Pedagogy of Hospitality: Critical Reflection on Teaching Language to Migrants

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I actually appreciate the author for producing such an interesting essay. However, the suggested changes must be incorporated to enhance its value.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

To the reviewer,

First, we would like to thank you for your work and your valuable time, as well as for the thoroughness of your review, which has allowed us to make, we hope, the changes you suggested, which we have highlighted in yellow in the new version. These changes have been organized to facilitate your work and not waste your time. We have also provided a response to each of your suggestions, placing the modified or added text in blue along with the corresponding line numbers in the corrected version. We have also attached the file with the original modifications as a supplementary file for your reference. We are grateful for your work, which has enriched our essay and prompted numerous discussions within the team. We remain available to assist you in any further clarifications you may require.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to read your insightful and comprehensive essay. While I enjoyed going through your text, I do have some concerns.

Your focus - as the title suggests - is on language teaching. However, the text includes an overwhelming number of ideas and details that, though relevant, sometimes stray from the central issue. Some sections feel overly lengthy, redundant, or repetitive. For instance, the introduction is somewhat extended; you make a strong point—that listening to rich narratives is crucial—but this could be conveyed more concisely (e.g., consider omitting lines 74–83). 

In Chapter 2, you emphasize the importance of establishing a dialogical exchange and fostering a "dialogue of knowledge." While compelling in theory, this approach faces practical challenges due to limited linguistic resources. Yes, multimodal texts can illustrate how meanings are expressed across communication modes, but meaningful intercultural dialogue requires linguistic sophistication. How can this be effectively achieved? There is extensive literature on plurilingualism in the classroom (e.g., García & Otheguy) and intercultural communication (e.g., Claire Kramsch), which should be considered in your discussion.

In the following chapter, the discussion at times delves too deeply into details—such as the section on legal systems—to support a relatively straightforward argument (that language is crucial to civic participation). Condensing this section could enhance readability and focus.

I appreciate the decalogue summarizing your essay and suggest strengthening the connections between these key points and the discussions in Chapters 2 and 3 to create a more cohesive reading experience.

Author Response

To the reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your hospitality and generosity, both for your work and for your kindness, and above all, for the time you have dedicated to improving our essay. Based on your recommendations, we have tried, to make your work easier and not waste your valuable time, to select the paragraphs that best reflect what you have told us. We have eliminated or reduced the poetic tone of the text, eliminated narrative excesses, ordered, reorganized, and occasionally summarized them. You will also notice that we have taken into account the suggestions of the other reviewers, while trying to maintain the body and meaning of the work. To this end, we are attaching a document with the corresponding line numbers, as well as the revised essay with all the modifications in yellow. In addition, as a supplementary file, we have attached the document with the marks of all the modifications in case you find it helpful. We are grateful for your work, which has provoked reflection and undoubtedly enriched this essay. We look forward to any clarification you may need regarding the changes made thanks to your timely comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

Thank you for submitting the revised version of your paper. I appreciate the efforts you have made to improve its clarity and readability. The changes you have implemented enhance the comprehensibility of the paper, and I have no further comments or suggestions. I believe the manuscript is now well-prepared for publication.