Reymond Levy

Date of Award


Document Type


Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)



First Advisor

Curtis Porter

Second Advisor

Gloria Park

Third Advisor

Bennett A. Rafoth


This dissertation, building on Horner et al.’s (2011) elaboration of translingualism

as “the disposition of openness and inquiry that people take toward language” (p. 311),uses a

sociocultural lens to examine attitudes and emotion responding to language difference present

through and in collaboration of peer review workshop participants in an English-language

mainstream first-year composition course integrating linguistically diverse students. Employing

qualitative methodology, focused around an interpretivist paradigm into how peers experience

and are affected by workshops, this study draws on Guerra’s (2016a) framing of ideological

approaches to language and cultural difference as a continuum, based on Horner et al.’s (2011)

understanding of language ideologies responding to linguistic variety. Further, this study posits

Canagarajah’s (2018a) explanation of semiotic resources to conceptualize responses on a

productive spectrum. To research how students apply linguistic ideologies in language

use, and the relation by students of these ideologies to others’ language use, the following

questions were explored:

(1) What are first-year composition (FYC) students’ understandings of language

difference and how do they impact peer review collaboration in a mainstream FYC


(2) How do these FYC students implement responses toward language difference in

their practice of peer review?

In accord with participant observation study design, data sources were collected consisting of answers to e-mail question forms on prior experiences of peer review; how peer review responses were implemented in the form of drafts, revisions, and final drafts; as well as observations of peer review workshops; and semi-structured interviews of relevant workshop participants and their instructor. Then, an interpretive analysis followed of the resulting themes emerging from the collected data: the extent to which participants approached peer review as a space of learning through understandings of language difference; the resulting degree of judgment on each other’s work; the importance of individual ownership of writing; directness of expression, tact, and empathy with which they implemented language difference understandings responding to others’ work; and language difference understandings in collaboration responding to peer review feedback, taking a range of forms. These findings can help workshop participants engage translingual literacy adaptively, and further to recognize stances toward language difference when needed.