Interactive and Interactional Markers in ISI and Non-ISI Applied Linguistic Journal Articles Written by Iranian Authors: A Contrastive Meta-Discourse Analysis of Method Section

Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139-145.

Atai, M. R., & Falah, S. (2005). A contrastive genre analysis of result and discussion sections of applied linguistic research articles written by native and non-native English speakers with respect to evaluated entities and ascribed values. 41-56. Retrieved from http://paaljapan.org/resources/proceeding/PAAL10/pdfs/atai.pdf

Aryadoust, V. (2016). Gender and academic major bias in peer assessment of oral presentations. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(1), 1-24.

Ahmadi, A., & Sadeghi, E. (2016). Assessing English Language Learners’ Oral Performance: A Comparison of Monologue, Interview, and Group Oral Test. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(4), 341-358.

Bhatia, V.K. (1999). Integrating products, processes, purposes and participants in professional writing. Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices, London: Routledge.

Bhatia, V. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. London: Continuum International.

Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T. A.  (2007). Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing, Co.

Candlin, C. N., Bhatia, V. K., & Jensen, C. H. (2002). Developing legal writing materials for English second language learners: Problems and perspectives. English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), 299-320.

Estaji, M., & Vafaeimehr, R. (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.

Farzannia, S., & Farnia M. (2016). Metadiscourse markers in introduction sections of Persian and English mining engineering articles. English for Specific Purposes World, 17(49), 1-16.

Fu, X. (2012). The use of interactional metadiscourse in job postings. Discourse Studies, 14(4), 399-417.

Ghadyani, F., & Tahririan, M. H. (2015). Interactive markers in medical research articles written by Iranian and native authors of ISI and non-ISI medical journals: a contrastive metadiscourse analysis of method section. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(2), 309.

Gholami, J., & Ilghami, R. (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.

Gholami, J., & Zeinolabedini, M. (2017). Peer-to-peer prescriptions in medical sciences: Iranian field specialists' attitudes toward convenience editing. English for Specific Purposes, 45, 86-97.

Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Hopkins, A., & Dudley- Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes, 7(2), 113-122.

Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied linguistics, 17(4), 433-454.

Hyland, K. (2006). Disciplinary differences: language variation in academic discourse. In K. Hyland, & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines. Germany: Peter Lang.

Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.

Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2004a). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–177.

Hyland, K. L. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies.

Hyland, K. (2015). Metadiscourse. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Research Gate. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1002/9781118611463/wbielsi00

Hyland, K. (2016). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 58-69.

Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2017). Is academic writing becoming more informal? English for Specific Purposes, 45, 40-51.

Jiang, F. K., & Hyland, K. (2016). Nouns and academic interactions: A neglected feature of metadiscourse. Applied Linguistics, doi:10.1093/applin/amw023. 201..

Kawase, T. (2015). Metadiscourse in the introductions of PhD theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 114-124.

Kuhi, D., & Mojood, M. (2014). Metadiscourse in newspaper genre: A cross-linguistic study of English and Persian editorials. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1046-1055.

Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82–93.

Marefat, F., & Hassanzadeh, M. (2016). Applying form-focused approaches to L2 vocabulary instruction through video podcasts. Language Learning & Technology, 20(3), 107-127.

Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for specific purposes, 16(2), 119-138.

Ozdemir, N. O., & Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: A cross-cultural study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 59-63. doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.011

Rezaeizadeh, Z., Baharlooei, R., & Simin, S. (2015). Gender-Based study of interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in conclusion sections of English master theses. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 6(1), 195-208.

Rezaee, A. A. & Sayfouri, N. (2009). Iranian ISI and non-ISI medical research articles in English: A comparative ESP/EAP move analysis. J. English Lang. Journal of English Language Teaching, 1(212), 135–160.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zare, J., & Tavakoli, M. (2016). The use of personal meta-discourse over monologic and dialogic modes of academic speech. Discourse Processes, 54(2), 1-13.