Inferential Markers Research Articles

FRI275 Glutamate Receptor Agonists Stimulate Kisspeptin Neurons In The Arcuate Nucleus Of The Hypothalamus

Abstract Disclosure: R. Bearss: None. R. Piet: None. KNDy neurons co-express kisspeptin, neurokinin B (NKB), dynorphin A (Dyn A), and glutamate. These neurons, located in the arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus, drive pulsatile gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) secretion. This eventually promotes pulsatile gonadotropin hormone release from the anterior pituitary, important for fertility in both sexes. The current hypothesized mechanism for pulse generation involves KNDy neuron interconnectivity and reciprocal regulation through the combined actions of NKB, DynA and glutamate to coordinate KNDy neuron activity. There is evidence that KNDy neurons express NKB, Dyn A and glutamate receptors and that NKB stimulates KNDy neuron electrical activity while Dyn A suppresses it. There is also evidence that ionotropic glutamate receptor antagonists can inhibit KNDy neuron coordinated activity and pulsatile gonadotropin hormone release, indicating that glutamatergic neurotransmission plays a significant role in activity coordination. The purpose of the following experiments was to investigate the response of KNDy neurons to varied glutamate receptor activation. We used calcium imaging to monitor the activity of KNDy neurons in brain slices. We crossed Kiss1-Cre mice—expressing Cre recombinase (Cre) in kisspeptin neurons—with Cre-dependent GCaMP6f mice to generate Kiss1-Cre x GCaMP6f mice that express GCaMP6f in kisspeptin neurons. GCaMP6f fluorescence increases when binding to intracellular calcium and can, thus, be used as an inferential marker of electrical activity. Coronal brain slices (200 µm thickness) obtained from male Kiss1-cre x GCaMP6f mice and containing the arcuate nucleus were placed in a recording chamber under an epifluorescence microscope. KNDy neurons were exposed for 2 minutes to a bath application of either the ionotropic glutamate receptor agonist α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA, 10µM), the ionotropic glutamate receptor agonist N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA, 50µM), or the group 1 metabotropic glutamate receptor (mGluR) agonist (S)-3,5-dihydroxyphenylglycine (DHPG, 50µM). AMPA, NMDA, and DHPG increased KNDy neuron fluorescence by 7.8±0.5% (n=113 in 7 slices from 6 mice), 7.5±0.5% (n=154 in 6 slices from 5 mice), and 6.1±0.7% (n=159 in 7 slices from 5 mice) respectively. All cells that were excited by NMDA or DHPG were also excited by AMPA. These experiments provide evidence that activation of ionotropic AMPA and NMDA receptors as well as group 1 mGluRs stimulate KNDy neuron activity. Further investigation into the precise role of individual glutamate receptor subtypes on KNDy neuron coordinated activity is needed. Presentation: Friday, June 16, 2023

The development and functions of the inferential marker chog‘i in Uzbek

AbstractIn the evidential system of Uzbek, the speaker has different grammatical options in marking the source of information, such as -ibdi, ekan, emish, etc., although it is not compulsory to mark this category in the utterance. In addition to these established markers, new markers have developed into evidentials, and they encode specific sub-categories of evidentiality. In this study, after a brief overview of grammatical markers of evidentiality in Uzbek, the marker chog‘i is examined with a syntactic and semantic approach based on a corpus of selected texts. Its development into an inferential marker is evaluated with special attention to sources of evidentials.

Multilingual pragmatic markers in South African English

This article provides a descriptive account of five multilingual pragmatic markers – nje, mara, kanti, vele and kaloku – which are borrowed from indigenous South African languages into South African English, with a view to investigating their frequencies, spelling stability, syntactic positioning, distribution across text types, collocational patterns and discourse-pragmatic functions. The data, which are extracted from the South African component of the Global Web-based English corpus, are analysed quantitatively and qualitatively, from a postcolonial corpus pragmatic perspective. The results show that the multilingual pragmatic markers are generally infrequent compared to their English counterparts, their spellings are generally stable and their positions in the utterances are based on their functions. The article identifies nje as an attitudinal marker, a focus particle, an emphasis marker, an intensifier and a marker of shared knowledge, mara as a contrastive marker and kanti as a contrastive marker, an inferential marker and an emphasis marker. Vele is an emphasis marker, while kaloku is an attention marker, a topic orientation marker and an inferential marker. In conclusion, these multilingual pragmatic markers contribute to the distinctive nature of South African English at the pragmatic level.

Epistemic constraints on the use of discourse marker of course

Concerning the use of of course, little research has been conducted to study what function it plays in a discourse nor to find a common thread going through its seemingly various functions such as an inferential marker (Fraser, 1999), a booster or emphasizer (Holmes, 1990), a content disjunct (Quirk et al., 1990), an assessive (Bach, 1999), an evidential marker (Furkó, 2007), etc. Since little have its linguistic contexts been studied, it is hard to tell what linguistic contexts are (in)compatible with it. The current study aims to investigate whether its various discourse functions can be reduced down to a single function, and how this single function is related to the politeness requirement when it occurs in a response to a yes-no question. Furthermore, it also aims to determine its semantics and what it has to do with the lack of its compatibility with questions. To this end, the current study tries to capture the single function of of course within the framework of dynamic semantics (Dekker, 2012; Groenendijk & Stokoff, 1991; Krifka, 2015; Veltman, 1996).

THE STUDENT’S ACCURACY IN USING DISCOURSE MARKERS FOR ACADEMIC WRITING (A CASE STUDY OF STUDENTS IN ENGLISH AND LITERATURE DEPARTMENT

This research focused on the accuracy of discourse markers used by the students in their academic writing, especially in the thesis background. This research used a qualitative method, analyzed by Bruce Fraser (1999) to identify the elaborative markers. The result of data analysis in this research found the types of discourse markers used in students’ thesis background, which are: the first is contrastive markers such as whereas, otherwise, even though, in contrast, and yet. The second is elaborative markers such as besides, in other words, also, for example, furthermore, and. The last is inferential markers such as so, because, in this case, hence, therefore, then, and in this case. On that basis, the dominant type of discourse markers used in students’ thesis background was elaborative markers which were applied about 11 times. In addition, the researcher found there were 20 discourse markers that were used in the student’s thesis background. The result of this research showed that only 16 of the discourse markers were used in an appropriate way and 4 of them were used in an inappropriate way

Borrowed Swahili discourse-pragmatic features in Kenyan and Tanzanian Englishes

Abstract This study explores five Swahili discourse-pragmatic features – ati/eti, yaani, pole, sasa and sawa – which are borrowed from Swahili into Kenyan and Tanzanian Englishes, with a view to investigating their meanings, frequencies, positioning, collocational patterns, syntactic distribution and discourse-pragmatic functions. The data, which are extracted from the International Corpus of English-East Africa and the Kenyan and Tanzanian components of the corpus of Global Web-based English, are analysed quantitatively and qualitatively, from a variational and postcolonial corpus pragmatic framework. The study reveals that the Swahili discourse-pragmatic features occur more frequently in the Kenyan corpora than in the Tanzanian corpora, except in the case of sasa, which occurred with the same frequency in the online corpus. The paper identifies ati/eti as an attention marker, a quotative marker, a hearsay marker, an inferential marker, and an emotive interjection, yaani as an emphasis and elaborative marker, while pole is an attitudinal marker that expresses sympathy and sarcasm. While sasa is only an attention marker, sawa is an agreement and attention marker. The paper shows that these borrowed discourse-pragmatic features contribute to the distinctive nature of East African Englishes.

Academic Writing of EFL Students’ Undergraduate Theses: A Discourse Marker Analysis

Writing the background is obligatory in undergraduate theses, and discourse markers are essential to creating cohesion and coherence in academic writing. Thus, this paper aimed to investigate discourse markers used by the undergraduate students in writing their thesis backgrounds and the extent of accuracy of the use of DMs in the students’ thesis backgrounds. Data were collected from 28 undergraduate thesis backgrounds written by the students of the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta batch 2016, who graduated between May 2020 and January 2021. Descriptive research was employed, and the data were examined using document analysis. Results showed that elaborative markers were used 763 times (74.58%) and followed by reason markers 95 times (9.29%), inferential markers 85 times (8.31%), and contrastive markers 80 times (7.82%). In general, the EFL students used DMs accurately in their thesis backgrounds. Some DMs were, however, used inappropriately. It is essential that the EFL students better understand how to use DMs appropriately when writing their thesis backgrounds.

Evaluating the Use of Discourse Markers in Selected English Education Journal Articles

Considering the important roles of discourse markers in writing academic purposes, the researchers evaluate the use of discourse markers in English Education Journal articles. This research aims to find out the types of discourse markers precisely contrastive, elaborative and inferential discourse markers, and the errors in using those expressions. This research uses a qualitative research design with the data from written language especially the journal articles published by English Education Journal (EEJ). Thus, specifically this research employs content analysis. There were twenty journal articles analyzed. They represented their volume especially there are four volumes in 2020. The findings of this research demonstrated that all of the research data applied those types of discourse markers. The type of elaborative discourse markers were the first type used by the writers. It is the frequently used by the writers in the journal articles. In this case, it used in 890 times. The expression frequently used is and. Meanwhile, the errors in using discourse markers in the journal articles occurred in 17 times. Here, the wrong relation category as the commonly applied in 7 times. These findings inform us to improve our awareness in applying those expressions. Thus, it can be concluded that the discourse markers is required in creating journal articles. Therefore, the writers have to concern regarding to the categories of errors in using discourse markers for avoiding inappropriateness.

Discourse Markers in Narrative Essays: A Case Study of Jordanian High School EFL Learners

This study explores the use and functions of discourse markers (DMs) in the narrative essays of 85 Jordanian high school students adopting Frasers’s (2006) framework. The results show that the most frequently used DMs were elaborative (55.1%), followed by temporal (31.4%), inferential (9.3%) and contrastive (4%) respectively. Regarding the functions of DMs, the results reveal that the participants employed elaborative markers to express addition of information, temporal markers to sequence the events, inferential markers to introduce reasons or results and contrastive markers to express contrast. The results also indicate that the most commonly used DMs were and (97.9%), but (90.9%), and because (76%). The high occurrence of some DMs may be considered to be a strategy adopted by learners to avoid using unknown DMs. In addition, the results showcase that a number of factors may have influenced the use of DMs such as literal translation, lack of knowledge of some DMs, and overgeneralization. The study recommends that textbooks used to teach English in schools should incorporate more attention to DMs, particularly from a functional perspective.

Discourse features of scientific abstracts on agricultural topics
 in the English language

The article describes the discourse features of abstracts of scientific papers on agriculture: logicality, abstractness, performativity, terminology, specific sentence length, structural categories and components. It was found that the logicality was achieved due to contrastive, elaborative, inferential and temporal discourse markers in the abstracts of the scientific publications on agriculture in the English language. The abstractness was expressed by the predominance of indefinite or zero articles and the use of words describing processes and phenomena. The terminology of the abstracts of the scientific articles on agricultural topics was described in accordance with the following classification: 1) well-known terms; 2) special professional terms; 3) abbreviations. The performativity was manifested in the first person material presentation using general science clichés. The predominance of sentences the length of which ranges from 16 to 25 words was observed in the abstracts of the scientific articles on the agricultural topics. It was found that most of these abstracts were characterized by the following structural components: background (72%), aims (73%), research methods and materials (62%), results (80%), conclusions (58%).

DISCOURSE MARKERS IN ABSTRACTS OF INTERNATIONAL JOURNALS

This study investigated discourse markers used in international journal’ abstracts. This study was aimed at finding out: a) discourse markers used in abstracts of international journals, and b) the most dominant types of discourse markers used in international journal’ abstracts. The study employed six abstracts of international journals chosen randomly as the sample of the study. The study utilizes qualitative descriptive design. In data analysis, this study used Fraser’s theory (1999) that emphasized on four types, namely contrastive marker, elaborative marker, inferential marker, and temporal marker. In addition, the result shows that there are four types of discourse markers found in international journal’s abstracts. Elaborative marker are the most dominant types; marker and is the overuse in the abstracts. It occurred 56 times of the total six abstracts of international journals followed by 2 times for marker also, moreover, in addition, therefore, then, thus, so, or, then, 1 time for marker in addition, furthermore, for instance, beside, although, in contrast, in spite of, whereas, however, nonetheless, result indicate that, in conclusion, the result of, because, and finally. Moreover, the study found contrastive markers consistsed of although, in contrast, in spite of, whereas, however, and nonetheless. Elaborative markers consist of and, or, in addition, furthermore, for instance, beside, and moreover. Inferential markers consist of so, therefore, thus, then, result indicate that, the result of, in conclusion, and because. Temporal markers consist of finally. This study concludes that the most dominant types of discourse markers was elaborative markers due to the excessive use in the 6 abstracts. Keywords: abstract, discourse analysis, discourse markers, journal

Comparison of the Use of Discourse Markers in English Speeches between Non-Native and Native Speakers of English

This study revealed the comparison of the use of discourse markers in English speeches between non-native and native speakers of English. The study focused on the types of discourse markers, the similarities and the differences between non-native and native speakers in using discourse markers. This study employed a qualitative research design with the data from the spoken discourse. The findings of the study showed that there were ten sub-categories of discourse markers that are practiced by non-native speakers, namely: assessment marker, manner of a speaking marker, evidential markers, hearsay markers, contrastive discourse markers, elaborative discourse markers, inferential discourse markers, discourse management markers, topic orientation markers, and attention markers. On the contrary, there were nine sub-categories of discourse markers that existed in English speeches, especially delivered by the native speakers such as assessment marker, manner of a speaking marker, evidential markers, hearsay markers, contrastive discourse markers, elaborative discourse markers, inferential discourse markers, topic orientation markers, and attention markers. The total of discourse markers produced by the non-native speakers was 301 utterances while native speakers of English were 269 utterances. Therefore, it is concluded that discourse markers were useful in English speeches either by non-native speakers or native speakers

ANALYSIS OF DISCOURSE MARKERS USED IN WRITING AT FIFTH SEMESTER STUDENTS OF ENGLISH EDUCATION SECTION IN IAIN BUKITTINGGI

This research was due to several problems found in the field; some students did not use discourse markers in writing to connect ideas. They said that they understood the lecturer's explanation about discourse markers, but they were difficult to use in the text. They had difficulty finding the appropriate discourse marker to use in the text. This study aimed to find out the kind of discourse marker students used in writing and the problems students had in using discourse markers. This research used descriptive quantitative as the research method. This study's population was 121 students in the fifth semester of the English language study program at IAIN Bukittinggi and used random sampling as a research sampling technique. The sample in this research was 24 students. In addition, data analysis was done by analyzing data, percentages and making conclusions. The researcher found some discourse markers used by students, 75% students using an elaborative marker, 64% students using an adversative marker, and 62,5% students using the causal inferential marker. Then, there were fourth problems students faced when using discourse markers. The problem was overused, non-equivalent exchange, mistranslation, misinterpreted relation.

SCRUTINIZING ENGLISH DISCOURSE MARKERS IN EFL STUDENTS’ WRITING PRODUCTION

Fraser (1988; 1996; 1999) which are classified EDMs functions as ‘contrastive, ‘elaborative, and ‘inferential. This study designated the use of English discourse markers by University EFL students in writing production. To answer the research question on how do they disclose EDMs in producing writing, the writers employed a qualitative research approach. The object was the documentation of students’ writing result mediated on the writing class. The participants were 38 students of semester III in the academic year 2018/2019. The findings are the contrastive markers are; but 63/instead of 2/whereas 2/however 16/although 2/in the other hand /side 6. The elaborative markers are; and 597/also 105/or 69/for example 27/besides 7/moreover 3/in addition, 24/then 6/likewise 1. The inferential markers are; because 97/so 51/as a result 9/therefore 11/in conclusion 3/then 1. The most functions of discourse markers use by students are; the marker ‘but’ has a meaning ‘on the contrary. The marker ‘and’ has a meaning as ‘in addition’. Students used the marker ‘because’ to indicate ‘for the reason’. The implication of this study is that students need to understand in employing properly English discourse markers to make their writing being cohesive and coherent in texts.

Discourse Markers and Plagiarism in the Literature Review Section of a Research Thesis: A Study in Kenya

Academic writing is pertinent to postgraduate students because it is mandatory for them to write a research thesis as part of their degree programme. However, sometimes the theses that postgraduate students write do not communicate well or depict their professionalism. One of the problems these students face, as they write, is appropriate use of discourse markers. Discourse markers, when used appropriately, enhance coherence and signal the presence of particular relationships among text elements. They are also crucial tools for achieving communicative act in the text because they guide and influence the text receivers’ interpretation of the text. To evaluate how postgraduate students in Kenya use discourse markers in their writing, as speakers of English as a second language, this paper analyzed the discourse markers in the literature review section of all the PhD theses deposited at JOOUST library. If postgraduate students use Discourse markers effectively, especially in the literature review section of their theses, this could help guard against plagiarism because their voices as writers will be forcefully brought out. Basing on Fraser’s taxonomy the study identified different hierarchies of discourse markers though elaborative and inferential markers were the most frequent types. The study also suggested how some of the discourse markers identified could be used to bring out the writer’s voice so as to guard against plagiarism.

Variations in the use of discourse markers by L1 and L2 English users

This study adopts a functional approach to investigate specific discourse markers employed by L1 English and L2 English users in non-native English speaking contexts. Twenty-four academic essays were voluntarily submitted by the students for analysis. Primarily, Fraser’s (2009) taxonomy was used to identify discourse markers and to know its use in writing academic essays. Findings indicate that there were notable differences between L1 and L2 users in using discourse markers, specifically in its frequency and functions. Accordingly, L1 English users’ writings frequently displayed elaborative markers followed by temporal, inferential, and cons transitive discourses. Meanwhile, L2 English users’ writings showed the overuse of certain discourse types such as temporal and inferential markers. In the coding of data, it was also revealed the L2 users’ overused of discourse markers resulted in incoherent texts. Language teachers may need to raise awareness of how discourse markers can be used variably in writing academic essays.

UPDATING THE STUDENTS’ MASTERY ON DISCOURSE MARKERS TO IMPROVE THEIR READING SKILLS

The current study aimed at justifying that updating or upgrading the mastery on discourse markers (DMs) could improve the students’ reading skills. It is arguably true that DMs do facilitate readers to comprehend texts in terms of the logical and grammatical relation. Therefore, an action research involving 21 students randomly selected as the subjects of the study were conducted in Reading Classes. Pre-test, Post-test 1 and Post-test 2 were administered to generate the data consisting of the progress of their reading skills. Theoretical insights on DMs (function and uses) were also highlighted including the teaching procedures to support the findings of the classroom action research. It turns out that despite the fact that there are 4 types of DMs, only three of them were mostly used in the reading texts, namely contrastive, elaborative and inferential markers. Updating or upgrading DMs proves effective to improve the students’ reading skills as there were increases in scores to indicate improvements.
 Key words: discourse markers, action research, reading skills

A STUDY OF DISCOURSE MARKERS USED IN THE THESES BACKGROUND WRITTEN BY THE STUDENTS OF ENGLISH DEPARTMENT OF BENGKULU UNIVERSITY (ACADEMIC YEAR DECEMBER 2016)

This research was aimed at finding the types of Discourse Markers used by the students and investigating the accuracy of Discourse Markers by the students of English Education Study program graduated in December 2016 at the University of Bengkulu. This research was a descriptive study. The subjects in this research were 10 theses background from the students of English Education Study Program who graduated in December 2016. The result of this research shows that there were four types of Discourse Markers used by the students based on Bruce Fraser’s theory such as Inferential markers, temporal markers, elaborative markers and contrastive markers. The most dominant marker used by the students was Inferential markers with 42%. This research also found that the most accurate marker used was Temporal markers with 78.57% and the lowest accurate marker was Elaborative markers with 52.17%.

A bias-driven modal development of evidentiality: the Korean inferential evidential –po

This paper aims at analyzing the peculiar morphology and semantics of Korean inferential evidential expressions like ca-na-po-ta ‘(he) seems to be sleeping’ in an integrated manner, with a claim that it contains a self-addressed interrogative morpheme. From a diachronic perspective, the paper proposes that the emergence of the inferential marker is bias-driven, arguing that an inherent bias in a self-addressed question constitutes a necessary condition for later development. And the bias, which is undoubtedly of an epistemic nature, is reinterpreted as inferential evidentiality with the addition of the previously perceptual morpheme –po-. On a synchronic side, capitalizing on the fact that –kka is another self-addressed interrogative morpheme alongside with –na and –ka, the present work claims that this morpheme can also make an inferential evidential marker, i.e., -kka-po-, which is always preceded by a prospective morpheme –l-. It is demonstrated that apparent semantic differences between the kka-variant and the other two variants are better understood as sortal contrasts, since the predictive future is the converse of the inferential past (Nichols, in: Chafe, Nichols (eds) Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of epistemology, Ablex, Norwood, 1986).

Derivational Verbal Suffixes in Abaza

This paper describes a group of derivational verbal suffixes in Abaza, a polysynthetic language belonging to the Northwest Caucasian family. For each suffix I propose a short description of its most remarkable features. In particular, I discuss the polysemy of the refactive and assertive markers and their interaction with the event structure of the verb. Other suffixes such as the putative and inferential markers are interesting due to their peculiar morphological behavior. The diversity of the discussed affixes is tentatively explained by the different pathways of their morphological and semantic development.