Linguistic Analysis of Redemption in Khaled Hosseini’s The Kite Runner Through a Critical Discourse Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title of the article:  “Linguistic Analysis of Redemption in Khaled Hosseini’s The Kite Runner Through a Critical Discourse Approach.”

 

In this article, an analysis of Khaled Hosseini’s novel The Kite Runner (2008) is made, by way of using van Leeuwen’s Social Actor Network Model within the framework of Critical Discourse Studies. At the centre of the analysis, which integrates linguistic analysis with literary interpretation, is the theme of redemption “as a response to guilt and a path to self-realization”. The purpose of the writer is thus to look at how the themes of guilt, moral conflict and redemption are constructed through discourse. The study also looks at how social actors are represented through discursive strategies and what “specific linguistic patterns illustrate the protagonist’s psychological and moral transformation”. By applying the six social actor representation strategies, identified by van Leeuwen, on the representations of the characters in the novel, the author of the study shows how discourse and language shape the moral evolution of the protagonist as well as construct ethical identity in the novel. The author of the study stresses that the importance to look at the novel within the context of postcolonial trauma literature.

 

The author her/himself claims that there is a gap in linguistic analyses of the novel as regards the construction of redemption through discourse. One purpose of this study is to fill this gap. I think that the study is highly relevant and in particular, this combination of linguistic and literary analysis is interesting and fruitful.

 

I have no comments regarding the methodology. It works well for the purpose of the study and it is presented in a clear and pedagogical way.

 

The conclusions that are presented in a final discussion are consistent with the arguments presented and they give answers to the research questions asked in the beginning of the study. Examples of the application of van Leeuwen’s strategies on the novel are presented in a table with one textual example for each strategy connected with an explanation of its narrative function in the text.

 

As regards formalities, I have no comments. The English language flows well and the reference list is correct.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your thoughtful and encouraging feedback. We’re really pleased that you found the combination of linguistic and literary analysis both relevant and fruitful, and that the methodology and presentation came across clearly. It means a lot to know that the connections we’ve drawn between van Leeuwen’s framework and the novel worked well, and that the summary table was helpful. Your positive comments have been a real boost as we finalised the manuscript. Thank you again

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are some presenting issues in the text. For instance,e a period is missing in the abstract, after 'narratives.' The English in general is imperfect and should be read over once again. Also, though the book is read convincingly and discussed in detail, it is less a linguistic analysis of the book thna a discussion of the book and then a statement that linguistics are applicable. In other words, there is not enough actual linguistic discussion of the text.  This is especially true In the "Exclusion' section on page 5. The 'role allocation' section immediately succeeding that is much better and the author should use that as a model in revising the remainder of their text. That being said, the author has a lot other say about Hosseini's novel and the linguistic analysis certainly is a potentially productive frame for doing so. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Needs to be reread one more time for English usage. 

Author Response

Comment 1:

There are some presentation issues in the text. For instance, a period is missing in the abstract after "narratives." The English in general is imperfect and should be read over once again. Also, though the book is read convincingly and discussed in detail, it is less a linguistic analysis of the book than a discussion of the book and then a statement that linguistics are applicable. In other words, there is not enough actual linguistic discussion of the text. This is especially true in the "Exclusion" section on page 5. The "role allocation" section immediately succeeding that is much better and the author should use that as a model in revising the remainder of their text. That being said, the author has a lot to say about Hosseini's novel and the linguistic analysis certainly is a potentially productive frame for doing so.

Response:
Thank you for this constructive feedback. We have addressed the presentation and language issues by carefully proofreading the manuscript to correct grammatical errors, ensure sentence clarity, and fix punctuation errors, including the missing period in the abstract.

Regarding the balance between literary discussion and linguistic analysis, we acknowledge that the "Exclusion" section was less explicitly analytical compared to the "Role Allocation" section. We have revised the "Exclusion" section to include more detailed linguistic analysis, following the structural and analytical depth of the "Role Allocation" section. This includes closer attention to syntactic patterns, agency distribution, and van Leeuwen’s terminology, ensuring that each observation is clearly grounded in linguistic evidence from the text rather than thematic discussion alone. These revisions enhance the consistency of linguistic focus across sections. All changes are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents a Critical Discourse Studies (CDS)-based analysis of redemption in Khaled Hosseini’s The Kite Runner, with a focus on how linguistic strategies reflect and construct the protagonist Amir’s moral transformation. Utilizing Theo van Leeuwen’s Social Actor Network Model (2008), the study examines how redemption is linguistically realized through strategies such as exclusion, role allocation, association/dissociation, nomination, personalization, and over-determination. Through close textual analysis of key narrative moments—particularly involving Amir’s guilt, trauma, and redemption—the article demonstrates that language itself becomes the medium through which ethical identity is both problematized and reconstituted.

Additionally, the article situates its findings in the broader contexts of trauma theory, postcolonial ethics, and narrative identity (drawing on Ricoeur, Bhabha, and Caruth), while briefly offering comparative insights into Beloved by Toni Morrison and The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy.

This article makes a novel contribution by merging literary discourse analysis with a linguistic model primarily used in media and political texts. It demonstrates that CDS can reveal narrative ethics in fiction, contributing not only to trauma studies and postcolonial literature, but also to interdisciplinary approaches in the humanities.

The article builds on a rich array of theoretical sources - van Leeuwen’s discourse model, Fairclough and Wodak’s CDS, Caruth’s trauma theory, Bhabha’s postcolonial identity politics, and Ricoeur’s concept of narrative identity. These are skillfully integrated.

The data analysis sections (4.1–4.9) are particularly effective in demonstrating how different linguistic strategies map onto the protagonist’s psychological and moral development.

