Acceptable to use "may imply" in Literary Commentaries?

[BadLifeDecisions]

Hello guys,

I'm currently writing a literary commentary on Heaney's "Storm on the Island". I want to link Ireland's violent past (Heaney was Irish) to one of the ideas in the poem. However, I am unsure whether the link can actually be drawn or not, so can I say "Heaney might have used this statement in connection to his nation's violent past", or use any other words that imply uncertainty? Are there any other alternatives, or should I drop the idea completely?

[kw0573]

From a grammar view, "might have + past participle" indicates possibility of some action that happened or started in the past.
"might" if combined with a condition "if + past tense" indicates a result from an unlikely current action: this using might as "may"'s pas tense.
"might" by itself indicates possibility in the present or in the future.

However in an literary analysis, everything is based upon your and others' interpretations. Every explanation "might" be true. Therefore I suggest you find some other way to raise uncertainty by drawing specific references to other parts of the text to explain your doubts.

[Sandwich]

It's totally fine to say that one interpretation or link might be X, Y, Z. Contextualising is an important tool especially with poets like Heaney whose poetry is generally a dull blend of potatoes without pointing out he is Irish.