Masculinities in Doraemon: A Critical Discourse Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author/s,

What Doraemon is should be stated both in the title of the study and in the abstract. In the abstract of the study, the importance, method, results and implications of the study should be outlined. In the introduction part of the study, the contribution and importance of this study to the field should be explained in detail. It should be explained convincingly in the method section that the study was carried out through the Norman Fairclough Critical Discourse Analysis Model. More comprehensive suggestions can be made for future studies. The findings obtained in the conclusion part of the study should be discussed comprehensively. For example, it can be interpreted what kind of effects this cartoon might have on Japanese culture and social life.

Best regards.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

 

Please kindly view my response in the letter and please view the updated version of manuscript. Thank you very much.

 

Best regards,

Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the attached document I make some comments for review by the author; these are suggestions to complement this article.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor,

 

Please kindly view my response in the letter and please view the updated version of manuscript. Thank you very much.

 

Best regards,

Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is in serious need of revision. It lacks focus and depth. 

The entire "discussion" section is a collection of surface observations that add nothing to the understanding of the ways the show positions or highlights masculinities. I found the "designs of appearance" section particularly silly. What is the purpose of this section? The author basically says Doraemon is drawn as a male and Dorami is drawn as a female. The author offers nothing here except description that has no point or analysis at all. And there is no CDA of any character. A true CDA should focus on patterns of language use--lines a character repeats or says over and over, or an evolution in the ways a character uses language. And in the context of masculinity, how a character uses language as an expression of power should have been highlighted. There is none of that here, unfortunately.

This entire "discussion" section is a collection of "explanations" of characters, not any kind of analysis or reason "why" they are the way they are. What role does "masculinity" (and most importantly, Japanese ideas of masculinity) play in how the character behaves? or how they character uses "language" to gain or keep or struggle with power? Is that not the purpose of a discourse analysis? Yet there is no language or discourse analysis in the entire discussion section (or in the paper).

The use of sources within this paper is not helpful. The author uses a quote, then says (effectively) "See? This character is a great example of this quote!" (lines 221-229, 231-236, 268-271, for example). This is a student move and demonstrates to me that this author does not really understand how to use sources to support their position, instead using the source quote to "validate" the example given.

The Fujimoto bio section is similarly surface observation. There is no discussion or information about Japanese culture at the time he was creating the cartoon, yet the author frequently concludes how the cartoon is an "example" of Japanese masculinities at the time. While it is important to consider the cartoon creator, I fail to see how it is relevant to a study of character masculinities and, more importantly, critical discourse analysis. The author of this paper tends to give 1 or 2 examples (that are not unpacked or analyzed) and then conclude that these examples "prove" something.

I am not a fan at all of "reader perception" as evidence of an analysis. It can be too cherry-picked, not reliable, not quantifiable, and can depend on "who" your readers are (which is a bottomless pit of socio-economic, racial, cultural, gender, and geographical influences). And I do not see the value of this very short section. Lines 477-481 just do not make any sense.

I am confused by section 4.3. Nothing in this section is a Critical Discourse Analysis. The author gives cultural information in this section (which to me is out of place and should have been positioned before the discussion of each character) and says nothing at all about language or how the characters use language as a power dynamic.

Overall, this paper needs heavy restructuring. If the author is not going to analyze character language within the show, then the theoretical approach should be changed. As it is, this paper claims to be a Critical Discourse Analysis, but offers no discourse analysis. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This paper is filled with grammatical errors, missing articles or verbs, and awkward phrasings. Here are some that I found, but significant revision is necessary.

22--add "is" after Doreamon

24--should read under "the" same pen name OF Fujiko F. Fujio.

29--add "at" after arrives

30--should be "reflects" not reflected...verb tense needs to be consistent

32-- should be "A previous study"

33-34--should not refer to an author as "it"--and name the author of the study you mention. This whole sentence does not make sense

40--this introduction of the source is not proper. "As for the connection" is a lazy conversational phrase and should never be used as the first line of a paragraph and especially not as an introduction. It should read: According to an analysis of the cartoon by Dohrmann (1975), television often establishes gender rolls.....

One study does not "prove" a point. You need to show--or at least list--some of the seminal studies on television influence on audience perception of gender. (Marshall McCluhan (1967), N.Postman (1985), L.J. Shrum (2009), W.J. Potter (1988), to name only a few)

62--differentiates, add an "s"

71--where did Vietnam come from?? this is not contextualized or explained. How did we get to Vietnam? You do not mention this in the introduction. And why Vietnamese viewers? Why not Philippine viewers? Why this audience? And what is the point of focusing on this audience? How is this a CDA?

76, 80--do not say "research has found"---"research" is not a person and cannot find anything. Name the study/studies you refer to

108--no, the reader does not know how widespread this show is. Please provide evidence in this section. Numbers--countries (I have never heard of this show).

111--do not say "deeply" discussed. Not appropriate or grammatically correct

117-120 --passive voice and makes no sense. "is being carried out"? are you "applying" this theory? or are you "using" it as a lens to further our understanding of the ways masculinities in this show demonstrate Japanese gender power dynamics? Very unclear here....and I see no evidence at all of Critical Discourse Analysis....

Grammar review stops here..........

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Please kindly view my response in the letter and please view the updated version of manuscript. Thank you very much.

Best regards,

Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This version is much improved as far as the analysis and clarifying the connection to Critical Discourse Analysis.  I would suggest that you add some explanation of what the traits of the specific cultural "masculinity" is that you are comparing against. There is an assumption here that "masculinity" is a universal term with universal traits and that is culturally not accurate.

Other than that, this version is much improved and I appreciate the author's work on this project.

The English is still in need of fixing. One sentence near lines 258 is unfinished. There are strange phrasings like "dug out" when it should be "unpacked" to refer to revealing meaning. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

While the English is much improved, it is still in need of some fixing. One sentence near lines 258 is unfinished. There are strange phrasings like "dug out" when it should be "unpacked" to refer to revealing meaning. There are still some odd phrasings and missing verb tenses or added verbs where there should be none. 

Author Response

Dear Editor,

 

Please kindly view my reply in the pdf file, thank you very much.

 

Besr regards,

Author