1. Russell N. Communicating Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2010.

2. Ren F, Zhai J. Communication and Popularization of Science and Technology in China. London: Springer 2013. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-39561-1]

3. Ben-Ari ET. When scientists write books for the public: The ups and downs, ins and outs, of writing popular science books. BioScience 1999; 49: 819-824. [DOI:10.2307/1313573]

4. Bowler PJ. Science for All: The Popularization of Science in Early Twentieth-Century Britain. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago and London 2009. [DOI:10.7208/chicago/9780226068664.001.0001]

5. Hyland K. Metadiscourse. In: Tracy K, Ilie C, Sandel T editors. The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2015: 1-15.

6. Fu X, Hyland K. Interaction in two journalistic genres: a study of interactional metadiscourse. English Text Construction 2014; 7: 122-144. [DOI:10.1075/etc.7.1.05fu]

7. Lievrouw LA. Communication and the social representation of scientific knowledge. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 1990; 7: 1-10. [DOI:10.1080/15295039009360159]

8. Giannoni DS. Popularizing features in English journal editorials. English for Specific Purposes 2008; 27: 212-232. [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2006.12.001]

9. Hyland K. Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2010; 9: 116-127. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.003]

10. Nwogu KN. Structure of science popularizations: A genre-analysis approach to the schema of popularized medical texts. English for Specific Purposes 1991; 10: 111-123. [DOI:10.1016/0889-4906(91)90004-G]

11. Miller Th. Visual persuasion: A comparison of visuals in academic texts and the popular press. English for Specific Purposes 1998; 17: 29-46. [DOI:10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00029-X]

12. Bucchi M. Style in science communication. Public Understanding of Science 2013; 22: 904-915. [DOI:10.1177/0963662513498202]

13. Parkinson J, Adendorff R. The use of popular science articles in teaching scientific literacy. English for Specific Purposes 2004; 23: 379-396. [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2003.11.005]

14. Estrada FCR, Davis LS. Improving visual communication of science through incorporation of graphic design theories and practices into science communication. Science Communication 2015; 37: 140-148. [DOI:10.1177/1075547014562914]

15. Riesch H. Why did the proton cross the road? Humor and Science Communication. Public Understanding of Science 2015; 24: 768-775. [DOI:10.1177/0963662514546299]

16. Babaii E, Atai MR, Saidi M. Are scientists objective? An investigation of appraisal resource in English popular science articles. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research 2017; 5: 1-19.

17. Harris MAK. The transformational model of language structure. Anthropological Linguistics 1959; 1: 27-29.

18. Vande Kopple WJ. Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 1985; 26: 82-93. [DOI:10.2307/357609]

19. Hyland K. Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics 2017; 113: 16-29. [DOI:10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007]

20. Vande Kopple WJ. From the dynamic style to the synoptic style in spectroscopic articles in the physical review: Beginnings and 1980. Written Communication 2002; 19: 227-264. [DOI:10.1177/074108830201900201]

21. Hyland K. Disciplinary Discourse: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press 2004.

22. Hyland K. Metadiscourse, London: Continuum 2005.

23. Rubio M. A pragmatic approach to the macro-structure and metadiscoursal features of research article introductions in the field of agricultural sciences. English for Specific Purposes 2011; 30: 258-271. [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2011.03.002]

24. Gillaerts P, Van de Velde. Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2010; 9: 128-139. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004]

25. Kuhi B. Generic variations and metadiscourse use in the writing of applied linguistics: a comparative study and preliminary framework. Written Communication 2011; 28: 97-141. [DOI:10.1177/0741088310387259]

26. Perez FM. Cultural values and their correlation with interactional metadiscourse strategies in Spanish and US business websites. Atlantis 2014; 36: 73-95.

27. Vasquez C. "Don't Even Get Me Started…": Interactive metadiscourse in online consumer reviews. In Darics E editor. Digital Business Discourse. Palgrave: London; 2005: 9-39.

28. Dafouz-Milner E. The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: Across-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 2008; 40: 95-113. [DOI:10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003]

29. Yao HQZ. A comparative analysis of the use of metadiscourse in English and Chinese news commentaries. Foreign Language 2008; Accessed on 16 June 2018. Available at: http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotal-OUTL201201022.htm.

30. Mur-Duenas P. An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 2011; 43: 3068-3079. [DOI:10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002]

31. Fahnestock J. Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication 1998; 15: 330-350. [DOI:10.1177/0741088398015003006]

32. Biber D, Conrad S, Reppen R. Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1998. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511804489]

33. Nur Aktas R, & Cortes V. Shell nouns as cohesive devices in published and ESL student writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2008; 7: 3-14. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.002]

34. White PRR. Telling Media Tales: the news story as rhetoric. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Sydney: University of Sydney 1998.

35. Mur-Duenas P. Attitude markers in business management research articles: a cross-cultural corpus-driven approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 2010; 20: 50-72. [DOI:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00228.x]

36. Abdi R. Interpersonal metadiscourse: an indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies 2002; 4: 139-145. [DOI:10.1177/14614456020040020101]

37. Kim Ch. Personal pronouns in English and Korean texts: a corpus-based study in terms of textual interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 2009; 41: 2086-2099. [DOI:10.1016/j.pragma.2009.03.004]

38. Proctor K, Su LI. The 1st person plural in political discourse-American politicians in interviews and in a debate. Journal of Pragmatics 2011; 43: 3251-3266. [DOI:10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.010]