Volume 101, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Most technical and academic writing manuals attempt to instruct students on how to achieve a clear and readable discourse style. Very often, the instructions they provide are based on intuition rather than empirical research into authentic technical and experimental reports. This study presents an account of an investigation into the develop-ment of information in paragraphs in all section of an experimental research paper based on Danes (1970, 1974) functional theory of Thematic Progression (TP). The results show that TP correlates with the structure of text in the research paper and that different sections of the research paper tend to employ different TP patterns to develop the information they contain. This result is shown to have great im-plications for technical and academic writing.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. BLOOR, M. & BLOOR, R.
    (1987), Application of the Theory of FSP to the Teaching of writing. Paper presented atBAAL Seminar, Essex University.
    [Google Scholar]
    (1986), Studying Writing: Lin-guistic Approaches. Beverly Hills, Sage Publications.
  3. COUTURE, B.
    (ed) (1986), Functional Approaches to writing: Re-search Perspectives. London, Francis Pinter.
  4. DANEŠ, F.
    (1970), One instance of Prague School Methodology: Functional Analysis of Utterance and Text. In Garvin, P.L. (ed), Method and Theory in Linguistics, The Hague: Mouton.
  5. (1974), Functional Sentence Perspective and the Structure of Text. In DANES, F. (ed), Papers in Functional Sentence Per-spective, Prague: Academia.
  6. FIRBAS, J.
    (1964), On defining Theme in Functional Sentence Anal-ysis. Travaux Linguistique de Prague, Vol. 1, pp267–280.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (1974), Soms Aspects of the Cechoslovak Approach to the Problem of Functional Sentence Perspective. In DANES, F. (ed), Papers in Functional Sentence Perspective, Prague: Academia.
  8. FRIES, P. H.
    (1981), On the status of Theme in English: Arguments from Discourse. Forum Linguisticum, Vol. VI, No. l, pp1–38.
    [Google Scholar]
    (1988), The Product before: Task-Related influen-ces on the Writer. In Robinson, P.C. , (ed) Academic Writing: Process and Product. Modern English Publications in association with The British Council.
  10. HOEY, M.
    (1983), On the surface of discourse. London, George Allen and Unwin.
  11. (1991), Patterns of Lexis from Text. Oxford, Oxford Uni-versity Press.
  12. HOLLOWAY, D.W.
    (1981), Semantic Grammars: How they can help us Teach Writing. College Composition and Communication, No. 32, pp205–217.
    (1939), On so-called Functional Sentence Perspec-tive. Slovo a Slovensort, Vol. 17, pp177–174.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. MYERS, G.
    (1986), The social construction of two Biologists propo-sals. Written communication, vol. 2, No.3, pp219–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. NWOGU, K.N.
    (1990), Discourse Variation in Medical Texts: Schema, Theme and Cohesion in Professional and Journalistic Accounts. Monographs in Systemic Linguistics, Vol. 2, University of Nottingham.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. PARSONS, G.
    (1990), Cohesion and Coherence: Scientific Texts, A Comparative Study, Monographs in Systemic Linguistics, Vol. 1, University of Nottingham.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. SWALES, J.
    (1981), Aspects of Article Introductions. ESP Research Report, No. l, University of Aston in Birmingham.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (1990), Genre-Analysis: English in Academic and Re-search settings, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  19. STUBBS, M.
    (1986), Educational Linguistics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  20. VAN DIJK T.A.
    (1980), Macrostructures, Hillsdale, N. J. , Lawrence Erlbaum.
  21. WEISBERG, R.C.
    (1984), Given and New: Paragraph Development Models from Scientific English, TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 13.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error