Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Evaluative Grammar and Non-Standard Comparatives: A Cross-Linguistic Analysis of Ukrainian and English

Languages 2025, 10(8), 191; https://doi.org/10.3390/languages10080191

by Oksana Kovtun

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Reviewer 3:

Zuzana Toth

Languages 2025, 10(8), 191; https://doi.org/10.3390/languages10080191

Submission received: 15 February 2025 / Revised: 21 July 2025 / Accepted: 31 July 2025 / Published: 6 August 2025

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is dedicated to the cross-linguistic analysis of evaluative adjectives, specifically comparative and superlative forms in Ukrainian and English.

General comments and suggestions how to restructure the whole paper to avoid doublers and repetitions of passages as well as to meet conventions accepted in the field:

1) Introduction: must be restructured and rewritten.
- It will be more appropriate to start with the definition of adjectives and their functions > this is given much later in the text (lines 74-89).
- Further, a brief overview of research on evaluative adjectives must be provided, starting with more general studies and ending up with specific (Ukrainian and English) ones.
- However, the object of this study are not evaluative adjectives, but comparatives and superlatives > this must be clearly formulated, together with the objectives of the study (lines 115-122).
- In the Introduction, the authors may say something about the novelty of the research (lines 138-145). However, the description of this particular study as well as the ideas about future research and findings must be removed from the Introduction and placed in the appropriate sections (lines 146-194).
- Importantly, the authors must follow the APA conventions when referring to the scholars and their studies in the text: no initials are given, only last names and the year of publication between parentheses.

2) The authors should embed a new section, “The current study”, where the authors will start with providing
- background information on the comparatives and superlatives in both languages (formation, grammatical usage, etc.) > This information is spread thoughout the whole paper
- concrete examples of both types (comparative and superlative forms) must be given > now, they are spread throughout the paper.
- an explanation of why the authors label these types “non-standard” and not just lexical innovations as there is nothing non-standard in their morphology and formation.

3) Within the new section “The current study” the objectives must be formulated (lines 155-161), and the analytical approach must be explained (lines 146-154 + lines 228-235 + lines 241-257).

4) I suggest reorganizing the sub-section Materials and Methods making it part of the section “The current study”:
- 2.1 Corpus Description > better to call it Dataset. In this paragraph, the selection criteria of items are missing (see the lines 267-270).
- Further, some items used in the analysis are questionable. I do not understand why the English example That was the most ridiculous thing ever has been interpreted as non-standard evaluative superlative? It follows a standard pattern morphologically as well as lexically. It raises the question about reliability of the data selected and also the results and conclusions drawn. I suggest the authors to critically look through their data using their selection criteria and adjust the data when necessary.
- Another question concerns the distribution of items with comparatives and superlatives in both languages. How many items have been found with comparatives and how many with superlatives?
- The terminology is also questionable. If the authors analyze the data based on both types, why they mention only comparatives most of the time (both in text and headings)?
- 2.2 Analytical Method > the analytical approach must be explained earlier, together with the objectives (see above). In this paragraph rather to explain how the data have been analyzed (the information must be extracted from the paragraph 2.4 Statistical analysis. However, the authors must delete the information on the results which will be discussed in another section Analysis).
- 2.3 Experimental design – I cannot find any explanation of what the authors mean by this. What kind of experiment has been conducted?
At the same time:
>>> Lines 260-266: this text is already used in Corpus description;
>>> Lines 266-270: this is important for selection criteria and must be moved to Corpus description;
>>> Lines 271-285: This passage will be appropriate in the section Discussion

- 2.4 Statistical analysis – a short description of the statistical method must be given in the paragraph Analytical method. Concrete results (percentages) must be moved to the section Analysis. Otherwise, the same outcomes are discussed two or more times at different places throughout the paper.
- 2.5 Visual representation – I suggest deleting this paragraph, if necessary, this information must be integrated in the Analysis section.

5) The section Analysis must be reorganized.
- A general observation: the same information on outcomes is presented in text, tables and graphs. The authors must decide what they would prefer to skip. I suggest using the textual explanation in combination with graphs for the visual support.
- In 3.1 Distribution of non-standard comparatives and 3.2 Evaluative Meaning of non-standard comparatives – the headings suggest that only comparatives are involved. Are superlatives also analyzed? Concrete examples suggest the opposite.
- English examples are questionable: for example, what is non-standard in the most luxurious hotel?
>>> Lines 366-378: this text is already used somewhere before;
>>> Lines 381-384: this is the repetition of what is said before (Dataset selection);
>>> Lines 515-524: the text is about experimental findings but there is no information on the experiment. This must be clarified.

