English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Which of the following is correct?

  • There were 10 people that went to the store.
  • There were 10 people who went to the store.


Which of the following is correct?

  • There were 10 people that had brown hair.
  • There were 10 people who had brown hair.
share|improve this question
up vote 10 down vote accepted
  • There were 10 people who went to the store.
  • There were 10 people who had brown hair.

Who refers to people. That and which refer to groups or things. (grammarbook)

share|improve this answer
Of course, that is not entirely true. There are cases, like this: "That person is nice". You could never say "Who person is nice". So "that" does indeed also refer to people. – Vincent McNabb Aug 10 '10 at 21:07
Oh - and isn't it lovely how different sources just LOVE to disagree with each other?? Wouldn't it be nice to have a central academy of English... :-D – Vincent McNabb Aug 10 '10 at 21:13
I voted you up, because I agreed with what you wrote. I also agree with what I wrote. I'm just skeptical that "that" should never be used in that context. For instance, Googling "people that went" returns 5 million results. "people who went" returns 28 million. So while "who" used as an adjective clause is much more common, "that" is also very common. – Vincent McNabb Aug 10 '10 at 22:37
"The person that I have met last night." – kiamlaluno Mar 10 '11 at 20:00
-1 "Who refers to people. That and which refer to groups or things." Not always. Wish you were not so categorical, because there are many (kinds of) exceptions. (cf. other answers.) – Kris Oct 23 '12 at 8:00

They are interchangeable.


1 a : the person, thing, or idea indicated, mentioned, or understood from the situation b : the time, action, or event specified c : the kind or thing specified as follows d : one or a group of the indicated kind

Beware of grammar books. They very often describe the authors' opinions on what grammar should be, rather than what grammar actually is.

Specifically, I would say that it is fine to use either "that" or "who", but "who" can only be used to refer to people, while "that" refers to things and people. One should favour the word "who", if they want to clarify that it is a person, and not a thing, that they are talking about.

Jean Yates says in her book, "The Ins and Outs of Prepositions":

An adjective clause can identify a noun. The clause comes right after the noun.
The man who(m) ...
The man that ....
The people who(m) ...
The people that ...

Furthermore, the "Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English" by Douglas Biber, Susan Conrad, and Geoffrey Leech says:

Three relative pronouns stand out as being particularly common in English: who, which, and that.

  • That and zero are the preferred choices in conversation, although relative clauses are generally rare in that register.
  • Fiction is similar to conversation in its preference for that.
  • In contrast, news shows a much stronger preference for which and who, and academic prose strongly prefers which.

So again, I say, be wary of any single grammar book as being 100% correct. They never are.

share|improve this answer
While I am not saying you are wrong (I am just a noob here), I really struggle with your merriam-webster entry. The examples going with 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d (or any other examples for "that") have little to do with the OP's examples. – VonC Aug 10 '10 at 21:23
It seems that many grammar "rules" are subjective. I will forever use the solution proposed by VonC because it is easy to remember and never wrong (until somebody proves it wrong here). I am, after all, just a noob here too. – Bryan Downing Aug 10 '10 at 22:18
@VonC - just a noob! Ha! Reading everything you have written here only proves that you have an excellent grasp of the English language. I will update my post to include more references. – Vincent McNabb Aug 10 '10 at 22:40
Now that is a much more detailed answer :) +1. As Bryan says, I will keep the "simple rule" I mentioned before, but I realize now it is by no means an absolute one. – VonC Aug 11 '10 at 4:25
Forcing me to do research, hmph! :P Yes, I really should back up what I say with supporting references more often. – Vincent McNabb Aug 11 '10 at 6:51

It's worth noting that the term "who" with a preceding comma often has a different meaning from "that", and the latter term would not substitute. Consider:

  1. The six friends, who had gone to school together, went to the beach.
  2. The six friends that had gone to school together went to the beach.

In the first sentence, it is assumed that the reader would know, even before reading the italicized portion of the text, what the six friends the author was referring to, but not that they had gone to school together. In the second sentence, it is assumed that the reader would know that six friends had gone to school together, but not that the author was writing about those people in particular.

When discussing inanimate objects, the word "who" in the first usage above would be replaced with "which". Replacing the word "that" in the second usage with "who" would be reasonably common usage when discussing people, but comparable replacement with "which" would be less common, especially when the subordinate clause modifies the subject of a sentence. "The six machines which weren't working this morning have been repaired" would read slightly less naturally than "The six machines that weren't working this morning...", though "I have fixed the six machines which weren't working this morning" would be fine.

share|improve this answer
It’s a superstition that which cannot be used in such cases. As the authors of ‘The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language’ write, ‘Integrated wh relatives with non-personal heads have been occurring in impeccable English for about 400 years.’ – Barrie England Oct 23 '12 at 7:41
@BarrieEngland: There is certainly historical precedent for the use of "which" to refer to people and also in cases where it identifies rather than describes things; I think such usage is more common when the modified noun is the object rather than the subject of the enclosing sentence. I have revised my answer; what do you think of it? – supercat Oct 23 '12 at 15:06
@BarrieEngland: My personal philosophy is that it is in most contexts more important that writing be clearly understood at first glance than that it follow "rules". Use of "which" in place of "that" feels right in some contexts, but not others, but I don't think "that" feels wrong in situations where it introduces a clause that identifies the things referred to by a noun. I would posit that if a person lacks a sense of when English speakers would or would not find that "which" feels natural in an identifying clause, such a person could safely use "that" and be understood. – supercat Oct 23 '12 at 15:23

protected by tchrist Feb 22 '15 at 16:13

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.