On the polysemy of "could"

Question

Hello,I'm currently writing a paper on English modals and I need your native speakers help for the 4 sentences below:(1) Listen, I could never let my kids by the side of the road.  (2) To London Symphony Orchestra takes over Avery Fischer Hall in New York on Monday and Wednesday in what Lincoln Center's artistic director, Jane Moss calls "a visiting home team, if that makes sense," In other words, most of the players could find Columbus Avenue in their sleep, they've been there so often.  (3) Our son could spend the rest of his life in jail. I won't allow that.(4) I could telle them that you went to tennis camp. As a non-native speaker, my feeling of the language is limited, but I would say that sentence (1) "could" is a conditional present irrealis "could" ; sentence (2) "could" is a also a present conditional "could". However, it seems to me that there's a difference in meaning between sentence (1) could and sentence (2) could. I can't tell what.(1) and (2) differ from (3) because they both carry a "dynamic" meaning. i.e. they talk about "possible ability".In sentence (3), however, "could" does not bear a "dynamic" meaning, but an epistemic one and hence may be paraphrased as follows: "it could be possible that our son spend the rest of his life in jail. I won't allow that".In this case, would it be possible to replace "could" by epistemic "may" or "might"? How meaning would be affected if we did so?(3a) Our son may spend the rest of his life in prison. I won't allow that.(3b) Our son might spend the rest of his life in prison. I won't allow that. Sentence (4) has an "implied conditional clause" [if I am asked] and is therefore conditionally marked. To be, it bears some kindof a "future meaning". The speaker says something about a possible reaction she may have if she is asked to provide explanation about her husband not being at home.Again, if I remplace could by "might", "I might tell them that you went to tennis camp" [if I am asked to], or would, "I would tell them that you went to tennis camp". What difference in meaning these modals provide to the sentence?I thank you in advance for your answers.

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

Let me paraphrase them.
____________

(1) Listen, I could never leave my kids by the side of the road.

would never be able to leave / would never be (ethically) capable of leaving / would never be able to make myself leave
(I'm not that kind of person.)
____________

(2) The London Symphony Orchestra ... In other words, most of the players could find Columbus Avenue in their sleep, they've been there so often.

would be able to find
____________

(3) Our son could spend the rest of his life in jail. I won't allow that.
(Considering how events are unfolding,) there is a good chance that our son will spend ... / ... that our son will end up spending ...
may or might are weaker, indicating only "It is possible that he will spend ...", which doesn't go as well with "I won't allow that". It's anomalous to vow action against a logical possibility.

Second, highly improbable reading: would be able to.
He likes jail so much that he would be able to spend the rest of his life there.
As in: This hotel is so luxurious that I could spend a full month here.
But, of course, "I won't allow that" effectively blocks this second reading.
____________

(4) I could tell them that you went to tennis camp.

What I would be able to do for you as a favor is to tell them ... (offer)
might also suggests an offer, but less strongly.
____________

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

With modals you introduce an element of probability into the sentence. Here you have implied probable situations in each of the 4 sentences.

1. It is implied here that there are a number of things that it is conceivable I do with my kids. For example: leave them at the sitter's, leave them at the mall, leave them at camp, etc. However, one thing is inconceivable: leaving them at the side of the road.

2. There are two possibilities implied: most players find Columbus Ave. in their sleep; the rest don't find it in their sleep.

3. There are two possibilities implied: son spends life in jail; he spends less than life in jail.

4. There are a number of implied possibilities: I (lie and) tell them you went to tennis camp; I tell the truth; I tell another lie.

Comments:

1. The speaker is being rather flamboyant here. Instead of just saying flat out, with no implied probability, and without a shred of doubt: "I will never leave my kids by the side of the road.", he hams it up a little, implying that there are a number of things he might do with his kids, but one of them could never be leaving them at the side of the road.

2. This is the least serious of the four sentences. The modal is really for effect only, because the situation is ridiculous: no one can find anything while sleeping.

3. This sentence has similarities to sentence 1. That is, the speaker is hamming it up a little here. Instead of stating flat out with no implied possibilities, and no shred of doubt: "I will not allow my son to spend life in jail.", he throws in the modal, which implies probabilities: son could spend life, or less than life, in jail; I will not allow the former.

4. This sentence sticks out as quite different from the other three. What is immediately implied here is a lie: telling them you're at tennis camp is a lie, and I've chosen to lie rather than tell them the truth.

On the polysemy of "could"

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions