在寫作上使用主位推進的策略可有效地加強文章的連貫性，而分析文章的主位推進亦能清晰呈現文意的流動與訊息結構。然而，就此領域而言，分析台灣學生作文中主位推進的文獻相對較少，文獻上探討高分與低分文章中主位推進之差異的研究亦十分有限。因此，本研究旨在探討台灣高分與低分的英文作文中，主位推進法質與量方面的差異。研究方法為文章分析法，資料取自財團法人語言訓練測驗中心，以量化與質性並重的方式，分析106篇全民英檢中高級測驗中的論說文，並探討其主位推進的狀態與語意的銜接性。
　　本研究結果如下：第一，不同的主位推進法就頻率而言，並未在高分與低分作文中有明顯差異；超過40%以上的文句皆未透過主位推進法連接，而頻率最高的主位推進法為重複推進法，其次為線性推進法。第二，就主位推進的質而言，低分作文中的主位推進法常無法獲得有效運用。分數較低的考生常重複同一種主位推進法，其使用的銜接方式亦較高分考生單調。此外，低分考生經常中斷文句之間的連結，以致語意無法連貫。
　　最後，本研究文章分析的結果，希望能解釋出台灣學生在使用主位推進法上的共通的習慣與困難。英語教師也可以藉此了解到學生面臨的困境，並以此為基礎設計相關課程，協助學生增進作文上的銜接性。

Deploying thematic progressions (TP) has been considered to be a valuable technique to achieve textual cohesion in writing, and TPs across clauses have often been assessed to reveal information flow over a longer stretch of text. However, research which empirically investigated TP strategies employed by Taiwanese EFL learners is scant, and little literature has been published on the discrepancy of TP between higher-level and lower-level writers in Taiwan. The purpose of this study, therefore, is to explore TP in higher-rated and lower-rated expository writings written by Taiwanese EFL learners. The corpus consisted of 106 expository essays from the Guided Writing section of high-intermediate level General English Proficiency Test (GEPT). Halliday and Matthiessen’s (2013) framework of Theme system and Danse’ (1974) categorization on TP were adopted to both quantitatively and qualitatively analyze the TPs in the essays. The proportion of TP types, marked Themes, and how TP contribute to cohesion qualitatively were investigated.
　　The results of the study showed that the proportion of TP types were similar between higher-rated and low-rated essays. Breaks, links that did not fall into any TP types, constituted more than 40% of total links, followed by constant TPs and linear TP. The large number of breaks prohibited the ideas from developing in lower-rated essays. The qualitative results also revealed that lower-level writers employed repetitive patterns of constant TPs in their text, and they often used existential “There” to start a clause. Theme with unclear reference and empty Rheme were also distinctive features of their essays. On the other hand, Marked Themes appeared more than unmarked Themes in both groups of essays, but the use of marked Themes was limited mostly to conjunctions or conjunctive adjuncts, which indicated that the writers failed to effectively use a comprehensive range of marked Theme.
　　To conclude, this study has importance in informing writing instructors of common problems in TP used in essays with unsatisfactory information structure, as well as in proposing a more scientific and theory-informed approach to instruct learners in effective deployment of TP.

Albufalasa, M. I. M. A. (2013). The effect of the explicit teaching of thematic structure and generic structure on EFL students’ writing quality and motivation. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Leicester).
Alonso, I. & McCabe, A. (2003). Improving text flow in ESL learner compositions. The Internet TESL Journal, 9 (2). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/
Al-Sharah, N. (2012). A critical review of the theme system: Implications for language education. Dirasat: Educational Sciences, 39(1), 299-312.
Arunsirot, S. (2013). An analysis of textual metafunction in Thai EFL students' writing. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 7(2), 160-174.
Belmonte, I. A., & McCabe, A. (1998). Theme-rheme patterns in L2 writing. Didactica, 10, 13-31.
Belmonte, I. A., & McCabe, A. (2004). The development of written discourse competence in ELT materials: A preliminary analysis. Revista Canaria De Estudios Ingleses, 49, 29-48.
Daneš, F. (1974). Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. In F. Danes (Ed.), Papers on functional sentence perspective (pp. 106-128). Prague: Publishing House of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences.
Chao, Kwei-hsiang. (2002). Thematic progression in the argumentative essays of EFL senior high school students. Unpublished master’s thesis. National Chengchi University, Taipei.
Crompton, P. (2004). Theme in discourse: ‘Thematic progression’ and ‘method of development’ re-evaluated. Functions of language, 11(2), 213-249.
Downing, A. (2001). Thematic progression as a functional resource in analyzing texts. Circle of Linguistics to Communication, 5, 25-53.
Ebrahimi, S. F., & Ebrahimi, S. J. (2012a). Information development in EFL students composition writing. Advances in Asian Social Science, 1(2), 212-217.
Ebrahimi, S. F., & Ebrahimi, S. J. (2012b). Markedness in writing: A case of EFL students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(4), 773-777.
Ebrahimi, S. F., & Ebrahimi, S. J. (2012c). Point of departure in texts developed by native and non-native writers. Language in India, 12(5), 109-119.
Ebrahimi, S. F., & Khedri, M. (2012). The importance of thematic structure in students' writing cohesion. Language in India, 12(4), 64-78.
Ebrahimi, S. F., & Khedri, M. (2013). Multiple theme and cohesion: A case of EFL students composition writing. Iranian EFL Journal, 9(3), 248-260.
