That vs. which

Question

The below sentence is from npr news script.

What I am wondering about is if it's possible to use 'that.'

Since 'that' represents 'a part of a sentence,' it seems odd to use 'that' instead of 'which.'

Am I right?

They fire more people that causes consumers to pull back even more and you in the self-reinforcing cycle downward.
Edit/Delete Message

Avangi · Accepted Answer

The sentence doesn't seem very effective as it stands. There seem to be words missing.

I'd say, "They fire more people, and that causes consumers to pull back even more, and -"

OR

"They fire more people, which causes etc."

" - - - , and you [end up] in the self-reinforcing cycle downward."

Dokterjokkebrok · Answer

Hi,

Stenka25Since 'that' represents 'a part of a sentence,' it seems odd to use 'that' instead of 'which.'
Am I right?

I agree.

They fire more people, which causes consumers to pull back even more and you in the self-reinforcing cycle downward.

Which/that normally refer back to the words that precede them. Which can also be used to refer back to a sentence or part of it. A comma is usually written as well.

I don't like doing the dishes, which is no problem at all because we have a dish washer.
John likes to play his guitar at night, which is something the rest of us hates.

Best,

- DJB -

BillJ · Answer

Stenka25The below sentence is from npr news script.
What I am wondering about is if it's possible to use 'that.'
Since 'that' represents 'a part of a sentence,' it seems odd to use 'that' instead of 'which.'
Am I right?
They fire more people that causes consumers to pull back even more and you in the self-reinforcing cycle downward.

This is a badly written sentence - are you sure you're quoting it correctly? The answer to your question is no, you can't use 'that'. This type of relative clause is called 'supplementary' (sometimes called non-defining or non-restrictive). Supplementary relative clauses are only of the wh type ('who', 'which' etc).

So it should be: "They fire more people, which causes consumers to pull back even more...." Notice the comma after 'people'. Commas/brackets/dashes are used to set apart supplementary relative clauses.

BillJ

Mudclay · Answer

hello! Here's my contribution.

They fire more people that causes consumers to pull back even more and you in the self-reinforcing cycle downward.

First, what are you trying to modifiy? "people or the act of firing'?

If you are trying to modify the "people" then you should use WHO but if you are trying to modify "fire" or the act of firing then we can use either "that/which"

THAT would be more appropriate for this sentence.

Let's wait for the experts.

BillJ · Answer

mudclayThey fire more people that causes consumers to pull back even more and you in the self-reinforcing cycle downward.
First, what are you trying to modifiy? "people or the act of firing'?
If you are trying to modify the "people" then you should use WHO but if you are trying to modify "fire" or the act of firing then we can use either "that/which"
THAT would be more appropriate for this sentence.

I don't think the antecedent can plausibly be seen as 'people'. What we have here is a relative clause with a clause ('they fire more people') as antecedent - a possibility that is found only with the supplementary type. Supplementary relatives are almost always of the wh type, so 'that' is inadmissable here.

(Fire, i.e. the act of firing, is a verb. Relative clauses don't modify verbs.)

BillJ

Mudclay · Answer

Thank you BillJ!

What if the reason why consumers pull back was because of more people who were fired? And not the act of firing?

BillJ · Answer

mudclayWhat if the reason why consumers pull back was because of more people who were fired? And not the act of firing?

It's the two elements together that form the full meaning: 'some organisation fires more people than is desirable or acceptable to the consumers who, as a result, then pull back even more etc'. The 'firing' is of course relevant, but so is 'more people'. When those two elements are combined, the full meaning is revealed so the entire clause 'They fire more people' is the most plausible interpretation of the relative word, whatever it may be. But, as I said before, a relative clause that has a clause as antecedent must be supplementary, and supplementaries are of the wh type, not 'that', so there's no choice here.

Stenka25 - your instinct that it's odd to use 'that' instead of 'which' was well justified. Does this all make sense to you now?

BillJ

Mudclay · Answer

BillJ
mudclayWhat if the reason why consumers pull back was because of more people who were fired? And not the act of firing?
It's the two elements together that form the full meaning: 'some organisation fires more people than is desirable or acceptable to the consumers who, as a result, then pull back even more etc'. The 'firing' is of course relevant, but so is 'more people'. When those two elements are combined, the full meaning is revealed so the entire clause 'They fire more people' is the most plausible interpretation of the relative word, whatever it may be. But, as I said before, a relative clause that has a clause as antecedent must be supplementary, and supplementaries are of the wh type, not 'that', so there's no choice here. Stenka - your instinct that it's odd to use 'that' instead of 'which' was well justified. Does this all make sense to you now? BillJ

I understand now. Thank you!

Maybe the poster commited a mistake in creating the sentence. It should have been written like this if i'm not mistaken.

They fire more people, which causes consumers to pull back even more and you + (verb) in the self-reinforcing cycle

or They fire more people, which causes consumers to pull back even more.

could i say non-restrictive clause?

Avangi · Answer

I still think the most likely construction is that the author is describing a chain of events with three independent clauses. Why else would he use "that"?

They do X, and that causes Y, and you end up in Z.

To me, this seems the simplest, most direct, most obvious construction.

There are just a couple of words accidently omitted. Why redesign the whole sentence?

Of course there are other ways to express it, but that's a different game.

Stenka25 · Answer

Sorrry to trouble you so much.
But I take it exactly to the letter from the script.

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=129031780

So I posted the question.
And now with your great help I think I got the answer.

Thanks, all of you.

That vs. which

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

I agree.

They fire more people, which causes consumers to pull back even more and you in the self-reinforcing cycle downward.

Related Questions