Job Discussion Forums

[nickpellatt]

I couldnt find a suitable grammar forum for this question, so am posting it here as its a 'newbie' problem.

I was teaching 2nd conditionals today, and I used something I copied from the BBC learning English site. On this site, students were asked to submit second conditional statements regarding what they would do if they could meet anyone of their choosing. These comments were then corrected by the 'teacher' on the forum.

I copied these and asked students to correct the form and other errors that were contained in the text. I had the original copy to hand so I could use the corrections that had already been made.

What I didnt notice, was that each 2nd conditional statement began 'If I could meet' .... 'If I could meet anyone, I would meet me .....', 'If I could meet anyone, I would meet Roger Federer ...', etcetc

There were 5 examples all along the same lines.

As I had given the form showing the if clause with past simple ... this created a problem and my students said you cannot use a modal verb in an if clause, and also pointed out that in the sentences given, the past simple was replaced by the infinitive form.

This did throw me off a bit, and some of the students were visibly unhappy over my lack of knowledge ... any solid ideas I can take back to them on monday??? ... I suggested that semantically, the meaning was the same, although it wasnt using the traditional structure as used in textbooks. This is the first time I have used conditionals in a lesson plan ... miffed it didnt go too well!

[fluffyhamster]

I guess that this is the page you were referring to, Nick:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/radio/specials/1159_gramchallenge38/page4.shtml

That isn't a run-of-the-mill second conditional, but then, that could mean there's a chance of the students actually learning something.

For example, you could ask the students if (according to their logic, the "well-formed") 'If I met anyone, I would meet RF' sounds okay. (Surely not - it sounds tautologous, or at least akin to less conditional-sounding "if=more whenever" examples like 'If/when we met, it would be in secret behind the bikesheds' LOL - more "past usuality", and note the use of 'it would be' rather than 'we would meet (behind the bikesheds)'). But by adding "modality" to this here if- clause (which is followed by another clause with the same main/head/lexical verb), there is enough interesting "contingency" added to that clause's verb to make it seem a condition rather than a quasi-event.

It is ultimately a case of just looking at things clause by clause ('If I could meet anyone' - if the stated sort of situation were ever* a possibility available/open to me - 'I would meet Roger Federer' - the 'would' there signalling the remoteness/hypotheticality of this imaginary encounter).

And/or you could ask if students understand common, run-of-the-mill examples like 'I can/could meet you after 5pm', in which case, the addition of an 'If...' before the modal shouldn't be too mind-boggling (but remember that you'll need to follow the 'If I can meet you after 5pm' with something like 'I'll call you around 4' i.e. the if- clause makes what was independent now dependent on a main clause; note also the differing rather than identical main verbs in each clause, surely the usual state of affairs! That is, the 'If I could meet anyone, I would meet' pairing is let's just say quite "unusual" - more like such propositions would simply be expressed, 'I'd love to (be able to) meet Roger Federer!'); then, the first element of a verb phrase is always finite, and all of what follows non-finite. Your students shouldn't let whatever rules they've previously learned cause them to overlook English verb phrase structure generally:

[nickpellatt]

yeah, its lots of help. I am going to bring this up in the lessons monday ... my first class had a real grammarian, and she wasnt really happy during the lesson due to this issue. I was better prepared in the second and third class and pointed out the difference prior to starting the exercise, drawing attention to function over form. For me, that was the key point and the classes accepted that form as found in cold textbooks, doesnt always reflect language as it may be used.

This was my first attempt at a conditionals class ... I do intend to keep some elements of the lesson plan in place, but will lose the exercise featuring the page you have linked.

Im probably going to replan this lesson to open with a gap-fill exercise using Beyonce's 'If I were a boy' which has lots of lovely (and grammatically consistent 2nd conditional examples. This will set up a marker sentence for the class to dissect later. Its a 90 min lesson so a listening skills task will work well and help me to set the next activity up

[fluffyhamster]

All you need now be prepared for Nick is somebody asking "Is that 'If I were...' an example of the subjunctive?".

Answer: Yes, but presumably Beyonce preferred the softer linking of "werraboi" to "wozzaboi" (latter='If I was a boy' - the indicative (~ mood) or "ordinary" form/phrasing of the clause in question).

If you want to find out more about any of the more grammary terms I may have used, Google 'grammar glossary' and follow any of the links; personally though, among the quick online grammar references I've seen I probably like http://folk.uio.no/hhasselg/terms.html the most.

[nickpellatt]

Dont! Im tearing my hair out with this problem I have now.

Firstly - their statement you cant use a modal verb in an 'if' clause according to prescriptive rules.

eg - Fluffy, if you could acheive one ambition, which would it be? surely that is OK??

Secondly ... assuming the example already used. It is impossible to use the verb 'met' or any other verb using a interpersonal theme in the 2nd conditional structure without using could in the question form.

eg - If you met anyone in the world, who would you meet?
- If you saw anyone in the world, who would you see?
-

All these match the 2nd conditional form, but dont really make sense without could and verb modification.

If the question has been qualified further ... it works ... if the subject has been included already.

Does this mean you cant make a 2nd conditional statement without naming the subject in question? The function remains the same surely ....aaaaaaaaaah

[fluffyhamster]

I'm not sure where the students have apparently got the idea that modals can't be used in if-clauses, other than from learning general principles of tense simplification in subordinate clauses and the like. The difference here however is that the two modals in each clause are different, so in 'If I could meet anyone, I would meet RF' there really isn't the clash of "tenses" like there is in e.g "NOT 'If I would have lots of money, I would give some to whoever would ask for help', but rather, 'If I had lots of money, I would give some to whoever asked for help'" (based on the first pair of examples from Swan's PEU 2nd edition, section 556.5, 'Past instead of conditional').
http://forums.eslcafe.com/teacher/viewtopic.php?t=9411

So basically we are talking about the "possibility" (remote ~) of 'could' (which would subsume actual past-tense ability, certainly in non-conditional clauses) and then the general remoteness of 'would' compared to 'will'.

'If you saw somebody, ...' could be similar to 'Seeing as you've said that you saw somebody, ...' - one fact that what we will say next is obviously contingent upon e.g. '...why didn't you call out for help?'. (In the context/scenario I'm constructing here, perhaps this person being questioned is suspected of being complicit in a crime LOL). But the same stretch of language could equally be less of a fact and more of a conjecture again (though both would be "conditions") in 'In an end-of-civilization, you're-alone scenario, if you saw somebody, would you attract their attention or try to remain hidden from them?'). All you can really do is cherry-pick the best examples for your purposes, or make the best of the "rotten" ones that "unfortunately" slip through the quarantine barriers (though some would say, like I said before, that such examples provide perhaps better learning opportunities), and in this case I think the "poss-ability" is the key part (that, and exactly what follows in the main clause, obviously). Sight without modality is unlimited on the one hand and generally "eventful" on the other; with the modality of e.g. 'could' added, it is filtering things through a more particular linguistic lens, with 'poss-ability' the main setting, and 'remote' and/or 'past' (the and/or depending on your liking for umbrella terms) as subfilters.

Hmm, I really should watch less of films like Doomsday LOL. And lay off of the herbal tea.

[naturegirl321]

Problem with conditionals is that there's regular forums and irregular ones, like those with modals, may, might, etc. And then mixed conditionals to boot.

Here's what I'd do, copying and pasting is fine, but erase the stuff that's not necessary for them them.

I'm a bit confused by the infinitive form thing you're talking about, some books call the base the infinitive and others call the base the infinitive without 'to" others call the infinitive something else. Do you mean like 'go' or 'to go' when you're talking about the infinitive?

NOrmally 2nd cond is: If past, would base. BUT with could, it's like can, so it needs to take the base form of a verb afterwards. Like you have to say, I can SWIM, thus the base form.

Hey, but don't worry, after you teach it a couple times you'll get it and you'll have no probs

One last thing, don't forget that with some conditionals, as well as wishes, you can say was or were for the 1st and 3rd person single. You can't say I were there yesterday, but with conditionals, you can say if
I were you OR if I was you. Same goes for he, she, it
Why? Basically native speakers have used these forms and changed the rules. It may sound funny, but it's accepted.

