本研究旨在採用系統功能語言學檢視不同語言背景大學生論說文中的主位選擇。比較對象為台灣及中國大學生、新加坡大學生、母語人士大學生，並以母語專業人士作為參照。240篇論說文採自亞洲英語學習者國際語料庫(ICNALE, Ishikawa, 2013)，比較的主位為語篇主位、人際主位，及標記主位。

本研究分析結果顯示，此三組大學生的主位選擇模式不盡相同。首先，台灣及中國大學生的語篇主位及標記主位使用頻率上顯著多於母語專業人士，且傾向使用外顯的語篇主位銜接語篇。此外，母語人士大學生的語篇主位及人際主位顯著多於母語專業人士，並包括較多的非正式語域。最後，新加坡大學生的主位選擇近似母語專業人士。與專業人士相較，新加坡大學生的三種主位頻率皆未達顯著，傾向用詞彙而非語篇主位來銜接語篇，他們的主觀性人際主位語氣不似母語人士大學生般語氣強烈，且他們的標記主位能銜接文章主題。

根據分析結果，本研究提供台灣及中國教科書編者及英語教師設計論說文寫作教材的具體建議，並提出以篇章為主的論說文寫作教學法應有其必要。

The study investigates how college students of different linguistic backgrounds organize information in expository essays using NS professionals as a reference. Using a Systemic Functional Linguistic approach, the study compares the thematic choices of 240 controlled essays by Chinese (including essays from China and Taiwan), Singaporean, native college students, and native professionals in the International Corpus Network of Asian Learners of English (ICNALE, Ishikawa, 2013). Three Themes under investigation are textual, interpersonal, and marked Themes.

The results show that the students of different linguistic backgrounds have different patterns of thematic choices. First, the Chinese students deploy significantly more textual Themes and marked Themes than the native professionals to achieve cohesion explicit. Second, the native students utilize significantly more textual Themes and interpersonal Themes than the native professionals. The Themes in the native students’ writing tend to contain more informal registers. Finally, the Singaporean students’ writing exhibits patterns of Themes similar to those of the native professionals. None of the Themes by the Singaporean students is significantly more than those of the native professionals. Their cohesion tends to be achieved implicitly through lexical cohesion. Their subjective interpersonal Themes are not strong in tone as those of native students. Their marked Themes continue the topic.

Based on the findings, some pedagogical implications are offered for the Chinese-speaking EFL textbook writers as well as English teachers to design expository teaching materials. The results of the study may inform the necessity of a more discourse-level approach to teaching expository writing in the Chinese-speaking EFL context.

