Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Blagojevic, S. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic prose; A contrastive study of academic article written in english by English and Norwegian native speakers. Studies about
Linguistics, 5, 1-7.
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.
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, 95-113
Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of Academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807-125
Duszak, A. (1997). Cross-cultural academic communication: a discourse community views. In A. Duszak (Ed), Trends in linguistics: Studies and monographs (pp. 11-39). Berlin.
Francis, B., Robsen, J., & Read, B. (2001). An analyses of undergraduate writing styles in the context of gender and achievement. Studies in Higher Education, 26(3), 313- 326.
Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 1-12.
Herbert, R. K. (1990). Sex-based differences in compliment behavior. Language in Society, 19, 201-224.
Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 345-365.
Holmes, J. (1989). Sex Differences and Apologies: One Aspect of Communicative Competence. Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 194-213.
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.
Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory course books. English for Specific Purposes, 18 (1), 3-26.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourse: Social interaction 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. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2008). ‘Small bits of textual material’: A discourse analysis of Swales’ writing. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 143–160.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 52(2), 156-177.
Johnson, D., & Roen, D. (1992). Complimenting and involvement in peer reviews: gender variation. Language in Society, 21, 27-57.
Kubota, R. (2003). New approaches to gender, class, and race in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 31-47.
Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research papers: Structure and Functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2),119-138.
Nystrand, M. (1986). The structure of written communication: Studies in reciprocity between writers and readers.Orlando: Academic Press.
Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse analysis. London: Continuum.
Swales, J. (2004). Research genres. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Swann, J. Dumert, A., Lillis, T., & Methrie, R. (2004). A Dictionary of Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: University Press.
Tardy, C. M. (2006). Researching first and second language genre learning: A comparative review and look ahead. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 79-101.
Tse, P., & Hyland, K. (2008). ‘ Robot Kung Fu’: Gender and professional identity in biology and philosophy reviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1232-1248.
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in Academic Writing: Learning to Argue With the Reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93.