Choosing between who and that seems simple until you start editing real sentences. In grammar classes, style guides, and everyday business writing, this small choice shapes tone, clarity, and correctness more than many writers realize. The distinction matters because English treats references to people differently from references to things, yet common usage, restrictive clauses, and informal speech often blur the line. If you write emails, reports, essays, web copy, or lesson materials, understanding when to use who and when to use that will make your sentences sound more natural and more precise.
At its core, the rule is straightforward: use who for people and use that for things. In traditional grammar terms, who is a relative pronoun referring to human beings, while that is a relative pronoun referring mainly to animals and things, especially in defining clauses. For example, “The teacher who called me was helpful” is standard because teacher is a person. “The book that explains phrasal verbs is useful” is standard because book is a thing. That basic contrast gives writers a dependable starting point.
However, actual usage is more nuanced. Native speakers sometimes say “the person that called” in conversation, and many readers barely notice. Some style guides allow that for people in restrictive clauses, while others recommend avoiding it when referring to humans because who sounds more respectful and idiomatic. In editing professional content, I have found that choosing who for people almost always improves readability, even when that would not confuse anyone. That is why this topic matters: it is not only about grammatical possibility, but also about register, audience expectations, and the subtle signals your wording sends.
The core rule: use who for people and that for things
If you want the safest rule, use who for human beings and use that for objects, concepts, groups treated as nonhuman units, and many animals. This is the clearest answer for most learners. “The woman who leads the meeting” is correct. “The software that tracks inventory” is correct. “The idea that changed our strategy” is correct. Following this rule prevents the most common mistakes and aligns with the preference of major references such as The Chicago Manual of Style, Garner’s Modern English Usage, and many ESL teaching materials.
Why does this division work so well? Because relative pronouns signal what kind of noun comes before them. Readers process that signal instantly. When they see who, they expect a person. When they see that, they usually expect a thing or an impersonal category. Matching the pronoun to the noun reduces friction. It also protects tone. Compare “clients who need support” with “clients that need support.” The second version is not always condemned, but the first sounds more polished and more human-centered in professional writing.
One practical test is to replace the noun with he, she, or they. If that replacement makes sense, who is usually the better relative pronoun. If you would replace the noun with it, that is usually right. For example, “the engineer who solved the bug” works because the engineer is a person. “The device that overheats” works because the device is a thing. This quick test is especially useful for ESL learners who need a simple editing habit they can apply under time pressure.
When that appears with people, and why many editors still change it
English usage is not governed by a single universal ban against that for people. In restrictive clauses, especially in speech and older prose, phrases like “the man that lives next door” or “anyone that wants to join” appear regularly. Corpus evidence from large databases such as the British National Corpus and the Corpus of Contemporary American English shows that these forms are real, not invented grammar myths. So if you have seen reputable writers use that with people, your observation is correct.
Still, accepted usage is not the same as preferred usage. In formal editing, I usually change that to who when the antecedent is clearly human. The reason is not pedantry. It is consistency, tone, and reader expectation. Business communication, academic support writing, journalism, and educational content generally sound smoother with who. For instance, “employees who meet the deadline” feels more natural than “employees that meet the deadline.” The difference is subtle, but professional style often depends on subtle decisions repeated across a document.
There are a few contexts where that still sounds natural with human reference, especially after indefinite words such as anyone, someone, those, or people. You may hear “Anyone that knows me understands this” or “Those that disagree can appeal.” Even here, many editors prefer who: “Anyone who knows me” and “Those who disagree.” If your goal is clean modern prose, choosing who for people is the stronger default.
Restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses change your options
To master who and that, you need to understand clause type. A restrictive clause identifies exactly which person or thing you mean. A nonrestrictive clause adds extra information and is set off by commas. This distinction matters because that normally introduces restrictive clauses, while who can introduce both restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses when referring to people. For example, “The consultant who redesigned our site saved us money” is restrictive because it identifies which consultant. “Maria, who redesigned our site, saved us money” is nonrestrictive because the name already identifies her.
