official definitions aren't even that straightforward:
That is a relative pronoun that can be used as the subject or object of a relative clause, especially one defining or restricting the antecedent, sometimes replaceable by who, whom, or which.
The dog that McGee found now has a new home.
The comic book that he's had since he was a kid is Booth's most precious possession.
Who is a relative pronoun that can be used relatively in restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses to represent a specified antecedent, the antecedent being a person, persons, or sometimes an animal or personified thing.
The client who came by yesterday stole a yogurt from Michael's fridge.
Diefenbaker, who should have been helping Fraser look for clues, was distracted by an all-you-can-eat buffet.
So, that can be replaced by who sometimes, and who can be used with animals or things? Huh? That right there throws the simple grammarian "rule" out the window.
Another disagreement in usage involves number. Some people argue that who should be used when referring to people, regardless of how many are involved, and that refers to inanimate objects and such. Others, however, insist who should be used only when referring to a single person, with that used when referring to more than one person or thing.
Sam glared at Dean (singular), who was busy stealing all the free mints at the cash register.
The people (plural) who work with Dr. Brennan sometimes wonder if she's from another planet.
The people (plural) that work with Dr. Brennan sometimes wonder if she's from another planet.
This issue does have a definite answer, as the definition for who clearly states that it is used with a person or persons. Thus, grammatically, using that or who has nothing to do with whether it refers to something singular or plural, making who the correct word to use in the example above with Dr. Brennan.
Other people argue about usage in contemporary works versus usage in the classics. When some writers insist that should never be used to refer to a person and rail against anyone who uses it "improperly," others argue that such usage has been around since the Angles met the Saxons. Yes, such literary masters as Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, and Dickens didn't follow "the rule."
"So excellent a king that was to this
Hyperion to a satyr . . ." (Hamlet)
". . . He that hath a beard is more than a
youth; and he that hath no beard is less than a man -- and he that is
more than a youth is not for me, and he that is less than a man, I am
not for him." (Much Ado About Nothing)
While the hardcore followers of "the rule" might say that just because the old boys ignored it doesn't make it right, nor does it, however, make it wrong. You'll be able to find a "master" who has broken any or all of the rules we discuss in this community. It's important that you understand that they break the rules on merit of knowing how use them, not just in total disregard for the rules themselves. You must know the rules before you can break them. If works by notorious "rule-breakers" such as Shakespeare and Milton can be considered venerable, so, too, must their "nonstandard" usage. Nit-picking rules with no clear basis in the language only makes the enforcer look silly.
Appropriate Usage
While I could literally go on and on about the various arguments, the issue of that versus who comes down to a matter of usage, rather than grammar. Grammar is analytical and non-evaluative. Usage, however, analyzes the status of grammatical patterns within a community. Traditionally, only who was used to refer to people, but because usage changes over time, attempts to redefine words are made every few years, and agreement on usage occurs slowly, often after a period of debate. Thus, using that to refer to people isn't a horrible error and may one day be considered completely standard.
To choose between traditional and recent usage rules keep in mind these guidelines:
The Audience
For whom are you writing your piece? Will your readers be grammar freaks like the members of this community? Will your readers be young kids who, in all likelihood, couldn't care less about usage? Know your audience, and always keep them in mind.
The Character
Get into the minds of your characters. Would a nonnative English speaker, such as Radek Zelenka, know to distinguish between people and things? Would the average murder suspect being interrogated by Gibbs know the difference? How about Dr. Mallard? Would Benton Fraser ever refer to Dief as a who? Always think about what your characters would say, even when it may not be what you'd say personally.
Consistency
While usage is ultimately a style choice, that doesn't give you permission to be sloppy. If you use who to refer to the Air Force Colonel in one sentence, don't use that a few sentences later to refer to the same person. Decide on a usage, and stick with it.
Summary
I think Arthur Plotnik brilliantly summarizes my feelings on the matter: "All [writers] need not become fanatics or high priests of the language; but most would do well to wade with some fervor in the Ganges of human expression, analyzing anew the thousands of words that flow each day from friends, family, merchants, government, punkers, rockers, lovers, and literati. To know who uses which words when is the proper study of [writers]."
Resources:
The Blue Book: That vs. Which
Carpe Diem
Dictionary.com
The Elements of Editing: A Modern Guide for Editors and Journalists (Arthur Plotnik)
General Writing and Grammar Help
Hodges' Harbrace Handbook, Fifteenth Edition (Cheryl Glenn, Robert Keith Miller, and Suzanne Strobeck Webb)