The article not only offers a new method of literary interpretation but also argues for its applicability in pedagogy. It provides a clear case for integrating CDS into literature and ethics education, enriching students’ understanding of both form and meaning. Although brief, the comparative reflections on Beloved and The God of Small Things help place the findings within a larger global literary conversation about trauma, redemption, and discourse.

The idea that language mediates Amir’s moral growth is powerful, but it is reiterated too often without new insight. The introduction, findings, and discussion restate similar ideas; these could be consolidated to maintain momentum.

The connections to Beloved and The God of Small Things are promising but underdeveloped.

1. Consider extending each comparison with one direct quote or a brief textual example.
2. How do those novels also employ linguistic strategies to negotiate guilt or trauma?
3. This would further underscore the cross-cultural relevance of the article’s findings.

Clarify Pedagogical Implications (Section 5)

The pedagogical section is compelling, but could benefit from examples:

1. How might a literature teacher introduce van Leeuwen’s model in a classroom?
2. Could the framework be adapted for high school vs. undergraduate readers?
3. A short lesson plan sketch or assignment idea would make this more concrete.

Formatting Adjustments

Table 2 is very helpful. However, consider - Aligning all examples clearly under headers. Probably, you should use more consistent formatting (e.g., quotation marks, italics) for textual examples.

Additional Theoretical References

Although the references are rich and well-selected, here are a few optional additions to consider for strengthening the theoretical background or expanding comparative dimensions:

James Phelan, Living to Tell About It: A Rhetoric and Ethics of Character Narration

Dorrit Cohn, Transparent Minds: Narrative Modes for Presenting Consciousness

Dominick LaCapra, Writing History, Writing Trauma

Judith Herman, Trauma and Recovery – for a psychological frame

Henry Giroux, Theory and Resistance in Education

Recommendation: Accept with Minor Revisions

This is a well-conceived, theoretically rich, and methodologically sound article. It offers a novel interdisciplinary lens on The Kite Runner and opens new discussions in both discourse studies and postcolonial literary ethics. With minor stylistic revisions and modest expansion in comparative and pedagogical dimensions, it will be an excellent contribution to a high-ranking journal in literary linguistics, humanities, or cultural discourse studies.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall English usage is very good and scholarly, but occasional refinement would increase clarity and polish:

Examples:

 “This stark confession underscores Amir’s deliberate omission of his agency...”
BETTER — “This stark confession reveals Amir’s effort to obscure his responsibility...”

 “...he willingly endures physical harm to protect another...”
Better phrasing — “...he willingly endures violence in a moment of moral “Amir's self-perception is shaped by metaphorical language...”

BETTER “Amir’s evolving self-perception is encoded through metaphorical self-representations...”

 

Author Response

Comment 1:
“The idea that language mediates Amir’s moral growth is powerful, but it is reiterated too often without new insight. The introduction, findings, and discussion restate similar ideas; these could be consolidated to maintain momentum.”

Response:
Thank you for this observation. We agree that the manuscript previously repeated similar ideas about language mediating moral growth. We have revised the introduction, findings, and discussion sections to remove redundancies and consolidate overlapping statements. The revised text now focuses on distinct contributions and avoids repetition, ensuring momentum is maintained. All changes are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 2:
“The connections to Beloved and The God of Small Things are promising but underdeveloped. Consider extending each comparison with one direct quote or a brief textual example. How do those novels also employ linguistic strategies to negotiate guilt or trauma? This would further underscore the cross-cultural relevance of the article’s findings.”

Response:
We appreciate this suggestion. Section 4.9 has been strengthened by adding direct quotations from Beloved and The God of Small Things and incorporating explicit analysis of how these texts employ linguistic strategies such as negation, ellipsis, euphemism, and syntactic shifts to encode guilt and trauma. This revision clarifies the cross-cultural comparison and highlights the shared discursive mechanisms across the three narratives. Changes are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 3:
“Clarify Pedagogical Implications (Section 5). The pedagogical section is compelling, but could benefit from examples: How might a literature teacher introduce van Leeuwen’s model in a classroom? Could the framework be adapted for high school vs. undergraduate readers? A short lesson plan sketch or assignment idea would make this more concrete.”

Response:
Thank you for this constructive feedback. We have expanded Section 5 by adding a practical classroom example that illustrates how teachers can introduce van Leeuwen’s Social Actor Network Model, along with sample student activities. The section now also discusses adaptations for both high school and undergraduate contexts, making the pedagogical framework more concrete and actionable. These additions are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 4:
“Formatting Adjustments: Table 2 is very helpful. However, consider aligning all examples clearly under headers. Probably, you should use more consistent formatting (e.g., quotation marks, italics) for textual examples.”

Response:
We have reformatted Table 2 for improved clarity and visual consistency. Examples are now italicized,  and alignment under relevant headers has been corrected. An explicit cross-reference to Table 2 has also been added in the analysis section to guide readers toward the summary table. These formatting changes are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 5:
“Additional Theoretical References: Although the references are rich and well-selected, here are a few optional additions to consider for strengthening the theoretical background or expanding comparative dimensions.”

Response:
We appreciate these valuable suggestions. Three of the recommended works—Phelan (2005), Herman (1992), and Giroux (2001)—have been integrated into the manuscript to expand the theoretical framework and deepen the interpretive analysis. Phelan (2005) has been added to the introduction to reinforce the rhetorical dimension of first-person narration; Herman (1992) has been included in the discussion to frame Amir’s transformation within trauma recovery stages; and Giroux (2001) has been cited in the conclusion to emphasise the pedagogical and ideological significance of the novel. These additions are reflected in the updated reference list and are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations on a fine article