6) I suggest adding the sub-section 4.3.and 4.4 to the section “Analysis” creating a separate sub-section “Qualitative analysis”.

7) The section “Discussion” must be rewritten. The findings must be summarized and discussed per genre, but no new information must be added to this section (as it had been done in 4.3.and 4.4).
- 4.1 Statistical analysis and Cross-linguistic comparison: information on formation rules must be moved to the Background paragraph in the “Current study”.
- I see no link between grammatical flexibility of English and positively charged forms (lines 619-620). A better explanation/clarification mut be given.
- Generally, the authors refer to the flexible morphological system of English without clarifying what they exactly mean. This must be added or skipped.

- 4.2 Evaluative Meaning and Cognitive Analysis: this sub-section contains a number of practically identical passages: lines 653-655 and lines 670-673; lines 661-666 and lines 679-684. The authors need to critically reread their text to remove all double passages.
>>> Line 637: the experimental study is mentioned again, however no information on this has been given in previous sections.
>>> Line 656: the authors talk about morphological innovations. However, to my mind, no morphological innovation is involved here, as all examples follow the regular patterns. It concerns more lexical innovations. So, I advise the authors to reconsider their terminology.

8) I suggest adding the sub-section 4.3.and 4.4 to the Section “Analysis” creating a separate sub-section “Qualitative analysis”. Much information as it is now given in lines 769-804, has been already discussed in previous (sub-)sections.

9) 4.5 Cross-linguistic Similarities and Differences: the first passage has been already discussed in previous sections. The last two passages must be added to Conclusions.

10) 4.7 Future research directions: lines 998-1065 contain identical passages or show too many similarities with sub-section 4.6. The authors must critically rewrite this piece of their text.

11) References must be made up according to the APA style requirements.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable time and insightful comments on our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful suggestions, which have helped us to improve the clarity, depth, and overall quality of the article. In what follows, we address each of your comments in detail and indicate how the manuscript has been revised accordingly.

Thank you for these constructive recommendations. The introduction has been thoroughly restructured in accordance with your suggestions. It now opens with a definition of adjectives and their functions, followed by a general-to-specific overview of relevant research. The object and objectives of the study have been clearly formulated, while detailed descriptions of the study design and future directions have been removed and integrated into the appropriate methodological and concluding sections. In-text citations have been revised throughout the manuscript to comply with APA style.

Thank you for this valuable recommendation. In response, we have added a new section titled “The Current Study”, which consolidates background information on comparative and superlative constructions in Ukrainian and English. This section now provides clear examples of both types, explains their standard morphological features, and justifies the use of the label “non-standard” in relation to their discursive, functional, and stylistic deviation rather than morphological irregularity

3) Within the new section “The current study” the objectives must be formulated (lines 155-161), and the analytical approach must be explained (lines 146-154 + lines 228-235 + lines 241-257).

Thank you for this helpful recommendation. In response, the section “1.2 The Current Study” now includes a clear statement of the study’s objectives (formerly lines 155–161) as well as a concise explanation of the analytical approach, integrating content previously located in lines 146–154, 228–235, and 241–257.

Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful recommendations. In response, we have restructured the “Materials and Methods” section and incorporated it into Section 1.2 The Current Study, as suggested. The sub-section previously titled “Corpus Description” has been renamed “Dataset”, and the selection criteria (lines 266–270) have been added for clarity. The analytical approach is now integrated alongside the research objectives. The previously included example (That was the most ridiculous thing ever) has been removed to preserve data reliability. We have critically reviewed all collected items to ensure alignment with the defined criteria, including clear distinctions between comparatives and superlatives. The balance of item types has also been clarified numerically. Terminological consistency has been improved throughout the text and headings. Furthermore, methodological sub-sections have been revised: redundant content has been deleted, result-oriented content has been moved to the Analysis section, and the paragraph “Visual representation” has been removed.

