Grammar as resource: Writing a description

Research in the Teaching of English

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 182-211

  Schleppegrell, Mary J ^a  

^a University of California   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040439927     PISSN: 0034527X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.58680/rte19983904     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Braine, G. (1989). Writing in science and technology: An analysis of assignments from ten undergraduate courses. English for Specific Purposes, 8, 3-15.
2. Callaghan, M., Knapp, P., & Noble, G. (1993). Genre in practice. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing (pp. 179-202). London: Palmer.
3. Christie, F. (1985). Language and schooling. In S. Tchudi (Ed.), Language, schooling and society (pp. 21-40). Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
4. Christie, F. (1986). Writing in schools: Generic structures as ways of meaning. In B. Couture (Ed.), Functional approaches to writing: Research perspectives (pp. 221-39)., London: Pinter.
5. Christie, F. (1991). First- and second-order registers in education. In E. Ventola (Ed.), Functional and systemic linguistics (pp. 235-256). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
6. Downing, A., & Locke, P. (1992). A university course in English grammar. New York: Prentice Hall.
7. Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (1990). A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language, 66, 297-316.
8. Fries, P. H. (1981). On the status of theme in English: Arguments from discourse. Forum Linguisticum, 6(1), 1-38.
9. Ghadessy, M. (Ed.) (1995). Thematic development in English texts. London: Pinter.
10. Halliday, M. A. K. (1993a). On the language of physical science. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 54-68). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
11. Halliday, M. A. K. (1993b). Some grammatical problems in scientific English. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 69-85). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
12. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
13. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (Eds.) (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
14. Huddleston, R. D. (1971). The sentence in written English: A syntactic study based on an analysis of scientific texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
16. Kinneavy, J. L. (1971). A theory of discourse. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
17. Krashen, S. (1991). Sheltered subject matter teaching. Cross Currents, 18, 183-189.
18. Kress, G. (1994). Learning to write (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
19. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
20. Martin, J. R. (1983). The development of register. In J. Fine & R. O. Freedle (Eds.), Developmental issues in discourse (pp. 1-40). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
21. Martin, J. R. (1989). Factual writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22. Martin, J. R. (1993). Literacy in science: Learning to handle text as technology. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 166-202). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
23. Martin, J. R., & Rothery, J. (1986). What a functional approach to the writing task can show teachers about "good writing." In B. Couture (Ed.), Functional approaches to writing: Research perspectives (pp. 241-265). London: Pinter.
24. Mauranen, A. (1996). Discourse competence -Evidence from thematic development in native and non-native texts. In E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 195-230). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
25. McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1994). Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teaching. London: Longman.
26. McNamara, J. (1989). The writing in science and history project: The research questions and implications for teachers. In F. Christie (Ed.), Writing in schools (pp. 24-35). Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.
27. Mohan, B. A. (1986). Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
28. Peyton, J. K. (1990). Dialogue journal writing and the acquisition of English grammatical morphology. In J. K. Peyton (Ed.), Students and teachers writing together: Perspectives on journal writing (pp. 65-97). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
29. Reid, I. (1987). The place of genre in learning: Current debates. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.
30. Rothery, J. (1989). Two varieties of writing: Report and exposition. In J. R. Martin (Ed.), Factual writing (pp. 71-82). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31. Shaughnessy, M. P. (1977). Errors and expectations: A guide for the teacher of basic writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
32. Snow, C. E. (1984). Beyond conversation: Second language learners' acquisition of description and explanation. In J. P. Lantolf & A. Labarca (Eds.), Research in second language learning: Focus on the classroom (pp. 3-16). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
33. Snow, M. A. (1991). Teaching language through content. In M. Celce-Murcia (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 315-328). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
34. Vande Kopple, W. J. (1994). Some characteristics and functions of grammatical subjects in scientific discourse. Written Communication, 11, 534-564.
35. Zalewski, J. P. (1993). Number/person errors in an information-processing perspective: Implications for form-focused instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 691-703.