Ädel, Annelie. 2014. “What I want you to remember is...”: Audience orientation in monologic academic discourse. In Lieselotte Brems, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde (eds.), Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification in grammar and discourse. Theoretical and descriptive advances, 101-127. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/etc.5.1.06ade10.1075/etc.5.1.06ade
Aijmer, Karin. 2009. Does English have modal particles? In Andrew Kehoe & Antoinette Renouf (eds.), Corpus linguistics: Refinements and reassessments, 111-130. New York & Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI: 10.1163/9789042025981_00810.1163/9789042025981_008
Alonso Almeida, Francisco & Heather Adams. 2012. Sentential evidentials in English and Spanish medical research papers. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas 7. 9-21. DOI: 10.4995/rlyla.2012.111910.4995/rlyla.2012.1119
Chafe, Wallace. 1986. Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 261-272, Norwook, NJ: Ablex
Cornillie, Bert. 2009. Evidentiality and epistemic modality. On the close relationship between two different categories. Functions of Language 16(1). 44-62. DOI: 10.1075/fol.16.1.04cor10.1075/fol.16.1.04cor
Degand, Liesbeth, Bert Cornillie & Paola Pietrandrea. 2013. Modal particles and discourse markers: Two sides of the same coin? In Liesbeth Degand, Bert Cornillie & Paola Pietrandrea (eds.), Discourse markers and modal particles. Categorization and description, 1-18. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/pbns.234.01deg10.1075/pbns.234.01deg
Diewald, Gabriele. 2013. “Same same but different” - Modal particles, discourse markers and the art (and purpose) of categorization. In Liesbeth Degand, Bert Cornillie & Paola Pietrandrea (eds.), Discourse markers and modal particles. Categorization and description, 19-45. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/pbns.234.02die10.1075/pbns.234.02die
Diewald, Gabriele & Elena Smirnova. 2010. Evidentiality in European languages: The lexicogrammatical distinction. In Gabriele Diewald & Elena Smirnova (eds.), Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages, 1-14. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110223972
Fløttum, Kjersti. 2006. Medical research articles in the comparative perspectives of discipline and language. In Françoise Salager-Meyer & Maurizio Gotti (eds.), Advances in medical discourse analysis: Oral and written contexts, 251-269. Bern: Peter Lang.
Fløttum, Kjersti, Trine Dahl & Torodd Kinn. 2006a. Academic voices: Across languages and disciplines. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.148
Fløttum, Kjersti, Trine Dahl & Torodd Kinn. 2006b. “We now report on...” versus “Let us now see how...”: Author roles and interaction with readers in research articles. In Marina Bondi & Ken Hyland (eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines, 203-224. Bern: Peter Lang Verlag.
Gil-Salom, Luz & Carmen Soler-Monreal. 2009. Interacting with the reader: Politeness strategies in engineering research article discussions. International Journal of English Studies 9(3). 175-189.
Harwood, Nigel. 2005. ‘Nowhere has anyone attempted ... In this article I aim to do just that’: A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics 37(8). 1207-1231. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.01210.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.012
Hengeveld, Kees. 1988. Illocution, mood and modality in a functional grammar of Spanish. Journal of Semantics 6. 227-269. DOI: 10.1093/jos/6.1.22710.1093/jos/6.1.227
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316423530
Hyland, Ken. 2014. Dialogue, community and persuasion in research writing. In Carmen Soler- Monreal & Luz Gil-Salom (eds.), Dialogicity in written specialized genres, 1-21. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/ds.23.02hyl10.1075/ds.23.02hyl
Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2003. Epistemic stance in English conversation. A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.115
Kranich, Svenja. 2011. To hedge or not to hedge: The use of epistemic modal expressions in popular science in English texts, English-German translations, and German originals. Text & Talk 31(1). 77-99. DOI: 10.1515/text.2011.00410.1515/text.2011.004
Lewin, Beverly A. 2005. Hedging: An exploratory study of authors’ and readers’ identification of ‘toning down’ in scientific texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4. 163-178. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2004.08.00110.1016/j.jeap.2004.08.001
Narrog, Heiko. 2012. Modality, subjectivity, and semantic change. A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199694372.001.0001
Rozumko, Agata. 2016. Adverbs of certainty in a cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspective: English-Polish. Languages in Contrast 16(2). 239-263. DOI: 10.1075/lic.16.2.04roz10.1075/lic.16.2.04roz
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie & Karin Aijmer. 2007. The semantic field of modal certainty: A corpus-based study of English adverbs. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110198928
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at ICHL 12 Manchester, UK, August. http://web.stanford.edu/~traugott/papers/discourse.pdf (15.01.2016.)
Travis, Catherine E. 2006. The natural semantic metalanguage approach to discourse markers. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, 219-241. Amsterdam: Elsevier.10.1163/9780080461588_014
Varttala, Teppo. 2001. Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse. Exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience. (Acta Electronica Universitatis Tamperensis 138.) https://tampub.uta.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/67148/951-44-5195-3.pdf?sequence (10.01.2016.)
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2001. Subjective and objective modality: Interpersonal and ideational functions in the English modal auxiliary system. Journal of Pragmatics 33(10). 1505-1528. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00029-710.1016/S0378-2166(01)00029-7
Vold, Eva Thue. 2006. The choice and use of epistemic modality markers in linguistics and medical research articles. In Marina Bondi & Ken Hyland (eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines, 225-249. Bern: Peter Lang Verlag.
Weydt, Harald. 2006. What are particles good for? In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, 205-217. Amsterdam: Elsevier.10.1163/9780080461588_013
Willett, Thomas. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12(1). 51-97. DOI: 10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil