CHAPTER 6: THE TRANSLATION OF “MUST” AND “OUGHT TO” IN FRENCH

5.1- The French Counterpart “Devoir”

Another problem about the comprehension of “must” and “ought to” lies in their translation.
Unfortunately, most of the translation from English to French of must and ought to send to the
same word “devoir”. If ought to is translated into French by “devoir” and “must” also by
“devoir”, then we are confronted to the translation problem. How can one make the difference
when “devoir” is attributed to “must” and “when” it is also attributed to ought to? The following
examples will be helpful to highlight the situation:

64-You must enter the current password before you can specify a new one. (Linguee.Fr)

Vous devez entrer votre mot de passe actuel avant d’indiquer le nouveau.

65-Any breakages or cracks in the ceramic surface of the appliance are defects and must be treated as such.
(Linguee.Fr)

Les brins ou les fissures de la surface en céramique constituent des défauts et doivent être traite comme tels.

Now let us see the translation with ought to:

66-The policy does not say that if there is a surplus, the proposed transfer ought to be approved. (Linguee.Fr)

La politique n’indique pas si oui ou non en cas de surplus, l’intention de transfert doit etre approuvée.

67-From this vantage point, Muslims and Christians ought to walk a common path together. (Linguee.Fr)

De ce point de vue, musulman et chrétiens doivent parcourir un chemin commun.

When we look at these utterances, we understand that the same word is used in French to
represent must and ought to. If we take the translated utterance in French how can we know that
it represents must or ought to in the original text.
 If ought to and must are attributed the same word in French then,

Ought to = devoir

Must = devoir

We will have the following representation:

Must

Devoir

Ought to

Let s check the consistency of this analysis through this example:

a. You must stay in bed for 3 days. (Adamczewski and Gabilan, déchiffrer la grammaire anglaise.P.111)

Vous devez rester au lit pendant 3 jours.

a.’ You ought to stay in bed for 3 days.

‘ Vous devez rester au lit pendant 3 jours.

This interchangeability helps us to understand that the translation of must and ought to with
“devoir” in French is not accurate because element that can permit us to distinguish them in
translation is missing.

How can a learner make good use of must and ought to in their translation if s/he cannot have
sufficient element in French to make the difference in translation?
 Now, we are going to analyse utterances taken directly in French to see if it refers to “must” or
“ought to” in English:

68. La sainte appelait les enfants soldats les enfants de Dieu. Trois enfants du bon Dieu
venaient de mourir. Je devrais dire leurs oraisons funèbres, c’est cela la règle.
Je
n’avais pas longtemps vécu avec. Je ne les connaissais pas assez. Le peu que je
connais d eux, c’était plutôt les enfants du Diable que du bon Dieu. (Ahmadou
Kourouma, Allah n’est pas oblige,p.71)

69-“ Mon ami Mousé Lekkol m’a chargé de t’apporter ce petit paquet. Ce nest que l’infime tribut de politesse qu’un
fils doit au père qu’il s’est choisi.”( (Hampaté Ba, L’etrange Destin de Wangrin. P.30)

70-“ Pour atteindre sa valeur la plus haute, l’or doit passer entre les mains d’un orfèvre et recevoir pour support la
beauté d’un corps de femme. Je suis tel un lingot d’or. J’ai besoin que tu sois a la fois mon orfèvre et le corps de
femme indispensable a ma mise en valeur. Aucun de nous ne le regrettera. (Hampaté Ba, L’étrange Destin de
Wangrin. P.96)

In these utterances which criteria may help to know that “devoir” refers to “must” or “ought
to” in English, seeing that both metaoperators are translated by “devoir”? If learners have to
translate these utterances in English will they use “must” or “ought to”? If they choose “must”
what explains this selection and why not “ought to”? In both cases learners are confronted with
the translation of “devoir” into English and the translation of “must” and “ought to” into French
because the translation of “must” and “ought to” is confusing.

