References
- Abdi, R. (2002). Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040020101
- Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 288–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.7.19
- Allan, K. (2016). 3 A history of semantics. In N. Riemer (Ed.), Routledge handbooks in linguistics. The Routledge handbook of semantics (pp. 48–68). Routledge.
- Cao, F., & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.2.7
- Casti, J. L. (1994). Complexification: Explaining a paradoxical world through the science of surprise. Harper Collins.
- Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). Routledge Falmer.
- Davies, M. (2018). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 600 million words, 1990-present. https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/
- Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
- Fellbaum, C. (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Language, speech and communication. M.I.T. Press.
- Fillmore, C. J. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 280(1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1976.tb25467.x
- Fillmore, C. J. (1977). Scenes-and-frames semantics. In A. Zampolli (Ed.), Fundamental studies in computer science: Vol. 5. Linguistic structures processing (pp. 55–81). North Holland Publishing.
- Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Hanshin Publishing Company.
- Fillmore, C. J. (2006). Frame semantics. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics research: Vol. 34. Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (pp. 373–400). Mouton de Gruyter.
- Fillmore, C. J., & Baker, C. (2010). Frame approaches to semantic analysis. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 313–340.s). Oxford University Press (Oxford handbooks in linguistics).
- Foster, M. I., & Keane, M. T. (2015). Why some surprises are more surprising than others: Surprise as a metacognitive sense of explanatory difficulty. Cognitive Psychology, 81, 74–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.8.4
- Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.2.4
- Goddard, C. (2015). The complex, language-specific semantics of “surprise”. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13(2), 291–313. http://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.13.2.02god
- Guba, E. G. (Ed.). (1990). The paradigm dialog. Sage Publications, Inc.
- Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2015). Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 39, 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.3.2
- Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum discourse series: Vol. 39. 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. (2008). Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching, 41(4), 543–562. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444808005235
- Hyland, K. (2014). Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C. N. Candlin (Ed.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 99–121). Routledge.
- Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2016). Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication, 33(3), 251–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088316650399
- Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2017). ‘We Believe That … ’: Changes in an academic stance marker. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 38(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2018.1400498
- Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2018). “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.2.1
- Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. B. (2012). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
- Khedri, M., Chan, S. H., & Ebrahimi, S. F. (2013). An exploration of interactive metadiscourse markers in academic research article abstracts in two disciplines. Discourse Studies, 15(3), 319–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613480588
- Kipfer, B. A. (2010). Roget’s international thesaurus (7th ed.). Collins.
- Kövecses, Z. (2015). Surprise as a conceptual category. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13(2), 270–290. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.13.2.01kov
- Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
- Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Applied social research methods series: Vol. 41. Sage.
- Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(2), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/335638409383686
- Mu, C., Zhang, L. J., Ehrich, J., & Hong, H. (2015). The use of metadiscourse for knowledge construction in Chinese and English research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.9.3
- Mur-Dueñas, P. (2010). Attitude markers in business management research articles: A cross-cultural corpus-driven approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 50–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.2010.20.issue-1
- Mur-Dueñas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(12), 3068–3079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.5.2
- Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, C. R., & Scheffczyk, J. (2016). FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice (Vol. 21). Institut für Deutsche Sprache, Bibliothek.
- Silvia, P. J. (2009). Looking past pleasure: Anger, confusion, disgust, pride, surprise, and other unusual aesthetic emotions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(1), 48–51. doi:10.1037/a0014632
- Teigen, K. H., & Keren, G. (2003). Surprises: Low probabilities or high contrasts? Cognition, 87(2), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-277(2)201-9
- Tutin, A. (2015). Surprise routines in scientific writing. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13(2), 415–435. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.13.2.06tut