c
  

" Could you please explain to me the proper usage of ³which´ vs. ³that´? 9
does
not explain it in detail, and I could really use a ³hard-and-fast´ rule to keep in mind
regarding proper usage of these terms. Here is an example of the actual sentence
currently in debate:

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 which became
law on June 7, 2001 is the largest change in tax regulations in over two decades.

I felt that in this instance ³which´ should be replaced with ³that,´ or that the phrase
³which became law on June 7, 2001´ should be set off in commas. A coworker disagreed,
saying that ³which´ is correct because there is only one Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001, but that doesn¶t seem right to me. Should we just have
rewritten it to say ³The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
passed on June 7, 2001 is the largest change in tax regulations in over two decades´?

HELP! Thank you.

A First, the correct form for the sentence you cite:

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, which became
law on June 7, 2001, is the largest change in tax regulations in over two decades.

The phrase ³which became law on June 7, 2001´ is not necessary to the meaning of the
sentence; remove it and the sentence still makes sense (for one thing, without it, there¶s
no question as to ’
 is the largest change in tax regulations in the past twenty years).
Your colleague is right to point out that it is important that there was only one such act of
2001, but when you use ³which´ for a nonrestrictive (unnecessary) clause, you must set it
off with commas.

The basic rule: Use ³which´ plus commas to set off nonrestrictive clauses; use ³that´ to
introduce a restrictive clause. If there had been two or more ³Economic Growth and Tax
Relief Reconciliation´ acts in 2001, ³that´ would have been correct:

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 that became
law on June 7, 2001, is the largest change in tax regulations in over two decades.
The one that became law on June 1 was not.

Note that a comma is required after 2001 regardless. This is a strict rule, but once you
start to set something off (in this case, with the comma before 2001), you must finish
setting it off so that it doesn¶t look as if it belongs only to what comes after.

Here are some less complex examples that might illustrate the point more succinctly:
 Pizza that¶s less than an inch deep just isn¶t Chicago style.

Pizza, which is a favorite among Chicagoans, can be either bad for you or good,
depending on how much of it you eat.

Note that if you remove ³that¶s less than an inch deep´ from the first sentence, it becomes
inaccurate; i.e., it¶s   true that ³pizza just isn¶t Chicago style.´ The clause, then, is
restrictive (necessary) to the sentence; therefore ³that´ is correct. You could even leave
³that´ out:

Pizza less than an inch deep just isn¶t Chicago style.

If, however, you take out the clause ³which is a favorite among Chicagoans´ from the
second sentence, it still makes sense: i.e., pizza 
 be either bad for you or good, and
whether or not it is a favorite among Chicagoans does not ³restrict´ this meaning;
therefore the clause is nonrestrictive and should be introduced by ³which´ and set off by
commas.

Some people use ³which´ restrictively, which is more or less okay (and popular among
writers of British English) as long as no commas are involved:

Pianos which have a fourth pedal to mute the strings are popular among apartment
owners.

See paragraphs 5.58±63 in the fifteenth edition of
9 
 

 
  for more
information, and, for a succinct statement of Chicago style when it comes to ’  


 see the entry for ³that; which´ in the ³Glossary of Troublesome Expressions´ at
paragraph 5.202.

Ë