國立臺灣師範大學博碩士論文全文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	楊介萱 Yang, Jie-Syuan
論文名稱：	系統功能語法教學於記敘文連貫性之影響 The Impact of the Instruction Informed by Systemic Functional Linguistics Theory on the Coherence in Narrative Writings
指導教授：	張珮青 Chang, Pei-Chin
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	英語學系 Department of English
論文出版年：	2017
畢業學年度：	105
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	192
中文關鍵詞：	系統功能語法、連貫性、主位選擇、主位推進、修辭架構、記敘文
英文關鍵詞：	Systemic Functional Linguistics, coherence, thematic choices, thematic progressions, rhetorical structures, narratives
DOI URL：	https://doi.org/10.6345/NTNU202202249
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：174 下載：41
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

本研究旨在探討系統功能語法於記敘文教學的應用，及其對文章連貫性之影響，以增加學生文章連貫性及修辭架構的完整性。修辭架構及主位推進為文章連貫性指標且皆為系統功能語法的重要概念，台灣學生作文常常出現連貫性的問題，然而寫作教學現場仍偏重單字、文法的解說。因此本研究藉由觀察高中生接受系統功能語法教學後的改變，期望能提供不同於往的教學方式。參與學生為北部一所公立高中高二生，男女各十五位，總共三十位。進行十堂課的系統功能語法教學之後探討此教學法對學生看圖寫作文章的總分高低和連貫性的影響。其中連貫性主要透過分析前後測文章在主位選擇、主位推進和修辭架構的差異而定。
研究結果顯示: (一)學生看圖寫作的總分於教學前和教學後有顯著進步，(二)多數學生教學後無標記主位的選擇變多元，(三)後測文章中標記主位的連接詞使用增加，(四)不論前測或後測，學生頻繁使用主位同一型推進模式、(五)教學後修辭架構更趨完整，有助增加文章連貫性。
綜上所述，本文認為系統功能語法對台灣高中生記敘文寫作有正面影響，文步及主位推進教學有助增進學生文章的連貫性。然而此教學法在台灣仍尚未普及，因此仍需更多的教學演示、教案分享、師資訓練和此類研究。本文最後提供教學建議和活動學習單，希望能讓第一線教師更明確知道如何將系統教學法應用於寫作教學中並為相關研究作出些許貢獻。

The aim of the present study was to assess whether the instruction of TCs (Thematic Choices), TPs (Thematic Progressions) and rhetorical structures assisted English as Foreign Language (EFL) senior high school students in producing coherent and well-organized narrative texts. In the present study, TCs refer to the participants in unmarked themes and logical connectors in marked themes. The connections of themes and rhemes across sentences are TPs. Rhetorical structures refer to a particular rhetorical or linguistic pattern and stage conventionally found in similar texts. Rhetorical structures and TPs are indispensable indicators of coherence and important concepts in Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) theory.
Students in Taiwan often have difficulty producing coherent texts given that most of the teachers lay emphasis on vocabulary and grammatical problems rather than discourse-level ones. The current research investigated the learners’ performance of TCs, TPs and rhetorical structures in picture writings. The participants were thirty 11th graders, composed of fifteen males and fifteen females, from a public senior high school in Northern Taiwan. The intervention consisted of ten classes of instruction. The students’ performances in TCs, TPs, and rhetorical structures were analyzed to understand whether they made progress in coherence after the instruction. A paired-T test was conducted to determine whether the total scores improved in the posttest. Pretest and posttest writings of the three learners, whose pretest scores were the lowest, in the middle and the highest, were further analyzed to verify the findings.
Several results were reported: (1) learners’ posttest scores significantly increased. (2) Generally, the learners produced coherent writings after the instruction informed by SFL. Most of the students diversified TCs in posttest writings. That is, the number of logical connectors in marked theme positions increased on posttest, which enhanced coherence. (4) The most frequently used TP type was constant TP in both pretest and posttest writings, but more TP types were employed to increase coherence in the posttest writings. (5) Most of the rhetorical moves were identified and well-established after the intervention, which helped create coherence.
In conclusion, the present research found that the instruction helped improve coherence in the 11th graders’ picture writings. Nonetheless, the generalizability of these results was subject to certain limitations. For instance, the intervention merely lasted 3 weeks and more time was recommended to allow sufficient practice. To implement this approach, however, extended professional development is needed to familiarize teachers with the instruction informed by SFL theory.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT (Chinese)  i
ABSTRACT (English)  ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS  vi
LIST OF TABLES  x
LIST OF FIGURES xii
CHAPTER ONE-INTRODUCTION  1
1.1    Background  1
1.1.1    The Discourse Level Writing Problems  2
1.1.2    Coherence  3
1.1.3    Coherence and SFL  3
1.2    Purpose of the Study  6
1.3    Significance of the Study  8
1.4    Structure of the Thesis  9
CHAPTER TWO-LITERATURE REVIEW  11
2.1    Theoretical framework: Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL)  12
2.1.1    Genre Theory from the SFL Perspective 18
Genre-based Instruction  21
Narrative Genre  23
2.1.2    Ideational Metafunction  25
Participants, Processes and Circumstances  25
2.1.3    Textual Metafunction  29
Theme and Rheme  29
Thematic Progressions  31
2.2    Text Analysis: Investigating Thematic Progressions (TPs) and Thematic Choices (TCs) in Student Writing  36
2.3    Empirical Studies: The Application of SFL Theory in Language Classrooms  41
2.3.1    The Effect of Instructing TPs and TCs  42
2.3.2    The Effect of Instructing Rhetorical Moves  45
2.3.3    Integrated Approach of Instructing Rhetorical Moves, TPs and TCs  50
2.4    Summary  52
CHAPTER THREE-METHODOLOGY   57
3.1    Participants 57
3.2    Procedure  58
3.2.1    Stage One  61
3.2.2    Stage Two  62
3.2.3    Stage Three  65
3.3    The Grading  66
3.4    The Analysis  70
3.4.1    Evaluation of the Rhetorical Structures  71
3.4.2    Evaluation of Thematic Progressions (TPs)  74
3.4.3    Evaluation of Thematic Choices (TCs)  75
CHAPTER FOUR-RESULTS  79
4.1    The Pretest and Posttest Picture Writing Scores  79
4.2    Coherence in the Learner Writings  83
4.2.1    TC in the Learner Writings  83
Evaluation of Participants in Unmarked Themes  84
Evaluation of Logical Connectors in Marked Themes  87
4.2.2    TP in the Learner Writings  91
4.2.3    Rhetorical Moves in the Learner Writings  95
4.3    The Learners' Writing Examples  99
4.3.1    Henry  100
4.3.2    Natalie  109
4.3.3    Laurence  116
CHAPTER FIVE-DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION  129
5.1    Discussion  129
5.1.1    Learners' Significant Score Gains after the Instruction of TCs, TPs, and Rhetorical Structures  131
5.1.2    The Variety of Participant Types in Unmarked Themes after the Instruction  133
5.1.3    The Variety of TP Types in the Posttest Writings  135
5.1.4    Considerable Improvement in Applying the Obligatory Rhetorical Moves after the Instruction  136
5.1.5    Similarities and Differences in the Picture Writings of Henry, Natalie and Laurence  138
5.2    Conclusion 143
5.2.1    Major Findings of the Study  143
5.2.2    Pedagogical Implications  144
5.2.3    Limitations of the Study  145
REFERENCE  149
APPENDIX   165
A  Teaching Material of the Instruction Program  165
B  The GSAT Scoring Rubrics in 2014 (Chinese Version)  191

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 The Ideational, Interpersonal, and Textual Metafunctions 15
Table 2.2 The Contrast between SFL and Traditional Grammar 17
Table 2.3 The Participants, Processes, and Circumstances 26
Table 2.4 Constant TP with the Themes in Bold 32
Table 2.5 Linear TP with the Themes in Bold and Picked-up Rhemes Underlined 33
Table 2.6 Derived Hyper TP with the Topic in Bold and the Supporting Details Underlined 35
Table 3.1 The Weekly Schedule of the Intensive Writing Program 60
Table 3.2 The Scoring Rubrics (Adapted from College Entrance Exam Center in 2014) 67
Table 3.3 An Example of the TP analysis in a Student Writing 74
Table 4.1 The Results of Paired-T Test on the Pretest and Posttest Picture Writing Tasks Scores 81
Table 4.2 Participants in Unmarked Themes of the EFL Senior High School Learners’ Pretest and Posttest Picture Writings 84
Table 4.3 Logical Connectors in Marked Themes of the EFL Senior High School Learners’ Pretest and Posttest Picture Writings 88
Table 4.4 Constant TP, Linear TP, and Derived Hyper TP in the EFL Senior High School Learners’ Pretest and Posttest Picture Writings 92
Table 4.5 The Use of Rhetorical Moves in the Participants’ Pretest and Posttest Writings 95
Table 4.6 The TC, TP and Rhetorical Move Analysis of Henry’s Pretest Picture Writing 100
Table 4.7 The TC, TP and Rhetorical Move Analysis of Henry’s Posttest Picture Writing 104
Table 4.8 The TC, TP and Rhetorical Move Analysis of Natalie’s Pretest Picture Writing 109
Table 4.9 The TC, TP and Rhetorical Move Analysis of Natalie’s Posttest Picture Writing 112
Table 4.10 The TC, TP and Rhetorical Move Analysis of Laurence’s Pretest Picture Writing 117
Table 4.11 The TC, TP and Rhetorical Move Analysis of Laurence’s Posttest Picture Writing 121
Table 5.1 The TC, TP and Rhetorical Move Analysis of the Three Learners’ Pretest and Posttest Picture Writings 139

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 The Model of Language: Genre, Registers and Metafunctions (Adapted from Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010) 14
Figure 2.2 The Four Stages of Genre-based Instruction (Adapted from Feez, 1998) 22
Figure 3.1 The Picture Prompts of the Pretest 58
Figure 3.2 The Picture Writing Organization Framework (Adapted from Labov & Waletzky, 1997) 64
Figure 3.3 The Picture Prompts of the Posttest (Retrieved from http://tammy0103.pixnet.net/album/set/14414732 ) 65
Figure 4.1 Participants in Unmarked Themes of the Pretest and Posttest Picture Writings 86
Figure 4.2 Logical Connectors in Marked Themes of Pretest and Posttest Picture Writings 89
Figure 4.3 TPs in the Pretest and Posttest Writings 94
                                

REFERENCE

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. Retrieved May 06, 2016, from http://hdl.handle.net/2381/28520
Atkinson, D. (2003). L2 writing in the post-process era: Introduction. Journal of Second Language, 12, 3-15
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). The Problem of Speech Genres. In M. M. Bakhtin, Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (V. W. McGee, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Barthes, R. (1977). Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narratives, in: Image-Music-Text. London : Fontana.
Basturkmen, H. (2012). A genre-based investigation of discussion sections of research articles in dentistry and disciplinary variation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 134-144.
Bawarshi, A. S., & Reiff, M. J. (2010). An Introduction to History, Theory, Research, and Pedagogy. Washington: Parlor press.
Belmonte, I. A., & McCabe, A. (1998). Theme-Rheme patterns in L2 writing. Didáctica, 10, 13-31.
Berry, M. (1989). Thematic options and success in writing. In C. S. Butler, R. A. Cardwell, & J. Channell, Language and literature: theory and practice. Nottingham: University of Nottingham.
Bhatia, V. K. (1991). A genre‐based approach to ESP materials. World Englishes, 10(2), 153-166.
Bhatia, V. K. (1999). Integrating products, processes, and participants in professional writing. In C. N. Candlin & K. Hyland (eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 21-39). London: Longman.
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bloor, M. (1998). English for specific purposes: The preservation of the species (some notes on a recently evolved species and on the contribution of John Swales to its preservation and protection). English for Specific Purposes, 17(1), 47-66.
Bloor, M., & Bloor, T. (1992). Given and new information in the thematic organization of text: An application to the teaching of academic writing. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics, 6, 33-43.