Eggins, S. (2004). Introduction to systemic functional linguistics. A&C Black.
Francis, G. (1989). Thematic selection and distribution in written discourse. Word, 40(1-2), 201-221.
Fries, P. R. (1995). Themes, methods of development, and texts. In R. Hasan & P. H. Fries (Eds.), On subject and theme (pp. 317-359). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Green, C. F., Christopher, E. R., & Mei, J. L. K. (2000). The incidence and effects on coherence of marked themes in interlanguage texts: a corpus-based enquiry. English for Specific Purposes, 19(2), 99-113.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Routledge.
Halliday, M. A., & Matthiessen, C. M. (2013). Halliday's introduction to functional grammar. Routledge.
Hawes, T., & Thomas, S. (1996). Rhetorical uses of theme in newspaper editorials. World Englishes, 15(2), 159-170.
Hawes, T., & Thomas, S. (1997). Problems of thematisation in student writing. RELC Journal, 28(2), 35-55.
Hawes, T., & Thomas, S. (2012). Theme choice in EAP and media language. Journal of English for academic purposes, 11(3), 175-183.
Herriman, J. (2011). Themes and theme progression in Swedish advanced learners’ writing in English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 1-28.
Hewings, A. (2004). Developing discipline-specific writing: an analysis of undergraduate geography essays. Analysing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks, 131-152.
Hu, H.Y. (2008). On textual cohesion in Chinese students’ English writing. Journal of Zhejiang Normal University (Social Science), 33(3), 113-116.
Jalilifar, A. (2010). Thematization in EFL students’ composition writing and its relation to academic experience. RELC journal, 41(1), 31-45.
Jing, W. (2014). Theme and thematic progression in learner English: A literature review. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 16(1), 67-80.
Khedri, M., & Ebrahimi, S. F. (2012). The flow of information in English and Persian academic texts. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(6), 1175-1179.
Krisnawati, E. (2013). Applying theme and rheme in Indonesian EFL students’ writing: An attempt to improve cohesion and coherence. The International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 2(2), 135-145.
Kularb, S. A. (2001). The Analysis of theme and rheme in student paragraph writing: a case study with sut students of English v, group 07, trimester 3, 2000.
Leonard, D. (2011). From narrative to analytical: using theme/rheme to scaffold students’ revisions between genres of writing. CATESOL Journal,22(2010), 216-230.
Li, Q. F. (2009). Thematic selection and progression in EFL writing. US-China Foreign Language, 7(7), 25-35.
Lin, Su-yu. (2011). The improvement of coherence in EFL low achievers’ writing through the instruction of cohesive devices and thematic progression. Unpublished master’s thesis. National Chengchi University, Taipei.
Ma, J. (2001). Thematic progression, cohesive devices and coherence in English writing--Analysis of CET-4 and CET-6 writing papers. Foreign Language Education, 22(5), 45-50.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Gener relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.
Martı́nez, I. A. (2003). Aspects of theme in the method and discussion sections of biology journal articles in English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,2(2), 103-123.
McCabe, A. M. (1999). Theme and thematic patterns in Spanish and English history texts. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Aston in Birmingham).
Mellos, V. D. (2011). Coherence in English as a second language undergraduate writing: A theme-rheme analysis. (Doctoral dissertation, San Diego State University).
Moore, N. A. J. (2006). Aligning theme and information structure to improve the readability of technical writing. Journal of technical writing and communication, 36(1), 43-55.
Mustaffa, R., & Aman, I. (2007). Thematic progression in the writings of undergraduate LEP learners. International Journal of Learning, 14(9) 68-82.
Naderi, S., & Koohestanian, F. (2014). Thematic Structures in Conference Papers by Persian EFL Scholars. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 118, 351-356.
North, S. (2005). Disciplinary variation in the use of theme in undergraduate essays. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 431-452.
Rakhman, A. N. (2013). An analysis of thematic progression in high school students’ exposition texts. Passage, 1(1), 65-74.
Ren, S., Cao, Y., Gao, Y., & Li, Q. (2009). Thematic operational approach and the writing teaching of college English. Asian Social Science, 5(11), 141-146.
Shen, H. L. (2004). Improving coherence in high school students‘ English composition through instruction of topical development. Unpublished master‘s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.
Shieh, C., & Lin, K. M. (2011). Thematic progression patterns and the texts of the department required English test. Retrieved from http://irs.lib.ksu.edu.tw/NPIC/handle/987654321/97?itemsPerPage= 50&locale=en-US.
Soleymanzadeh, L., & Gholami, J. (2014). Scoring argumentative essays based on thematic progression patterns and IELTS analytic scoring criteria. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1811-1819.
Tsai, Tsi-chuen. (2012). A Study on Theme Types in Taiwanese Senior High School Students’ Narratives. Unpublished master’s thesis. National Chengchi University, Taipei.
Wang, L. (2007). Theme and rheme in the thematic organization of text: Implications for teaching academic writing. Asian EFL Journal, 9(1), 164-176.
Witte, S. P., & Faigley, L. (1981). Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality. College composition and communication, 32(2), 189-204.
Xu, R. (2001). Theme and cohesion in the writing of English expository texts by Chinese tertiary EFL learners. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Wollongong.
Yang, Q., Ramírez, J. A., & Harman, R. (2007). EFL Chinese students and high stakes expository writing: A theme analysis. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, (9), 99-125.
Yang, X. (2008). Thematic progression analysis in teaching explanation writing. English Language Teaching, 1(1), 29-33.