He couldn't go out after dark until he was 17.

Question

(1) He can't go out after dark.

In context, (1) is intended to mean that he is not allowed to go out after dark.

(2) He couldn't go out after dark until he was 17.

Is it ever possible for (2) to mean that he was not allowed to go out after dark until he was 17, as opposed to 'he was not able to go out after dark until he was 17'?

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

JungKim(1) He can't go out after dark. In context, (1) is intended to mean that he is not allowed to go out after dark.

We'll have to take your word for it about the context and the intention. You are the one who is imagining the context and the intention.

JungKim(2) He couldn't go out after dark until he was 17.Is it ever possible for (2) to mean that he was not allowed to go out after dark until he was 17, as opposed to 'he was not able to go out after dark until he was 17'?

In this one it's the same ambiguity between physical ability and permission. The only difference here is that you haven't said that you're imagining a context and intent in which only one of the two interpretations is possible.

Short answer: Yes. In fact, it's the only interpretation that came to mind when I read it, and I'm puzzled at the question.

CJ

JungKim · Answer

Let me put it this way.
Normally, when someone (i.e., the speaker) uses a modal to express permission, it is the speaker who gives the permission.

For example, when a man said to his wife about his son Mike, "Mike can't go out after dark," it is the man (Mike's father) who gives permission (actually lack thereof in this case). Now, having heard this from his husband, the wife tells her daughter, "He can't go out after dark."

In this instance, the wife is not necessarily imposing a ban on Mike's going out after dark but is simply relaying the outcome of the father's ban to her daughter. If so, could this latter utterance be considered to be expressing permission as opposed to ability?

By the same token, when a speaker uses the past tense 'could' in this type of permission-giving statement, chances are the speaker is not the person who created permission (or a ban), because it's hardly possible for a speaker to give permission/ban to a past action.

So I was asking the question as to (2) with 'could'.

CalifJim · Answer

JungKimNow, having heard this from his husband, the wife tells her daughter, "He can't go out after dark."

So far, so good. The wife is reporting what she heard and knows.

JungKimIn this instance, the wife is not necessarily imposing a ban on Mike's going out after dark but is simply relaying the outcome of the father's ban to her daughter.

Exactly. Reported speech.

JungKimIf so, could this latter utterance be considered to be expressing permission as opposed to ability?

Yes. What else? She's reporting the permission-statement of her husband. That doesn't change the meaning of "can't". It's still a matter of permission.

JungKimBy the same token, when a speaker uses the past tense 'could' in this type of permission-giving statement, chances are the speaker is not the person who created permission (or a ban), because it's hardly possible for a speaker to give permission/ban to a past action.

True, but with reported speech we usually backshift the tense, so 'could' in the report is like 'can' in the original words.

JungKimSo I was asking the question as to (2) with 'could'.

Yes. (2) contains 'could'. It's an implied report. The answer to your original question, which I've already said, is "yes".

CJ

JungKim · Answer

CalifJimJungKimIf so, could this latter utterance be considered to be expressing permission as opposed to ability?Yes. What else? She's reporting the permission-statement of her husband. That doesn't change the meaning of "can't". It's still a matter of permission.

The father's utterance "Mike can't go out after dark" can be glossed as "I won't allow Mike to go out after dark."
But the mother's utterance "He can't go out after dark" can be glossed either as an outcome meaning "He is not able to go out after dark (because of your father's earlier ban)" or as an implied reporting meaning "He is forbidden to go out after dark (by your father)"

Now, even if it is a reporting as you argue, "He is forbidden to go out after dark (by your father)" isn't the same as "I won't allow Mike to go out after dark." Is it?

CalifJim · Answer

JungKimThe father's utterance "Mike can't go out after dark" can be glossed as "I won't allow Mike to go out after dark."

OK. Or "I forbid Mike to go out after dark", as you mention later.

JungKimBut the mother's utterance "He can't go out after dark" can be glossed either as an outcome meaning "He is not able to go out after dark (because of your father's earlier ban)"

Here's where we're getting snagged. When I read that, I think of "not able" as a signal that Mike is disabled. His legs were shot off during a war, or he went blind, or something to that effect. Mike's father's ban certainly would not have caused any of those things to happen. For this reason I don't accept your claim that "He can't go out after dark" can be glossed as "He is not able to go out after dark" (because of the ban) in the given scenario.

JungKimor as an implied reporting meaning "He is forbidden to go out after dark (by your father)"

Since I've rejected the possibility of the first interpretation, I'd say there is no "or" here. The only thing it can mean to me is "He is forbidden to go out after dark"/"He is not allowed to go out after dark".

JungKimNow, even if it is a reporting as you argue, "He is forbidden to go out after dark (by your father)" isn't the same as "I won't allow Mike to go out after dark." Is it?

No. You've changed the subject from 'he' to 'I', and I'm not following why you want to do that. For some reason you believe that the 'forbid' meaning of 'can't' is only possible when the speaker forbids the listener to do something. This is false.

Each of these may, in the right scenario, have to do with the withholding of permission, not just the first.

You can't go out tonight. (I forbid you.)
He can't go out tonight. (Someone has forbidden him.)
They can't go out tonight. (Someone has forbidden them.)
I can't go out tonight. (And so on.)
She couldn't go out last night.
We couldn't go out last night.

CJ

JungKim · Answer

CalifJimEach of these may, in the right scenario, have to do with the withholding of permission, not just the first.You can't go out tonight. (I forbid you.)He can't go out tonight. (Someone has forbidden him.)They can't go out tonight. (Someone has forbidden them.)I can't go out tonight. (And so on.)She couldn't go out last night.We couldn't go out last night.

Except the first one, the withholding of permission comes not from the speaker but from someone other than the speaker. I used to think that modals of permission (or the withholding thereof) such as 'can', 'may' express the speaker's permission in the declarative and the listener's permission in the interrogative. But if you're right, it can basically expand to anyone's permission.

If that's the case, even in the first one, how do you know for sure if it's I, the speaker, that forbid you??

CalifJim · Answer

JungKimeven in the first one, how do you know for sure if it's I, the speaker, that forbid you??

I don't know for sure, so actually, you're right about that. It's ambiguous.

CJ

JungKim · Answer

CalifJim It's ambiguous.

If so, whenever someone uses a modal, we just can't assume that it's the speaker's opinion, can we?

For example, if someone says to me, "You shouldn't talk like that", how do I know it's that someone's opinion or some other unknown person's opinion??

CalifJim · Answer

JungKimIf so, whenever someone uses a modal, we just can't assume that it's the speaker's opinion, can we?

"whenever" is like "always". It makes me uncomfortable. I'd say that there certainly are cases where we can't make such an assumption. But it seems to me that most of the time it's the speaker's opinion, if it's anybody's opinion at all.

I can't answer your question adequately because it involves too many possibilities, it's too complex, and I've never thought about modals from this precise point of view.

CJ

He couldn't go out after dark until he was 17.

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions