Who vs. That
The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation
Who vs. That
In a recent newsletter, I corrected myself after some readers wrote in saying the word that should have been who in the sentence “There’s not one mother I know that would allow her child to cross that street alone.” However, it got me thinking more about this topic, so I dug a little deeper into what some of the leading English usage reference books such as The Chicago Manual of Style, The Associated Press Stylebook, and various dictionaries have to say on the matter. It turns out the majority of these references allow the use of the word that to refer to people. While I am not personally a proponent of this usage, I think it’s a good time to revisit the rules for who vs. that.
Rule: Who refers to people. That may refer to people, animals, groups, or things, but who is preferred when referring to people.
Example: Anya is the one who rescued the bird.
NOTE: While Anya is the one that rescued the bird is also correct, who is preferred.
Example: Lope is on the team that won first place.
Example: She belongs to an organization that specializes in saving endangered species.
NOTE: While teams and organizations are composed of people, they are considered groups. However, this matter is not always clear-cut. Consider this sentence: “Several of the university’s scientists who/that favored the new policy attended the meeting.” Which is correct, who or that? Does “university’s scientists” seem more like individual people than a group? In cases like this, you may use your own judgment.
You may be asking whether there are any rules guiding when to use the word that and when to use the word which. The answer is yes. That introduces essential clauses and which introduces nonessential clauses. This topic is explored more thoroughly in the grammar tip entitled “That vs. Which.”
Pop Quiz
1. Was it Marguerite who/that organized the surprise party for Johann?
2. Kepler is the scientist who/that proposed the laws of planetary motion.
3. I do not want to go on any amusement park rides who/that involve sudden drops.
4. Oliver is the president of the association who/that nurses injured wild animals back to health.
5. Most of the members of the board who/that voted against the motion to change the bylaws were present at the meeting.
Pop Quiz Answers
1. Was it Marguerite who organized the surprise party for Johann? (that is also acceptable.)
2. Kepler is the scientist who proposed the laws of planetary motion. (that is also acceptable.)
3. I do not want to go on any amusement park rides that involve sudden drops.
4. Oliver is the president of the association that nurses injured wild animals back to health.
5. Most of the members of the board who voted against the motion to change the bylaws were present at the meeting. (that is also acceptable.)
If the article or the existing discussions do not address a thought or question you have on the subject, please use the "Comment" box at the bottom of this page.
Imagine a world in which referencing people with a “that” is frowned upon, like uttering one of those seven forbidden words is frowned upon. (Well, it does evince a certain lack of respect for the rules of grammar. others, and self.)
In quiz examples, the first three are correct, although it would be better to say that who is strongly preferred. Example number five shows a good way of discussing group members. Example four is, I grudgingly admit, grammatically correct, but it’s wrong from an eloquence point of view. It’s usually possible, with a bit of rewriting, to avoid this sort of awkwardness: “Oliver is president of a group of people who nurse…”
Thank you for your thoughts. We prefer the grammar tip as written.
Your explanation agrees with what I learned in grade school. Thank you for your analysis. I believe people and persons are “who”, while everything else generally is “that”.
As we’ve mentioned many times, we too generally prefer who for persons, but that is also correct. Please see our post Old Superstitions Die Hard.
I would like to add some thoughts on the who/that.
I often see things written that avoid the use of that where, according to what I was taught long ago, requires a that.
For example:
John said he was not going to the party.
vs.
John said that he was not going to the party.
Your example concerns using that as a subordinating conjunction instead of as a relative pronoun. It is also an example of an omission, a topic addressed in our post Overseeing Omissions in Writing.
Please review your “rule” about the use of “who” and “that” when referring to persons. The use of that when referring to people is very poor English and, unfortunately, has become today’s vernacular. I wonder if you could review your work here, so that students are not confused. I teach graduate students and I do not permit the distinctions you are making re this particular word usage. I cannot refer my students to your site for that reason.
I went to your site, hoping to obtain clarification for a student, and I am afraid that I found that error, so I do apologize if you are offended.
Thank you so much for your attention.
A great many unqualified “authorities” have decreed that the relative pronoun that cannot apply to humans. This error is widespread; you are not its only well-meaning victim; and we would be interested if you could name even one reputable English scholar who would back your position.
