Grammar Matter (?): that vs who

One mechanical or stylistic pet peeves that got violated most in the SP2010 semester is the careless or inconsistent use of that vs. who. These words (along with "which") introduce a type of relative clause, which is particularly difficult for speakers of Asian languages - because relative clauses don't exist in their native tongues. Relative clauses are only found in European languages (tho some Native American languages have adopted the grammatical structure due to the influence of Spanish). But the "That/ who" distinction discussed here is a primarily native-English speaker issue. This concern is shared by many of my colleagues, and this issue sparked the longest dialogue posted to a teaching list-serv this year. Consider some examples. A colleague posted the following, and asked us to compare:

She was a student that worried about the finer points.

To this:

She was a student who worried about the finer points.

It's small and fussy, but in my ear it's like calling a person "it."

I whole-heartedly agree. "That" is way overused - and it denies humanity to the word it refers to - its antecedent. It reminds me of a self-described " conservative Christian" who referred to "children that are abused." Denying humanity to a race or class of people is the first step to violence against that group: the irony. Another prof. here offered:

I agree that it's most important just to get students thinking about word choices. It's pretty common, though, for personalized animals, like pets, to be referred to as "who." However, I too prefer students to refer to people with "who," even when the student wants to write "the damn cop that gave me the ticket!"

Grammar Girl weighs in on the subject with her customary verve here. And Grammarbook.com is less equivocal and more succinct.

What I'm learning: pronouns

We expect to see a lot of lower scores on the "distinct sentences" portion of the Microlab, but many students this semester lamented low scores in "misplaced modifiers" and "pronouns." Several students had already seen comments on their papers about "dangling" or misplaced modifiers, but there seems to be a general confusion about the pronouns category.

It makes sense for me, if the Microlab looks at relative pronouns. I've been expressing concern about that ;) for at least the last year. Purdue's Online Writing Center explains it fairly well, but I may prefer wikipedia - because the table on the OWL site may seem to imply that "that" can be used to refer to people. I have an issue with that. For example here's a quote from the 9/20/10 US magazine "Loose Talk" section - where they provide quotes from celebs.

It's nice to be one of the guys that can help sell a movie by taking his shirt off, [but] by no means do I want to be a piece of meat for the rest of my career (Lutz 34 - emphasis mine).

This is funny! The use of "that" rather than "who" as a relative pronoun choice denies himself the humanity he claims to eventually want. He treats himself as an inanimate object, implying linguistically that he is, after all, just "a piece of meat." Is there anything wrong with that?

Purdue would say he can to that he can do that (but not necessarily that he should) - but almost every other style book frowns seriously on using "that" when "who" traditionally would be called for. To me in this instance it seems imprecise and undercuts Kellan's argument that he should be eventually taken seriously. Unless one is referring to work as a meat puppet (Philip K. Dick reference - not necessarily the punk band) one should not use "that" to refer to a human.

Does anyone remember the trouble President Clinton got into for a reference to "that woman"?