In standard edited English, do not use that in a nonrestrictive clause. “Maria, that redesigned our site, saved us money” is not standard. The comma pattern requires who for people and usually which for things. This rule is more stable than the debate about that for people in restrictive clauses. If commas are present and the clause adds side information, who is the correct choice for a person.
| Sentence type | Person | Thing |
|---|---|---|
| Restrictive clause | The analyst who found the error | The report that caused confusion |
| Nonrestrictive clause | James, who found the error | The report, which caused confusion |
This pattern also helps with punctuation. Writers often create errors not because they misunderstand pronouns, but because they misidentify whether information is essential. If the clause can be removed without changing the core reference, it is nonrestrictive and should use commas. Once you make that decision, the pronoun usually becomes obvious.
Special cases: animals, groups, and unnamed persons
Animals sit in the gray area between people and things. In general, use that for animals when they are treated as a category: “The dog that barked all night kept us awake.” Use who when the animal is personified or emotionally individualized, especially with pets: “Our dog, who hates thunder, hid in the bathroom.” Both patterns exist, but the choice reflects whether the writer frames the animal as a creature in a class or as a character with personality.
Collective nouns create another decision point. Words such as team, committee, company, and government name groups of people, yet grammatically they often behave like units. That is why “the company that hired me” is standard, while “the manager who hired me” is also standard. If you refer to the organization as an entity, use that. If you refer to the individuals inside it, use who. This distinction is common in legal, corporate, and news writing.
Indefinite references can also confuse learners. Words like whoever, anyone, someone, and the person point to humans, so who remains the better choice: “Someone who speaks Korean can help.” “The person who left the package did not ring the bell.” If you are studying related grammar contrasts, this focused rule works well alongside broader ESL problem areas explained in the main guide at https://5minuteenglish.com/either-neither-and-both-common-esl-mistakes-explained/.
Common mistakes and how to fix them in real writing
The most common mistake is using that for people in formal sentences where who is expected. For example, “The applicants that submitted portfolios were shortlisted” is understandable, but “The applicants who submitted portfolios were shortlisted” is the better revision. A second mistake is using who for things: “The car who blocked the driveway” is incorrect in standard English. A third mistake is mixing clause type and punctuation, as in “My brother that lives in Boston is visiting,” when the writer really means the only brother and therefore needs “My brother, who lives in Boston, is visiting.”
Another recurring issue appears in edited web content produced by teams. One writer uses who, another uses that, and the article loses consistency. A simple house rule solves this: use who for people, never use that for nonrestrictive human clauses, and reserve that for things and organizations treated as units. This is easy to teach, easy to proofread, and rarely creates awkward sentences.
Grammar tools can help, but they are imperfect. Microsoft Editor, Grammarly, and LanguageTool often catch obvious pronoun problems, yet they do not always understand context, especially with collective nouns and personified animals. Human review still matters. When I edit, I read the noun before the clause, decide whether it refers to a human individual, and then check whether the clause is defining or extra. That two-step process catches nearly every error quickly.
A practical style choice that improves clarity
If you remember only one guideline, make it this: when the noun is a person, choose who. When the noun is a thing, choose that. Then check whether commas signal a nonrestrictive clause, because that should not appear there. This approach reflects standard modern usage, satisfies most editors, and makes your writing easier for readers to process at a glance.
The benefit is larger than a single corrected sentence. Consistent pronoun choice sharpens tone, shows grammatical control, and helps your meaning land without distraction. Even in places where that for people is technically possible, who is usually the stronger professional choice. Review a few recent emails, reports, or lesson drafts, and revise any human antecedent followed by that. Small edits like this build cleaner English fast.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the basic difference between “who” and “that”?
The simplest rule is this: use “who” for people and use “that” for things, animals, groups, or ideas. For example, you would write “the teacher who explained the rule” but “the rule that confused everyone.” This distinction helps readers immediately understand whether you are referring to a person or to something nonhuman. In formal and careful writing, “who” is generally the preferred relative pronoun when the antecedent is a person because it sounds more natural, more respectful, and more precise.
