References

• Bakhtin, M. (1981)
• Audi, R. (2005-10-27). The Sources of Knowledge. In (Ed), The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology . : Oxford University Press. Retrieved 23 Sep. 2018, from http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb /9780195301700 .001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195301700-e-3
• Bardovi-Harlig, K.(1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. In L. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning. Vol. (7) 21-39.
• Bawarshi, A. (2006). Taking up language difference in composition. College English. Vol. 68(6), 652-656.
• Bizzell, P. (1999). Hybrid academic discourses: What, why, how. Composition Studies, Vol. 27(2), 7-21.
• Brown, P.& S. Levinson (1987), Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, 2nd edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Canagarajah, A.S. (2002). Critical Academic Writing And Multilingual Students. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
• Canagarajah, A.S. (2006a). The place of world Englishes in composition: Pluralization continued. College Composition and Communication, Vol. 57(4), 586-620.
• Canagarajah, A.S. (2006b). Toward a writing pedagogy of shuttling between languages: Learning from multilingual writers. College English, Vol. 68(6), 589-604.
• Chiang, L. C. (2006). Voices from the language classroom: a descriptive study of interactive-decision making of an expert teacher. English Teaching & Learning. Vol. 4(April), 23-45.
• Cook, G. (1994), Discourse and Literature, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. 3rd edn. Pearson International Edition.
• Cunningham, D. J. (2017). Methodological Innovation for the Study of Request Production in Telecollaboration. Language Learning and Technology, Vol. 1 (February,1),76-99.
• Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T.A. van Dijk (Ed) Discourse as Social interaction : Vol. ( 1) 258-284. Sage: London.
• Gee, J. P. (1996). Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses. London: Taylor and Francis.
• Goffman, erving. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New york, ny et al.: harper & row.
• Grice, H. P. (1975) 'Logic and conversation'. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds) Studies in Syntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts, New York: Academic Press
• Griffiths, P., & Cummins, C. (2017). Pragmatics. In An Introduction to English Semantics and Pragmatics (pp. 98-117). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt1g09x36.13.
• Hawisher, G.E., Selfe, C.L., Guo, Y.H., & Liu, L. (2006). Globalization and agency: Designing and redesigning the literacies of cyberspace. College English, Vol. 68(6), 619-636.
• Havid, A. & M. R. Nababan (2018) Characters' Politeness Strategies in Giving Command: Should Translators Keep Them? 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies - Vol 24(2): 181 - 193 http://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2018-2402-14
• Hebb, J (2000). Hybrid Discourse and Academic Writing.Diss. Texas A&M University- Commerce. . Commerce, TX: UMI. 2000.072699.
• Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. New York, NY: Longman.
• Hyland, K. (2009). Academic Discourse: English in a Global Context. London: Continuum.
• Kells, M. H. (1999)
• Lalu N.Y, Thilagavathi S (2018) The Non-Observance of Grice's Maxims in Sasak: 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies - Vol 24(2): 166 - 180.
• Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
• Lea, M.R., & Street, B.V. (2006). The http//mrhoeystokwebsite.com/Knower/Useful Information/sources of Knowledge.htm
• MacDonald, S.P. (1987). Problem definition in academic writing. College English Vol. 49(3), 315-331.
• MacDonald, S.P. (2010). Professional Academic Writing In The Humanities And Social Sciences. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
• Mayr, A, (n.d) Language and Power : An Introduction to Institutional Discourse; ed; New York; Continuum.
• Noffke, S.E. (2009). Revisiting the professional, personal, and political dimensions of action research. In S.E. Noffke & B. Somekh (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Educational Action Research (pp. 6- 23). London: Sage.
• Olson, G. A., and Lynn W. (1999), eds. Race, Rhetoric, and The Postcolonial. Albany: State of U of NYP.
• Richardson, E. (2002).
• Royster, J. J. (1996)
• Savignon, J. S. (2007). Beyond communicative language teaching: what's ahead? Journal of Pragmatics. Vol. (39), 207-220.
• Sengupta, S. (1999). Rhetorical consciousness raising in the L2 reading classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, Vol. 8(3), 291-319.
• Tang, R., & John, S. (1999). The 'I' in identity: exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, Vol.18(supplement 1), S23-S39.
• Van Dijk, T. A (1998), Ideology, London : Sage.
• Vásquez, c., & Sharpless, d. (2009). The Role of Pragmatics in the Master's TESOL Curriculum: Findings From a Nationwide Survey. TESOL Quarterly, 43(1), 5-28. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27784984
• Verscheren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics, London : Arnold.
• Werth, P. (1999). Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse, Harlow: Pearson Education.
• Wodak, R. 2001a. 'What CDA is about - a summary of its history, important concepts and development', in R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysi (pp. 1-13). London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Yule, G (1996). Pragmatics: New York, Oxford University Press