References
Accurso, K. & Gebhard, M. (2020). SFL praxis in U.S. teacher education: A critical literature review. Language and Education, DOI:10.1080/095007 82.2020.1781880
Achugar, M., Schleppegrell, M. J. & Oteiza, T. (2007). Engaging teachers in language analysis: A functional linguistics approach to reflective literacy. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 6 (2), 8-24.
Aguirre-Munoz, Z., Park, J., Amabisca, A. & Boscardin, C. (2008). Developing teacher capacity for serving ELLs' writing instructional needs: A case for systemic functional linguistics. Bilingual Research Journal, 31 (1-2), 295-322.
Alvermann, D. & Reinking, D. (2006). Writing for research journals. In S. Wepner & L. Gambrell (Eds.), Beating the Odds: Getting Published in the Field of Literacy (pp. 72-84). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Andrews, R., Torgerson, C., Beverton, S., Freeman, A., Locke, T., Low, G., Robinson, A. & Zhu, D. (2006). The effect of grammar teaching on writing development. British Educational Research Journal, 32 (1), 39-55.
Aull, L. & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31 (2), 151-183.
Beck, I., Omanson, R. & McKeown, M. (1982). An instructional redesign of reading lessons: Effects on comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 17 (4), 462-481.
Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The Psychology of Written Composition. New York: Routledge.
Bernstein, B. (1971/2003). Class, Codes and Control. Vol.1: Theoretical Studies Towards a Sociology of Language. London: Routledge.
Biber, D. (1992). On the complexity of discourse complexity: A multidimensional analysis. Discourse Processes, 15 (2), 133-163.
Biber, D. (2006). University Language: A Corpus-Based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Biber, D. & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9 (1), 2-20.
Biber, D. & Gray, B. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development?. TESOL Quarterly, 45 (1), 5-35.
Biber, D. & Gray, B. (2016). Grammatical Complexity in Academic English: Linguistic Change in Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. New York: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Bunch, G., Walqui, A. & Pearson, P. D. (2014). Complex text and new common standards in the United States: Pedagogical implications for English learners. TESOL Quarterly, 48 (3), 533-559.
Chenhansa, S. & Schleppegrell, M. J. (1998). Linguistic features of middle school environmental education texts. Environmental Education Research, 4 (1), 53-66.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton & Co..
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Christie, F. (2002). The development of abstraction in adolescence in subject English. In M. J. Schleppegrell & M. Colombi (Eds.), Developing Advanced Literacy in First and Second Languages: Meaning with Power (pp. 45-66). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Christie, F. (2012). Language Education Throughout the School Years: A Functional Perspective. New York: Wiley.
Christie, F. & Derewianka, B. (2008). School Discourse: Learning to Write Across the Years of Schooling. London: Continuum.
Christie, F. & Dreyfus, S. (2007). Letting the secret out: Successful writing in secondary English. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 30 (3), 235-247.
Christie, F. & Macken-Horarik, M. (2011). Disciplinarity and school subject English. In F. Christie & K. Maton (Eds.), Disciplinarity: Functional Linguistic and Sociological Perspectives (pp. 175-196). London: Continuum.
Christie, F. & Maton, K. (Eds.). (2011). Disciplinarity: Functional Linguistic and Sociological Perspectives. London: Continuum.
Clandinin, D. (2009). Teacher development in contexts of curriculum reform: A question of teacher knowledge or knowledge for teachers. Asian Journal of Educational Research and Synergy, 1 (1), 5-14.
Coffin, C. (2006). Historical Discourse: The Language of Time, Cause and Evaluation. London: Continuum.
Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (1993). The Powers of Literacy: A Genre Approach to Teaching Writing. London: Falmer.
Creese, A. (2002). The discursive construction of power in teacher partnerships: Language and subject specialists in mainstream schools. TESOL Quarterly, 36 (4), 597-616.
de Oliveira, L. & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2015). Focus on Grammar and Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Derewianka, B. (1990). Exploring How Texts Work. Sydney: Primary English Teaching Association.
Dorfman, L. & Cappelli, R. (2009). Nonfiction Mentor Texts. Portsmouth, NH: Stenhouse.
