13.1.4.8 Nonidentifying elements
Writers commonly have a great deal of difficulty with so-called restrictive and nonrestrictive words, phrases, and clauses. To start with, let's get around the wording: think of these elements as identifying or nonidentifying. An element defined as identifying would not take enclosing marks around it. One defined as nonidentifying would. Consider this sentence:
The figures appear below (page 7).
In that sentence, the writer wanted to remind the reader of a bit of information "(page 7)," but it was just a reminder. The parentheses suggest that the reader can forget or skip over the information if the reader wishes to. Nonidentifying elements are much the same, except that usually commas, not parentheses, go around them.
Andover Manufacturing Center, where Gillette produces a variety of products, is an enormous facility.
The new word processing station, for which we paid $30,000, should make the work flow quicker.
In the first sentence, "where Gillette produces a variety
of products" does not help to identify which Andover Manufacturing
Center. In the second, the "for which we paid $30,000"
does not help to identify which word processing station. Since
both clauses are nonidentifying, they are rightly enclosed in
commas.
Another way to spot a nonidentifying element is that you could
as easily make a separate sentence out of it.
Andover Manufacturing Center is an enormous facility. Gillette produces a variety of products there.
The new word processing station should make the work flow quicker. We paid $30,000 for the station.
But now try this one.
Water which comes from that distributor is hardly fit to drink.
Water is hardly fit to drink. It comes from that distributor.
I think that you can sense that the "Which comes from
that distributor" is essential to identify which kind of
water. And, as you can see, the two sentences apart do not have
the same meaning as the first sentence alone.
Here's your first sentence to work on:
A scientist (who devotes her life to pure research) must sometimes be lonely.
Is the part in parentheses necessary to identify what kind of scientist or not necessary to identify what kind of scientist?
I think the answer is "necessary." The sentence concerns only a certain kind of scientist--one who devotes her life to pure research. So how should the sentence should be punctuated?
A scientist, who devotes her life to pure research, must sometimes be lonely.
A scientist who devotes her life to pure research must sometimes be lonely.
A scientist; who devotes her life to pure research--must sometimes be lonely.
I think the answer is the second one. A nonidentifying word, phrase, or clause is the one that gets the commas around it; the identifying has no enclosing marks around it. Try another one.
Howard Thurman (who wrote a great many books) was concerned with liberty and morality.
Is the part in parentheses necessary to identify what kind
of scientist or not necessary to identify which Howard Thurman?
I think the answer is "not necessary." The name identifies
Howard as well as anything in the sentence; therefore, what he
wrote about is unnecessary to identify which Howard Thurman.
How would you punctuate that sentence?
Howard Thurman, who wrote a great many books, was concerned with liberty and morality.
Howard Thurman who wrote a great many books was concerned with liberty and morality.
Howard Thurman--who wrote a great many books--was concerned with liberty and morality.
I think that the answer is the first option. Remember that
the nonidentifying gets commas; the identifying does not.
So far, we have been looking at full clauses, especially those
beginning with "which," "who," "where,"
or "that." And these structures do cause the most trouble.
It might help you to know that no normal "that" clause
can be nonidentifying, or put another way, you generally need
no comma before a "that" clause. Furthermore, editors
like to use "which" for all nonidentifying clauses.
(That's why the grammar checker in Microsoft Word has been giving
you all that grief.)
Words and phrases fall under these rules as well, though most
people seem to handle them well. For instance, prepositional
phrases are almost always identifying and, thus, take no commas.
Here are a couple of examples using participial phrases; the
participle is the word ending in "-ing."
The man walking down the street stared straight in front of himself.
Nigel Roland, walking down the street, stared straight in front of himself.
The first is identifying, the second is not.
Sometimes appositives can be identifying:
Richard the Lion Hearted ruled long ago.
The clipper ship Sea Witch held the New York-to-San Francisco speed record.
The two sentences above are unusual. Appositives are generally
nonidentifying, yet you can see that in those two sentences the
explanatory words which follow "Richard" and "clipper
ship" are necessary to tell us which ones.
Here are a few examples for you to work with; write the sentences
on a blank piece of paper, supply the necessary punctuation.
- Ms. O'Brien who is the senior member of the committee has
served for five years.
- Everyone learned that a new annuity program would be available
soon.
- There is nothing on the market that could replace this machine.
- The person whom I consider most knowledgeable is David Patent.
- No one spoke when comments were requested.
- Mr. Smith whose leadership is respected will be director
of the project.
- I can think of nothing that would be more appreciated as
a gift.
- Mike Madden Manager of Accounts Payable was stunned; he had
forgotten his calculator.
- The first showing of Swish-Away our new advertisement for
mouth wash was a great success.
- The Acme Milling Machine which we bought last Tuesday is capable of producing 10,000 twisted parts a day.
I'd use commas in 1, 6, 8, 9, and 10; the
rest are identifying (or restrictive).
==>Guidelines ==>Conventions
==>Punctuation