Using appraisal to support students’ inquiry into literature

References

1. Applebee, Arthur N.
   1974 Tradition and reform in the teaching of English: A history. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Archambeau, Robert
   2012 Aesthetics as ethics: One and half theses on the new criticism. InMiranda B. Hickman & John D. McIntyre (eds.), Rereading the New Criticism, 29–46. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Bakhtin, Mikhail M.
   1980 Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Culler, Jonathan
   2000 Literary theory: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Duke, Nell. K. & Kelly B. Cartwright
   2021 The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the simple view of reading. Reading Research Quarterly561. S25–S44. 10.1002/rrq.411
   https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411 [Google Scholar]
6. Eggins, Suzanne
   2013 An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Bloomsbury.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Eva-Wood, Amy. L.
   2004 Thinking and feeling poetry: Exploring meanings aloud. Journal of Educational Psychology96(1). 182–191. 10.1037/0022‑0663.96.1.182
   https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.182 [Google Scholar]
8. Fairclough, Norman
   2001 The discourse of New Labour: Critical discourse analysis. InMargaret Wetherell, Stephanie Taylor & Simeon J. Yates (eds.), Discourse as data, 229–266. London: Sage.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Fang, Zhihui
   2024 Demystifying academic reading: A disciplinary approach to reading across content areas. New York & London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781003432258
   https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003432258 [Google Scholar]
10. Fang, Zhihui & Mary Schleppegrell
    2010 Disciplinary literacies across content areas: Supporting secondary reading through functional language analysis. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy53(7). 587–597. 10.1598/JAAL.53.7.6
    https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.53.7.6 [Google Scholar]
11. Fang, Zhihui & Natalie Colosimo
    2023 Promoting science literacy through reading: A disciplinary literacy approach. InEvan Ortlieb, Britnie D. Kane & Earl H. Cheek, Jr. (eds.), Disciplinary literacies: Unpacking research, theory, and practice, 55–86. New York: Guilford.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Fang, Zhihui, Suzanne Chapman, Geoffrey C. Kellogg & Michelle Commeret
    2023 Beyond content: Exploring the neglected dimensions of mathematics literacy. Journal of World Languages9(3). 427–454. 10.1515/jwl‑2023‑0015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jwl-2023-0015 [Google Scholar]
13. Goldman, Susan R., M. Anne Britt, Willard Brown, Gayle Cribb, MariAnne George, Cy Greenleaf, Carol D. Lee, Cynthia ShanahanProject READI
    & Project READI 2014 Disciplinary literacies and learning to read for understanding: A conceptual framework for disciplinary literacy. Educational Psychologist51(2). 219–246. 10.1080/00461520.2016.1168741
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1168741 [Google Scholar]
14. Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
    2014 Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th edition). London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203783771
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783771 [Google Scholar]
15. Halliday, M. A. K.
    2002[1980] Linguistic function and literary style: An inquiry into the language of William Golding’s The Inheritors. InM. A. K. Halliday, Linguistic studies of text and discourse, volume 2 in the collected works of M. A. K. Halliday, 88–125. Edited byJonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Halliday, M. A. K.
    2023 Exploring the “language” part of language education. Language, Context and Text5(2). 282–385. 10.1075/langct.00055.hal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/langct.00055.hal [Google Scholar]
17. Harker, W. John
    1994 “Plain sense” and “poetic significance”: Tenth-grade readers reading two poems. Poetics221. 199–218. 10.1016/0304‑422X(94)90005‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(94)90005-1 [Google Scholar]
18. Hasan, Ruqaiya
    1989 Linguistics, language, and verbal art. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Haufe, Chris
    2024 Do the humanities create knowledge?New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009067508
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009067508 [Google Scholar]
20. Hood, Susan
    2019 Appraisal. InGeoff Thompson, Wendy L. Bowcher, Lise Fontaine & David Schonthal (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of systemic functional linguistics, 382–409. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316337936.017
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316337936.017 [Google Scholar]
21. Howell, Emily, Wendy Barlow & Jeanne Dyches
    2021 Disciplinary literacy: Successes and challenges of professional development. Journal of Language and Literacy Education17(1). 1–26.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Huisman, Rosemary
    1989 Who speaks and for whom? The search for subjectivity in Browning’s poetry. Journal of the Australasian Universities Modern Language Association71(1). 64–87. 10.1179/aulla.1989.71.1.005
    https://doi.org/10.1179/aulla.1989.71.1.005 [Google Scholar]
23. Huisman, Rosemary
    2016 Talking about poetry — using the model of language in systemic functional linguistics to talk about poetic texts. English in Australia51(2). 7–19.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Huisman, Rosemary
    2019 The discipline of English literature from the perspective of SFL register. Language, Context, and Text1(1). 102–120. 10.1075/langct.00005.hui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/langct.00005.hui [Google Scholar]
25. Ladson-Billings, Gloria
    1998 Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field like education?International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education11(1). 7–24. 10.1080/095183998236863
    https://doi.org/10.1080/095183998236863 [Google Scholar]
26. Lee, Carol D. & Susan R. Goldman
    2015 Assessing literary reasoning: Text and task complexities. Theory Into Practice54(3). 213–227. 10.1080/00405841.2015.1044369
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2015.1044369 [Google Scholar]
27. Lee, Carol D. & Anika Spratley
    2010 Reading in the disciplines: The challenge of adolescent literacy. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Lemke, Jay L.
    1989 Semantics and social values. WORD401. 37–50. 10.1080/00437956.1989.11435795
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1989.11435795 [Google Scholar]
29. Levine, Sarah, Karoline Trepper, Rosalie H. Chung & Raquel Coelho
    2021 How feeling supports students’ interpretive discussions about literature. Journal of Literacy Research53(4). 491–515. 10.1177/1086296X211052249
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X211052249 [Google Scholar]
30. Lukin, Annabelle
    2008 Reading literacy texts: Beyond personal responses. InZhihui Fang & Mary J. Schleppegrell (eds.), Reading in secondary content areas: A language-based pedagogy, 84–103. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. 10.3998/mpub.309314
    https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.309314 [Google Scholar]
31. Macken-Horarik, Mary
    2003 Appraisal and the special instructiveness of narrative. Text231. 285–312. 10.1515/text.2003.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.012 [Google Scholar]
32. Maine Historical Society
    Maine Historical Society. (n.d.). Longfellow: Three friends of mine, masque of pandora and other poems. https://www.hwlongfellow.org/poems_poem.php?pid=157
    [Google Scholar]
33. Martin, J. R.
    2014 Evolving systemic functional linguistics: Beyond the clause. Functional Linguistics1(3). 1–24. 10.1186/2196‑419X‑1‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-419X-1-3 [Google Scholar]
34. Martin, J. R. & Peter R. R. White
    2005 The language of evaluation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
35. Moje, Elizabeth B.
    2008 Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy52(2). 96–107. 10.1598/JAAL.52.2.1
    https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.52.2.1 [Google Scholar]
36. Moje, Elizabeth B.
    2015 Doing and teaching disciplinary literacy with adolescent learners: A social and cultural enterprise. Harvard Educational Review85(2). 254–278. 10.17763/0017‑8055.85.2.254
    https://doi.org/10.17763/0017-8055.85.2.254 [Google Scholar]
37. Peer, Willie van
    1986 Stylistics and psychology: Investigating of foregrounding. London: Croom Helm. 10.4324/9781003130437
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003130437 [Google Scholar]
38. Peng, Xuanwei
    2008 Evaluative meanings in literary texts: The first step towards appraisal stylistics. InNina Norgaard (ed.), Systemic functional linguistics in use: Odense working papers in language and communication, Volume291, 665–684. Odense: University of Southern Denmark.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Rainey, Emily C.
    2016 Disciplinary literacy in English language arts: Exploring the social and problem-based nature of literary reading and reasoning. Reading Research Quarterly52(1). 53–71. 10.1002/rrq.154
    https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.154 [Google Scholar]
40. Reynolds, Todd, Leslie S. Rush, Jodi P. Lampi & Jodi P. Holschuh
    2020 English disciplinary literacy: Enhancing students’ literary interpretive moves. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy64(2). 201–209. 10.1002/jaal.1066
    https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1066 [Google Scholar]
41. Rosenblatt, Louise M.
    1978 The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Schleppegrell, Mary
    2007 The linguistics challenges of mathematics teaching and learning: A research review. Reading & Writing Quarterly231. 139–159. 10.1080/10573560601158461
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560601158461 [Google Scholar]
43. Shanahan, Cynthia & Timothy Shanahan
    2014 Does disciplinary literacy have a place in elementary school?The Reading Teacher67(8). 636–639. 10.1002/trtr.1257
    https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1257 [Google Scholar]
44. Shanahan, Cynthia, Timothy Shanahan, T. & Cynthia Misischia
    2011 Analysis of expert readers in three disciplines: History, mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy Research43(4). 393–429. 10.1177/1086296X11424071
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X11424071 [Google Scholar]
45. Squire, James R.
    2003 History of the profession. InJames Flood, Diane Lapp, James R. Squire & Julie M. Jensen (eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts, 3–17. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
46. VanSledright, Bruce
    2012 Learning with texts in history: Protocols for reading and practical strategies. InTamara L. Jetton & Cynthia Shanahan (eds.), Adolescent literacy in academic disciplines: General principles and practical strategies, 199–226. New York: Guilford.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Wilkinson, Louise C.
    2018 Teaching the language of mathematics: What the research tells us teachers need to know and do. Journal of Mathematical Behavior51. 167–174. 10.1016/j.jmathb.2018.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2018.05.001 [Google Scholar]
48. Wineburg, Sam
    1998 Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert/expert study in the interpretation of historical texts. Cognitive Science22(3). 319–346. 10.1207/s15516709cog2203_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2203_3 [Google Scholar]
49. Young, Thomas D.
    1976 Ransom’s critical theories: Structure and texture. Mississippi Quarterly30(1). 71–85.
    [Google Scholar]
50. Zeitz, Colleen M.
    1994 Expert-novice differences in memory, abstraction, and reasoning in the domain of literature. Cognition and Instruction12(4). 277–312. 10.1207/s1532690xci1204_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1204_1 [Google Scholar]