Modal agony

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:51 am

"Have to, on the other hand, does not have a strong deontic role."

http://www3.telus.net/linguisticsissues ... ching.html

Is that true?

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:47 am

Seems a pretty crappy paper all told. He gets his knickers in a twist over 'have to' (he gives one example of epistemic use and then overgeneralizes) and in general adds nothing to the field at all.

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:25 pm

From that link:

Epistemically, there seems to be little difference between have to and must (he has to be home; there’s his car/he must be home; there’s his car), with both expressing a sense of certainty. Deontically, must obliges the subject of the sentence to do something (you must be home before 9 o’clock). Have to, on the other hand, does not have a strong deontic role. In dialects where must is rarely used deontically (such as many American dialects) the form for obliging someone to do something is often the imperative. In the realm of dynamic modality, however, the distinctions between must and have to create confusion. When an obligation is clearly speaker-oriented must is a clear choice. When an obligation is clearly external, the choice is have to. But there are many times when a situation is neither “clearly external” nor “clearly speaker-oriented” and here in this “neutral” area many native speakers use must and have to more or less indiscriminately (Palmer, 1990).

If we define "deontic" as "concerned with “influencing actions, states, or events” to quote Palmer as they do in that link then both cases would at first sight appear to be deontic with the imposition of the deontic speach act coming from different directions - internal for "must", external for "have to". It could be that he thinks "must" can imply a means of persuasion with the subject binding himself to undertake the obligation and "have to" is not modal in this way because it imposes the obligation as a matter of fact. One could just as easily argue that internal obligation is not deontic precisely because the subject binds himself to undertake the obligation and is consequently not influenced by the speach act.

Such subtle differences are philosophical and one could argue the case about whether internal or external obligation is or is not "influenced". For the students, internal vs external obligation is the important point here.

Presenting the difference in unsubtle cases is relatively easy. Internal obligation for must (point two fingers againt against own head symbolising a gun) external obligation for have to (point two fingers towards students representing a gun.) Then check understanding and practice. Never use the word deontic in class and never point a real gun at your own head or at the students.

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:23 pm

Metal, you asked the question, what do you personally think?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:02 pm

Andrew Patterson wrote:Metal, you asked the question, what do you personally think?

I would find it odd were someone who had decided that they had authority over me to say:

Metal, you have to be home by nine, OK.

If the same type of person were to say "you must be home by nine", and had the same intentions regarding control of my actions, I would not find it odd at all.

For me:

Bye, I must get back to the office now. (deontic, subjective/internal/psychological)
Bye, I have to get back to the office now. (deontic and objective/external/non-psychological)

But that the way I use those words. Others may feel differently.

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:10 pm

I think you may have got to the nitty gritty there, Metal.

I like the parental metaphore for must. Authority has got something to do with this. A person using vicarious authority would use "have to", I wonder if this is what they were on about.

I'm not sure about the exact wording streight off - whether it is strictly psycological or empathetic and whether "have" to is strictly non-psychological or mearly officious. I'm going to think on this. You may be completely right but I need to make a few test sentences and don't have time at the moment.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:14 pm

Andrew Patterson wrote:I think you may have got to the nitty gritty there, Metal.

I like the parental metaphore for must. Authority has got something to do with this. A person using vicarious authority would use "have to", I wonder if this is what they were on about.

I'm not sure about the exact wording streight off - whether it is strictly psycological or empathetic and whether "have" to is strictly non-psychological or mearly officious. I'm going to think on this. You may be completely right but I need to make a few test sentences and don't have time at the moment.

OK, have fun. Just to remind you, I was only focusing of the deontic use of "must" and "have to".

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:29 pm

Analysing modals often doesn't get beyond "I" and "You" although 3rd persons are interesting too:

Which do you prefer? A parent talking to a baby-sitter:

"Johnny has to go to bed at 9.00"

"Johnny must go to bed at 9.00"

If you favour "has to" or don't mind either way, I wonder why. The speaker is presumably the authority in this matter.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 7:55 pm

JuanTwoThree wrote:Analysing modals often doesn't get beyond "I" and "You" although 3rd persons are interesting too:

Which do you prefer? A parent talking to a baby-sitter:

"Johnny has to go to bed at 9.00"

"Johnny must go to bed at 9.00"

If you favour "has to" or don't mind either way, I wonder why. The speaker is presumably the authority in this matter.

Why does he have to go to bed at nine? What would be the consequences if he didn't? Is it generally thought (external) that kids should be in bed by nine or is it that parents personal desire (internal) that his/her kid should be in bed by nine?

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:02 pm

I see it this way, a parent has authority by virtue of being a parent but that is not the authority that is being involked when "have to" is used. Rather the rule itself is a sort of abstract authority. This will be so regardless of whether the parent came up with or imposed the rule in the first place.

This concept is essential when teaching children, you can hammer the point home by saying, "Now, remember what we agreed," or some such phrase before saying it. Teachers are suposed to have authority too by virtue of being employed in that capacity but I would challenge any teacher to teach children or teenagers without abstracting their authority. In my opinion, it can't be done.

Hope I'm not digressing too much. This could be a thread all by itself.

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:15 pm

Agreed. I get the feeling that people in a position to use "must" often have the option to refrain from doing so in order to present the information with less passion/more distance.

There's a sort of "don't kill the messenger" when "have to" is used: Johnny has to go to bed at 9.00 because we've noticed that he's sleepy the next morning so although we are the authority in this matter we are presenting the facts as if we weren't. It's not some arbitrary whim of ours, unlike:

"All 3rd formers must in future use the side gate. The Principal"

Same type of authority figure but this time the writer can't get out of being the originator. There is no appeal to common sense or practice.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:21 pm

I see it this way, a parent has authority by virtue of being a parent but that is not the authority that is being involked when "have to" is used. Rather the rule itself is a sort of abstract authority.

Exactly, Andrew.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:24 pm

But then there's this:

<Deontic modality identifies the enabling circumstances external to the participant as some person(s), often the speaker, and/or as some social or ethical norm(s) obliging the participant to engage in the state of affairs:

(5) John may leave now.
(6) John must leave now.>

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:48 am

Hey, folks...which would you choose to say and why?

I must hurry if I am to finish these few, final lines.
I have to hurry if I am to finish these few, final lines.

I'm sure nobody is reading this thread anymore, but I must correct myself if I am to sleep at all tonight!
I'm sure nobody is reading this thread anymore, but I have to correct myself if I am to sleep at all tonight.

I have to decide if I am to move here, and the thought of change has made me jittery.
I must decide if I am to move here, and the thought of change has made me jittery.

There are still two more big ingredients left that I have to mention if I am to catch the full flavour of the 1950's BOP.
There are still two more big ingredients left that I must mention if I am to catch the full flavour of the 1950's BOP.

I have to understand how people learn if I am to be a facilitator of learning.
I must understand how people learn if I am to be a facilitator of learning.

Now, I must decide if I am to sign my life up to the state by June.
Now, I have to decide if I am to sign my life up to the state by June.

Thanks.

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 7:39 am

(Over)-using the pistol metaphor, in your examples I would use "must" if I felt that I was the one holding the pistol to my own head but "have to" if I felt that there was a pistol held to my head. What's interesting perhaps is that it isn't exactly another identifiable person holding the pistol but rather a vague sense of outside pressure.

What about:

"Oh, Sunday's out because I have to go to church" (not a child speaking)

The pistol is there, but who's holding it?