MODAL VERBS

Modality is concerned with the speaker's attitude to the factuality or actualization of

the situation expressed by the rest of the clause. Modality refers to notions like possibility,
impossibility, necessity, which are derived from the fact that “human beings often think or
behave as though things might be or might have been other than they actually are or were”,
i.e., we experience certain states of affairs in the real world, but then we imagine that things
are different and in this way we talk about possible worlds.
Compare:

He wrote it himself. (unmodalized declarative sentence – fact)

He must have written it himself. (modalized sentence – the truth of the proposition is
not presented as something that is directly known, but as something that is inferred)
You must help him. (modalized sentence about the actualization of a future situation – I
impose on you the obligation to bring this situation about )

The linguistic expression of modality through:

1) lexical modals: adjectives (possible, necessary, likely, bound, supposed, etc.), adverbs
(perhaps, probably, certainly, etc.), verbs (insist, permit, require, etc.), nouns
(possibility, probability, necessity, permission, etc.);
2) the subjunctive (both synthetic and analytic);
3) imperatives (typically used as directives indicating that the speaker wants the
actualization of a situation);
4) modal auxiliaries

Morpho-syntactic properties of modals (the NICE properties –

Huddleston 1976):

1) Negation can attach to the modal, without DO-support (I cannot come. / *I do not can
come.);
2) Subject-Modal Inversion is possible in interrogative sentences and in tags; DO cannot
be inserted (Must they leave? / *Do they must leave? / You can speak English, can't
you? / *You can speak English, don't you?);
3) Modals can appear in Coda (I can come and so can Bill. / *I can come and so does
Bill.);
4) Emphatic affirmation is possible without Do-support (You shall have the money by
tomorrow. / *You do shall have the money by tomorrow.).

(1) – (4) distinguish modals from lexical verbs and show that they behave like the
auxiliaries be, have and do.

Other properties that distinguish them from both lexical verbs and the auxiliaries have and be:
 they are incompatible with non-finite forms (*They are canning to do it. / *To can or
not to can, that is the question.);
 they are incompatible with agreement (*He mays do it.);
 they always select a short infinitive as their complement (They must (*to) leave
immediately.);
  they have no passive form;
 they have no imperative;
 they cannot co-occur (except in certain dialects) – You might would say that. / I don't
feel as if I should ought to leave. (Southern USA)
 some modals have two tense forms – present and past (can-could), some have a past
tense form which can only be used in reported speech (permission might), while others
have only one form, which can be used in past contexts only under certain conditions
(The boss said they must leave immediately.)
 a modal is always the first verb in a finite verbal group, i.e., it cannot be selected by
any other auxiliary.

These properties show that modals have a non-lexical status, behaving like functional
categories.
On the other hand, their descriptive content is very much like the semantic content of any
lexical category.

Dimensions of modality (Huddleston & Pullum 2002):

Distinctions among modals are made on three dimensions:

(1) – the strength of commitment (prototypically the speaker's) to the factuality or
actualization of a situation;

- strong modality – necessity involves a strong commitment

You must come in immediately. (instruction (strong); you don't have a choice)
You must have one of these cakes. (offer rather that order (less strong) –
pragmatic weakening; must is a semantically strong modal, but in this context its strength is
reduced)
- weak modality – possibility involves a weak commitment
You may take your tie off. (permission)
You may leave now. (boss to secretary – order: pragmatic strengthening)
- medium modality: should, ought to

The meeting must be over by now. (strong)

The meeting should/ought to be over by now. ( medium) – (but it may not be)
The meeting may be over by now. (weak) – (but it's unlikely to be)

(2) – kind of modality – it refers to the different meanings of modals

a) epistemic modality (< Greek “knowledge”):

