The Role of Origin in English and Spanish Forenames
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe only aspect that was not clear in the paper was the criterion used to select the forenames included in the questionnaire. Although this research is a very good contribution to scholarship, in the future, when the author discusses the results in relation to other social variables its contribution will be even more important.
Author Response
REVIEWER 1’S COMMENTS:
-The only aspect that was not clear in the paper was the criterion used to select the forenames included in the questionnaire.
REPLY FROM THE AUTHOR: A new sentence has been added underlined in YELLOW in the methodological section (4).
-Although this research is a very good contribution to scholarship, in the future, when the author discusses the results in relation to other social variables its contribution will be even more important.
REPLY FROM THE AUTHOR: Attention has been drawn (in YELLOW) to the last paragraph in the conclusions (7). This paragraph was present in the first version of the paper. It already includes the idea this reviewer seems to be interested in highlighting.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is not objectionable in terms of structure or language.
All the elements of a scientific paper have been taken into account and presented in the correct logical order.
In addition, all information is very well and comprehensively documented and grounded in the professional literature.
In terms of content, the work raises the interesting issue of the relationship between the origin and perception of names in two different languages, English and Spanish. The survey carried out in this area is exhaustive for a scientific article. The questionnaire research carried out in this area is comprehensive for a scientific article and the analysis of the results is carried out in a competent and logical manner.
The only comment that can be made to the authors of the text is to suggest that the "Conclusions" section be widened somewhat. The relationships between the origin, meaning and perception of names already presented are noteworthy. But it would certainly have been interesting and much more contributing to broaden the cultural and historical, and perhaps also geographical, references in the case of the perception of certain names in the two languages considered. In other words, it would be interesting for readers to learn about other - in addition to the above-mentioned - cultural, historical and geographical conditions for such perception of certain names.
Author Response
REVIEWER 2’S COMMENTS:
-The only comment that can be made to the authors of the text is to suggest that the "Conclusions" section be widened somewhat. The relationships between the origin, meaning and perception of names already presented are noteworthy. But it would certainly have been interesting and much more contributing to broaden the cultural and historical, and perhaps also geographical, references in the case of the perception of certain names in the two languages considered. In other words, it would be interesting for readers to learn about other - in addition to the above-mentioned - cultural, historical and geographical conditions for such perception of certain names.
REPLY FROM THE AUTHOR: I have made some amendments to the Conclusions section (7) on the basis of the comments provided by reviewer 3 (underlined in GREY). What reviewer 2 suggests is worth considering but maybe in a future study, as he says. Indeed, in YELLOW (Conclusions section, 7) it can be noticed there is that interest in continuing going further.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This was an interesting article to read. It is well-documented, and it offers information on a topic that does not get much attention, generally.
Here are some of my comments:
p.2, lines 47-52. I don’t think there is compelling evidence to say that second language acquisition will “never be fully accomplished unless students understand the relationship between a speech community’s preferred patterns of non-linguistic and linguistic behavior”
In general, the author(s) argue several times for the need to include culture (and names, specifically) as a worthy subject of study. I suggest toning down this claim, and to trust that readers (like myself) do not need to be persuaded that this is worth examining.
p. 2, lines 66-76. This whole paragraph does not add much to the manuscript, I suggest removing it completely.
p.6 , lines 285-313, and then p. 7, lines 314-350.
This section does not add much, I suggest to reduce it significantly, or to eliminate it.
p.8, line 403. Methodology
Please give more information about the participants’ demographics in a table or figure in the main text. For example, how many of the 425 participants were Spaniards, or British.
p.9, l. 410. How did you select names, what was the criterion?
Generally speaking, explain what type of data you collected before reporting results
p.10, l. 471, 478, and 497. The text says “around 10”, “around 7”, and “around 20”, respectively. Why not give the actual exact number? This looks as if you are hiding something.
p.11. Present the results in a table or figure where it is easier for the reader to examine them.
p.12, l. 598. The first two lines are wordy, you can simply say: “14 out of 15 (93%)”
p.13. Table. Present the percentage axis to up to 100%, otherwise, it is misleading
p. 14 lines 628-645. This section is unclear
p. 14, lines 647-656. Provide numbers for these results
p.14, line 655-656. This conclusion is rather weak
Author Response
REVIEWER 3’S COMMENTS:
NOTE: The paper presented to me as the last version does not coincide with reviewer 3’s pages but I have used the original version (just as a reference) so as to make the changes suggested.
