The Speech Behaviour of Kazakhstani Youth in the Context of Interethnic Communication

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Report:

General Evaluation:

The topic is interesting and the article enjoys rich data. The content should be reorganized to become more reader-friendly. A detailed description of the framework is necessary. Tables and figures can be added to highlight the results. The results should be categorized and presented in an organized way. The implications of the study should be highlighted.

·         The review is rather clear and of relevance to the topic.

·         The framework is not clear enough.

·         The topic is relevant to the field.

·         The results, discussion, and conclusions have not been presented in an organized way.

·         Some references are new. Some others are not. But all references are relevant.

·         The research follows a descriptive pattern. The parts which define it as an empirical study should be corrected.

·         Figures and tables should be added to the article. Particularly, the framework, the characteristics of the participants and the results can be provided using tables and figures. 

·         No statistical analysis has been offered to make the results more comparable.

·         A more detailed, thorough explanation of the data is required.

 

Comments:

-          The topic is interesting.

-          The article examines youth speech in the bilingual context of Kazakhstan. The participants are the Kazakh-Russian-speaking communicants. Their speech behavior is studied at different levels (lexical and pragmatic). The data used in the study was gathered from various sources (newspapers, live interactions, TV programs, social networks, etc.). The results indicated that there are context-specific ways of using Kazakh and Russian languages for expressing ideas by the young members of the speech community.

 

-          The abstract needs revising to include the required parts, namely, the purpose of the study, the framework employed, a description of the data, the participants of the study, and a brief explanation of the theoretical and pedagogical implications.

 

-          Keywords should be alphabetically ordered.

 

-          As the authors frequently use the two words ‘bilingual’ and ‘multilingual’ to describe the context of the study, it is suggested that only the one that adequately describes the exact nature of the context of the study be used in all parts of the text in a consistent way.

 

-          The Literature Review section needs to be revised to include an explanation of intercultural communication and its significance in the modern age, a description of Kazakhstan's multicultural context, a brief summary of the previous studies conducted so far in that context as well as a brief explanation of their findings, the gap in the literature on the variables under investigation, and a statement on the purpose of the present study.

 

-          The questions number & 3 can be merged together: What are the linguistic, sociocultural, and pragmatic features of the speech behavior of young learners?

 

-          It is not necessary to propose any hypothesis in this study as it follows a descriptive line of research, i.e. the researchers attempt to describe the present situation in the context of the study.

 

-          The sequence of the subheadings in the Literature Review section should be reorganized.

 

-          The latest version of the APA style manual should be observed in the article.

 

-          It is necessary to mention the page number for direct quotations.

 

-          The quantity of data belonging to each subcorpus used in the study needs to be specified.

 

-          Besides lexical elements, structural and discoursal elements should be taken into consideration.

 

-          The authors state that both linguistic and extralinguistic factors were taken into account but the details of the way linguistic vs. extra-linguistic factors were handled in the study have not been explained.

 

-          The description of the participants is vague. What do the authors mean by ‘school children’? Primary school children? They are not young.

 

-          What do the authors mean by ‘students’ ? High school students or university students?

 

-          It is necessary to specify the age range of the participants in order to present a clear idea of what the authors mean by the word "young" in their research context.

 

-          The explanation of the framework applies to many models and is too general and broad. It is necessary to explain the theoretical framework of the study in detail.

 

-          The participants of the study whose speech behavior was observed have not been described. Their age range, gender, L1, and educational background, should be added.

The authors state that

‘the study of speech behavior entails the examination of this linguistic phenomenon in its interrelation with the personality of the native speaker’. In that case, an examination of the 'Personality Type' of the participants is necessary.

 

-          The authors state that ‘a functional-pragmatic analysis was used to consider the functions of speech formu-329 las in various communicative situations.’ As the authors have not described the framework thoroughly, it is not clear how the functional-pragmatic analysis was done.

 

-          In some parts, the authors use a rather personal tone (e.g., ‘we’ or ‘’the authors of the article’). As in academic texts, a personalized voice is not favored, modifications are required to make the tone impersonal or less personalized.

 

-          The speech features of the participant groups have not been compared and contrasted.

 

-          It is recommended that the authors present the content of some parts including the demographic features of the participants, the framework, and the main findings in tables. Figures can be also added to make the comparison of the results easier.

 

-          In the discussion section, it is required to compare and contrast the results of the present study with those obtained in other research works.

 

-          Theoretical and pedagogical implications of the study should be added to the Conclusion section.

 

-          Although the data is vast and interesting, the report of the results is not well-organized and reader-friendly.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude for taking the time to review our manuscript. Your valuable comments helped us refine key arguments, strengthen the methodology, and enhance the overall coherence of the manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attached file.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents many interesting findings on the linguistic practices of Kazakhstan youth. However, in its current state it cannot be published, and serious revisions are necessary. Here are my main critical points.

First, there are certain gaps in theoretical background of the research. There are many excellent studies on the youth language phenomenon in multilingual settings all over the world, and they are not event mentioned. I would recommend to start, e.g., from Margreet Dorlejn and Jacomine Nortier's survey in The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (Blackwell, 2013), and to focus less on rather generic words about globalization and interethnic communication and more on specific linguistic issues. Youth language is to a greater extent an internal communication, a dialogue between members of the same community of practice and not an attempt to reach to the Other. Some classical works on code-switching in bilingual communities will also be useful, such as Shana Poplack's famous "Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish Y TERMINO EN ESPAÑOL: toward a typology of code-switching" (1980). Also, some references are misleading. Publications in Russian are presented as English, without titles in original, or mentioning the language of publication. This leads to the second big problem, the form of presenting texts examples.

