Konuşurun bir olay ya da durum karşısındaki tutum ve tavrına, ruh haline; cümlede belirtilen hareketin şekline kip denmektedir. Türkçede kiplerle ilgili yapılan sınıflamalar haber ve tasarlama kipi ayrımından öteye gitmemektedir. Oysaki konuşurun ruh durumu kadar kipten söz etmek mümkün olduğuna göre kiplerin sayısının birkaç kategori ile sınırlandırılması doğru bir yaklaşım değildir. Kipler konuşur esas alındığında üç temel kategoriye ayrılmaktadır: 1. Bilgi kipleri, 2. Yükümlülük kipleri, 3. Duygu kipleri. Söz konusu kiplerin ise birden fazla bileşeni bulunmaktadır. Kiplerin bağımlı biçimbirimler, sözlüksel, söyleme dayalı ve söz dizimsel işaretleyiciler olmak üzere farklı türden kiplikleri vardır. Zarflar ise sözlüksel kiplikler arasında yer almaktadır. Durum, zaman, yer-yön, miktar ve soru zarfları olmak üzere alt kategorilere ayrılan zarflar; bilgi, yükümlülük ve duygu kiplerinin sık kullanılan işaretleyicileri arasındadır. Aynı kategori altında değerlendirilen zarflar benzer ya da farklı kip alanlarını kodlayabileceği gibi cümlede geçen tek bir zarf birden fazla kipsel alanı göstermektedir. Örneğin Ali bugün eve belki gelebilir cümlesinde geçen belki zarfı bilgi kipleri içinde yer alan yakın olasılık, tahmin gibi kiplere atıfta bulunurken Ali, derhal buraya gel cümlesindeki derhal zarfı yükümlülük kiplerinden emir anlam alanını işaretlemektedir. Her ikisi de durum zarflarından olan belki ve derhal kelimeleri farklı türden kipleri gösterebilmektedir. Yapılan incelemeler göstermektedir ki zarflar içinde durum, zaman ve soru zarfları kip alanında zengin bir görünüm sunarken yeryön ve miktar zarfları, söz konusu diğer zarflara oranla kip alanına birincil ve ikincil düzeyde hizmet etmemektedir

There are some views in various sources about the fact that a modal is the way an action in a verb is realized. Besides, it is difficult to state that there is a consensus over the mentioned term, which also underlines the speaker’s state of mind, expression patterns as well as the temporality feature. With reference to definitions of a modal by a variety of local and foreign scholars such as Korkmaz, Ergin, Karaağaç, Kaya, Akerson, Hacıömeroğlu, Palmer, Hogeweg, de Haan, Nuyts, and Nauze, it is possible to assert that a modal is the attitude, manner, and state of mind of a speaker during an event; the mode of the action, which is specified in a sentence. Beside the numerous definitions of modals, there are also great many modal classifications in literature. The basic modal categories depend on realis and irrealis distinction. Some of the information in the world is realized, in other words, it is completed (realis: Ali bacağını kırdı): some of it, on the other hand, is not realized, which means it is planned (irrealis: Ali bize gelecek). According to this distinction, the idea that mood is divided into two subcategories as indicative and subjunctive is more overwhelming. Modalities, as the lingual markers of the moods, on the other hand, are divided into more different subcategories besides the distinctions abovementioned. Scholars such as Hogeweg, Palmer, Nuyts, Nauze, Nordström, Papafragou, and Kiefer de Haan discuss general epistemology, deontology, event, rational accuracy and speech act categories in modality classification. This study proposes a new mood classification by considering the previous mood and modality categories. Accordingly, moods might be analysed under three main categories such as epistemic, deontic, and boulomaic moods. According to certainty degrees, epistemic moods are divided into more subcategories as evidential modality and epistemic modality, which is based on indirect possibility. Deontic moods are divided into two as their features of being participant internal or participant external while boulomaic moods might be varied in accordance with their inclusion of the speaker’s emotional stand such as happiness, anger, sadness, regret, longing, and fear. Besides their semantic aspects, modalities, which are the lingual markers of moods, demonstrate different aspects according to their formal features. Adverbs have a different place among modalities, which have various types such as morphological, lexical, syntactical, and one which is built upon discourse. Adverbs, which are within lexical markers, transfer the speaker’s standard of knowledge, locational and directional data as well as quantitative information related to the event or situation s/he mentions along with the time of action. Adverbs, which have a complementary feature apart from being the action and the actuator of the sentence, are useful in identifying the meanings in accordance with the clarity or ambiguity of the information in the proposition. In Turkish language, there are various surveys about adverb classification, too. The classifications about adverbs are more obvious once modal and modality categories are considered and it is observed that researchers reach a consensus over the categories to a greater extent. Five adverbial subcategories can be asserted as follows: adverbs of manner, adverb of time, adverb of place, quantifiers, and interrogative adverb. Following the analyses, it is found that adverbs, which are among the five main adverbial subcategories, mark one or more than one of the deontic and boulomaic moods at the same time. Adverbs, which are evaluated under the same category, can codify similar or different mood aspects; moreover, an adverb in a sentence can stand for more than one modal aspect. For instance, in the sentence, Ali bugün belki eve gelebilir, the adverb, belki, adheres to probability and prediction moods, which are among epistemological moods, whereas in the sentence, Ali, derhal buraya gel!, the adverb, derhal, marks imperative aspect, which is one of the deontic moods. The words, belki and derhal, which are both adverbs of manner, therefore, can mark different kinds of moods. In this study, some written sources such as novels and short stories are analysed in order to identify the modality aspects of adverbs. Datum, acquired as the result of this study, are given in a chart and the example sentence which includes the adverb in question is given (considering the context, too). Accordingly, the acquired datum may be summarized as follows: 1. Adverbs of manner such as belki, galiba, herhalde, sanki, muhtemelen, acaba, farz et (ki), olsa olsa, mutlaka, hakikaten, elbette, şüphesiz, birden, hemen, derhâl, aniden, inşallah, fiil+-mIş gibi, isim+- DAn, bu yüzden/ isim+-DAn dolayı, nasıl, and ne kadar mark modal aspects such as certainty, probability and possibility, uncertainty, visual evidence, prediction, inference, assumption, and imperative. 2. Adverbs of time such as bugün, yarın, dün, sabah, iki gün önce, önceden, saatlerce, and ilk defa/kez generally mark the epistemic moods, which are inclusive of certainty, visual evidence, probability, and prediction. 3. Contributions of adverbs of place such as isim+-A, isim+- DA, isim+-DAn, arasında, dışarı, yanında, yukarı, and isim+-DAn …isim+-A kadar to mood area are only evidential. The contribution in question, furthermore, is secondary and tertiary. 4. Quantifiers such as az/biraz, çok, fazla, aşağı yukarı, daha, defalarca, hiç, oldukça, and pek codify epistemic moods such as visual evidence, probability, and prediction as it is also the case with adverbs of place. 5. Interrogatives such as nasıl, neden/niçin, ne zaman, ne kadar, hani, kim/kiminle, and nereye kadar codify certainty areas such as curiosity, suspicion, hesitation, and mirativity, which are among the indirect epistemic moods based on probability. As a result of the survey, it is observed that adverbs, which are under the same category, can mark different kinds of moods. As context changes, even a single adverb can codify more than one semantic area. While adverbs of manner, adverbs of time and interrogatives are the ones that mark modal areas most, adverbs of manner and quantifiers codify modal area on the secondary or tertiary degree or they don’t mark any area, at all.