0
Teleostomi Posted 19 years ago
Grammar
"She is the only woman in the candidates that/who can speak Japanese."
One teacher (non native speaker of English) taught me that "that" in (1) modifies "woman", so that the meaning is clearly "She is the only Japanese speaker among the candidates." But that in (2), "who" can modify either "woman" or "candidates", so that the meaning is ambiguous, and could mean either "She is the only Japanese speaker among the candidates." or "She is the only woman in the candidates."
To illustrate this, I made these symbols. The letters E, J, F, M stand for "English, Japanese, Female, Male" respectively. "She" in sentences (1) and (2) is in color pink.
(1) She is the only woman in the candidates that can speak Japanese. [Only allows for the interpretetion (a)]
(2) She is the only woman in the candidates who can speak Japanese. [Can mean either (a) or (b)]
(a) EM EM EM EF EF EF JFDo you agree with this instruction?
(b) JM JM JM JM JM JM JW
Top answer
She is the only woman AMONG the candidates that can speak Japanese
- She is the only woman AMONG the candidates that can speak Japanese
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
11 Answers
0
She is the only woman AMONG the candidates that can speak Japanese
00
Marius HancuShe is the only woman AMONG the candidates that can speak JapaneseMy personal preference is to use "who" when referring to people, but it's a toss-up in this case.
00
TeleostomiDo you agree with this instruction?Nope. To me, "that" and "who" are the same, so the meaning doesn't change at all. That said, both of those senteces have two meanings, so they are not really clear without a context.
Although they are not clear, I think I wouldn't even realize there are two meanings if I read something like that. I would
00
I find it totally ambiguous.
Although (like Philip) I greatly prefer "who" for a person, this is not a universal preference, so relying on a distinction of "who" vs. "that" to convey meaning is a risky strategy.
To convey your meaning you need a rewrite.
Of the candidates who can speak Japanese, she is the only women. (There may be any number of EMs and EFs, but there ar
Although (like Philip) I greatly prefer "who" for a person, this is not a universal preference, so relying on a distinction of "who" vs. "that" to convey meaning is a risky strategy.
To convey your meaning you need a rewrite.
Of the candidates who can speak Japanese, she is the only women. (There may be any number of EMs and EFs, but there ar
00
Thanks for your help, everyone!
It's interesting as Kyoeen said that "who" and "that" could be taken to refer to eithe
It's interesting as Kyoeen said that "who" and "that" could be taken to refer to eithe
00
TeleostomiIt's interesting as Kyoeen said that "who" and "that" could be taken to refer to either woman or to candidates, but it would generally be understood to refer to woman.I simply don't agree with this statement. That's why I said it was ambiguous.
00
What about this sentence?
She is the only woman candidate who can speak Japanese.
She is the only woman candidate who can speak Japanese.
00
0
Neeraj JainWhat about this sentence?This is clear, if you want to say that there are other women candiates, but those other women don't speak Japanese. As I keep saying, it's ambiguous without a rewrite, which is why (aside from preferring "who" to "that")
She is the only woman candidate who can speak Japanese.
00
TeleostomiIt's interesting as Kyoeen said that "who" and "that" could be taken to refer to either woman or to candidates, but it would generally be understood to refer to woman.Hmmm, no, I didn't say that. I said Iwould think it referred to "woman". There was no context, so when there's no context I usually make up one.
0
Related Questions