“which”如果使用不當(dāng)可引起歧義犹赖。它常與“that”混用【澹“that”和“which”都引導(dǎo)定語(yǔ)從句，但“that”用于引導(dǎo)限定性從句垢啼，而“which”用于引導(dǎo)非限定性從句。
例如膊夹，“the sections that were positive for GFP were subjected to cell counting procedures”捌浩，在這個(gè)句子中，“that”引導(dǎo)的是限定性從句明確規(guī)定了是哪些切片用于細(xì)胞計(jì)數(shù)尸饺。相比之下，“the sections, which were positive for GFP, were subjected to cell counting procedures”浪听，在這個(gè)句子中，對(duì)用于細(xì)胞計(jì)數(shù)的切片的規(guī)定相當(dāng)寬松迹栓，可能指的是前一個(gè)句子或相臨句子中提及的切片。提及GFP陽(yáng)性的從句可以向讀者提供一些額外的信息酥郭，但對(duì)于理解該句子的意義來(lái)說(shuō)并非必不可少；也就是說(shuō)不从，它是可有可無(wú)的犁跪〈幌ⅲ考慮到“which”的這種角色坷衍，研究人員在撰寫(xiě)論文時(shí)應(yīng)明確“which”一詞確切指代的東西——有時(shí)指代的是該詞所緊跟的事物(這是最常見(jiàn)的)，有時(shí)指代的則是該句子的主語(yǔ)枫耳。
例如，“microglia migrated to the site of the lesion, which was associated with increased levels of ED-1”妻熊，這個(gè)句子就寫(xiě)得含混不清仑最，因?yàn)槲覀兒茈y確定“which”所指的到底是lesion扔役，還是migration of microglia警医。如果讀者可能會(huì)對(duì)此類句子產(chǎn)生疑惑，最好是推翻重寫(xiě)预皇；例如，可以改為“migration of microglia to the site of the lesion was associated with increased levels of ED-1”序仙，也可改為“microglia migrated to the site of the lesion, and immunohistochemical analysis revealed increased levels of ED-1 at this site”。兩者均無(wú)歧義潘悼。
?“Data were normalised to the housekeeping gene actin, which was used as an internal reference…” (在這個(gè)句子中,“which”指代的是actin，因此actin也就是該從句的主語(yǔ))
?“Data were normalised to the internal reference housekeeping gene actin, revealing increases in the levels of…”(如指隨后從句中的分析數(shù)據(jù),使用“which revealed”是不恰當(dāng)?shù)闹位剑視?huì)造成歧義)
