Alyousef, H. S. (2015). An investigation of metadiscourse features in international postgraduate business students’ texts: The use of interactive and interactional markers in tertiary multimodal finance texts. SAGE Open, 5(4), 1-10. doi: 10.1177/2158244015610796
Aull, L. L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31(2), 151-183.
Bondi, M. (2009). Historians at work: Reporting frameworks in English and Italian book review articles. In K. Hyland, & G. Diani, (Eds.), Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings (pp. 179–196). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Bizzell, P. (1992). Academic discourse and critical consciousness. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Bruce, I. (2014). Expressing criticality in the literature review in research article introductions in applied linguistics and psychology. English for Specific Purposes, 36, 85-96.
Bruce, I. (2016). Constructing critical stance in university essays in English literature and sociology. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 13-25. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2015.10.005
Camiciottoli, C. B. (2003). Metadiscourse in ESP reading comprehension: An exploratory study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(1), 28-44.
Conner, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: A cross-cultural study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1989). Mr. Darwin and his readers: Exploring interpersonal metadiscourse as a dimension of ethos. Rhetoric Review, 8 (1), 91–112.
Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York: Peter Lang Publishers.
Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The Writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse (pp. 118-36). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39-71.
Crismore, A. (2004). Pronouns and metadiscourse as interpersonal rhetorical devices in fundraising letters: A corpus linguistic analysis. In U. Connor & T. A. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 307-330). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textural and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1), 95-113.
D’Angelo, L. (2008). Gender identity and authority in academic book reviews: A metadiscourse analysis across disciplines. Linguistica e Filologia, 27, 205-221.
Francis, B., Robson, J. & Read, B. (2001). An analysis of undergraduate writing styles in the context of gender and achievement. Studies in Higher Education, 26(3), 313-326.
Fu, X., & Hyland, K. (2014). Interaction in two journalistic genres: A study of interactional metadiscourse. English Text Construction, 7(1), 122-144.
Fuertes-Olivera, P., Valasco-Sacristan, M., Arribas-Bano, A., & Samaniego, F. (2001). Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1291-1308.
Grey, C. (1998). Towards an overview on gender and language variation. Retrieved from
http://www.eche.ac.uk/study/schsubj/human/English/rh/modules/337-1.htm
Harris, Z. (1959). The transformational model of language structure. Anthropological Linguistics, 1(1), 27-29.
Herbert, R. K. (1990). Sex-based differences in compliment behavior. Language in Society, 19(2), 201-224.
Herring, S. C. & Paolillo, J. C. (2006). Gender and genre variation in weblogs. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(4), 439-459.
Herring, S., Johnson, D., & Dibenedetto, T. (1995). The discussion is going too far! Male resistance to female participation on the Internet. In M. Bucholtz, & K. Hall, (Eds.), Gender articulated: Language and the socially constructed self (pp. 67-96). New York: Routledge.
Holmes, J. (1984). Women’s language: A functional approach. General Linguistics, 24(3), 149-178.
Holmes, J. (1988). Paying compliments: A sex-preferential positive politeness strategy. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(3), 445–465.
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. New York: Longman.
Hyland, K. (1998). Exploring corporate rhetoric. Metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter. Journal of Business Communication 35(2), 224–245.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2004). Patterns of engagement: Dialogic features and L2 student writing. In L. Ravelli & R. Ellis (Eds.), Academic writing in context: Social-functional perspectives on theory and practice. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25 (2), 156–177.
Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–191.
Hyland, K. (2015). Metadiscourse. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie, & T. Sandel (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and social sciences (pp. 1-11). Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi003/full
Janssen, A., & Murachver, T. (2004). The relationship between gender and topic in gender-preferential language use. Written Communication, 21(4), 344-367.
Johnson, D., & D. H. Roen. (1992). Complimenting and involvement in peer-reviews: Gender variation. Language in Society, 21(1), 27-57.
Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, role and context. Developing academic literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought pattern in intercultural education. Journal of Language Learning, 1, 1-20. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1966.tb00804.x
Kawase, T. (2015). Metadiscourse in the introductions of PhD theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 114-124.
Khedri, M., Heng, C. S., & Ebrahimi, S. F. (2013). An exploration of interactive metadiscourse markers in academic research article abstracts in two disciplines. Discourse Studies, 15(3), 319-331.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and women’s place. New York: Harper & Row.
Le, E. (2004) Active participation within written argumentation: Metadiscourse and editorialist’s authority. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(4), 687-714.
Lee, J. J., & Subtirelu, N. C. (2015). Metadiscourse in the classroom: A comparative analysis of EAP lessons and university lectures. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 52-62.
Lynch, C., & Strauss-Noll, M. (1987). Mauve Washers: Sex-differences in freshman writing. English Journal, 76, 90-94.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vols. 1 & 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mardani, T. (2017). Metadiscourse markers: A contrastive study of translated and non-translated persuasive texts. Journal of Language and Translation, 7(2), 73-79.
Markkanen, R., Steffensen, M. S., & Crismore, A. (1993). Quantitative contrastive study of metadiscourse: problems in design and analysis s of data. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 23, 137–151.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish–English Economics texts. English for Specific Purposes 12(1), 3–22.
McCabe, A. (2004). Mood and modality in Spanish and English history textbooks: The construction of authority. Text 24 (1), 1–29.
McGrath, L., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 161-173.
McMillan, J., Clifton, R., Mcgrath, D., & Gale, W.S. (1977). Women’s language: Uncertainty or interpersonal sensitivity and emotionality?. Sex Roles, 3, 545-559.
Michigan corpus of upper-level student papers. (2009). Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan.
Molino, A. (2010). Personal and impersonal authorial references: A contrastive study of English and Italian linguistics research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2), 86–101.
Moreno, A. (2004). Retrospective labelling in premise-conclusion metatext: An English–Spanish contrastive study of research articles on business and economics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3 (4), 321–339.
Moreno, A., & Sua´rez, L. (2008). A study of critical attitude across English and Spanish academic book reviews. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7 (1), 15–26.
Robson, J. Francis, B. & Read, B. (2002). Writers of passage: Stylistic features of male and female undergraduate history essays. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26(4), 351-362.
Rubin, D. L., & Greene, K. (1992). Gender typical style in written language. Research in the Teaching of English, 26, 7-40.
Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz, A., Marı´a, A., & Zambrano, N. (2003). The scimitar, the dagger and the glove: Intercultural differences in the rhetoric of criticism in Spanish, French and English medical discourse (1930–1995). English for Specific Purposes 22 (3), 223–247.
Schiffrin, D. (1980). Metatalk: Organisational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Language and Social Interaction, 50, 199-236.
Sheldon, E. (2009). From one to another: discursive construction of self-representation in English and Castilian Spanish research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 28(4), 251–265.
Silver, M. (2003) The stance of stance: A critical look at ways stance is expressed and modeled in academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2 (4), 359-374.
Steffensen. M. S., & Cheng, X. (1996). Metadiscourse and text pragmatics: How students write after learning about metadiscourse. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 7, 153-170.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English for specific purpose in academic and research setting. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J., &Van Bonn, S. (2007). Similarities and differences in French and English EAP research article abstracts: The case of ASP. In K. Flottum (Ed.), Language and discipline perspectives on academic discourse (pp. 275–294). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press.
Tannen, D. (1994). Talking from 9 to 5: How women’s and men’s conversational styles affect who gets heard, who gets credit, and what gets done at work. New York: William Morrow.
Thompson, G., & Thetela, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. TEXT, 15(1), 103-27.
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.
Tse, P., & Hyland, K. (2006). Gender and discipline: Exploring metadiscourse variation in academic book reviews. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp. 177-202). Bern: Peter Lang.
Tse, p., & Hyland, K. (2008). Robot Kung Fu: Gender and professional identity in biology and philosophy reviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1232-1248.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some explanatory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (2002). Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric. In E. Barton, & G. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition. New York: Hampton Press.
Vassileva, I. (2000). Who is the author? A Contrastive analysis of authorial presence in English, German, French, Russian and Bulgarian Academic Discourse. Asgard Verlag: Sankt Augustin.
Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes 20 (1), 83–102.
Ventola, E., & Mauranen. A. (1991). Non–native writing and native revising of scientific articles. In E. Ventola (Eds.), Functional and systemic linguistics: Approaches and uses. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Widdowson, H. G. (1984). Explorations in applied linguistics 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, J. (1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Boston: Scott Foresman.
)