Title

"Comparison of Politeness Strategies in Warning Speech Acts: A Cross-Sectional Study with Native Japanese Speakers and Uzbek Learners of Japanese" This improved title is both descriptive and engaging. It succinctly conveys the focus, methodology, and comparative framework of the study while emphasizing its originality and novelty.

→We agree with the title “Politeness Strategies”. We can show that our research is based on Brown and Levinson’s work. For the rest, our title accurately conveys the subject of this study. The phrase “when native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners give warnings about prohibited acts” conveys that this study is not just about warnings or prohibitions.

Abstract

→According to a comment from F1000, there is a character limit on the abstract. For this reason, some revisions cannot be made. “Currently this abstract seems to go into quite some detail regarding the results of the study but has no indication of the conclusions or any background information. I would suggest that, if possible, you shorten the “results” section of the abstract and add information to the background and conclusions section of the article (bearing in mind the 300 word limit).”

1. Lack of immediate clarity about key terms.

The distinction between "prohibition of certain actions" and "warning about prohibitions" is not immediately clear. This could confuse readers from the outset about the precise focus of the study.

→Warning of prohibition and warning about prohibitions mean warnings based on prohibition signs. These expressions could certainly cause confusion, so we corrected them.

2. Complexity of language and terminology.

The abstract uses terms such as "prohibition'," "prohibition warning' " and "classification scheme", which could be considered jargon by readers unfamiliar with the subject area. This complexity may deter some readers or make the study seem less accessible.

→ Prohibition is a general term in pragmatics. We have never used the term “prohibition warning”. We want to write as simply as possible, but we also place importance on being as accurate as possible.

3. Lack of specificity in the description of the methodology.

The abstract could benefit from briefly explaining what the "Discourse Completion Task (DCT)" entailed. For example, what prompts or scenarios were used? How were participants instructed?

→ This can be added. The abstract is limited to 300 words, so we added a little more. In the abstract, we briefly mentioned that the task was to create a situation where the participants had to warn in a museum and a hospital.

4. Limited details on the comparative analysis.

While the abstract mentions the results of the native Japanese speakers and the Uzbek Japanese learners, more explicit comparisons could be made between the two groups. How do their strategies

→ The comparative analysis you mention seems to be a contrastive analysis, which is an analytical method for identifying similarities and differences between two languages. It is possible to show both similarities and differences, and we carried out a contrastive analysis at the end of the discussion. As a result of our research, we found that Uzbek learners of Japanese are influenced by the language of learners and the culture of their native language. The influence of the learners language is written in the abstract, but the influence of the culture of the native language was not seen strongly, so we omitted it.

5. Lack of implications or applications.

Whilst the abstract suggests wider applicability, it could emphasize more clearly the possible implications of the findings. For example, how might understanding these politeness strategies benefit language learners, educators, or experts in intercultural communication?

→ For example, if Uzbek learners of Japanese understand Japanese people’s politeness strategies, they will not be looked at strangely by Japanese people in situations where they need to give warnings in Japanese society. It provides educational support to Uzbeks learning Japanese. However, due to the number of characters, this was omitted.

6. Keywords do not fully reflect the abstract content.

Some keywords such as "representative" and "directive" may not be directly representative of the primary focus of the study. In addition, more specific terms relating to the comparative nature of the study (e.g. "comparative study", "cross-cultural communication") could be included.

→ We modified the keywords as follows: “Warning, prohibition, native Japanese speakers, Uzbek Japanese learners, quantitative analysis, politeness strategies.” We conducted a comparison. However, we need to be careful with the terms “comparative analysis” and “comparative research.” From a linguistic standpoint, comparative analysis means a method of reconstructing the proto-language. Therefore, while we can say that we conducted a comparison between Japanese and Uzbek Japanese, we cannot say that we conducted a comparative analysis between Japanese and Uzbek Japanese.

To summarize, the abstract could benefit from clearer language, a more explicit description of the methodology and comparative analysis, and better alignment between the keywords and the content of the abstract. These improvements would enhance the clarity, accessibility, and overall impact of the abstract.

→ The terms used were all related to the research subject, and there were no terms related to methodology. Therefore, as indicated above, the term “quantitative analysis” was added.

Introduction

The introduction provides relevant background information, identifies the research gap, and outlines the purpose and significance of the study. However, there are areas where clarity and flow could be improved.

1. Flow and cohesion:

The introduction could benefit from more fluid transitions between the different points covered. For example, the transition from discussing global and Asian contexts to focusing on native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners could be more seamless.

→ You are right in saying that the flow of this research is poor. We were unable to create a big story like the Asian context. Instead, we changed our approach to describing our research from the perspective of language diversity and Japanese stereotypes.

2. Clarity of research purpose:

The purpose of the study is mentioned but could be more explicitly linked to the identified research gap and issues.

→ The purpose of this study was not clear, so we have revised the main text. The purpose of this study will be clarified by indicating the place of this study in pragmatics, particularly in the speech act of warning against prohibited acts, and what contribution this study will make in the future.

3. Citation not critically reviewed:

Many citations are provided in this section, but they are not critically reviewed and do not demonstrate the urgency of this research.

→ Of course, there are problems with previous studies. We noted that, but based on the F1000 editorial board, we removed it. Hashimoto et al. (1992) had the following problem: “The problem with this investigation is that the criteria for establishing the categories are unclear. They did not explain the relationship between the categories and did not survey politeness and indirectness that we focus on here. Therefore, we created a taxonomy of warning of prohibition, based on the results of other studies.” However, “Rather than suggesting issues with the previous literature it may be best to rephrase this to only include the background as this is a research article and not a correspondence. (Only objective language should be used throughout).” Also, Kishie (2008) had the following problem: “His insufficient description of some categories does not allow for clear knowledge of the forms of the categories.” However, the F1000 editorial board noted the following: “Again this statement reads as correspondence and not a background on the topic as such this should be removed or reworded.”

Literature Review 

The literature review could be improved in terms of depth, critical discussion, and relevance to the current study. Here are some observations and suggestions:

1. Insufficient depth and critical discussion:    

Repetitive information:    

Some information, such as Searle's (1976) classification of illocutionary acts, is repeated without providing new insights or linking it to the study's focus on politeness in warnings.

→ Information was added on the relationship between speech acts and politeness. Searle (1976), Bach and Harnish (1979), and Bataineh and Aljamal (2014) also presented definitions of speech acts, but did not discuss the relationship with politeness. Erler’s research on prohibition is a new study that appeared in 2020, but followed Bach and Harnish (1979) in its definition of prohibition. Although there is a section on politeness in Erler (pp. 45-47), the role of politeness in prohibition was not discussed. Hussein and Khalaf (2018) is also a new study of warning and prohibition, but followed Searle’s definition of speech acts. Hussein and Khalaf (2018) pointed out that “Prohibitions are apparently directive according to Searle’s (1969) definition, whereas waring is partly, but not primarily representative,” which supports our proposed classification of prohibitions (broadly divided into DW and RDW). For this reason, we introduced their studies. We added the positioning of warning within the politeness strategies in Brown and Levinson (1987). Brown and Levinson (1987) had a great influence on later studies in the field of speech acts and politeness studies. In Brown and Levinson (1987), warning was classified as one of the speech acts that threaten the hearer’s negative face. It is expected that politeness strategies will be used. However, Brown and Levinson (1987: 98) stated that if it is in the hearer’s benefit to perform an FTA (face-threatening act), there is a possibility that no compensation will be given. Performing the FTA allows the speaker to convey that he or she cares about the hearer. The question that arose for us was whether there would be many instances of overt FTAs without a politeness strategy in the data of this study. The results of this survey showed that politeness strategies were used. There were differences in the types of strategies used between Japanese and Uzbek learners of Japanese. The existence of warning-specific politeness strategies was not confirmed in previous studies. In addition, Brown and Levinson did not investigate warnings or prohibitions in Japanese, Uzbek Japanese, or Uzbek, which were the subjects of this study.

In the section of “Study of prohibitions and warnings against prohibited acts” of this study, we introduced the paper on politeness in Japanese prohibitions by Dessari, Hendayanti and Haristiani (2021). This study was based on Leech’s politeness theory, and the direction of the study differs from this study. However, their study investigated the predicate markers of Japanese prohibition called Lingual marker, which is applicable to this study. In this study, we also classified the RDW-type in terms of predicate form. Dessari, Hendayanti and Haristiani (2021) focused on the situation of prohibition, and their analysis was not based on DCT as in this study, but on the expression of prohibition in Japanese dramas. Therefore, it is not possible to compare the results of their study with those of our study.

2. Limited discussion of politeness strategies:

Brown and Levinson's (1987) politeness strategies are mentioned, but there is no detailed exploration of how these strategies are used in warnings, especially in the context of the study's focus on native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners.

→We mentioned politeness strategies in “1. Insufficient depth and critical discussion.” Brown and Levinson (1987) pointed out the concept of warning. Of course, they did not study Japanese or Uzbek warnings. Their interesting point is that because warnings are an act that considers the benefits of the hearer, politeness strategies do not occur, and warnings occur bluntly. They did not state that there are politeness strategies specific to warnings. If the data from this study shows that Japanese, Uzbeks, and Uzbek learners of Japanese do not use politeness strategies, or that only certain groups do not use them, then their theory is supported. It is worth investigating this point.

3. Identification of gaps without detailed discussion:

Studies such as Hashimoto et al. (1992) and Kishie (2008) are mentioned for their classification systems, but the researcher does not critically evaluate these classifications or discuss their limitations.

→ We reanalyzed them from the perspective of speech acts and politeness strategies.

4. Lack of integration:

The literature review appears to list studies and their findings, rather than bringing them together into a coherent narrative that leads to the rationale for the current study.

Rather than listing numerous studies with brief descriptions, focus on a few key studies that are most relevant to the objectives of the current study and delve deeper into their methods, results, and implications. Connect these discussions to the study's focus on exploring the use of politeness strategies in warnings and provide a clear rationale for why the current study is necessary and how it builds on or differs from previous research.

→ Brown and Levinson (1987) played an important role in considering politeness strategies. In previous studies, Searle (1976) and Kishie (2008) played an important role in formulating the classification scheme of warning against prohibited acts. Searle classified warnings into two types: directive and representative, while Kishie classified them into two types: prohibition type and request type. This idea led to the classification of DW-type and RDW-type in this study. Hashimoto et al. (1992) focused on the speech act of warning against prohibited acts, in the same way as our study. However, there was a problem that the 10 categories were not related to each other. In this study, we classified warnings from the perspective of politeness, especially indirectness and hedging. Previous studies led to the framework of our classification.

Methodology

1. Selection of participants:

Lack of criteria: The participants are described, but no specific criteria for the selection of participants are mentioned. What are the inclusion and exclusion criteria for participants?

→ This was added at the beginning of the “Participants” section. The Japanese data, Uzbek Japanese data, and Uzbek data were collected in preparation for research presentations at the symposium in February 2021 (See Note 1) and August 2022. As we pointed out in the “Data collection method” section, we had originally envisaged situations in which university students would give warnings based on prohibition signs in museums and hospitals. We chose university students or university graduates as the criteria for participation. For this reason, we excluded people who had not yet entered university from the criteria for participation.

Sampling procedure: How were the participants selected from each group? Was it a random sample, a random sample, or some other method?

→ As written in the “Participants” section of the main text, to collect the Japanese data, we sent a questionnaire (Google form) to students and colleagues at the universities to which Ono and Ju, who were joint presenters at the symposium in February 2021, belonged. We analyzed the data from 36 people who responded between January 28 and January 31, 2021. For the data of Uzbek learners of Japanese, Umarova and Turdiyeva, who were also joint presenters at the symposium, sent a questionnaire (Google form) to students and graduates who were or had been studying Japanese at universities in Uzbekistan or Japan. Between March 11 and March 15, 2021, they collected data from 34 people, but in order to analyze the same number of people as the Japanese data, we decided to collect data from two more people. For the Uzbek data, Umarova and Turdiyeva sent a questionnaire (Google form) to students, colleagues, faculty members of the university where Umarova and Turdiyeva belonged. Furthermore, they sent the questionnaire to students and graduates of their acquaintances working at universities in Uzbekistan. We collected data from 26 people between March 16 and 29, 2021. To match the number of Japanese data, we also collected Uzbek data from 16 people between July 9 and 11, 2021. Although we collected data from a total of 42 people, we excluded 6 people from the analysis because they did not correctly understand the content of the questions. The questionnaires and the results for the Japanese group, the Uzbek Japanese learners’ group, and the Uzbek group are included in the appendix. You can check the references “Ninomiya T: All data on Politeness when native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners give warnings about prohibited acts. Dataset. figshare” from the Publisher Full Text.

2. Data collection:  

Details of the procedure: The description of the discourse completion task (DCT) is vague. What instructions were given to the participants? How were the scenarios developed and validated?  Provide a detailed procedure of the DCT, including scenario development, participant instructions, and validation process.

→ Instructions for the DCT are in the attached document. You can check it from the Publisher Full Text in “Ninomiya T: All data on Politeness when native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners give warnings about prohibited acts. Dataset. figshare.” in our references. Instructions for the questionnaires were written in Japanese and Uzbek, according to the native language of each participant. The English translation of the questionnaires is in the file called “English translation of questionnaire.” The members who presented at the symposium held in February 2021 mentioned in Note 1 selected the places where the prohibited situations would occur: museums, libraries, hospitals, and campgrounds. Based on these locations, we created 12 situations. We assumed that there would be signs saying “No photography” in the museum, “No eating or drinking” in the library, and “No open flames” in the campsite. However, in order to reduce the burden on the respondents, we reduced the number of situations from 12 to 8. In each situation, the question “There is a sign saying ‘No...’ What do you say to the hearer?” was given. The specific examples of the instructions were as follows.

Situation 1: You are a university student. Think of one of your friends (Japanese, same sex) that you know well. That person is “A.” You are at the museum with “A.”

(i) “A” is about to take a picture. However, there is a “No Photography” sign in the area where you are standing now. What do you say to “A”?

(ii) Now “A” is looking for the restroom in the museum. “A” says, “I think there’s a restroom over there,” and is about to enter the doorway over there. However, you find a sign “No entry, authorized persons only” on the wall near the door. What do you say to “A”?

Language proficiency: For the Uzbek Japanese learners group, their Japanese language level is mentioned, but how was this level determined? Was there an assessment or a test?

→ Before the participants answered, we arbitrarily asked them about their results on the Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT), which many Japanese language learners take. The results of the level division are shown in Note 3.

Consent and ethics: While it is mentioned that measures were taken to protect personal data, there is no mention of obtaining informed consent from participants or ethical considerations.

→ Of course, we were committed to protecting their personal information. At the beginning of the questionnaire, we have written an explanation about the handling of personal information. Please refer to the attached document.

3. Data analysis:

Analysis procedures:

The section on data analysis is very dense and lacks a clear, step-by-step explanation of how the data were analyzed. How were the DW and RDW type categories assigned to the utterances? Explain the step-by-step process of coding and analyzing the data. Ensure transparency by providing the underlying data or extended data.

→ The three authors labeled the data based on the coding manual. In creating the coding manual, we used previous studies. As explained in the “Data analysis” section of the main text, we established the DW and RDW-types based on Searle (1976) and Kishie (2008). Whether a sentence is the RDW-type or the DW-type is based on the predicate form. Sentences without the predicate form in Table 4 belong to the DW-type. Regarding the DW-type, we made a sub-classification based on indirectness, using the request coding manuals of Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) and Trosborg (1995). On the other hand, for the RDW-type, we created a classification based on the DW’s framework. The explicit hedged performative of the DW-type corresponds to the explicit infringement-indication of the RDW-type, and the hedged performative of the DW-type corresponds to the hedged infringement-indication of the RDW-type. The interrogative expression “Isn’t it prohibited?” in the RDW-type was created with reference to the DW-type’s query preparatory. Supportive moves were classified into subcategories based on Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) and Bella (2012). The results of our classification can be viewed in the Publisher Full Text of the attached document “Ninomiya T: All data on Politeness when native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners give warnings about prohibited acts. Dataset. figshare.”

Theory synchronization: 

There is no discussion of how the selected theories (Blum-Kulka et al., Trosborg, Kishie, Bella) influenced the data analysis. How were these theories applied to the data? Were there any conflicts or challenges in applying these theories to the data?

→ The theory of previous studies had an impact on the unit of analysis of our research. Each utterance data from the DCT was divided into sentences and classified into Head acts and Supportive moves. In addition to observing the Head act, which is the core of a warning expression, we also paid focused on the components that reinforce the warning, such as Apology and Alternative that appear before and after the Head act. As a point of attention, even if the expression is the same, there were cases where the labeling differed depending on the context. For example, in the situation of “No entry for unauthorized personnel,” the following examples were found:

　‣Japanese “That place is for authorized personnel only”;

　‣Japanese “That is the entrance for the authorized personnel, so let’s find another restroom!”

The first example was classified as hint of the DW-type. If this is the only response, it can be interpreted as hint to prevent the hearer from entering the place. On the other hand, the first part of the second example means that the place is the entrance for unauthorized personnel, and it has the same meaning as the first example. However, the first part of the second example is a reason for looking for another toilet, in other words, it functions as a grounder. We coded the data while considering the context.

Validity and reliability:    

There is no mention of how the validity and reliability of the coding scheme or data analysis process were ensured. 

→ The three authors made their decisions in accordance with the coding manual.

Tools and software:

Analysis tools: Microsoft Excel is mentioned for the calculations, but no qualitative data analysis software or tools were used to support the analysis.

→ We carried out statistical and contrastive analyses. There are tools such as SPSS for qualitative analysis, but these were not used in this study. In some of the data from the questionnaire, we found that there were situations where participants did not warn. It would be possible to analyze this qualitatively. However, this study did not collect data to consider qualitative analysis. The qualitative analysis will be a topic for future research.

Documentation and transparency: 

Documentation: the underlying data and extended data are mentioned but not provided. Transparent sharing of this data could help with the replication of the study.

→ Please refer to the appendix. You can check them from the Publisher Full Text of “Ninomiya T: All data on Politeness when native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners give warnings about prohibited acts. Dataset. figshare.” in the reference.

Clarity:

Some sections are dense with technical terms and classifications that could be made clearer with visual aids such as flowcharts or tables.

→ We created it.

Results

1. Depth and context :        

The frequency data presented in the results provide valuable insights but lack depth. Exploring the reasons for the observed patterns would enrich the interpretation and provide a more nuanced understanding of the results.

→ We explored the reasons for the observed patterns. For example, a pattern of frequent use of supportive moves was observed among Uzbek learners of Japanese. For what reason did this happen? This is due to the general characteristics of learner language (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain 1986). As shown in Figure 5, if there were also many examples of supportive moves in Uzbek data, it could be said that this was due to the influence of the native language, but this was not the case. Another feature of the use of hedges by Uzbek Japanese learners is also influenced by the language of the learners. The fact that the Uzbek Japanese learners (UJap.) group did not use hedge as much as the Japanese (Jap.) group is due to the learner language. Hotta and Hotta (2012: 9) pointed out that “the number of utterances that did not use any hedge was higher for the Japanese learner group than for the Japanese group.” This means that learners of Japanese do not use hedge as much as native Japanese speakers.

However, the influence of the native language was also observed in this study. As shown in Table 5, there were six forms of “inference from evidence” in Jap., but only two of the categories in UJap. Certainly, the fact that there were fewer forms in UJap. may be a characteristic of the learner language, but the reason for the small number of types of UJap. hedge forms could be due to the influence of Uzbek, the native language of Uzbek. When you look at the Uzbek data in Table 5, you find that there is only one form of “inference from evidence” (i.e., “ ekan”). The word “ ekan” is equivalent to the Japanese words “ mitai,” “ rashii,” and “ yooda” et al. In Uzbek, the only way to express estimation by hearsay was only the word “ekan,” but Japanese has a wide variety of expressions. While the Uzbek data had only one type of word for hearsay presumption, the Japanese language had a wide variety of expressions.

2. Comparative analysis:

Direct comparisons between groups are essential to validate the observed differences. The inclusion of statistical tests or comparative analyses would strengthen the results and increase the rigor of the study.

→ We conducted a statistical test and showed the differences between Jap. and UJap. We should be careful about the way we use the technical term “comparative analysis.” In linguistics, comparative analysis is a method for reconstructing a proto-language. Therefore, from a linguistic perspective, we cannot use the term comparative analysis in this study. As you can see from the results, we compared strategies between Jap. and UJap. or Uzb. data. In addition, we conducted contrastive analysis in this study. Contrastive analysis is a way of showing similarities and differences by contrasting two different languages. This reveals characteristics that make it easier or harder for language learners. By contrasting Japanese and Uzbek data, we identified what is difficult for Uzbeks to learn about Japanese. As mentioned in “1. Depth and context,” we could find differences between the two languages in hedge markers through contrastive analysis.

3. Theoretical comparison:

Incorporating the results into theoretical frameworks or previous studies would improve the theoretical contribution of the study. Discussing the extent to which the findings are consistent with or differ from existing research provides context and depth.

→ We have already mentioned previous studies in the discussion. However, we did not compare the results of the previous studies with the results of our research to show the degree of agreement between the two. We showed that in our revised version. First, we compared the results of Hashimoto et al. (1992), who gave the same warning about the prohibition of Japanese as in our research. There were some differences between Hashimoto and our research. We examined the causes of some of these differences, but could not say anything important. Second, we discussed the relationship with Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1986), who investigated the redundancy of learners’ language. See Tables 13 and 14.

4. Presentation of data:

While the quantitative data provides valuable insights, the inclusion of qualitative findings or examples would enrich the context and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the warning strategies used by the participants.

→ It is important to conduct a qualitative analysis. However, as there were few open-ended responses in the questionnaire for this study, we will not conduct a qualitative analysis for this study. As we did not assume that we would collect data with the intention of conducting a qualitative analysis, we will leave the qualitative analysis as a topic for the future.

Discussion

1. Lack of comparative analysis: 

In the discussion, the Uzbek Japanese learners are often compared to the native Japanese speakers and native Uzbekistan groups, but a clear comparative analysis is not always made. Statements such as " Uzbek Japanese learners participants probably used the negative politeness strategy of apologizing" lack a direct comparison with the native Japanese speakers group. The lack of a direct comparison makes it difficult to understand the significance of the observed differences and their effects .

→ We constantly compared the data from Jap. and UJap. The statement “Uzbek Japanese learners’ participants probably used the negative politeness strategy of apologizing” means that the UJap. group apologized more than the Jap. group, and this is clear from Figure 3.

2. Assumption of trust as the only reason for verbosity: 

In the discussion, verbosity is attributed exclusively to a lack of confidence, without taking other factors into account. Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1986) are cited in the discussion to support this claim. While lack of trust may be a factor, other factors such as cultural norms or level of language proficiency should also be considered.

→ We can show cultural norms. As mentioned in “3. Theoretical Comparison” in the results, redundancy will be a characteristic of the learner language. If the redundancy were due to Uzbek cultural norms, it would also have been observed in the Uzbek data. However, only UJap. actually had a higher rate of use of support moves. Both Jap. and Uzb. had a lower usage rate of supportive moves than UJap. Therefore, it is unlikely that the redundancy is due to the influence of Uzbek. From the other previous studies, it was not understood that Uzbeks speak in a redundant way. As for the language proficiency, we did not gather enough participants to observe it. This will be a future issue.

3. Overemphasis on the apology strategy: 

The discussion focuses largely on the apology strategy without examining other supportive measures in depth. The discussion repeatedly mentions the apology strategy but does not address other supportive measures used by learners. This narrow focus cannot fully capture the complexity of learners' communicative strategies .

→ The clearest polity strategy of the UJap. was apology. Of course, we also observed patterns of supportive moves other than apology and head acts, and clarified the characteristics of the politeness strategies of the UJap. group. Another important politeness strategy was the use of “Right not to Verb”-form in Figure 2. This was added in the text. As for the category of “citation of a fact,” which conveys the fact of prohibition, UJap. used it more frequently than Jap. However, there was no statistical significance. In the same way, in the category of “sentence final ellipsis,” UJap. was also more common than Jap., but there was no statistical significance.

4. Lack of contextual explanation for directness: 

In the discussion, the directness of Uzbek Japanese learners is attributed solely to their non-native speaker status without examining other contextual factors. Statements such as "The reason why the Uzbek Japanese learners participants often used the “Wrong to V” form was not the influence of their native language, but that of their non-native language" lack contextual depth. Contextual factors such as the influence of textbooks or cultural differences have not been sufficiently researched.

→ This study showed that the reason UJap. used the “Wrong to verb”-form so frequently was not due to the influence of the native language, but due to the influence of a non-native language, especially textbooks. This is discussed in the next point (5. “Unclear influence of textbooks”). The influence of Uzbek culture on the frequency of the “Wrong to verb”-form usage in the UJap. group was also examined, but no influence was found. The words meaning “wrong” in Uzbek are xato and noto'g'ri. As shown in Figure 2, expressions using words such as xato were rarely seen in Uzb. If there had been more of these expressions in Uzb., we could have pointed to the influence of the native language as a reason for the high frequency of the “Wrong to Verb”-form in UJap. In other studies, we could not find any that showed that Uzbeks tended to generally use the words xato and noto'g'ri (wrong) when giving warnings about prohibitions. However, if there were any, the question of why the Uzbek group in this study did not use the “Wrong to Verb”-form would arise.

5. Unclear influence of textbooks :

The discussion mentions the influence of Japanese textbooks but does not elaborate on this. The discussion cites the use of the word "ikenai" from a textbook without exploring how the content of the textbook may influence learners' language use. Understanding the role of textbooks could provide valuable insights into learners' language acquisition and use.

→ We revised the main text. Previous studies have pointed out that textbooks have an impact on learners. While there are studies that question the influence of textbooks, such as Yamada (2004: 150), some studies pointed out the influence of textbooks is particularly strong in the early stages of learning (Park 2017, Honda 2019). According to Honda (2019: 125), “the first 1000 words that learners of Japanese learn are often influenced by the textbook they use.” According to Park (2019: 125), the usage of “ totemo” (very) by learners of Japanese differs from that of native speakers of Japanese, and is closer to the usage of “ totemo” in textbooks, especially beginner-level textbooks. Our research showed the two “Wrong to V”-forms: “ dame” and “ ikenai.” The “ dame” was used more frequently than “ ikenai” in Jap., on the other hand, “ ikenai” was used more frequently than “ dame” in UJap. This characteristic of UJap. is probably because “ ikenai” appeared in beginner Japanese textbooks, so UJap. easily learned and used the word “ ikenai” as an expression of warning.

6. Lack of discussion of cultural factors.:

The discussion does not adequately address cultural factors that may influence learners' communicative strategies. While the differences between native and non-native groups are mentioned, there is no elaboration on how cultural differences can affect communication. Cultural factors can have a significant impact on communication strategies and their omission limits the depth of the discussion.

→ Based on previous studies, we discuss the cultural influence. This point was added in the text. First, this study found that while apology was frequently used in the UJap. data, it was not frequently used in the Uzb. data. When surveying the results of cultural studies on Uzbeks, it is possible that Uzbeks apologize more frequently (Turdonova 2024, Abduvahobovna & Ibragimova 2024). According to Turdonova (2024), Uzbeks apologized more than English speakers. The frequent use of apology in UJap. in this study could not be explained by the Uzbek data, but it can be explained by cultural studies of Uzbek. However, that does not answer the question of why apology was less in the Uzb. data. This feature of UJap. could be due to learner language. This feature of the UJap. data will be influenced by the language of the learner. It is known that not only Uzbeks but also Thai learners of Japanese make extensive use of apology.

This study showed that the Jap. group made frequent use of hedge markers. This use by the Japanese is also supported by cultural studies. Yang and Cao (2005: 46-47) pointed out that Japanese tend to speak ambiguously: “Japanese people consciously change their speech style from direct to indirect and indirect to euphemistic, and deliberately use ambiguous expressions to avoid direct expressions,” indicating that Japanese people tend to prefer vague expressions. Japanese ambiguity was expressed in the form of hedge markers in this study.

In the last part of the discussion, we conducted a contrastive analysis between Japanese and Uzbek, and discussed the influence of the native Uzbek language on UJap. We focus on the category of “inference from evidence” in the hedged infringement-indication. Neither Jap. nor Uzb. changed the usage rates, but the number of types differed. The number of varieties of “ mitai”, “ rashii”, “ ppoi”, “ sooda”, and “ yooda” were found in Jap., but one type, “ ekan”, was found in Uzb. From the above, we stated that “Based on the results of this contrastive analysis, we can predict that it would be difficult for Uzbeks to understand and learn the characteristics of Japanese hedge markers that they cannot use in Uzbek. In fact, the hedge markers used in UJap. were mainly two types, so it can be seen that UJap. does not fully master Japanese hedge markers.”

7. Lack of discussion of social parameters:       

Social parameters such as warning strangers are briefly mentioned in the discussion, but this aspect is not explored in depth. Statements such as "We found that the three language groups did not warn strangers" are mentioned without discussing the implications or reasons for this result. Understanding the social parameters could provide valuable context for interpreting learners' communicative strategies.

→ Social parameters have been the focus of attention in studies of pragmatics, such as Brown and Levinson (1987). Brown and Levinson cited P (Power), D (Distance), and R (Ranking). In our research, we focused on P (Age in this study) and D (Social Distance in this study), and excluded the R parameter. We thought that if we assumed a high-load R parameter in warning situations, we would get unnatural data, so we excluded it. Hashimoto’s research on warning, like this study, focused on P and D to create the situations.

Our research did indeed point out that “in the three groups, people do not warn strangers.” Some participants wrote the reason of the saying “I won’t say anything,” that is, “Don’t do FTA.” For example, in Situation 3-ii, the Jap. participant No.29 answered, “(I won’t say anything,) because the threshold of warning is not reached. Also, even if and the stranger calls and receives a complaint, I’m not interested in it.” This Jap. participant may be not interested in other people. In UJap., no one gave a reason. In Uzb., participant No. 15 gave the opinion that “I don’t want to offend a stranger by giving them a warning” in Situation 3-ii, and participant No. 26 made a comment considering the situation of the person giving the warning, such as “drinking water may be necessary for health” in a situation where eating and drinking are prohibited, as in Situation 4-i. From these questionnaire data, it is possible that Japanese people do not give warnings others because they are not interested in strangers, while Uzb. people may be interested in strangers and may have not done the FTA out of respect for them. However, because there were not many people who wrote the reasons for their choice of Don’t do FTA, this study cannot fully explain the reasons. It is necessary to create a questionnaire that can be used to find the reasons for not giving warnings in another study.

8. Insufficient discussion of politeness strategies:     

The discussion briefly touches on politeness strategies but does not elaborate on their role. The discussion mentions strategies such as "Prohibited to V" and hedging but does not address their effectiveness or Politeness strategies play a crucial role in intercultural communication, and their inadequate discussion limits the depth of the analysis.

→ A politeness strategy part was established in the discussion. Simply put, politeness strategies are strategies that compensate for face-threatening act caused by speech acts. We investigated what politeness strategies existed and whether there were politeness strategies specific to warnings and prohibitions. In addition, the politeness strategies are not simply a way to compensate for acts that threaten face, but also has the complexity of the politeness strategies, where one politeness strategy becomes an act that threatens face, and another politeness strategy occurs to compensate for it.

We examined which strategies in Brown and Levinson (1987) were used by the participants in this study for each group. From Brown and Levinson (1987), we found that when a speech act that benefit the hearer, such as a warnings or advice, occur, FTA can occur in the on record, i.e., no politeness strategy. In the Japanese data, the politeness strategy “state the FTA as a general rule” was often used. To compensate for this, another politeness strategy called “hedge” was used. This alone would have been FTA, such as a show of authority. In order to compensate for this, another politeness strategy of “hedge” was used.

Conclusion

1. Lack of Clear Implications:     

In conclusion, the implications of the results for teaching or practical application are not clearly formulated. Whilst the study discusses the speech acts used by learners and native speakers, it does not provide any insight into how these findings could inform language teaching or intercultural communication. Without clear implications, the relevance of the study for language teaching or practical applications remains unclear.

→ Uzbek Japanese learners don’t need to apologize. It would be good if they generalized like “It is prohibited” and used verbal suffix hedge markers like Japanese people do. If they say “Photography is prohibited” without using hedges, there is a possibility of FTA and interpersonal friction.

2. Incomplete addresses of Pragmatic Features:          

Two pragmatic features are mentioned in the conclusion, but their significance or implications are not fully explored. The study mentions the “Don’t do FTA” strategy and the use of the RDW type over the DW type but does not address why these findings matter or what they say about learners' pragmatic competence. A more detailed discussion of these pragmatic features could provide valuable insights into learners' communicative strategies and their development of pragmatic competence.

→ Using Don’t do FTA to strangers means that it is sometimes better not to warn strangers. For students with a high level of Japanese ability, we recommend that they try to warn people using general rules such as “ kinshi desu” (It’s prohibited) and using hedges that are often used by Japanese people. However, for Uzbel learners with insufficient Japanese ability, it is probably better to choose Don’t do FTA for strangers, that is, not to warn them at all. If these learners carelessly give a warning, they may offend the stranger’s face and the learner themselves may be scolded.

As I cannot make an important point about the other pragmatic feature of the frequent use of the RDW-type rather than the DW-type, we left it out of the conclusion. From the results, it is possible that there is no significant difference between Japanese culture and Uzbek culture in the situation of prohibition warnings, in that the DW-type was used frequently in Uzb. as well as Jap.

3. Lack of Direction to Future Research :

While the conclusion points to future research, it does not mention specific directions or questions that future studies could address. The study mentions that the framework will be used to analyze other Japanese language learners and that a future survey will be conducted, but it does not specify what aspects these future studies will focus on. A clear direction for future research would help to build on the findings of the current study and overcome its limitations.

→ We wrote about this at the end of the conclusion. We made several suggestions. Especially, from the perspective of second language acquisition, we plan to study the acquisition process of warnings by Uzbek learners of Japanese. For other suggestions, see the main text.

4. Limited Discussion of the Background of Uzbek Japanese Learners:    

The conclusion briefly mentions the background of Uzbek Japanese learners but does not address how their background might influence their pragmatic competence. The study mentions that the Uzbek Japanese learners studied Japanese to gain cultural understanding and to pass the Japanese Language Proficiency Test, but does not address how these motivations or their background might influence their language use. Understanding the learners' background and motivations may provide valuable context for interpreting their language use and could help tailor language instruction to their needs.

→ We received the following comment: “The conclusion briefly mentions the background of Uzbek Japanese learners but does not address how their background might influence their pragmatic competence.” Individual learners’ motivations, their social and cultural backgrounds, and their educational environments all have an impact on their language use. Considering Bachman’s (1990) definition of language ability, it is important to have a firm grasp of the social and cultural context in order to understand pragmatic competence, which is the ability to use language appropriately. Then, what are the motivations of Uzbek learners of Japanese? The motivations of Uzbek learners of Japanese have changed. In the past, when it was difficult for Uzbeks to go to Japan, their motivation for learning Japanese was to learn about Japanese culture and to get good marks in the Japanese Language Proficiency Test. In that situation, the learners themselves may not have thought about whether they would be able to use the language appropriately in Japanese society. However, since 2020, the number of Uzbeks studying Japanese in order to get a job in Japan has been increasing (according to the Japan Foundation). Obtaining a work visa and working for a Japanese company is a motivating factor for them to learn Japanese. Many learners and teachers will want to be able to use Japanese appropriately in work situations in Japan, such as avoiding friction with Japanese business people. Pragmatic knowledge cannot be acquired simply by studying Japanese daily in Uzbekistan. This is because they do not know the reality of Japanese communication. Even if Uzbeks have a high level of Japanese language ability and are highly motivated, it is difficult for them to learn about the use of the Japanese language.

5. Lack of Reflection on the Limitations of the Study :

The conclusion does not reflect on the limitations of the study, nor does it mention areas where the study may fall short. Reflecting on the limitations of the study could provide a more balanced view of the findings and help guide future research.

→ Because this study focused on establishing a classification of warnings for prohibited acts and conducting a quantitative analysis, it was not possible to conduct a qualitative study. In this survey, participants were asked how they would warn the hearer against prohibited acts, and some of them provided comments in response. In the future, it will be possible to qualitatively analyze the comments and compare the quality of warnings between Japanese and Uzbeks. Participants who said they would not warn a stranger were found in the Japanese, Uzbek learners of Japanese, and Uzbek groups. We did not expect the participants to make such comments. In the future, we would like to create a questionnaire that asks why they chose “Don’t do FTA,” and clarify the cultural background of Japanese and Uzbek people.

6. Overemphasis on the Classification Scheme:

The conclusion emphasizes the development of a classification scheme but does not address its practical utility or limitations. The conclusion mentions the development of a classification scheme based on the data but does not address how this scheme might be applied or its limitations. While the development of a classification scheme is valuable, its practical utility and limitations should be discussed to provide a fuller understanding of its importance.

→ The classification form and analysis results of this study clarified the features of the warning against prohibited acts by Japanese and Uzbek learners of Japanese. We would like to write a Japanese language teaching material based on “Can do” such as “ Marugoto,” that is a famous Japanese textbook, and describe levels and strategies of warning against prohibited acts.

References

Delete the obsolete references. Cite more from current references - the last five years.

→ In fields where research is well advanced, it is possible to cite the latest studies from within the last five years. Of course, we tried to cite new studies in some parts. However, research on Japanese warnings against prohibited acts is lacking in basic research, and we drew up a classification scheme and examined politeness strategies based on solid research such as Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) and Brown and Levinson (1987), which are often used in current pragmatic studies.

Title

"Comparison of Politeness Strategies in Warning Speech Acts: A Cross-Sectional Study with Native Japanese Speakers and Uzbek Learners of Japanese" This improved title is both descriptive and engaging. It succinctly conveys the focus, methodology, and comparative framework of the study while emphasizing its originality and novelty.

→We agree with the title “Politeness Strategies”. We can show that our research is based on Brown and Levinson’s work. For the rest, our title accurately conveys the subject of this study. The phrase “when native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners give warnings about prohibited acts” conveys that this study is not just about warnings or prohibitions.

Abstract

→According to a comment from F1000, there is a character limit on the abstract. For this reason, some revisions cannot be made. “Currently this abstract seems to go into quite some detail regarding the results of the study but has no indication of the conclusions or any background information. I would suggest that, if possible, you shorten the “results” section of the abstract and add information to the background and conclusions section of the article (bearing in mind the 300 word limit).”

1. Lack of immediate clarity about key terms.

The distinction between "prohibition of certain actions" and "warning about prohibitions" is not immediately clear. This could confuse readers from the outset about the precise focus of the study.

→Warning of prohibition and warning about prohibitions mean warnings based on prohibition signs. These expressions could certainly cause confusion, so we corrected them.

2. Complexity of language and terminology.

The abstract uses terms such as "prohibition'," "prohibition warning' " and "classification scheme", which could be considered jargon by readers unfamiliar with the subject area. This complexity may deter some readers or make the study seem less accessible.

→ Prohibition is a general term in pragmatics. We have never used the term “prohibition warning”. We want to write as simply as possible, but we also place importance on being as accurate as possible.

3. Lack of specificity in the description of the methodology.

The abstract could benefit from briefly explaining what the "Discourse Completion Task (DCT)" entailed. For example, what prompts or scenarios were used? How were participants instructed?

→ This can be added. The abstract is limited to 300 words, so we added a little more. In the abstract, we briefly mentioned that the task was to create a situation where the participants had to warn in a museum and a hospital.

4. Limited details on the comparative analysis.

While the abstract mentions the results of the native Japanese speakers and the Uzbek Japanese learners, more explicit comparisons could be made between the two groups. How do their strategies

→ The comparative analysis you mention seems to be a contrastive analysis, which is an analytical method for identifying similarities and differences between two languages. It is possible to show both similarities and differences, and we carried out a contrastive analysis at the end of the discussion. As a result of our research, we found that Uzbek learners of Japanese are influenced by the language of learners and the culture of their native language. The influence of the learners language is written in the abstract, but the influence of the culture of the native language was not seen strongly, so we omitted it.

5. Lack of implications or applications.

Whilst the abstract suggests wider applicability, it could emphasize more clearly the possible implications of the findings. For example, how might understanding these politeness strategies benefit language learners, educators, or experts in intercultural communication?

→ For example, if Uzbek learners of Japanese understand Japanese people’s politeness strategies, they will not be looked at strangely by Japanese people in situations where they need to give warnings in Japanese society. It provides educational support to Uzbeks learning Japanese. However, due to the number of characters, this was omitted.

6. Keywords do not fully reflect the abstract content.

Some keywords such as "representative" and "directive" may not be directly representative of the primary focus of the study. In addition, more specific terms relating to the comparative nature of the study (e.g. "comparative study", "cross-cultural communication") could be included.

→ We wanted to make the following changes: “Warning, prohibition, native Japanese speakers, Uzbek Japanese learners, quantitative analysis, politeness strategies.” We conducted a comparison. However, we need to be careful with the terms “comparative analysis” and “comparative research.” From a linguistic standpoint, comparative analysis means a method of reconstructing the proto-language. Therefore, while we can say that we conducted a comparison between Japanese and Uzbek Japanese, we cannot say that we conducted a comparative analysis between Japanese and Uzbek Japanese. We requested the changes from the editorial department, but the changes have not been reflected.

To summarize, the abstract could benefit from clearer language, a more explicit description of the methodology and comparative analysis, and better alignment between the keywords and the content of the abstract. These improvements would enhance the clarity, accessibility, and overall impact of the abstract.

→ The terms used were all related to the research subject, and there were no terms related to methodology. Therefore, as indicated above, the term “quantitative analysis” was added.

Introduction

The introduction provides relevant background information, identifies the research gap, and outlines the purpose and significance of the study. However, there are areas where clarity and flow could be improved.

1. Flow and cohesion:

The introduction could benefit from more fluid transitions between the different points covered. For example, the transition from discussing global and Asian contexts to focusing on native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners could be more seamless.

→ You are right in saying that the flow of this research is poor. We were unable to create a big story like the Asian context. Instead, we changed our approach to describing our research from the perspective of language diversity and Japanese stereotypes.

2. Clarity of research purpose:

The purpose of the study is mentioned but could be more explicitly linked to the identified research gap and issues.

→ The purpose of this study was not clear, so we have revised the main text. The purpose of this study will be clarified by indicating the place of this study in pragmatics, particularly in the speech act of warning against prohibited acts, and what contribution this study will make in the future.

3. Citation not critically reviewed:

Many citations are provided in this section, but they are not critically reviewed and do not demonstrate the urgency of this research.

→ Of course, there are problems with previous studies. We noted that, but based on the F1000 editorial board, we removed it. Hashimoto et al. (1992) had the following problem: “The problem with this investigation is that the criteria for establishing the categories are unclear. They did not explain the relationship between the categories and did not survey politeness and indirectness that we focus on here. Therefore, we created a taxonomy of warning of prohibition, based on the results of other studies.” However, “Rather than suggesting issues with the previous literature it may be best to rephrase this to only include the background as this is a research article and not a correspondence. (Only objective language should be used throughout).” Also, Kishie (2008) had the following problem: “His insufficient description of some categories does not allow for clear knowledge of the forms of the categories.” However, the F1000 editorial board noted the following: “Again this statement reads as correspondence and not a background on the topic as such this should be removed or reworded.”

