本論文旨在探討「主題結構分析法」(Topical Structure Analysis)之教學/學習方式能否精進寫作上的篇章連貫性。『篇章連貫性』往往被視為一種定義模糊的概念，造成教師在教學上與學生在學習上的困難，即便是文法觀念良好的英語學習者，寫作時也會出現缺乏篇章連貫性的問題。自1987年起，學者開始廣泛使用「主題結構分析法」作為分析篇章結構的工具。少數學者發現若將此分析方法運用於教學上，可收增進語言學習者寫作能力之效用。
本實驗以四十名研究生為研究對象，對其中二十五位學生進行「主題結構分析法」的教學，以便評估「主題結構分析法」在英語寫作課程中的可行性及接受度。此研究設計了一系列結構分析法的教學活動與方法，經由檢視學生文章中句子主題(sentence topic)的平行結構(parallel progression)、接續結構(sequential progression)與延伸平行結構(extended parallel progression)，探討此三種結構對於篇章連貫性的影響，並透過分析學習者之文章與回朔訪談等方式來研究學習者對於『連貫性』此一概念的認知，以及評估「主題結構分析法」的學習成效。
研究結果顯示「主題結構分析法」可以幫助學生了解並修正本身寫作連貫性之問題。藉由檢視修改前、後的文章，發現學生在主題發展及連貫性上有明顯的改進，學生學習了「主題結構分析法」後，在文章連貫性的單項得分及寫作總分上皆有顯著的進步。由此可證明「主題結構分析法」的教學設計能夠有效改進學生英文寫作能力以及寫作連貫性。另外，從問卷以及訪談的結果得知，大多數的學生對於「主題結構分析法」的學習都抱持肯定的態度與想法，並表示此分析法不僅增進了他們改寫文章的能力，亦提高其對於寫作連貫性的知覺。其次，改寫策略的問卷結果顯示透過學習「主題結構分析法」，學生對於文章改寫展現出更為積極自主的態度。

Coherence instruction has long played a significant role in the writing classroom since many learners, even with a good command of grammatical knowledge, still lack the ability to compose fluent and well-organized essays. Although the importance of coherence in writing has been recognized in most EFL or ESL writing textbooks, it is mainly introduced or represented as a list of transitional devices. Learners, therefore, have a deficiency in their knowledge of coherence and display limited ability in writing more effectively and successfully.
Due to the possibility of insufficiency in teaching as well as the need to uncover a heuristic tool which could help our learners handle coherence problems, this study focuses on evaluating the efficacy of giving instruction in Topical Structure Analysis (TSA) as a revision strategy. Data included multi-dimensional questionnaires and essays. Forty EFL graduate students in the fields of Science and Engineering were divided into the control and experimental group. Twenty-five students in the experimental group were introduced to the TSA, receiving in-class practice in identifying T-units, selecting topics and comments, and determining different types of progressions in a discourse. They were required to apply TSA in their revision process. Their writing essays, including drafts and revisions were analyzed to investigate whether or not there was any modification in the topical progressions. The essays were further compared between groups with special attention paid to students’ performance in the scoring of coherence and overall writing quality. In addition to the writing samples, questionnaires about learners’ English writing learning experiences and their perspectives and difficulties regarding TSA instruction were elicited via questionnaires and interviews.
The findings show that students receiving instruction in TSA had better performance on topical progressions. In the revised essays, more proportions and better quality parallel progressions, sequential progressions, and extended parallel progressions were found to contribute to better overall coherence. In regard to students’ attitudes toward and perceptions of learning this self-revision strategy, students report positive feedback in terms of learning and applying TSA. Many of them reported that TSA helps them to reorganize the essay as well as to examine coherence between sentences. Moreover, in terms of the guidance given by this strategy, they are more aware of the relations between sentence topics and the overall discourse topics. In addition to the positive findings for students’ changes in information organization, the results indicate that instruction in TSA results in students’ awareness of coherent writing as well as motivating them to become more responsible writers. The results gathered from the revising strategy questionnaire show that students with the TSA instruction display different attitudes in the revising process. Instead of merely depending on teachers’ comments and guidance, students participate in the revising process more actively and are inspired to interpret coherence using a new perspective. The results of the study may not only shed light on EFL writing, but also contribute toward the understanding of this discourse-based approach as an alternative teaching and learning device for coherent writing.

