Teacher Discussion Forums

Hello,
I'm confused about the difference in meaning between the words "can" and "could". What is the difference in meaning of the two following sentences?
1. You "can" make more money investing in China than you "can" investing in America.
2. You "could" make more money investing in China than you "could" investing in America.

'Could' here is unlikely to be referring to the/a past (i.e. China is now apparently in the ascendant economically, and America in decline), so it must be signalling some sort of "non-temporal remoteness", some sort of "less likelihood", or greater tentativeness in making the suggestion, or whatever. For example, perhaps the speaker is talking to somebody who doesn't like China much (e.g. a Korean war veteran who's now a [very old!] CEO), and who would therefore prefer to still invest in American companies but needs gently persuading otherwise if he is to avoid financial loss. Or perhaps somebody is indicating (hedging), possibly by stressing the word in speech (note the italics), that the Chinese markets might not be as stong and dependable as many appear to think ('You could make more investing in China, it's true, but even China isn't completely immune from recession, so growth could in fact turn out to be less than forecast. In which case, America could be a more straightforward, less risky venture overall').

fluffyhamster wrote:'Could' here is unlikely to be referring to the/a past (i.e. China is now apparently in the ascendant economically, and America in decline), so it must be signalling some sort of "non-temporal remoteness", some sort of "less likelihood", or greater tentativeness in making the suggestion, or whatever. For example, perhaps the speaker is talking to somebody who doesn't like China much (e.g. a Korean war veteran who's now a [very old!] CEO), and who would therefore prefer to still invest in American companies but needs gently persuading otherwise if he is to avoid financial loss. Or perhaps somebody is indicating (hedging), possibly by stressing the word in speech (note the italics), that the Chinese markets might not be as stong and dependable as many appear to think ('You could make more investing in China, it's true, but even China isn't completely immune from recession, so growth could in fact turn out to be less than forecast. In which case, America could be a more straightforward, less risky venture overall').

Or perhaps expressing disbelief at how unprofitable American markets have become. (That's where I am). So unprofitable, that now investing in export-dominated China is somehow even better. Afterall, American and European company's ROI (return on investment) has always been greater than ROI in the mostly export-dominated Asian region, whether communist or democratic.

Hi Jotham, long time no see!

Yes, the 'could' could be quite chirpy, see China as a positive move compared to the US.

The main point though is that the meaning of any decontextualized sentence is in the eye or ear of the beholder, who will have to do some work recontextualizing it.

I wonder then how our suggestions strike Hereinchina. Perhaps he has some interpretations of his own to share?

I think that "can" in sentence number one means you definitely will make more money investing in China. I think that "could" in sentence number two means you might be able to make more money, but it isn't definite. Certain things must happen for it to come true. You need to meet those conditions in order to make more money in China. I believe that "could" is the present subjunctive mood, a conditional mood. However, I'm not sure about how to refer to the word "could".

fluffyhamster wrote:'Could' here is unlikely to be referring to the/a past... so it must be signalling some sort of "non-temporal remoteness", some sort of "less likelihood", or greater tentativeness in making the suggestion, or whatever.

Good grief, Fluffy! Have you become some sort of closet Michael Lewis groupie? I am shocked! Deeply, profoundly shocked.

(But I think you are right on the money.)

I would suggest that the remoteness here is one of interest in the venture; 'can' sounds more enthusiastic.

There are plenty of us around Larry who accept Lewis's basic premises. It is his more bizarre and convoluted explanations we balk at.

i think the answer is that "can" implies that it's normally possible: "If you invest in China, it's possible to... etc" "Could" means it's a little less likely: "If you invest in China, it might... etc"
Of course if you used the subjunctive form, "If you invested in China, then "could" would be clearly the better option.
Generally speaking then, when talking about possiblities, "could" is less certain than "can".[/i]

daleglendale wrote:Generally speaking then, when talking about possiblities, "could" is less certain than "can".[/i]

Another way to say this is "could" is more remotely possible than "can." The difference seems important to me because "remoteness" can be explored as a separate concept which appears to apply widely in English grammar. "Less certain," on the other hand, is a relative term and may be harder for students to wrap their minds around.

i don't see much of a difference between "more remote" "less certain" "less possible" "less likely", "more improbable". etc. The idea is to give students a clear idea of the difference and not to confuse them with complicated explanations. We should remember that their level of comprehension is NOT that of a native speaker. A "convoluted" reply, as Stephen points out, serves little purpose. Lets keep it simple, guys.

No argument. But that's just the point. "Remoteness" can be visualized physically. The difference between "here" and "there" can be understood as a matter of remoteness. Then the same concept can be used with "can" and "could", or even between "jump" and "jumped." It is precisely the simplicity that appeals to me about entertaining remoteness as a basic idea in English grammar. It works in so many places. As long as your students grasp that there can be several types of remoteness, they will manage many parts of grammar.

The point about remoteness is not whether it is more easily understandable than less certain, but that it covers all the uses of the past tense in one concept.