The present paper reports the results of the study aimed to investigate the problem of discourse markers, their functions and differences and similarities in the English and Lithuanian languages in a book of prose. The methods chosen for the study were content analysis, quantitative method and contrastive method. The study is based on theories of various linguists proposing different terms and definitions for the discourse marker, on the corpus of occurrences of these linguistic items in the examined sources. The investigation also attempts to examine the functional complexity of discourse markers in cohesive texts. The research demonstrated that the most frequently used discourse markers in textual function in the English language are and, but, so. At the same time, the most frequently used discourse markers in interactional function in English are oh, well, eh, however, ah, and now. The research demonstrated that the functions of discourse markers fall into two domains - interactional and textual and they can appear simultaneously. / Šio tyrimo problema yra susijusi su diskurso žymikliais/žymekliais, kurie yra teksto formavimo įrankiai diskurse. Ši tema buvo pasirinkta, nes, visų pirma, diskurso žymekliai tik neseniai patraukė lingvistų dėmesį kaip teksto formavimo įrankiai, kurie taip pat nekompromituoja jau esančios nusistovėjusios sistemos. Pradedant prielaida, jog diskurso žymekliai užtikrina efektyvų bendravimą (taip pat teksto rišlumą ir suderinamumą), yra multifunkciniai bei jų taksonomijos ir funkcijos gali kisti skirtingose kalbose, buvo iškelti šie tyrimo klausimai: 1) kokie yra dažniausiai naudojami diskurso žymekliai analizuotuose tekstuose dviejose kalbose? 2) kokie yra atitikimai/neatitikimai diskurso žymeklių naudojime bei funkcijose lietuvių ir anglų kalbose? Anksčiau minėti faktoriai bei tyrimo klausimai padėjo nustatyti šio darbo tikslą, kuris yra: palyginti ir išanalizuoti diskurso žymeklių taksonomijas ir funkcijas dviejose kalbose. Kad šis tikslas būtų pasiektas, žemiau išvardyti uždaviniai buvo iškelti:  peržiūrėti ir sistemingai pristatyti mokslinę litratūrą susijusią su diskurso žymekliais lietuvių ir anglų kalbose;  jau esamų ir prieinamų tyrimų pagalba apie diskurso žymeklius, buvo nustatytos ir apibrėžtos diskurso žymeklių atliekamos funkcijos rišliame tekste;  remiantis kiekybiniu bei kokybiniu metodais, buvo atskleista diskurso žymeklių skirstymas, dažnumas/pasikartojimas ir dominuojančios jų funkcijos analizuotuose tekstuose. Atliekant šį tyrimą tam tikri metodai buvo... [toliau žr. visą tekstą]

The adverb is the indeclinable and not inflective part of speech, who denotes the attribute of act, state, characteristic and different factors of act and state (place, time, reason, purpose and etc.). The adverb has the distinctive word-formation and derivation. Also the adverb has the distinctive accentuation. The accentuation of adverbs takes on a whole new dimension – morphonological dimension. Lithuanian language has the free accent, because of it morphonological features of morphemes determine the place of accent. There is an intensive interest in the frequency of different units of language now. Users has the possibility to use the Electronic Frequency Dictionary now. The base of this master‘s work are adverbs from Common Press Words of the 20th century: Electronic Frequency Dictionary (2004). There were more than 1200 adverbs in Electronic Frequency Dictionary. The derivatives of suffix -ai make about 67% of them. The mostly usable adverbs are these: dar, čia, dabar, daug, gerai, kaip, taip, daugiau, kur, kiek, ten, taip pat, vėl, jau, labai, todėl. The accentual domination of word-formation formants and the features of morphemes of underlying words determine the accentuation of adverbs derivatives. The accentual power of theme of underlying words and flexions and the attraction of flexions determine the accentuation of phrases (these phrases became adverbs) and the accentuation of other single adverbs. The short adverbs have the accent of underlying words.

The aim of the study is to determine effects of passive warming up on muscle contraction force while performing maximum intensity short veloergometric test and vertical jumps. Untrained healthy males took part in both experiments within the study. Subjects (n=13) had to perform maximal veloergometric effort with different resistance (3% and 10% of their own weight) for 5 seconds during first test. Then they performed passive warming up and repeated the test. Maximal motion frequency and power output were determined. Other subjects (n=14) had to perform maximal single jumps (one with squat and one without) during second test. Then they performed passive warming up and repeated the test. Maximal set off speed, strength, power output and jump height were determined. Maximal motion frequency and maximal power output after passive warming up in veloergometric test were significantly (p<0, 05) greater than before it. Maximal set off speed after passive warming up in jumping test was significantly (p<0, 05) greater, but maximal set off strength did not differ significantly performing both types of jumps. However jump height significantly increased in both cases. In conclusion, the results indicate that in untrained subjects, passive warming up improves muscles’ power output in both experiments. Another conclusion is that passive warming up has much greater effect on contraction speed than on muscles’ strength.