English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In my studies of both theoretical and applied English linguistics, we studied English modals more than once. So a question came up on this site earlier today. I explained that "need to" is a modal. One of the users claimed that it is not.

Question: Is not "need to" a modal?

share|improve this question
Is there an accepted definition of a modal verb? – Peter Shor Feb 7 '13 at 3:57
Of or denoting the mood of a verb. – Patrick T. Randolph Feb 7 '13 at 4:00

The modality of need and dare (sometimes called "semi-modals") is a matter of Negative Polarity. Their meaning is modal, but their syntax is variable.

Inside the scope of a negative, they can be used as modals; outside it, they can't.
(Sentences with an asterisk in front are ungrammatical)

  • You need to talk to Bill. ~ You don't need to talk to Bill.
  • *You need talk to Bill. - You need not talk to Bill.

  • He dares to protest ~ He doesn't dare (to) protest.

  • *He dare protest ~ He dare not protest.

As to whether need to "is a modal", that depends on

  • whether you allow anything with a modal meaning, like maybe or have to, to be modals
  • whether you allow verbs with to, like have to, need to, dare to, and want to to be modals
  • whether you allow verbs that inflect for tense (like dared to or needs to) to be modals

and probably a few other things.

All modals are complicated, each modal is unique, and there are simply no general rules about them.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.