Literature Review 

The literature review could be improved in terms of depth, critical discussion, and relevance to the current study. Here are some observations and suggestions:

1. Insufficient depth and critical discussion:    

Repetitive information:    

Some information, such as Searle's (1976) classification of illocutionary acts, is repeated without providing new insights or linking it to the study's focus on politeness in warnings.

→ Information was added on the relationship between speech acts and politeness. Searle (1976), Bach and Harnish (1979), and Bataineh and Aljamal (2014) also presented definitions of speech acts, but did not discuss the relationship with politeness. Erler’s research on prohibition is a new study that appeared in 2020, but followed Bach and Harnish (1979) in its definition of prohibition. Although there is a section on politeness in Erler (pp. 45-47), the role of politeness in prohibition was not discussed. Hussein and Khalaf (2018) is also a new study of warning and prohibition, but followed Searle’s definition of speech acts. Hussein and Khalaf (2018) pointed out that “Prohibitions are apparently directive according to Searle’s (1969) definition, whereas waring is partly, but not primarily representative,” which supports our proposed classification of prohibitions (broadly divided into DW and RDW). For this reason, we introduced their studies. We added the positioning of warning within the politeness strategies in Brown and Levinson (1987). Brown and Levinson (1987) had a great influence on later studies in the field of speech acts and politeness studies. In Brown and Levinson (1987), warning was classified as one of the speech acts that threaten the hearer’s negative face. It is expected that politeness strategies will be used. However, Brown and Levinson (1987: 98) stated that if it is in the hearer’s benefit to perform an FTA (face-threatening act), there is a possibility that no compensation will be given. Performing the FTA allows the speaker to convey that he or she cares about the hearer. The question that arose for us was whether there would be many instances of overt FTAs without a politeness strategy in the data of this study. The results of this survey showed that politeness strategies were used. There were differences in the types of strategies used between Japanese and Uzbek learners of Japanese. The existence of warning-specific politeness strategies was not confirmed in previous studies. In addition, Brown and Levinson did not investigate warnings or prohibitions in Japanese, Uzbek Japanese, or Uzbek, which were the subjects of this study.

In the section of “Study of prohibitions and warnings against prohibited acts” of this study, we introduced the paper on politeness in Japanese prohibitions by Dessari, Hendayanti and Haristiani (2021). This study was based on Leech’s politeness theory, and the direction of the study differs from this study. However, their study investigated the predicate markers of Japanese prohibition called Lingual marker, which is applicable to this study. In this study, we also classified the RDW-type in terms of predicate form. Dessari, Hendayanti and Haristiani (2021) focused on the situation of prohibition, and their analysis was not based on DCT as in this study, but on the expression of prohibition in Japanese dramas. Therefore, it is not possible to compare the results of their study with those of our study.

2. Limited discussion of politeness strategies:

Brown and Levinson's (1987) politeness strategies are mentioned, but there is no detailed exploration of how these strategies are used in warnings, especially in the context of the study's focus on native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners.

→We mentioned politeness strategies in “1. Insufficient depth and critical discussion.” Brown and Levinson (1987) pointed out the concept of warning. Of course, they did not study Japanese or Uzbek warnings. Their interesting point is that because warnings are an act that considers the benefits of the hearer, politeness strategies do not occur, and warnings occur bluntly. They did not state that there are politeness strategies specific to warnings. If the data from this study shows that Japanese, Uzbeks, and Uzbek learners of Japanese do not use politeness strategies, or that only certain groups do not use them, then their theory is supported. It is worth investigating this point.

3. Identification of gaps without detailed discussion:

Studies such as Hashimoto et al. (1992) and Kishie (2008) are mentioned for their classification systems, but the researcher does not critically evaluate these classifications or discuss their limitations.

→ We reanalyzed them from the perspective of speech acts and politeness strategies.

4. Lack of integration:

The literature review appears to list studies and their findings, rather than bringing them together into a coherent narrative that leads to the rationale for the current study.

Rather than listing numerous studies with brief descriptions, focus on a few key studies that are most relevant to the objectives of the current study and delve deeper into their methods, results, and implications. Connect these discussions to the study's focus on exploring the use of politeness strategies in warnings and provide a clear rationale for why the current study is necessary and how it builds on or differs from previous research.

→ Brown and Levinson (1987) played an important role in considering politeness strategies. In previous studies, Searle (1976) and Kishie (2008) played an important role in formulating the classification scheme of warning against prohibited acts. Searle classified warnings into two types: directive and representative, while Kishie classified them into two types: prohibition type and request type. This idea led to the classification of DW-type and RDW-type in this study. Hashimoto et al. (1992) focused on the speech act of warning against prohibited acts, in the same way as our study. However, there was a problem that the 10 categories were not related to each other. In this study, we classified warnings from the perspective of politeness, especially indirectness and hedging. Previous studies led to the framework of our classification.

Methodology

1. Selection of participants:

Lack of criteria: The participants are described, but no specific criteria for the selection of participants are mentioned. What are the inclusion and exclusion criteria for participants?

→ This was added at the beginning of the “Participants” section. The Japanese data, Uzbek Japanese data, and Uzbek data were collected in preparation for research presentations at the symposium in February 2021 (See Note 1) and August 2022. As we pointed out in the “Data collection method” section, we had originally envisaged situations in which university students would give warnings based on prohibition signs in museums and hospitals. We chose university students or university graduates as the criteria for participation. For this reason, we excluded people who had not yet entered university from the criteria for participation.

Sampling procedure: How were the participants selected from each group? Was it a random sample, a random sample, or some other method?

→ As written in the “Participants” section of the main text, to collect the Japanese data, we sent a questionnaire (Google form) to students and colleagues at the universities to which Ono and Ju, who were joint presenters at the symposium in February 2021, belonged. We analyzed the data from 36 people who responded between January 28 and January 31, 2021. For the data of Uzbek learners of Japanese, Umarova and Turdiyeva, who were also joint presenters at the symposium, sent a questionnaire (Google form) to students and graduates who were or had been studying Japanese at universities in Uzbekistan or Japan. Between March 11 and March 15, 2021, they collected data from 34 people, but in order to analyze the same number of people as the Japanese data, we decided to collect data from two more people. For the Uzbek data, Umarova and Turdiyeva sent a questionnaire (Google form) to students, colleagues, faculty members of the university where Umarova and Turdiyeva belonged. Furthermore, they sent the questionnaire to students and graduates of their acquaintances working at universities in Uzbekistan. We collected data from 26 people between March 16 and 29, 2021. To match the number of Japanese data, we also collected Uzbek data from 16 people between July 9 and 11, 2021. Although we collected data from a total of 42 people, we excluded 6 people from the analysis because they did not correctly understand the content of the questions. The questionnaires and the results for the Japanese group, the Uzbek Japanese learners’ group, and the Uzbek group are included in the appendix. You can check the references “Ninomiya T: All data on Politeness when native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners give warnings about prohibited acts. Dataset. figshare” from the Publisher Full Text.

2. Data collection:  

Details of the procedure: The description of the discourse completion task (DCT) is vague. What instructions were given to the participants? How were the scenarios developed and validated?  Provide a detailed procedure of the DCT, including scenario development, participant instructions, and validation process.

