اقناع در روایت فارسی: تحلیل تطبیقی نشانگرهای فراگفتمانی در متون داستانی با تکیه بر مثلث اقناعی ارسطو

Ahangari, S. & Kazemi, M. (2014). A Content Analysis of ‘Alice in Wonderland’ Regarding Metadiscourse Elements. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature. 3(3). 10-18. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.3p.10.

Ahmadi, L. (2022). Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Scientific Texts (Based on Research Articles Written by Native and Non-Native Speakers). Science Journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics. vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 99-110. https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2022.4.7

AlJazrawi, D. A., & AlJazrawi, Z. A. (2019). The use of meta-discourse an analysis of interactive and interactional markers in English short stories as a type of literary genre. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 8(3), 66-77.

https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.8n.3p.66

Anthony, L. (2020). AntConc (Version 3.5.9). Waseda University, Tokyo.

https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software

Crismore, A., Markkanen, R. & Steffensen, M.S. (1993). Metadiscourse in Persuasive Writing: A Study of Texts Written by American and Finnish University Students. Written Communication. 10(1). 39-71 https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002

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

Ghahremani Mina, Kh & Biria, R. (2017). Exploring Interactive and Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Discussion Sections of Social and Medical Science Articles. Research in English education. V2 . N 4, 11-7. https://doi.org/10.29252/ijree.2.4.11

Ghafoori, N., & Oghbatalab, R. (2012). A Comparative Study of Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: Male vs. Female Authors of Research Articles in Applied Linguistics. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5, 87-113. https://www.sid.ir/paper/627007/fa.

Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.54

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365

Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic journal of  English Studies. Special Issue on Metadiscourse. 9 (2): 125-143. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.220

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

Hyland, K. & Jiang, K. (2019). Text-organizing metadiscourse: tracking changes in  rhetorical persuasion. Journal of Historical Pragmatics . 20 (1)

Larson, C. (2010). Persuasion: reception and responsibility. Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Longo, B. (1994). The Role of Metadiscourse in Persuasion. Technical Communication, 41(2), 348–352.  http://www.jstor.org/stable/43090348

Mostafavi, M. & Tajalli, G. (2012). Metadiscoursal Markers

in Medical and Literary Texts. International Journal of English Linguistics. 2(3). 64.  https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v2n3p64

Sadeghi, K. & Esmaili, S. (2012). Frequency of Textual Metadiscourse Resources (MTRs) in Two Original and Simplified Novels. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. 3(4). 647- 652. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.3.4.647-652

Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in Academic Writing: Learning to Argue with the Reader. Applied Linguistics, 22, 58-78. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.58

Tse, P. & Hyland, K. (2008). ‘Robot Kung fu’: Gender and professional identity in biology and philosophy review., Journal of Pragmatics, Volume 40, Issue 7, Pages 1232-1248, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.002

Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse metadiscourse. College Composition & Communication, 36(1), 82-93. https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc198511781