Bohnacker, U. (2010). The clause-initial position in L2 Swedish declaratives: Word order variation and discourse pragmatics. The Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 33(2), 105–143.
Brown, G. T., & Marshall, J. C. (2012). The impact of training students how to write introductions for academic essays: An exploratory, longitudinal study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(6), 653-670.
Brown, K., & Miller, J. (1991). Syntax: A linguistic introduction to sentence structure. (2nded.). London: Routledge.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. Language and communication, 1, 1-47.
Chandler, D. (2007). Semiotics: the basics. Routledge.
Chen, S. (2012). A Study on Correlations between English Professional Subject of the Technological and Vocational Education Joint College Entrance Exam and Picture Writing Performance of Students from Department of Applied Foreign Languages of Vocational High Schools. (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from National Chengchi University.
Chen, Y. M. (2002). The problems of university EFL writing in Taiwan. The Korea TESOL Journal, 5(1), 59-79.
Chen, Y. S., & Su, S. W. (2012). A genre-based approach to teaching EFL summary writing. ELT journal, 66(2), 184-192.
Cheng, A. (2006). Understanding learners and learning in ESP genre-based writing instruction. English for Specific Purpose, 25, 76-89.
Cheng, F. W. (2008). Scaffolding language, scaffolding writing: A genre approach to teaching narrative writing. The Asian EFL Journal, 10(2), 167-191.
Cheng, X.T. (2002). Cohesion and coherence in English compositions. Journal of School of Foreign Languages Shandong Teachers’ University, 2(11), 94- 98.
Christie, F. (2004). Systemic Functional Linguistics and a theory of language in education. Ilha do Desterro A Journal of English Language, Literatures in English and Cultural Studies, (46), 013-040.
Christie, F. (2012). Language education throughout the school years: A functional perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Christie, F., & Dreyfus, S. (2007). Letting the secret out: Successful writing in secondary English. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 31(2).
Correa, D., & Domínguez, C. (2014). Using SFL as a tool for analyzing students’ narratives. HOW Journal, 21(2), 112-133.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crombie, W., & Johnson, D. (2008). Writing texts in English: A guide for intermediate and advanced learners. Tsang Hai Book Publishing Company.
Crossley, S. A. & McNamara, D. S. (2010). Cohesion, coherence, and expert evaluations of writing proficiency. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 984-989). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Daneš, F. (1974). Functional sentence perspective and the organisation of the text. In F. Danes (Ed.), Papers on functional sentence perspective. Prague: Academia.
Dastjerdi, H. V., & Talebinezhad, R. M. (2006). Chainpreserving deletion procedure in cloze: A discoursal perspective. Language Testing, 23(1), 58-72.
Derewianka, B. (2004). Exploring how texts work. Newtown, AU: Primary English Teaching Association.
dos Santos, V. P. (2002). Genre analysis of business letters of negotiation. English for specific purposes, 21(2), 167-199.
Ebrahimi, S.F., & Khedri, M. (2011). Thematicity in research article abstracts: A cross-disciplinary study. Educational Quest, 2(3), 287-292.
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.
Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Continuum.
Enkvist, N. E. (1974). "Theme Dynamics" and Style: An Experiment. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 5, 127-153.
Fang, Z., Schleppegrell, M. J., & Cox, B. E. (2006). Understanding the language demands of schooling: Nouns in academic registers. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(3), 247-273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3803_1 .
Feez, S. (1998). Text-based syllabus design. Sydney: Macquarie University/AMES.
Feng, Z. (2013). Functional Grammar and Its Implications for English Teaching and Learning. English Language Teaching, 6(10), 86.
Fetzer, A. (2008). Theme zones in English media discourse: Forms and functions. Journal of pragmatics, 40, 1543-1568.
Fowler, R. (1996). On critical linguistics1. Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis, 1.
Gao, W.Y. (2012). Nominalization in medical papers: A comparative study. Studies in Literature and Language, 4(1), 86-93.
Gerot, L., and Wignell, P. (1994). Making sense of Functional Grammar. Australia: Gerd Stabler.
Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners, academic literacy and thinking: learning in the challenge zone. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
González, V., Chen, C. Y., & Sanchez, C. (2001). Cultural thinking and discourse organizational patterns influencing writing skills in a Chinese English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) learner. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(4), 627-652.
Green, C. F., Christopher, E. R., and 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, 99-113.
Halliday, M. A., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in spoken and written English. Longman's, London.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London, England: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc.
Hawes, T, & Thomas, S. (1997). Problems of thematisation in student writing. RELC journal, 28, 35-54.
Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. L. (1998). An evaluation of a genre-based approach to the teaching of EAP/ESP writing. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 147-156
Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. L. (2001). A narrow-angled corpus analysis of moves and strategies of the genre: ‘Letter of Application’. English for Specific Purposes, 20(2), 153-167.
Herriman, J. (2011). Themes and theme progression in Swedish advanced learners’ writing in English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 10, 1-28.
Ho, D. G. E. (2009). Systemic text analysis in the ESL writing classroom: Does it work? RELC Journal, 40(3), 333-359. doi:10.1177/0033688209343869
Hu, H.Y. (2008). On textual cohesion in Chinese students’ English writing. Journal of Zhejiang Normal University (Social Science), 33(3), 113-116.
Humphrey, S., & Droga, L. (2002). Getting started with functional grammar. Berry, NSW: Target Texts.
Hyland, K. (2002). 6. Genre: Language, Context, and Literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 113-135.
Hyland, K. (2004a). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133-151.
Hyland, K. (2004b). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in Three Traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30(4), 693-722. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3587930
Hyon, S. (2002). Genre and ESL reading: a classroom study. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 121-141). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ikaningrum, R. E. (2009). Developing Students’ Ability to Write a Report Genre Through Thematic Progression Approach (Action Research in the English Department, Faculty of Education and Teacher Training, Tidar University of Magelang) (Master’s thesis), Universitas Negeri Semarang, Jawa Tengah, Indonesia. Retrieved May 06, 2016, from http://118.97.13.60/
Jalilifar, A. (2010). The status of Theme in applied linguistics articles. Asian ESP Journal, 2, 7-39.
Jing, W. (2014). Theme and thematic progression in learner English: A literature review. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 16(1), 67-80.
Johns, M. A. (1997). Text, role, and context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kalan, A. (2013). Integrating Speaking and Listening Activities into Teaching Anglo-American Academic Writing Rhetoric. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 1(1).
Kormos, J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 148-161.
Labov, W. & Waletzky, J. (1997). Narrative Analysis: Oral Version of Personal Experience, in: Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7 (1-4). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 3-38.
Lai, S., & Tseng, M. L. (2012). Genre analysis of requesting letters in business language textbooks and the workplace. The Asian ESP Journal, 8(3), 5-27.
Lee, I. (2002). Teaching coherence to ESL students: A classroom inquiry. Journal of second language writing, 11, 135-159.
Lemke, J. L. (1994). Genre as a strategic resource. Paper presented at the 84th Annual Meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English. Orlando, FL. Retrieved on 14 March, 2016. http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/13/7f/8e.pdf
Li, C., & Thompson, S. (1976) Subject and topic: a new typology of language. In C. Li, Subject and topic (pp. 457-489). New York: Academic Press.
Lin, X. H. (2006). 九十五學年度學科能力測驗試題分析(英文考科) [Item analysis of Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) English 2006]. Taipei: College Entrance Examination Center.
Lin, Z. (2017). Teaching EFL Writing: An Approach Based on the Learner’s Context Model. TESOL Journal, 8(1), 142-165.
Liu, J.X. & Liu, L. (2013). An empirical study on the application of theme theory in the field of writing pedagogy. English Language Teaching, 6(5), p117.
Loi, C. K. (2010). Research article introductions in Chinese and English: A comparative genre-based study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(4), 267-279.
Lores, R. (2004). On RA abstracts: From rhetorical structure to thematic organization. English for Specific Purposes, 23(3), 280-302.
Lovejoy, K. (1998). An analysis of sentential Themes in academic writing: implications for teaching sentence style and revision. Conference on College Composition and Communication Speeches/Meeting Papers, pp. 3 – 12.