We understand that long-standing habits die hard, and we do not blame you for being headstrong, but you are fighting a battle you cannot win. You have been sold a myth, not unlike the myths about split infinitives and prepositions ending sentences.
This usage of that is neither “very poor English” nor an example of “today’s vernacular.” Rather, it has been unassailable English for centuries. In “The Careful Writer” (1965), Theodore M. Bernstein says, “Which normally refers to things, who to persons, and that to either persons or things. The point is elementary and needs no elaboration.”
Assuming you have no opposing evidence at hand to counter the eminent Mr. Bernstein’s remarks from almost fifty years ago, we humbly ask: wouldn’t it now be a kindness to your students to change your misbegotten policy on this humble pronoun?
This may be slightly off-topic, but in my grammar “that,” when used in a relative construction, is a clause subordinator, not a relative pronoun.
I take my lead on this from Huddleston & Pullum’s award winning grammar “The Cambridge Grammar Of The English Language”.
Their arguments in favour of it being a subordinator are compelling and well worth taking a look at.
Thank you for the tip.
How could it be a subordinator knowing that it introduces a relative ADJECTIVAL clause? Subordinators introduce adverbial clauses. There’s a clear-cut vetween the two types of clauses.
By definition, that is a relative pronoun that introduces a subordinate clause; therefore, it is both a relative pronoun and a subordinator.
In my view, it is not completely unambiguous whether in (4) it is Oliver who nurses or the association that nurses. For example, in the company of a group of association presidents, one might ask which association president is the one who nurses injured wild animals back to health. The answer could be the statement in (4) with “who” as the chosen alternative.
Since the word association is next to the phrase “that nurses,” it is the association that nurses. In your example, to be completely unambiguous, the answer would be “Oliver is the association president who nurses injured wild animals back to health.”
Please give your opinion of the use of “that” in this sentence: You were the first kindred spirit that I ever met.
I respectfully thank you for your time.
The word that is unnecessary in your sentence.
You were the first kindred spirit I ever met.
I’m THRILLED to see others commenting on that being unnecessary! I find it unnecessary most of the time and for some reason it drives me nuts (along with improper use of ensure and insure). A big “Thank You” to both of you!
People in the fields of construction, engineering, and environmental consulting, often talk about hiring “contractors” to perform a specific task. For example, a general contractor may be responsible for building a residential development, but may need to hire an electrical contractor, a plumbing contractor, etc. It is possible that the contractor could be a one-man operation. More frequently though, the contractor is a company with several employees who will be assigned the specific work tasks. Without knowing which is the case, is it preferable to say: I hired a contractor who will be roofing the buildings or I hired a contractor that will be roofing the buildings? Do you first need to know if the contractor is one person or a company with several employees? It is likely that either one is incorporated and licensed.
You would be safe using that in your examples since that can be used for people or companies. We doubt many people would find fault with using who since we tend to think of contractors as people even if they represent a larger company. Or just revise the sentence: I hired a contractor to roof the buildings.
Thanks very much for this. It annoys me when people use “that” instead of “who” when referring to people. I was surprised that this is acceptable. Darn it! I will just have to chill and ignore it.
It annoys me too. In fact I came to this site to copy and paste a post about this very subject to show that “who” is people and “that” is objects or groups. I also noticed that ending a sentence with a preposition is not a “crime” either. My 8th grade English teacher would be horrified.
I’d like to ask you which sentences are correct.
1.Who was Tennyson?
or
2. what was Tennyson?
We assume you are referring to Alfred Lord Tennyson. Use the interrogative pronoun who when referring to a person in this sentence.
But aren’t both correct, overlooking the lack of capitalization as an accidental error? They are separate questions, the second referring to a different sort of identification.
What was Tennyson? He was a writer, for one.
Yes, writing “What was Tennyson?” could be grammatically correct in certain contexts.
Surely the use of “who” or “that” is dependent on whether the pronoun is for the subject of the sentence or the its object, “who” for subject and “that” for object.
The pronouns who and that can both be subjects. Examples:
Who is making the reservation?
That was not funny.
Likewise, the words whom and that can both be objects.
With whom are you riding to the concert?
You don’t expect me to ride in that, do you?
The point of this post is the distinction of who and that as words introducing clauses.