- it concerns the speaker's attitude to the factuality of past and present
situations (though future+epistemic is not impossible and more likely in conjunction with
adverbs – It must surely rain soon.; also, epistemic may occurs freely with future situations –
He may come back tomorrow. vs. He must come back tomorrow. (deontic must))
- it involves qualifications concerning the speaker's knowledge;
- it applies to the domain of reasoning (i.e., it is governed by the rational laws
of deduction – we interpret the world via the laws of human reason. The basis for modality in
this case is actually the lack of knowledge (if you know x, then x is x, but to be certain of x
doesn’t mean that x is x).

b) deontic modality (Greek “binding”):

- it concerns the speaker's attitude to the actualization of future situations
(though deontic+past is also possible – Candidates must have completed at least two years of
undergraduate study. (only if expressing a general requirement/condition));
- it's about imposing obligation/prohibition, granting permission, etc. (the
person/authority/convention or whatever the obligation comes from = deontic source)
- it applies to the domain of human interaction (i.e., it is governed by social or
institutional laws – they are of two kinds: related to the idea of some legal authority/institution
and related to social status (less formal laws) according to which you have or you don’t have
authority over somebody else); these modalities refer to duty, compulsion, order, command,
appropriateness etc.).

c) dynamic modality
- it involves properties or dispositions of persons referred to in the clause,
especially by the subject (She can easily beat everyone else in the club. / She can speak
French. (the latter is actually ambiguous between ability and permission)). Dynamic ability is
less central to modality than deontic permission in that it does not involve the speaker's
attitude to the factuality or actualization of the situation.
- while with deontic modality the conditioning factors are external to the
relevant individual, with dynamic modality they are internal (deontic modality relates to
obligation or permission, emanating from an external source, whereas dynamic modality
relates to ability or willingness, which comes from the individual concerned);
- it is partially governed by the natural laws of physics, chemistry, biology,
anatomy etc., referring to modalities that define the notion of physical and intellectual
ability/capacity.

(3) - degree of modality and modal harmony – it has to do with the extent to which there is a
clearly identifiable and separable element of modal meaning. Compare:

They know her. (unmodalized) vs. They may know her. (high degree modality) – sharp
contrast in meaning
Strange as it seems, I believe you. (unmodalized) vs. Strange as it may seem, I believe
you. (low degree modality) – hardly any difference in meaning

Modal harmony: V+Adv (the most common case):

The meeting must surely be over by now. (strong)

The meeting should probably be over by now. (medium)
The meeting may possibly be over by now. (weak)
 CAN / COULD
DYNAMIC CAN – ability

Dynamic can expresses physical or mental ability, referring to potential acts, not real
ones, indicating a disposition of the subject (it involves internal properties of the subject-
referent):
He can speak English. The baby can already walk.
Look, I can / *am able to swim. (Pot sa inot. - now)
Can is used in parallel with a synonymous expression having a fuller range of forms -
to be able to. Apart from replacing can in contexts for which the modal has no forms, to be
able to has a specific meaning, and in certain contexts we do distinguish between the uses of
the two. To be able to is preferred when referring to a specific achievement:
Mary has now recovered from her illness and is able to go to school.
Dynamic can (but not be able to) is commonly used with verbs of perception (see,
hear, smell, taste, feel) and cognitive verbs of the type believe, remember, understand.
When used with verbs of physical perception can actualizes the reference of the verb. In this
respect, can is like an aspectual marker (not translated):
I see the swallows flying up the sky. / I can see the swallows flying up in the sky.
Do you hear the wind blowing? / Can you hear the wind blowing?
Each pair of sentences has the same translation (Vad randunelele zburand sus pe cer.
and Auzi cum sufla vantul?).
Dynamic can has two past forms: could and was / were able to. Could is used to
express a habitual or recurrent event in the past, describing generic ability. Was/were able to
refers to the actual performance of a single successful achievement. Compare:
He could play the piano very well when he was a child. (generic)
When he moved closer to the painting, he was able to / *he could see that it was a
fake. (particular)
On the other hand, couldn’t will always imply that the event didn’t take place. There is
no difference between could and to be able to in negative sentences.
Ability in the future is expressed by means of the periphrastic shall/will be able to.

A special use of dynamic can is the 'existential' use – when we refer to what is
sometimes the case: These animals can be dangerous. / Lilac can be purple or white. / He can
sometimes be tactless/helpful. When the subject is singular, the sentence describes
characteristic behaviour.

DEONTIC CAN - permission

Deontic can expresses permission. Can is more widely employed than 'permission'
may in colloquial English. In formal and polite English, be it written or spoken, we encounter
the opposite phenomenon. May replaces can in all contexts, being perceived as the more
respectable form. However, unlike may, which is employed when an authority gives you
permission, the use of can suggests that 'you have permission' rather than 'I give you
permission'. In other words, there is no rule or law that prevents you from performing a
certain action. Compare:
Old man: You can park here as far as I know.
Policeman: You may park here. Permission can has an additional pragmatic
interpretation in sentences like: You can forget about your holiday. (strong recommendation)
or You can jump in the lake if you feel like it. (sarcastic suggestion).
In interrogations the use of can to request permission is simply a matter of courtesy;
the hearer is not usually in a position to deny permission:
Can I leave now? / Can I have the salt?
Could for permission is a more tentative, more polite form than can.
Negative sentences use either cannot or may not to refuse permission (denial of
permission):
You may not leave yet. (I do not permit you to leave…) vs.
You mustn't talk loudly in this auditorium. (I oblige you no to talk loudly in this
auditorium)
Though both sentences represent prohibitions, the second seems to be more forceful
because it is interpreted as positively forbidding an action instead of negatively refusing
permission.
There is no past time for permission can with the exception of could used as a past
tense form in reported speech:
He said I could leave the next day. / She said that, if he wanted, he could join us.

EPISTEMIC CAN - possibility/impossibility

Epistemic can expresses the possibility/impossibility of an action to take place.

It is more frequent in negations and interrogations, whereas in affirmative sentences may is
preferred:
He may be reading in the library.
Can he be reading in the library?
He can't be reading in the library.
Roughly speaking, we can establish a distinction between can and may in affirmative
sentences if we conceive of them in terms of the opposition factual vs. theoretical possibility
(though this distinction is not always observed). Compare:
The dollar can be devalued. (theoretical possibility)
The dollar may be devalued. (factual possibility)
When uttered, the second sentence should be taken more seriously because it does not
refer to a mere possibility that has occurred to the speaker, but to a real contingency, such as a
time of financial crisis.
While cannot expresses the impossibility of some action to occur (external negation),
may not suggests the possibility of something not happening (internal negation):
If he saw a light it can’t have been the light of the car. (external negation)
(it is not possible that he saw the light of the car)
He may not arrive in time. (internal negation)
(it is possible that he does not arrive in time)
For past time reference epistemic can combines with the perfect infinitive like any
other epistemic modal:
He can't have had time to hide the evidence.
Could he have spread that vicious rumor about the twins?
 MAY / MIGHT
DEONTIC MAY - permission

Deontic may is used to grant or give permission when the speaker has the authority to
do so (see comparison to permission can above). Permission may is also present in rules and
regulations in formal English: A local health authority may, with the approval of the Minister,
receive from persons to which advice is given under this section… such charges, (if any) as
the authority consider reasonable. Since the example refers specifically to the powers a
certain official is endowed with, its semantic content accounts for the presence of permission
may.
In questions, may signals the hearer's authority, not the speaker's, being similar to
must.
When permission is denied, the speaker uses either may not or must not if the authority
prohibits some action (You may not visit that family. / You must not speak to her again!).
For past time reference may is replaced by to be allowed to, whereas in reported
speech might is used:
I was eventually allowed to go abroad to visit my relatives.
The nurse said we might speak to the patient.

EPISTEMIC MAY

As already mentioned above, epistemic may is used to express possibility, focusing

primarily on specific situations. For instance, a sentence like A friend may betray you is
interpreted more like a warning about a particular friend. In this case the truth of the sentence
or its falsity can be verified. On the other hand, can basically focuses on general situations. In
a sentence like A friend can betray you it is suggested that friends sometimes do that.
When combined with the perfect infinitive, may / might refer to events in the past:
He may have already discovered the secret of that tomb.
(NB. He can't have already discovered the secret of that tomb.)
May with the sense of 'possibility' also appears in concessive clauses in colloquial
English as an alternative to an although clause:
You may be in charge, but this doesn't give you the right to be rude.
Although you are in charge, this doesn't give you the right to be rude.

May / might / can / could combine with several modal adverbs that emphasize the
modal expression with both present and past time reference (modal harmony).
I might well decide to come.
I might just start to trust you.
You might as well have been killed.
You couldn’t possibly know her.
May / might as well expresses the idea that there is no alternative left to a bad
situation: We might as well give up now because we don't stand a chance if we fight against
them.
 MUST, HAVE (GOT) TO
DEONTIC MUST / HAVE (GOT) TO - deontic necessity/obligation

The relationship between must and have to parallels that between may and can in both
their deontic and epistemic meanings.
When employed with its deontic meaning, must expresses obligation. Must has either
neutral reference when, for instance, the speaker says what somebody else requires or it can
point to the speaker who is in some position of authority and imposes a duty. In this respect, it
resembles 'permission' may.
The university says: These people must be expelled if they disrupt lectures. (neutral)
You must return all the books to the library by Friday. (the speaker is in authority)
When we consider the first person singular or plural (I must / we must), we notice that
the idea of compulsion is not lost, it is simply directed towards the speaker himself, so that we
talk about self-compulsion; the speaker imposes something on himself through a sense of duty
or self-discipline. This contrasts with the use of have to (I have to / we have to) which
suggests that some external authority imposes the duty:
I must finish writing the essay by tonight. (internal obligation - I have my own
program and I want to stick to it)
I have to finish writing the essay by tonight. (external obligation - the teacher wants
the essays tomorrow morning)
Have to / have got to have either neutral or external orientation as to the source of
obligation:
I’ve got to be at London airport at 4.
You have to make up a plan before you start.
Students have to be careful with their grades.
While have to is used in formal language and has non-finite forms (will have to,
having to), have got to is more restricted in use because of its lack of non-finite forms (*will
have got to, *having got to). Have got to is rarer in the past and does not imply that the event
referred to took place, unlike have to:
We’d got to make a trip to York anyway so it didn’t matter too much. (it was
necessary…)
We had to make a trip to York to collect the bloody thing. (the event took place)
As already seen, have to is used for past time reference replacing must. Must appears
with past time reference only in reported speech, though this use is obsolete: She said she
must/had to go.
Shall/will have to is used if there is a suggestion that the necessity is future or
conditioned: I shall have to keep silent for an hour. / We’ll have to go out if you’re going to do
it.
When must is used in interrogative as well as in conditional clauses, it is the hearer’s
authority that is involved, not the speaker’s: Must I sweep the floor and wash the dishes
myself? (= Are these your orders?) There is an even more restricted use of must in
interrogatives with 'you' as subject that conveys a note of sarcasm: Must you really smoke
those horrible cigars? In a sentence like If you must smoke, go to the window, which is again
extremely ironical, the speaker pretends to interpret the hearer's need to smoke as something
he cannot control rather than as a nasty habit he enjoys.
 Otherwise, necessity is questioned in: Have you got to do it? / Do you have to do it? /
Need I say more? There seems to be a difference between do you have to and have you got to
in the sense that the former has a habitual or iterative meaning, while the latter refers to a
specific occasion. Consider:
Do you have to be at school at 8 o'clock? (Is this what you have to do every day?)
Have you got to be at school at 8 o'clock? (Is this what you have to do tomorrow
morning?)
In negative sentences must not negates the event indicating the obligation not to
perform some action (internal negation), whereas needn't or don't have to negate the necessity
(external negation):
You mustn’t reveal what I’ve said. (I oblige you not to reveal what I've said)
You needn’t answer that question. (You are not obliged to answer that question.)