That said, real-world English is not always perfectly tidy. You will sometimes hear or read phrases like “the person that called” or “the team who won.” These forms appear because English allows some flexibility, especially in speech and in less formal contexts. Still, if your goal is strong, polished writing, a dependable guideline is to choose “who” for human beings and “that” for nonhuman nouns. Following that pattern will improve clarity and help your writing align with the expectations of most readers, teachers, editors, and style guides.
Is it ever acceptable to use “that” when referring to a person?
Yes, it is acceptable in some contexts, but it is often not the best choice. In everyday conversation and in older or less formal writing, native speakers sometimes use “that” for people, especially in restrictive clauses. For example, someone might say, “She is the employee that handles billing.” Grammatically, many readers will understand the sentence without difficulty. However, many modern style guides and editors prefer “who” in sentences like that because it is specifically associated with people.
Choosing “who” instead of “that” when referring to a person usually gives your writing a smoother and more professional tone. Compare “the manager who approved the budget” with “the manager that approved the budget.” Both are understandable, but “who” sounds more natural to many readers. This matters in business writing, academic work, web content, and educational materials, where tone and credibility count. So while “that” is not always wrong for people, “who” is usually the stronger choice when you want your sentence to sound polished and deliberate.
How do restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses affect the choice between “who” and “that”?
Understanding restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses makes this topic much easier. A restrictive clause gives essential information that identifies the noun it modifies. For example, in “The student who submitted the final draft received feedback first,” the clause tells us which student we mean. A nonrestrictive clause, by contrast, adds extra information that is not necessary to identify the noun. For example, “My supervisor, who reviews every proposal personally, approved the plan” includes information that could be removed without changing the basic identity of the supervisor.
Here is where pronoun choice matters: “that” is typically used only in restrictive clauses, and it is generally not used after commas in nonrestrictive clauses. For people, restrictive clauses usually take “who,” as in “the candidate who impressed the committee.” For things, restrictive clauses often take “that,” as in “the software that tracks inventory.” In nonrestrictive clauses, “who” is used for people and “which” is used for things: “Our director, who joined last year, led the meeting” and “The policy, which was updated in May, now applies company-wide.” If you remember that “that” usually does not follow a comma in standard edited prose, you will avoid one of the most common pronoun mistakes.
What should I do with collective nouns such as “team,” “company,” “staff,” or “committee”?
Collective nouns can be tricky because they refer to groups of people but function grammatically as singular nouns. In American English, writers often treat these nouns as things or institutions rather than as individual people, so “that” is common: “the company that launched the campaign” or “the committee that approved the proposal.” This choice emphasizes the group as a unit. In many professional and business contexts, this is the safest and most common approach.
However, when the focus is on the people within the group rather than the organization as a single entity, “who” may sound more natural. For example, “the staff who stayed late to finish the report” highlights the individuals. British English is often more flexible with collective nouns and may more readily treat them as plural or human-centered. The best approach is to think about meaning first: are you referring to the organization as a body, or to the members as people? If it is the institution, “that” is often appropriate. If it is the people acting as individuals, “who” may be better. Consistency within a document is also important, especially in formal writing.
What are the most common mistakes writers make with “who” and “that,” and how can they avoid them?
One of the most common mistakes is using “that” for people in formal writing when “who” would be more appropriate. For instance, “the client that requested the revision” is understandable, but “the client who requested the revision” is usually the preferred version. Another frequent problem is using “that” in nonrestrictive clauses, especially after commas. A sentence like “My uncle, that lives in Denver, is visiting” should be revised to “My uncle, who lives in Denver, is visiting.” Writers also sometimes switch inconsistently between “who,” “that,” and “which,” which can make a piece feel uneven or unedited.
The best way to avoid these errors is to apply a quick editing test. First, identify the noun being modified: is it a person, a thing, or a group? Second, decide whether the clause is essential or extra information. If it is a person, choose “who” in most cases. If it is a thing and the clause is essential, “that” is often correct. If the information is nonessential and set off by commas, use “who” for people and “which” for things. Reading the sentence aloud also helps. In many cases, the more natural choice becomes obvious when you hear it. With a little practice, selecting between “who” and “that” becomes less of a guess and more of a reliable editing habit.
