Dear Mr Ruiyong Liu,
尊敬的刘瑞勇先生:
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Journal of Cognitive Psychology. I apologise for the long delay in conveying my decision to you, and I thank you for your patience. I have now had an opportunity to read through your manuscript and to reflect on the three reviews that I obtained, which are appended below. I am grateful to all three Reviewers for assessing your article and for providing very useful and constructive feedback and suggestions. Having carefully considered your manuscript and the reviewers’ feedback, my decision is that your paper cannot be accepted for publication in its current form. However, I do find merit in your study, and I would be willing to reconsider it if you wish to undertake major revisions.
感谢您向Journal of Cognitive Psychology投稿。对于长时间拖延向你转达我的决定,我深表歉意,并感谢你的耐心等待。我现在有机会阅读您的手稿,并反思我获得的三篇评论,这些评论附在下面。我感谢所有三位审稿人对您的文章进行评估,并提供非常有用和建设性的反馈和建议。在仔细考虑了您的手稿和审稿人的反馈后,我的决定是您的论文不能以目前的形式被接受发表。 但是,我确实认为您的研究有价值,如果您希望进行重大修订,我愿意重新考虑它。
You will see that all Reviewers enjoyed reading your manuscript and found it very interesting, as did I. However, they raised some major and minor issues that need to be properly addressed for the manuscript to be reconsidered for publication. The Reviewers’ comments are very clear regarding the issues that you need to address, so I don’t feel any need to repeat their points here. I do, however, wish to take the opportunity to stress a few key issues that need to form an important focus of your revision to ensure that your manuscript can make an effective contribution to the literature.
你会看到所有的审稿人都喜欢阅读你的手稿,觉得它非常有趣,我也是。然而,他们提出了一些重大和次要问题,这些问题需要妥善解决,以便重新考虑出版手稿。审稿人的评论对于您需要解决的问题非常明确,因此我觉得没有必要在这里重复他们的观点。然而,我确实希望借此机会强调几个关键问题,这些问题需要成为您修订的重要重点,以确保您的手稿能够对文献做出有效的贡献。
1. Data analysis
数据分析
Both R1 and R3 would like to see more clarity in the procedures you used to analyse the data. In particular in terms of definitions of eye movement measures (e.g., re-reading time), observations that were included in each measure, reason for data transformation. Tackling these clarifications should be a straightforward task for you and will help strengthening data interpretation too.
R1 和 R3 都希望看到您用于分析数据的程序更加清晰。特别是在眼球运动测量的定义(例如,重新读取时间)方面,每个测量中包含的观察结果,数据转换的原因。处理这些澄清对您来说应该是一项简单的任务,也将有助于加强数据解释。
2. Data interpretation
2. 数据解读
All Reviewers highlighted concerns with and alternatives to the current interpretation of some of your data. Both R1 and R3 noted that there are aspects of the findings that could be better explained with additional analyses (e.g., first-pass regressions out, first and single fixation durations). A suggestion I concur with. Both R1 and R3 also noted the lack of interpretation of the significant effects of constraint for first-pass and regression path reading times for the pre-critical region. R2 indicated that some of the current explanations need clarification and more precision in relation to newer findings and literature. These points are well made and addressing them will certainly benefit the framing and interpretation of your reported research.
所有审稿人都强调了对某些数据的当前解释的担忧和替代方案。R1 和 R3 都指出,研究结果的某些方面可以通过额外的分析来更好地解释(例如,首次通过回归、首次和单次注视持续时间)。我同意这个建议。R1 和 R3 还指出,缺乏对约束对临界前区域首次通过和回归路径读取时间的显着影响的解释。R2指出,目前的一些解释需要澄清,并且需要与新的发现和文献相比更加精确。这些观点都很好,解决它们肯定会有利于你所报告的研究的框架和解释。
3. Open science and transparency
3. 开放科学和透明度
There are some issues in relation to availability of your data and stimuli (see R1 and R3’s comments). I encourage the authors to make them openly available, without the need for readers to request them from the authors. The data and materials can be shared via a link during the peer reviewing process, and then made publicly available if and when the manuscript is accepted for publication. R3 also raised some issues regarding the study statistical power. Please ensure this information is reported within the manuscript.