Thank you for these valuable suggestions. In response, we have revised the structure of the Analysis section to avoid redundancy by retaining visualisations and streamlining the textual explanation. Repetitive segments (lines 366–378 and 381–384) have been removed. The headings of sub-sections 3.1 and 3.2 have been updated to reflect the inclusion of both comparatives and superlatives. Questionable English examples such as “the most luxurious hotel” have been re-evaluated and removed. Additionally, the reference to “experimental findings” (lines 515–524) has been revised to align with the clarified description of the annotated dataset, previously integrated into Section 1.2.

6) I suggest adding the sub-section 4.3.and 4.4 to the section “Analysis” creating a separate sub-section “Qualitative analysis”.

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful recommendation. We fully acknowledge that the content of subsections 4.3 and 4.4 is closely aligned with the objectives of the “Analysis” section, especially given their focus on discourse-level interpretation and contextual variation. At the same time, we respectfully note that these subsections contain a substantial number of illustrative examples and nuanced stylistic commentary, which serve to reinforce the interpretive conclusions drawn in the discussion. For this reason, we believe that their current placement within the “Discussion” section remains methodologically justified, as it allows for a broader synthesis of patterns observed in the corpus and supports higher-level generalizations. Nonetheless, in response to the reviewer’s valuable suggestion, we have thoroughly revised both subsections to improve clarity and structural balance. We have carefully reduced repetition, streamlined descriptive commentary, and refined the presentation of examples to make the exposition more concise and cohesive. We trust that this updated version effectively incorporates the essence of the reviewer’s recommendation while preserving the depth and richness of the qualitative analysis.

We are sincerely grateful for the reviewer’s detailed and constructive feedback regarding the “Discussion” section. We have undertaken a comprehensive revision of this section to fully address the points raised.

In response to the overarching comment, the entire discussion has been restructured to summarize and interpret the findings by genre, as suggested. We have carefully ensured that no new information is introduced in this section; all observations are drawn directly from the data and analysis previously presented.

Regarding Section 4.1, the explanation of grammatical formation rules (synthetic vs. analytic comparatives) has been removed from the discussion and appropriately relocated to the background paragraph in Section 1.2. The Current Study, where methodological expectations are introduced. This allows the “Discussion” to focus on interpretive aspects only.

We also revised the passage that previously suggested a causal link between English grammatical flexibility and the prevalence of positively charged forms. In the revised version, we clarify that positive polarity is more likely motivated by discourse function — particularly persuasive intent — rather than morphological structure alone. Where the concept of “morphological flexibility” is retained, it is now explicitly defined to refer to English’s relative tolerance for the application of degree morphology to non-gradable adjectives and for compounding structures (e.g., the most TikTok-worthy).

In Section 4.2, we carefully reviewed the text for repetition. The identified overlapping passages have been critically revised or removed to avoid duplication while preserving analytical clarity. Redundant references to the cognitive function of hyperbole and irony, as well as repeated definitions of evaluative grammar, have been consolidated.

Additionally, to address the reviewer’s concern regarding Line 637, we ensured that information about the experimental study is clearly introduced in the “Methods” section (2.3), so that subsequent references in the “Discussion” are grounded in earlier sections. We also revised our use of the term “morphological innovation” (Line 656), as suggested. In the revised version, we instead refer to these forms as “morphological extensions of regular comparison patterns”, which more accurately reflects the nature of the constructions under analysis.

We trust that these revisions clarify our analytical approach, eliminate redundancy, and align the structure and function of the “Discussion” with academic expectations. Thank you once again for your helpful and detailed guidance.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. Upon revisiting subsections 4.3 and 4.4, we acknowledge that some of the material — particularly the content between lines 769 and 804 — does overlap with information already presented in earlier analytical sections. While we considered relocating these subsections to the “Analysis” section as a distinct “Qualitative Analysis” component, we ultimately concluded that their interpretive focus and genre-specific commentary serve more appropriately as part of the “Discussion,” where they synthesize earlier findings.

Nevertheless, to address the reviewer’s concern, we have carefully revised the relevant portions of these subsections. Redundant passages have been removed or rephrased to avoid duplication, and examples have been selectively retained to ensure clarity without repetition. The revised subsections now emphasize discourse interpretation and contextual variation, without introducing new data or reiterating prior analysis.

We believe that this approach accommodates the reviewer’s suggestion while preserving the analytical depth and structural balance of the manuscript.

9) 4.5 Cross-linguistic Similarities and Differences: the first passage has been already discussed in previous sections. The last two passages must be added to Conclusions.

We appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading and insightful suggestion. In response, we have revised subsection 4.5 to improve structural clarity and eliminate redundancy. The opening passage, which largely restated information already covered in earlier analytical sections, has been removed. To maintain a clear progression of ideas, the remaining content has been reorganized with greater focus on synthesizing the findings rather than repeating prior observations.

In accordance with the reviewer’s recommendation, the final two interpretive passages — highlighting broader implications of cross-linguistic tendencies and evaluative function — have been relocated to the Conclusions section. This relocation strengthens the overall cohesion of the discussion and ensures that the manuscript concludes with a clear and meaningful reflection on the study’s significance.

We thank the reviewer for this helpful direction, which has allowed us to streamline the discussion and reinforce the manuscript’s structural integrity.

10) 4.7 Future research directions: lines 998-1065 contain identical passages or show too many similarities with sub-section 4.6. The authors must critically rewrite this piece of their text.

We thank the reviewer for this attentive observation. After a thorough review of subsection 4.7, we acknowledge that several passages in lines 998–1065 overlap thematically and linguistically with content already presented in subsection 4.6, particularly regarding implications for language teaching, translation, and NLP applications.

To address this concern, we have critically rewritten subsection 4.7, removing repetitive material and rephrasing overlapping content. The revised version now presents genuinely prospective directions for further research, including suggestions for cross-linguistic expansion, psycholinguistic experimentation, and integration into computational models — without reiterating practical implications already discussed.

We believe that the updated version meets the reviewer’s expectations and strengthens the manuscript’s overall structure by ensuring clearer thematic separation between practical relevance and future research outlook.

11) References must be made up according to the APA style requirements.

We thank the reviewer for this important remark. In response, we have carefully reviewed and reformatted all references in the manuscript to fully comply with APA style guidelines (7th edition). This includes correcting the order of elements, ensuring consistent use of punctuation, italicization of titles, proper capitalization, and accurate formatting of DOIs and URLs. We have also verified the in-text citations to ensure they align with the updated reference list. We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to this matter, which has contributed to improving the manuscript’s overall consistency and formal accuracy.

In addition to the changes outlined above, we have also implemented several other revisions throughout the manuscript in response to the comments provided by the other reviewers. These adjustments further improve the clarity, structure, and scholarly relevance of the study. We hope that the amendments we have made meet your expectations and contribute to a clearer presentation of our findings.

Sincerely,
The Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article raises an interesting question, but it is not properly structured. The article contains a lot of information, but it is not where you would expect it to be, leading to numerous and unnecessary repetitions and persistent ambiguities about the specific procedure, including the sequence of steps. In addition, methodological issues, results, and conclusions are not discussed separately. Overall, this makes the procedure unclear and the results difficult to interpret.

A complete restructuring of the article is urgently needed: the interpretations and conclusions should only be presented at the end, and the procedure should be presented in a compact and very concrete manner in one place and urgently separated from the results. Similarly, the linguistic phenomenon should be better explained at the beginning, with the help of concrete examples, and the specific research question should also be presented right at the beginning. At present, much remains unclear for a long time and mixed up.

When presenting the forms analyzed, it is also urgently necessary to specify more precisely what has been examined and how the different adjectives can be more concretely classified. The examples show that very different phenomena were studied (e.g., adjectives that exist in the respective languages and are not gradable per se but are now used in the comparative form alongside those newly formed as adjectives (innovative forms)). This should be made clear, and the reasons for grouping them should be given.

Overall, the sections should be more clearly named and contain only the relevant content (methodology should be separated from results, which should not be mixed with conclusions, etc.). More specific information should be provided for each section and should not be repeated.

Attention should also be paid to using the fitting tense forms; the graphics need to be revised, at least in terms of resolution.

So far, there are many repetitions, including identical passages (see 4.7). The text is not well-structured and, therefore, not coherent. Entire passages are repeated, and information is in the wrong place (the last sections should have been moved to the beginning).

I recommend a fundamental revision, including sharpening the research question, the overall structure, and the argumentation.

The article is not publishable in its current form.

