學術寫作的結果與討論章節中，作者需呈現客觀結果並加入主觀解釋，以說服讀者接受其新學說，目前已知研究者經常運用後設論述標記作為組織文本、調整確信程度的策略，文獻也證實，此策略能有效提高說服力。在後設論述標記的分類中，示證、強調與模糊標記被認為是能提高文本說服力的標記類別。西方學界相關研究眾多，但華語領域中對後設論述的研究仍有發展空間。後設論述標記經常受到語言、學科、論文章節的影響，因此本研究擬分析華語的政治、經濟、文化期刊論文語料，以檢視結果與討論章節中標記的形式、功能、學科差異及分布情形，另亦設計語感實驗，調查母語者對於標記的語感，以證實標記能有效提高說服力。
本研究語料皆取自科技部所認可的政治、經濟、文化期刊論文，每個學科選擇20篇論文，共計60篇論文。透過語料分析，本文歸納出示證標記具有引用學者、引用觀點與表明立場的功能；強調標記可以強調命題程度與命題真實性；模糊標記則可以緩和力度、保留變動空間。實驗結果顯示，強調標記、模糊標記的分布情形在三個學科中大致相似，僅示證標記在數量分布上有顯著差異；實驗數據亦顯示示證、強調標記皆能有效提高命題說服力，但模糊標記中標明緩和、變動程度若過高，可能導致命題說服力下降。本文以前述研究結果進行華語學術寫作的教學設計，期能提高學習者以示證、強調、模糊標記作為說服策略的應用程度。

In academic writings, result and discussion chapter reveals results and author’s explanation to persuade readers. Research shows that using metadiscourse markers increases persuasion. Evidential markers, boosters, and hedges are well known as persuasion strategies, and the forms are influenced by languages, disciplines, and chapters. In order to figure out what forms, function, and the distribution of markers in journals, the study built a corpus that was composed of 60 articles which were extracted from journals in the fields of Politics, Economics, and Culture. The present study also contains an intuitive experiment which aims to test the native speakers’ sense of discourse markers.
The data analysis shows that the function of evidential markers is quoting literature and showing the author’s attitude as well. Boosters emphasize the degree and the truth of propositions. Hedges, however, ease the power of propositions, and also preserve the room for change. The distribution of boosters is similar to hedges, which means the differences mainly lies in evidential markers. The experiment shows that evidential markers and boosters increase persuasion of propositions. On the opposite, hedges that ease too much power and preserve changes sometimes reduce persuasion. The study is intended to enhance the use of markers as persuasion strategy in academic writing.

李家豪（2011）。華語說服語言語意、語用、語篇分析研究。臺北：國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文。
吳欣儒（2011）。華語學術寫作之情態動詞分析與教學應用。臺北：國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文。
祝秉耀（1997）。留學生寫作指導。北京：華語教學出版社。
唐淑媛（1987）。說服的巧妙秘訣。台北：文國出版。
謝佳玲（2014）。近義情態詞於學術文體之後設論述功能研究。華語文教學研究，11(3)，111-160。
謝佳玲、紀孫澧（2020年4月）。華語論文寫作的說服策略與教學意義。「2020年第六屆以華語為第二語言研究國際研討會」之論文（尚未發表但已被接受），美國華盛頓大學。
謝佳玲、吳欣儒、紀孫澧（2018）。華語學術寫作中表達確信程度的語用策略與教學建議。載於銘傳大學華語文教學學系（主編），銘傳大學2018華語文教學國際研討會論文集（69-80頁）。臺北：文鶴出版有限公司。
廖柏森（2008）。英文研究論文寫作─關鍵句指引。台北市：眾文。
羅青松（2002）。對外漢語寫作教學研究。北京：中國社會科學出版社。
教育部統計處（2013）。大專院校學科分類標準。2019年8月28日，取自https://stats.moe.gov.tw/bcode/
Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139-145.
Abdi, R. (2009). Projecting cultural identity through metadiscourse marking; A comparison of Persian and English research articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 212(1), 1-15.
Abdi, R., Rizi, M.T., & Tacakoli, M. (2010). The cooperative principle in discourse communities and genres: a framework for the use of metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1669-1679.
Abdi, K. (2011). She really only speaks English: Positioning, language ideology, and heritage language learners. Canadian Modern Language Review, 67(2), 161-189.
Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam, Netherland: John Benjamins.
Aikhenvald, A. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Alavinia, P., & Zarza, S. (2011). Metadiscourse markers mevisited in EFL context: The case of Iranian academic learners’ perception of written texts. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 3(2), 51-84.
Alexander, M., & Judd, B. (1978). Do nudes in ads enhance brand recall? Journal of Advertising Research, 18, 47-51.
Allison, D. (1995). Assertions and alternatives: helping ESL undergraduates extend their choices in academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 1-15.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Chenoweth, A. N., & Hayes, R. J. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18(1), 80-98.
Argyle, M. (1972). The social psychology of work. London: Penguin Books.
Baghbadorani, A. E., & Roohani, A. (2014). The impact of strategy-based instruction on L2 learners’ persuasive writing. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 235-241.
Barkaoui, K. (2007). Teaching writing to second language learners: Insights from theory and research. TESL Reporter, 40(1), 35-48.
Basturkmen, H. (2012). Review of research into the correspondence between language teachers’ stated beliefs and practices. System, 40, 282-295.
Bax, S., Nakatsuhara, F., & Waller, D. (2019). Researching L2 writers’ use of metadiscourse markers at intermediate and advanced levels. System, 83, 79-95.
Bazerman, C. (1984). Modern evolution of the experiment report in physics: Spectroscopic articles in Physical review, 1893-1980. Social Studies of Science, 14(2), 163-196.
Beauvais, P. (1989). A speech act theory of metadiscourse. Written Communication, 6(1), 11-30.
Beach, R., & Liebman-Kleine, J. (1986). The writing/reading relationship: Becoming one’s own best reader. In B. Peterson (Ed.), Convergences: Transactions in reading and writing. Chicago, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines (2nd ed.). Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Becker, B. L., & Doolittle, C. J. (1975). How repetition affects evaluations of and information seeking about candidates. Journalism Quarterly, 52(4), 611-617.
Benfield, J. R., & Feak, C. B. (2006). How author can cope with the burden of English as an international language. CHEST, 129, 1728-1730.
Benfield, J. R., & Howard, K. M. (2000). The language of science. European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery, 18(6), 642-648.
Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Congnition/Culture/Power. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Berkenkotter, C., Huckin, T. N., & Ackerman, J. (1991). Social context and socially constructed texts: The initiation of a graduate student into a writing research community. Berkeley: Center for the Study of Writing. Technical Report No. 33.
Bhatia, A. (1999). Integrating products, processes and participants in professional writing. In C. N. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 21-39). London: Longman.
Bhatia, A. (2006). Critical discourse analysis of political press conferences. Discourse & Society, 17(2), 173-203.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analyzing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bloor, D. (1991). Knowledge and social imagery. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Borg, E. (2000). Citation practices in academic writing. In P. Thompson (Ed.), Patterns and perspectives: Insights into EAP writing practice (pp. 26-42). Reading, England: Centre for Applied Language Studies.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bruffee, K. (1986). Social construction, language, and the authority of knowledge: A bibliographical essay. College English, 48, 773-790.
Burneikaitė, N. (2006). Evidentiality in graduate student writing: a study of Lithuanian students' master's theses in English. Text and Pragmatics, 1, 97-105.
Burns, A. (2004). Genre and genre-based teaching. In M. Byram (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning (pp. 234-238). New York, NY: Routledge.
Caballero, J. M., & Solomon, J. P. (1984). Effects of model attractiveness on sales response. Journal of Advertising, 13(1), 17-33.
Campbell, C. (1990). Writing with other’s words: using background reading text in academic compositions. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 311-230). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Cao, F., & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15-31.
Casanave, P. C. (2004). Controversies in second language writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Teaching English as a Second or foreign Language (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publisher.
Clyne, M. (1987). Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 211-247.
Coates, J. (1987). Epistemic modality and spoken discourse. Transactions of the Philological Society, 88(1), 110-131.
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., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse (pp. 118-136). CA, US: SAGE.
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R. & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: a study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39-71.
Crismore, A. (1983). Metadiscourse: What is it and how is it used in school and non-school social science texts. IL, US: University of Illinois.
Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271-287.
Cumming, A. (2001). Learning to write in a second language: Two decades of research. International Journal of English Studies, 1(2), 1-23.
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.
Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807-1825.
Dahl, T. (2008). Contributing to the academic conversation: A study of new knowledge claims in economics and linguistics. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1184-1201.
Dahl, T. (2009). The linguistic representation of rhetorical function. Written Communication, 26(4), 370-391.
Day, R. A. (1989). The origins of the scientific paper: The IMRAD format. AMWA Journal, 4, 16-18.
Day, R. A., & Gastel, B. (2006). How to write and publish a scientific paper (6th ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Dehkordi, M. B., & Allami, H. (2012). Evidentiality in academic writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 9(2), 1895-1901.
Dendale, P., & Tasmowski, L. (2001). Introduction: evidentiality and related notions. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(3), 339-348.
Duncan, P. C., & Nelson, E. J. (1985). Effects of humor in a radio advertising experiment. Journal of Advertising, 14(2), 33-64.
Elbow, P. (1996). Writing assessment: Do it better; Do it less. In E. White., W. Lutz & S. Kamusikiri (Eds.), Assessment of writing: Politics, policies, practices (pp. 120-134). New York, US: Modern Language Association.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. SSLA, 24, 143-188.
Enkvist, N. E. (1978). Tekstilingvistiikan peruskäsitteitä. Jyväskulä, Finland: Gaudeamnus.
English, H. B., & English, A. C. (1958). A comprehensive dictionary of Psychological and Psychoanalytical terms: A guide to usage. Harlow, England: Longmans, Green & Co.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language, 10(3), 161-184.
Flowerdew, J. (1999). Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 243-264.
Fortheringham, W. (1966). Perspectives on persuasion. MA, US: Allyn & Bacon.
Frankenberger, D. K., & Sukhdial, S. A. (1994). Segmenting teens for AIDS preventive behaviors with implications for marketing communications. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 13(1), 133-150.
Fuertes-Olivera, P., Velasco-Sacristan, M., Arribas-Bano, A., & Samaniego Fernandez, E. (2001). Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1291-1307.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989). A components analysis of cognitive strategy training: Effects on learning disabled students’ compositions and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 353–361.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high Schools. Washington, DC, US: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). London: Falmer Press.
Geisler, C. (1994). Academic literacy and the nature of expertise: Reading, writing, and knowing in academic philosophy. Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstract. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128-139.
Gillen, C. M., Vaughan, J., & Lye, B. R. (2004). An online tutorial for helping nonscience majors read primary research literature in Biology. Advances in Physiology Education, 28(3), 95-99.
Gould, J. S. (1994). Sexuality and ethics in advertising: A research agenda and policy guideline perspective. Journal of Advertising, 23(3), 73-80.
Grellier, J., & Goerke, V. (2014). Communications toolkit. South Melbourne, Victoria: Cengage Learning Australia.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Gross, D., & Alexander, J. (2016). Frameworks for Failure. Pedagogy, 16(2), 273-395.
Gustavii, B. (2008). How to write and illustrate a scientific paper. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London, England: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (1996). Test of written language (3rd ed.). London, England: Pearson Education.
Hammond, J., & Macken-Horarik, M. (1999) Critical literacy: Challenges and questions for ESL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 528-544.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1991). Assessing second language writing in academic contexts. Westport, CT, US: Praeger Publishers.
Han, J., & Hiver, P. (2018). Genre-based L2 writing instruction and writing-specific psychological factors: The dynamics of change. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 44-59.
Hardman, M. J. (1986). Data-source marking in the Jaqi languages. In W. L. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of Epistemology (pp. 113-36). New York, NY: Ablex.
Harris, Z. (1959). The transformational model of language structure. Anthropological Linguistics, 1(1), 27-29.
Harris, R. A. (1991). Rhetoric of science. College English, 53(3), 282-307.
Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. (1988). An evaluation of a genre-based approach to the teaching of EAP/ESP writing. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 147-156.
Herrington, A. (1985). Writing in academic settings: A study of the contexts for writing in two college Chemical Engineering courses. Research in the Teaching of English, 19(4), 331-361.
Hewings, A. (1990). Aspects of the language of economics textbooks. In A. Dudley-Evans & W. Henderson (Eds.), The language of economics: The analysis of economics discourse (ELT Documents 134) (pp. 109-127). London: Macmillan and the British Council.
Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, 8(3), 345-365.
Holmes, J. (1988). Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 91, 20-44.
Horowitz, D. M. (1986). What professors actually require: Academic tasks for the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 445-462.
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), 635-650.
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion; psychological studies of opinion change. CT, US: Yale University Press.
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, 42(11), 2795-2809.
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2015). Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 39, 12-25.
Huddleston, R. (1971). The sentence in written English: A syntactic study based on an analysis of scientific texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433-454.
Hyland, K. (1998a). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (1998b). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. TEXT, 18(3), 349-382.
Hyland, K. (1998c). Exploring corporate rhetoric: metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter. Journal of Business Communication, 35(1), 224-245.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207-226.
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133-151.
Hyland, K. (2005a). A convincing argument: corpus analysis and academic persuasion. In U. Connor and T. Upton, Discourse in the professions: perspectives from corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (2005b). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. New York, NY: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2005c). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 6(2), 173-192.
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic writing. In K. Hyland & B. Palridge (Eds.), Bloomsbury companion to discourse analysis (pp. 171-184). London: Bloomsbury.
Hyland, K. (2016). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 58-69.
Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183-205.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30(4), 693-722.
Intaraprawat, P., & Steffensen, M. S. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 253-272.
Janis, I., & Feshbach, S. (1953). Effect of fear-arousing communications. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48(1), 78-92.
Janis, I. L., & Hovland, C. I. (Eds.). (1959). Personality and persuability. New Haven and London, Yale University Press.
Johns, T. (1991). From printout to handout: Grammar and vocabulary teaching in the context of data-driven learning. In T. Johns & P. King (Eds.), Classroom concordancing (pp. 27-37). Birmingham, England: ELR University of Birmingham.
Johns, A. M. (1996). The ESL student and the revision process: Some insights from schema theory. In B. Leeds (Ed.), Writing in a second language: Insights from first and second language teaching and research (pp. 137-1145). New York, US: Longman.
Jones, S. (1990). Evaluation and assessment for ESL literacy. TESL Talk, 20(1), 294-304.
Jordan, R. R. (2002). The growth of EAP in Britain. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1, 69-78.
Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (Eds.). (2005). Language planning and policy in Europe, Vol. 1. Hungary, Finland and Sweden. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Krugman, E. H. (1972). Why three exposures may be enough. Journal of Advertising Research, 12(6), 11-14.
Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: A study of meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Papers from the Eighth regional meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society Papers (Vol. 8, pp. 183-228). Chicago, IL.
Lakoff, R. (1972). Language in Context. Language, 48(4), 907-927.
Lakoff, R. (1972). The pragmatics of modality. Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society Papers (Vol.8, pp. 229-246). Chicago: IL.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. CA, US: SAGE.
Lautamatti, L. (1978). Observations on the development of the topic in simplified discourse. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 87–113). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc.
Lea, M., & Street, B. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23, 157-172.
Lee, S. (2018). Frameworks for failure in L2 writing: What we can learn from “failures” of Chinese international students in the US. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 98-105.
Lemke, J. L. (1995). Textual politics: Discourse and social dynamics. London: Taylor & Francis.
Lewin, B. A. (2005). Hedging: an exploratory study of authors' and readers' identification of ‘toning down’ in scientific texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(2), 163-178.
Lin, C. Y. (2005). Metadiscourse in academic writing: An investigation of graduate students' MA theses in Taiwan. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 2(1), 1-66.
Littlewood, W. (1996). Academic writing in intercultural contexts: Integrating conventions and personal voice. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-18.
Love, A. M. (1993). Lexico-grammatical features of geology textbooks: Process and product revisited. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 197-218.
Mao, L. R. (1993). I conclude not: toward a pragmatic account of metadiscourse. Rhetoric Review, 11(2), 265–289.
Martin, J. R. (1999). Mentoring semogenesis: ‘Genre-based’ literacy pedagogy. In F. Christie (Ed.), Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness: Linguistic and social processes (pp. 123-155). London: Cassell.
Maton, K. (2014). Building powerful knowledge: The significance of semantic waves. In M. Young., D. Lambert., C. Roberts & M. Roberts (Eds.), Knowledge and the future school: Curriculum and social justice (pp. 181-197). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: metatext in Finnish-English Economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 3-22.