在数据和刺激的可用性方面存在一些问题(参见 R1 和 R3 的评论)。我鼓励作者公开提供它们,而不需要读者向作者索取它们。在同行评审过程中,数据和材料可以通过链接共享,然后在手稿被接受发表时公开提供。R3还提出了一些关于研究统计功效的问题。请确保在手稿中报告了此信息。
In sum, the overall view is that with appropriate amendments your paper has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the literature on cataphoric pronoun resolution. I do hope that you feel encouraged to develop a revision of your manuscript along the lines recommended and I very much look forward to receiving this in due course.
总而言之,总体观点是,通过适当的修改,您的论文有可能对关于催化代词解析的文献做出有价值的贡献。我确实希望您感到受到鼓舞,按照建议的思路对您的手稿进行修订,我非常期待在适当的时候收到这份报告。
When I receive your revision, I will seek further advice from all three reviewers (subject to their availability) before making a final decision on the publishability of your paper. Please note the standard caveat that resubmitting your manuscript does not guarantee eventual acceptance.
当我收到您的修改稿时,我将向所有三位审稿人寻求进一步的建议(视他们的可用性而定),然后再对您的论文的可发表性做出最终决定。请注意,重新提交您的稿件并不能保证最终被接受。
The deadline for your revision is 22-Oct-2024, however I would like to receive your revised manuscript sooner than that if possible.
您的修改截止日期是 2024 年 10 月 22 日,但如果可能的话,我希望尽快收到您修改后的手稿。
When you revise your manuscript please highlight the changes you make in the manuscript by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.
当您修改稿件时,请使用 MS Word 中的修订模式或使用粗体或彩色文本突出显示您在稿件中所做的更改。
In accordance with our format-free submission policy, an editable version of the article must be supplied at the revision stage. Please submit your revised manuscript files in an editable file format.
根据我们的无格式提交政策,在修订阶段必须提供文章的可编辑版本。请以可编辑的文件格式提交修改后的稿件文件。
Please provide a detailed letter describing your responses to the issues that were raised by the reviewers and also please comment on any issues you did not want to incorporate into your revision.
请提供一封详细的信函,描述您对审稿人提出的问题的答复,并请就您不想纳入修订版的任何问题发表评论。
To submit a revision, go to https://rp.tandfonline.com/submission/flow?submissionId=241683688&step=1. If you decide to revise the work, please submit a list of changes or a rebuttal against each point which is being raised when you submit the revised manuscript.
要提交修订,请转到 https://rp.tandfonline.com/submission/flow?submissionId=241683688&step=1。如果您决定修改作品,请提交一份更改清单或对提交修订稿时提出的每一点的反驳。
If you have any questions or technical issues, please contact the journal's editorial office at pecp-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk.
如果您有任何问题或技术问题,请拨打 pecp-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk 与期刊编辑部联系。
IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.
重要提示:当您上传修改后的手稿时,您可以查看原始文件。 在完成提交之前,请删除任何多余的文件。
Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Journal of Cognitive Psychology and I look forward to receiving your revision.
再次感谢您向《认知心理学杂志》(Journal of Cognitive Psychology)投稿,我期待收到您的修订。
Yours sincerely,
此致
Dr Federica Degno
Federica Degno 博士
Journal of Cognitive Psychology
认知心理学杂志
fdegno@bournemouth.ac.uk
Referee(s)' Comments to Author:
裁判对作者的评论:
Referee: 1
裁判: 1
Comments to the Author
对作者的评论
Review of – The application of Condition C on cataphoric pronoun resolution for Chinese learners of English: Evidence from eye-tracking during reading
综述 – 条件C在汉语英语学习者的预言代词解析中的应用:阅读过程中眼动追踪的证据
The authors describe the results of an eye-tracking experiment and an offline judgement task in which they investigate the processing and interpretation of cataphoric pronouns in Chinese speakers in their L2 English. During the eye-tracking experiment, participants read sentences in which the first noun following the cataphor either matched or mismatched in gender, and was either constrained or not constrained by Condition C of Binding Theory. Following the eye-tracking, participants completed an offline co-reference rating task (with constraint vs. no constraint conditions). Results showed that Binding Condition C constrained interpretation during the offline task, but was not applied during online reading. The authors concluded that while Chinese speakers had knowledge of Condition C in their L2, they were not able to apply it during online language processing.
作者描述了一个眼动追踪实验和一个离线判断任务的结果,在该任务中,他们调查了中文使用者在二语英语中对预言代词的处理和解释。在眼动追踪实验中,参与者阅读的句子中,弹力后面的第一个名词在性别上匹配或不匹配,并且受到绑定理论条件C的约束或不受约束。在眼动追踪之后,参与者完成了离线共同参考评级任务(有约束条件与无约束条件)。结果表明,绑定条件C在离线任务期间限制了解释,但在在线阅读时不适用。作者得出的结论是,虽然说中文的人在他们的二语中知道条件C,但他们在在线语言处理中无法应用它。
This is an interesting paper which investigates a timely topic in psycholinguistics, and I enjoyed reading it. The Introduction provides a clear overview of the relevant literature, as well as neatly highlighting the gaps. The current experiment and methodology are well-motivated, and the predictions are clear.
这是一篇有趣的论文,它研究了心理语言学中一个及时的话题,我很喜欢阅读它。引言对相关文献进行了清晰的概述,并巧妙地突出了差距。目前的实验和方法论是有充分动机的,预测是明确的。
However, I had some questions and concerns about the method, analyses, results and interpretation, which I will outline below.
但是,我对方法、分析、结果和解释有一些问题和担忧,我将在下面概述。
In terms of the procedure – why are the background sentence and the critical sentence not displayed on the same screen? Given that one reason to use eye-tracking is that it allows for normal reading. Looking at Figure 3, the fixation box only appears at the beginning of the sentence prior to the presentation of the background sentence. Therefore, we cannot be sure that participants are looking at the right part of the screen when the critical sentence appears. This may lead to additional noise in the data.
就程序而言 – 为什么背景句和关键句不在同一屏幕上显示?鉴于使用眼动追踪的一个原因是它允许正常阅读。从图3中可以看出,注视框只出现在句子的开头,然后才出现背景句子。因此,当关键句子出现时,我们无法确定参与者是否正在看屏幕的正确部分。这可能会导致数据中的额外噪声。
In relation to the analyses and results, In Table 1, if re-reading time is (presumably) total time minus first-pass reading time, how can re-reading time (frequently) be longer than total time? This should not be the case.
关于分析和结果,在表1中,如果重新读取时间(大概)是总时间减去第一次通过读取时间,那么重新读取时间(经常)怎么会长于总时间?事实并非如此。
I am wondering whether this relates back to the statement on page 21 referring to re-reading times, and saying that “If there was no occurrence of rereading, the data was considered as missing.” Does this mean that zeros were excluded from this measure (but not from the other measures)? In re-reading, a value of zero is arguably meaningful, as it indicates no re-reading took place, rather than it simply being ‘missing data’.
我想知道这是否与第 21 页的声明有关,该声明提到重读次数,并说“如果没有发生重读,则认为数据丢失”。这是否意味着零被排除在此度量之外(但不被排除在其他度量值之外)?在重新读取时,值为零可以说是有意义的,因为它表示没有发生重新读取,而不仅仅是“缺失数据”。
How do the authors explain the effects of constraint in first-pass and regression path reading times of the pre-critical region?
作者如何解释约束对临界前区域的首次通过和回归路径读取时间的影响?
The key findings seem to be the gender effects that are found in first-pass and re-reading times on the critical region. One of these results seemed difficult for the authors to explain, specifically that encountering gender-matched names elicited longer first-pass reading times in the critical region (but shorter re-reading times). This counterintuitive finding could potentially be explained by participants immediately regressing out of the critical region in the mismatch condition, which would then shorten the first-pass reading times (leading to comparatively longer first-pass reading times in the gender matching condition). The authors could potentially examine this possibility by analyzing first-pass regressions out of the critical region (i.e., the proportion of trials in which readers look back during first-pass reading). If this explanation is correct, then there should be more regressions out in the mismatch condition.
主要发现似乎是在关键区域的首次通过和重读时间中发现的性别效应。对于作者来说,其中一个结果似乎很难解释,特别是遇到性别匹配的名字会在关键区域引起更长的首次阅读时间(但重新阅读时间更短)。这种违反直觉的发现可能是由于参与者在不匹配条件下立即退出关键区域,这将缩短首次通过的阅读时间(导致在性别匹配条件下的第一次通过阅读时间相对较长)。作者可以通过分析关键区域之外的首次通过回归来检查这种可能性(即,读者在第一次阅读期间回顾的试验比例)。如果这个解释是正确的,那么在不匹配条件中应该有更多的回归。
Why are the data not openly available (e.g., on OSF)?
为什么数据不公开可用(例如,在OSF上)?
Minor points and typos:
小点和错别字:
Page 3: The text says this: “It is common to see an anaphor, such as the pronoun he in (1a) referring back to the previously mentioned entity, Tom in this case.” But example (1a) says this: (1) a. When Lucy got home, she made a sandwich. (antecedent: Lucy)
第 3 页:文本是这样说的:“经常看到一个比喻,例如 (1a) 中的代词 he 指的是前面提到的实体,在这种情况下是 Tom。但是示例(1a)是这样说的:(1)a。当露西回到家时,她做了一个三明治。(前身:露西)
Page 9, line 15: “several research provides”
第 9 页,第 15 行:“几项研究提供”
Page 27: “p* < 0.00” (p can’t be less than zero)
第 27 页:“p* < 0.00”(p 不能小于零)
Page 13: “results for either group failed to attain numerical significance.” Do you mean statistical significance?
第 13 页:“两组的结果均未达到数值显著性。你是说统计显着性吗?
Page 22: “Trials that had significant tracker loss or did not read by the participants were also not included in the analysis” – how was this determined?
第22页:“追踪器严重损失或受试者未阅读的试验也未被纳入分析”——这是如何确定的?
Page 22: “outliers that exceeded 3 SDs of the means were also removed.” Which means are you referring to, exactly?
第 22 页:“超过均值的 3 个标准差的异常值也被删除。你到底指的是哪个意思?
Page 28: Arguably Table 4 is not needed, as all of the contents are also reported in the text.
第 28 页:可以说不需要表 4,因为所有内容也在文本中报告。
Page 28: There is no need to report/repeat statistics in the Discussion.
第 28 页:无需在讨论中报告/重复统计数据。
Page 33: “which did not found the mediating role of Condition C.”
第33页:“没有发现条件C的中介作用。
Referee: 2
裁判:2名
Comments to the Author
对作者的评论
This study investigates the coreference interpretations of L2 English speakers, and their application of Binding Principle C. By shedding light on how L2 learners process coreference relations, this investigation contributes valuable evidence to our understanding of language acquisition.
本研究调查了二语英语使用者的共指解释,以及他们对约束原则C的应用。通过揭示二语学习者如何处理共指关系,这项研究为我们对语言习得的理解提供了宝贵的证据。
It also supports the observation that highly proficient L2 speakers perform very well in offline tests where explicit and metalinguistic knowledge can be accessed, but show different behaviours in online tasks, where processing resources may be at a premium and there is less chance for implicit knowledge to be used.
它还支持了这样一种观察,即高度熟练的二语使用者在离线测试中表现非常好,在这些测试中,可以访问显性和元语言知识,但在在线任务中表现出不同的行为,其中处理资源可能非常宝贵,并且使用隐性知识的机会较小。
The literature review is meticulously presented, offering a comprehensive overview of the field. Additionally, the methodology section provides ample detail, ensuring transparency and replicability.