Currently, almost everywhere in the article (apart from some quotations) Russian texts are given in translation into English while Kazakh ones remained intact. That is totally inacceptable for a work aiming to analyse code-switching. Original texts should be quoted as they are (transliterated, if that's the journal policy), and only after that translation should be given (with parts in different languages marked). There are also many particular cases when the translation is missing, or words are presented in a wrong form (e.g. uzhukha instead of uvazhukha), and spelling of English words loaned not directly but (allegedly) through Russian is inconsistent - why cringe but pruf? 

Methodology of the research should be presented in a clearer way. Now it is not obvious what was the proportion of the original data in the study, and how much was taken from other studies. Were 154 text fragments mentioned collected in total, or only through audio recording? How those fragments were defined? Another important methodological issue is the lack of distinction between the data collected from written (social media) and oral (recordings, observations) communication. That is, again, the whole huge theoretical problem that cannot be ignored.

Overall, presentation of the research results lacks clear structure. Selecting 10 features seems rather arbitrary - it is just a list, enumeration without any specific, logically determined order. Some higher level of generalization would help the reader; but certainly that should be preceded by more thorough and linguistically sound analysis.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some extra editing and proofreading is advisable; structure of many sentences evidently follows the Russian syntax; some translations are dubious. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude for your careful reading of our manuscript and giving constructive feedback. We have taken your comments and recommendations into account. Please find the detailed responses in the attached file.

Kindest regards,

Zukhra Shakhputova

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article explores the linguistic behavior of young people in Kazakhstan’s multiethnic environment, influenced by cultural, social, and economic factors. It highlights how multicultural settings shape language use, leading to new forms of communication and sociolects. The study should confirm that young people adapt their language practices to interact effectively with different ethnic groups, emphasizing the importance of cultural competence. It again shows that hybrid language practices mitigate linguistic discomfort. The findings offer practical recommendations for enhancing intercultural communication and preserving cultural heritage, contributing valuable insights for further research on speech behavior in diverse societies.

Some terms seem to be directly translated from Russian; I would recommend finding corresponding terms in English (e.g., “the transition of generations,” “the speech-behavioural paradigm,” “the environment of society,” ”in the modern period,” “poly-ethnic environment,” etc.). At least, you should explain where they come from and what they mean. Do you really need them? Are you discussing them later?

When enumerating multidirectional factors, please explain where they were studied.

Please explain what you understand under “anthropological approach.”

Can you please add, who has studied youth speech? It should be referenced. Your reference comes much later and does not cover all the features.

Are ”interethnic tolerance” and “Kazakhstani patriotism” correct terms here?

Bad choice of a term: “dynamic interactive interaction.”

Were the posts that you quote in the “Results and Discussion” section written in Russian or in English? Do you mean that the default language in Kazakhstan is Russian and Kazakh is something special, why not vice versa? It would be much better to give the original posts as they were published and to translate them marking the respective languages. Are there some social media where Kazakh only is used?

Is 87771002615 a telephone number? I am sure that you shouldn’t give any private information in your article. Please use pseudonyms as well.

There is a rich literature upon language play in multilingual societies.

When talking about English loanwords, are you quoting examples written in Cyrillic or Roman script?

Are all your examples retrieved from the same period? Which one? You do not give any exact dates.

How can you be sure that all the posts cited were written by young people?

How can you prove that code-switching is an intercultural and not just a socio- or psycholinguistic phenomenon? Are you sure that all participants represent different ethnic groups?

Altynbekova is O.B., not O.V.

I would recommend citing the following articles:

Dauren Abdrakhmanov & Damina Shaibakova (2024) Decolonization discourse and the pluricentric language situation in Kazakhstan. REGION: Regional Studies of Russia, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia, 13:1, 103-126.

Zinaida Sabitova & Akbota Alishariyeva (2015) The Russian language in Kazakhstan: status and functions, Russian Journal of Communication, 7:2, 213-217, DOI: 10.1080/19409419.2015.1044877

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough and comprehensive review of our paper. We have carefully considered your valuable recommendations and have provided detailed responses in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for considering the comments in the revised version of the article.

All the Best,

Article's Reviewer

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude for the feedback received. The conclusion has been refined in order to ensure that it is more clearly linked to the results presented in the article and relevant secondary literature. The references listed in the conclusion are used to indicate the key concepts relied upon by the authors of the study. We now believe that the findings of the study have been presented in a sufficiently clear, structured and justified manner.

Kindest regards,

Authors of the manuscript

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I'd like to congratulate you on doing a great job revising the article, it has improved significantly. There are still some minor issues I'd suggest to check: in some examples Kazakh text in translation is not marked (for example on p. 12 "There is plenty of food on the table, and some sour cream in the fridge"). Please check again all examples to make sure that everything is correct.

On p. 5 there is a dubious statement: "Varis & Wang (2021) have developed the concept of 'superdiversity', which de-221 scribes the complex nature of young people's contemporary language practices in the con-222 text of globalisation". It reads as if the concept of superdiversity was suggested by Varis & Wang and not introduced first by Vertovec in 2007 and applied to sociolinguistic studies by Blommaert. 

Probably, one more round of careful proofreading would be useful as well.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your constructive feedback. A thorough review has been conducted to ensure that the examples in Kazakh in the translation are correctly marked. Furthermore, the statement on page 5 has been revised, and all necessary corrections have been made.

Kindest regards,

Authors of the manuscript

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for taking the comments into consideration

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the manuscript in order to ensure that adequate referencing has been employed.

Kindest regards,

Authors of the article

Author Response File: Author Response.docx