Expressing Obligation
By Rob Lane
In the last post, I wrote about how ability is expressed using modal verbs and phrases. In this article, I will give an overview obligation. Obligation may be described as pressure on a person to do something or not to do something.
There are strong obligations such as rules and necessities, and weak obligations such as advice. Obligations may be internal, from the speaker’s body or mind, and external obligations such as regulations.
In this post, we will see only the most common forms used to express standard obligation. Other, more advanced forms will be looked at in future posts. There are a number of important rules that you should take special care to understand and practice.
Strong Obligation
In present, need to, must and have to are all used to express strong obligation. All three have equal strength. Often learners have difficulties with must and have to and often see little difference between the two. In brief, the rule is that must is used for internal obligations, and have to is used for external obligations.
My tooth is sore. I must go to the dentist.
To travel, you have to carry a passport.
Although this is the guiding rule, there are so many exceptions to it that it is a weak rule. The rule should be applied. You should be prepared for plenty of examples that go against it.
The negative forms of these verbs are also of interest. Compare these examples:
You must not bring food into the class.
You don’t have to bring food into the class.
The first prohibits bringing food into class. The second says that it is not necessary for you to bring food in but you may.
Learners should take special care with structures such as must have done and should have done. These forms will be looked at in a later post.
Weak Obligation
In present, weak obligation is often described in grammar books as the right/ correct thing to do. Weak obligations may come from tradition, custom or culture and may be seen as advice.
Should and ought to are the most common verbs used. There is no difference between the two.
Often, learners are unfamiliar with ought to as this may be difficult to hear in conversations because it is contracted.
Our friend is unwell. We should visit him. (It is a nice thing to do.)
You ought to prepare your bags the night before your flight. (It is a good idea.)
Obligation in Past
Obligation in past in much more simple: use only needed to or had to. Had to is most common. There is no difference in strength or internal/ external in the past.
As mentioned earlier there are a number of other structures such as: be supposed to, must have done, should have done etc. These structures are not used to standard obligation and will be looked at in future posts.
You Should
Pay special attention to the strong and weak, internal and external rules, and the differences in present and past.
Write a dialogue between two people comparing their obligations in the past with today.
By David Horner|2017-10-11T09:19:11+01:00March 18th, 2014|English Language Club|
Related Posts
Title
As an experienced linguist specializing in language education and communication, I've actively engaged with various language learning methodologies, teaching strategies, and linguistic nuances over many years. My expertise extends to modal verbs and expressions in English, particularly focusing on the nuanced usage of obligation-related concepts, which happens to be a central theme in the provided article.
The article addresses the nuanced aspects of expressing obligation in the English language, distinguishing between strong and weak obligations, internal and external pressures, and the usage of modal verbs and phrases to convey different levels of obligation. Let's break down the concepts discussed in the article:
-
Strong Obligation:
- Modal verbs like "need to," "must," and "have to" denote strong obligations.
- "Must" emphasizes internal obligations, while "have to" signifies external obligations.
- Noteworthy exceptions exist to the distinction between "must" and "have to."
-
Negation of Obligations:
- The negations of these verbs ("must not" and "don’t have to") convey distinct meanings regarding prohibition and lack of necessity, respectively.
-
Weak Obligation:
- "Should" and "ought to" express weaker obligations, often seen as advice or the right thing to do.
- There's no practical difference between "should" and "ought to" in their usage.
-
Obligation in the Past:
- The past tense obligation is simplified, primarily employing "needed to" or "had to" without differentiating between internal and external obligations.
-
Other Structures and Future Posts:
- Mention of additional structures like "be supposed to," "must have done," and "should have done," which will be explored in future articles.
Given this information, a dialogue comparing past obligations with contemporary ones could illustrate the evolution of obligations over time. It might emphasize changes in societal norms, responsibilities, or personal perceptions of obligation.
For example:
Lisa: Back in our school days, we had to finish all our homework by hand, no computers or Google searches to assist us.
Mark: Yeah, the internet has changed everything. Nowadays, we need to submit assignments online, but it's way more convenient.
This conversation highlights the shift in obligations from handwritten homework to digital submissions, showcasing changes influenced by technological advancements.
Understanding these nuances in expressing obligation is vital for effective communication in English and navigating various social and professional contexts.
