[Agar, M., 1983. Institutional discourse. Text 5(3): 147–168.10.1515/text.1.1985.5.3.147]Search in Google Scholar
[Brown, P.–Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813085]Search in Google Scholar
[Channell, J. 1990. Precise and vague quantities in writings on economics. In: The writing scholar. Newbury Park: Sage. 95–117.]Search in Google Scholar
[Cheepen, C. 2000. Small talk in service dialogs: The conversational aspects of transactional telephone talk. In: Small talk. London: Longman. 288–311.10.4324/9781315838328-16]Search in Google Scholar
[Drew, P.–Heritage, J. 1992. Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In: Drew, P.– Heritage, J. (eds.), Talk at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3–65.]Search in Google Scholar
[Drew, P.–Sorjonen, M.-L. 1997. Institutional dialogue. In: van Dijk, T. (ed.), Discourse studies. A multidisciplinary introduction. London: Sage. 92–118.]Search in Google Scholar
[Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.]Search in Google Scholar
[Grainger, K.–Mills, S. 2016. Theoretical perspectives on indirectness. In: Directness and indirectness across cultures. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137340399]Search in Google Scholar
[Hyland, K. 2017. Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics 113: 16–29.10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007]Search in Google Scholar
[Jucker, A. H.–Smith, S. W.–Ludge, T. 2003. Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1737–1769.10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00188-1]Search in Google Scholar
[Koester, A. 2010. Workplace discourse. London–New York: Continuum.]Search in Google Scholar
[Lakoff, G. 1972. Hedges, a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. 183–228.]Search in Google Scholar
[Lamerichs, J.–te Molder, H. 2011. Reflecting on your own talk: The discursive action method at work. Applied conversation analysis. Palgrave advances in linguistics. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 184–206.10.1057/9780230316874_10]Search in Google Scholar
[Markkanen, R.–Schroder, H. 1997. Hedging: A challenge for pragmatics and discourse analysis. In: Markkanen, R.–Schroder, H. (eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 3–20.10.1515/9783110807332.3]Search in Google Scholar
[Maynard, D.–Schaeffer, N.–Freese, J. 2011. Improving response rates in telephone interviews. Applied conversation analysis. Palgrave advances in linguistics. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 54–74.10.1057/9780230316874_4]Search in Google Scholar
[O’Keeffe, A. 2006. Investigating media discourse. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203015704]Search in Google Scholar
[Paul Gee, J. 2017. Introducing discourse analysis – From grammar to society. Abingdon: Routledge.]Search in Google Scholar
[Preisler, B. 1986. Linguistic sex roles in conversation: Social variation in the expression of tentativeness in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110862973]Search in Google Scholar
[Strauss, S.–Parastou, F. 2014. Discourse analysis – Putting our worlds into words. Abingdon: Routledge.]Search in Google Scholar
[https://www.softpedia.com/get/Multimedia/Audio/Audio-Players/SoundScriber.shtml (downloaded on: 07.15.2020).]Search in Google Scholar