the ISFC39 Proceedings - International Systemic-Functional ...

to boldly proceed ...account of how such pairings served to align or disalign readers with the propositionsadvanced by the authorial voice and/or those of others introduced into the text by attribution,and indeed how such pairings enabled the author to establish points of solidarity with readers.Instead, it is intended to open up possibilities for further exploration into how successfulprimary students combine resources from across APPRAISAL systems, metafunctions, andeven systems beyond SFL, in their efforts to persuade others. Exciting work remains inanalysing the resources used by other successful students from years 3, 7 and 9, to determinewhether even younger writers can deploy a similar range of resources, whether students ateach grade level pair resources differently, and to compare their strategies in stancing textsand how these position readers. Additional research in this area is needed to discover whetherstudents use these resources by accident or as a result of teaching, and whether the skills theydemonstrate match those outlined in the Australian English Curriculum. If it is found thatsuccessful students use linguistic strategies that are not specified in the Curriculum at theappropriate grade levels, this may be to the detriment of less successful students whohaphazardly engage in the art of persuasion.ReferencesAristotle. (trans. 2004). The art of rhetoric. London, England: Penguin Books.Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA] (2011). NAPLAN – Writing test FAQs.Retrieved February 28, 2012, from http://www.nap.edu.au/Bakhtin, M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In M. Holquist (Ed.). The dialogic imagination (pp 259-422).Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Corbett, E.P.J., & Connors, R.J. (1999). Classical rhetoric for the modern student (4 th ed.). New York, NY:Oxford University Press.Halliday, M. A. K. (1977). Text as semantic choice in social context. In T. A. Van Dyck & J. Petrofi (Eds.).Grammars and descriptions. Berlin: de Gruyter.Halliday, M. A. K. (2003). On language and linguistics. London: Continuum.Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1993). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semioticperspective. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.Harris, R.A. (2003). Writing with clarity and style: A guide to rhetorical devices for contemporary writers. LosAngeles, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.Joseph, M. (1947). Shakespeare’s use of the arts of language. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Kennedy, G. A. (1999). Classical rhetoric & its Christian and secular traditions from ancient to modern times(2 nd ed.). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York, NY:Palgrave Macmillan.Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., & Halliday, M. A. K. (1997). Systemic functional grammar: A first step into thetheory. Retrieved February 16, 2012, fromhttp://web.mac.com/cmatthie/iWeb/SMMG_resources/Mendoza_2006_Course_Description_files/SFG_FirstStep_1.pdfMiller, D. (2004). “...to meet our common challenge”: ENGAGEMENT strategies of alignment and alienationin current US international discourse. Textus, 14(1), 39-62.Swain, E. (2007). Constructing an effective “voice” in academic discussion writing: An appraisal theoryperspective. In, A. McCabe, M. O’Donnell, & R. Whittaker (eds.). Advances in language and education.London: Continuum.Swain, E. (2010). Getting engaged: Dialogistic positioning in novice academic discussion writing. In E. Swain(Ed.). Thresholds and potentialities of systemic functional linguistics: Multilingual, multimodal and otherspecialised discourses (pp. 291-317). Trieste: Edizoni Unversità di Trieste.White, P. R. R. (2001). Appraisal: An overview. Retrieved March 5, 2012, fromhttp://grammatics.com/appraisal/AppraisalGuide/Framed/Appraisal-Overview.htmWhite, P. R. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of intersubjective stance. Text, 23(2),259-284.74