Hedging and distancing language — essential for discussing contested political and social topics: it would appear that / it could be argued that / critics maintain / there is reason to believe / tends to / to some extent / the evidence suggests
Mixed conditionals are among the most important and underused structures at B2–C1. Students often know Type 2 and Type 3 separately but struggle to mix them. The key insight: in a mixed conditional, the time frames in the condition and result clauses are different. Type 3→2: the condition is in the past, the result is in the present ("If apartheid had not ended [past], the country would not be a democracy [now]"). Type 2→3: the condition is a present reality, the result is in the past ("If South Africa were not so unequal [now], crime would not have risen so sharply [over decades]"). South Africa's history makes both types feel natural and communicatively purposeful — every sentence about apartheid's legacy is potentially a mixed conditional.
Hedging is the defining feature of formal academic and journalistic discourse in English — and it is particularly important when discussing sensitive topics like crime statistics, political failure, and post-colonial history. Students at B2 tend to make claims too bluntly; C1 requires the ability to qualify, distance, and attribute. Write on the board: "South Africa has a very high crime rate" vs "It would appear that crime remains a significant challenge". Both are true. The second is more appropriate in formal writing. Show students the range: from tentative (it might be) to more confident (the evidence suggests) to attributed (critics maintain).
Robert is South African by birth and identity but academically based partly in London — this allows him to speak about South Africa with insider knowledge and outsider perspective simultaneously. He speaks carefully and precisely, as a political analyst would. Emma is professional and probing — she pushes him on difficult questions (crime, corruption, emigration). Both mixed conditionals and hedging appear naturally throughout. Read Robert with measured authority and real feeling for his country; Emma with journalistic precision. Read TWICE.
This lesson touches on apartheid, crime, and institutional failure. These are serious topics that deserve serious treatment — and students will engage with them seriously. Avoid framing South Africa purely through a deficit lens. Robert's final speech in the listening script is deliberately optimistic — the lesson should leave students with a complex, balanced picture, not a simple one.
Task B: 1. apartheid 2. legacy 3. inequality 4. reconciliation 5. diaspora 6. infrastructure 7. corruption 8. sanctions 9. constitution 10. township
Ex 2 (complete): 1. had not imposed / would not have grown 2. were not so unequal / would be 3. had invested / would be 4. were not landlocked / would have developed
Ex 3 (hedging): Accept varied. Mark: appropriate hedging phrase + logical connection to South Africa + no overstatement.
Language task: Mixed cond: "If apartheid had not created such a legacy of inequality, South Africa would not face the challenges it does today" / "If the country were less unequal, crime rates would arguably be lower" · Hedging: "it could be argued that" / "critics maintain" / "there is reason to believe" / "tends to"
Task 2: 1. concentrated in poor, Black South African communities / linked to inequality 2. They have emigrated partly due to poor governance, corruption, and collapse of services 3. The Anglo-Boer Wars / British concentration camps — not forgotten in Afrikaner communities 4. The constitution / Constitutional Court / free press / young people identifying less with racial categories
Task 3 mixed cond: "If apartheid had not created such a systematically unequal society, the legacy problems would be far less severe" · "If the country were not as unequal as it is... the crime rate would be significantly lower" · "If South Africa had managed its governance better... many of those people would not have left" · "If Britain were not an English-speaking country... the diaspora would be considerably smaller" · "If the political will existed... the country could realise something close to what it promised"
Task 3 hedging: "It would be dishonest to say" · "It would appear that" · "tends to cluster" · "seems reasonable to suggest" · "The evidence consistently links" · "Critics maintain" · "it could be argued" · "to some extent" · "tends to be forgotten"
South Africa
Vocabulary
VocabularyMatch each word (1–12) with its meaning (a–l).
Fill each gap with the correct word. Change the form if necessary.
Grammar
GrammarIn Type 2 and Type 3 conditionals, the condition and result are in the same time frame. In a mixed conditional, they are in different time frames. This is very natural when discussing history and its present consequences.
If international sanctions had not been imposed, the apartheid government might still be in power.
If Mandela had not survived imprisonment, the transition could be far less peaceful.
If the government were less corrupt, it could have built much stronger infrastructure.
If the country did not have such mineral wealth, it might not have attracted colonial interest.
At C1 level, you qualify claims rather than stating them bluntly. This is essential when discussing sensitive political and social topics — it shows intellectual precision and respects the complexity of the evidence.
Blunt: "South Africa has a very high crime rate because of inequality."
Hedged: "The evidence tends to suggest that South Africa's crime problem is, in part, a consequence of the deep inequality that persists as a legacy of apartheid."
Write 3→2 (past condition, present result) or 2→3 (present condition, past result).
Complete each sentence. The type is given. Both halves must be grammatically correct.
Rewrite each sentence using appropriate hedging. Make it suitable for a formal essay or broadcast report.
Reading
ReadingIn April 1994, millions of South Africans queued for hours to cast their first democratic votes. Nelson Mandela became president of a country that had spent decades as an international pariah, its system of racial classification and enforced segregation condemned across the world. The transition from apartheid to democracy was, by almost any measure, extraordinary. If the apartheid government had not ultimately negotiated rather than fought, and if Mandela had not emerged from twenty-seven years of imprisonment committed to reconciliation rather than revenge, the outcome could have been incomparably more violent. South Africa did something that many thought impossible.
Yet the country's subsequent history has been more complicated. South Africa possesses remarkable natural wealth: it holds some of the world's largest deposits of gold, platinum, and chromium, and its landscape ranges from the Drakensberg mountains to the Karoo desert to the coastlines of both the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. It has eleven official languages — the most of any country in the world — and a cultural vitality that is genuinely its own. Its 1996 constitution is considered one of the most progressive ever written, enshrining rights to housing, education, and healthcare alongside the more familiar civil and political freedoms.
And yet. The legacy of apartheid has proved more durable than many hoped. South Africa remains one of the most economically unequal societies on earth. The spatial geography of apartheid — townships at the margins, white suburbs at the centre — has not been fundamentally altered. If the country were not still so profoundly divided by wealth along broadly racial lines, it could be argued that the promise of 1994 would have been far better fulfilled. The concentration of violent crime in poor, predominantly Black South African communities is, to a significant degree, an inheritance of that structural inequality rather than a characteristic of the people who live there.
The political story is equally complex. The African National Congress, which led the liberation struggle and governed from 1994, has seen its parliamentary majority erode significantly. Critics maintain that the Zuma era — marked by what came to be known as "state capture," the systematic looting of public institutions — set back development by a generation. The collapse of the electricity supply, once a source of national pride, into chronic daily blackouts has become a symbol of what poor governance can do to infrastructure. It would be premature, however, to conclude that the democratic experiment has failed: the Constitutional Court has demonstrated genuine independence, the press remains largely free, and civil society is active and vocal.
Britain's relationship with South Africa is long, layered, and not uncomplicated. The Cape Colony came under British control in 1806; the Anglo-Boer Wars of 1880–1902, in which Britain fought the Boer republics for control of the gold-rich Transvaal, left a legacy of bitterness in Afrikaner communities that has not entirely dissipated. Britain was slow to impose meaningful sanctions against the apartheid government — a source of criticism from those who felt that economic interests were prioritised over human rights. Yet the countries share a language, a legal tradition, and deep personal connections. The South African diaspora in the United Kingdom tends to be large, educated, and economically active. If Britain were not English-speaking with a familiar legal and institutional culture, the number of South Africans who have made their lives here would likely be considerably smaller.
What South Africa remains, above all, is a country that has not given up. The democratic institutions function — imperfectly, under pressure, but they function. The generation born after 1994 — the so-called "born-frees" — tends to be less defined by the racial categories of the apartheid era, more mobile, more connected. There is reason to believe that the arc of South Africa's story has not yet reached its defining chapter.
Write T, F, or NG. Justify with a phrase from the text.
Listening
ListeningAnswer with short notes.
Listen again. Find the following in Robert's speech.
Speaking
SpeakingWork in pairs. Do not show your role card to your partner.
Group A argues FOR. Group B argues AGAINST.
3 minutes prepare · 2 minutes each · 5 minutes open debate.
Writing
Writing250–300 words. Both options require mixed conditionals, hedging language, and vocabulary from H1.
· At least two mixed conditionals (both types)
· At least three hedging expressions (different types)
· At least four vocabulary words from H1
· Reference to the reading or listening
If apartheid had not... · If the country were... · It could be argued that... · Critics maintain that... · The evidence suggests... · To some extent... · There is reason to believe... · It would appear that... · The legacy of... · It seems reasonable to suggest...