1. Who is the hero that can easily accomplish this task?
2. Who is the hero who can easily accomplish this task?
I understand using ‘that’ or ‘who’ for people is correct but in the above examples, involving a base ‘Who’ at the beginning, does No. 2 sound odd because of two instances of ‘who’?
Of course, I may rewrite them as ‘Which hero can easily accomplish this task?’ but if I do not want to do so, which of the two is better?
Thanks in advance for your clarification.
We agree that your rewrite is the best sentence. Either sentence 1 or 2 is grammatically correct as you mention. If sentence 2 sounds odd to you, then certainly go with sentence 1.
The rewrite seemingly implies that there is a larger class of heroes from which we must choose the one best suited for the job. Sentence 1 allows us to choose from the entire population.
There are subtle shades of meaning that could be drawn from these sentences depending on one’s vantage point. Is there one hero or are there many? Are there none at present, but one may emerge? Do sentences 1. and 2. directly address a group of heroes, while the rewrite is addressed to a third party? And so on. Depending on the broader context of the narrative, the exact word choices could make a difference.
Response to GrammarBook.com post dated Nov 28, 2018.
Sorry for a delayed continuation of the discussion.
In the narrative, there is only one hero. I tend to agree the rewrite implies more than one, which is not what I intend to convey. In this case, is No 2 better than No 1?
We maintain the position that either sentence is grammatically correct, and the choice of pronoun is a matter of style and preference. Unless the sentence relates to a wider context not here shown, we believe that readers would not typically find themselves caught in an analysis of it.
Thank you for your concise but complete description of the difference between who and that. In particular, when it comes to which to use when referring to groups. Recently, I have heard otherwise articulate media personalities, and even ad copy, they refer to groups as “who” rather than “that.” Ex: The company WHO cares about its customers rather than The company that cares about its customers. I wonder if this misuse of “Who” is intentional as an attempt to humanize the “company?”
It is possible that, especially in the case of advertisers, there is an attempt to humanize a company by using who. However, we would use that.
This is fascinating and thanks for the information. Example five is especially tricky because it refers to a group of people and a “board.” The that/who grammar is crucial for clarity. That is, technically when a board votes for something it is the board “that voted” but if it is a group of people within the board that voted, it would be “the people who voted.” In other words, those people may have voted for the motion but if it did not pass the board did not vote for it! In this case, perhaps rearranging the sentence will be necessary.
Interesting thoughts. However, since the subject of the sentence is members, the word who is preferred. There is little doubt that members refers to people who voted.
In your opinion is “that” considered WRONG in this sentence …Colorado, and he recognized me as the
psychiatrist that he has talked to previously.
As the article says, “That may refer to people …” Some may prefer “…Colorado, and he recognized me as the psychiatrist whom he talked to previously.”
THAT is prohibited when adding extra information, you have to use WHO. It is allowed to use THAT or WHO when adding essential information.
Our post That vs. Which says, “That introduces essential clauses while which introduces nonessential clauses.” Also see our post That and Which: Rule or Guideline?
I was taught the grammar rule as you were saying here. I have been living in the United States for a while. I watch movies (American movies) and read news articles. I noticed that almost everyone uses “that” instead of “who” when referring to people, even in articles in reputable newspapers like New York Times and Washington Post.
We prefer who in formal writing when referring to people. That also is acceptable and is used commonly in informal contexts.
I agree with your explanation. The rules did not change, usage did. I was surprised to find so many people using “that” in regard to people. I still believe many are wrong. My question is ‘when did something happen to cause this change? Still, I am happy to find I am correct, at least most of the time.
As we mention in our article Old Superstitions Die Hard, “Great essayists, novelists, and poets have been substituting that for who for centuries.”
Using “that” instead of “who” is one of my pet peeves. I was surprised to see Tolkien doing so in the Hobbit.
It seems that there is a trend to misuse the word that in the manner described intentionally, as a kind of fashion trend or fad. Twenty five years ago when I first heard people using the word issue incorrectly, I thought that was just a fad. When I asked one of the management people where I worked about it, they explained to me that I would not understand because I was not educated, (yes, she actually said that directly to me), she went on to explain that when “educated professionals” use a word in a way that was once regarded as incorrect, it becomes correct by their using it in that way. Apparently the rules of proper English are determined by economic status rather than consensus, tradition, or widespread common usage. A quarter of a century later the misuse of issue is ubiquitous and I still cringe when I hear it. It is useful as a practical tool, if I hear someone using it, for example as an unusually clumsy direct substitution for problem, I immediately know that individual cannot be trusted to do anything of import or significance. The same is true with the intentional misuse of that in place of who, the person is an entitlement clone-drone who thinks their caste can be right while being wrong simply by virtue of their rarefied place in society.
