• Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (1), 288–297.
• Afshar, H. S., Moradi, M., & Hamzavi, R. (2014). Frequency and Type of Hedging Devices Used in the Research Articles of Humanities, Basic Sciences and Agriculture. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136, 70–74.
• Aijmer, K. (1999). Epistemic possibility in an English-Swedish contrastive perspective. In: Hasselggård, H. & Oksefjell, S. (eds.). Out of corpora: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson, vol. 26 (pp. 301–326). Amesterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi.
• Akhlaghi, F. (2006). bayestan, shodan and tavanestan: three modal verbs in contemporary Persian. Dastoor, 3, 82-133 [In Persian].
• Amiryoosefi, M., Rezvani-sichani, B. & Rezavani-sichani, A. (2018). Risk management: a strategy for the more accurate translation of scientific texts. linguistics studies, 11 (2), 25-44 [In Persian].
• Bahrami-xorshid, S., Golfam, A. & Saeedizadeh, S. (2016). the truncated impersonal structures in Persian: a cognitive approach. linguistic research, 8 (1). 59-77 [In Persian].
• Baker, M. (2018). In other words: A coursebook on translation, 3rd edition. London & NewYork: Routledge.
• Baumgarten, N. (2008). Writer construction in English and German popularized academic discourse: The uses of we and wir. Multilingua, 27 (4), 409–438.
• Becher, V., House, J., and Kranich, S. (2009). Convergence and divergence of communicative norms through language contact in translation. In K. Braunmüller & J. House (eds.). Convergence and divergence in language contact situations, Vol. 8 (pp. 125–151). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
• Blum-Kulka, S. & House, J. (1989). Cross-cultural and Situational Variation in Requesting Behaviour. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (eds.). Cross-cultural Pragmatics (pp. 23–54). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
• Böttger, C. (2007). Lost in Translation? An Analysis of the Role of English as the Lingua Franca of Multilingual Business Communication. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač.
• Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). CUP.
• Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Groom Helm.
• Collins, P. (2009). Modals and Quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.
• Crismore, A., and Abdollahzadeh, E. (2010). A review of recent metadiscourse studies: The Iranian context. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9 (2). 195–219.
• Depraetere, I. (2014). Modals and lexically-regulated saturation. Journal of Pragmatics, 71, 160–177.
• Depraetere, I. (2017). The Meanings of have and the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface. In I. Depraetere & R. Salkie (eds.). Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line (pp. 265–291). Amsterdam: Springer.
• Depraetere, I. and Reed, S. (2011). Towards a more explicit taxonomy of root possibility. English Language and Linguistics, 15 (1). 1–29.
• Gao, Q. (2012). Interpersonal functions of epistemic modality in Academic English Writing. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 35 (3), 352-364.
• Gillaerts, P., and van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic purposes, 9 (2). 128–139.
• Halliday, M. A. K. (2004): An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd edition. Oxford: OUP.
• Holmes, J. (1982). Expressing doubt and certainty in English. RECL Journal, 13 (2), 21-63.
• House, J. (2006a). Communicative styles in English and German. European Journal of English Studies, 10 (3), 249–267.
• House, J. (2006b). Covert translation, language contact, variation and change. SYNAPS, 9, 25–47.
• House, J. (2014). Translation Quality Assessment: Past and present. London & New York: Routledge.
• Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of English Language. Cambridge: CUP.
• Huitink, J. (2012). Modal concord: a case study of Dutch. Journal of semantics, 29 (3). 403–437.
• Hyland, K. (1996). Talking to the academy forms of hedging in science research articles. Written communication, 13 (2). 251–281.
• Hyland, K. (1998a). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• Hyland, K. (1998b). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 18 (3). 349–382.
• Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. Continuum: London.
• Koźbiał, D. (2020). Epistemic modality: a corpus-based analysis of epistemic markers in EU and Polish judgments. Comparative Legilinguistics, 41 (1), 39-70.
• Kranich, S. (2009). Epistemic modality in English popular scientific texts and their German translations. Trans-kom, 2 (1), 26–41.
• Kranich, S. (2011). To hedge or not to hedge: the use of epistemic modal expressions in popular science in English texts, English-German translations, and German original texts. Text & Talk- An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies, 31 (1), 77–99.
• Kranich, S. (2016). Contrastive pragmatics and translation. Evaluation, Epistemic Modality and Communicative Styles in English and German. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
• Kranich, S. and Bicsár, A. (2012). These forecasts may be substantially different from actual results. The use of epistemic modal markers in English and German original letters to shareholders and in English– German translations. Linguistik Online, 55 (5).
• Løken, B. (1997). Expressing possibility in English and Norwegian. ICAME JOURNAL, 21, 43–60.
• Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics.Cambridge: CUP.
• Medadian, G., Nejadansari, M. D., & Barati, H. (2018). an explicit classification of non-epistemic senses of tavan, shodan and bayestan based on Depraetere’s semantic-pragmatic model. Linguistic Research, 10 (28), 115-148. [In Persian].
• Nekooyi, M., Bavali, M., Bagheri, M. & Rasaee, A. (2019). metadiscursive hedging in applied linguistics research papers: investigation of “results and discussion” section in the papers written by native and non-native English speakers. Linguistic research in foreign languages, 10 (2). 448-469. [In Persian]
• Palmer, F. R. (1990). Modality and the English modals, 2nd edition. London: Longman.
• Pisanski Peterlin, A. and Moe, M. Z. (2016). Translating hedging devices in news discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 102. 1–12.
• Ramón, N. (2009). Translating epistemic adverbs from English into Spanish: Evidence from a parallel corpus. Meta, 54 (1), 73–96.
• Samaie, M., Khosravian, F., & Boghayeri, M. (2014). The frequency and types of hedges in research article Introductions by Persian and English native authors. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1678–1685.
• Schäffner, C. (1998). Hedges in political texts: a translational perspective. In L. Hickey (ed.). The Pragmatics of Translation (pp.185–202). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
• Shahnaseri, s. (2011). language contact through translation. the impact of English modal system on the Persian scientific genre. Phd dissertation. University of Isfahan. [In Persian]
• Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Philadelphia & Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• Vandepitte, S., Vandenbussche, L., and Algoet, B. (2011). Travelling certainties: Darwin’s doubts and their Dutch translations. The Translator, 17 (2). 275–299.
• White, P. R. & Sano, M. (2006). Dialogistic positions and anticipated audiences - a framework for stylistic comparisons. In k. Aijmer & A.M. Simon-Vandenbergen (eds.). Pragmatic Markers in Contrast (pp. 189–214). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Language Related Research