A comparative investigation of metadiscourse in English and Persian architectural research articles

References

Abdollahzade, E. 2011. “Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers”. Journal of Pragmatics 43(1). 288–297.10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.019Search in Google Scholar

Attaran, A. 2014. “Study of metadiscourse in ESP articles: A comparison of English articles written by Iranian and English native speakers. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research 5(1). 63–71.Search in Google Scholar

Bogdanovič, V. 2014. “Genre-based metadiscourse analysis in two textbooks”. FACTA UNIVERSITATIS-Linguistics and Literature 12(2). 115–124.Search in Google Scholar

Cao, F. and G. Hu. 2014. “Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences”. Journal of Pragmatics 66(1). 15–31.10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.007Search in Google Scholar

Clyne, M. 1987. “Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts”. Journal of Pragmatics 11. 211–247.10.1016/0378-2166(87)90196-2Search in Google Scholar

Connor, U. 2004. “Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3(4). 291–304.10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.003Search in Google Scholar

Connor, U. 2011. Intercultural rhetoric: In the writing classroom Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.3488851Search in Google Scholar

Crismore, A. 1983. Metadiscourse: What it is and how it is used in school and non-school social science texts Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.Search in Google Scholar

Crismore, A., R. Markkanen and M. Steffensen. 1993. “Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students”. Written Communication 10(1). 39–71.10.1177/0741088393010001002Search in Google Scholar

Dahl, T. 2004. “Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline?” Journal of Pragmatics 36(10). 1807–1825.10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004Search in Google Scholar

Dafouz-Milne, E. 2008. “The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 40(1). 95–113.10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003Search in Google Scholar

Estaji, M. and R. Vafaeimehr. 2015. “A comparative analysis of interactional metadiscourse markers in the introduction and conclusion sections of mechanical and electrical engineering research papers”. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research 3(1). 37–56.Search in Google Scholar

Ernst, T.B. 1984. Towards an integrated theory of adverb position in English Indiana: Linguistics Club.Search in Google Scholar

Faghih, E. and S. Rahimpour. 2009. “Contrastive rhetoric of English and Persian written texts: Metadiscourse in applied linguistics research articles”. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics 1. 92–107.Search in Google Scholar

Farzannia, S. and M. Farnia. 2016. “Metadiscourse markers in introduction sections of Persian and English mining engineering articles”. English for Specific Purposes World 49(17). 1–16.Search in Google Scholar

Flowerdew, J. 2012. “Corpus-based discourse analysis”. In: Gee, J.P. and M. Handford (eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis London: Routledge. 144–187.10.4324/9780203809068.ch13Search in Google Scholar

Gholami, J. and R. Ilghami. 2016. “Metadiscourse markers in biological research articles and journal impact factor: Non‐native writers vs. native writers”. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 44(4). 349–360.10.1002/bmb.20961Search in Google Scholar

Groat, L. and D. Wang. 2013. Architectural research design. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar London: Edward Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Harris, Z. 1959. “The transformational model of language structure”. Anthropological Linguistics 1(1). 27–29.Search in Google Scholar

Harris, Z. 1970. Papers in structural and transformational linguistics Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.10.1007/978-94-017-6059-1Search in Google Scholar

Herriman, J. 2014. “Metadiscourse in English and Swedish non-fiction texts and their translations”. Nordic Journal of English Studies 13(1). 1–32.10.35360/njes.291Search in Google Scholar

Hinds, J. 1980. “Japanese expository prose”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 13(1). 117–158.10.1080/08351818009370494Search in Google Scholar

Hinds, J. 1987. “Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology”. In: Connor, U. and R. Kaplan (eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 141–152.Search in Google Scholar

Holmes, J. 1988. “Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks”. Applied Linguistics 91. 20–44.10.1093/applin/9.1.21Search in Google Scholar

Hoftsede, G. 1977. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind New York: McGraw-Hill.Search in Google Scholar

Hu, G. and F. Cao. 2011. “Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English-and Chinese-medium journals”. Journal of Pragmatics 43(11). 2795–2809.10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007Search in Google Scholar

Hu, G. and F. Cao. 2015. “Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse in research articles”. English for Specific Purposes 39. 12–25.10.1016/j.esp.2015.03.002Search in Google Scholar

Hunston, S. 2008. “Collection strategies and design decisions”. In: Ludeling, A. and M. Kyto (eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 154–168.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, K. 1998. Hedging in scientific research articles Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.54Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, K. 2000. Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, K. 2004. “Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing”. Journal of Second Language Writing 13(2). 133–151.10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, K. 2005a. Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, K. 2005b. “Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse”. Discourse Studies 7(2). 173–192.10.1177/1461445605050365Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, K. 2006. English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203006603Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, K. 2009. Academic discourse: English in the global context London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, K. 2010. “Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9(2). 116–127.10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.003Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, K. 2017. “Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going?”. Journal of pragmatics 113(1). 16–29.10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, K. and P. Tse. 2004. “Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal”. Applied Linguistics 25(2). 156–177.10.1093/applin/25.2.156Search in Google Scholar

Jalilifar, A. 2011. “Worlds of attitudes in research article discussion sections: A crosslinguistic perspective”. Journal of Technology and Education 5(3). 177–186.Search in Google Scholar

Jenkins, P., L. Forsyth and H. Smith. 2004. Balancing three dimensions in architectural research: Depth, breadth and length. An Institutional Analysis of Research in Architecture in the UK Higher Education Sector: Report on the UK-wide research Edinburgh: Edinburgh College of Art.Search in Google Scholar

Jiang, Y. and M. Tao. 2007. “A comparative study of hedges in discussion sections of English and Chinese medical research articles”. Foreign Language Research 139(6). 115–122.Search in Google Scholar