Please see our post Tackling More Tricky Word Choices: Issue vs. Problem for our comments on the word issue.
While we have indicated our preference for who over that in formal usage, your harsh opinion regarding these words is not backed up by the leading English usage reference books or authorities. Please also see our blog post Old Superstitions Die Hard.
“Oliver is the president of the association that nurses injured wild animals back to health.”
That’s debatable. “Of the association” is a prepositional phrase, and if you omit it, you could strictly be talking about Oliver, which would then flip it back to the preferred “who”…. am I right?
Since the word association is next to the phrase “that nurses,” it is the association that nurses. Omitting “of the association” changes the sentence entirely to Oliver is the president who nurses injured wild animals back to health. That sentence implies there are multiple presidents of the association, but Oliver is the one who nurses injured wild animals back to health.
While I was taught and prefer to use who to refer to people, I can’t deny Twain: “The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg.”
That vs Who:. I find it annoying when I hear or read “people that…..” It’s as if people are things. I believe it has become acceptable because fewer people care about grammar. Then the misuse becomes the norm. Have you noticed that sometimes dictionaries expand acceptable spellings and grammar to match trends?
Sometimes, in spite of best efforts to maintain traditions of proper grammar, prevailing usage in popular culture does move in, and dictionaries sometimes follow suit. We have touched on this topic in previous articles such as Leaning on the Evolution of Meanings and How Does a Word Become a Word?
May I know the antecedents of the pronouns used in questions (4) and (5) of the pop quiz?
The antecedents are association and members.
I would like to know if in following sentence I can use both “that’s” and “who’s.” I think I can because in defining relative clauses they are interchangeable.
“The girl ________ talking to Sarah is her sister.”
Thank you in advance.
Although either is acceptable, “who’s” is preferred.
Koko was a captive gorilla who displayed many human qualities; a gorilla that lives in a zoo may not.
Mrs. Tabitha Twitchitt, who is a shopkeeper, has three mischievous kittens.
As the post states, who refers to people. That may refer to people, animals, groups, or things, Therefore, we recommend writing “Koko was a captive gorilla that displayed many human qualities; a gorilla that lives in a zoo may not.”
Your second sentence is grammatically correct.
The current trend in this country, sad to say, is anti-elitism. Unfortunately, anything associated with higher education, such as correct grammatical usage, is now associated with elitism and has come under the chopping block.
The problem with relaxing the rules a little bit is that the anti-elitists will take that small chink in the armor and widen it to say that “who” can now be dispensed with entirely, because “people who” is now the realm of elitists and old fuddy-duddies. This is how the English language has, over time, become degraded. Vernacular grammar has taken over writing in the same way that speech has become peppered with swear words. Both may now be acceptable, but they’re not pleasant to read or listen to.
The only saving grace is that older people still do much of the hiring. So, a person might be technically correct in saying that “the person that” is now acceptable, but I wouldn’t recommend trying to prove this point during a formal job interview. To the people in charge of hiring, reading this “dumbed down” English is a lot like listening to someone use the f-bomb in the middle of a sentence.
Who – I need to know who makes the final decision.
That – He picked up the hairbrush that he left on the bed.
The sentences are grammatically correct.
I recently submitted my novel to a nationally syndicated magazine’s writing contest. The person who critiqued it cited my use of “that” instead of “who” when referring to a person as something that would “shock” a discriminating reader.” Really? I use “who” as often as “that” when referring to a person, depending on syntax. There are times when “that” (despite the fact that it’s being used as a pronoun) seems to hint at action in a way that “who” does not. “It was he that did the deed…” sounds infinitely better to me than “It was he who did the deed…” “He who” sounds like the excited babbling of a gibbon! (Neither sentence appeared in my book.) I cited the Chicago Manual of Style, The Meriam-Webster Dictionary, and your examples, but have not heard back.
As we indicate in the post, although some references allow the use of the word that to refer to people, who is preferred. Some editors will be more particular about the usage than others.