The Dual Functions of Adaptors
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see attached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study addresses an important and often overlooked aspect of co-speech gesture research by examining adaptors. Through rigorous experimental design, it challenges traditional theoretical frameworks in gesture studies and proposes an innovative functional dichotomy model distinguishing between adaptors (primarily serving cognitive regulation) and flutters (primarily functioning as interactive signals).
If the author(s) revise(s) the paper, perhaps (s)he or they could consider engaging with some of the following concerns:
- The current title "The Multiple Functions of Adaptors" appears not very consistent with the paper's core framework. On page 12, the authors explicitly summarize their model as a "dual function framework" addressing cognitive and communicative dimensions. Therefore, the author(s) may consider revising the title to "The Dual Functions of Adaptors"to enhance conceptual precision and align with the study's theoretical contribution.
- The terminology system: The hypernym "adaptors" (as per the title's scope) encompasses two hyponyms: macro-level "adaptors" (traditional classification) and micro-level "flutters"(novel subcategory). This lexical overlap between hierarchical levels creates terminological ambiguity. It is better to either recontextualize the hypernym or consistently distinguish subtypes through modifiers (e.g., classic adaptors flutter-type adaptors).
- Page 3: Figure 3 is labeled "Flutter" prior to the term's formal introduction in the text (first occurrence on page 4 -- Line 167). To maintain methodological rigor, the author(s) can either introduce "flutters"in the main text before Figure 3 or relabel the figure descriptively and add a cross-reference to later terminology definitions.
- Page 11: The authors' conclusion that "anxiety is not the main factor triggering adaptor and flutter production"(p. 11) relies critically on the premise of reduced anxiety in online settings — a claim supported by citations to Caplan (2007) and Pierce (2009), and corroborated by participant interviews. However, the relationship between communication modalities (face-to-face vs online communication) and anxiety levels requires nuanced consideration. It seems that there is some other evidence which suggests video-mediated interaction may elicit anxiety comparable to face-to-face engagement (e.g., Maeda, 2023).
Given this complexity, the author(s) is/are expected to:
- Explicitly discuss why reduced online anxiety (per cited studies) remains a valid baseline for interpreting the flutter duration data.
- Incorporate counter-evidence to strengthen the theoretical framing.
5. Page 12: The paper proposes “the dual-function framework” of adaptors and discusses its implication briefly by saying that “This dual-function framework helps reconcile seemingly contradictory findings by acknowledging that these behaviors can serve different pur-poses depending on situational demands. If adaptors are related to cognitive functions, as are other speech-gestures, it would also help explain their relationship with representa-tional gestures”. While the proposed dual-function framework (cognitive vs. communicative purposes) offers valuable insights for reconciling contradictory findings (p. 12), its theoretical integration requires further elaboration, e.g. how this framework redefines adaptors' position within established gesture taxonomies (e.g., Kendon’s continuum).
6. Minor language problems:
Line 400 (Page 10): Though this difference was not significance… à Though this difference was not significant…
Line 503 (Page 12): "it raises the question as to why the differences in flutters between the two conditions.": this sentence is grammatically problematic.
Author Response
Please see attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
