Is using THAT OK in these sentences???

[yukiko1437]

A thief is a person who steals things.
A thief is a person THAT steals things.

The people who work in the office are very friendly.
The people THAT work in the office are very friendly.

I know using WHO is more usual, but do you think using THAT is gramatically correct???

Thanks for helping me with this! I really appreciate it.

Jen

[riverkid]

Originally Posted by yukiko1437

A thief is a person who steals things.
A thief is a person THAT steals things.
The people who work in the office are very friendly.
The people THAT work in the office are very friendly.
I know using WHO is more usual, but do you think using THAT is gramatically correct???
Thanks for helping me with this! I really appreciate it.
Jen

Yes, Jen, both 'who' and 'that' are fully grammatical when used as relative pronouns to describe people.

From the LGSWE;

In news and academic prose, 'who' is the overwhelming choice for selected human head nouns, eg. people, children, boys, students, etc.

However, "[i]n conversation, a different pattern is observed: that is much more common with human head nouns, almost as common as who.

[LGSWE - Table 8.6 & 8.7 - page 613]

[shuja87]

Yes, in spoken English, the use of 'that' is more common. However, some grammarians term the use of 'that' as informal for humans because, they say, for humans, the relative pronoun 'who' must used. Also, that the relative pronoun 'that' is reserved for non-humans. So to use 'that' instead of 'who' means to misuse a relative pronoun. For example:
A thief is a person that steals things.
A cat is an animal who chases mice.
Note the awkward feeling that emerges from the second sentence. So the use of 'that' instead of 'who' can, in a sense, be comparable, although 'who' is not commonly used instead of 'that.'
So to sum up, both are right, but sentences with 'who' are more 'formal' and those with 'that' are less 'formal.'

[riverkid]

That's simply the proof that has been offered to satisfy a prescription, Shuja. This illustrates how silly prescriptivism is. Even if it were rude, language has to allow for being rude because language must cover every conceivable situation.

Just because 'who' is more polite, it doesn't preclude the use of 'that'. 'that' isn't rude, it's just less polite.

That's like saying that we must always use 'could' because it's more polite than 'can' or 'will'. Not all social situations demand the most polite collocation.