Self-Repair in Elicited Narrative Production in Speakers of Russian as the First (L1), Second (L2), and Heritage (HL) Language
, Marianna Beradze 2 and Natalia Meir 2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
it was a pleasure to read your well written and clearly structured paper. I pointed out some general issues as well as specific comments that need to be considered and revised.
Abstract: well-structured and informative
- (first §) specify in which country Russian-Chinese participants reside -> RF
- (second §) I would suggest mentioning cross-linguistic transfer which is also discussed in the paper
- If possible, add keywords such as elicited narrative production, Russian
Section 1 (Introduction): well-structured and clearly presented
- Line 63, again specify where Russian-Chinese speakers reside (it is stated in Section 5.1 Participants for the first time)
- Lines 70-75, I would suggest mentioning cross-linguistic transfer here. You clearly bring it up in Section 3 and in the discussion, so it is an important topic to be mentioned in the introduction as well.
- Line 105, second bracket is missing
- Line 136, delete comma after “Syntax”
Section 2: well-structured and clearly presented
- Line 162, ot->or
Section 3: well-structured and clearly presented
Section 4: I would suggest renaming this section into “Research questions of the current study” or “Research questions”
- Line 247, questions -> question
- Lines 249-250, check the sentence again (question t asks)
Section 5: well-structured and clearly presented
- Are HL speakers also university students? Which university/universities? Provide more information about them and the data collection. Moreover, more information is needed about their language proficiency and exposure to Russian L1 (including their age at the time of moving to Israel). Also, as you refer to 1.5 and 2nd generation speakers, specify whether the participants of the study are all 1.5 generation HL speakers or 2nd generation HL speakers as well. Self-rating of their proficiency is not very reliable. What exactly did they have to rate – language proficiency in general or oral and written production and comprehension separately? It would be better to have at least a short screening of their oral production as it is relevant to your study. Your results show that there is no correlation between the level of proficiency and self-repairs, but if your participants are all more or less at the same level, it is clear that there would be no correlation. At the same time, you state in the discussion that self-repairs shift from local form repairs to conceptual level repairs with increasing proficiency, thus, the quality of repairs is related to language proficiency. It is worth elaborating more on this aspect of your study.
- Line 272, I would suggest specifying for the reader what “1.5 generation” means
- Lines 286-287, “three participant studies” -> three participants studied
- Line 288, delete bracket
- Line 292, check the reference (formatting)
Section 6: well-structured and clearly presented
- Line 301, delete comma
- Line 305-306, give the source or reference where the stimuli can be easily found
- Line 318, sentence stop is missing
- How were narratives elicited from HL speakers? Were the conditions the same as with L1 and L2 speakers of Russian? Provide more details
- Lines 343, 355, 375, refer properly to the examples
Section 7: the presentation of the results is clear, the use of statistics is appropriate
- Line 447, 463, refer properly to the examples
Section 8: well-structured, main topics are brought to discussion and supported by the appropriate literature
- As I mentioned earlier, the topic of cross-linguistic transfer should be pointed out in the introduction, same for language proficiency
- Line 519, refer properly to the examples
- Line 544, l2 -> L2
- Line 600, delete bracket
Section 9:
- I would suggest elaborating a bit more on issues pointed out in the discussion (language proficiency, cross-linguistic transfer)
General issues:
Referring to examples in the text: not consistent, indicate clearly to which examples you refer in the text
Oxford comma: the use is quite consistent, but there are a few cases where it is not used – check the paper again; check the use of commas in general
References to authors in text, especially with two or more authors: the use of comma is inconsistent; sometimes the commas are missing at all)
Use of comma after e.g.: inconsistent, a few cases where the comma is missing
Spaces: there are many cases of double spacing between words throughout the paper, check it again
List of References:
- appropriate and consistent formatting required! E.g, 1, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 38, 44, 45, 54, 55, 58, 59, 61, 67, 68, 73, 75 (I might have missed some, check properly)
- several references miss some information and should be completed, 7, 34, 35, 47, 51, 55, 67 (I might have missed some, check properly)
- reference 48: ‘Russian’ youth (space is missing)
Author Response
We thank the editors for allowing us to resubmit the revised version. And we heartfully thank the Reviewers for their time taken to read the manuscript and comments which helped us sharpen the flow of the manuscript, as a result improve the quality of the manuscript. We have carefully incorporated all the suggested changes, see below our reply on each comment in blue.
We look forward to receiving the evaluation on the revised version.
Many thanks once again,
The Authors.
Reviewer 1
Dear authors,
it was a pleasure to read your well written and clearly structured paper. I pointed out some general issues as well as specific comments that need to be considered and revised.
=> We thank the reviewer for the most positive feedback and the constructive comments which have helped us improve and finalize the manuscript.
Abstract: well-structured and informative
- (first §) specify in which country Russian-Chinese participants reside -> RF
=> added
- (second §) I would suggest mentioning cross-linguistic transfer which is also discussed in the paper
=> we mentioned cross-linguistic influence in the abstract, see “We also show cross-linguistic transfer of non-lexical self-repair initiators: HL speakers resort to prolongations as initiators in HL-Russian (a strategy that is common in their dominant language), Hebrew) whereas L1 speakers use vocalized and silent pauses more frequently.”
- If possible, add keywords such as elicited narrative production, Russian
=> added
Section 1 (Introduction): well-structured and clearly presented
- Line 63, again specify where Russian-Chinese speakers reside (it is stated in Section 5.1 Participants for the first time)
=> added
- Lines 70-75, I would suggest mentioning cross-linguistic transfer here. You clearly bring it up in Section 3 and in the discussion, so it is an important topic to be mentioned in the introduction as well.
