Table 5 Meta-discourse Markers Based on Meta-synthesis

Meta-discourse markers

Interactive markers

Transitions

Thus, for a network of

Frame markers

The next step was to determine

Endophoric markers

is quite simple (see Fig. 12).

Evidentials

as cited in Carruthers 2002

Code glosses

Namely, if a child is treated

Interactional Markers

Hedges

One might want to search

Boosters

In fact, any neural network that

Attitude markers

Unfortunately, data limitations preclude

Self-mentions

I suggest that

Engagement markers

Note that due to the appearance

Author-presence markers

Direct indications of presence

First person pronouns

We found that

Indirect indications of presence

Passive constructions

The study was conducted

Generic form one

One can find that

Indirectness markers

Rhetorical markers and strategies

Rhetorical questions

What does it mean to “be there?”

Tag questions

That’s quite a lot, isn’t it?

Disclaimers and denials

although in no way a definitive test

Vagueness and ambiguity markers

around 0.1–0.2 K in the modern period

Lexical and referential markers

Hedges and hedging devices

This maybe attributes that

Point of view distancing

As such, I believe it is important

Downtoners

became acceptable partly because

Diminutives

because virtually all (97) of survey respondents

demonstratives, indefinite pronouns and determiners

that someone can design

discourse particles

will remain unknown. Anyway

understatement markers

are fairly easily observable

Syntactic markers and structures

Passive voice

Our study was not designed to

Nominalization

The decision to develop

Conditional tenses

If the model fit improves

Intensity markers

Emphasizers

is certainly the best way

Amplifiers

Maximizers

is perfectly transparent

Boosters

with a severely limited picture

Downtoners

Approximators

to the nearly uniform field

Compromisers

sort of reflexive thought process

Diminishers

were only partially compressive

Minimizers

could scarcely be more dissimilar