文献综述一丝不苟,对该领域进行了全面的概述。此外,方法部分提供了充足的细节,确保了透明度和可复制性。
A couple of points warrant further consideration. The authors propose negative transfer as a potential explanation for the observed GME. However, it remains unclear precisely what elements are being transferred from the learners’ L1. A more explicit clarification on this matter would enhance the paper. Furthermore, while Clahsen & Felser’s (2006) SSH is cited as an explanation for the learners’ performance in this experiment, I recommend consulting their more recent work from 2018, where they address one or two misunderstanding's about the original hypothesis. Moreover, they revisit the SSH, addressing issues such as L1/L2 time course differences. Notably, they say that L2 learners exhibit effects at later stages compared to native controls. However, without a control group reported in the current study, any conclusions drawn must be approached with caution.
有几点值得进一步考虑。作者提出负转移作为对观察到的GME的潜在解释。然而,目前尚不清楚究竟是从学习者的 L1 转移的元素。对这一问题作出更明确的澄清,将加强该文件。此外,虽然Clahsen&Felser(2006)的SSH被引用作为对学习者在这个实验中表现的解释,但我建议查阅他们2018年的最新工作,他们解决了对原始假设的一两个误解。此外,他们还重新审视了 SSH,解决了 L1/L2 时程差异等问题。值得注意的是,他们说,与原生对照组相比,二语学习者在后期阶段表现出效果。然而,如果本研究中没有报告对照组,则得出的任何结论都必须谨慎对待。
In summary, this well-written paper merits publication, pending minor revisions. The insights it provides contribute significantly to our understanding of coreference processing in L2 learners.
总而言之,这篇写得很好的论文值得发表,有待小的修改。它提供的见解对于我们理解二语学习者的共指处理有很大贡献。
I found only a few small errors:
我只发现了几个小错误:
p. 3 Example 1a does not seem to match the description. 'Tom' is mentioned, but the example contain 'Lucy'
p. 3 示例 1a 似乎与描述不符。提到了“Tom”,但示例包含“Lucy”
p. 7 line 32 “constrain” -> “constraint”
第 7 页第 32 行 “约束” -> “约束”
p. 32 line 19 “may [be] embroiled”
第32页,第19行,“可能[可能]卷入”
p. 33 line 14 “constrain” -> “constraint”
第33页第14行“约束”->“约束”
Referee: 3
裁判:3名
Comments to the Author
对作者的评论
This experiment examined the processing of cataphoric pronouns in Chinese L2 English readers. Constraint and gender were manipulated to identify whether condition C was applied in the resolution process. Eye tracking data revealed that participants experienced a small early gender match effect, irrespective of constraint, which is suggestive of condition C not being applied at this stage. In contrast a constraint/gender was observed for late measures, which is suggestive that condition C is applied later down stream and modulates the resolution process when gender does not match. This is a very interesting paper that reports novel findings. The authors have done a good job of explaining a complex area, some unexpected results, and how this might link to our understanding of L2 language processing in this context. Below are some comments for the authors to consider.
本实验研究了汉语二语英语读物中催化代词的处理。通过操纵约束和性别,以确定在解决过程中是否应用了条件C。眼动追踪数据显示,无论约束条件如何,参与者都经历了小的早期性别匹配效应,这表明在这个阶段没有应用条件C。与此相反,在较晚的措施中观察到约束/性别,这表明条件C在下游应用,并在性别不匹配时调节解决过程。这是一篇非常有趣的论文,报告了新的发现。作者很好地解释了一个复杂的领域,一些意想不到的结果,以及这如何与我们在这种情况下对二语语言处理的理解联系起来。以下是一些评论供作者考虑。
~ I think a more explicit explanation of c-command in the Introduction, including more detailed illustrative examples of how this influences processing, would be useful to less familiar readers.
