43

Do native speakers still use "ought to" in daily conversation?

I haven't seen "ought to" used on any social or news ... websites. I only read about it in English grammar books.

Ngram:

ought to

Trends:

ought to Google trends

UPDATE:

  • Is "ought to" still used by native speaker of American English?

  • Is "ought to" still used by native speaker of British English?

Shannak
  • 4,540
  • 21
  • 80
  • 129
  • 13
    I sure do. But when I say it it usually sounds like "oughta" ... almost nobody pronounces "ought to" in full. Example: "You oughta get a raise if they're gonna work you this hard." But should is often used instead of ought to these days. – Robusto Feb 16 '17 at 23:38
  • 2
    @stangdon: I would be inclined to disagree. – Robusto Feb 16 '17 at 23:42
  • 5
    "Why I oughta!" - The Three Stooges. http://m.memegen.com/s5gnxb.jpg – Catija Feb 17 '17 at 00:40
  • 16
    @Robusto - Hey, at this point any evidence that the OP has actually done some research is welcome to me... – stangdon Feb 17 '17 at 01:26
  • 2
    Perhaps the reason it's seldom seen on social media or news is that those are generally descriptive - "The President held a news conference", while "ought to" is more prescriptive "I ought to clean the bathroom tonight, but I'm commenting on StackExchange instead". – jamesqf Feb 17 '17 at 05:02
  • 1
    Once you're done with "ought to", you might want to investigate "oughtn't to" and "sha'n't". My grandparents used them in everyday conversation when I was a small child, but I rarely hear either now; it's all "shouldn't" these days. – Eric Lippert Feb 17 '17 at 05:45
  • 1
    Be careful about what you mean by 'native' here. Based on this question and answers I suspect usage is declining in the US far more than in England, where it's certainly very common. – stripybadger Feb 17 '17 at 08:51
  • It ought to be used more often since it makes your remarks sound rather more high class. – Kaithar Feb 17 '17 at 12:49
  • 1
    Bear in mind that Twitter's character limit might mean people may choose to use less characters with "should" (6) instead of "ought to" (8) - the same thing goes for SEO, using one word instead of two is often seen as a better choice when targeting the general public. – Rycochet Feb 17 '17 at 15:25
  • 1
    Not as much as I use ought've, but yes. (American, Midwest) – Mazura Feb 17 '17 at 17:53
  • @Mazura Ought’ve? What manner of bizarre monstrosity is this? That looks downright disturbing to my eyes. I know that semi-modals can reduce a following infinitival to to just /ə/, that all modals can reduce a following auxiliary have to /ə/ as well, and that the combination to have can also be reduced to /ə/, so that ought to have is pronounced [ɑːɾə] in AmE. But to write it as ought’ve? Man, that’s just wrong. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Feb 17 '17 at 18:24
  • I can't speak for American English, but in English the term is certainly very much alive! (I'm sorry that this is an anecdote, rather than evidence-based.) – Lightness Races in Orbit Feb 17 '17 at 13:27
  • 8
    To hear everyday examples, you ought to come to the Southern U.S. The phrase is still alive and well here. – Jake Achée Feb 17 '17 at 04:10
  • 2
    It's usage peaked in 1995: And I'm here, to remind you - Of the mess you left when you went away - It's not fair, to deny me - Of the cross I bear that you gave to me - You, you, you oughta know. – cobaltduck Feb 17 '17 at 20:44
  • 2
    @JanusBahsJacquet My favourite contraction, to this day, remains oughtn't've :P – Au101 Feb 17 '17 at 23:26
  • I certainly use it; I also use should, but both have a slightly judgmental quality, which limits use with those one does not know well—possibly should slightly more disapproving than ought. – Sally G Feb 18 '17 at 03:31
  • It's declining, but it's still in use, at least in the South. I usually pronounce it more as "oughta." – user3932000 Feb 18 '17 at 07:42
  • @EricLippert "sha'n't" would more likely have "won't" as its modern usage equivalent, rather than "shouldn't". Sha'n't = shall not; shall ≈ will. – Dan Henderson Feb 18 '17 at 22:16
  • 1
    @Rycochet for Twitter, "oughta" (6) could be used by someone who would otherwise use "ought to". – Dan Henderson Feb 18 '17 at 22:18
  • @DanHenderson except by people who still like to spell properly ;-) – Rycochet Feb 19 '17 at 16:29

4 Answers4

48

Is "ought to" still used?

Yes, some native speakers still use ought to, even on social media:

Pres Trump ought to see the writing on the wall, abandon proposal, roll up his sleeves & come up w/ a real, bipartisan plan to keep us safe.
Senator Chuck Schumer on Twitter

It should be noted that the to is not required in the negative:

Margaret ought not exercise too much.
EnglishPage.com

Ought to can also be (very informally) written as oughta.

Is usage really declining?

Yes, I believe so. As a native American English speaker, I don't use it a lot. I prefer to use "should". A search of my text messages and other private messages (some of which is 3 years old) for ought/oughta comes up with nothing, meaning that neither me nor my friends/family use it in written communication. And I found some other sources that indicate it’s not just me.

Some grammar books don't cover ought at all:

In the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, Biber et al. even explicitly exclude ought to from the discussion, arguing that it is among a group of “marginal auxiliary verbs” that “are extremely rare and largely confined to BrE”
Root Modal Uses of Should, Ought to and Be Supposed to in Present-Day English: From Patterns and Profiles to Proficiency Guidelines

Other sources confirm that its usage is declining:

In a recent article, Leech has drawn attention to the changing status of modals in present day use. He says: “According to an exploratory investigation we have undertaken, the English modal auxiliaries as a group have been declining significantly in their frequency of use” (2003: 223), and explicitly recommends “to those involved in the teaching of English as a second or foreign language” not to “waste hours of valuable classroom time teaching shall and ought to”
The study of modal verbs from a pedagogical perspective, quoting Leech's Modality on the Move

It even seems to be becoming less common in British English, as the Svartvik and Wright study was done on British teens in 1977:

Svartvik and Wright demonstrate that the modal auxiliary ought (to) is disappearing from the language and is being replaced by should, particularly in non-assertive contexts such as questions and negative statements.
Acceptability in Language

More Resources

Laurel
  • 15,632
  • 3
  • 42
  • 73
  • 21
    As a Brit, I'm not convinced that many teenagers in the UK speak any form of English! You might also consider whether the reason for the decline in usage is sociological not linguistic - if the current trend is towards moral relativism, there is no use for the word "ought" any more. – alephzero Feb 17 '17 at 02:23
  • 2
    @alephzero That latter is exactly what I was thinking--it's not the expression that's declining per se so much as the idea it communicates. – chrylis -cautiouslyoptimistic- Feb 17 '17 at 02:54
  • Unfortunately that makes sense to me as well. :( – Harukogirl Feb 17 '17 at 03:02
  • 1
    FWIW, as a "well-spoken" Brit (that is, I don't go around saying "innit"'; well, not to everybody, anyway) I use "ought to" in general conversation. – Lightness Races in Orbit Feb 17 '17 at 13:26
  • 4
    I'm not a well-spoken Brit, but the example sentence "Margaret ought not exercise too much." in this answer doesn't look right to me. Oughtn't there be a "to" in there? – Mr Lister Feb 17 '17 at 13:39
  • 3
    @MrLister: It's fine. We ought not complain about it :) c.f. "I need not do that" or "Margaret need not exercise too much". Indeed, in that example, the "to" would sound strange! Odd language. – Lightness Races in Orbit Feb 17 '17 at 14:57
  • 2
    @MrLister Oughtn't there to've been a "to" in your question, then? (: –  Feb 17 '17 at 15:01
  • Even though the usage is declining, that just means that it has become more productive as a marker of register. – SevenSidedDie Feb 17 '17 at 15:32
  • @alephzero "ought to" has more of a moral connotation than "should"? Because "should" still seems common. – JAB Feb 17 '17 at 17:01
  • @MrLister In British English I believe you're correct; the "to" is compulsory, even if there's a "not." In American English it can be dropped. – Schism Feb 17 '17 at 17:22
  • @JAB Should has always been more common than ought (by a lot), but should is also declining: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=should%2Cought%2Coughta&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cshould%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cought%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Coughta%3B%2Cc0 – 1006a Feb 17 '17 at 18:30
  • 1
    I find this shocking, and wonder whether some of this is due to people, like the asker, looking for "ought to", when they oughta be looking for "oughta". – DCShannon Feb 17 '17 at 19:26
  • 2
    I use it frequently and wouldn't hesitate to use it in any conversation. I am British. – Mark Setchell Feb 17 '17 at 21:43
  • I don't think anybody else has pointed this out, but for me at least (And presumably others I know), saying "oughtta/ ought to" is far more common than writing it. It falls into the category of things that are said but look wrong in written form, so I replace it almost without thinking with something more formal. – Darren Ringer Feb 18 '17 at 23:49
16

Social media is a pretty poor indicator of how people actually speak, in my personal opinion. As for the news and media - I don't know why you haven't heard it there very often. It is still used, though. I'm in my 30's, and I use "ought to" regularly. And I do pronounce the full 2 words, I do not say "oughta."

Of course, I'm also a bookworm and a librarian. But no, the word has not died in modern English yet. I have heard others use it as well.

Harukogirl
  • 429
  • 2
  • 4
  • 2
    Concur on nearly all of this- I definitely slur it, it would take a distinct effort for me to separate those two words. But aside from that, yeah. I wonder if there's a regional aspect to it? I'm from New Jersey, and I consider it a common phrase. I probably use it more in spoken language than written, but my written speech patterns significantly differ from my spoken ones, so that doesn't mean much. – gp782 Feb 17 '17 at 02:43
  • 1
    Unforunately social media is a good indicator of how most people speak but not a good indicator of how the people speak that one wants to be speaking to. – Magic Lasso Feb 17 '17 at 22:01
  • 1
    I disagree - most people do not speak in only contractions or say BRB to their friends - they say "be right back." Text speech/social media posts are the lowest common denominator in modern English. – Harukogirl Feb 17 '17 at 23:37
  • 1
    Lol yes in that sense you are very right although I do hear a spoken "lol" sometimes. – Magic Lasso Feb 18 '17 at 03:50
14

'Ought to' often has a somewhat sarcastic or even chastising tone to it in modern American English whereas 'should' carries less tone and therefore is more often used.

"Mike ought to check his oil" is mostly used when the speaker is implying that Mike isn't going to check the oil or that he should have already. While "Mike should check his oil" only gives the implication that the speaker is providing a suggestion. Certainly the actual tone with which they are delivered can change the implications, but for neutral delivery this seems to apply.

ColleenV
  • 11,971
  • 13
  • 47
  • 85
Magic Lasso
  • 241
  • 1
  • 3
2

Yes, ought to still exists and is used.

It can be heard and read in daily news too (though not often).

I'm active on few social sites and read many Internet articles, I ought to say it still exists.

Just a note: Ought is a modal verb and doesn't behave like ordinary verbs.

ColleenV
  • 11,971
  • 13
  • 47
  • 85
Deva
  • 21
  • 2