Dreyfus, S., Humphrey, S., Mahboob, A. & Martin, J. R. (2016). Genre Pedagogy in Higher Education: The SLATE Project. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Duffy, G. (2005). Visioning and the development of outstanding teachers. In Z. Fang (Ed.), Literacy Teaching and Learning: Current Issues and Trends (pp. 321-328). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Eggins, S. (2004). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.
Exley, B., Kervin, L. & Mantei, J. (2016). Playing with grammar: A pedagogical heuristic for orienting to the language content of the Australian Curriculum: English. English in Australia, 51 (2), 100-110.
Fang, Z. (2005). Thematic analysis as a new tool for genre assessment in early literacy research. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 54, 168-181.
Fang, Z. (2010). Language and Literacy in Inquiry-Based Science Classrooms, Grades 3-8. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Fang, Z. (2011). Developing English language and literacy in postsecondary education: A functional linguistics perspective. Annual Review of Functional Linguistics, 3, 87-108.
Fang, Z. (2012a). The challenges of reading disciplinary texts. In T. Jetton & C. Shanahan (Eds.), Adolescent Literacy in the Academic Disciplines: General Principles and Practical Strategies (pp. 34-68). New York: The Guilford Press.
Fang, Z. (2012b). Language correlates of disciplinary literacy. Topics in Language Disorders, 32 (1), 19-34.
Fang, Z. (2014a). Writing a report: A study of preadolescents' use of informational language. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 10 (2), 103-132.
Fang, Z. (2014b). Preparing content area teachers for disciplinary literacy instruction: The role of literacy teacher educators. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57 (6), 444-448.
Fang, Z. (2014c). Learning to teach against the institutional grain: A professional development model for teacher empowerment. In X. Zhu & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Preparing Teachers for the 21st Century (pp. 237-250). London: Springer.
Fang, Z. (2015). RED 6346 course syllabus. College of Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Fang, Z. (2016). Text complexity in the U.S. Common Core State Standards: A linguistic critique. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 39 (3), 195-206.
Fang, Z. (2017). Academic language and subject-area learning. In K. Hinchman & D. Appleman (Eds.), Adolescent Literacies: A Handbook of Practice-Based Research (pp. 323-340). New York: The Guilford Press.
Fang, Z. (2020). Toward a linguistically informed, responsive and embedded pedagogy in secondary literacy instruction. Journal of World Languages, 6 (1-2), 70-91.
Fang, Z., Adams, B., Gresser, V. & Li, C. (2019). Developing critical literacy in science through an SFL-informed pedagogical heuristic. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 18 (1), 4-17.
Fang, Z., Adams, B., Li, C., Gallingane, C., Jo, S., Fennessy, M. & Chapman, C. (2017). Supporting ELs in learning to write scientifically: A genre-based approach. In M. Daniels (Ed.), English Learners at the Top of the Class: Reading and Writing for Authentic Purposes (pp. 67-82). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Fang, Z. & Chapman, S. (2015). Enhancing English learners' access to disciplinary texts through close reading practices. In M. Daniel & K. Mokhtari (Eds.), Research-Based Instruction That Makes a Difference in English Learners' Success (pp. 3-18). New York: Rowan & Littlefield.
Fang, Z. & Chapman, S. (2020). Disciplinary literacy in mathematics: One mathematician's reading practices. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2020.100799
Fang, Z., Ferdig, R., Wang, Z. & Trutschel, B. (2014). Middle school students' reading responses: A linguistic perspective. Writing & Pedagogy, 6 (3), 531-553.
Fang, Z. & Park, J. (2020). Adolescents' use of academic language in informational writing. Reading and Writing, 33 (1), 97-119.
Fang, Z. & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2008). Reading in Secondary Content Areas: A Language-Based Pedagogy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Fang, Z. & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2010). Disciplinary literacies across content areas: Supporting secondary reading through functional language analysis. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53 (7), 587-597.
Fang, Z., Schleppegrell, M. J. & Cox, B. (2006). Understanding the language demands of schooling: Nouns in academic registers. Journal of Literacy Research, 38 (3), 247-273.
Fang, Z., Schleppegrell, M. J. & Moore, J. (2014). The linguistic challenges of learning across academic disciplines. In C. A. Stone, E. Silliman, B. Ehren & G. Wallach (Eds.), Handbook of Language and Literacy: Development and Disorders (2nd ed., pp. 302-322). New York: The Guilford Press.