Ädel, A. (2006). The use of metadiscourse in argumentative texts by advanced learners and native speakers of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Ammann, H. (1928). Die menschliche Rede: Sprachphilosophische Untersuchungen. Der Satz. II. M. Schauenburg.
Arunsirot, S. (2013). An Analysis of Textual Metafunction in Thai EFL Students’ Writing. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 7(2), 160-174.
Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT journal, 54(2), 153-160.
Belmonte, I. A., & McCabe, A. (1998). Theme-Rheme patterns in L2 writing. Didactica, 10, 13-31.
Belmonte, I. A., & McCabe, A. (2003). Improving text flow in ESL learner compositions. The Internet TESL Journal, 9(2). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/ on August 10 2015.
Berry, M. (1995). Thematic options and success in writing. Thematic development in English texts, 55-84.
Biber, D. (1991). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press.
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(1), 33-43.
Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H. (1975). The development of writing abilities (pp. 11-18). London, UK: Macmillan.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Chang, S. C. (2011). A contrastive study of grammar translation method and communicative approach in teaching English grammar. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 13-24.
Chang, W. C. & Li, I. (張武昌，李櫻) (2008). 從語用頻率與標記理論談高中英文句型教學。英語教學期刊, 32, 123-155.
Crewe, W. J. (1990). The illogic of logical connectives. ELT journal, 44(4), 316-325.
Dixon, L. Q. (2005). Bilingual education policy in Singapore: An analysis of its sociohistorical roots and current academic outcomes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8(1), 25-47.
Ebrahimi, S. F., & Ebrahimi, S. J. (2012). Markedness in writing: A case of EFL students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(4), 773-777.
Eggins, S. (2004). Introduction to systemic functional linguistics. A&C Black.
Fries, P. H. (1983). On the status of theme in English: arguments from discourse. Micro and macro connexity of texts. Hamburg: Buske, 116-152.
Fries, P. H. (1995). A personal view of theme. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Thematic development in English texts (pp. 1–19). London: Pinter.
Ghadessy, M. (Ed.). (1995). Thematic Development of English Texts. A&C Black.
Gilquin, G., & Paquot, M. (2008). Too chatty: Learner academic writing and register variation. English Text Construction, 1(1), 41-61.
Graham, S., Gillespie, A., & McKeown, D. (2013). Writing: Importance, development, and instruction. Reading and Writing, 26(1), 1-15.
Granger, S. (1997). On identifying the syntactic and discourse features of participle clauses in academic English: native and non-native writers compared. In: Aarts, J., I. de Mo¨nnink, E.,& Wekker, H. (Eds.), Studies in English language research and teaching (pp. 185–198). Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi.
Granger, S., & Tyson, S. (1996). Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non‐native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes, 15(1), 17-27.
Graves, D. H. (1978). Balance the Basics: Let Them Write. Learning, 6(8), 30-3.
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. (1978). Language as social semiotic (p. 136). Arnold: London.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). Functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing Science, Literary and Discourse Power. London: Palmer Press.
Halliday, M. A., & Matthiessen, C. M. (2013). Halliday's Introduction to Functional Grammar. Routledge.
Hawes, T. P. (2001). Thematisation in the Editorials of The Sun and The Times. (Unpublished PhD Thesis). University of Liverpool.
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.
Herriman, J. & Boström Aronsson, M. (2009). Themes in Swedish advanced learners writing in English. Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 33, 101-120
Hewings, A. (2004). Developing discipline-specific writing: an analysis of undergraduate geography essays. Analysing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks, 131-152.
Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. London: Routledge.
Hu, H. Y. (2008). On textual cohesion in Chinese students’ English writing. Journal of Zhejiang Normal University (Social Science), 33(3), 113-116.
Hyland, K. (2002). Language, Context, and Literacy. Annual review of applied linguistics, 22, 113-135.
Ishikawa, S. I. (2013). The ICNALE and sophisticated contrastive interlanguage analysis of Asian learners of English. Learner corpus studies in Asia and the world, 1, 91-118.
Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for teachers. Cambridge University Press.
Kohn, K. (1986). The analysis of transfer. Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition, 21-34.
Leech, G. 1998. Preface. In Learner English on Computer, S. Granger (ed.), xiv-xx. London: Addison Wesley Longman.
Li, Q. F. (2009). Thematic selection and progression in EFL writing. US-China Foreign Language, 7(7), 25-28.
Lin, S. Y. (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 Univerisity, Taipei city, Taiwan.
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), 117-128.
Liu, Y. H. (2009). A discourse analysis of adverbial participle clauses in Taiwanese senior high students’ writing. (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Lu, A. (2013). A functional grammar approach to analysing Asian students’ writing. American Journal of Educational Research, 1(2), 49-57.
Martin, J. R. (1985). Process and text: two aspects of human semiosis. Systemic perspectives on discourse, 1(15), 248-274.
Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. John Benjamins Publishing.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. Equinox.
McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2014). Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teaching. Routledge.
Mellos, V. D. (2011). Coherence in English as a second language undergraduate writing: A theme-rheme analysis (Doctoral dissertation). San Diego State University.
Ministry of Education (MOE), Singapore. (n.d.b). English language syllabus 2010 (EL Syllabus 2010). Retrieved from http://www.moe.edu.sg/education/syllabuses/languages-and-literature/files/english-primary-secondary-express-normal-academic.pdf
Mohan, B. A., & Lo, W. A. Y. (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and developmental factors. Tesol Quarterly, 515-534.
Murray, D. M. (1980). Writing as process: How writing finds its own meaning. Eight approaches to teaching composition, 3-20.
Nagin, C. (2012). Because writing matters: Improving student writing in our schools. John Wiley & Sons.
Nation, I. S. P., & Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The language teacher, 31(7), 9-13.
North, S. (2005). Disciplinary variation in the use of theme in undergraduate essays. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 431-452.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Routledge.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Routledge.
Shi, Y., Lin, M., & Brooks, S. (Eds.). (2007). Far East English Reader (Vol. Book I~VI). Taipei: Far East Book Co.
Thompson, G. 2004. Introducing functional grammar. Second edition. London: Hodder & Stoughton Educational.
Vasconcellos, M. (1992). The theme as message onset: its structure and characteristics. Linguistics, 30(1), 147-164.
Wang X. W. (2010). TP Pattern and Coherence in English Writing——Analysis of TEM-4 Writing Papers. Foreign Language Research, 2, 103-106.
Wang, L. (2007). Theme and rheme in the thematic organization of text: Implications for teaching academic writing. Asian EFL Journal, 9(1), 164-176.
Wei, J. (2013). Corpus-based Research on Topical Theme Choices in Chinese and Swedish English Learner Writings. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(12), 2202-2208.
Wei, J. (2016). Thematic choice in Chinese college students' English essays.English for Specific Purposes, 41, 50-67.
Xu, R. (2000). Theme and cohesion in the writing of English expository texts by Chinese tertiary EFL learners. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). 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. (2009). Thematic progression analysis in teaching explanation writing. English Language Teaching, 1(1), P29.