Linguistic Repertoires Embodied and Digitalized: A Computer-Vision-Aided Analysis of the Language Portraits by Multilingual Youth

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents an interesting multidisciplinary study on multilingualism using computer vision and language processing methods. The problem of language repertoires of multilingual youths is facinating and relevant to today's globalisation and its pedagogical aspects. The work is well presented, clearly structured, and focuses on interesting and innovative approaches. The data collection, the LP method as well as the analytical method (OpenCV and K-means algorithms, etc.) are outlined with reasonable detail, scientifically sound and relevant. There is a rich bibliography of related literature.

 

Some minor notes:

lines 17, 36, 37, 42, 211 and elsewhere - Macau

lines 26, 30, 208 and elsewhere - Macao

Since the paper is in English, I suggest the use of the English spelling Macao instead of Macau. If you find justified the use of Macau, then unify the spelling. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of the manuscript addresses the way multilingual Macanese youth perceive and represent their linguistic repertoires in lived experience across different social contexts in multilingual Macau. Research is particularly stimulating due to the growing interest in the topic of multilingualism. In addition, the use of computer vision-aided analytical method makes research especially attractive. Thus, the study is potentially very valuable.

However, these strengths should undergo revision before it is re-submitted. I hope that my comments will be helpful in the author´s effort to rethink some key aspects of their research design and in reformulating the article so that it more efficiently conveys their central findings. 

Introduction

I would recommend providing a more explicit description of the historic and linguistic situation of the region of Macao, as many readers (e.g., the European ones) may be hardly familiar with it. You may also try to be more specific in explaining the particular gap you want to cover with this study. Explain why this research is important, in which way your study tries to cover the existing gap in our understanding of the linguistic  

Theoretical background

Here, I miss the literature review of the previous research dealing with linguistic/multilinguistic repertoires of the Chinese mainland/Macao region. This research would be very helpful in understanding the significance of your findings.

Discussion of the Results

This section provides an overview of the results of the study, but the discussion itself is not there. Remember that the purpose of the discussion is to interpret your findings in light of the previous research. Thus, it is difficult to see how significant your findings are without having a more complete picture.

Conclusion

 

Specify, please, the pedagogical implications of your findings.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper is quite commendable, and the Authors developed a lot of work. 

However, I am very sorry to say that it seems almost irrelevant, or too limited, in its scope and perspective. 

Is it really significant to develop such an analytical effort, and even to develop a new model, for such a limited case-study and sample? 

Therefore, good work, but is it useful and/or relevant for the scientific community? Is it worth publishing on a Journal as prestigious as Sustainability? 

If I had to answer honestly these 2 questions, I would say "perhaps no" and "no". 

But this judgement depends on Sustainability's Editors, mainly, therefore I just limit myself to the expression of my opinion. 

At the formal and content level, the Introduction is too short. The Authors really should explain better their research, highlighting their research goals and delineating how they plan to realize them. 

The paper has not a proper Literature Review, which is 'scattered' all over the article. After the Introduction and before Section 2, the Authors should insert a specific Literature Review section, with a list of and analytical comments for all the works they used and cited and with a general overview of the current panorama of studies, which would greatly benefit all the readers, and even a non-specialized audience. 

The methodology is ok, explained quite effectively, but the big question is about the sampling. Is it 'large' / significant enough to provide indicative results? Why the Authors did not look for a larger sample? Is the number of subjects they interacted with consistent enough to produce results that can be considered indicative? Honestly, I do not know, but, if the answer to this question were "no", the whole paper would be compromised. 

The Discussion in itself is ok, the title is quite awkward, because naturally it is a discussion of the results. Before this dedicated section, another schematic section, summarizing the results, would be very helpful and coherent. 

The Conclusions are ok, but the Authors, in a sort of 'mirror' with the Introduction, should underline their research goals and how they achieved them and highlight, in a few lines, how and why their paper is significant in its specific field of studies. 

The English language is, sometimes, 'bizarre', although it is 'readable', and, sometimes, it is not up to academic standards. It would greatly benefit from a re-reading by a native speaker. There are some typos, here and there, even in the Acknowledgements. 

All in all, the article provides a sort of new tool for its specific analytical process and shows a big amount of work developed by its Authors, and this is remarkable.  

However, it also shows a lot of flaws and limits, some critical, which need to be solved and justified / discussed, before the paper can be considered for publication. 

Thank you very much. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This is a very interesting study which explores a very important issue. I particularly appreciate the methodological innovation entailed in the study. That said, there are still a few minor issues that the authors may further address. I believe the ms would benefit from revisions as I outline below:

1. The introduction section may as well more explicitly highlight the methodological innovation, as it is a key characteristic of the study. Besides, the concepts of scope and access should be more elaborately explained. At least in the introduction, they should be more fully defined, although they are to be discussed in more detail in the following section.

2. Section 2, i.e., background, may be split into two sections, which may make the ms more readable. Subsection 2.1 may stand as a section, in which the relationship/interaction between scope and access should be further discussed so that they make a coherent conceptual framework. Subsections 2.2 and 2.3 may be converged as one section, and more may need to be illustrated as to the relationship between portraits and the innovative methods.

3. As to participants, which is 3.1, I may suggest replacing "monolingual" with some other way of describing their linguistic backgrounds, as the term "monolingual" may bring the readers the impression that some groups of participants seems to be disadvantaged compared with others.

4. Results and discussion may be better as two separate sections. Results could be presented followed by concise interpretations closely in relation to the research questions. Then discussion may pertain to further explanations in theoretical or/and conceptual terms. The results and discussion as mingled may not be quite suitable to a study that employed the methods as such.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for taking into consideration my comments and suggestions. I think the paper has been improved considerably, so it is ready for publication now.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Lot of work done, a good revision. 

The only issue is still linked to the small sample and to the extent of its significance. 

Despite this, the paper can be considered for publication and the audience will decide, then, to what extent the results are relevant. 

Thank you very much. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx