English grammar - Roger Berry 2012
Dave Willis
D10 Conditionals
Section D Extension
D10.2 Dave Willis (1994) reprinted from ’The Lexical Approach’, in M. Bygate, A. Tonkyn and E. Williams, Grammar and the Language Teacher, Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall International, pp. 59-60.
(b) The ’second conditional’
Many ELT grammars and coursebooks talk about the ’three conditionals’:
1. If it rains we’ll get wet.
2. If it rained we would get wet.
3. If it had rained we would have got wet.
These patterns are highlighted for the learner and offered as paradigms. This is done, presumably, in the belief that the learner will be able to generalise from these patterns. Of course other modals can be used in conditionals; for example:
4. If it rains, we could/may/might get wet.
5. If it rained, we could/might get wet.
6. If it had rained, we could/might have got wet.
There are ’mixed’ conditionals:
7. If United had won they’d be top of the table.
8. If they caught the train they’d be here any minute.
There are many sentences in which if marks a condition but in which the subordinate clause is not conditional:
9. Even if I had the time, I feel too tired.
10. If you want a beer there’s one in the fridge.
Conditionals are simply the sum of their parts. The second conditional contains a main clause with the modal would. The COBUILD 7.6 million corpus, which was used for the early research which went into the production of the Collins COBUILD English Dictionary(1987) contains just under 15,000 occurrences of the word would. It is the forty-fourth most frequent word in the corpus and the most frequent modal, much more frequent than will, for example, which has 8,800 occurrences. In around half of its 15,000 occurrences, would is used to talk of events which are of a hypothetical nature at the time of being mentioned, either because they are in the future, or because they depend on events which may or may not occur. Examples include:
A picnic wouldn’t be any fun without you.
Wouldn’t it be quicker to chop it down?
The Tempest would make a wonderful film.
I suspect that the West Germans would still be a bit cautious.
In these examples a condition has been established earlier in the text, or is implicit in the word would. This accounts for around 7,500 of the occurrences in the corpus. A subcategory of this, accounting for a further 1,200 occurrences, is would used in explicitly conditional sentences; for example:
I would be surprised if sterling strengthened.
It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
In these sentences would is combined with the past tense. Hypothesis is also one of the meanings carried by the past tense; for example:
I wish I lived in a caravan.
Suppose you got lost.
The second conditional does not create these meanings, it simply brings them together.
It is clear that all the modals, not only will and would, are commonly found in conditionals, and that would used to talk of hypothetical events and situations is much
more commonly found without if than with if. Most modals are taught lexically. Students learn that might and could, for example, are used for possibility. It is not thought necessary to teach as standard patterns conditionals like 4, 5 and 6 above. Provided that learners know what if means, and they know what might and could mean, and they know that the past tense is used for hypothesis, it is assumed that they can create for themselves sentences like 4, 5 and 6. In exactly the same way, if would is taught lexically with its main meaning of hypothesis, learners will be able to generate for themselves sentences like 2.
The strategy of highlighting word meaning is a much more productive one than the strategy of teaching structural patterns. If the second conditional is taught as a means of introducing learners to the meaning of the word would and the hypothetical meaning of the past tense, this seems to me to be an economical teaching strategy. Learners may then be led to the generalisation that would also occurs in all sorts of environments without if. But this is not generally what happens. The second conditional is normally taught as if it had some life of its own, as if there were something unique about this combination of the past tense and the modal would. But both these elements carry the meaning of hypothesis quite independently of the second conditional. In fact, would in conditionals is no more difficult than might or could in conditionals. It is simply more common.
Questions, suggestions and issues to consider
1. What are the criticisms that Lewis and Willis make of the three-conditional model?
2. What differences are there between the two readings? For example, which supplies more evidence?
3. If you learnt English formally in school, were conditional sentences presented to you in this way? Were any ’exceptions’ mentioned? What labels were used for the three types? Some accounts mention another conditional, the ’zero’ conditional, where both tenses are present: (If he is given the role, I quit.) but this does not help to solve the basic problem.
4. Select a sentence from the Willis reading that could be used as a quote attacking the three-conditional approach.
5. Compare this pedagogic problem with others mentioned in the book, for example the ’rule’ for second mention article usage (see B3). How similar are they?