This translation procedure fails to come with the difference between “must” and “ought to”.
The French counterpart “devoir” is ambiguous. Learners cannot use “devoir” effectively to
translate “must” and “ought to”. As such, the translation becomes a pet aversion for learners
whom are confronted with the choice of words because they do not dispose of sufficient clues to
justify the choice of “must” and “ought to” translated by “devoir”. If learners cannot translate
appropriately “must” and “ought to” by “devoir” in French and vice versa because of a problem
of choice of words, how can they be able to master the mechanism of language and use
appropriately linguistic units?
 Any translation should be reliable. If a translation is not the representation of the translated
language, then it amounts to that it is not reliable. A translation is reliable because it represents
exactly the translated utterance. Through the contrastivity principle which ensures that languages
shed light on one another, it is clear that each language stands as a tool to reflect other language
and to check for the validity of the same functioning of all languages. Because a language can
have a more elaborated structure and operation which enables it to be more explicit than another.
And translation is the best method to check the validity of the contrastivity principle. So, a
translated utterance should reflect exactly the language from which it is translated. A good
translation helps learners to better understand the mechanism of language and the use of its items.
It also confirms the principle of universal Grammar which stipulates that all languages have the
same rules but differ in their parameters. That is to say, language have different structures but can
also have the same abstract operation. The difference of structure does not mean difference in
functioning. So, we are going to apply the contrastivity principle on “must” and “ought to” to
check if their translation with their French counterpart “devoir” hides a distinctive operation that
makes them different. We will contrast “ought to” and “devoir” to see if they function similarly.

This contrast will enable to check if the English metaoperators “must” and “ought to” display
the same linguistic traces as the French operator “devoir”. This contrast will help to highlight and
understand how “must” and “ought to” translated by “devoir” function.

5.2- A Better Translation of “Must” And “Ought to” by “Devoir”

The work of any linguist is to analyse linguistic item until disclosing its inner function by
extracting the abstract operation hidden behind its uses. Our task here should be to analyse and
disclose the hidden operation through the use of “devoir” which is the French counterpart of
“must” and “ought to” in order to provide learners with sufficient clues for a better translation of
“must” and “ought to” by “devoir”.

We will analyse some utterances to see if “must” translated by “devoir” is different from
“ought to” translated by “devoir”. When we take the above translation, we understand that this
translation does not shed light on “must” and “ought to” because both of them are attributed the
same reference in French “devoir”. Then, it is important to shed light on the translation of “must”
and “ought to” in French in order to know how to use them clearly. If “must” and “ought to”
present different functioning in English, it is clear that They will also present different
functioning in their translation in French. The previous study in English shows that with “must”
there is the will of the speaker to guarantee the predicative relation meaning that the predicate is
imposed on the subject. But with “ought to” the predicate is a property of the subject. Is it the
same case in French when “must” and “ought to” are translated by “devoir”? The analysis of the
following utterances will be helpful:

71- These features must be maintained until the redemption of the obligation. (Linguee.Fr)

Ces caractéristiques doivent rester valables jusqu’ au remboursement de l’obligation.

72-To be a genuinely competitive, knowledge-based economy, Europe must become better at producing
knowledge through research, at diffusing it through education and at applying it through innovation. (Linguee.Fr)

Pour etr une économie de la connaissance véritablement compétitive, l’Europe doit renforcer son aptitude à
produire des connaissances par la recherche, à les diffuser par l’éducation et à les appliquer grace a l’innovation.

73- Since they fall within federal jurisdiction, the federal government must ensure that there are safe for the
motoring public. (Linguee.Fr)

Comme elles relèvent de la compétence du gouvernement fédéral, ce dernier doit veiller a ce qu’elles soient sures
pour les automobilistes.

74-This expansion ought to occur at the north end of the existing terminal thereby adding on to the existing
building. (Linguee.Fr)

Cet agrandissement doit être effectue à l’extrémité nord de l’aéropage actuelle, ce qui permettra d’agrandir
l’empreinte de l’immeuble actuel.

75- Domestic rules in the members states ought to be harmonised in order to improve transparency for the
operators. (Linguee.Fr)
Les règlementations nationales des Etats Membres doivent être harmonisées en vue d’améliorer la transparence pour
les transporteurs.

76- To ensure credibility among your target group you ought to be well informed and familiar with more than
just the key facts. (Linguee.Fr)

Pour assurer votre crédibilité aux yeux de vos groupe cibles, vous devez être bien informe et en savoir plus que
les simples faits clés.