Meadows, A. J. (1985). The scientific paper as an archaeological artifact. Journal of Information Science, 11(1), 27-30.
Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
Millán, E. L. (2008). Epistemic and approximative meaning revisited: the use of hedges boosters and approximators when writing research in different disciplines. In S. Burgess. & P. Martín-Martín (Eds.), English as an additional language in research publication and communication (pp. 1-20). Bern, Swiss Confederation: Peter Lang.
Miller, C. R. (1979). A humanistic rationale for technical writing. College English, 40, 610-617.
Miniard, P. W., Bhatla, S., Lord, K. R., Dickson, P. R., & Unnava, H. R. (1991). Picture-based persuasion processes and the moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 92-107.
Mitchell, S., & Evison, A. (2006). Exploiting the potential of writing for educational change at Queen Mary, University of London. In L. Ganobcsik-Williams (Ed.), Teaching academic writing in UK higher education: Theories, practice and models. London: Red Globe Press.
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.
Monroe, J. (2002). Writing and revising the disciplines. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Monroe, J. (2003). Local knowledges, local practices: Writing in the disciplines at Cornell. PA, US: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Murphy, G., Murphy, L. B., & Newcomb, T. M. (1937). Experimental Social Psychology, (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper.
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, 1-35.
Myers, G. (1990). Writing Biology: Text in the social construction of scientific knowledge. WI, US: University of Wisconsin Press.
Myers, G. (1992). Textbooks and the sociology of scientific knowledge. English for Specific Purposes, 11(1), 3-17.
Myles, J. (2002). Second language writing and research: The writing process and error analysis in student texts. TESL-EJ, 6(2). Retrieved from http://tesl-ej.org/ej22/a1.html
Nash, W. (1990). The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse. CA, US: SAGE.
Institute. (year). Report title (Rep. No.). Location: Publisher.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2003). The Nation's Report Card (Writing, 2002.). DC, US: National Center for Education Statistics.
National Research Council. (2000). Starting out right: A guide to promoting children's reading success. DC, US: National Academies Press.
Norrick, N. (2001). Discourse markers in oral narrative. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(6), 849-878.
Nothstine, W. (1989). Influencing others: A handbook of persuasive strategies. CA, US: Crisp Publications.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Paltridge, B. (2013). Learning to review submissions to peer reviewed journals: How do they do it? International Journal for Researcher Development, 4(1), 6-18.
Plato. (Trans, 1952). Gorgias. New York, NY: Bobbs-Merrill. (W. C. Helmbold, Trans.)
Prince, E. F., Frader, R. J., & Bosk, C. (1982). On hedging in physician-physician discourse. In J. di Pieto (Ed.), Linguistics and the professional (pp. 83-97). NK, US: Ablex.
Riazi, M., Shi, L., & Haggerty, J. (2018). Analysis of the empirical research in the journal of second language writing at its 25th year (1992-2016). Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 41-54.
Roca de Larios, J., Murphy, L., & Marin, J. (2002). A critical examination Of L2 writing process research. In Ransdell, S. & Barbier, M.-L (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 11-47). Dordrecht, Nederland: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Roen, D. H. (1989). Developing effective assignments for second language writers. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp.193-206). New York, NY: Longman.
Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. NJ, US: Princeton University Press.
Rorty, R. (1999). Philosophy and social Hope. London: Penguin Books.
Rogers, W. (2007). Persuasion: messages, receivers, and contexts. MD, US: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Rudestam, K., & Newton, R. (2001). Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide to content and process. New York, NY: SAGE.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 149-170.
Schiffrin, D. (1980). Meta-talk: Organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3-4), 199-236.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. S. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the Philosophy of language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Severin, W. J., & Tankard, J. W. (2001). Communication theories. New York, NY: Longman.
Sexton, D. E., & Haberman, P. (1974). Women in magazine advertisements. Journal of Advertising Research, 14(4), 41–46.
Shapin, S. (1984). Pump and circumstance: Robert Boyle's literary technology. Social Studies of Science, 14(4), 481-520.
Shuter, R. (1984). Communicating. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Simith, C. R. (1998). Rhetoric and human consciousness. IL, US: Waveland.
Simons, H. W., Morreale, J., & Gronbeck, B. (2001). Persuasion in society. London: SAGE.
Skelton, J. (1988). The care and maintenance of hedges. ELT Journal, 42(1), 37-43.
Skelton, J. (1997). The representation of truth in academic medical writing. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 121-140.
Sollaci, L., & Pereira, G. M. (2004). The introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure: A fifty-year survey. Journal of Medical Library Association, 92(3), 364-367.
Spack, R. (1988). Initiating ESL students into the academic discourse community: How far should we go? TESOL, 22(1), 29-51.
Staats, W. A. (1968). Learning, language, and cognition. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart And Winston.
St. John, M. J. (1987). Writing process of Spanish scientists publishing in English. English for Specific Purposes, 6, 113-120.
Stotesbury, H. (2003). Evaluation in research article abstracts in the narrative and hard sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 327-341.
Stubbs, M. (1986). “A matter of prolonged fieldwork”: Notes towards a modal grammar of English. Applied Linguistics, 7, 1-25.
Swales, J. M. (1981). Aspects of article introductions. Birmingham, England: University of Aston.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: essential tasks and skills. MI, US: The University of Michigan.
Swales, J. M. (1995). The role of the textbook in EAP writing research. English for Specific Purposes, 14(1), 3-18.
Tardy, C. (2009). Building genre knowledge. SC, US: Parlor Press.
Thomas, S., & Hawes, T. P. (1994). Reporting verbs in medical journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 129-148.
Thompson, P. (2006). Towards a sociocognitive model of progression in spoken English. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(2), 207-220.
Thompson, P., & Tribble, C. (2001). Looking at citations: Using corpora in English for academic purposes. Language Learning & Technology, 5(3), 91-105.
Thompson, G., & Thetela, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. TEXT, 15(1), 103-127.
Tiittula, L. (1993). Metadiskurs. Explizite Strukturierungsmittel im mündlichen Diskurs. Hamburg, Germany: Helmut Buske Verlag.
Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Valero-Garces, C. (1996). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish-English Economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 15(4), 279-294.
Van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (1997). Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction. London: SAGE.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82-93.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (2002). From the dynamic style to the synoptic style in spectroscopic articles in the physical review: Beginnings and 1980. Written Communication, 19(2), 227-264.
Vold, E. T. (2006). Epistemic modality markers in research articles: a cross‐linguistic and cross‐disciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 61-87.
Webber, P. (1994). The function of questions in different medical journal genres. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 257-268.
Weissberg, R., & Buker, S. (1990). Writing up research: Experimental research report writing for students of English. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice Hall Regents.
West, G. K. (1980). That-nominal constructions in traditional rhetorical divisions of scientific research papers. TESQL Quarterly, 14, 483-488.
Williams, J. (1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Boston, MA: Scott Foresman.
Williams, J. (1985). Writing and knowing: A pragmatic interpretation of development and critical thinking. Paper presented at the Seminar on Cognitive Frameworks and Higher Order Reasoning, University of Chicago.
Wingate, U. (2012). Using academic literacies and genre-based models for academic writing instruction: A ‘literacy’ journey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 26-37.
Wise, G. L., Ring, A. L., & Merenski, J. P. (1974). Reactions to sexy ads vary with age. Journal of Advertising Research, 14(4), 11-16.
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
Wray, A. (2008). Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Wu, S. M. (2007). The use of engagement resources in high- and low-rated undergraduate geography essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 254-271.
Wu, J. (2011). Improving the writing of research papers: IMRAD and beyond. Landscape Ecology, 26(10), 1345-1349.
Yakhontova, T. (2006). Cultural and disciplinary variation in academic discourse: The issue of influencing factors. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 153-167.
Yang, L. (2012). A comparative study of evidentiality in RAs in Applied Linguistics written by NS and Chinese writers. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 4(2), 140-146.
Yang, R. Y., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 365-385.
Yu-wen, W. (2007). Evaluating writing strategy instruction in a Chinese EFL university context. Sino-US English Teaching, 4(2), 11-17.
Zhu, W. (2004). Faculty views on the importance of writing the nature of academic writing, and teaching and responding to writing in the disciplines. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 39-48.