Carrell, P. L. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 479-488.
Cerniglia, C. S., Medsker, K. L., & Connor, U. (1990). Improving coherence by using computer-assisted instruction. In Ulla C., & Ann. M. J (Eds.), Coherence in Writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (p.227-241). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Language, Inc.
Chao, K. H. (2002). Thematic Progression in the Argumentative Essays of EFL Senior High School Students. Master’s thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan, R. O. C.
Chi, C. H. (2004). An analysis of textual structures employed by EFL beginning writers. Master’s thesis, National Yunlin University of Science & Technology, Douliu, Yunlin, Taiwan, R. O. C.
Chi, C. H., & You, Y. L. (2004). An analysis of textual employed by EFL beginning writers. In the Proceedings of the Thirteen International on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (p.345-357). Taipei: Publishing Co., Ltd.
Chiang, S. (2003). The importance of cohesive conditions to perceptions of writing quality at the early stages of foreign language learning. System, 31, 471-484.
Chiu, Y. H. (2004). Coaching a student to develop coherence based upon topical structure analysis: A case study. Journal of Language and Learning, 2, 154-170.
Chou, M. C. (2000). Lexical cohesion and the quality of the EFL writing text. Hwa Kang Journal of English Language & Literature, 7, 197-209.
Connor, U. (1987). Research frontiers in writing analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 4, 677-696.
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 (p.126-139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Connor, U., & Johns, A. M. (1990). Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Daneš, F. (1974). Functional Sentence Perspective and the organisation of text. In F. Daneš (Ed.), Papers on Functional Sentence Perspectives (p.106-128). Prague: Mouton.
Downing, A. (2001). Thematic progression as a functional resource in analysing texts (2001, May). Retrieved September 23, 2007, from http://www.ucm.es/info/circulo/no5/downing.htm.
Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.
Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1984). Measuring the effects of revisions on text structure. In R. Beach & L. S. Bridwell (Eds.), New Directions in Composition Research (p.95-108). New York: Guilford Press.
Firbas, 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 (p. 40-71). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Grabe, W., & Kapan, R. B. (1996). Theory and Practice of Writing: An applied linguistic perspectives. New York: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2000). Introduction to Functional Grammar (2 nd ed.). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Henson, L. M. (2001). Textual snowballing: A quantitative and qualitative investigation of coherence through the eyes of native and nonnative students, ESL and English instructors, and writing textbook authors. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana.
Hinkle, E. (2001). Matters of cohesion in L2 academic texts. Applied Language Learning, 12(2), 111-132.
Hinkle, E. (2004). Rhetorical features of text: cohesion and coherence. In Teaching Academic ESL Writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers (2 nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johns, A. M. (1986). Coherence and academic writing: Some definitions and suggestions for teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 20(2), 247-265.
Kuo, C. H. (1995). Cohesive and coherence in academic writing: From lexical choice to organization. RELC Journal, 26(1), 47-62.
Lautamatti, L. (1978). Observations on the development of the topic in simplified discourse. In N. E. Enkvist & V. Kohonen (Eds.), Text linguistics, cognitive learning and language teaching (Publications de l’Association finlandaise de linguistique appliqué No. 22) (p. 71-104). Helsinki: Akteeminen Kirjakauppa.
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 (p. 87-114). MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Lautamatti, L. (1990). Coherence in spoken and written discourse. In U. Connor & A. M. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (p. 31-40). Alexandria, Virginia: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
Lee, I. (2002a). Teaching coherence to ESL students: A classroom inquiry. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 135-159.
Lee, I. (2002b). Helping students develop coherence in writing. English Teaching Forum Magazine, 40(3), 32-39.
Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL Writers: A guide for teachers. NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Li, H., & Liu, Y. (2005). Thematic progression, register consistency and text coherence. US-China Foreign Language, 3(7), 55-58.
Liu, M., & Braine, G. (2005). Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. System, 33, 623-636.
Lorés, R. (2004). On RA abstracts: From rhetorical structure to thematic organisation. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 280-302.
Mathesius, V. (1975). On linguistic chacterology with illustrations from modern English. Reprinted in J. Vachek (Ed.), A Prague School reader in linguistics (p. 59-67). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Meisuo, Z. (2000). Cohesive features in the expository writing of undergraduates in two Chinese universities. RELC Journal, 31(1), 61-95.
Özhan, D. (2004). Using Grice’s cooperative principle and its maxims for analyzing coherence: A study on academic writing. Master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Petrić, B., & Czárl, B. (2003). Validating a writing strategy questionnaire. System, 31(2), 187-215.
Practicing to Take the GRE General Test (10 th Ed.). (2003). Princeton, NJ: Graduate Record Examination Board.
Sakontawut, N. (2003). Functional sentence perspective and second-language comparison: A study of revision process in a writing workshop for Thai college students. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana.
Schneider, M., & Connor, U. (1990). Analyzing topical structure in ESL essays: Not all topics are equal. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 411-427.

Sengupta, S. (2000). An investigation into the effects of revision strategy instruction on L2 secondary school learners. System, 28, 97-113.
Simpson, J. M. (2000). Topical structure analysis of academic paragraphs in English and Spanish. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 293-309.
Smalley, R. L., Ruetten, M. K., & Kozyrev, J. R. (2001). Refining Composition Skills (5th ed.). Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Todd, R.W., Thienpermpool, P., & Keyuravong, S. (2004). Measuring the coherence of writing using topic-based analysis. Assessing Writing, 9, 85-104.
Todd, R. W., Khongput, S., & Darasawang, P. (2007). Coherence, cohesion and comments on students’academic essays. Assessing Writing, 12, 10–25.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1983). Something old, something new: Functional sentence perspective. Research in the Teaching of English, 17, 85-99.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (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: Linguistics approaches (p.72-111). London: Sage.
Weisssberg, R. C. (1984). Given and new: Paragraph development models for scientific English. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 485-500.
Wikborg, E. (1990). Types of coherence breaks in Swedish student writing: Misleading paragraph division. In U. Connor & A. M. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (p. 131-149). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Witte, S. P. (1983a). Revision: An exploratory study. College Composition and Communication, 34(3), 313-341.
Witte, S. P. (1983b). Topical structure and writing quality: Some possible text-based explanations of readers’ judgments of student writing. Visible Language, 17, 177-205.
Zhang, M. (2000). Cohesive features in exploratory writing of undergraduates in two
Chinese universities. RELC Journal, 31, 61-93.