Fang, Z., Sun, Y., Chiu, C. & Trutschel, B. (2014). Inservice teachers' perception of a language-based approach to content area reading. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 37 (1), 55-66.
Fang, Z. & Wang, Z. (2011). Beyond rubrics: Using functional language analysis to evaluate student writing. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 34 (2), 147-165.
Figueroa, J., Meneses, A. & Chandia, E. (2018). Academic language and the quality of written arguments and explanations of Chilean 8th graders. Reading and Writing, 31 (3), 703-723.
Fillmore, L. & Fillmore, C. (January, 2012). What does text complexity mean for English learners and language minority students?. Paper presented at the Understanding Language Conference, Stanford University, California.
Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2012). Engaging the Adolescent Learner: Text Complexity and Close Readings. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Fitzgerald, J. (2014). An analysis of causal asyndetic constructions in United States history textbooks. Functional Linguistics, 1 (5), https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-419X-1-5
Flores, N. & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85 (2), 149-171.
Francis, D. J., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M. & Rivera, H. (2006). Research-Based Recommendations for Instruction and Academic Interventions. Portsmouth, NH: Center on Instruction.
Galloway, E. P., Stude, J. & Uccelli, P. (2015). Adolescents' metalinguistic reflections on the academic register in speech and writing. Linguistics and Education, 31, 221-237.
Gamson, D., Lu, X. & Eckert, S. (2013). Challenging the research base of the Common Core State Standards: A historical reanalysis of text complexity. Educational Researcher, 42 (7), 381-391.
Gebhard, M., Chen, I., Graham, H. & Gunawan, W. (2013). Teaching to mean, writing to mean: SFL, L2 literacy, and teacher education. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22 (2), 107-124.
Gebhard, M. & Graham, H. (2018). Bats and grammar: Developing critical language awareness in the context of school reform. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 17 (4), 281-297.
Gebhard, M. & Martin, J. R. (2011). Grammar and literacy learning. In D. Lapp & D. Fisher (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts (3rd ed., pp. 297-304). New York: Routledge.
Gebhard, M., Willett, J., Jimenez, J. & Piedra, A. (2011). Systemic functional linguistics, teachers' professional development, and ELLs' academic literacy practices. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher Preparation for Linguistically Diverse Classrooms (pp. 91-110). New York: Routledge.
Ghadessy, M. (Ed.) (1995). Thematic Development in English Texts. London: Pinter.
Goldman, S., Britt, M., Brown, W., Cribb, G., George, M., Greenleaf, C., Lee, C., Shanahan, C. & Project READI (2016). Disciplinary literacies and learning to read for understanding: A conceptual framework for disciplinary literacy. Educational Psychologist, 51 (2), 219-246.
Graesser, A., McNamara, D. & Louwerse, M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text?. In A. Sweet & C. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking Reading Comprehension (pp. 82-98). New York: The Guilford Press.
Graff, G. & Birkenstein, C. (2018). They Say / I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing (4th ed.). New York: Norton.
Graham, S. & Hebert, M. (2010). Writing to Read: Evidence for How Writing Can Improve Reading. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Graham, S. & Perin, D. (2007). Writing Next: Effective Strategies to Improve Writing of Adolescents in Middle and High Schools. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1980). Three aspects of children's language development: Learning language, learning through language, learning about language. In Y. Goodman, M. Haussler & D. Strickland (Eds.), Oral and Written Language Development: Impact on Schools (pp. 7-19). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1989). Spoken and Written Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5 (2), 93-116.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1996). Literacy and linguistics: A functional perspective. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in Society (pp. 339-376). London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2002). On grammar and grammatics. In J. Webster (Ed.), On Grammar (Vol. 1 in the Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday) (pp. 384-417). London: Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). The Language of Science (edited by Jonathan Webster). London: Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2005). On Grammar (Vol. 1 in the Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, edited by J. Webster). London: Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2016). Aspects of Language and Learning. London: Springer.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2007). Language and Education (edited by J. Webster). London: Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: Routledge.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th ed.). London: Routledge.
Hammond, J. (2006). High challenge, high support: Integrating language and content instruction for diverse learners in an English literature classroom. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5 (4), 269-283.
Hammond, J. (2014). An Australian perspective on standards-based education, teacher knowledge, and students of English as an additional language. TESOL Quarterly, 48 (3), 507-532.
Hammond, J. & Macken-Horarik, M. (2001). Teachers' voices, teachers' practices: Insider perspectives on literacy education. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 24 (2), 112-132.
Harper, H. & Rennie, J. (2009). "I had to go out and get myself a book on grammar": A study of pre-service teachers' knowledge about language. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 32 (1), 22-37.
Harris, K. & Graham, S. (1996). Making the Writing Process Work: Strategies for Composition and Self-Regulation (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Hasan, R. (1996). Literacy, everyday talk and society. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in Society (pp. 377-424). London: Longman.
Heller, V. & Morek, M. (2015). Academic discourse as situated practice: An introduction. Linguistics and Education, 31, 174-186.
Heng, T. (2017). Voices of Chinese international students in USA colleges: "I want to tell them that …". Studies in Higher Education, 42 (5), 833-850.
Hiebert, E. (2011). Beyond single readability measures: Using multiple sources of information in establishing text complexity. Journal of Education, 191 (2), 33-42.
Hiebert, E. (2013). For the CCSS assessments and beyond: Develop your students' stamina for grappling with complex texts. Reading Today, 31 (2), 18-19.
Hiebert, E. (2014). Knowing What's Complex and What's Not: Guidelines for Teachers in Establishing Text Complexity. Santa Cruz, CA: TextProject.
Hiebert, E. & Pearson, P. D. (2014). Understanding text complexity: Introduction to the special issue. Elementary School Journal, 115 (2), 153-160.
Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on Written Composition: New Directions for Teaching. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and the National Conference on Research in English.
Hu, G. (2010). Revisiting the role of metalanguage in L2 teaching and learning. EA Journal, 26 (1), 61-70.
Hu, G. (2019). English-medium instruction in higher education: Lessons from China. Journal of Asia TEFL, 16 (1), 1-11.
Hu, R. & Baumann, J. F. (2014). English reading instruction in China: Chinese teachers' perspectives and comments. The Reading Matrix, 14 (1), 26-60.
Humphrey, S. (2017). Academic Literacies in the Middle Years: A Framework for Enhancing Teacher Knowledge and Student Achievement. London: Routledge.
Humphrey, S. & Macnaught, L. (2016). Functional language instruction and the writing growth of English language learners in the middle years. TESOL Quarterly, 50 (4), 792-816.
Huot, B. & Perry, J. (2010). Toward a new understanding for classroom writing assessment. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Writing Development (pp. 423-435). London: SAGE.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16 (3), 148-164.
Hyland, K. & Jiang, F. (2017). Is academic writing becoming more informal?. English for Specific Purposes, 45, 40-51.
Hyland, K. & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students' writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6 (2), 183-205.
Iedema, R. (1997). The language of administration: Organizing human activity in formal institutions. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and Institutions: Social Processes in the Workplace and School (pp. 73-100). London: Continuum.
International Reading Association (IRA) & National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) (2010). Standards for the Assessment of Reading and Writing (revised edition). Newark, DE & Urbana, IL: IRA & NCTE.
Janks, H. (2010). "Language as a system of meaning potential": The reading and design of verbal texts. In T. Locke (Ed.), Beyond the Grammar Wars (pp. 151-169). London: Routledge.
Jones, P. & Chen, H. (2012). Teachers' knowledge about language: Issues of pedagogy and expertise. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 35 (2), 147-168.
Jones, S., Myhill, D. & Bailey, T. (2013). Grammar for writing? An investigation of the effects of contextualised grammar teaching on students' writing. Reading and Writing, 26 (8), 1241-1263.
Kress, G. (1989). Linguistic Processes in Sociocultural Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the New Media Age. London: Routledge.
Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94 (5), 810-824.
Langer, J. (2011). Envisioning Knowledge: Building Literacy in the Academic Disciplines. New York: Teachers College, Columbia Press.
Lee, O., Quinn, H. & Valdes, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to Next Generation Science Standards and with implications for Common Core State Standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42 (4), 223-233.
Leedham, M. (2015). Chinese Students' Writing in English: Implications from a Corpus-Driven Study. London: Routledge.
Lemke, J. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.). Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science (pp. 87-113). London: Routledge.
Lemke, J. (2002). Multimedia sciences: Genres for science education and scientific literacy. In M. J. Schleppegrell & M. Colombi (Eds.), Developing Advanced Literacy in First and Second Language: Meaning with Power (pp. 21-44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.(https://www.daowen.com)
Locke, T. (2010). Beyond the Grammar Wars. London: Routledge.
