L1 Attrition vis-à-vis L2 Acquisition: Lexicon, Syntax–Pragmatics Interface, and Prosody in L1-English L2-Italian Late Bilinguals
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attached document.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Please see the attached document.
Author Response
Please find our response attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI think this paper makes a valuable contribution to the study of language attrition based on original empirical data.
However, the arguments in the discussion and conclusion could be a little bit strengthened and embedded in the recent literature. While the bibliography is quite impressing, the argument is based on only a small number of these references. Most importantly, the claim, that the study shows attrition without CLI is a very strong claim that would need to be substantiated a bit more.
Minor remarks:
Table 4 Why percentage for all preferences and numbers for Italian NP2 in Residents?
Line 1028 (among others) Confusing to say that attrition is selective because it affects processing. Generally it is said that attrition is selective because it affects only specific types of linguistic structures.
Author Response
Please find our response attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is clear, succinct, and well-organized. The study is innovative and timely as it explores the differential effects of L1 attrition on various language domains in contrasting groups of bilinguals with different levels of L2 proficiency.
This reviewer's main suggestion to the authors is to consider providing more detail on how individual differences, such as age and length of residence, were statistically accounted for across all tasks. For example, clarify whether proficiency or frequency of L2 use was consistently included as covariates in all analyses.
While it is clear how L2 proficiency was measured (via the LexITA test), the use of only a vocabulary-based test might not capture other dimensions of proficiency. It might be useful to mention this limitation. Also, the role of proficiency in the statistical analyses remains somewhat under-explored.
It seems that the Discussion section could benefit from a more in-depth account of why prosody may be more vulnerable to L2 influence for residents but not classroom learners.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this study and believe that it will be helpful in developing a more comprehensive approach to research of L1 attrition. Its integration of multiple linguistic domains and exploration of bilingualism continuum will make an important contribution to the field.
Author Response
Please find our response attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI read the revised version of the manuscript entitled “L1 Attrition vis-à-vis L2 Acquisition: Lexicon, Syntax-Pragmatics Interface and Prosody in L1-English L2-Italian Late Bilinguals” as well as the author’s responses to my previous comments and suggestions.
I think that the revised manuscript shows significant improvement as the author seems to have paid careful attention to the previous comments/suggestions and integrated all of them into the revised version. The revised manuscript is now a bit lengthy but in light of the previous comments, the conceptual background has been expanded, and the discussion of the relevant literature is now more comprehensive. The discussion of the findings is also clearer and more meaningfully linked to the relevant existing literature on L1 attrition of (English) as well as to the fundamental motivation of the study.
In summary, I think the revisions have strengthened the overall clarity of the paper. Therefore, I am satisfied with its current version and have no further suggestions, comments, or change requests at this stage. The paper can be published in its present form.
Author Response
We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thoughtful feedback throughout the review process and for their generous assessment of the revised manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time and care taken to engage with the paper in detail and are very pleased to hear that the revisions have strengthened the clarity and overall contribution of the study.
