What is meant by "direct" and "indirect"?

Question

I usually hear a native speaker say "if you were to provide context, it would help" when they will answer a question from a forum member. What is the difference between the following?

If you provide context, it will help.

If you provided context, it would help.

My English grammar book says the first sentence is direct and the second is indirect or sounds slightly oblique.

My confusion is what is meant by direct and indirect in this context? Do we speak to the person in a real situation? I'm unclear by the term.

My English grammar book also says this structure can make suggestions sound less definite and so more polite.

It would be nice if you helped me a bit with the house work.

Would it be all right if I came around about seven tomorrow?

Does the speaker mean I'm not certain you help me a bit with the house work or I'm not certain you come around about seven tomorrow?

Answer 1

Direct, in this context, means "like a command or order".

The first conditional If you provide context, it will help, is when the truth of the condition is considered likely. This means that the speaker is telling them to provide context. It is like an order or command

The "second conditional", If you provided context, it would help, is used when the truth of the condition "(you provide context) is considered unlikely. This has he effect of making the statement less personal. Since it is "unlikely", the speaker isn't telling the other person do something, but giving information.

Orders are the most direct: "Provide context". Sentences that imply an order are also quite "direct". "You must provide context" or "I need you to provide context".

Sentences that suggest inquire or give information are less direct: "Could you provide more context?" "Perhaps more context would make the question easier to answer."

Generally less direct is more polite. More direct is more formal.

Answer 2

Both sentences have the function of polite, indirect suggestion.

While both use indirectness to be polite, the second one is more indirect, and therefore more polite and more formal.

A direct request uses the imperative:

Please provide context. It will help.

To make this more indirect, you can phrase it as a condition and result, and allow the listener to infer you're making a request:

If you provide context, it will help.

You can also backshift the both clauses, putting them in the irrealis mood. Since this treats "provide" as an unreal condition, it's even more indirect, which means more polite and more formal:

If you provided context, it would help.

Answer 3

Let's consider a more charged situation; what if we were talking about crime and punishment:

You broke my cup. You must buy me a new one.

This is very direct speech, and might offend you. If there's any chance that I'm wrong, and you didn't break my cup, then I have wrongfully accused you. And I'm making an absolute demand that you buy me a new cup.

If you broke my cup, you should buy me a new one.

This is a bit more indirect. I'm not saying with certainty that you broke it, but I'm clearly saying that it's a real possibility. Either you did or you didn't.

If you were to have broken my cup, you would of course buy me a new one.

This is even more indirect, and the least likely to cause offense. I'm not even saying "if"; it's not as if I'm trying to decide whether you did or didn't. Instead, I'm talking about a hypothetical, talking the same way I would about something imaginary or in the future ("If I were to win the lottery..." "If you were to meet a dragon..."). It might be that I know, and you know, that the cup is very definitely broken, and by bringing up the topic it's clear that I'm thinking about you as a suspect. But by softening my language this way there's less chance for offense and a friendlier tone.

Many languages have similar "hypothetical" tenses, like Spanish Quisiera un vaso de agua.

---

Edit:

You asked about the difference only between two constructions, but you also mentioned a third:

• "If you provide, it will" —simple present plus future
• "If you provided, it would" —past plus hypothetical
• "If you were to provide, it would" —hypothetical plus hypothetical

You didn't ask about the difference between these second two, but: They can be seen as very similar, but note that the last one is a bit formal and the second is a slightly more casual and conversational version of the same thing. I might actually say "If you were to" in everyday conversation, but I'm a bit of an academic geek, and others might be less likely to use it in speech.

---

Edit: Is the speaker uncertain? The answer is Maybe, in some examples, but that's not the point.

This construction is all about getting someone else to do something. It softens requests, suggestions, or orders. In fact, your book goes a bit beyond giving a language lesson and is giving a lesson in behavior (or culture, anyway): When you're trying to influence someone else, it's more polite to allow some uncertainty into the situation than to make direct demands. Sometimes this can be a kind of euphemism: Maybe I know for sure you broke my cup; you know you did; I know you know, and you know I know. But I still use hypothetical language to avoid making you feel angry or afraid.

One of the examples from your book truly asks a question: "Would it be all right if I came around about seven tomorrow?" In this case of course the speaker is uncertain; they really want to know whether this time is OK. The more-direct, less-polite version of this might be "I'll come around seven tomorrow." This is less polite not just because of language, but because the speaker is making plans without consulting the other person, telling them how it's going to be instead of letting them have input.

In the example "If you were to provide context, it would help," the speaker doesn't know whether the hearer will accept this suggestion or not. But that's not the point. The speaker isn't asking a question ("Will you provide context?") or trying to resolve their own uncertainty. They're softening the direct command "Provide context!" by saying that maybe the hearer will do it, maybe they won't, but if they do, it will be beneficial.

Sometimes there is so little uncertainty that we use language that in some ways doesn't make sense when you look at it too closely. If a toddler wants a glass of water, they demand it directly: "Give me a glass of water!" Or they might state their definite desire: "I want a glass of water!" We teach them to soften these requests: "I would like a glass of water." We use "would," a word that we would usually use in a conditional ("would ... if"), but we don't even bother saying the rest of the conditional. Maybe it's something like "I would like a glass of water if you were to give me one." Maybe you will, maybe you won't; I'm not demanding or even saying that you definitely will, but if it were to happen... I would like it.

Answer 4

The if you provide version constitutes something of an offer, a promise: all you need do to ensure receiving an answer is provide context.

The if you provided version could easily be interpreted, especially by someone only just learning the language, as describing a situation entirely in the past: if you had done that, things would have turned out differently. Or it can suggest that the speaker doubts that the person addressed would provide. In any case, this version is less clearly inviting the person who posted the question to go back and edit to incorporate the context that has been judged to be missing and necessary.