Keshavarz, M.H. and Z. Kheirieh. 2011. “Metadiscourse elements in English research articles written by native English and non-native Iranian writers in Applied Linguistics and Civil Engineering”. Journal of English Studies 1. 3–15.Search in Google Scholar

Khedri, M., C.H. Heng and M.F. Ebrahimi. 2013. “An exploration of interactive metadiscourse markers in academic research article abstracts in two disciplines”. Discourse Studies 15(3). 319–331.10.1177/1461445613480588Search in Google Scholar

Kim, L.C. and M. Lim. 2013. “Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research articles introductions”. Discourse Studies 15(2). 129–146.10.1177/1461445612471476Search in Google Scholar

Lee, D.Y.W. 2001. “Genres, registers, text-types, domains, and styles: Clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the BNC jungle”. Language Learning and Technology 5(1). 37–72.Search in Google Scholar

Lin, L. and S. Evans. 2012. “Structural patterns in empirical research articles: A cross-disciplinary study”. English for Specific Purposes 31. 150–160.10.1016/j.esp.2011.10.002Search in Google Scholar

Masoumi, D. and B. Lindstrom. 2009. “Foundations of cultural design in e-learning”. International Journal of Internet and Enterprise Management 6(2). 124–142.10.1504/IJIEM.2009.023926Search in Google Scholar

Mauranen, A. 1993. “Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Meta-text in Finnish-English economics texts”. English for Specific Purposes 12(1). 3–22.10.1016/0889-4906(93)90024-ISearch in Google Scholar

Mu, C., L.J. Zhang, J. Ehrich, and H. Hong. 2015. “The use of metadiscourse for knowledge construction in Chinese and English research articles”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20. 135–148.10.1016/j.jeap.2015.09.003Search in Google Scholar

Mur-Dueñas, P. 2007. “‘I/we focus on…’: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6(2). 143–162.10.1016/j.jeap.2007.05.002Search in Google Scholar

Mur-Dueñas, P. 2010. “Attitude markers in business management research articles: A cross-cultural corpus-driven approach”. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19. 50–72.10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00228.xSearch in Google Scholar

Mur-Dueñas, P. 2011. “An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish”. Journal of pragmatics 43(12). 3068–3079.10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002Search in Google Scholar

Myers, G. 1994. Words in ads London: Edward Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Orta, I.V. 2010. “A contrastive analysis of the use of modal verbs in the expression of epistemic stance in business management research articles in English and Spanish”. Ibérica: Iberian Journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes (AELFE) 19. 77–96.Search in Google Scholar

Pishghadam, R. and A. Attaran. 2012. “Rhetorical patterns of argumentation in EFL journals of Persian and English”. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning 12(2). 63–71.10.5861/ijrsll.2012.132Search in Google Scholar

Pooresfahani, A.F., G.H. Khajavy and F. Vahidnia. 2012. “A contrastive study of metadiscourse elements in research articles written by Iranian Applied Linguistics and Engineering writers in English”. English Linguistics Research 1(1). 88–96.10.5430/elr.v1n1p88Search in Google Scholar

Rendell, J. 2004. “Architectural research and disciplinarity”. Architectural Research Quarterly 8(2). 141–147.10.1017/S135913550400017XSearch in Google Scholar

Salar, S. and B. Ghonsooly. 2016. “A comparative analysis of metadiscourse features in knowledge management research articles written in English and Persian”. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning 5(1). 15–27.10.5861/ijrsll.2015.1154Search in Google Scholar

Scott, M. 2015. WordSmith Tools [Computer software]. Stroud, UK: Lexical Analysis Software.Search in Google Scholar

Sheldon, E. 2009. “From one I to another: Discursive construction of self-representation in English and Castilian Spanish research articles”. English for Specific Purposes 28(4). 251–265.10.1016/j.esp.2009.05.001Search in Google Scholar

Shokouhi, H. and A.T. Baghsiahi. 2009. “Metadiscourse functions in English and Persian sociology articles: A study in contrastive rhetoric”. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 45(4). 535–554.10.2478/v10010-009-0026-2Search in Google Scholar

Stubb, M. 2001. “Text, corpora, and problems of interpretation: A response to Widdow-son”. Applied Linguistics 22. 149–172.10.1093/applin/22.2.149Search in Google Scholar

Swales, J. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Taki, S. and F. Jafarpour. 2012. “Engagement and stance in academic writing: A study of English and Persian research articles”. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 3(1). 157–168.Search in Google Scholar

Tardy, C.M. and J.M. Swales. 2008. “Form, text organization, genre, coherence, and cohesion”. In: Bazerman, C. (ed.), Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text New York: Lawrence Erlbam. 693–713.Search in Google Scholar

Vande Kopple, W.J. 1985. “Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse”. College Composition and Communication 36(1). 82–93.10.2307/357609Search in Google Scholar

Vande Kopple, W.J. 2002. “Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric”. In: Barton, F. and C. Stygall (eds.), Discourse studies in composition. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. 91–113.Search in Google Scholar

Vassileva, I. 1997. “Hedging in English and Bulgarian academic writing”. Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse 203–221.10.1515/9783110821048.203Search in Google Scholar

Vassileva, I. 2001. “Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing”. English for Specific Purposes 20(1). 83–102.10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00029-0Search in Google Scholar

Yang, Y. 2013. “Exploring linguistic and cultural variations in the use of hedges in English and Chinese scientific discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 50(1). 23–36.10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.008Search in Google Scholar

Zarei, G.R. and S. Mansoori. 2011. “A contrastive study on metadiscourse elements used in humanities vs. non-humanities across Persian and English”. English Language Teaching 4(1). 42–50.10.5539/elt.v4n1p42Search in Google Scholar