~ 我认为在引言中对 c-command 进行更明确的解释,包括更详细的说明性示例来说明它如何影响处理,对不太熟悉的读者会很有用。
~Perhaps more could be done to explicitly explain the theoretical question/implications of this work in relation to L2 learners and different languages – this seems important but is to an extent left to the reader to decipher.
~也许可以做更多的工作来明确解释这项工作与二语学习者和不同语言相关的理论问题/影响——这似乎很重要,但在一定程度上留给读者来解读。
~41 participants read 24 experimental stimuli. I am not directly contesting the power of your study, but I wonder if you can do anything in your write up to convince readers your study is suitably powered.
~41 名参与者阅读了 24 个实验刺激。我不是在直接质疑你的研究的力量,但我想知道你是否能在你的文章中做任何事情来说服读者你的研究是适当的。
~You report an interesting set of findings where gender effects are reversed between early/late measures. I wonder if it would be useful to calculate and analyse more early measures, to gain a more nuanced understanding of the time-course of these effects and the origin of effects observed in first pass – particularly given the early effect was very small. For example, including first fixation duration and single fixation duration.
~您报告了一组有趣的发现,其中性别影响在早期/晚期测量之间是相反的。我想知道计算和分析更早期的测量值是否有用,以便更细致地理解这些效应的时间进程以及第一次观察到的效应的来源——特别是考虑到早期效应非常小。例如,包括首次注视持续时间和单次注视持续时间。
~You report significant effects of constraint in the pre-critical region for first pass and regression path times. An explanation for this effect is needed, given at this stage the sentences were identical.
~您报告了临界前区域的约束对首次通过和回归路径时间的显著影响。需要对这种效果进行解释,因为在这个阶段,句子是相同的。
~Can you please make your stimuli and ROI boundaries available? I am very surprised by the means for the Spillover+1 region, given the example indicates that this was a very short word.
~您能否提供您的刺激和投资回报率边界?我对 Spillover+1 区域的手段感到非常惊讶,因为这个例子表明这是一个非常简短的词。
~The discussion does well to speculate as to the process that underpin the findings – a more explicit reference to how the findings relate to the original hypotheses would be beneficial.
~讨论很好地推测了支撑这些发现的过程——更明确地提及研究结果如何与原始假设相关联将是有益的。
Minor points
次要要点
~Page 3 lines ~30-38 is there a typo here? Should Tom/he (1a) be replaced with Lucy/she (1a)?
~第 3 页第 3 行 ~30-38 这里有错别字吗?汤姆/他 (1a) 应该用露西/她 (1a) 代替吗?
~Page 15 line 51 – units of age are missing.
~第 15 页第 51 行 – 年龄单位缺失。
~Clarify on page 22 line 14/15 if outliers were removed based on individual participant/condition means or overall condition means.
~在第 22 页第 14/15 行澄清是否根据个体参与者/条件均值或总体条件均值删除了异常值。
~Please clarify the reason for data being log transformed.
~请澄清数据被日志转换的原因。
~Page 22 line 56/57 – can you briefly explain in more detail how you applied the Bonferroni corrections?
~第 22 页第 56/57 行 – 您能更详细地解释一下您是如何应用 Bonferroni 校正的吗?
~I would advise adding horizontal lines between model boundaries in Table 1 and 2 to ease reading.
~我建议在表 1 和表 2 中的模型边界之间添加水平线,以便于阅读。
~Notes for future work – text is usually presented in a font with equally sized letters (e.g., courier new) and ROI are typically left aligned (e.g., she said/ hello/ world) – I am not sure if this was the case in your study based on the example provided.
~未来工作的注意事项 – 文本通常以大小相等的字母字体呈现(例如,快递新),ROI 通常左对齐(例如,她说/你好/世界) – 我不确定根据提供的示例,您的研究中是否属于这种情况。
~In numerous place you refer to participants as Chinese learners of English. Is this accurate, given the high level of proficiency and long-time use of English in your sample?
~在许多地方,你把参与者称为中国英语学习者。考虑到您的样本中英语的高熟练度和长期使用,这是否准确?