"Have To" and "Be To"
Bhatt (1997) notes that possessive constructions are used crosslinguistically to express deontic
modality. Languages with possessive "have" may also use "have" to express deontic modality (1-2),
while those using "be" possessively may also use "be" modally (3-4).
Contrary to this prediction, English uses both "have" and "be" to express deontic necessity. (1, 5). I
argue that "have to " and "be to" constructions in English are unrelated and semantically distinct: "have
to" encodes deontic modality through a modal projection taking scope within vP. "Be to" encodes
imperative force, where modality is realized through a modal projection above TP. This analysis calls
into question recent claims (Butler 2005) that expressions of root necessity take scope uniformly over vP.
Following Kayne (1993) and Bhatt (1997), I propose that "have" arises from the incorporation of a
preposition-like complementizer into "be" (6). Diverging from Bhatt's (1997) analysis of "have to", I
propose that modality is contributed by the preposition itself, rather than by movement of "have" to a
higher modal projection. I take this complementizer to be a covert version of "for", which behaves both
as a complementizer and preposition , and introduces nonfinite (and typically irrealis) clauses. The
possibility of prepositions encoding modality is supported by constructions in which they introduce
intensional contexts and propositional attitudes (7-8). Crosslinguistic evidence comes from San Lucas
Quaiviní Zapotec, an Otomanguean language of Mexico, which uses a copula combined with a borrowed
Spanish preposition par and a complement clause with irrealis mood to express deontic modality (9).
The resulting low scope of modality is confirmed by the fact that "have to" takes scope below
negation, unlike other expressions of deontic necessity (10-11), and that "have to" may co-occur with
other modal auxiliaries (12). These facts also hold when "have to" gets an epistemic reading (13-14),
calling into question proposals that epistemic modality is necessarily licensed in a different, higher
projection than root modality (Brennan 1997, Butler 2005, among others ).
Modal "be" in English, is unrelated to modal "have" and encodes imperative force. Like imperatives
(but unlike other expressions of deontic necessity) "be to" constructions introduce obligations that
speakers and hearers absolutely believe will be fulfilled (15-17), strictly order the time the obligation is
fulfilled after the speech time (18-19), and cannot be modified by adverbs of qualification (20-22).
Imperative subjects are claimed to be logophoric (Portner 2004); subjects of "be to" constructions are
likewise pragmatically marked: they are construed as lacking volition (23) since, like imperatives, "be
to" constructions introduce obligations externally imposed on their subjects. The imperative force
encoded by "be to" constructions is also consistent with their inability to express epistemic modality (24-
25). Like imperatives, "be to" constructions are generally disallowed with individual-level predicates (26-
27).
"Be to" constructions also differ from imperatives in crucial ways. Unlike imperatives, they have
truth values and obligatorily overt subjects, do not require speakers to be construed as the issuers of the
obligation (28), nor are their subjects necessarily construed as addressees (23, 28).
I propose that "be to" constructions are not themselves imperatives, but encode the speech act of
reporting an imperative. Thus, (5) can be paraphrased "Someone told me `study for the test!'". "Be to"
constructions have truth values because they assert the existence of imperatives, not serve as imperatives
themselves. For this reason, speakers and hearers of "be to" constructions need not be construed as the
issuers of obligation or imperative subjects. Because speakers cannot question the validity or eventual
outcome of the embedded imperative (16,21), modal necessity must be encoded in the matrix clause, as
well as in the embedded imperative. This is confirmed by scope facts when both the matrix and
embedded clause are negated: necessity takes scope over both instances of negation (29). This suggests
that modal features are checked high--above NegP and TP--in "be to" constructions.
This analysis of "be to" is consistent with observations (Han 1999) that the rare contexts in which
embedded imperatives appear crosslinguistically include quotative structures and complements of verbs
of saying or reporting. The fact that the modal event denoted by "be to" is represented as an infinitival
clause rather than a standard imperative is consistent with the fact that embedded clauses with imperative
force often take different morphosyntactic forms than standard imperatives (Portner 2003, among others).
1. I have to study. 2. Tengo que estudiar
Have.1s.pres. to study
"I have to study" (Spanish)
3 Ram-er ek-ta boi aachhe 4. Ram-er Dilli je-te ho-be
Ram-GEN one-CL book be.PRS Ram-GEN Delhi go-INF be-FUT
"Ram has a book" (Bhatt 1997) "Ram has to go to Delhi" (Bhatt 1997)
5.I am to study for the test.
6. [VP [V [C/P] [VBE ]] [CP t C/P [TP to [vP V ]]]]
7. We're moving [PP towards a world without cancer]
8. Sondra is [PP at the end of her rope]
9. Na par g-auw-a'
be for irr-eat-1s
"I should eat/have to eat" (San Lucas Quiaviní Zapotec)
10. You don't have to stay here. (NEG>NECESSITY)
11. You must not stay here. (NEC> NOT)
12. If he actually took the bribe, John should have to resign.
13. Sondra didn't have to be home at the time of the murder. (She could have been next door)
(NEG> NEC)
14. Sondra must have to work late tonight; she's still not home.
15. I have to finish this by tomorrow. But I bet I won't.
16. Go away! #But I bet you won't.
17. I am to ship out tomorrow. #But I bet I won't.
18. I'm studying because I have to study/#because I am to study.
19. Study! #But you already are.
20. Perhaps, you have to study harder
21. #Perhaps, study harder!
22. #Perhaps, you are to study harder.
23. John and Mary are to stop seeing each other (even though they love each other).
24. Pam has to be tall. Look at the size of her shoes!
25. #Pam is to be tall. Look at the size of her shoes!
26. #Pam, be tall!
27. #Pam is to be tall.
28. I am to leave tomorrow. ("I" can't be issuer of obligation)
29. The children are not to sit around doing nothing (NEC > NEG > NEG)