EPISTEMIC MUST / HAVE (GOT) TO - logical necessity

Epistemic must expresses logical necessity, you get to knowledge by inference or

reasoning; the evidence is such as to imply the truth of the sentence.
Have to also expresses logical necessity:
Someone must be hiding the truth. (It is impossible that everyone is telling the truth.)
Someone has to be hiding the truth. (It is impossible for everyone to be telling the
truth.)
Have to is stronger than must in the sense that it does not refer to a mere assumption or
deduction, it suggests that the possibility of the opposite state of affairs cannot be conceived
of. The must example above is interpreted as a simple suspicion, whereas the have to example
expresses a downright accusation.
In American English have got to has acquired an epistemic interpretation: AE You’ve
got to be kidding./ BE You must be joking.
For past time reference must combines with the perfect infinitive like all the other
epistemic modals: He must have been flying too low. Otherwise, I don't see any explanation
for the crash.
The negative counterpart of epistemic must is can’t - the “natural expression of
impossibility”: She must be over 40. Oh, she can’t.

WILL / WOULD
DYNAMIC WILL / WOULD

Dynamic will involves dispositions/properties of the subject-referent.

(1) Volition – strong modality

Jill won't sign the form. (refusal)

I will be back before 6. (intention)
He says he will stand in for you while you're away. (willingness)

Volition and futurity are not contrasting meanings of will, so that one has no feeling of
ambiguity between volitional and non-volitional future. Volition is better regarded as an
implicature overlaid upon futurity – an implicature deriving from the assumption that the
subject-referent is in control (I'll be back before 6.). If the subject = 1st p sg – further
implicature of commitment.

Volition will relates to either willingness (weak volition) or insistence (strong

volition) or intention (intermediate volition).
The idea of willingness is commonly related to second - person requests of the type:

Will you bring me a glass of water?

Who will tell me what I've done wrong?

In such questions will is a polite variant of the imperative for the 2 nd and the 3rd
persons. Would in such questions is even more polite: Would you kindly tell me … / Would you
be good enough… / Would you like to …? This type of volition will is also present in
conditional clauses in the second and third persons:

If you will say so, I shall have a cake.

I shan’t be happy unless she will come.
Strong volitional will shows one's determination or intention to do something:
I will see him today if that's what I want!
'I won't do it!' / 'Yes, you will.'
Sandy, honey, why will you keep asking stupid questions?
If you will ask her out every time you see her, don't complain that she's avoiding you.

The last two examples that employ second and third persons clearly imply that the
speaker is exasperated at the interlocutors' stubbornness. Since it has such an emphatic
meaning, strong volitional will is never contracted to 'll and is always stressed in speech.
Intermediate will occurs mainly with the first person expressing a promise or a threat
and is usually contracted:

I will pay him back for what he's done to me!

We'll cut your allowance if you refuse to listen to us!
We'll see about that when he returns.

When volitional will is negated, it expresses a strong refusal:

They won’t give me a key, so I can’t work.

But she loves him and she won’t leave him.
I won’t have my name on the title page.

For past time reference with subject-oriented will the form would is NOT used if there
is an accomplished interpretation for the event, but wouldn’t is normal. Instead, volitional be
willing to is more likely:
I asked him and he was willing to come.
*I asked him and he would come.
I asked him but he wouldn’t come.

Extension to inanimates:
 While volition implies a human or animate agent, something akin to a metaphorical
extension of volitional will is found with inanimates when it is a matter of satisfying human
wants:

The lawnmower won't start.

