Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Vol. 24, John Benjamins Publishing.
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), 18-38.
Camiciottoli, B. C. (2005). Adjusting a business lecture for an international audience: A case study. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 183-199.
Cao, F. & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15-31.
Farnia, M. & Mohammadi, N. (2018). Cross-cultural analysis of interpersonal metadiscourse markers in persuasive local newspaper articles. Discourse and Interaction, 11(2), 27-44.
Farnia, M. & Ebrahimi, S. F. (2024). Exploring metadiscourse markers in students’ persuasive email requests to university professors. Journal of Linguistic Studies: Theory and Practice, 2(2), 173-201.
Fortanet, I. (2004). The use of ‘we’ in university lectures: reference and function. English for Specific Purposes, 23(1), 45-66.
Ghahremani Mina, K. & Biria, R. (2017). Exploring interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in discussion sections of social and medical science articles. International Journal of Research in English Education, 2(4), 11-29.
Gholami, J., Nejad, S. R. & Pour, J. L. (2014). Metadiscourse markers misuses; a study of EFL learners’ Argumentative Essays. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 580-589.
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437-455.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133-151.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London, New York: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic Discourse: English in A Global Context. A&C Black.
Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(S2), 125-143.
Hyland, K. & Jiang, F. K. (2018). “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 18-30.
Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
Kashiha, H. (2018). Malaysian ESL students’ metadiscourse in essay writing. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 8(3), 193-201.
Kashiha, H. & Marandi, S. (2019). Rhetoric-specific features of interactive metadiscourse in introduction moves: A case of discipline awareness. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 37(1), 1-14.
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.
Khedri, M. & Kritsis, K. (2018). Metadiscourse in applied linguistics and chemistry research article introductions. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 47-73.
Lee, S. (2009). Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Corpus-Based Study of Expert, L1 and L2 Postgraduate Student Text. Doctoral dissertation, Newcastle University.
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.
Matroudy, M. & Ebrahimi, S. F. (2022). Functional analysis of reflexive metadiscourse in dissertation defense sessions. International Journal of Research in English Education, 7(1), 72-85.
Mauranen, A. (2010). Features of English as a lingua franca in academia. Helsinki English Studies, 6(6), 6-28.
Swales, J. M. (2001). Metatalk in American academic talk: The cases of point and thing. Journal of English Linguistics, 29(1), 34-54.
Zali, M. M., Mohamad, R., Setia, R., Baniamin, R. M. R. & Razlan, R. M. (2020). Comparisons of interactive and interactional metadiscourse among undergraduates. Asian Journal of University Education, 16(4), 21-30.
)