-p.2, lines 47-52. I don’t think there is compelling evidence to say that second language acquisition will “never be fully accomplished unless students understand the relationship between a speech community’s preferred patterns of non-linguistic and linguistic behavior”
REPLY FROM THE AUTHOR: Although the reviewer is referring to a quotation (what the exact author says; not the author of this paper, myself) and her words cannot be changed, I have tried to “lighten” the comment so as to make it less compelling. The changes are made in GREY. Section 2.1. 1st paragraph.
-In general, the author(s) argue several times for the need to include culture (and names, specifically) as a worthy subject of study. I suggest toning down this claim, and to trust that readers (like myself) do not need to be persuaded that this is worth examining.
REPLY FROM THE AUTHOR: A sentence (also underlined in GREY) has been deleted so as to continue “lightening” the tone, as requested by this reviewer, given that the comment eliminated has been made clear by other comments included too.
- 2, lines 66-76. This whole paragraph does not add much to the manuscript, I suggest removing it completely.
REPLY FROM THE AUTHOR: I do not think the whole parapraph must be removed since ideas from this paragraph are referred to in the conclusions (7). See underlined words in GREY (ethnoethnocentrism and monolinguocentrism). I agree with the fact that the paragraph can be shortened, so I have deleted the last part of the paragraph (underlined in GREY too). Consequently, a reference has been deleted as well (Gorden, 1968).
p.6 , lines 285-313,
This section does not add much, I suggest to reduce it significantly, or to eliminate it.
REPLY FROM THE AUTHOR: I do not think both paragraphs should be omitted. I have left one of these paragraph because in the results section (6) this idea is covered too (name letter effect; underlined in GREY). I have deleted the following paragraph, though, in agreement with the reviewer.
and then p. 7, lines 314-350.
This section does not add much, I suggest to reduce it significantly, or to eliminate it.
REPLY FROM THE AUTHOR: I agree with the fact that one long paragraph could be eliminated (done) but I have left two other paragraphs because they make sense and one of them is even covered in the conclusions section (7) too (sense of belonging; underlined in GREY). As a result, some references have been eliminated as well.
p.8, line 403. Methodology
Please give more information about the participants’ demographics in a table or figure in the main text. For example, how many of the 425 participants were Spaniards, or British.
REPLY FROM THE AUTHOR: Done. New figure included (Figure 1) and some more text (in GREY). In this case, only the data about the metropolitan districts was more important (age or gender were not dealt with as variables in this paper).
p.9, l. 410. How did you select names, what was the criterion?
REPLY FROM THE AUTHOR: Already corrected as a reply to reviewer 1. A new sentence has been added underlined in YELLOW in the methodological section (4).
Generally speaking, explain what type of data you collected before reporting results
REPLY FROM THE AUTHOR: Information about the type of data collected is included in the last paragraph of section 3 (Objectives). Underlined in GREY.
p.10, l. 471, 478, and 497. The text says “around 10”, “around 7”, and “around 20”, respectively. Why not give the actual exact number? This looks as if you are hiding something.
REPLY FROM THE AUTHOR: Yes, you are right. It may give that impression. All of them changed and specified in GREY throughout the whole text.
p.11. Present the results in a table or figure where it is easier for the reader to examine them.
REPLY FROM THE AUTHOR: I agree with the reviewer’s suggestion. However, the results are included from page 9 to 12, not just 11. ALL the results are explained with no tables or graphs. It is true these could help the reader but I had decided to include illustrating and summarising graphs only in the conclusions section and just quotations or paraphrases in the results section. If I included tables or figures in the results section, it should not be just on page 11. Therefore, if I may, I would leave it like this for the sake of homogeneity. In my view, figures in the conclusions give a clear overview of general findings.
p.12, l. 598. The first two lines are wordy, you can simply say: “14 out of 15 (93%)”
REPLY FROM THE AUTHOR: DONE. Rewording underlined in GREY
p.13. Table. Present the percentage axis to up to 100%, otherwise, it is misleading
REPLY FROM THE AUTHOR: DONE. Figure changed (100%)
- 14 lines 628-645. This section is unclear
REPLY FROM THE AUTHOR: Some amendments have been made to the paragraph. New content has been underlined in GREY. Some sentences have been moved too.
- 14, lines 647-656. Provide numbers for these results
REPLY FROM THE AUTHOR: The specific numbers for these results were included in the results section (6) (for instance, which names elicited comments regarding Russian origins, etc.). This is the conclusions (7). My intention in section 7 was just to summarise and give a general idea of the most relevant findings obtained in the paper.
p.14, line 655-656. This conclusion is rather weak
REPLY FROM THE AUTHOR: I have deleted the last sentence (underlined in GREY) as it is true this conclusion does not have a solid basis around.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI accept the newer improved version, thanks.
