Review Reports - Positivity Bias and Cultural Differences in Acquiring Haihao in Chinese as a Second Language

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study investigates the acquisition of the Chinese stance marker haihao by Chinese as a Second Language (CSL) learners, focusing on type and saliency. Fifty-six participants were recruited, including 28 English-speaking CSL learners and 28 Chinese native speakers. Research involved two evaluation judgment tasks. Findings showed participants simplified haihao into two categories, influenced by the economy principle and positivity bias. Americans, with a stronger positivity bias, chose low positive options, while Chinese participants preferred low negative options. This study makes a contribution to the field of second language acquisition by highlighting the cognitive and cultural factors, such as positivity bias and saliency, that affect learners' processing of Chinese stance markers. While the study provides valuable insights into the acquisition of the stance marker haihao, several areas require significant revision:

First, the paper reviewed Chinese polysemous words and second language acquisition, focusing on three key factors: prototypicality, L1 transfer, and contextual hints. The empirical studies reviewed highlight the role of Chinese polysemous words in language learning, contributing to a deeper understanding of how these factors influence the interpretation and acquisition of meanings in a second language. However, it does not provide an in-depth review of the word "haihao" in the existing literature. This omission is significant because understanding how haihao functions within the larger body of research on Chinese stance markers and its various meanings would enhance the study's foundation. Without reviewing prior research on haihao, the study lacks a theoretical basis for analyzing its acquisition by second language learners, leaving a gap in the literature.

Second, the omission of an explanation for why haihao is classified as a stance marker is a critical gap in the paper. Stance markers are linguistic elements that express a speaker's attitudes, feelings, or judgments toward the content of their utterance, and haihao plays this role in Chinese. However, the paper does not clarify how or why haihao functions in this way.

Third, the interpretation of the examples needs further careful reflection. For example, for example (b) it is very hard for me as a native speaker to produce. The criteria of classifying the four types of haihao are not clear. ‘low positive’ and ‘low negative’ are very hard to distinguish. Haihao classified as ‘negative’ also needs reconsideration. Haihao in example (4) does not seem ‘negative.’ Which type of haihao is in Table 1 and Table 2?

Fourth, the paper did not discuss if different proficiency levels affect the interpretation of haihao in different situations? Understanding the proficiency levels of the participants is crucial in interpreting the results and ensuring the study’s findings are valid and generalizable.

Fifth, the paper concludes that Americans, with a stronger positivity bias, chose low positive options, while Chinese participants preferred low negative options. The paper did not go further to discuss why Americans chose low positive options, while Chinese participants preferred low negative options. Is it due to the language proficiency? Or cultural influences, and psychological tendencies? The study could provide a more comprehensive explanation for these preferences. Addressing these issues in the research would enhance the study’s validity and offer valuable insights into language acquisition, cross-cultural communication, and the nuanced use of stance markers like haihao.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Okay

Author Response

Please see the attachment for authors' response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper “Positivity Bias and Cultural Differences in Acquiring Haihao in Chinese as a Second Language” presents an intriguing investigation into the acquisition of the Chinese stance marker haihao by learners of Chinese as a second language (CSL). The overall structure is solid, and the paper effectively integrates theoretical frameworks such as Prototype Theory and L1 transfer to support its empirical research. However, there are several areas where the clarity, conciseness, and coherence of the writing could be improved to enhance readability and impact.

The abstract provides a clear summary of the study’s focus, methodology, and findings, but the wording can be simplified for smoother reading. Some sentences are overly complex, making it harder for readers to grasp the key points. For example, “Findings showed participants simplified haihao into two categories, influenced by the economy principle and positivity bias” could be streamlined. Additionally, the inclusion of a brief statement on the implications of the research would add value by highlighting the broader relevance of the findings.

In the introduction, the discussion of vocabulary’s importance in language acquisition is well-established, but there is a tendency to repeat similar ideas, which could be streamlined. Breaking down longer sentences and reducing redundancy will improve the flow and readability. For instance, “Yet, the accumulation and structuring of these foundational ‘building blocks’ prove to be challenging…” could be simplified to improve readability. The introduction would also benefit from clearer definitions of key technical terms such as “polysemous word” and “stance marker”, ensuring that readers can follow the discussion without confusion.

The literature review covers a broad range of relevant studies, offering valuable insights into polysemy, Prototype Theory, and L1 transfer. However, certain sections, particularly those reviewing empirical studies, could be made more concise. For instance, studies by Liang (2014) and Chen and Wang (2020) could be condensed to focus on their most relevant findings. By focusing on the most relevant findings and avoiding unnecessary detail, the section will maintain its depth while becoming more engaging. Moreover, clearer transitions between different areas of research will guide the reader more smoothly through the discussion, helping to create a cohesive narrative.

The methodology section is detailed and provides a thorough explanation of the research design, but some terminology, such as “evaluation judgment tasks” may require further clarification. Defining these terms explicitly at the outset would ensure that the study’s approach is fully understood. Additionally, while the distinction between weak and strong saliency hints is important to the study, the rationale behind using both could be articulated more clearly to strengthen the methodological argument.

In the results and discussion sections, the presentation of findings is clear, particularly with the use of tables to organize the data. However, the discussion of the results could be simplified for greater clarity. Some explanations are difficult to follow due to the complexity of the sentence structures. By breaking down these points and directly linking the findings to the research questions, the discussion will be more effective. Additionally, the theoretical implications of the findings, such as their connection to Prototype Theory, should be consistently emphasized to maintain focus on the study’s contributions.

The conclusion succinctly summarizes the main points but could benefit from a stronger connection between the research questions and the findings. This section could also expand slightly on the limitations of the study, providing more concrete suggestions for future research. Doing so would give readers a clearer understanding of where this research fits within the broader field and what areas remain to be explored.

Finally, the reference list is comprehensive and well-aligned with the content of the paper. However, attention should be paid to ensuring that all entries follow the same citation style, and a final check for missing references from the text would be advisable.

In summary, this paper presents a valuable exploration of the cognitive and cultural factors involved in the acquisition of haihao by CSL learners. With revisions focused on improving clarity, conciseness, and logical flow, the paper will become even stronger and more accessible, making its findings more impactful for both scholars and educators in the field.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language quality in the paper is strong, but there are areas where clarity and conciseness can be improved. For example, in the results section, the sentence “Findings showed participants simplified haihao into two categories, influenced by the economy principle and positivity bias” can be reworded to “Participants categorized haihao into two groups, shaped by cognitive economy and positivity bias.” This makes the sentence more direct and easier to understand. Simplifying similar sentences throughout the text will help improve readability and ensure that the key points are more accessible to readers.

Additionally, there is some redundancy, particularly in the literature review, where the role of Prototype Theory is reiterated in a few places. Reducing these repetitions would streamline the content and make the arguments more focused. Transitions between sections, such as between the analysis of polysemy and the discussion of cultural differences, could also be smoother to create a more coherent narrative. Ensuring consistent terminology and clearly defining key terms, like “saliency hints”, earlier in the paper will further enhance the clarity of the research findings. These changes will improve the overall readability while maintaining the scholarly tone.

Author Response

Please see the attachment for the authors' response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am generally pleased with the revision, and most of my questions mentioned before have been answered. However, I am still not convinced with the classification of the four types of haihao. 'low negative' and 'negative' are still hard to distinguish.

Comments on the Quality of English Language