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.
Marcelino, T. N. (2003). Analysis of lexical chains and coherence in a children’s and news story. Zona Prôxima, 4, 38-61.
Martin, J.R. & Rose, D. (2003). Working with Discourse. London and NY: Continuum.
Martínez, P. M. (2003). A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 22(1), 25-43.
Mauranen, A. (1996). Discourse competence – evidence from thematic development in native and non-native texts (pp. 195-230). In Ventola, E. and A. Mauranen (eds.), Academic writing. intercultural and textual issues. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Mellos, V. D. (2011). Coherence in English as a second language undergraduate writing: A Theme-Rheme analysis. (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from San Diego State University Library & Information Access.
North, S. (2005). Disciplinary variation in the use of theme in undergraduate essays. Applied linguistics, 26(3), 431-452.
Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre and the Language Learning Classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Pang, T. (2002). Textual analysis and contextual awareness building: a comparison of two approaches to teaching genre. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 145-161). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Parsons, G. (1991). Cohesion coherence: Scientiﬁc texts. Functional and systemic linguistics: Approaches and uses, 55, 415.
Polkinghorne, D. (1988). Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Rafiei, K. and Modirkhamene, S. (2012) 'Thematicity in published vs. unpublished Iranian TEFL these', Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(6), 1206-1213.
Ramanathan, V., & Kaplan, R. B. (2000). Genres, authors, discourse communities: theory and application for (L1 and) L2 writing instructors. Journal of Second language writing, 9, 171-191.
Schachter, J., & Rutherford, W. E. (1979). Discourse function and language transfer. Working Papers in Bilingualism, 19, 3-12.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Siahaan, J. (2013). An Analysis of Students ‘Ability and Difficulties in Writing Descriptive Texts. Journal of English and Education, 1(1), 114-121.
Stotsky, S. (1983). Type of lexical cohesion in expository writing: Implications for developing the vocabulary of academic discourse. College Composition and Communication, 34(4), 430-46.
Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and corpus analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publisher.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
Tappan, M. B., & Brown, L. M. (1991). Stories told and lessons learned: Toward a narrative approach to moral development and moral education. In C. Witherell & N. Noddings (Eds.), Stories lives tell: Narrative and dialogue in education (pp. 171-192). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Tardy, C. M. (2006). Researching first and second language genre learning: A comparative review and a look ahead. Journal of second language writing, 15, 2, 79-101.
Thompson, S. (1978). Modern English from a typological point of view: some implications of the function of word order. Linguistische Berichte, 54, 19-35.
Thompson, G. (2004). Introducing functional grammar (2nd ed.). London, UK: Arnold.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1991). Themes, thematic progressions, and some implications for understanding discourse. Written Communication, 8(3), 311-347. doi:10.1177/ 0741088391008003002
Wang, L. (2007). Theme and rheme in the thematic organization of text: Implications for teaching academic writing. Asian EFL Journal, 9(1), 164-176.
Wang, X.W. (2010). TP pattern and coherence in English writing: Analysis of TEM-4 writing papers. Foreign Language Research, 2, 103-106.
Wei, J. (2013). Corpus-based research on topical theme choices in Chinese and Swedish English learners’ English writings. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(12). Forthcoming.
Witt, S. & Faigley, L. (1981). Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality. College Composition and Communication, 32, 189-204.
Wright, A. (1996). 1000+ pictures for teachers to copy. London: Longman.
Wu, H.W. (2003). Reading Narrative and Expository Texts: An Interactive into the Reading Strategies Used by Vocational High School Students in Taiwan. Ph.D. Thesis, Providence University, Taichung County, Taiwan.
Yasuda, S. (2015). Exploring changes in FL writers’ meaning-making choices in summary writing: A systemic functional approach. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 105-121.
Zhang, Y. H. (2004). Thematic progression and coherence in writing. Foreign Language Learning Theory and Practice, 2, 47-50.
Zhang, H., & Li, X. (2009) 'Contrast studies on thematic progression in English newspaper and broadcasting news texts', Journal of XinJiang Education Institute, 25(3), 117-120.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文