=> thank, we added the following sentence “We also consider cross-linguistic transfer phenomena in the domain of self-repair usage, when bilingual participants might transfer strategies from L1 into their L2 (in case of L2 speakers), and vice versa (in case of HL speakers).
- Line 105, second bracket is missing
=> added
- Line 136, delete comma after “Syntax”
=> deleted
Section 2: well-structured and clearly presented
- Line 162, ot->or
=> corrected
Section 3: well-structured and clearly presented
Section 4: I would suggest renaming this section into “Research questions of the current study” or “Research questions”
=> changed
- Line 247, questions -> question
=> changed
- Lines 249-250, check the sentence again (question t asks)
=> corrected
Section 5: well-structured and clearly presented
- Are HL speakers also university students? Which university/universities? Provide more information about them and the data collection. Moreover, more information is needed about their language proficiency and exposure to Russian L1 (including their age at the time of moving to Israel).
Also, as you refer to 1.5 and 2nd generation speakers, specify whether the participants of the study are all 1.5 generation HL speakers or 2nd generation HL speakers as well.
Self-rating of their proficiency is not very reliable.
=> We agree with the Reviewer, yet previous studies widely use self-evaluated proficiency and there are studies showing the validity of this measure in bilinguals. We added citations and explanations supporting this claim.
What exactly did they have to rate – language proficiency in general or oral and written production and comprehension separately? It would be better to have at least a short screening of their oral production as it is relevant to your study. Your results show that there is no correlation between the level of proficiency and self-repairs, but if your participants are all more or less at the same level, it is clear that there would be no correlation. At the same time, you state in the discussion that self-repairs shift from local form repairs to conceptual level repairs with increasing proficiency, thus, the quality of repairs is related to language proficiency. It is worth elaborating more on this aspect of your study.
=> We added information for HL speakers for who objective measures of proficiency (noun and verb naming) were collected. The correlations did not reach significance between the naming accuracy and self-repair.
- Line 272, I would suggest specifying for the reader what “1.5 generation” means
=> the specification is added
- Lines 286-287, “three participant studies” -> three participants studied
=> corrected
- Line 288, delete bracket
=> deleted
- Line 292, check the reference (formatting)
=> corrected
Section 6: well-structured and clearly presented
- Line 301, delete comma
=> deleted
- Line 305-306, give the source or reference where the stimuli can be easily found
=> added
- Line 318, sentence stop is missing
=> added
- How were narratives elicited from HL speakers? Were the conditions the same as with L1 and L2 speakers of Russian? Provide more details
=> information on elicitation procedure was added:
Narratives for HL speakers were elicited following the same procedure as in case with L1 and L2 speakers. The participants were asked to look at the pictures and to tell a story based on the pictures. Participants` narratives were audio-recorded for the purposes of further analysis.
- Lines 343, 355, 375, refer properly to the examples
=> corrected
Section 7: the presentation of the results is clear, the use of statistics is appropriate
- Line 447, 463, refer properly to the examples
=> corrected
Section 8: well-structured, main topics are brought to discussion and supported by the appropriate literature
- As I mentioned earlier, the topic of cross-linguistic transfer should be pointed out in the introduction, same for language proficiency
=> thank you for the suggestion, we refer to cross-linguistic influence in several places.
- Line 519, refer properly to the examples
=> corrected
- Line 544, l2 -> L2
=> corrected
- Line 600, delete bracket
=> deleted
Section 9:
- I would suggest elaborating a bit more on issues pointed out in the discussion (language proficiency, cross-linguistic transfer)
=> the discussion / description of cross-linguistic influence and proficiency aspects in self-repair usage has been expanded.
General issues:
Referring to examples in the text: not consistent, indicate clearly to which examples you refer in the text
=> corrected
Oxford comma: the use is quite consistent, but there are a few cases where it is not used – check the paper again; check the use of commas in general
=> corrected where needed
References to authors in text, especially with two or more authors: the use of comma is inconsistent; sometimes the commas are missing at all)
=> corrected where needed
Use of comma after e.g.: inconsistent, a few cases where the comma is missing
=> corrected
Spaces: there are many cases of double spacing between words throughout the paper, check it again
=> corrected
List of References:
- appropriate and consistent formatting required! E.g, 1, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 38, 44, 45, 54, 55, 58, 59, 61, 67, 68, 73, 75 (I might have missed some, check properly)
- several references miss some information and should be completed, 7, 34, 35, 47, 51, 55, 67 (I might have missed some, check properly)
- reference 48: ‘Russian’ youth (space is missing)
=> List of References was carefully checked and unified
Reviewer 2 Report
The article “Self-repair in elicited narrative production in speakers of Russian as the L1, L2 and HL language” investigates self-repair in the spontaneous speech of three groups of Russian speakers. This very well written article provides new empirical data that will interest researchers working on L1, L2 and HL language acquisition.
Please see some minor typos highlighted in yellow in the attached document (from line 203 to line 544).
Thank you.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We thank the editors for allowing us to resubmit the revised version. And we heartfully thank the Reviewers for their time taken to read the manuscript and comments which helped us sharpen the flow of the manuscript, as a result improve the quality of the manuscript. We have carefully incorporated all the suggested changes, see below our reply on each comment in blue.
We look forward to receiving the evaluation on the revised version.
Many thanks once again,
The Authors.
Reviewer 2
- Line 203, H2-L2
=> corrected
- Line 245, addresses
=> corrected
- Line 249, t asks
=> corrected
- Line 285, on the 1-6 scale 1-6
=> corrected
- Line 286, three participant studies
=> corrected
- Line 288, in St. Petersburg)
=> corrected
- Line 318, sentence stop is missing
=> added
- Line 335, sub-categories
=> corrected
- Line 318, Table 1 smotrIt smotrit
=> corrected
- Line 544, l2
=> corrected