The books won't fit on one shelf.

This power will expresses properties of certain objects, how they characteristically behave.
Power will employs inanimate subjects and is subject-oriented (the source of power is
intrinsic to the subject of will):
The hall will seat five hundred.
You know that certain drugs will improve your condition.
The door won’t open.
For past time reference we use power would: She asked if the table would bear.

(2) Propensity

He will lie in bed all day, reading trashy novels. (characteristic/habitual behaviour of
animates)
Oil will float on water. (general properties of inanimates)

This kind of dynamic will can be replaced with the simple present (He lies... / Oil
floats...) with no difference in meaning.
Also named habitual will, it refers to a situation that takes place regularly or
frequently as a consequence of a natural tendency of a person or an object:

A falling drop will hollow a stone.

Boys will be boys.
A cat will often play with a mouse before killing it.

For past time reference we employ either would or used to with the difference that
used to does not have the sense of an iterated situation; that is why used to can combine with
both state and activity verbs, unlike would, whose usage is restricted to events only:

He used to live in that house in those days.

He would tidy the house whenever she came.

DEONTIC WILL

You will report back for duty on Friday morning. (speaker's requirement)

This use is a matter of implicature: if I predict your agentive actions (or someone
else's) in a context where I have the authority to require them, I will be understood as tacitly
invoking that authority. In informal speech, be going to is used with the same interpretation
(Sports coach: You're going to go out there and give them all you've got.)

EPISTEMIC WILL / WOULD

(1) Central epistemic

- used to refer to present and past situations, with 2nd and 3rd person subjects:
(Knock on the door): That will be the plumber. (present)
They will have made the decision last week. (past)

Epistemic will is like epistemic must in the sense that the conclusion is reached on the
basis of the evidence available. Generally speaking must could replace will in all the examples
above with only a slight difference in meaning as to the degree of certainty of the respective
prediction:
John must be in his office. (I can see the lights on).
John will be in his office. (from previous knowledge why the lights were on, we infer
that John is in his office).

This kind of will illustrates strong modality, entailing the factuality of the situation
(interpreted as confident prediction).

(2) Futurity

She will beat him easily.

You will understand when you receive her letter tomorrow.
You won't recognize him.

This epistemic will expresses a prediction, not a factual statement about the future.
It refers only to future situations.
Remember the use of the simple present in temporal clauses (+ fact)!

(3) Conditional consequence (if clauses)

If it rained last night, the match will have been cancelled.(past)

If it rains tonight, the match will be cancelled.(future)
If he's still in Bath, he'll be at his mother's. (present)

This kind of will covers all times (present, past and future). In all the above examples, will is
not obligatory; it can be replaced with was/is. However, when it is used instead of to be, it
conveys a lesser degree of confidence in the conclusion.

SHALL
DEONTIC SHALL

Deontic shall has three uses:

(1) constitutive/regulative: The committee shall meet at least four times per year. (in
legalese; Subject: 3rd person)
(2) speaker's guarantee (it is the will of the speaker who imposes an obligation, not the
will of the subject of the sentence (shall is speaker-oriented)): You shall have your
 money back. (promise)/ You shall never hear from me again. (threat) (Subject – 2nd, 3rd
person)
(3) direction-seeking: Shall I close the window? / Shall we have dinner now? (Subject - 1st
person)

SHOULD
DEONTIC SHOULD

Deontic should is a weaker equivalent of deontic shall, the sense of obligation being
rendered in the form of a suggestion or a piece of advice (medium strength modality).
It is subjective, indicating what the speaker considers 'right'.
It is weaker than must, allowing for non-actualization (I should stop now, but I'm not
going to.)
For past time reference it combines with the perfect infinitive and acquires a contrary-
to-fact interpretation:
You should pay more attention to what I'm telling you right now.
If I could have my way, you should be sent to Siberia for what you've done.
You should have told me that you were hungry. (But, in fact, you didn't)

EPISTEMIC SHOULD

Epistemic should is used for assumptions about present or past situations (if
combined with the perfect infinitive):
The plane should be landing now.
The parcel should have arrived by now.
Assumptions with epistemic should are less confident than assumptions with epistemic
will. He should have finished by now means that 'I expect he has finished by now', whereas
He will have finished by now suggests that 'I am sure he has finished'.

OUGHT TO
Very close in interpretation to should, ought to represents a tentative counterpart of
must and shall.

DEONTIC OUGHT TO

Deontic ought to is similar in meaning to must, denoting moral obligation or duty,

with a single difference: while must suggests that the speaker is confident the interlocutor will
do as told, the use of ought to implies that the speaker is not very certain the addressee will
perform his duty. Compare:

You must give some money to your sister. (I am sure you will.)
 You ought to give some money to your sister. (But I don't know whether you will or
not)
Hence, ought to gives the possibility of non-action, unlike must. We may say He ought
to go but he won’t but an utterance like He must go but *he won’t is impossible. Moreover,
when used with a first person subject, the implication is that the obligation will not be
fulfilled. If a driver says I ought to go slowly here, he implies that he isn't going to go slowly,
but if he says I must go slowly here, he really intends to go slowly.
For past time reference ought to selects the perfect infinitive: You ought to have been
more careful with the children.

EPISTEMIC OUGHT TO

Epistemic ought to expresses assumptions (potential probability); again its meaning

is related to that of epistemic must:

Susan ought to be at her office now.

Susan must be at her office now.

The must variant reflects the speaker's certainty that his deduction is correct, since
there is evidence that leads him to the respective conclusion. The ought to variant reflects the
speaker's cautiousness in asserting that as he also takes into account that there is a possibility
that something unexpected might have happened to require her presence somewhere else.

NEED / NEED TO
DEONTIC NEED

Although they are close in meaning, need (a fi necesar) and need to (a avea nevoie)
differ in point of grammatical behavior since the former is a modal verb and the latter a full
lexical verb (which, consequently, forms questions and negative forms with do).
Modal need is mainly used in negative and interrogative sentences as a correlative of
must. Modal need doesn’t occur in affirmative sentences, except in fairly formal English with
hardly, scarcely or only:
I need hardly mention how grateful I am for this opportunity.
You need only touch one of the doors for the alarm to start ringing.
Need in interrogations is used especially if the context is non-assertive so that a
negative answer is expected:
Must she come tomorrow? (an open question)
Need she come tomorrow? (answer expected: No, she needn’t.)
Need not expresses lack of necessity similarly to the negative forms of have to or
need to. When we refer to a past situation, the choice is between didn't have to and didn't
need to (the lexical verb).
In reported speech need is retained just like must: She believed she need not fear any
persecution.
At the same time, needn't also occurs with the perfect infinitive to refer to a past
situation. Yet, in this case it expresses an unnecessary action which was nevertheless
performed, thus resembling shouldn't have and oughtn't have in as far as in all three cases the
event does take place:
You needn't have carried all this luggage by yourself. (lack of necessity)
 You shouldn't have carried all this luggage by yourself. (criticism)
What needn't have done and didn't have / need to do have in common is the lack of
necessity. They differ in that the former implies that the action does take place, while the latter
implies that as a consequence of this lack of necessity, the action is no longer performed.
I didn't have / need to pick up Mary from school because she phoned me saying she
would walk home.
I needn't have driven to school to pick up Mary but I had forgotten she'd told me she
had other plans.
Lexical need occurs with a (passive) infinitive or a noun / pronoun object or a gerund:
I need to know what time you'll get home.
I just need some money.
The gas tank needs to be refilled / refilling.

EPISTEMIC NEED
It expresses probability and it is old-fashioned and infrequent:
When I think of what he went through he need be made of iron to stand there and talk
about it.