Love, K. (2010). Literacy pedagogical content knowledge in the secondary curriculum. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 5 (4), 338-355.
Love, K., Macken-Horarik, M. & Horarik, S. (2015). Language knowledge and its application: A snapshot of Australian teachers' views. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 38 (3), 171-182.
Lu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers' language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45 (1), 36-62.
Lu, X. (March, 2019). Towards a functional turn in L2 writing syntactic complexity research. Paper presented as part of a colloquium titled "Let's automate: Natural language processing tools and their applications" at the annual meeting of American Association for Applied Linguistics, Atlanta, Georgia.
Luke, A. & Freebody, P. (1999). A map of possible practices: Further notes on the four resource models. Practically Primary, 4 (2), 5-8.
Lukin, A. (2004). Studying literature, studying language. In A. Samad (Ed.), Teaching Grammar: Diverse Voices (pp. 71-87). Selangor: Universiti Putra Malaysia Press.
Macken-Horarik, M. (2006a). Hierarchies in diversities: What students' examined responses tell us about literacy practices in contemporary school English. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 29 (1), 52-78.
Macken-Horarik, M. (2006b). Knowledge through "know how": Systemic functional grammatics and the symbolic reading. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 5 (1), 102-121.
Macken-Horarik, M. (2006c). Recognizing and realizing "what counts" in examination English: Perspectives from systemic functional linguistics and code theory. Functions of Language, 13 (1), 1-35.
Macken-Horarik, M., Love, K. & Unsworth, L. (2011). A grammatics "good enough" for school English in the 21st century: Four challenges in realizing the potential. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 34 (1): 9-23.
Martin, J. R. (1989). Factual Writing: Exploring and Challenging Social Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Martin, J. R. (1995). More than what the message is about: English Theme. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.). Thematic Development in English Texts (pp. 223-258). London: Pinter.
Martin, J. R. (1996). Waves of abstraction: Organizing exposition. In T. Miller (Ed.), Functional Approaches to Written Text: Classroom Applications (Vol. 2, pp. 87-104). Paris: TESOL France & U.S. Information Service.
Martin, J. R. (1997). Analysing genre: Functional parameters. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and Institutions: Social Processes in the Workplace and School (pp. 3-39). London: Continuum.
Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp. 142-175). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Martin, J. R. (2002). Writing history: Construing time and value in discourses of the past. In M. Schleppegrell & M. Colombi (Eds.), Developing Advanced Literacy in First and Second Languages: Meaning with Power (pp. 87-118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Martin, J. R. (2010). SFL Theory (Vol. 1 in the collected works of J. R. Martin, edited by Z. Wang). Shanghai: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press.
Martin, J. R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education, 20 (1), 10-21.
Martin, J. R. (2012). Register Studies (Vol. 4 in the collected works of J. R. Martin, edited by Z. Wang). Shanghai: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press.
Martin, J. R. & Rose, D. (2003). Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause. London: Continuum.
Martin, J. R. & Veel, R. (1998). Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science. London: Routledge.
Martin, J. R. & White, P. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
McCormick, K. (1994). The Culture of Reading and the Teaching of English. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Miller, G. (1969). The Psychology of Communication: Seven Essays. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books.
Moats, L. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81-102.
Moats, L. (2009). Still wanted: Teachers with knowledge of language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42 (5), 387-391.
Moats, L. & Foorman, B. (2003). Measuring teachers' content knowledge of language and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 53 (1), 23-45.
Myhill, D. (2008). Towards a linguistic model of sentence development in writing. Language and Education, 22 (5), 271-288.
Myhill, D. (2009). Becoming a designer: Trajectories of linguistic development. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Writing Development (pp. 402-414). London: SAGE.
Myhill, D. (2010). Ways of knowing: Grammar as a tool for developing writing. In T. Locke (Ed.), Beyond the Grammar Wars (pp. 129-148). London: Routledge.
Myhill, D., Jones, S. & Watson, A. (2013). Grammar matters: How teachers' grammatical knowledge impacts on the teaching of writing. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 77-91.
Myhill, D., Jones, S., Watson, A. & Lines, H. (2013). Playful explicitness with grammar: A pedagogy for writing. Literacy, 47 (2), 103-111.