In utterance (71) here as long as the « remboursement de l’ obligation » is not done yet, then
« ces caracteristiques rester valable » remains a constraint on the subject. The use of « jusqu’a »
shows this ireversible condition. This irreversible fact is introduced by « doit ».

In utterance (72) to be « une économie de la connaissance véritablement compétitive » entails

this unique condition « produire des connaissances par la recherche, a les diffuser par l education
et à les appliquer grâce à l’innovation ». So, if « l’Europe » wants to attain this level of
« economie de la connaissance veritablement competitive », it is compulsory for «Europe » to
adopt these principles. It is ireversible. This ireversible condition is introduced by « doit » which
stands as the translation of « must » in French.

In utterance (73) when one is invested with some duties, responsibilities, you do not have
any choice than applying these duties establish by law. Here the speaker uses « doit » to recall
this obligation of the « gouvernement federal » that should make all it possible to help the
« automobilistes ». it is their role. They are under this constraint to accomplish the order or task.

In utterance (74), actually the speaker has detected some reasons that enables him/her to see
that « cet agrandissement être effectue à l’extrémité nord de l’aéropage » because i twill help to
enlarge the space of the building. The use of « ce qui permettra d’agrandir l’empreinte de
l’immeuble actuel » shows that in the eyes of the speaker, it is by enlarging the « north end of the
existing terminal » that will enlarge also the building footprint. So, the speaker ties the subject
(cet agrandissement) and the predicate (agrandir l’empreinte de l’immeuble actuel) because for
him/her, they are compatible.
 In utterance (75) transparency is vital in everything. All institution in charge of a
responsibility should take precaution to improve the quality of this work. Here the speaker shows
the responsibility of « des pays membres » whom should amend « les règlementations
nationales » in order to make better « la transparence pour les transporteurs ». The use of « en
vue d ameliorer » shows this objective of the « les règlementations des états membres ». So, the
speaker ties the subject and the predicate because it is a property of the subject. « Améliorer la
transparence pour les transporteurs » is a property of « réglementations nationales des Etats
Membres ».

In utterance (76) obviously, one cannot claim « crédibilité » among « groupe cible » if he/she
is not well-known and master more than simple information. The use of « bien informé »,
« savoir plus », shows the characteristic of the one who should ensure « crédibilité ». So, the
speaker ties the predicate « être bien informé et en savoir plus que les simples faits clés » to the
subject « vos » because they are naturally compatible through the use of « doit »

Through these analysis on « must » and « ought to » translated by « devoir » (doit) in French,
we understand that the use of « devoir » referring to « must » shows that the predicate is a
constraint on the subject. The speaker ties the subject and predicate through the use of « devoir ».
On the contrary, when « ought to » is translated by « devoir » it shows that the predicate is a
property of the subject. So, the speaker ties the predicate to the subject because they are
compatible. We can see that even in the translation procedure « ought to » translated by
« devoir » shows natural connexion between subject and predicate. We assume that the
translation of « ought to » into « devoir » rather shows that the predicate belongs naturally to the
subject. That is to say, even in French when « devoir » is attributed to « ought to » we should
expect that there be predicative relation between the subject and predicate.

Even if « must » and « ought to » are translated with « devoir » but the translation of « ought
to » into « devoir » hides an abstract element in French which is « en réalité, naturellement »
meaning that the predicate is already acquired by the subject. So, we should add « en réalité,
naturellement » when we translate « ought to » with « devoir ».

A further study drove by Adamczewski and Gabilan in their book “Dechiffrer la grammaire
anglaise” reinforce our analysis. In fact, in the translation of an utterance they propose “en
principe” in French to justify the use of “ought to”. This is the translation:
 Horror house in Cromwell street, Gloucester

The first thing that strikes you about Cromwell street in Gloucester is that it ought to be hard to hide secret from the
neighbours. The street is fairly short, its narrow houses bunched tightly together. It has not through traffic, being
closed off at one end by a car park. Residents, many of them unemployed, are inclined to stand at open windows or
front doors. (The Independent on Sunday, March 1994) (Adamczewski and Gabilan, déchiffrer la grammaire
anglaise.P.114)

La première chose qui frappe à propos de Cromwell Street à Gloucester c’est qu’il s’agit d’une rue assez courte ou
les maisons étroites sont collées les unes aux autres et où il est en principe, difficile de dissimuler quoi que ce soit
aux voisins. C’est une rue a sens unique, dont une extrémité est bloquée par un parking. Les riverains, pour la plupart
sans emploi, passent leur vie a leur fenêtre ou debout sur le pas de leur porte.

They bring the following comment : “ l’énonciateur- ici un journaliste- signale l’évidence
(« vous comprenez, vu la topographie des lieux… ») sans donner son opinion. La
description de la rue parle d’ elle-meme. On comprend donc que le choix se soit porté sur
ought. »……

This analysis of Adamczewski and Gabilan shows that “ought to” is used to establish naturally
the connexion between the S/P. The translation in French carried out by “en Principe” helps to
understand the functioning of “ought to”. There is no difference about the inner functioning of
“ought to” in English as well as in French seeing that even in French the translation reflects the
major role of “ought to”: establish naturally the conexion between S/P. By means of “en
Principe”, “ought to” differentiates itself with “must” in the translation in French. This
explanation provided by Adamczewski and Gabilan shows that the abstract operation of “ought
to” hides the presence of “ en Principe”. Basing on the provided explanation of Adamczewski
and Gabilan, we assume that the translation of “ought to” in French by “devoir” should be
followed by “en Principe” in order to differentiate it with “must” translated by “devoir”.

This term “en Principe” which is the equivalence of “ en realité, normalement” is used to
establish natural compatibility between fact. So, its use come to reinforce the easiest use of
“ought to” translated by “devoir”. The following examples will illustrate the use of « must » and
« ought to » translated by « devoir »:
77-Parents returning from parental leave will have the right to request flexible working arrangements and employers
must consider and respond to such request. (Linguee.Fr)

Au retour d’un congé parental, les parents auront le droit de demander un assouplissement de leur condition de
travail et les employeurs devront examiner ces demandes et y répondre.

78-You must choose a format that will ensure that the recipient can readily become aware of the information.
(Linguee.Fr)

Vous devez choisir un format garantissant que le destinataire peut facilement prendre connaissance des informations.

The use of « must » referring to « devoir » indicates in these utterances that the predicate is
imposed on the subject. So, the predicative relation introduced by « devoir »(must) is forced
(non-congruent: -inherent). So, as long as « must » would be translated in French with « devoir »
it also indicates that there is incongruence between the subject and predicate.

79-We believe that women and men ought to be safe and fed. (Linguee.Fr)

Nous croyons que les femmes et les hommes devraient etr en sécurité et bien alimentés

80-Canada ought to reserve the right to deal with these individuals in a way that is appropriate, that is in keeping
with our tradition of due process and the like. (Linguee.Fr)

Le canada doit se réserver le droit de prendre les mesures voulues a l egard des personnes en cause, dans le respect
de nos traditions et d’une procédure équitable.

The use of « devoir » referring to « ought to » indicates in these utterances that the predicate is
inherent property of the subject. And that beneath the translation into French lies « en Principe »
So, the predicative relation introduced by « devoir »(ought to) is compatible (congruent :
+inherent) ). So, as long as « ought to » would be translated in French with « devoir » it also
indicate that there is congruence between the subject and predicate with (en realité, en Principe,
normalement ). So will have:

79’- We believe that women and men ought to be safe and fed.
 (En principe) Nous croyons que les femmes et les hommes devraient etr en securité et bien alimentés

80’- Canada ought to reserve the right to deal with these individuals in a way that is apropriate, that is in keeping
with our tradition of due process and the like.

(En réalité) Le canada doit se reserver le droit de prendre les mesures voulues a l egard des personnes en
cause, dans le respect de nos traditions et d’une procedure equitable.

Hence the following orientation of the discursive structuring flow:

Must (relation is forced) - inherent

Devoir
ought to (en principe ) + inherent

The use of “en Principe” in French shows the natural occurrence of events or facts. Here, it
indicates that the predicate is a property of the subject. So, the expression “en Principe” shows
that the compatibility between the subject and predicate is expected. This is not the case with
“must” which imposes the predicate on the subject.

Despite the fact that “must” and “ought to” are translated by devoir but the difference lies in
the fact that the translation with “ought to” is followed or preceded by ( en Principe, en realite,
normalement) in French to show that this translation procedure coins much better with the
function of “ought to” which ensures that the predicate is a property of the subject.

This become easier for the learners to translate « must » and « ought to » in French with
« devoir » because the learners are award of the fact that the translation of « ought to » into
French with « devoir » should be followed by « en Principe, en realité, normalement »

This analysis permits to disclose the abstract operation hidden behind the translation of
“must” and “ought to” as “devoir”. This analysis facilitates the translation of “must” and “ought
to”. This analysis helps to raise the ambiguity about their translation into French in order to better
use them in the translation procedure.

A further study came to show that there is a way to differentiate them in the translation as
advocated by Adamczewski and G.P Gabilan in their book ‘Dechiffrer la grammaire Anglaise’
where they shows clearly that in the translation of ‘ought to’ we should had ‘en principe’ like in
the example below;

(Prendre deux utterances tirer du meme livre de ought to et must.)

Bien que must et ought to soit traduit par devoir mais la difference cest que la traduction avec
ought to doit etre accompagne

Despite the fact that must and ought to are translated by devoir but the difference lies in the fact
that the translation with ought to is followed or preceded by ( en principe, en realite,
naturellement) in French to show that this translation procedure coins much better with the
function of ought to which ensures that the predicate is naturally a property of the subject.

This shows that even in the simple or normal translation ought to indicates that the predicate is a
property of the subject. Et ajouter que meme dans la traduction normale ought to indique le
predicat est un acquis du sujet.

L usage du terme ‘en principe’ en francais montre que naturellement la chose en est ainsi. C est a
dire que le predicat est une propriete du sujet. Donc l expression ‘en principe’ vient montrer qu
on doit s attendre a ce le predicat s accorde naturellement avec le sujet. Ce qui n est pas le cas
avec must qui impose le predicat au sujet de manière irreversible. C est pourquoi harraps
dictionary ends up saying. Esssayer de voir ici avec la contrastivity.
A translation is reliable …

Une traduction qui ne rend pas fidelement l esprit du texte traduit est une mauvaise traduction.
La traduction est un proceder linguistique qui permet d elucider une langue dans une autre. Si
cette traduction n est pas approprier alors elle cree de l ambiguitee pour les usagers de la langue.
En revanche, une traduction approprier est le reflet des mots d une langue a une autre. Quand la
traduction est bien faite et bien saisie alors elle leve toute incomprehension et ambiguitee
permettant ainsi aux learner de bien utiliser les unites linguistique appropriement, comme il se
doit. La traduction est donc un puissant procedee qui permet aux langues de shed light on each
other et de comprendre le mechanisme de ces langues dans leurs structures. La traduction nous
permet ainsi de confirmer la regle de la grammaire universelle qui a le meme fonctionnement
general mais differe dans leur parametre cest a dire dans leur structure. Nous comprenons qu avec
la traduction, on peut parvenir a comprendre le fonctionnement d’une langue a une autre. En un
mot, une traduction doit etre fiable parceque elle permet de faire la lumiere sur l usage des unites
linguistique d une langue a une autre.

Lorsque nous prenons la traduction above proposer pour must and ought to nous comprenons
que cela ne rend pas la lumiere quant a la langue francaise parceque must and ought to sont
assimiler a une seule reference doit,devoir. Alors, il faut apporter la lumiere sur la traduction de
must and ought to en francais afin d avoir des precision sur comment les utiliser clairement. Si
must and ought to presente un fonctionnement different en anglais c est donc clair qu ils
presenteront un fonctionnement different dans la traduction en francais. Nous avons vu en anglais
qu avec must il y a une volontee du speaker de garantir la predication cest a dire que le predicat
est imposee au sujet. Mais avec ought to le predicat est par nature une proprietee du sujet. En est
il le cas en francais lorsque must and ought to sont traduit par doit,devoir. Analysons les
utterances suivants pour voir ;
 Lorsque nous prenons la traduction above proposer pour must and ought to nous comprenons
que cela ne rend pas la lumiere quant a la langue francaise parceque must and ought to sont
assimiler a une seule reference doit,devoir. Alors, il faut apporter la lumiere sur la traduction de
must and ought to en francais afin d avoir des precision sur comment les utiliser clairement. Si
must and ought to presente un fonctionnement different en anglais c est donc clair qu ils
presenteront un fonctionnement different dans la traduction en francais. Nous avons vu en anglais
qu avec must il y a une volontee du speaker de garantir la predication cest a dire que le predicat
est imposee au sujet. Mais avec ought to le predicat est par nature une proprietee du sujet. En est
il le cas en francais lorsque must and ought to sont traduit par doit,devoir. Analysons les
utterances suivants pour voir ;

( trouver les utterances, les analyser et deduire que must traduit par doit impose le predicat au
sujet alors que ought to traduit par doit montre plutôt que le predicat appartient naturellement au
sujet. C est a dire que meme en francais avec doit attribuee a ought to , on doit sattendre a ce qu il
est predicative relation between subject and predicate)
 Through these analysis on « must » and « ought to » translated by « devoir » (doit) in French,
we understand that the use of « devoir » referring to « must » shows that the predicate is a
constraint on the subject. The speaker ties the subject and predicate through the use of
« devoir » . On the contrary, when « ought to » is translated by « devoir » it shows that the
predicate is a property of the subject. So, the speaker ties the predicate to the subject because they
are compatible. We can see that even in the translation procedure « ought to » translated by
« devoir » shows natural connexion between subject and predicate. We assume that the
translation of « ought to » into « devoir » rather shows that the predicate belongs naturally to the
subject. That is to say , even in French when « devoir » is attributed to « ought to » we should
expect that there be predicative relation between the subject and predicate.

Even if « must » and « ought to » are translated with « devoir » but the translation of « ought
to » into « devoir » hides an abstract element in French which is « en réalité, naturellement »
meaning that the predicate is already acquired by the subject. So, we should add « en réalité,
naturellement » when we translate « ought to » with « devoir ». The folowing examples will
illustrate the use of « must » and « ought to » translated by « devoir » :

Parents returning from parental leave will have the right to request flexible working
arrangements and employers must consider and respond to such request.

Au retour d’un congé parental, les parents auront le droit de demander un assomplissement de
leur conditions de travail et les employeurs devront examiner ces demandes et y repondre.

You must choose a format that will ensure that the recipient can readily become aware of the
information.

Vous devez choisir un format garantissant que le destinataire peut facilement prendre
connaissance des informations.
 This translation procedure still sets the problem of differentiating must and ought to.
Learners cannot well translate doit to must and ought to because meaning is confusing.
TABLE 1: OUGHT TO AND MUST IN Oxford Learner Dictionary

OUGHT TO MUST

Modal verb Modal Verb

1. used to say what is the right thing to do. 1. used to say that something is necessary
or very important (sometimes involving
2. used to say what you expect or would like to happen. a rule or law)
3. used to say what you advise or recommend. 2. used to say that something is likely or
logical.
4. used to say what has probably happened or is probably 3. used to recommend that someone do
something because you think it is a
true. good idea.
 5.4 Must and Ought to In The Structuration Process

The previous study gives us more details to understand the different steps
those items went through until the present day. We understand that both items share
the same meanings: duty and obligation. However, a striking fact is that the way
each of them is used in utterances shows that they do not have the same behavior in
the structuring process. Both of them display different processes in utterances. What
are then the different processes displayed by each of them? This question will lead
us to quest for the operation performed by each of them through a detailed analysis.
“Ought to” and “must” are metalinguistic tools used to make comment on the
structuring process. They comment on the message provided by the speaker. They
give information on the mood of utterances. When the speaker uses them, it
expresses a feeling or desire s/he wants to be achieved. Both of them have different
orientations because the way their comment on the structuring process is different.
We will have the following scheme or representation of “must” and “ought to”:

OUGHT TO
Subject Predicate

MUST
Subject Predicate

This schematization helps us to grasp the different predicative relations

displayed by “must” and “ought to.” The first arrow shows that the predicative
relation introduced by “ought to” is compatible, in concordance, with the subject.
However, the second one proves the contrary because the predicative relation is
incompatible with the subject.