PERTANIKA JOURNAL OF TROPICAL AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE

J

• Anthony, L. (2014). AntConc (Version 3.4.4) [Computer Software]. Waseda University. http://www.laurenceanthony.net/

• 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314527055

• Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of Stance in English lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9, 93-124. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93

• Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1989). Mr. Darwin and his readers: Exploring interpersonal metadiscourse as a dimension of ethos. Rhetorical Review, 8(1), 91-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198909388880

• Crismore, A., & Kopple, W. J. V. (1997). Hedges and readers: Effects on attitudes and learning. In S. Markkanen & H. Schroder (Eds.). Hedging and discourses: Approaches to the analysis of pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 83-114). Walter de Gruyter and Company.

• 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003

• Demir, C. (2017). Competence in lexical boosters and nativeness in academic writing of English: The possible relation. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(2), 593-614. https://www.jlls.org/index.php/jlls/article/view/647/333

• Farnia, M., & Mohammadi, N. (2019). Cross-cultural analysis of interpersonal metadiscourse markers in persuasive local newspaper articles. Discourse and Interaction, 11(2), 27-44. https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2018-2-27

• Fuertes-Olivera, P. A., Velasco-Sacristan, M., Arribas-Bano, A., & Samaniego-Fernandez, E. (2001). Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(8), 1291-1307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80026-6

• Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching academics ESL writing. Routledge

• Ho, V., & Li, C. (2018). The use of metadiscourse and persuasion: An analysis of first-year university students’ timed argumentative essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 53-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.02.001

• Hong, H., & Cao, F. (2014). Interactional metadiscourse in young EFL learner writing: A corpus based study. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19(2), 201-224. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.19.2.03hon

• Hu, G., & Cao, F. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007

• Hyland, K. (1998a). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text & Talk, 18(3), 349-382. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349

• Hyland, K. (1998b). Persuasion and context. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5

• Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20(3), 341-367. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/20.3.341

• Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 9(4), 179-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667145

• Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001

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

• Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365

• Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. Continuum.

• Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 125-143. http://doi.org/10.35360/njes.220

• Hyland, K. (2015). Teaching and researching writing. Routledge.

• Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007

• Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.

• Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90033-3

• Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156

• Kim, L. C., & Lim, J. M. H. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse Studies, 15(2), 129-146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612471476

• Lee, J. J., & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate’s student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33(3), 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.004

• Li, T., & Wharton, S. (2012). Metadiscourse repertoire of L1 Mandarin undergraduates writing in English: A cross-contextual, cross-disciplinary study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(4), 345-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.07.004

• Lo, Y. Y., Othman, J., & Lim, J. W. (2020). The use of metadiscourse in academic writing by Malaysian first-year ESL doctoral students. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 271-281. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v10i1.25069

• Matsuda, P. K., Saenkhum, T., & Accardi. S. (2013). Writing teachers; perceptions of the presence and the needs of second language writers: An institutional case study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(1), 68-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.10.001

• Mur-Duenas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3068-3079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002

• Musa, A., Hussin, S., & Ho, I. A. (2019). Interaction in academic L2 writing: An analysis of interactional metadiscourse strategies in Applied Linguistics research articles. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature ®, 25(3), 16-32. http://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2019-2503-02

• Ngampradit, K. (2020). A corpus-based study of metadiscoursal boosters in applied linguistics dissertations written in Thailand and in the United States. In Variation in time and space (pp. 321-350). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110604719-013

• 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 Spain. Iberica, 19, 77-96. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/2870/287024099005.pdf

• Peacock, M. (2006). A cross-disciplinary comparison of boosting in research articles, Corpora, 1, 61-84. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2006.1.1.61

• Rea-Dickins, P. (2004). Understanding teachers as agents of assessment. Language Testing, 21(3), 251-258. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532204lt283ed

• Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M., & Aijmer, K. (2003). The expectation marker of course in a cross-linguistic perspective. Languages in Contrast, 4(1), 13-43. https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.4.1.03sim

• Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge University Press.

• Takimoto, M. (2015). A corpus-based analysis of hedges and boosters in English academic articles. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 95-105. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v5i1.836

• Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20(1), 83-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00029-0

• Vazquez, O. I., & Giner, D. (2009). Writing with conviction: The use of boosters in modelling persuasion in academic discourses. Revista Alicantina Estudios Ingleses, 22, 219-237. https://doi.org/10.14198/raei.2009.22.14