For more comments, see the attached PDF.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

1) This article raises an interesting question, but it is not properly structured. The article contains a lot of information, but it is not where you would expect it to be, leading to numerous and unnecessary repetitions and persistent ambiguities about the specific procedure, including the sequence of steps. In addition, methodological issues, results, and conclusions are not discussed separately. Overall, this makes the procedure unclear and the results difficult to interpret.

Attention should also be paid to using the fitting tense forms; the graphics need to be revised, at least in terms of resolution.

I recommend a fundamental revision, including sharpening the research question, the overall structure, and the argumentation.

The article is not publishable in its current form.

Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed feedback. In response, the manuscript has been substantially revised and restructured to improve clarity, coherence, and academic rigor. The Introduction now presents a clear research question alongside a typological explanation of non-standard comparative and superlative forms, supported by illustrative examples from both languages. The linguistic phenomenon under study is more precisely defined, and the forms analyzed are now clearly classified into types (e.g., emphatic duplication, comparatives of non-gradable adjectives, and innovative formations), with justification for their grouping. The methodological procedure has been compactly presented in one unified section and strictly separated from results and discussion. Each part of the article now contains only relevant content: the Results section reports empirical data without interpretation, while the Discussion provides analysis and contextual reflection. Repetitions, especially in the final sections, have been eliminated, and transitional passages were revised to ensure logical progression. Tense usage and terminology were corrected for consistency, and all graphics were improved in terms of resolution and clarity. In addition, all issues that were previously marked or annotated directly in the manuscript file have also been addressed. These revisions aim to resolve the structural and interpretative shortcomings and, I believe, significantly improve the quality and publishability of the article.

Sincerely,
The Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached document for my detailed feedback.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

1) The introduction is rather long and covers a broad range of information, some of which may be placed elsewhere. Specifically, on page 4, lines 146-154, there is an early mention of methodological details that may not be necessary. The text between lines 187-194 on page 4 seems more suited for the conclusions. Furthermore, Section 2, titled “Materials and Methods”, anticipates many of the findings that are later repeated in Section 3., dedicated to the results.

The indicated methodological details (p. 4, lines 146–154) have been removed from the introduction and integrated into Section 2. The summarising remark on lines 187–194 has been relocated to the conclusion. Section 2 has also been revised to avoid anticipating results later presented in Section 3.

2) Similarly, the information provided between lines 260-270 on page 6 seems to repeat what has already been reported in Section 2.1. In addition, the reasoning between lines 278-281 on page 6 may be more appropriately placed and further developed in the discussion section. In the same vein, the information that English seems to have a higher tolerance for grammatical innovation than Ukrainian is repeated numerous times throughout the manuscript. In some cases, the repetition is quite striking, as identical sentences appear on different pages. For instance, the sentence “The lower occurrence of negative forms in advertising and literary discourse reflects the inherent tendency of these genres to employ language that fosters engagement, relatability, and emotive appeal.” is repeated in the same form on page 15 (lines 652-654) and on page 16 (lines 671-673). Without listing all instances of repetition of ideas or sentences, I would like to emphasise that a careful reorganisation of the content is essential to improve the quality of the manuscript.

We have removed the redundant lines 260–270 and relocated the content from lines 278–281 to the discussion section, where it has been expanded. Repetitions regarding English tolerance for grammatical innovation have been eliminated or rephrased throughout the manuscript. The duplicated sentence on pages 15 and 16 has been deleted in the latter instance. A full revision was conducted to avoid further overlap and enhance the coherence of the text.

3) The section that raises the biggest concern is the “Discussion”. I have the impression that this section lacks contextualization and engagement with the relevant scientific literature. I can only identify one reference to previous studies (page 15, line 608), while pages 16 to 24, all part of the “Discussion”, don’t contain any reference to previous studies. A substantial revision of this section is recommended to ensure that the findings are interpreted against the background of the existing literature. When working on this section, please consider my earlier comments on the issue of repetition.

The discussion section has been substantially revised to improve engagement with relevant literature and to contextualise the findings more effectively. Additional references have been integrated throughout pages 16 to 24. Redundant content was also removed to avoid repetition, as previously advised.

4) Page 2, line 70, It is not clear to me, what is meant by “dynamic role of adjectives”. In what sense is their role dynamic?

Thank you for your observation. The phrase “dynamic role of adjectives” has been clarified to specify that it refers to the ability of adjectives to adapt their evaluative and functional meanings depending on discourse context, speaker intention, and genre. The revised sentence now reflects this more precisely.

5) Page 2, line 71, It would be useful to clarify whether the studies truly integrate linguistic, cognitive and computational approaches within a single framework, or if different studies adopt different approaches independently.

Thank you for the suggestion. The sentence has been revised to clarify that the studies referenced represent distinct approaches — linguistic, cognitive, or computational — rather than a unified analytical framework.

6) Page 4, line 151, Here you mention “triangulation”, but it is not explained in the methodological section how exactly the data were triangulated.

Thank you for pointing this out. The reference to “triangulation” has been removed from the introduction for clarity, and a more precise explanation of the methodological integration between corpus analysis and experimental validation has been added to Section 2.3.

7) Page 4, line 178, You talk about “experimental findings”. It would be important to define and describe what do you mean by “experimental”. I’d suggest reporting this kind of information in the section dedicated to methodology.

Thank you for the comment. The phrase “experimental findings” has been clarified in the introduction, and a definition of what is meant by “experimental” has been added to Section 2.3, specifying that it refers to a manually annotated dataset designed to validate corpus-based results.

We hope that the amendments we have made meet your expectations and contribute to a clearer presentation of our findings.

Sincerely,
The Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is dedicated to the cross-linguistic analysis of evaluative adjectives, specifically comparative and superlative forms in Ukrainian and English.

Unfortunately, after the first revision, the authors have addressed the points of criticism in an insufficient way. That is why I strongly recommend rewriting substantial parts of the paper and resubmit it again.

General comments and suggestions

1) The structure of the whole paper must be reorganized according to the requirements to such kind of scientific products. An article consists of:
- Introduction must provide a broader context (necessity, originality, urgence of such kind of research), introduce the terms and relevant notions, and clearly state the purpose of the article. The introduction should answer what the article is about, why it's important, and what the reader can expect to learn.
- The chapter “The current study” is the central part of the paper, and must contain:
- Background information needed to understand the material to be analyzed
- Theoretical framework
- Data collection (how the concrete materials were collected)
- Analysis- + results
- The chapter “Discussion and conclusions” must explain why the outcomes of the study are important to the reader and discuss the implications of the findings based on previous research.

2) The figures and tables have no separate subsection (2.5) where an explanation is given what they mean for the paper. This must be integrated in the text of the subsection Analysis/Results.
3) The presentation of the data must be limited to max. two different manners: text in combination with graphs, or text in combination with tables.

Textual comments
I strongly suggest to the authors to rewrite the Introduction (1):
1) The subheadings (Theoretical Research background, The current study) must be deleted >> not the text (!) >>> these subheadings belong to the chapter “The Current study”)
2) Lines 44-57: the names of researchers must be linked to the studies they conducted and not just summarized, as the reader wants to know who did what.
3) The passage on formation of the comparatives and superlatives (lines 66-73) must move to the Chapter “The Current study”, as part of the background information.
4) There is no textual transition from the description of evaluative adjectives to their comparatives which are in scope of the study. Maybe: evaluative adjectives can express different types of gradation and realization of the features they denote.
5) The authors should say something about the novelty, originality or urgence of this research. >> otherwise not clear

I strongly recommend fundamentally revising the chapter Materials (2):
1) The whole chapter should be renamed into “The current study”.
2) The chapter must contain a subsection “Background information” where the formation of the target materials will be explained >> lines 66-73 has to be moved to this subsection.
3) The subsection “Current description” should be renamed in “Data collection”. The “Data collection” must provide clear information on:
- when the data have been collected (lines 113-115),
- from which sources (lines 94-97, 105-113),
- how many samples (20000???),
- quantity of examples (2000???) and which types (1202/798),
- how many are involved in the analysis (1265??)
- what kind of annotation (take the text from lines 240-249, 279-290)
4) The title “Analytical Methods” implies a different interpretation, not one the authors meant to suggest. The subsection should be renamed in “Method of analysis” or "Methodology".
5) The authors call their approach two-stage approach (line 87), somewhere else dual-layered approach (line 134) >> I recommend the authors choosing one and the same term and using this consistently throughout their work.
6) The subsection “Experimental Design” (2.3) has to be deleted. It looks like the authors have not critically read their text before the submission. It contains too many reduplications of the text, overlaps with previous sections and textual repetitions.
7) The subsection “Visual representations” should be deleted! >> as it is not in accordance with requirements and conventions.

