Bloor, T. & Bloor, M. 1995. The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach. London: Arnold.
Daneš F. 1974. Functional sentence perspective and the organisation of the text. In Danes F. (Ed), Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective, Academia, Prague
Daneš, F. (Ed.) 1974. Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. The Hague: Mouton.
Firbas, J. 1986. On the dynamics of written communication in the light of the theory of Functional Sentence Perspective. In Cooper, C & Greenbaum, S. (Eds.) Studying Writing: Linguistic Approaches. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Firbas, J. 1992. Functional Sentence Perspective in Spoken and Written Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, M. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English. In Journal of Linguistics, Vol. 3, No. 1
Halliday, M. 1974. The place of FSP in the system of linguistic description. In Danes F (ed), Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. The Hague: Mouton.
Huckin, T. & L. Olsen. 1983. English for Science and Technology, McGraw-Hill: pp 303-319
Mauranen A. 1993. Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric, Peter Lang
May E. 1993. Tiedettä Englanniksi: Akateemisen kirjoittamisen käsikirja, Korkeakoulujen kielikeskus, Jyväskylän yliopisto: pp 95-97
Nwogu, K.N. 1995. Structuring Scientific Discourse using the given-new perspective. In English Teaching Forum, Oct. 1995
Peters, P. 1985. Strategies for Student Writers: A guide to writing essays, tutorial papers, exam papers and reports, John Wiley & Sons, Milton.
Seidlhofer, B. 1995. Approaches to Summarization: Discourse Analysis and Language Education, Tübingen: Gunter Narr. (Chapter 3: Thematic Structure: FSP and Theme-Rheme)
Vande Kopple, W.1986. Given and new information and some aspects of the structures, semantics, and pragmatics of written texts. In C.R. Cooper & S. Greenbaum (Eds.) Studying writing: Linguistic perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Ventola, E. & A. Mauranen. 1992. Tieteellinen kirjoittaminen englanniksi: tekstilingvistinen näkökulma opetukseen. Korkeakoulujen kielikeskuksen julkaisuja, N:o 42. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän yliopisto.
Ventola, E. & Mauranen, A. (Eds.) 1996. Akateeminen kirjoittaminen tänään ja huomenna. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino
SIGNPOSTS
Flowerdew, L. 1998. Integrating 'expert' and 'interlanguage' computer corpora findings on causality: Discoveries for teachers and students. English for Specific Purposes 17(4): 329-345.
Abraham, E. 1991. Why 'because'? The management of given/new information as a constraint on the selection of causal alternatives. Text 11(3): 323-339.
Moreno, A. 2002. Matching theoretical descriptions of discourse and practical applications to teaching: The case of causal metatext. English for Specific Purposes 17(4): 329-345.
McElholm, D. Adversative and concessive connectors in English. [Online document] Aug. 2004, Available at HTTP: www.fsz.uni-hannover.de/Sprachbereiche/ Englisch/dozenten/mcelholm/download/ Adversatives.pdf
Eulenberg, A. 1996. "Moreover, Besides, What is More: More than Just Conjunctions.” In M. Gasser (Ed.),
Online Proceedings of the 1996 Midwest Artificial Intelligence and cognitive Science Conference.
[Online document] Aug. 2004, Available at HTTP: http://www.cs.indiana.edu/event/ maics96/Proceedings/eulenberg.html
LeCount, Darryl. RE: What is with the word “moreover.” Online posting. 2 June 2004. .
METATEXT
Harwood, N. 2005. ‘We Do Not Seem to Have a Theory ... The Theory I Present Here Attempts to Fill This Gap’: Inclusive and Exclusive Pronouns in Academic Writing. Applied Linguistics 26(3):343-375.
Hinds, J. 1987. Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text. eds. U. Connor and R. Kaplan. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 141-152.
Huo, C.-H. 1998. The Use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes 18(2): 121–138.
Hyland, K. 2001. Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes 20(3): 207–226.
Mauranen, A. 1993a. Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric. A Textlinguistic Study. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Mauranen, A. 1993b. Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes 12, 3–22.
Noor, R. 2001. Contrastive rhetoric in expository prose: Approaches and achievements. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 255-269.
DEFINITE AND INDEFINITE ARTICLES
Master, P. (1988a). Teaching the English article system (Part 1). English Teaching Forum, 26(2), 2-7.
Master, P. (1988b). Teaching the English article system (Part 2). English Teaching Forum, 26(3), 18-25.
NOUN COMPOUNDS
Master, P. 2003. Noun Compounds and Compressed definitions. English Teaching Forum, July, 2003: 2-9.
MAIN SECTIONS
Feltrim, Valéria D ; Aluísio, Sandra Maria ; Nunes, M. G. V. Analysis of the rhetorical structure of computer science abstracts in Portuguese. In: Corpus Linguistics 2003, 2003, Lancaster, UK. Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2003 (Also as UCREL Technical Report). Lancaster, 2003. v. 16. p. 212-218.
Hyland, K. 2000. Disciplinary Discources: Social interactions in Academic writing. Eds. C. Candlin. Pearson Education Limited: Harlow, UK.
Kanoksilapatham, B. 2005. Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes 24: 269–292.
Ngozi Nwogu, K. 1997. The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes Vol. 16, No. 2: 119-138
Orr, Thomas 1999. Genre in the field of Computer Science and Computer Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 42(1): 32-37.
Posteguillo, S. 1999. The Schematic Structure of Computer Science Research Articles. English for Specific Purposes 18(2): 139–160.
Swales, J. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Introductions
Anthony, L. 1999. Writing Research Article Introductions in Software Engineering: How accurate is a standard model? IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 42(1): 38-46.
Results
Brett, P. 1994. A Genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes Vol. 13, No. 1: 47-59
Thompson, D. K. 1993. Arguing for experimental "facts" in science: A study of research article Results sections in biochemistry. Written Communication 8: 106-28.
Discussions / Conclusions
Bunton, D. 2005. The structure of PhD conclusion chapters. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005):2007-224
Holmes, R. 1997. Genre analysis, and the Social Sciences: an investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes Vol. 16, No. 4: 321-337
Peacock, M. 2002. Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System 30: 479-497.