Students are expected to interpret the complexities and nuances of literary texts yet might struggle with interpreting texts in ways that are valued in literary studies. Examining students’ language choices can support instructors and students with developing concrete, explicit understandings of the ways language creates meanings in discourse. This study draws on the Appraisal framework within Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) to analyze essays from two introductory writing about literature courses. Findings illustrate that more proficient writers interpret possible significances using Appreciation and Engagement resources and construe subtle shades of significance using Graduation resources. This linguistic analysis illustrates the ways abstract qualities of literary interpretation including nuance can be seen in students’ specific language choices. By exposing the fine-grained elements of meaning in students’ writing, this study creates pathways toward stimulating students’ and instructors’ metalinguistic awareness of how specific language choices create disciplinarily-valued qualities of writing.

Preview this article: Interchanges: Response to Shawna Shapiro, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/74/2/collegecompositionandcommunication32281-1.gif

Preview this article: Editors’ Introduction: The Future as Collaborative: Reading and Writing, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/57/2/researchintheteachingofenglish32150-1.gif

Critical language awareness offers one approach to communaljusticing, an iterative and collective process that can address inequities in the disciplinary infrastructure of Writing Studies. We demonstrate justicing in the field’s pasts, policies, and publications; offer a model of communal revision; and invite readers to become agents of communal justicing.