Analysis (3)
1) I suggest starting the Analysis chapter with general observations. The necessary information can be taken from the lines 250-267 and lines 291-294 and placed in the beginning of the chapter.
2) Subsection 3.1 >> has to be reorganized:
- starting with lines 342-344,
- then identified instances,
- then the chronological overview + Figure 1,
- then genre distribution (not contextual!) - the text within the lines 373-437,
- Table 1 must be deleted (as this information is already presented in text format and in Figure 2)
3) Subsection 3.2 >>
- lines 565-572 should be deleted as they double up Table 2,
- lines 620-624 should be deleted > referred to something which will come later.

Discussion (4)
1) The crosslinguistic comparison should be the point of departure in the “Discussion” chapter >> there is no need to repeatedly use this word combination in different subheadings of the subsections.
2) 4.2 Evaluative meaning and cognitive analysis:
- It is not clear what do the authors understand under cognitive analysis? >> should be adjusted or clarified.
- Similar conclusions (line 689) >> Which conclusions do the authors refer to?
- Lines 698-702 > the authors discuss morphological creativity which is misplaced in the context of evaluative meaning and cognitive analysis. >> better to move to subsection 4.4
- Lines 719-737 >> the text contains two identical passages >> must be reformulated.
3) 4.3 Contextual Patterns and Functional Variation >> Better to rename into “Genre patterns…” as the authors discuss not texts but types of texts and genres.
- Lines 805-814 >> the authors again discuss morphology >> must be moved to subsection 4.4
4) 4.4 Morphological and Semantic implications >> not clear what is the purpose of this subsection and the title is confusing. Maybe better >> Morphological formation and Semantic implications??
- Lines 836-855 >> the text is about the evaluative meanings which is already discussed in 4.2 >> must be deleted.
- Table 3 is not appropriate here and the corresponding text is confusing >> the authors suddenly switch to using discourse domains, stylistic functions which were previously coined as genres and evaluative meanings and functions. Please, clarify this and stick by the same terms. The table should be placed in 4.2.
5) 4.5 Crosslinguistic Similarities and differences >> should be deleted, as the authors compared the material cross-linguistically throughout their “Discussion” chapter. Some information which is lacking in corresponding sections can be added there.

- Lines 945-955 can be integrated in the “Conclusion” chapter.
6) 4.7 Future Research Directions:
- lines 1055-1059 must be deleted >> repetition.
- Lines 1083-1091 must be deleted >> repetition (lines 989-999) from subsection 4.6.
- Lines 1092-1100 must be deleted >> repetition (lines 1005-1014) from subsection 4.6.
- Lines 1106-1127 must be deleted > repletion of the subsections 4.6 and 4.7 (already mentioned!)
7) Conclusion:
- lines 1135-1143 must be deleted >> this information has been already given in Discussion.
- Lines 945-955 should be integrated in the “Conclusion” chapter.
8) References should be made up according to the APA style requirements: Journals and titles of the volumes/books must be in italics.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are sincerely grateful for your thorough and insightful review of our manuscript. Your detailed observations and constructive suggestions have significantly contributed to the improvement of our paper. After carefully analyzing each of your comments, we undertook a substantial revision of the manuscript, incorporating your recommendations to the greatest extent possible and aligning them with the additional suggestions received from the other reviewers. Below, we provide a summary of the changes made in response to your feedback.

General Structural Revisions:

We have reorganized the entire structure of the manuscript in accordance with academic standards for scientific articles. Specifically:

The Introduction has been rewritten to present a broader context for the study. We now clearly state the motivation, originality, and urgency of the research. Key terms and concepts are properly introduced, and the research objective is explicitly defined.
A new section titled “The Current Study” has been created, combining the theoretical background, detailed description of the dataset, and methodological approach. It includes subsections on Background Information, Data Collection, and Method of Analysis (we have replaced “Analytical Methods” and “Experimental Design” as per your suggestion).
The Discussion and Conclusion chapters were fundamentally revised. Redundant subsections have been removed, while missing interpretative elements were incorporated to reflect the implications of the findings in light of previous research.

