CONDITIONAL CLAUSES

 In general, conditional clauses convey a direct condition in that the situation in the matrix clause is directly contingent on the
situation in the conditional clause (sth which must happen first, so that sth else can happen).
 The most common subordinators for conditional clauses are if and unless, which are also used with non-finite and verbless
clauses. Other conditional subordinators are restricted to finite clauses: given (that) /formal/, on condition (that), provided (that),
supposing (that)
Non-finite and verbless clauses with with or without as subordinator may express a conditional relationship. (Without me to supplement your income, you wouldn’t be
able to manage. With them on our side, we are secure.)
Some conditional clauses express an indirect condition, in that the condition is not related to the situation in the matrix clause. (His style is florid, if that’s the right
word. If you remember your history lessons, the war was started by the other side. If you’re going my way, I need a lift. She’s far too considerate, if I may say so.)
 Conditional sentences are used for giving information, but (as a way of distancing, softening, being more polite) can also be used
for requesting, advising, criticising, suggesting, offering, and even commanding, warning and threatening.
 The word conditional is also sometimes used as a name for verb forms (mood) constructed with the auxiliary verb should/would
(and sometimes could and might)  should/would like; It would be nice if he would stop talking for a bit.
Open and hypothetical conditions
A direct condition may be either an open condition or a hypothetical condition.
 Open conditions are neutral: they leave unresolved the question of the fulfilment or non-fulfilment of the condition, and hence also
the truth of the proposition expressed by the matrix clause.
 A hypothetical condition (unreal condition) conveys the speaker’s belief that the condition will not be fulfilled (for future
conditions), is not fulfilled (for present conditions), or was not fulfilled (for past conditions) and hence the probable or certain
falsity of the proposition expressed by the matrix clause.
Rhetorical conditional clauses
Rhetorical conditional clauses give the appearance of expressing an open condition, but (like rhetorical questions) they actually make
a strong (unconditional) assertion. There are two types:
 if the proposition in the matrix clause is patently absurd, the proposition in the conditional clause is shown to be false (If they’re
Irish, I’m the Pope.)
 if the proposition in the conditional clause (which contains measure expressions) is patently true, the proposition in the matrix
clause is shown to be true; the if-clause is positioned finally (He’s ninety if he’s a day.)

 Conditional clauses are generally either neutral in their expectations of an answer or biased towards a negative response, and they
therefore tend to admit non-assertive items. However, both some and any are common in if-clauses.

Syntactic patterns
 The if-clause usually comes before the matrix clause (separated by a comma), but can also come after it (usually no comma).
 Conditionals are traditionally divided into four types according to tense use. Even though this is useful, it is very important to
realise that there are many different structures and tense combinations with if, and that they do not really divide into three or four
main kinds. As far as tenses are concerned, it is more accurate to distinguish two kinds of structure: (1) if with ordinary tenses
(types 0 and 1, the so-called ‘first’ conditional, and type 2 for open conditions in the past) for open conditions, and (2) if with
‘special’ tenses (types 2 and 3, the so-called ‘second’ and ‘third’ conditionals) that give the idea that sth is unlikely, hypothetical,
imaginary, untrue or unreal.
Ordinary tense-use
 when one does not want to suggest that a situation is unreal or imaginary, ordinary tenses are used – present tenses are used to
refer to the present, past tenses to the past etc.
 in the if-clause, present tense is normally used to talk about the future (except for a result, sth further in the future than the action
of the main clause when)  ordinary way of expressing future in subordinate clauses
 stressed will used in the if-clause for willingness, insistence, requests (would for polite requests)
Special tense-use
 ‘special’ tenses are used to talk about unreal situations – things that will probably not happen, situations that are untrue or
imaginary, past events that did not happen, and similar ideas; in these cases, would and past tenses are used to ‘distance’ the
language from reality
 present and future situations: to talk about unreal or improbable situations now or in the future, a past tense is used in the if-
clause (even though the meaning is present or future), and would + infinitive in the main clause; this structure can be used to make
a suggestion sound less definite (for example, if one wishes to be polite)
 would, should and ’d – in BE should can be used for first person with the same meaning as would; ’d is used as a contraction
 the past subjunctive were is often used after if instead of was – this is common in both formal and informal styles; in a formal style
it is much more common than was, and many people consider it more correct, especially in AE (N.B. were is not normally used
instead of would be in polite requests)
1
 Special tense-use and ordinary tense-use compared: In conditional clauses, the difference between, for example, if I come and if
I came is not a difference of time. They can both refer to the present or future; the past tense suggests that the situation is less
probable, or impossible, or imaginary.
 Unreal past situations: to talk about past situations that did not happen, past perfect tense is used in the if-clause, and would have
+ past participle in the main clause
 Unrealised present and future possibilities: the same structure (type 3) can sometimes be used (especially in BE) to talk about
present and future situations which are no longer possible because of the way things have turned out (or type 2 can be used).
 in unreal conditional sentences, could can be used to mean ‘would be able to’ and might to mean ‘would perhaps’ or ‘would
possibly’; would have… and might have… can be used in sentences about the past

Tip: when choosing which tenses to use, think of the semantic kind of condition (open/real or hypothetical/unreal) and the time of the
condition (past, present, future) first, and then choose the syntactic pattern (type or combination of types) that corresponds to it.

Type 0 conditionals
if … + present … + present
 one thing always follows automatically from another  time: always
 when can be used instead of if (when the meaning is ‘every time’)
 can be used for the automatic result of a possible future action; open condition  time: future (type one can also be used)
 apart from present simple, present progressive can be used
 for past situations (one thing always followed automatically from another) the following pattern is used: if … + past … + past 
time: past
Type 1 conditionals
if … + present … + will
(shall can be used for the first person)
 open condition  time: if-clause – future or present; main clause – future
 will not normally used in an open condition if-clause;
except: – for a result, sth further in the future than the action of the main clause
– for willingness or insistence (won’t for refusal)
– for a request
 as well as present simple, the progressive or perfect can be used in the if-clause
 as well as will, other modal verbs and similar expressions can be used in the main clause, as well as the imperative
 instead of type 1 conditional with If you + simple present, in informal speech this pattern can be used with and and or: Touch me
and I’ll scream. (= If you touch me, I’ll scream.) Go away or I’ll scream. (= If you don’t go away, I’ll scream.)
 open condition in the past  if-clause: past tense; main clause: for past – past or would; for present: present/should/ought
to/might/could; for future: will/should/ought to/might/could
Type 2 conditionals
if … + past … + would
(should can be used instead of would for the first person)
 use:
 hypothetical (unreal) condition  time: if-clause – present; main clause – future
 theoretical possibility in the future  time: if-clause – future; main clause – future
 backshifted type 1 (in reported speech, narration)  time: past
 difference between types 1 and 2 for possible future actions:
 type 1 expresses the action as an open possibility
 type 2 expresses the action as a theoretical possibility, more distant from reality
 type 2  more tentative, more polite
 as well as past simple, past progressive or could can be used in the if-clause
 as well as would, other modal verbs such as could or might can be used in the main clause, as well as would + progressive
 past subjunctive were can be used in an if-clause
 would usually not used in the if-clause except for requests; would like also used here
(In informal spoken AE would sometimes used in if-clauses to express an unreal condition (parallel would…would structures)  this is not acceptable in writing
and in standard English, and should be avoided.)
Type 3 conditionals
if … + past perfect … + would have
 hypothetical condition in the past, unreal, imaginary action in the past  time: past
 past simple or perfect cannot be used in the main clause; would have (or had have) cannot be used in the if-clause (except in very
informal speech (parallel ’d have…’d have structures); however, this is not acceptable in writing and in standard English, many people regard it as incorrect and
should be avoided.)
 could + perfect can be used in the if-clause

2
 other modal verbs such as could or might + perfect can be used in the main clause; progressive forms can also be used in the main
clause
Mixed types
 Types 1 and 2 cannot normally be mixed because they express different kinds of conditions (open and hypothetical respectively)
However, these combinations are also possible:
If … + past … + will  the condition in the if-clause is a past open condition with a future result (in the main clause)
If… + present … + would  used to express a hypothetical situation in the main clause that would be possible if the situation in
the if-clause is indeed true
 Types 2 and 3 can be mixed, both clauses expressing unreal situations:
type 2 if-clause and type 3 main clause  time: if-clause – present; main clause – past
type 3 if-clause and type 2 main clause  time: if-clause – past; main clause – present
 Type 1 condition (open) can be mixed with a type 3 main clause (unreal):
 time: type 1 if-clause – present (general); main clause – past
Conditional sentences in reported speech after a past verb of reporting
Type 0  can stay the same (if it is still relevant or true) or be backshifted into past (if it is no longer relevant or true)
Type 1  usually backshifted into type 2
Type 2  can stay the same (if it is still relevant or true) or be backshifted into type 3 (if it is no longer relevant or true)
Type 3  stays the same (there are no tenses to backshift into)
Past instead of conditional
Would is avoided in subordinate clauses referring to the past; instead of would + infinitive, past verbs are generally used with
conditional meanings in subordinate clauses, not only in if-clauses, but also after most other conjunctions.
Should, were, had and inversion
The following types are rather formal:
 Two ways of expressing future hypothetical conditions (unreal or imaginary future events) are occasionally used in formal
contexts. They have overtones of tentativeness (can be used to make a suggestion sound less direct, and so more polite). Not used
with state verbs:
 was to or were to followed by the infinitive
 should followed by the infinitive
 should can be used in an if-clause to talk about sth which is possible but not very likely (unlikely, or not particularly probable);
happen to can also be used in a similar meaning (happen to/should happen to)  time: future
 the past subjunctive were can sometimes be used instead of was  time: present
 were to + infinitive can be used for theoretical possibility  time: future
 In formal and literary styles, conditional clauses may have subject–operator inversion without a subordinator (if) if the operator
(first auxiliary) is were, should and (especially) had (type 3), but not if it is was. However, an if-clause is more common,
especially in informal English.
 negatives are not contracted: Had we not… (and not Hadn’t we…)
Short clauses
 elliptical structures: sometimes a short clause can be used with if leaving out the subject and the verb (often subject + be); this
can be done when the meaning is still clear without the missing words
 so and not can replace a clause after if (if so, if not) – instead of repeating or negating the whole clause
Other subordinators and ways of expressing conditions
 when talking about the future (open conditions), when is used for sth that will happen, and if for sth that might happen; for unreal
conditions if is used, not when; for sth that always happens (automatic result) both when and if can be used
 if can be used to mean ‘if it is true that’ or ‘if it is the case that’
 after an if-clause then can be used in the main clause (if…then); it is not an adverb of time, it emphasises the link between the
condition and the result of the condition being met, that one thing depends on another; so not used in this way
 what if, imagine (that), suppose (that) and supposing (that) can be used to ask sb to imagine a situation and to make a suggestion;
after these expressions, there is often no main clause
 even if is used to express both a condition and a contrast (concessive clauses)
 unless (= ‘if…not’ in the sense of ‘except if’) introduces a negative condition; the unless-clause is usually roughly similar to a
negative if-clause; with unless there is a greater focus on the condition as an exception, exceptional circumstances which would
change a situation (‘only if…not’); there are therefore contexts in which the unless-clause cannot occur (not used to express an
unreal condition (but can be used after the main clause as an afterthought), or to talk about a feeling which would result from sth
not happening, to refer to sth negative that would be the main clause of the situation that one is talking about )
 not unless means ‘only if’
 otherwise means ‘if not’ or ‘if that is not so’
 as long as and so long as are less formal than the semantically similar but formal provided (that), providing (that) and on condition
(that); just so (that) tends to appear in informal conversation; they all mean ‘if and only if’

3
 prepositions in case of, in the event of, with, without, but for can also express a condition
 the structure if it was/were not for is used to say that one particular event or situation changes everything; to talk about the past if it
had not been for is used
 but for means ‘if it was/were not for’ for present or ‘if it had not been for’ for past
 in that case means ‘if that is so’
 in case (= ‘because sth might happen’), mainly BE; in AE in case often means ‘if’
 should or might can be used in clauses with in case
 if only is an intensified equivalent of if, typically used in hypothetical clauses to express a wish
 Given (that) and assuming (that) are used for open conditions which the speaker assumes were, are, or will be fulfilled, and from
which a proposition is deduced. A clause introduced by granted (that) is also used as a premise for a deduction, but usually implies
a previous statement on which the premise is based. If may be used in the same way. Given (that) and granted (that) tend to be
used in formal written style, particularly in argumentation.
 if is sometimes left out at the beginning of a sentence in a conversational style, especially when the speaker is making conditions
or threats
 infinitive clauses sometimes combine condition with other contingency relations such as purpose or reason (You must be strong to
lift that weight. You’d be a fool not to take the scholarship.)
 an extra not is sometimes put into if-clauses after expressions suggesting doubt or uncertainty
 if any etc – this rather formal use of if before non-assertive words (like any, anything, ever and not) is common
 An if-clause can be used when sb admits a fact and gives a reason for it (If I’m a bit sleepy, it’s because I was up all night.)
 If-clauses are quite often used to explain the purpose of a remark – to suggest ‘I’m saying this in case…’
 in a formal style, if can be used with a similar meaning to although; this is common in the structure if + adjective (with no verb). If
is not as definite as although; it can suggest that what is being talked about is a matter of opinion, or not very important; the same
kind of idea can be expressed with may…but
 The structure If I were you… is often used to give advice; the structure with the past subjunctive were is more common than If I
was you…, which is also possible, but some people consider it incorrect. Sometimes this phrase is left out, and only I should… is
used to give advice (I would… is common in AE).
 If only…! – This phrase is used to say that one would like things to be different. It means the same as I wish…, but it is more
emphatic. The clause with if only often stands alone, without a main clause. After If only the same tenses as after I wish are used:
past to talk about the present (were more often used instead of was), would + bare infinitive to refer to the future, and past perfect
to refer to the past
 be to – pre-conditions – The structure is common in if-clauses when the main clause expresses a pre-condition – sth that must
happen first if sth else is to happen

Compiled by
Marko Majerović
Department of English
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
University of Zagreb

Sources:
Eastwood, John: Oxford Guide to English Grammar, OUP, 1994
Eastwood, John: Oxford Learner’s Grammar, OUP, 2005
Greenbaum, Sidney & Randolph Quirk: A Student’s Grammar of the English Language, Longman, 1990
Swan, Michael: Practical English Usage, International Student’s Edition, OUP, 1996