在英文寫作的各項評分標準中，文章的連貫性可說是最重要，卻又最抽象的概念。其特徵和構成成分難以分析或加以描述，也因此造成寫作教學上的困難。本篇論文旨在探討運用進階版的「主題結構分析法」(Topical Structure Analysis) 做為一修改寫作的技巧，希望能藉由實際操作分析的過程，讓學生能自發性的發現自己寫作上的缺陷，並對「文章連貫性」有更深入的了解。
「主題結構」是指文章中，一連串句子主題(sentence topic)之間的關係，也就是這些主題如何合作，一句句的堆疊ヽ建立出整個篇章的主題(discourse topic) 。這樣整體主體的建立主要是透過三種不同的結構關係: 平行結構(parallel progression)ヽ接續結構 (sequential progression)和延伸平行結構 (extended parallel progression) 。平行結構是指兩個(或以上)的句子主題相同或近義；接續結構則是前後兩個(或以上)的句子主題不同；延伸平行結構是文章從一主題發展出另一不同的主題，而後又折回原本的主題。
本論文採兩組對照和組內教學前後差異的設計。受試者為進階寫作的大二外文系學生，對照組接受概括性的連貫性教學，和教師單向的寫作評語；實驗組則接受主題結構分析法的教學，並將其應用於修改草稿；此外我們也在適當時機向實驗組學生介紹語彙連貫機制(lexical cohesive device)，希望能幫助學生更了解句子主題間的語義連結。研究結果顯示，主題結構分析法比一般評語更能幫助學生理解連貫性的要義，並有助於他們自發性的找出篇章中不連貫之處，以及語義連結鬆散的句子；之後也更能善用句子主題來詳盡發展篇章中重要的概念，並設法彌補語義不連貫之處。這些改變表現在整體和段落連貫性的大幅進步。此外，主題結構分析法的教學似乎對學生有持續性的影響，使他們三周之後還能獨立運用並有明顯的進步。最後，從問卷和訪談的結果得知大部分的學生對於主題結構分析法表示肯定，認為他們對篇章連貫性的認識的覺察有大幅提升。我們也觀察到不同寫作程度的學生對主題結構分析法的學習，有不同的看法和收穫。

Among all the criteria of English writing, coherence is claimed to be the most abstract but essential, whose subcomponents and characteristics are difficult to analyze and describe. It thus gives instructors a hard time explaining to learners as well as planning effective pedagogical activities; it also seems inaccessible to learners while composing and revising. Therefore, the present study aims to explore the effect of teaching a revision strategy, an enhanced version of Topical Structure Analysis (TSA) to promote advanced EFL writers’ understanding on the essence of coherence by involving them in hands-on analyzing experiences, through which they can identify their own weakness and further improve coherence in writing.
Topical structure refers to the relationship among sequences of sentence topics in text and how they work together throughout the discourse to establish a unified meaning gradually. Three topical progressions among an article are identified: parallel (PP), sequential (SP) and extended parallel progressions (EPP). In parallel progression (PP), the topics in serial sentences are identical or synonymous. Sequential progression (SP) takes different topics in successive sentences, and some of the topics are comments from previous sentences. In extended parallel progression (EPP), two semantically identical topics are interrupted by at least one sequential progression.
The research was based on both within- and between- group designs, which was basically modified from the scheme of Fan (2008). The participants of the study were two classes of English major sophomores, with 15 students in each. The experimental group was introduced the concept of TSA. Our instruction was firstly centered on the relationship between discourse topic and sentence topics and then moved to the semantic relations carried among sentence topics. Exercises were given to identify sentence topics and comments, determining sentence progression in samples, and in due course the lexical cohesion was brought in to help the analysis of the semantic relationship among topics. In-class discussion of how the samples should be revised was conducted and students were required to apply the technique to their own revising processes. In contrast, the control group only revised based on the comment given by the instructor. Students’ essays before and after the revision were rated and compared to see which group gain more score in general writing quality as well as in coherence after the revision. The experimental group’s essays were analyzed additionally on a scale tailored for topical structure to examine whether they improve coherence in terms of topical unity and whether they develop the discourse topics in a more sophisticated way. In addition, the group was required to apply the strategy to their next assignment and it was compared with the first essay written at the beginning of the study, which aimed to examine if our previous instruction was sufficient for the students to apply the strategy independently. Besides students’ essays, questionnaires were distributed to survey students’ perspectives on the revising strategy and whether it promoted their awareness of their own idea progressions and of the elements of textual coherence.
