[Grammar] He could be released next year

[NAL123]

Consider this sentence, please:

1) He was jailed five years ago and could be released next year.

Can I say that sentence 1) has two interpretations depending on the the degree of stress placed on "could"? For example:

a) With unstressed "could":

It means that the authority have the legal right to release him early, so they could do it if they so chose.

b) With stressed "could" (speculation):

It means his release may possibly happen next year, and it is interchangeable with "might":

He was jailed five years ago and might be released next year.

Is this correct?

 

[teechar]

Yes, both are possible, irrespective of whether you stress "could". The broader context should clarify which meaning is intended.

 

[NAL123]

Yes, both are possible, irrespective of whether you stress "could". The broader context should clarify which meaning is intended.

So the concept of stress does not help much while understanding modal verbs. It is actually the context. Am I right?

 

[GoesStation]

So the concept of stress does not help much while understanding modal verbs. It is actually the context. Am I right?

Not at all. Stressing different syllables in your sentence, and many others containing a modal verb, can change their intended meaning significantly.

 

[NAL123]

Not at all. Stressing different syllables in your sentence, and many others containing a modal verb, can change their intended meaning significantly.

In speech, would you stress the "could" in sentence 1) in the OP?

 

[emsr2d2]

In speech, would you stress the "could" in sentence 1) in the OP?

Possibly. It depends on whether I was simply stating a fact, or I really wanted the listener to concentrate on the fact that it's only a possibility.

 

[jutfrank]

So the concept of stress does not help much while understanding modal verbs. It is actually the context. Am I right?

Yes, that's right, generally speaking. Stressing the modal verb certainly has an effect on the message, but it doesn't change the essential meaning. It only emphasises it.

 

[NAL123]

Possibly. It depends on whether I was simply stating a fact, or I really wanted the listener to concentrate on the fact that it's only a possibility.

In that case, would you stress "could" in speech if you intended to imply interpretation a) in the OP? That seems to me like we are stating a fact.

 

[GoesStation]

In that case, would you stress "could" in speech if you intended to imply interpretation a) in the OP? That seems to me like we are stating a fact.

If "could" is heavily stressed, the sentence expresses the speaker's opinion that a release is possible but not very likely.

 

[NAL123]

One more question here, please:

If you intended to imply meaning (a) (forget about "stress") given in the OP, would you use "might" in place of "could" in sentence (1)?

 

[GoesStation]

1) He was jailed five years ago and could be released next year.

Can I say that sentence 1) has two interpretations depending on the the degree of stress placed on "could"? For example:

a) With unstressed "could":

It means that the authority have the legal right to release him early, so they could do it if they so chose.

If you intended to imply meaning (a) (forget about "stress") given in the OP, would you use "might" in place of "could" in sentence (1)?

No. With "might", the meaning shifts towards possibility: it's not impossible that they'll release him.

 

[jutfrank]

If you intended to imply meaning (a) (forget about "stress") given in the OP, would you use "might" in place of "could" in sentence (1)?

No. Using might would change the kind of possibility to what I like to call a real future possibility rather than an unreal one.

Now, I realise that the terms I've used here (real/unreal) are very hard to understand and somewhat misleading but I think I have good reason for using them. However, I'll try to explain the difference in a different way: using might produces a prediction about a possible real future whereas using could produces a statement of a purely theoretical outcome.

 

[NAL123]

No. Using might would change the kind of possibility to what I like to call a real future possibility rather than an unreal one.

Now, I realise that the terms I've used here (real/unreal) are very hard to understand and somewhat misleading but I think I have good reason for using them. However, I'll try to explain the difference in a different way: using might produces a prediction about a possible real future whereas using could produces a statement of a purely theoretical outcome.

So do you consider interpretation (b) in the OP (where "could" is interchangeable with "might" = prediction/real future possibility) as completely different from interpretation (a) (where "could" is unreal/theoretical/maybe interchangeable with "can"), Or do you consider interpretation (b) a special case of interpretation (a), and thus "could" is "unreal/theoretical" in this case too?

 

[jutfrank]

So do you consider interpretation (b) in the OP (where "could" is interchangeable with "might" = prediction/real future possibility) as completely different from interpretation (a) (where "could" is unreal/theoretical/maybe interchangeable with "can")

Different, yes, but certainly not 'completely' different.

Or do you consider interpretation (b) a special case of interpretation (a), and thus "could" is "unreal/theoretical" in this case too?

Not really, no. I just see them as having different meanings/uses. I wouldn't call it a special case.

It's very hard to talk about this without getting mired in very abstract language and ideas. To simplify all this for you as a user, I'd advise that if you want interpretation (a), use could, and for interpretation (b) use might. As somebody reading/hearing such an utterance, I'd advise you to interpret the use of could as interpretation (a) only. Also, don't think of whether you stress the modal as changing the meaning. Think of it as focusing or emphasising the meaning.