Job Discussion Forums

[moonraven]

The purpose of all languages is communication (which is why "private languages" cannot exist. Although the grammar of a language does reflect the way people in that culture relate to the world around them (Franz Boaz dixit), unless there is a problem in communicating that occurs because you use "have to" and not "must"--and I doubt that that could occur, as both imply obligation--why spend time with this issue?

[Dr.J]

moonraven,

I wondered the same thing for a while. A language totally "uncrackable" is in theory impossible because humans share the same basic points of reference, but this is maybe beyond the point of the discussion...

I guess we bother because, like it or not it's part of the language, and our students at some point will hear it and want to know the difference.

[longtimeteach]

[lajzar]

[Roger]

It is encouraging to note that some of us do have students who ask pertinent questions that challenge us in no small way; in fact this is highly desirable as it tests us in our competence.
Knowing a second language always opens our (our students') eyes for our first one.

[migo]

Well, past tense of "must" is "had to". The definition of "have to" in the OED is "be obliged to, must". So strictly speaking they're the same thing.

However, I'd tend to side with must being more severe. Since "must not" is an imperative and "don't have to" is just a statement of fact. Must gets used more often in a situation of importance whereas have to gets used in more casual situations. I don't see any reason why that meaning wouldn't carry over to the positive use of the term. Another way to look at it, is that since "must not" is an imperative, it's not really being negated. In that case it only has a positive form, whereas "have to" definitely has a negative form. That to me would also make it seem as though must were the "stronger" word.

[TEAM_PAPUA]

Until now I was having trouble sleeping - thanks!





T_P

[Tripmaster Monkey]

I think all of this lies in register.

Must is more formal than have to.

I can see your student's point, but it is rooted in the fact that we use formal language to show urgency. That's why politicians talk that way about things like Nazism.

On the other hand, you'd sound like a bit of a whack if you were out with your friends and said, "I must go." Oh do you now?

You could counter this with arguments about must in the past and future, but I'd argue that this is exactly why we have words like "obliged" and "compelled": to be more formal than using "have to".

I must leave this post at that.

[moonraven]

I guess I have prioritized the active use of language in classes for language learners. Reflecting on language takes us into the realm of philosophy of language--which is more appropriate in a classroom where the students have close to native fluency. A few years back I was teaching Speech to 7th graders in such a setting, and we took a good look at what language--in general--was all about. They even worked with some Wittgenstein pieces from his PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS--and especially had a lot of fun explaining "If a lion could talk, we wouldn't understand it."

I believe that a certain pace is helpful, in a language learning class, in keeping students on track, and that discussing the minutia of grammar tends to erode that forward movement. The same applies in the case of correcting student errors while they are speaking--I correct errors when the errors cause communication to break down. Sometimes we have to put aside our personal perfectionist needs in order to maintain student enthusiasm. A student who is puzzled about the use of "must" and "have to" is probably not representative of the group as a whole--most of whom would be bored and distracted by an extended examination of this topic.

This is not to say that I am not interested in grammar or in making comparisons between two languages. (This summer I am giving a course to incoming university students on Learning Strategies, and I am teaching in Spanish--so I have to be very alert to differences and similarities between the two languages.)

[zaneth]

I haven't analyzed this fully, but whenever 'must' comes up I get the feeling there are some usage differences between British and American. Sometimes the examples I hear don't feel natural to me. I'm sure this is all in the range of the subtle usage differences, but it might make your student happy to know that yes, there are a number of subtle differences. Throw them a bone, as it were.

Welcome back, by the way.

[Tripmaster Monkey]

I think the British use "must" for questions.

Must you do that?

Americans tend to say

Do you have to do that?

[skeptic]

I beleive Tripmaster Monkey has it right. Must is more formal. It is a full modal in the sense that it has morphed out of the general class of English verbs and behaves as a headstrong aristocrat: ignoring time-honored subject-verb agreement conventions. Have to and Have got to, are less formal, and considered as phrasal modals. They do adhere to subject-verb agreement, and, for the most part, act like any old proletariate verb.

In terms of register: formality signals a greater social distance/social power relationship, so must seems more authoritative than its phrasal counterparts. Your student who argues that must has greater force is, perhaps, expressing this nuance.

Whether there is greater illocutionary force in a teacher telling a student he/she must have the project completed by the 19th, or a wife telling a husband he has to stop after three beers is debatable, I suppose: but in my case my wife can hurt me more than my teacher can.

Keep in mind that with modals, there are logical uses (degree of probability) and social uses (referenced in part above) so they are a confusing bunch. This is most true when you are focusing on a logical use explanation of modals and a student raises a social use issue, or the reverse.

There are other interesting aspects of these verbs but they do not directly pertain to the issue raised here.

[lajzar]

http://www.eskimo.com/~ram/lexical_semantics.html

It is a work on an artificial language (go on, laugh), BUT it has an incredibly detailed analysis of the way modal concepts are used. That chapter is worth reading wrt this discussion.

[leeroy]

In a fight, I reckon "must" could kick "have to"'s a** any day of the week.

[skeptic]

That is a quite an interesting site. Thanks for the link. BTW, how did you find it? Are you into computational linguistics?