s/o - Use of "that" instead of "who"

[Piper]

In no way would I call myself a grammar expert, but surely, surely, this rising trend I have been seeing and hearing is wrong! I'm talking about when people use "that" instead of "who". For example, "There is the woman that gave it to me." Shouldn't it be "who gave it to me"  - using "who" when referring to people or a person?  It sounds so impersonal - it makes me feel like the person or people to whom the speaker is referring is some kind of object or animal.."There is the machine that gave it to me."  I know, weird and probably nit-picky...

 

So am I right that this is grammatically incorrect? And am I the only one who (not that!) finds it really annoying?! :tongue_smilie:

[texasmama]

It bothers me, as well.  I consider it to be incorrect.

[maize]

It's super common around me, I'm pretty sure I've been saying it since I was a kid. So I vote it is perfectly grammatical vernacular.

 

"Your brother Jim? Isn't that the one who moved to Kansas?"

"Sally's the friend that I saw yesterday."

"It was Joseph that gave me the movie tickets."

[beaners]

I know it's wrong. I do it all the time when I'm not paying attention.

[Tanaqui]

You are not right. Common usages by native speakers are, by definition, correct. This one in particular has been kicking around at least since Shakespeare's day and probably longer, putting this shibboleth firmly in the category of "made-up zombie rule". (It's amazing how frequently that happens.) Edit: GrammarGirl dates it back to Chaucer, and notes that the American Heritage Dictionary specifically calls this construction out as correct.

 

However, as it IS a common peeve, as always, you should know your audience. In formal writing, or when speaking at a job interview or other situations of that sort, you should cede to peer pressure and avoid that construction in favor of "who", even if it's not native to your idiolect.

[regentrude]

It is not actually considered incorrect in coversational use.

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/645/01/

 

In writing it should be "who".

And I personally dislike to refer to a person as "that", even in informal speech.

 

Now, don't get me started on people not using "whom" where they should...

Edited November 28, 2015 by regentrude

[Tanaqui]

Now, don't get me started on people not using "whom" where they should... that's one of my peeves.

 

Enjoy tilting at windmills*, do you?

 

 

* I'm using this phrase in the more recent "taking on impossible fights" sense, not in the older "fighting imaginary enemies" sense. I mean, I could mean it the other way as well, I suppose, but I don't.

Edited November 28, 2015 by Tanaqui

[maize]

Here's the thing, folks (and I know we've had this discussion before): grammar really doesn't exist as a thing separate and apart from language as it is used. There isn't an immutable set of rules that determines right and wrong forms of language. Grammar is a sometimes useful way to describe the forms and structure of language, and can be helpful in teaching patterns and accepted usage. But trying to throw the grammar book at speech as it is ordinarily used in any given community is just silliness.

 

That instead of who? It's correct grammar if that's what people use and understand.

Who instead of whom? Same thing. Regentrude, it makes sense that a native German speaker would be sensitive to case. But English got rid of most of our cases, oh, eons ago. Dropping one more is just not a big deal.

:)

[regentrude]

Enjoy tilting at windmills*, do you?

 

 

* I'm using this phrase in the more recent "taking on impossible fights" sense, not in the older "fighting imaginary enemies" sense. I mean, I could mean it the other way as well, I suppose, but I don't.

 

Yes, this particular windmill. The English grammar is already so weakly inflected: no genders, very little conjugations of verbs, almost non existent noun declensions. I shall cling to the remnants of inflection in pronouns. As long as we use him and her, we should use whom.

 

My native language has three genders and four cases and actual verb conjugations. I can't understand what is so difficult about getting this tiny bit of grammar right.

[Tanaqui]

My native language has three genders and four cases and actual verb conjugations. I can't understand what is so difficult about getting this tiny bit of grammar right.

 

The fact that English is a heavily isolating language. Because we don't make much use of case, it's hard for us to internalize usage of same - especially when it comes to the word "whom", which is now severely depreciated and generally not learned in the usual way, that is, through immersion, but at school.

[abba12]

It's super common around me, I'm pretty sure I've been saying it since I was a kid. So I vote it is perfectly grammatical vernacular.

 

"Your brother Jim? Isn't that the one who moved to Kansas?"

"Sally's the friend that I saw yesterday."

"It was Joseph that gave me the movie tickets."

 

The first one seems incorrect since it is directly talking about the person, Jim

 

But in the second and third, I don't read 'that' to be referencing the people but rather the actions they took. I don't know much about formal grammar unfortunately (I hope to learn alongside the kids) so I can't say it in proper grammatical terms, but, 'who' would be referencing the person 'sally's the friend' and 'it was joseph', 'that' seems to be referencing 'i saw yesterday' and 'gave me the movie tickets'. It changes the focus of the sentence from the person to the action. 

 

"The woman who gave it to me" - this sentence is focused on the woman

"The woman that gave it to me" - this sentence is focused on "it"

 

I dunno, they just seem like subtly different ways of speaking rather than interchangeable words to me.

 

Even in the first one, "Who" references Jim, "That" references your brother. 

Edited November 29, 2015 by abba12

[maize]

The first one seems incorrect since it is directly talking about the person, Jim

 

But in the second and third, I don't read 'that' to be referencing the people but rather the actions they took. I don't know much about formal grammar unfortunately (I hope to learn alongside the kids) so I can't say it in proper grammatical terms, but, 'who' would be referencing the person 'sally's the friend' and 'it was joseph', 'that' seems to be referencing 'i saw yesterday' and 'gave me the movie tickets'. It changes the focus of the sentence from the person to the action. 

 

"The woman who gave it to me" - this sentence is focused on the woman

"The woman that gave it to me" - this sentence is focused on "it"

 

I dunno, they just seem like subtly different ways of speaking rather than interchangeable words to me.

 

Even in the first one, "Who" references Jim, "That" references your brother. 

 

My point is just that all of these are normal uses for the word that in my community. Everyone understands the meaning and the usage is accepted as normal. Therefor it is grammatical by definition.

 

instead of:

"Your brother Jim? Isn't that the one who moved to Kansas?"

"Sally's the friend that I saw yesterday."

"It was Joseph that gave me the movie tickets."

 

You could rephrase each sentence with a different pronoun:

 

"Your brother Jim? Isn't he the one who moved to kansas?"

"Sally's the friend who I saw yesterday."

"It was Joseph who gave me the movie tickets."

 

Also correct, but not more correct than the first examples in terms of how the English language is used, at least where I live.

 

As humans, we like to categorize and organize; it's something our brains are good at. Language though is an organic kind of thing that doesn't always fit into tidy little boxes. It is the organic way that languages evolve and change that has led to the fascinating variety of languages we have now, including the intriguing differences between American and Australian usage. :)

 

ETA: There is, of course, the issue of more and less formal registers; written English tends to take a more formal register, especially in an academic setting. What is appropriate informally is not necessarily accepted formal usage. Rather than teaching our children that common vernacular usages are ungrammatical, we might be better served by teaching them the differences between formal and informal language usage and the appropriate place for each.

Edited November 29, 2015 by maize

[naturegirl]

I think using that in place of who is incorrect, but I don't care in casual conversation, emails or online forums such as this one. However, if someone is a professional writer they should be able to keep that and who straight. I definitely judge authors and journalists who can't remember when to use that and when to use who.

[Lori D.]

Drives me crazy, too.   :eek:  :ack2: :willy_nilly:  :zombie:

 

I grit my teeth and ignore it when it comes up in conversation, but I do correct it in all of the papers my students turn in for my Lit. & Comp. class. :)

Edited November 29, 2015 by Lori D.