Myhill, D., Jones, S., Lines, H. & Watson, A. (2012). Re-thinking grammar: The impact of embedded grammar teaching on students' writing and students' metalinguistic understanding. Research Papers in Education, 27 (2), 139-166.
Myhill, D. & Watson, A. (2014). The role of grammar in the writing curriculum: A review of the literature. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 30 (1), 41-62.
Nassaji, H. & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24 (1), 126-145.
National Commission on Writing in America's Schools and Colleges (2003). The Neglected "R": The Need for a Writing Revolution. New York: The College Entrance Examination Board.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA) & Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects: Appendix A. Washington, DC: Author.
National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
National Research Council (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Nokes, J. (2013). Building Students' Historical Literacies: Learning to Read and Reason with Historical Texts and Evidence. New York: Routledge.
Norris, S. & Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87 (2), 224-240.
O'Hallaron, C. & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2016). "Voice" in children's science arguments: Aligning assessment criteria with genre and discipline. Assessing Writing, 30, 63-73.
O'Hallaron, C., Palincsar, A. & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2015). Reading science: Using systemic functional linguistics to support critical language awareness. Linguistics and Education, 32, 55-67.
Osborne, J. (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sail?. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32 (2), 203-218.
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463-466.
Patrick, J. (2009). Crossing borders: High school science teachers learning to teach the specialized language of science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation completed at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Pea, R. & Kurland, D. (1987). Cognitive technologies for writing. Review of Research in Education, 14, 277-326.
Pearson, P. D. (2004). The reading wars. Educational Policy, 18 (1), 216-252.
Perera, K. (1982). The assessment of linguistic difficulty in reading material. In R. Carter (Ed.), Linguistics and the Teacher (pp. 101-113). London: Routledge & Kegal Paul.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1989). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Román, D. & Busch, K. (2016). Textbooks of doubt: Using systemic functional analysis to explore the framing of climate change in middle-school science textbooks. Environmental Education Research, 22 (8), 1158-1180.
Rose, D. (2005). Democratising the classroom: A literacy pedagogy for the new generation. Journal of Education, 37 (1), 131-168.
Rose, D. (2009). Writing as linguistic mastery: The development of genre-based literacy pedagogy. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Writing Development (pp. 151-166). London: SAGE.
Rose, D. & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to Write, Reading to Learn: Genre, Knowledge and Pedagogy in the Sydney School. Bristol: Equinox.
Rothery, J. (1994). Exploring Literacy in School English. Sydney: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program.
Rothery, J. & Stenglin, M. (1997). Entertaining and instructing: Exploring experience through story. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and Institutions: Social Processes in the Workplace and School (pp. 231-263). London: Continuum.
Sang, Y. (2017). Investigate the "issues" in Chinese students' English writing and their "reasons": Revisiting the recent evidence in Chinese academia. International Journal of Higher Education, 6 (3), 1-11.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (1998). Grammar as resource: Writing a description. Research in the Teaching of English, 32 (2), 182-211.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and Education, 12 (4), 431-459.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The Language of Schooling: A Functional Linguistics Perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2007). At last: The meaning in grammar. Research in the Teaching of English, 42 (1), 121-128.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2011). Supporting disciplinary learning through language analysis: Developing historical literacy. In F. Christie & K. Maton (Eds.), Disciplinarity: Functional Linguistic and Sociological Perspectives (pp. 197-216). London: Continuum.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2013). The role of metalanguage in supporting academic language development. Language Learning, 63 (s1), 153-170.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (March, 2019). Interpersonal meaning across disciplinary discourses: Variation and its implications for pedagogy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Atlanta, Georgia.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2020). The knowledge base for language teaching: What is the English to be taught as content?. Language Teaching Research, 24 (1), 17-27.
Schleppegrell, M. J. & Achugar, M. (2003). Learning language and learning history: A functional linguistics approach. TESOL Journal, 12 (2), 21-27.
Schleppegrell, M. J., Achugar, M. & Oteiza, T. (2004). The grammar of history: Enhancing content-based instruction through a functional focus on language. TESOL Quarterly, 38 (1), 67-93.
Schleppegrell, M. J. & Colombi, M. (2002). Developing Advanced Literacy in First and Second Languages: Meaning with Power. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schleppegrell, M. J. & de Oliveira, L. (2006). An integrated language and content approach for history teachers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5 (4), 254-268.
Schleppegrell, M. J., Greer, S. & Taylor, S. (2008). Literacy in history: Language and meaning. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31 (2), 174-187.
Schleppegrell, M. J. & O'Hallaron, C. (2011). Teaching academic language in L2 secondary settings. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 3-18.
Seah L., Clarke, D. & Hart, C. (2011). Understanding students' language use about expansion through analyzing their lexicogrammatical resources. Science Education, 95 (5), 852-876.
Shanahan, T. (2012). What is close reading?. In "Shanahan on Literacy" blog (http://www.shanahanonliteracy.com/2012/06/whatis-close-reading.html). accessed on August 25, 2014.
Shanahan, T. (2013). Letting the text take center stage: How the Common Core State Standards will transform English language arts instruction. American Educator, Fall issue, 4-11.
Shanahan, T. & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking Content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78 (1): 40-59.
Shao, X. (2014). A study of Chinese college students' English reading anxiety. American Journal of Educational Research, 2 (5), 299-303.
Snow, C. & O'Connor, C. (2013). Close reading and far-reaching classroom discussion: Fostering a vital connection. A policy brief from the Literacy Research Panel of the International Reading Association.
Snow, C. & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge of academic language. In D. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy (pp. 112-133). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stoller, F. (2004). Content-based instruction: Perspectives on curriculum planning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 261-283.
Stone, C. A, Silliman, E., Ehren, B. & Wallach, G. (2013). Handbook of Language and Literacy: Development and Disorders (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
Sun, Y. & Zhang, F. (2018). Applying functional language analysis approach in Chinese college English reading classes. Journal of World Languages, 5 (3), 151-170.
Symons, C. (2017). Supporting emergent bilinguals' argumentation: Evaluating evidence in informational science texts. Linguistics and Education, 38, 79-91.
Templeton, S., Cain, C. & Miller, J. (1981). Reconceptualizing readability: The relationship between surface and underlying structure analyses in predicting the difficulty of basal reader stories. The Journal of Educational Research, 74 (6), 382-387.
Thuronyi, V. (1998). Tax Law Design and Drafting (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
Turkan, S., de Oliveira, L., Lee, O. & Phelps, G. (2014). Proposing a knowledge base for teaching academic content to English language learners: Disciplinary linguistic knowledge. Teachers College Record, 116, 1-30.
Uccelli, P., Galloway, E., Barr, C., Meneses, A. & Dobbs, C. (2015). Beyond vocabulary: Exploring cross-disciplinary academic-language proficiency and its association with reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 50 (3), 337-356.
Unsworth, L. (1997). Some practicalities of a language-based theory of learning. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 20 (1), 36-52.
Unsworth, L. (1999). Developing critical understanding of the specialised language of school science and history texts: A functional grammatical perspective. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42 (7), 508-521.
Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching Multiliteracies Across the Curriculum: Changing Contexts of Text and Image in Classroom Practice. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Unsworth, L. (2002). Changing dimensions of school literacies. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 25 (1), 62-77.
Vacca, R., Vacca, J. & Mraz, M. (2016). Content Area Reading: Literacy and Learning Across the Curriculum (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Vande Kopple, W. (1994). Some characteristics and functions of grammatical subjects in scientific discourse. Written Communication, 11 (4), 534-564.
VanSledright, B. (2012). Learning with texts in history: Protocols for reading and practical strategies. In T. Jetton and C. Shanahan (Eds.), Adolescent Literacy in the Academic Disciplines: General Principles and Practical Strategies (pp. 199-226). New York: The Guilford Press.
Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to mean – scientifically speaking: Apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and Institutions: Social Processes in the Workplace and School (pp. 161-195). London: Continuum.
Watkins, M. (1997). Textual recipes: Language pedagogy and classroom discourse. Southern Review: Communication, Politics & Culture, 30 (3), 287-301.
Weaver, C. (2010). Scaffolding grammar instruction for writers and writing. In T. Locke (Ed.), Beyond the Grammar Wars (pp. 185-205). London: Routledge.
Webster, J. (1995). Studying thematic development in on-line help documentation using the Functional Semantic Processor. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Thematic Development in English Texts (pp. 259-271). London: Pinter.
Webster, J. & Peng, X. (2017). Applying Systemic Functional Linguistics: The State of the Art in China Today. London: Bloomsbury.
Wellington, J. & Osborne, J. (2001), Language and Literacy in Science Education. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Williams, G. & Hasan, R. (1996). Introduction. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in Society (pp. xi-xxi). New York: Longman.
Wilson, M. (2006). Rethinking Rubrics in Writing Assessment. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Wineburg, S., Martin, D. & Monte-Sano, C. (2013). Reading Like a Historian: Teaching Literacy in Middle and High School History Classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
Wixson, K. & Valencia, S. (2014). CCSS-ELA: Suggestions and cautions for addressing text complexity. The Reading Teacher, 67 (6), 430-434.
Yore, L. (2004). Why do future scientists need to study the language arts?. In W. Saul, (Ed.), Crossing Borders in Literacy and Science Instruction: Perspectives on Theory and Practice (pp. 71-94). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Yore, L., Bisanz, G. & Hand, B. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (6), 689-725.
Yore, L., Hand, B. & Florence, M. (2004). Scientists' views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (4), 338-369.
Yore, L., Hand, B., Goldman, S., Hildebrand, G., Osborne, J., Treagust, D. & Wallace, C. (2004). New directions in language and science education research. Reading Research Quarterly, 39 (3), 347-352.
You, X. (2004). New directions in EFL writing: A report from China. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13 (4), 253-256.
Zhang, Y. & O'Halloran, K. (2019). Empowering the point: Pains and gains of a writer's traversals between print-based writing and multimodal composing. Linguistics and Education, 51, 1-11.
Zhang-Wu, Q. (2019). Exploring the bilingual linguistic functioning of first-semester Chinese international students: Myths and realities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation completed at Boston College, Boston, MA.
蔡基刚，2013，误解与偏见：阻碍我国大学ESP教学发展的关键，《外语教学》（1）：56-60。
蔡基刚，2015，再论我国大学英语教学发展方向：通用英语和学术英语，《浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版）》（4）：83-93。
蔡基刚，2018，英语专业是否是“对不起良心的专业”？复旦学者：“病得不轻”，《文汇报》，11-6。
蔡基刚，2019，英语专业结构调整途径和范式转型：从1.0到2.0，《天津外国语大学学报》（3）：138-144。
常俊跃、刘晓蕖、邓耀臣，2009，内容依托式教学改革对英语专业学生阅读理解能力发展的影响分析，《中国外语》（3）：40-48。
陈静，2010，大学英语课堂教学中应用功能语法的实证研究，《中国外语》（3）：59-64。
陈静，2016，《基于悉尼学派语类读写法的中国学术英语写作教学研究》。广州：中山大学出版社．
方志辉、李晶、景婧，2020（待刊），学术写作的特征与教学，《中国ESP研究》。
方志辉、孙迎晖，2018，中国高校英语语法教学的展望，《纪念改革开放40周年——新时代高校英语教育再出发百家论坛》，https://www.sohu.com/a/282944398_287997
高等学校外语专业教学指导委员会英语组，2000，《高等学校英语专业英语教学大纲》。北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
高等学校大学外语教学指导委员会，2017，《大学英语教学指南》。北京：中国教育部高等教育司。
何中清，2019，功能语言分析视角下的学术英语研究——发展、理据和应用，《外语学刊》（1）：18-24。
胡开宝、谢丽欣，2014，我国大学英语教学的未来发展方向研究，《外语界》（3）：12-19。
陆小飞、许琪，2016，二语句法复杂度分析器及其在二语写作研究中的应用，《外语教学与研究》（3）：409-420。
孙迎晖，2017，《跨学科专业英语阅读》课程构建及效果研究——以北京师范大学的“新生研讨课”为例，《山东外语教学》（6）：31-38。
孙有中、金利民，2010，英语专业的专业知识课程设置改革初探，《外语教学与研究》（4）：303-305。
孙有中、李莉文，2011，CBI和ESP与中国高校英语专业和大学英语教学改革的方向，《外语研究》（5）：1-4。
文秋芳，2019，新中国外语教学理论70年发展历程，《中国外语》（5）：16-24。
王巍巍、仲伟合，2017，“国标”指导下的英语类专业课程改革与建设，《外语界》（3）：2-15。