Specific Changes According to Your Comments:

Figures and Tables: We have integrated the explanation of figures and tables directly into the Analysis/Results Subsection 2.5 was removed. Visual data presentation has been limited to two formats only (text + graphs or text + tables), as advised.
Introduction: The subheadings “Theoretical Background” and “The Current Study” were removed from the Introduction. The researchers’ names are now properly connected with the specific studies they conducted (lines 44–57). The discussion on comparatives and superlatives (lines 66–73) was moved to the Background Information subsection within “The Current Study.” We also added a transitional statement clarifying the link between evaluative adjectives and their comparative forms. A new paragraph now articulates the novelty and urgency of our study.
Materials / “The Current Study”:
- This chapter was renamed and reorganized.
- The subsection “Current Description” is now “Data Collection,” and it clearly outlines the time, sources, sample size (20,000 entries), analytical subset (1265 examples), and annotation strategy (lines 240–249 and 279–290).
- The term “two-stage approach” is now used consistently throughout the text, eliminating the dual terminology.
- The subsection “Experimental Design” was deleted due to redundancy.
- The subsection “Visual Representations” was also removed, as per your suggestion.
Analysis (Section 3):
- General observations were added at the beginning of the section using material from lines 250–267 and 291–294.
- Subsection 3.1 was fully reorganized in the order you proposed, and Table 1 was deleted due to its duplication of visual data.
- In Subsection 3.2, we deleted lines 565–572 and 620–624, which overlapped with previous content or referred to undeveloped sections.
Discussion (Section 4):
- The subheading “Crosslinguistic comparison” was removed from multiple subsections; instead, comparative aspects were woven into the relevant thematic discussions.
- In Subsection 4.2, we clarified what is meant by cognitive analysis and removed misplaced content (lines 698–702) to Subsection 4.4.
- The repeated passage (lines 719–737) was reformulated.
- Subsection 4.3 was renamed to “Genre Patterns and Functional Variation”, and lines 805–814 were relocated to 4.4.
- Subsection 4.4 was retitled “Morphological Formation and Semantic Implications”; lines 836–855 were deleted to avoid thematic overlap with 4.2. Table 3 and related content were revised, repositioned, and terminologically clarified (genres/discourse domains/evaluative functions).
- Subsection 4.5 was deleted, and relevant cross-linguistic remarks were integrated into other sections.
- Subsection 4.7 was substantially reduced: lines 1055–1059, 1083–1091, 1092–1100, and 1106–1127 were deleted to avoid redundancy.
- In the Conclusion, lines 945–955 were integrated, while lines 1135–1143 were removed as they repeated previously discussed material.
References: All references were reformatted according to APA style guidelines, with proper italicization of journal and volume titles.

We genuinely appreciate the time and expertise you dedicated to reviewing our work. Your feedback has been invaluable in strengthening the scientific rigor and clarity of the manuscript. We hope the revised version meets your expectations and the standards of the journal.

With kind regards and sincere gratitude

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It’s clear that you have thoroughly revised the article. The structure is now much improved, and the research question and methodology are more clearly defined.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your positive and encouraging feedback. We sincerely appreciate your acknowledgment of the improvements made to the manuscript. Your earlier comments were instrumental in helping us clarify the structure, research question, and methodology, and we are pleased to hear that the revised version meets your expectations.

Following your remarks, we have once again reviewed and updated the manuscript, taking into careful consideration the additional comments provided by the other reviewers as well. These final adjustments further improved the coherence and consistency of the paper.

We are truly grateful for your support, constructive input, and the time you devoted to reviewing our work.

With kind regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, Thank you very much for your revision. Although I truly appreciate the additional references, I continue to believe that the discussion section requires a more in-depth revision. At present, it remains somewhat lengthy and repetitive in places, and shows little engagement with the existing literature.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your continued engagement with our manuscript and for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your acknowledgement of the additional references included in the revised version.

In response to your current suggestions, we have carefully re-examined the Discussion section and undertaken further revisions to enhance its clarity, conciseness, and depth. We eliminated repetitive passages, refined the structure, and strengthened the theoretical framing by integrating additional references and explicitly engaging with relevant literature. Our aim was to provide a more coherent and critically informed interpretation of the findings.

We are grateful for your thoughtful recommendations, which helped us improve the quality and scholarly contribution of the paper.

With kind regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Article Menu

Evaluative Grammar and Non-Standard Comparatives: A Cross-Linguistic Analysis of Ukrainian and English

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI