I once read a BBC webpage where they justified teaching learners the rule 'Never use will after if' on the basis that learning this rule would 'save them a point in the exam'.
In the real world, of course, we know you can use will after if, for example:
'If you will wait here, I will see if he's free.'
This is slightly more polite than 'If you wait here...' and less polite than, 'If you would wait here ...'
Another example is:
'If you will insist on doing that, what do you expect?'
Here, will is used to highlight the repeated decision to do the action.
So, given these examples, how can the rule be justified?
The justification is all in the first sentence above. It is: 'Learn this rule for the exam because we are never going to test you on an example which breaks this rule. Learn this rule and you'll be safe.'
This is extraordinarily short sighted and is a huge disservice to learners. Learners quite naturally try to apply this rule to the real world, which means that they will try to avoid using will after if, even when it is useful to do so. Cognitive effort trying to apply such short-cut rules (presented as short-cuts to better performance) is wasted cognitive effort. Time and effort would be better used trying to understand when and why will can be used after if, and when it should not be. The point of language learning is not to 'save someone a point in an exam' but to teach them how to use the language to the best of their ability.
Always evaluate the rules by these two criteria:
Is the rule true?
Does the rule help the learners understand the meaning and how to use the form?
© Robert A. Buckmaster 2024
Hi, Rob. I’m the one who was taught never to use will after if. Now thanks to your articles, I’m changing this concept. But it’s not easy.