احمدی، م. (1390). بررسی ترجمة نقشنماهای گفتمانی در رمان هری پاتر و یادگاران مرگ، نوشتة جی. کی. رولینگ. پایاننامة کارشناسی ارشد. دانشگاه سیستان و بلوچستان، سیستان و بلوچستان.
امیریوسفی، م.، رضوانی سیچانی، ب.، و رضوانی سیچانی، ا. (1398). مدیریت ریسک: راهبردی برای ترجمة دقیقتر تردیدنماهای متون علمی. پژوهشهای زبانشناسی، 11(2)، 25-44.
رفیعی، ع. (1391). مفهوم عامل در واژههای مشتق زبان فارسی. پژوهشهای زبانشناسی، 4(7)، 19-32.
رولینگ، جی. کی. (1387). هری پاتر و یادگران مرگ. ترجمة وید اسلامیه. تهران: کتابسرای تندیس.
صحرایی، ر (1392). نحو کودک؛ نحو تمامعیار شواهدی از روند فراگیری بخش مقولهای و ساخت اطلاع زبان فارسی. علم زبان، 1(1)، 57-82.
طارمی، ط.، تاکی، گ.، و یوسفیان, پ. (1397). جنسیت در مقالات علمی فارسیزبان: مطالعة پیکرهبنیاد نشانگرهای فراگفتمان تعاملی براساس انگارة هایلند. پژوهشهای زبانشناسی، 10(1)، 23-42.
عبدالله زاده، ف. و میرزاده، ط. (1396). بررسی کتاب «فی الأدب العباسی، الرؤیة و الفنّ» عزالدین اسماعیل با تکیه بر الگوی فراگفتمانی هایلند. لسان مبین، 9(29)، 129-146.
فمیان، ع.، و کارگر، م. (1392). تحلیل مقالات نقد کتابهای زبانشناسی ایران براساس الگوی فراگفتمان هایلند. پژوهشهای زبانشناسی، 5(9)، 37-52.
مقدمکیا، ر. (۱۳۸۳). «بعد»، نقشنمای گفتمان در زبان فارسی. نامة فرهنگستان، ۷(۳)، ۸۱-۹۸.
Aijmer, K. (2007). The interface between discourse and grammar: The fact is that. In A. Celle, & R. Huart (Eds.), Connectives as discourse landmarks (pp. 31-46). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.
Altenberg, B. (1999). Adverbial connectors in English and Swedish: Semantic and lexical correspondences. In H. Hasselgård, & S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Out of corpora: Studies in honor of Stig Johansson (pp. 249-268). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rodopi
Altenberg, B. (2007). The correspondence of resultive connectors in English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 6(1), 1-26.
Amouzadeh, M., & Zareifard, R. (2019). Interactional metadiscourse of gender in Persian. Pragmatics and Society, 10(4), 512-537.
Anthony, L. (2009). Issues in the design and development of software tools for corpus studies: The case for collaboration. In P. Baker (Ed.), Contemporary corpus linguistics (pp. 87-104). London, England: Continuum.
Baker, M. (2011). In other words: A coursebook on translation. London, England: Routledge.
Barkhudarov, L. (2018). The problem of the unit of translation. In P. Zlateva (Ed.), Translation as social action (pp. 39-46). London, England: Routledge.
Barnwell, K. G. (1980). Introduction to semantics and translation with special reference to Bible translation. Dallas, Texas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Cettolo, M., Girardi, C., & Federico, M. (2012). WIT: Web inventory of transcribed and translated talks. In Proceedings of the 16th EAMT Conference (pp. 261-268). Trento, Italy.
Cheng, X., & Steffensen, M. (1996) Metadiscourse: A technique for improving student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(2), 149–81.
Chesterman, A. (2016). Memes of translation: The spread of ideas in translation theory. Revised edition. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Crible, L., Abuczki, Á., Burkšaitienė, N., Furko, P., Nedoluzhko, A., Rackevičienė, S., & Zikanova, Š. (2019). Functions and translations of discourse markers in TED Talks: A parallel corpus study of underspecification in five languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 142, 139-155.
Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
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. 118–36). Newbury Park, CA: 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.
Cuenca, M. (2008). Pragmatic markers in contrast: The case of well. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(8), 1373-1391.
Davies, E. E. (2007). Leaving it out: On some justifications for the use of omission in translation. Babel Revue Internationale de la Traduction / International Journal of Translation, 53(1), 56-77.
Degand, L. (2004). Contrastive analyses, translation and speaker involvement: The case of “puisque” and “aangezien”. In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture and mind (pp. 251-270). Stanford, Canada: CSLI.
Dryden, J. (1680/1975). From “Preface” to Ovid’s Epistles. In T. R. Steiner (Ed.), English translation theory 1650–1800 (pp. 68–74). Assen and Amsterdam: Van Gorcum.
Dupont, M., & Zufferey, S. (2017). Methodological issues in the use of directional parallel corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(2), 270-297.
Egg, M. (2010). Semantic underspecification. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(3), 166-181.
Egg, M., & Redeker, G. (2007). Underspecified discourse representation. In A. Benz & P. Kühnlein, (Eds.), Constraints in discourse (pp. 117-138). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Fischer, K, (2006). Towards an understanding of the spectrum of approaches to discourse particles: introduction to the volume. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 1-20). Oxford and Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Fraser, B. (2015). The combination of discourse marker - A beginning. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 48-53.
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931-952.
Frisson, S. (2009). Semantic underspecification in language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 111-127.
Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. (2001). Obtaining a figurative interpretation of a word: Support for underspecification. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3), 149-171.
Ghafoori, N., & Oghbatalab, R. (2012). A comparative study of metadiscourse in academic writing: Male vs. female authors of research articles in applied linguistics. The Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 87-113.
Harris, Z. (1959). The transformational model of language structure. Anthropological Linguistics, 1(1), 27-29.
Hoek, J., Zufferey, S., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. J. (2017). Cognitive complexity and the linguistic marking of coherence relations: A parallel corpus study. Journal of Pragmatics, 121(2), 113-131.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 99–121). London, England: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London, England: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2) 133–51.
Hyland, K. (2005). A convincing argument: Corpus analysis and academic persuasion. In U. Connor & T. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 87-112). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (2019). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing (2nd ed.). London, England: Bloomsbury.
Intaraprawat, P., & Steffensen, M. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 253–72.
Irmer, M. (2011). Bridging inferences: Constraining and resolving under specification in discourse interpretation. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
Karbalaei, A. & R. Davaei. (2013). Interpersonal metadiscourse in compositions written by Iranian ESP students. European Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 2(2), 291-300.
Kopple, V., & William J. (1985). Some explanatory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82–93.
Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Northland.
Mortier, L., & Degand, L. (2009). Adversative discourse markers in contrast. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(3), 338-366.
Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to translation. Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Oates, S. (2000). Multiple discourse marker occurrence: creating hierarchical for natural language. In Procedding of the 3rd CLUK Colloquium (pp. 41-45). Brighton, England.
Redeker, G. (1990). Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(3), 367-381.
Schiffrin, D. (1980). Metatalk: Organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry: Language and Social Interaction, 50(3), 199–236.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Spooren, W. (1997). The processing of underspecified coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 24(1), 149-168.
Williams, J. M. (1981). Ten lessons in clarity and grace (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Zareifard, R., & Alinezhad, B. (2014). A study of interactional metadiscourse markers and gender. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 4(1), 231-238.
