1

In the sentence, "Diplomats said a Russian chemical weapons attack in Ukraine, or a heavy bombardment of the capital Kyiv, could be a trigger for an energy embargo," I am confused whether the modal verb COULD here is used in the temporal or hypothetical sense.

On one hand, I think it's hypothetical because the proposition is speculative and has not yet happened. On the other, the main verb here is "said," which indicates that COULD here is a backshifted form of CAN.

Collins (Modals and Quasi-modals in English, 2009) gives the example, "He said the Federal Government's approach could lead to reduced investment" and classifies COULD as temporal, but I genuinely feel that this is incorrect because it's speculative, so how could it be temporal when it didn't happen? He also writes that this sentence expresses epistemic meaning, which I don't agree with because that would mean that its forward-shifted (idk if that's a word) form would be CAN, and CAN only expresses epistemic meaning in the negative form. This leads me to believe that he may have made a mistake in analyzing this utterance, but I can't entirely be sure.

Could someone share their thoughts on this?

Improve this question
0

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
0

The function here is that of probability/chance, but it is also reported speech so it could be a backshift. You can rephrase it - diplomats say that it can be a trigger OR it could be a trigger. Both are possible depending on what degree of certainty they want to express. In reported speech, you would have to backshift "can" whereas "could" would stay the same.

Improve this answer
1
  • I see. Your stance seems to be that it depends on the original utterance, and since I do not know what the original utterance was, it would be impossible to completely ascertain the function of COULD in the sentence in question. This is a very good point.
    – Ken
    Commented Apr 30 at 4:57
0

An energy embargo is a possible, maybe even a likely, result of either of those offensive measures. If the statement is meant to be understood as a warning, then the meaning of could trigger shades into "is likely to trigger": an embargo would be a "real possibility" as distinct from a merely "hypothetical possibility". An embargo would be a probable outcome.

Those meanings are context-dependent. All that is entailed by could trigger is "would be enough to trigger". Those offensive measures would be sufficient cause to trigger an embargo but the diplomats don't go as far as to say will trigger. An embargo is not necessarily going to happen should either of those offensive measures be taken, but it certainly is not to be ruled out.

P.S. I would not expect any diplomat to say "a Russian chemical weapons attack in Ukraine, or a heavy bombardment of the capital Kyiv, can be a trigger for an energy embargo..." such that could in the original quote might be a reported-speech backshift. Why do I think no diplomat would use can in that statement? Because in phrases like can be a trigger, modal can expresses a general truth (e.g. It can snow in May in Colorado) whereas what is being discussed there is not a general truth but a particular threat in a particular set of circumstances. The diplomats either used the word could, or what they actually said is being paraphrased.

Improve this answer
3
  • Hm... if I'm understanding correctly, you are saying that this cannot be temporal COULD (backshifted CAN) simply because the original utterance in the seemingly reported speech could not have been CAN. This means that the COULD in the sentence is most likely not temporal, but hypothetical expressed with epistemic meaning (to express the speaker's belief in the genuine likelihood of the energy embargo), perhaps?
    – Ken
    Commented Apr 30 at 4:45
  • @Ken Yes, you have understood my opinion. can also appears in emphatic counterstatements. "That can't have been Ken you saw on the train. He's away on vacation. -- You're wrong about that. It can indeed have been Ken. The vacation was postponed." But there's no such refutation or counterstatement in the context.
    – TimR
    Commented Apr 30 at 10:56
  • With regard to the Collins example, can could be idiomatic there if the speaker believes "the Federal government's approach" has been shown to be counterproductive time and time again, such that the speaker regards it not as a speculation based on a particular unique set of circumstances but a long-established general truth. There, it's possible that could is indeed a backshift of can in reported speech.
    – TimR
    Commented Apr 30 at 11:11
0

"Diplomats said a Russian chemical weapons attack in Ukraine, or a heavy bombardment of the capital Kyiv, could be a trigger for an energy embargo,"

VERSUS

"Diplomats say a Russian chemical weapons attack in Ukraine, or a heavy bombardment of the capital Kyiv, can be a trigger for an energy embargo," could here is the past tense of can.

In this case, could is the past tense of can.

Improve this answer
2
  • I see. Your conclusion that COULD in the sentence is temporal is based on your analysis of the grammatical structure, and I understand that. I feel, however, that my concern about the sentence being about a hypothetical scenario wasn't sufficiently addressed. In my understanding, the meaning of the sentence in question would dictate that it expresses hypotheticality instead of temporality. What is confusing me is that the structure, as you have explained in your analysis, seems to indicate that it expresses temporality instead. This is what I'm struggling to reconcile.
    – Ken
    Commented Apr 30 at 4:54
  • I don't much like saying temporal versus hypothetical. There is no if, ergo it is not a hypothesis as there is when using if. This is reported speech due to said, as opposed to say.
    – Lambie
    Commented Apr 30 at 13:17

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .