Atak, N., & Saricaoglu, A. (2021). Syntactic complexity in L2 learners’ argumentative writing: Developmental stages and the within-genre topic effect. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, Assessing Writing, 47, 1-10.
Ballard, B., & Clanchy, J. (1981). Essay writing for students. London: Longman Cheshire.
Banks, D. (2003). The evolution of grammatical metaphor in scientific writing. In A. Vandenbergen, M. Taverniers, & L. Ravelli (Eds). Grammatical metaphor: Views from systemic functional linguistics (pp. 127-147). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers (Vol. 23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Biber, D. Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5-35. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483
Christie, F. (1999). Genre theory and ESL teaching: A systemic functional perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 33(4), 759-763.
Connor, U., Gotman, T., & Vahapassi, A. (1987). The argumentative/persuasive task. In T. P. Gorman, A. C. Purves, & R. E. Dagenhart (Eds). The IEA study of written composition: The international writing scales and scoring scales (Vol 1; pp. 181-202). Jyvaskyla, Finland: Institute for Educational Research.
Connor, U. Nagelhout, E., & Rozycki, W. (2008). Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
Crowhurst, M. (1991). Research review: Patterns of development in writing persuasive/argumentative discourse. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(3), 314-338.
Derewianka, B. (2003). Grammatical metaphor in the transition to adolescence. In A. M. Simon-Vandenbergen, M. Taverniers, & L. J. Ravelli (Eds.), Grammatical metaphor: Views from systemic functional linguistics (pp.185-220). Amsterdam: Benjamin.
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 59-84.
Feez, S. (1998). Text-based syllabus design. Sydney: National Center for English Language Teaching and Research.
Feez, S. (2002). Heritage and innovation in second language education. In A. Johns (Ed). Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 43-72). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Fontaine, L. (2018). The noun, grammar and context. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 11(3), 1-17.
Fries, H. P. (2002). The follow of information in written English text. In H. P. Fries, M. Cummings, D. Lockwood, & W. Spruiell (Eds). Relations and functions within and around language. (pp. 117-155). New York, London: Continuum.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. New York: Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1993). Some grammatical problems in scientific English. In M.A.K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp.76-94). London: Falmer Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). Introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1998a). Things and relations. In J.R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp.185-236). London: Routledge.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1998b). Language and knowledge: The unpacking of text. In D. Allison, L. Wee, B. Zhiming, & S. A. Abraham (Eds.), Text in education and society (pp. 157-178). Singapore University Press (Ltd).
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2006). Construing experience through meaning: A language based approach to cognition. London: Cassell.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Jalilifar, A., White, P. R. R., & Malekizadeh, N. (2017a). Exploring nominalization in scientific textbooks: A cross-disciplinary study of hard and soft sciences. International Journal of English Studies, 17(2), 1-20.
Jalilifar, A., Saleh, E., & Don, A. (2017b). Exploring nominalization in the introduction and method section of applied linguistics research articles: A qualitative approach. Romanian Journal of English Studies, 14, 64-80. https://doi.org/10.1515/rjes-2017-0009
Johns, A. M. (1993). Written argumentation for real audiences: Suggestions for teacher research and classroom practice. TESOL Quarterly, 27 (1), 75-90.
Knapp, P., & Watkins, M. (2005). Genre, text, grammar technologies for teaching and assessing writing. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.
Knudson, R. E. (1994). An analysis of persuasive discourse: Learning how to take a stand. Discourse Processes, 18(2), 211-230.
Lloyd, D. (1996). Structure and strategies: An introduction to academic writing. South Melbourne: MacMillan Education.
Martin, J. R. (1985). Process, text: two aspects of human semiosis. In J. D. Benson & W.S. Greaves (Eds), Systemic perspectives on discourse (pp. 243-300). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishers.
Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Martin, J. R. (1993). Life as a noun: Arresting the universe in science and humanities. In M.A.K. Halliday & J. R. Martin, (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive Power (pp. 242-293). London: Falmer Press.
Martin, J. R. (2000). Design and practice. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 116-126. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719050020007X
Martin, J. R. & Veel, R. (Eds.). (2005). Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourse of science. London: Routledge.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse. Meaning beyond the clause. London and New York: Continuum.
Martin, J. R. (2005). Discourses of science: Recontextualisation, genesis, intertextuality, and hegemony. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 3-14). London: Routledge.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.
Painter, C. (2003). The use of a metaphorical mode of meaning in early language development. In A. M. Simon-Vandenbergen, M. Taverniers, & L. J. Ravelli (Eds.), Grammatical metaphor: Views from systemic functional linguistics (pp.151-168). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ravelli, L. J. (1985). Metaphor, mode, and complexity: An exploration of covarying patterns. B.A. Honours thesis, University of Sydney.
Ravelli, L. J. (1999). Metaphor, mode, and complexity: An exploration of covarying patterns. B.A. Honours thesis, University of Sydney, Department of English and Media Studies.
Ravelli, L. J. (2003). Renewal of connection: Integrating theory and practice in an understanding of grammatical metaphor. In A. M. Simon-Vandenbergen, M. Taverniers, & L. J. Ravelli (Eds,). Grammatical metaphor: Views from systemic functional linguistics (pp. 37-64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ravelli, L., & Ellis, R. (Eds.). (2004). Analysing academic writing: Contextualised frameworks. London: Continuum.
Rothery, J. (1994). Exploring literacy in school English (write it right resources for literacy and learning). 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.), Genres and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 231-260). London: Pinter.
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-77.
Vyatkina, N. (2012). The development of second language writing complexity in groups and individuals: A longitudinal learner corpus study. The Modern Language Journal, 96(4), 576-598.
)