Looking for some grammar advice that is sure to put you in the Halloween spirit? Then look no further. And by the way, notice I used that, not which.
That’s because that introduces a restrictive clause, a clause that is essential to the identity of the sentence element it modifies. In this instance, the clause “that is sure to put you in the Halloween spirit” is essential to the identity of the modified element, namely “some grammar advice.” Remove the that-clause and you’re left with “Looking for some grammar advice?” Maybe you are, or maybe you aren’t, but you certainly don’t have any idea what type of grammar advice I’m asking about.
A clause can also be nonrestrictive. Unlike restrictive clauses, nonrestrictive clauses provide supplement information. This means that they can be omitted without fundamentally affecting the identity of the sentence element they modify. Consider these two examples:
One witch that always scared me as a child was the Wicked Witch of the West.
The Wizard of Oz, which features Margaret Hamilton as the Wicked Witch of the West, always scared me as a child.
In the first example, the clause “that always scared me as a child” is essential to the identity of the sentence element it modifies, “One witch.” (Which witch? The one that always scared me as a child.) In the second example, the clause “which features Margaret Hamilton as the Wicked Witch of the West” is not essential to the identity of modified element, “The Wizard of Oz.” The which-clause provides supplemental information and can be removed without fundamentally affecting the identity of the modified element. As the above examples show, commas are used around nonrestrictive clauses but not around restrictive clauses.
Want to learn more about restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses? Then be sure to check out this post. We’ve even got a quiz you can take to test your knowledge.
3 Comments
Andrew Ade 29 November 2023 AT 10:11 AM
Dear Ms. Doose,
The Wizard of Oz offers a cute example for this discussion, but doesn't it violate another rule for relative pronouns? Given that a witch is a person, shouldn't the antecedent "witch" be followed by "who" instead of "that"?
sdoose 01 December 2023 AT 02:12 PM
Dear Mr. Ade, Thank you for your question. The relative pronoun that can in fact be used to refer to a person. This post, which may be of interest, explains in more detail.
Carl Martin 05 December 2023 AT 10:12 AM
Might we extend the discussion on restriction from clauses to noun phrases? Consider two sentences from a recent NYT essay by Ayana Mathis. There we can compare "Evil looms large in James Baldwin's first novel, 'Go Tell It On the Mountain,' set in 1930s Harlem" (where "first novel" is specific enough to stand alone) with "In S. M. Hulse's novel 'Black River' (2015), the protagonist ... wrestles with his faith..." (where "novel" alone would not convey adequate specificity to mean much.
Join the Conversation
We invite you to comment on this post and exchange ideas with other site visitors. Comments are moderated and subject to terms of service.
If you have a question for the MLA's editors, submit it to Ask the MLA!