The results demonstrated that the experimental group not only improved the general impression of unity, but also achieved better performance in the coherence internal to each paragraph than their peers in control group. They became clearer about the paragraph main idea they intended to convey, and were better able to modify ill-developed supporting ideas by further providing necessary information to complete the development. Furthermore, some ambiguously- connected ideas were pinpointed and the gaps among their meaningful relations were bridged by giving transitional sentences. These improvements were reflected in the different patterns of topical progressions in students’ two versions of writing. Significantly more PP appeared in their revisions to add more details onto those important ideas by repetitively mentioning them as topics. A slight drop in the percentages of unrelated progression (UP) and superstructure (SUPER) was identified and found to greatly influence the connectedness of ideas. Besides, the strategy was found to not only work during the instructional sessions where intensive attention was given, but had somewhat lasting effect that kept helping students improve coherence three weeks later. In addition, the questionnaire response also revealed students’ general positive perception of the strategy. Most students agreed that TSA helped them to be better aware of the coherence in their writing and that it gave them a tangible way for self-revision in which they can approach the coherence problem level by level. The follow-up interviews showed the somewhat different opinions on the technique held by writers of different writing proficiency.

Burneikait´e, N., & Zabili´ut´e, J. (2003). Information structuring in learner texts: Apossible relationship between the topical structure and the holistic evaluation of learner essays. Studies about Language, 4, 1–11.
Carrell, P. L. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 479-488.
Cerniglia, C. S., Medsker, K. L., & Connor, U. (1990). Improving coherence by using computer-assisted Instruction. In C. Ulla, & M. J. Ann (Eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp.227-241). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
Chiang, S. (2003). The importance of cohesive conditions to perceptions of writing
quality at early stages of foreign language learning. System, 31, 471-484.
Chiu, Y. F. (2004). Coaching a student to develop coherence based on topical structure analysis : A case study. Journal of Language and Learning, 2(2), 154-167.
Connor, U. (1987). Research frontiers in writing analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 677-696.
Connor, U., & Farmer, M. (1990). The teaching of topical analysis as a revision strategy for ESL writers. In B. Kroll (Ed.). Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom (pp.126-139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Danes, F. (1974). Functional sentence perspective and the organization of text. In F. Danes. (Ed.), Papers on Functional Sentence Perspectives (pp.106-128). Prague: Mouton.
Fahnestock, J. (1983). Semantic and lexical coherence. College Composition and Communication, 34(4), 400-416.
Fan, Y. S., Hsu, A. Y., & Yang, Y. C. (2006). Topical structure analysis of doctoral students’ writing: By means of General English Proficiency Writing Test. Selected Papers from the 15th International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 371-377). Taipei: Crane Publishing Co, Ltd.
Fan, Y. S., & Hsu, A. Y. (2007). Empower our learners as conscious writers: Teaching topical structure analysis to doctoral students. Selected Papers from the Proceedings of the 24th Conference on English Teaching and Learning (pp.285-295).
Fan, Y. S. (2008). Topical structure analysis as an alternative learning strategy for coherent writing. Master thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Firba, J. (1986). On the dynamics of written communication in light of the theory of functional sentence perspective. In C. Cooper, & S. Greenbaum (Eds.), Studying Writing: Linguistic Approaches (pp.40-71). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Gallo, J. D., & Rink, H. W. (1985). Shaping college writing: Paragraph and essay (4th ed.). Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Grabe, W.P. (1985). Written discourse analysis. In R.B. Kaplan (Ed.),
Annual review of applied linguistics (Vol. 5, pp. 101-123). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspectives. New York: Longman.
Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hasan, R. (1984). Coherence and cohesive harmony. In J. Flood. (Ed.), Understanding reading comprehension (pp.181-219). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). Introduction to functional grammar (3ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 Text (pp. 141-152). Reading, Mass: Addison- Wesley.
Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of lexis in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hoenisch, S. (1996). The theory and method of topical structure analysis. Retrieved April, 30, 2007, from http://www.criticism.com/da/tsa-method.php
Irmscher, W. F. (1979). Teaching expository writing. New York : Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Johns, A. M. (1986). Coherence and academic writing: Some definitions and suggestions for teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 247-265.
Knoch, U. (2007). Little coherence, considerable strain for reader : A comparison between two rating scales for the assessment of coherence. Assessing Writing, 12,108–128.
Kobayashi, H. & Rinnert, C. (1996). Factors affecting composition evaluation in an EFL context: Cultural rhetorical pattern and readers’ background. Language Learning, 46(3), 397-437.
Kuo, C. (1995) Cohesion and coherence in academic writing: From lexical choice to organization. RELC Journal, 26 (1), 47-62.
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 texts (pp. 87-114). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Lautamatti, L. (1990). Coherence in spoken and written discourse. In Ulla, C. & Ann, M.J. (Eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp.227-241). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc
Lee, I. (1998). Enhancing ESL students’ awareness of coherence-creating mechanisms in writing. TESL Canada Journal, 15(2), 36-49.
Lee, I. (2002). Teaching coherence to ESL students: A classroom inquiry. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(2), 135-159.
Liu, M., & Braine, G. (2005). Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduate. System, 33, 623-636.
Mathesius, V. (1975). On linguistic chacterology with illustrations from modern English. Reprinted in J. Vachek (Ed.), A Prague School Reader in Linguistics (pp.59-67). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
McDonald, S., & Salomone, W. (2004). The writer’s response : A reading-based approach to college writing (3ed.). Boston, MA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Morgan, J. L., & Sellner, M. B. (1980). Discourse and Linguistic Theory. In R.J. Spiro, B.C. Bertram, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Palmer, J. C. (1999). Coherence and cohesion in the English language classroom: The use of lexical reiteration and pronominalization. RELC Journal, 30(2), 61-85.
Simpson, J. M. (2000). Topical structure analysis of academic paragraph in English and Spanish. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 293-309.
Schneider, M., & Connor, U. (1990). Analyzing topical structure in ESL essays: Not all topics are equal. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 411-427.
Stotsky, S. (1983). Types of lexical cohesion in expository writing: Implications for developing the vocabulary of academic discourse. College Composition and Communication, 34(4), 430-446.
Tierney, R. J., & Mosenthal, J. H. (1981). The cohesion concept’s relationship to the coherence of text. Technical Report No.221, Center for the Study of Reading. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.
Vande Kopple, J. W. (1982). Functional sentence perspective, composition, and reading. College Composition and Communication, 33(1), 50-63.
Vande Kopple, J. W. (1986). Given and new information and some aspects of the structures, semantics, and pragmatics of written texts. In C. Cooper, & S. Greenbaum (Eds.), Studying Writing: Linguistic Approaches (pp.72-111). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Watson Todd, R., Thienpermpool, P., & Keyuravong, S. (2004). Measuring the coherence of writing using topic-based analysis. Assessing Writing, 9(2), 85–104.
Watson Todd, R., Khongput, S., & Darasawang, P. (2007). Coherence, cohesion and comments on students’ academic essays Assessing writing, 12(1), 10-25.
Weissberg, R. C. (1984). Given and new: Paragraph development models from scientific English. TESOL Quarterly, 18(3), 485-500.
Williams, J. M. (2003). Style : Ten lessons in clarity and grace (7 ed.). New York : Longman.
Wingersky, J., Boerner, J., & Holguin-Balogh., D. (1991). Writing paragraphs and essays : Integrating reading, writing, and grammar skills. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Witte, S. & Faigley, L. (1981). Coherence, cohesion and writing quality. College Composition and Communication, 32(2), 189-204.
Witte, S. P. (1983a). Topical structure and writing quality: Some possible explanations of readers’ judgment of student writing. Visible Language, 17(2), 177-250.
Witte, S. P. (1983b). Topical structure and revision: An exploratory study. College Composition and Communication, 34(3), 313-341.
Wu, J. (1997). Topical structure analysis of English as second language (ESL) texts written by college Southeast Asian refugee students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Young, R. (1995). Conversational styles in language proficiency interviews. Language Learning, 45(1), 3–42.