[nickpellatt]

NG - its the infinitive without to. Sorry ... I notice confusion between how people label things myself.

My searching online for rules and examples for second conditional DO NOT throw up any example or rule showing the use of a modal and verb modification in the 'if' clause. Equally, browsing through rules and examples of mixed conditionals dont show this form either.

However .... in terms of function it seems (to me at least) to be a perfectly valid second conditional statement, although it flies in the face of every single example and rule I can find.

'If I 'could meet' anyone, I would meet Roger Federer'

Equally, following the form of past simple, modal+base verb appears incorrect.

'If I met anyone, I would meet Roger Federer'.

There seems to be a problem when the 'if' clause doesnt specify or clearly state the person you have met. All of my examples which I use in later activities qualify the 'if' clause.
'If you met Paris Hilton, what would you say'
'If you lived on the moon, what would you do'
'If you won the lotto, what would you spend the money on'.

However, if we took the last example, and removed the moon from the equation changing the 'if' clause to living in an unspecified place ... we are back to square one again. And this was the problem with the initial examples, they didnt specify who you had met.

So perhaps a conditional statement is needs further qualification before using it?

The only reference book I have is the Longman student grammar of spoken and written English ... which (like all books I have tried thus far) offers nothing to explain or clarify this point.

The frustrating thing for me, is I am trying to move away from simply teaching 'chunks of language', which is probably oft-regarded as the de-professionalised' Oral English Teacher in China approach, towards a more professional approach. Evidence would seem to point to the fact that the rules dont really apply, can be broken, and adherence and usage of them 'may' confuse, mislead and bamboozle both student and teacher .... leading back to the validity of ignoring rules and controls and teaching chunks of language again.

I have looked around the BBC website that the initial examples came from in the hope of contacting the article author, but it doesnt appear that individual queries are answered. It was a bad example for me to use ... but as also pointed out ... restricting students to textbook examples that match all the rules are also quite limiting, and may be counter-productive long term.

This is really really bugging me!!

[naturegirl321]

BUt, actually, If I you saw her, would you say hello is ok. Same with if I kissed, hugged, talked to her, she'd get angry. It does work. If students say it sounds funny, just tell them that English isnt' logical. It doesnt matter that there aren't examples, that's probably because they just want the simpliest examples. Here are some

I might go out, if I had more time
I may call my mom if I didn't have class, actually this sounds funny, so don't use may.
I could clean the house if I bought bleach.

"However .... in terms of function it seems (to me at least) to be a perfectly valid second conditional statement, although it flies in the face of every single example and rule I can find. 'If I 'could meet' anyone, I would meet Roger Federer' " Nope, actually, this follows the rule, you've got if, past simple and the base, then would plus the base. It's fine. Could is simply the past simple form of can.

" Equally, following the form of past simple, modal+base verb appears incorrect. 'If I met anyone, I would meet Roger Federer'. " Actually, this sentence is fine. May sound funny, but remember back in the day when you had to say "With whom" and now we just say "who with" ? English changes , but don't worry, it's fine.

"However, if we took the last example, and removed the moon from the equation changing the 'if' clause to living in an unspecified place ... we are back to square one again. And this was the problem with the initial examples, they didnt specify who you had met. " I think you're reading too much into it. 2nd conditional assumes that you most likely will NOT do the thing (if it-s a positive conditional)

"So perhaps a conditional statement is needs further qualification before using it?" Yes, espcielally in FIB tests.

Simpliest way out. English has may rules and breaks the majority of them. An excuse I use when students say it sounds funny, is that it's British English, I think you're a Brit, so just say it's American English. Shockingly they usually accept it, even more surprising is that it usually IS British English.

[nickpellatt]

'could' is past simple of 'can'.

Is it really? That is the answer if so .... everything after that is just qualifying the clause then....I may sound dumb, but do modals have tense in this way.

[fluffyhamster]

I would be wary (Naturegirl) of saying that 'could' is "simply 'the past' of 'can'". That could just compound the students' confusion (i.e. there is a risk they could interpret the form label as a functional one, and thus assign the wrong meaning almost by default). Form-wise, I suppose you could at least think that, and it ties in with the general pattern, but functionally (in terms of meaning, which would seem paramount), such examples would be more about remoteness of possibility than anything to do with actual time. Not to mention that modals are hardly examples par excellence of exhibiting tense ('could' is probably best thought of as being "remote" compared to 'can', with the context showing remote in exactly what way). But I said pretty much all that before (Nick)...and did provide a link at the end of my very first post to a writer mentioning that modals can occur in the -if clause (> 'If you can't understand the instructions, you'll never be able to assemble the wardrobe' - OK, not quite second conditional, but remote and/or actual past modal forms could be used in each clause, right? That is, there are more general principles at work here that can be applied to more than just the one construction).

The exact terminology for the untensed/non-finite main verb following the modal isn't the issue, but it is revealing of how students often prefer things to remain as simple and tallying with their previous experience as possible. Of course, if Nick had picked a safer example his life would have remained a lot easier, but the irony now is that he is tearing his hair out over an actually perfectly acceptable example that would have caused less commotion in a pedagogy that just treated each clause (pair of clauses) in conditional structures as they came according to general principles inhering in the English verb system generally.

[fluffyhamster]

Nick, the difference between "pairs" like 'If I met anyone, I would meet Roger Federer' and 'If I could meet anyone, I would meet Roger Federer' is simply that the first doesn't sound very hypothetical but rather much more like fact - which, avoiding focussing on the 'if' for a moment, is what tensed lexical verbs (i.e. simple tenses/verb "phrases"/verbs, without any preceding modality claiming the finiteness) are all about (though obviously simple past is more remote in terms of time at least than simple present). One can imagine the speaker being a Wimbledon official recalling (perhaps in reply to a question about how late the hopeless British number 8, Norbert Rickets, stayed to train) how, whenever working late, he'd mostly run into RF, the very hard-working and/or busy champion. (Andy Murray meanwhile was always back home eating chips by that time). And obviously one of the uses of 'would' is to express "past usuality" or somesuch (as a quick check in any good learner dictionary will show). But again, I did mention this sort of thing way back in my first post!

[nickpellatt]

Dont worry Fluffy ... I had read your previous posts and checked the link. I havent let this go until now simply as despite the usefulness of the answers ... I was probably looking for concrete rules that I could take back to my class.

'X applies in 95% of common examples, except in the condition of Y. At this time the rule of XXX applies allowing the form as illustrated.'

Something along those lines. Although I appreciate and understand all answers in most instances .. I am still unfamiliar and a layman myself so was hoping for clear, concise and consistent rules I could take back to class and apply without getting tied up in more knots.

ANYWAY - I went to class today, and began to discuss the matter...and whaddayaknow...they have been away for the weekend, been shopping, done all the things teenagers usually do...and dont care anyway!!!!

I will definately be heeding the advice for better control over my examples next time though...in my defence, all the material I used was drawn from the same source .. I just assumed consistency, and in my inexperience, didnt check it as thoroughly as I should have. I will have a short break soon as my current classes end, but I will be taking a revised version of this lesson plan into my next group starting in a weeks time...hoping it iron out the wrinkles and make it a much better learning (and teaching) experience!

[naturegirl321]

Could is the past of Can, would is the past of will. For simplicity, for arguement, sure, they're all modals and have different functions, but KISS works very well.

[fluffyhamster]

Ultimately, you simply unearthed an example of a type that the students weren't expecting and threw a bit of a wobbly over, Nick. All's well that ends well though, if they've moved on in their own minds and spared you justifying the example's very existence. But I would consider keeping the example now, if only for its "challenging" nature, in your list of second conditionals (or better yet, conditionals generally), and let those exemplars (rather than potentially confusing or badly-phrased rules or abstractions devoid of sufficient context) do most of the work (still) in future. And eventually reading something like Lewis's The English Verb might not be a bad idea either (I certainly intend to re-read my copy at some point soon, because I am not too confident that I have understood its ideas and/or expressed them that well here!).