My question is: what are the differences in meaning between the ordinary/lexical "need" and the modal "need" and "have to"?
Okay, I think the best place to start is with 'have to'.
The modal 'have to' can have both epistemic and deontic meanings. In it's deontic sense, it commonly expresses obligation, as you probably know. Example:
1a) I have to be at work by 8.00 tomorrow.
The speaker is saying he has an
obligation to be at work. In this case, the obligation comes from his employer. I think the question now is this: Is this deontic meaning of obligation in essence just
a kind of necessity? I say no, and I believe most would agree with me but I do think you could make a decent argument that there is a kind of 'need' in place here. What do you think,
@Erbista? Do you think there is some kind of necessity there? After all, it would be quite natural for a speaker to use lexical verb 'need' to make what would sound like a very similar utterance:
1b) I need to be at work by 8.00 tomorrow.
Your question is (if I understand it correctly): Are 1a and 1b synonymous? I say no, they're not. However, speaking pragmatically, yes, the speaker is expressing pretty much the same thought in both cases even though there is a difference in modality.
Equally, modal 'have to' has an epistemic meaning. Example:
2a) It has to be true! There's no other explanation.
In this case, the speaker is making a logical deduction. He's saying that whatever it is is necessarily true. In other words, its positive truth value is a logical necessity. This is a clear case of
a kind of necessity (logical necessity). Despite this, as with most epistemic uses of 'have to', you
cannot substitute with 'need':
2b) * It needs to be true! There's no other explanation.
One more example. Imagine this utterance, which I've adapted slightly from post #1 of this thread:
3a) You have to try this recipe—it's delicious.
What's going on here? Is there a sense of obligation? Of necessity? I say no to both questions. The speaker is merely recommending or urging that her friend try the recipe. In my view, it makes very little sense to try to understand such an utterance with epistemic modality of necessity, but this is a pragmatic approach. What do you think,
@Erbista? Do you think you can say that it is 'necessary' that the friend tries the recipe? Why (not)?
Can we substitute with lexical 'need'?:
3b) You need to try this recipe—it's delicious.
The answer is yes. Sentence 3b is a stronger recommendation than 3a but it's pragmatically the same thing. Does the speaker really mean that it is necessary? No, it's just a rhetorical way to strengthen the recommendation.
I'm going to stop there for now. Have I addressed at least some of what you wanted to know? I hope so. If you want me to carry on, I'm happy to, but please understand that it's not easy and takes time to explain something that is so opaque and which there is sometimes considerable disagreement on. If you do want me to carry on, I'd ask you to answer the questions I've addressed to you, so that I can get a sense of the way you understand these things. Thank you.