臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

句子的主題具備了啟動訊息、聯繫前後句、並呼應引導全文等功能，因此，主題之選用與安排，影響文章流暢與否。事實上，英文文章中的主題發展有固定模式與原則可循。本研究以主題發展模式，檢驗學生在議論文中主題發展的情形，並比較高低群學生在質與量方面是否有異同。
本研究資料取自 138 位高三學生於課堂上完成之議論文，經兩位全民英檢閱卷評分老師進行評分工作，由此篩選出高低分群兩組，之後進行實際的文章分析工作─ 找出兩組文章之主題發展模式，並計算各模式出現之頻率。結果顯示，高分群多使用文法正確、明確之指稱、重複字、同義字、或與全文主旨相關之主題，使用各種模式的比率皆普遍多於低分組，其中，在 extended parallel progression 方面多於低分群達顯著水準，證明會回到與全文有關之主題是高分群的一大特色。另外，本研究亦另外發現兩種學生常用之主題發展模式，值得進一步探討。

Abstract
“The choice and ordering” of themes seem to have much to do with the local and global coherence. And there are established patterns of thematic progression in the text. The purpose of the study is to explore the ways our students employ the thematic progression patterns, and to find the similarities and differences in high-and low-rated essays.
The research materials are argumentative essays gathered from 138 senior high school students. Two GEPT trainee raters then give each essay a holistic score respectively based on the scoring scheme for Intermediate level of the GEPT. Then, the top and the lowest 33 essays are selected to be our data. Textual analysis is then performed by tracing thematic progression mode in each essay in terms of the established patterns. The frequency of the occurrence for each pattern is counted and the use of each pattern in the two sets of essays is compared in detail.
The results show thematic progression in high-rated essays is more easily identifiable for the use of overt, grammatical, and discourse-relevant cohesive ties as themes. Furthermore, the high-rated essays far exceed low-rated essays in the frequency for almost every pattern. What differs significantly is the use of EPP (extended parallel progression) Pattern. Besides, we find another two common patterns in our data, contrastive theme pattern and rhematic association pattern.

Table of Contents
List of Tables ………………………………………………………….vi
List of Figures vii
Chinese Abstract…..…….. …………………………………………………….ix
English Abstract……………..……………………………………………… x
Chapter
1. Introduction… ……………………………………………………….1
2. Literature Review… …………………………………………………5
2.1 Theme and Rheme… ………………….5
2.2 Theme-Rheme Patterning & Applications….. 10
2.3 Framework…………………………… …………………………17
2.3.1 Delineation of Theme and Rheme… …………………… 17
2.3.2 Classifications of Thematic Progression…… …………21
3. Research Methods & Data Analysis… 24
3.1 Research Setting………… …………………………………….24
3.1.1 Subjects………… ………………………………………24
3.1.2 The Writing Task… ……………………………………25
3.1.3 Scoring Scheme………… ……………………………25
3.1.4 Raters…………………… ……………………………26
3.1.5 Scoring Procedures………… ……………………….26
3.1.6 Distinguishing high- and low-rated groups …………26
3.2 Data Analysis…………………………………… ………….26
3.2.1 Parallel Progression Pattern…………… ……………27
3.2.2 Sequential Progression Pattern………… ……………….32
3.2.3 Extended Parallel Progression Pattern…………… …36
3.2.4 Hypertheme Pattern………………………………… 39
3.2.5 Split Rheme Pattern……………………………… 42
3.2.6 Other Patterns ……………………………………………45
3.2.6.1 Contrastive Theme Pattern…………. …………….45
3.2.6.2 Rhematic Association Pattern……………………..48
3.3 Data Discussion 53
3.4 Summary………………………………………………………. 57
4. Conclusion……………………………………………………………59
4.1 Contribution of the study……………………………………….. 59
4.2 Implications for teaching……………………………………… 61
4.2.1 Checking for local and global coherence 63
4.2.2 Evaluating the functions of theme and rheme 64
4.3 Suggestions for further research……………………………… 68
4.4 Limitations of this study……………………………………….. 69
Appendixes
I. Full texts for the analysis of the parallel progression pattern 70
II. Full texts for the analysis of the sequential progression
pattern 71
III. Full texts for the analysis of the extended parallel
progression pattern 72
IV. Full texts for the analysis of the hyper-theme pattern 73
V. Full texts for the analysis of the split rheme pattern 74
VI. Full texts for the analysis of the contrastive theme pattern 75
VII. Full texts for the analysis of the rhematic association pattern 76
References 77

References
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1990). Pragmatic word order in English composition. In U. Connor & A. M. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 43-65). Alexandria,VA: TESOL.
Benes, E. (1959). Zacatek nemecke vety z hlediska aktualniho cleneni vetneho ﹝with a German summary”Der Satzbeginn im Deutschen, von der Mitteilungsperspektive her betrachtet”﹞. CMF, 41, 205-217.
Campbell, B. (1998). Coherence in the expository essays of intensive ESL students: A textual analysis of topical development. Diss. Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Michigan: A Bell & Lowell Company.
Carrell, P. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 479-488.
Cloran, C. (1995). Defining and relating text segments: Subject and theme in discourse. In R. Hasan & P. H. Fries (Eds.), On subject and theme. (pp. 361-403). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Cohen, A. D. (1988). Research in reading in a second language: Discussion paper. Revised. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 296 578)
Collins, P. C. (1991). Cleft and Pseudo-cleft sonstructions in English. London: Routledge.
Connor, U. & Cerniglia, C. S. & Medsker, K. L. (1990). Improving coherence by using computer-assisted instruction. In U. Connor & A. M. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 43-65). Alexandria,VA: TESOL.
Connor, U. & Farmer, M. (1990). The teaching of topical structure analysis as a revision strategy for ESL writers. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 126-139). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Connor, U. & Schneider, M. (1988). Topical structure and writing quality: Results of an ESL study. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual TESOL Convention, Chicago,3,
Connor, U. & Schneider, M. (1990). Analyzing topical structure in ESL essays: Not all topics are equal. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 411-427.
Connor, U. (1987). Argumentative patterns in student essays: Cross-cultural differences. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text. Reading (pp. 57-71). MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
Connor, U. (1987). Research frontiers in writing analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 77-696.
Connor, U. (1990). Linguistic/rhetoric measures for international persuasive student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 67-87.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric and text linguists. In U. Connor (Ed.), Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing (pp. 80-99). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Cowie, N. (1995). Students of Process writing need appropriate and timely feedback on their work, and in addition, training in dealing with that feedback. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 417 581)
Danes, 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.
Dijk, T. A. van. (1981). Studies in the Pragmatics of discourse. The Hague: Mouton.
Enkvist, N. E. (1990). Seven problems in the study of coherence and interpretability. In U. Connor & A. M. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 9-28). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Enkvist, N. E.(1976) Notes on valency, semantic scope and thematic perspective as parameters of adverbial placement in English. In N. E. Enkvist and V. Konomen (Eds.) Reports on text linguistics: Approaches to word order. Abo, Finland: Meddelanden fran stiftelsens for Abo Akademi Forskningsinstitut, nr.8.
Erteschik-Shir, N. (1988). Topic-chaining and dominance-chaining. In Y. Tobin (Ed.), The Prague School and its legacy in linguistics, literature, semeiotics, folklore, and the arts (pp. 145-153). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Faigley, L. & Witte, S. P. (1984). Measuring the effects of revision on text structure. In R. Beach & S. Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research (pp. 95-108). NY: Guilford Press.
Fang, Y. & McDonald, E. & Musheng, C. (1995). On theme in Chinese: From clause to discourse. In R. Hasan & P. H. Fries (Eds.), On subject and theme. (pp. 235-273). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Firbas , J.(1992). Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication: Cambridge University Press.
Firbas, J . (1964). On defining the theme in functional sentence analysis. In: Travaux Linguistiques de Prague. Vol. 1. (pp.267-280). University, Ala: University of Alabama Press.
Firbas, J. (1969). A note on transition proper in functional sentence analysis. Philogica Praguensia, 8, 170-176.
Fries, P.H. (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.
Francis, G.. (1990). Theme in the daily press. Occasinoal Papers in Systemic Linguistics, 4, 51-87.
Habel, M. (1985). Theme and Focus: Cross-language comparison via Translation from Extended Discourse (I& II). Dissertation.
Hajicova, E. (1994). Topic/focus and related research. In P.A. Luelsdorff (Ed.), The Prague school of structural and functional linguistics. (pp.245-275). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins North America.
Hall, E. T. (1969). The hidden dimension. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman Group: London.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English Part 1& 2. Journal of Linguistics 3, 37-81, 199-244.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1968). Notes on transitivity and theme in English Part 3. Journal of Linguistics, 4, 179-215.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. NY:Oxford University Press.
Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. (NCTE Research Report No.3). Champion, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Hunt, K.W. (1970). Syntactic maturity in school children and adults. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kurzon, D. (1988). The theme in text cohesion. In Y.Tobin (Ed.), The Prague School and its legacy in linguistics, literature, semeiotics, folklore, and the arts (pp. 155-162). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lautamatti, L. (1987). Observations on the development of the topic of simplified discourse. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 87-114). MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
Lautamatti, L. (1990). Coherence in spoken and written discourse. In U. Connor & A. M. Johons (Eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 29-40). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Makinen, K. (1992). Topical depth and writing quality in student EFL compositions. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 1, 237-247.
Mathesius, V. (1939). O tak zvanem aktualnim cleneni vetnem. ﹝On the so-called functional sentence perspective﹞. Slovo a Slovestnost, 5, 234-242.
Paducheva, E. V. (1995). Theme-rheme structure : Its exponents and its semantic interpretation. In B.H. Partee & P. Sgall (Eds.), Discourse and Meaning : Papers in honor of Eva Hajicova. (pp. 273-287). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Phelps, L. W. (1985). Dialectics of coherence: Toward an integrative theory. College English, 47, 12-29.
Sgall, P. (1994). Meaning, reference and discourse patterns. In P.A. Luelsdorff (Ed.), The Prague school of structural and functional linguistics. (pp.277-309). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins North America.
Shih, Y. H. & Lin, M. S. & Sarah Brooks. (2001). FarEast English Reader for Senior High Schools. (Book V). Taipei: The FarEast Book Company.
Travnicek, F. (1962). O tak zvanem aktualnim cleneni vetnem ﹝On the so-called functional sentence perspective﹞. Slovo a Slovesnost, 22, 163-171.
Vachek. (1966). The Linguistic School of Prague. Blooming: Indiana University Press.
Wikborg, E. (1990). Types of coherence breaks in Swedish writing: Misleading paragraph division. In U. Connor & A. M. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 131-149). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Williams, M. P. (1988). Functional sentence perspective in the context of systemic functional grammar. In R. Veltman & E. H. Steiner (Eds.), Pragmatics, discourse and text: Some systemically-inspired approaches. (pp. 76-89). London: Pinter Publishers.
Witte, S. P. & Faigley, L. (1981b). Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality. College Composition and Communication, 32, 189-204.
Witte, S. P. (1982). Topical structure and writing quality: A study of the argumentative texts of college writers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 233 345)
Witte, S. P. (1983a). Topical structure and writing quality: Some possible text-based explanations of readers’ judgments of student writing. Visible Language, 17, 177-205.
Witte, S. P. (1983b). Topical structure and revision : An exploratory study. College Composition and Communication, 34, 313-341.