1

T.A.M. 6 (partly based on BACIU 1999, DRAGAN 2005)

MODAL VERBS

Preliminaries: Lexical verb/Auxiliary verb

There is an important distinction within the category of verbs between roughly a dozen auxiliary verbs and all
the rest, which we call lexical verbs. The auxiliary verbs (or more briefly, auxiliaries) differ sharply in
grammatical behaviour from lexical verbs, and figure crucially in a number of common constructions.
Within the auxiliaries there are also major differences between the special subclass known as modal auxiliaries
and the rest of the class, which we will call non-modal (Huddleston and Pullum 37):

Verbs: Auxiliary Verbs:

Modal auxiliaries - can, may, must, will, shall, ought, need, dare
Non-modal auxiliaries be, have, do
Lexical verbs: play, walk, allow .
Modal auxiliaries
i. Modal verbs describe the way in which a speaker envisages (looks at) a situation.
Compare the way in which a sentence with no modal in it differs from a sentence with a modal in it:
e.g. 1. He has arrived
2. He must have already arrived
1. the speaker makes no comment about the situation that he presents
2. the speaker presents the situation (the fact that someone has arrived) as probable; the presence of the modal
shows us how the speaker sees the situation
ii. Modal verbs can be considered as a subgroup of auxiliaries- the modal auxiliaries
They are similar to the auxiliaries be, have, do in several ways:
a.

like auxiliaries, they have to combine with the form of a lexical verb with which they form a complex of
meaning:
-

b.

in a sentence like He must go., the modal gets interpreted due to the combination with the lexical verb
go, whereas a sentence like He must means nothing unless it is interpreted as elliptical

due to the fact that they appear accompanied by a form of the lexical verb , modals (and all auxiliaries)
share a group of properties that have been labelled as the NICE properties:
1.

Negation: negation attaches itself directly to the modal auxiliary form:

He cant/cannot, He isnt/is not versus *He goes not (He doesnt go)

2.

Inversion: as in the case of auxiliaries, the modal can appear in the first position of a sentence for
questions:
Can I go home?, Is he going home? versus *Goes he home? (Does he go home?)

3.

Coding: Modals and auxiliaries appear in contexts of the type:

I can drink beer and so can he.
I have drunk beer and so has he.
*I drink beer and so drinks he.

2
4.

Emphasis: Like auxiliaries, modals can be used for emphasis (the stress falls on the modal or
auxiliary): I do love you, I can do that

iii. Modal verbs have certain properties that make them different from the auxiliaries have, be, do and
also from lexical verbs:
1.

Modal verbs are defective with respect to certain forms:

a. they allow no s in the third person: he can, *he cans versus he does, he goes
b. they allow no non-finite forms:
- no infinitive forms: *To may or not to may. versus *To be or not to be.
- no ing (gerund, present participles) or ed (past participles) forms

2.

They can be followed by the auxiliaries have/be in perfect/progressive infinitive forms:

He may have been there.
He may be singing now

There are 3 general systems of principles that can be invoked when we talk about modality:
the rational laws of deduction probability, possibility, impossibility
the social or institutional laws - legal authority/institution or one's social status according to which you have
or you dont have authority over somebody else; these modalities refer to duty, compulsion, order,
command, appropriateness etc.
- the natural laws of physics, chemistry, biology, anatomy etc. referring to modalities that define the notion of
physical and intellectual ability/capacity.
Modals are polysemous words. May in a sentence like You may go now. indicates permission, whereas
in He may be there already. it suggests possibility. The problem of polysemy: there is a syntactic approach based
on the idea that the distinct meanings of the same modal are reflected in their distinct distribution.
-

iv. The meaning of a modal verb in the context can be interpreted in two ways:
1. EPISTEMIC: if the speaker takes the laws of reason as a point of reference when he envisages a situation:
He must have left. (according to the data that he has about the situation, the speaker judges the situation as
probable)
The epistemic interpretation/value of the modal includes the subvalues/labels possiblity, probability
2.

DEONTIC (ROOT): if the speakers takes social/institutional laws or natural laws as a point of reference
Can I borrow your car? (the speaker takes into account the rules of the society he
lives in when he asks for permission)
John can swim faster than Tom. (the speaker takes into account the laws of nature: he
sees that one persons natural ability is greater than anothers)
The deontic interpretation includes subvalues such as permission, ability, volition, obligation.

3.

Contextual properties illustrating the differences between the EPISTEMIC and DEONTIC interpretations:
EPISTEMIC:
- The modal + the perfect infinitive
form is used to express past
reference:
He cant have
(possibility)
-

left

so

soon.

Progressive infinitive forms can be

DEONTIC
- The past form of the modal (not the
perfect infinitive) a modal equivalent is
used
to
express
past
reference
Tom could swim better than Bill last year.
(ability)
Tom could have swum better (possibility,
not ability)
-

no progressive infinitive forms:

used
He cant be leaving so soon.
(possibility)
The subject is either animate or
inanimate
He could be here. (possibility)
The moon could be seen from afar.
(possibility)

Tom could be swimming

possibility, not ability)
-

(this

is

the subject can be only animate:

Tom can swim. (ability)
Money can buy. (possibility)

CAN / COULD
DEONTIC CAN
Deontic can expresses physical or mental ability, referring to potential acts, not real ones.
He can speak English. (El stie sa vorbeasca engleza. - general permanent ability)
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, though this context does not rule out the use of can:
Mary has now recovered from her illness and is able to / can go to school.
However, can is commonly used with verbs of perception (see, hear, smell, taste, feel) and cognitive
verbs of the type believe, remember, understand. To be able to is never used when referring to something going
on at the moment of speaking (see example above). When used with verbs of physical perception can actualizes
the reference of the verb. In this respect, can is like an aspectual marker (often 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?).
Deontic can has two past forms: could and was / were able to. Similarly, 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, couldnt will always imply that the event didnt take place. There is no difference
between could and to be able to in negative sentences.
Can is also often used to express sporadic ability or an irregular pattern of behavior: She can be quite
catty. / He can be nasty. / Frenchmen can be arrogant.
Ability in the future is expressed by means of either can or the periphrastic shall/will be able to with a
difference in meaning. To be able to refers to some event that will be possible in the future. In contrast, when
making a decision at the moment of speaking about some event in the future, we use can:
I hope they will be able to book seats for the concert tomorrow.
You can go home when you have finished writing your essay.
Maybe we can go fishing next week.
The second meaning of deontic can is that of 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.

4
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?
Negative sentences use either cannot or may not to refuse permission:
You may not leave yet. (I do not permit you to leave)
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
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. Compare:
The dollar can be devalued. (It is possible to devalue the dollar. - theoretical possibility)
The dollar may be devalued. (It is possible that the dollar is 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.
Unfortunately, in formal English may seems to be used to express both factual and theoretical possibility, so the
distinction persists only in colloquial English.
While cannot expresses the impossibility of some action to occur (appearing in cases of external
negation), may not suggests the possibility of something not happening (illustrating cases of internal negation):
If he saw a light it cant 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?
In colloquial language can becomes a familiar though tactful democratic imperative when used with
2nd and the 3rd person subjects, creating the impression of equality. Therefore, it may be considered the
counterpart of coercive shall which suggests the very opposite: an authority imposing something on somebody.
This type of can would be used by the captain of a team when addressing his teammates or by a theatrical
producer talking to the actors:
Mike and Will, you can be standing over there and Janet can enter from behind.
MAY / MIGHT
DEONTIC MAY
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 above
refers specifically to the powers a certain official is endowed with, its semantic content accounts for the presence
of permission may.

5
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.
Also, there is an idiomatic expression with try, using may for present reference and might for past
reference:
Try as I might, I couldn't push the door open.
Try as he may, he can never remember people's names.
May / might combines with several adverbs that emphasize the modal expression with both present and
past time reference.
I might well decide to come.
I might just start to trust you.
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.
As already suggested, epistemic may does not occur in interrogative sentences, where can is preferred,
and hence, the theoretical - factual possibility opposition disappears.
MUST, HAVE (GOT) TO
DEONTIC MUST / HAVE (GOT) TO
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:
Ive got to be at London airport at 4.

6
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 characteristic of colloquial British English and 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:
Wed got to make a trip to York anyway so it didnt 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. Subject-oriented must needs no
past tense (must is different from have to only in the present). Must appears as such with past time reference only
in reported speech: She said she must/had to go.
Like the other modals must is used for future events: We must do something about it tomorrow.
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. / Well have to go out if youre going to do it.
When must is used in interrogative as well as in conditional clauses, it is the hearers authority that is
involved, not the speakers: 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 practicing.
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 mustnt reveal what Ive said. (I oblige you not to reveal what I've said)
You neednt answer that question. (You are not obliged to answer that question.)
EPISTEMIC MUST / HAVE (GOT) TO
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:
There has to be someone who knows the truth about his disappearance.
You have to have made some mistake here.
Again the difference between epistemic must and epistemic have to is that between factual necessity
and theoretical necessity, paralleling the may - can situation:
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.)
Thus, 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 Youve got to be
joking./ 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 cant - the natural expression of impossibility: She
must be over 40. Oh, she cant.
WILL / WOULD
DEONTIC WILL / WOULD
VOLITION WILL
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?

7
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 shant 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 always stressed in speech.
The third type of 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 wont give me a key, so I cant work.
But she loves him and she wont leave him.
I wont 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 wouldnt 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 wouldnt come.
Volitional would is used in adverbial clauses of condition and after wish, being more conditional than
will.
POWER WILL
Power will expresses properties of certain objects, how they characteristically behave. Unlike volition
will whose subject is always a person or at least an animal endowed with willpower, 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 wont open.
For past time reference we use power would, which parallels volition would but retains an inanimate
subject (She asked if the table would bear.)
HABITUAL WILL
Habitual will 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 activity verbs only:
He used to live in that house in those days.
He would live in that house in those days / whenever she came.

EPISTEMIC WILL / WOULD

Epistemic will is related to the idea of predictability, the inference concerning the present time as it
involves a present situation. If there is reference to a past situation, then we use will in combination with the
perfect infinitive:
This will be the National Gallery.
That will be John at the door.
Shell be sleeping now.
John will have received the book by this time.
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).
Epistemic will is used in scientific or quasi-scientific language; however, such sentences could be
interpreted as both a prediction and a habit, what we might call 'habitual predictability':
If you put steel into water, it will sink.
Accidents will happen.
He'll go all day without eating.
SHALL / SHOULD
DEONTIC SHALL / SHOULD
The deontic meaning of shall is that of obligation; however, it is the will of the speaker who imposes
an obligation, not the will of the subject of the sentence (shall is speaker-oriented). In modern English we use
must or can (democratic imperative); shall is an archaic form of order still present in legal statements or rules:
He shall be punished if he does not obey.
You shall never hear from me again.
You shall receive a reward if you follow my advice.
This imperious kind of shall, used with second and third person subjects, can suggest either a promise
or a threat on the part of the speaker.
Deontic should is a weaker equivalent of deontic shall, the sense of obligation being rendered in the
form of a suggestion or piece of advice. Should has present and future reference, for past reference combining
with the perfect infinitive and acquiring 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 SHALL / SHOULD
Epistemic shall expresses prediction when used with a first person subject as in I shall be met by my
parents at the airport or I shant know when you return. The same epistemic interpretation also occurs with
second and third person subjects as in Say a foolish thing but often enough, the same thing shall pass at last for
absolutely wise.
In interrogations that employ the first person the speaker inquires about the wish or will of the
addressee. Shall I go? represents an offer to go (Do you want me to go?)
Used with the second person shall describes a situation which is independent of the will of the person
addressed; therefore, it is distinct from will you? which inquires about the other persons will or willingness.
Shall you see John today?
When shall you do it?

9
This construction, which is now old-fashioned, has been replaced by the future continuous tense. Shall
you see John today? is similar to Will you be seeing John today?
Epistemic should is considered the conditional equivalent of epistemic shall. It 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 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
wont but an utterance like He must go but *he wont 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 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 slight possibility that something unexpected might have happened to
require her presence somewhere else.
NEED / NEED TO
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
doesnt 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 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.

10
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.
DARE
Dare resembles need to a great extent in that it has both modal and lexical variants and it also occurs in
interrogative and negative sentences, and only rarely in statements. Students must pay attention to the distinct
grammatical properties of dare as modal and lexical verb:
John darent come. / Dare John come?
John doesnt dare to come. / Does John dare to come?
In the affirmative dare is used in the expression I daresay / I dare say, which means 'I suppose': I
daresay the plane will be delayed.
In How dare(d) you? / How dare(d) he / they?, the speaker expresses indignation at the actions of the
interlocutor: How dare you shout at me?
At the same time, lexical dare has an additional meaning ('to challenge') if used transitively and
followed by object + full infinitive: Somebody dared me to jump off the bridge into the river.

10