→ Instructions for the DCT are in the attached document. You can check it from the Publisher Full Text in “Ninomiya T: All data on Politeness when native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners give warnings about prohibited acts. Dataset. figshare.” in our references. Instructions for the questionnaires were written in Japanese and Uzbek, according to the native language of each participant. The English translation of the questionnaires is in the file called “English translation of questionnaire.” The members who presented at the symposium held in February 2021 mentioned in Note 1 selected the places where the prohibited situations would occur: museums, libraries, hospitals, and campgrounds. Based on these locations, we created 12 situations. We assumed that there would be signs saying “No photography” in the museum, “No eating or drinking” in the library, and “No open flames” in the campsite. However, in order to reduce the burden on the respondents, we reduced the number of situations from 12 to 8. In each situation, the question “There is a sign saying ‘No...’ What do you say to the hearer?” was given. The specific examples of the instructions were as follows.

Situation 1: You are a university student. Think of one of your friends (Japanese, same sex) that you know well. That person is “A.” You are at the museum with “A.”

(i) “A” is about to take a picture. However, there is a “No Photography” sign in the area where you are standing now. What do you say to “A”?

(ii) Now “A” is looking for the restroom in the museum. “A” says, “I think there’s a restroom over there,” and is about to enter the doorway over there. However, you find a sign “No entry, authorized persons only” on the wall near the door. What do you say to “A”?

Language proficiency: For the Uzbek Japanese learners group, their Japanese language level is mentioned, but how was this level determined? Was there an assessment or a test?

→ Before the participants answered, we arbitrarily asked them about their results on the Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT), which many Japanese language learners take. The results of the level division are shown in Note 3.

Consent and ethics: While it is mentioned that measures were taken to protect personal data, there is no mention of obtaining informed consent from participants or ethical considerations.

→ Of course, we were committed to protecting their personal information. At the beginning of the questionnaire, we have written an explanation about the handling of personal information. Please refer to the attached document.

3. Data analysis:

Analysis procedures:

The section on data analysis is very dense and lacks a clear, step-by-step explanation of how the data were analyzed. How were the DW and RDW type categories assigned to the utterances? Explain the step-by-step process of coding and analyzing the data. Ensure transparency by providing the underlying data or extended data.

→ The three authors labeled the data based on the coding manual. In creating the coding manual, we used previous studies. As explained in the “Data analysis” section of the main text, we established the DW and RDW-types based on Searle (1976) and Kishie (2008). Whether a sentence is the RDW-type or the DW-type is based on the predicate form. Sentences without the predicate form in Table 4 belong to the DW-type. Regarding the DW-type, we made a sub-classification based on indirectness, using the request coding manuals of Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) and Trosborg (1995). On the other hand, for the RDW-type, we created a classification based on the DW’s framework. The explicit hedged performative of the DW-type corresponds to the explicit infringement-indication of the RDW-type, and the hedged performative of the DW-type corresponds to the hedged infringement-indication of the RDW-type. The interrogative expression “Isn’t it prohibited?” in the RDW-type was created with reference to the DW-type’s query preparatory. Supportive moves were classified into subcategories based on Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) and Bella (2012). The results of our classification can be viewed in the Publisher Full Text of the attached document “Ninomiya T: All data on Politeness when native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners give warnings about prohibited acts. Dataset. figshare.”

Theory synchronization: 

There is no discussion of how the selected theories (Blum-Kulka et al., Trosborg, Kishie, Bella) influenced the data analysis. How were these theories applied to the data? Were there any conflicts or challenges in applying these theories to the data?

→ The theory of previous studies had an impact on the unit of analysis of our research. Each utterance data from the DCT was divided into sentences and classified into Head acts and Supportive moves. In addition to observing the Head act, which is the core of a warning expression, we also paid focused on the components that reinforce the warning, such as Apology and Alternative that appear before and after the Head act. As a point of attention, even if the expression is the same, there were cases where the labeling differed depending on the context. For example, in the situation of “No entry for unauthorized personnel,” the following examples were found:

　‣Japanese “That place is for authorized personnel only”;

　‣Japanese “That is the entrance for the authorized personnel, so let’s find another restroom!”

The first example was classified as hint of the DW-type. If this is the only response, it can be interpreted as hint to prevent the hearer from entering the place. On the other hand, the first part of the second example means that the place is the entrance for unauthorized personnel, and it has the same meaning as the first example. However, the first part of the second example is a reason for looking for another toilet, in other words, it functions as a grounder. We coded the data while considering the context.

Validity and reliability:    

There is no mention of how the validity and reliability of the coding scheme or data analysis process were ensured. 

→ The three authors made their decisions in accordance with the coding manual.

Tools and software:

Analysis tools: Microsoft Excel is mentioned for the calculations, but no qualitative data analysis software or tools were used to support the analysis.

→ We carried out statistical and contrastive analyses. There are tools such as SPSS for qualitative analysis, but these were not used in this study. In some of the data from the questionnaire, we found that there were situations where participants did not warn. It would be possible to analyze this qualitatively. However, this study did not collect data to consider qualitative analysis. The qualitative analysis will be a topic for future research.

Documentation and transparency: 

Documentation: the underlying data and extended data are mentioned but not provided. Transparent sharing of this data could help with the replication of the study.

→ Please refer to the appendix. You can check them from the Publisher Full Text of “Ninomiya T: All data on Politeness when native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners give warnings about prohibited acts. Dataset. figshare.” in the reference.

Clarity:

Some sections are dense with technical terms and classifications that could be made clearer with visual aids such as flowcharts or tables.

→ We created it.

Results

1. Depth and context :        

The frequency data presented in the results provide valuable insights but lack depth. Exploring the reasons for the observed patterns would enrich the interpretation and provide a more nuanced understanding of the results.

→ We explored the reasons for the observed patterns. For example, a pattern of frequent use of supportive moves was observed among Uzbek learners of Japanese. For what reason did this happen? This is due to the general characteristics of learner language (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain 1986). As shown in Figure 5, if there were also many examples of supportive moves in Uzbek data, it could be said that this was due to the influence of the native language, but this was not the case. Another feature of the use of hedges by Uzbek Japanese learners is also influenced by the language of the learners. The fact that the Uzbek Japanese learners (UJap.) group did not use hedge as much as the Japanese (Jap.) group is due to the learner language. Hotta and Hotta (2012: 9) pointed out that “the number of utterances that did not use any hedge was higher for the Japanese learner group than for the Japanese group.” This means that learners of Japanese do not use hedge as much as native Japanese speakers.

However, the influence of the native language was also observed in this study. As shown in Table 5, there were six forms of “inference from evidence” in Jap., but only two of the categories in UJap. Certainly, the fact that there were fewer forms in UJap. may be a characteristic of the learner language, but the reason for the small number of types of UJap. hedge forms could be due to the influence of Uzbek, the native language of Uzbek. When you look at the Uzbek data in Table 5, you find that there is only one form of “inference from evidence” (i.e., “ ekan”). The word “ ekan” is equivalent to the Japanese words “ mitai,” “ rashii,” and “ yooda” et al. In Uzbek, the only way to express estimation by hearsay was only the word “ekan,” but Japanese has a wide variety of expressions. While the Uzbek data had only one type of word for hearsay presumption, the Japanese language had a wide variety of expressions.

2. Comparative analysis:

Direct comparisons between groups are essential to validate the observed differences. The inclusion of statistical tests or comparative analyses would strengthen the results and increase the rigor of the study.

→ We conducted a statistical test and showed the differences between Jap. and UJap. We should be careful about the way we use the technical term “comparative analysis.” In linguistics, comparative analysis is a method for reconstructing a proto-language. Therefore, from a linguistic perspective, we cannot use the term comparative analysis in this study. As you can see from the results, we compared strategies between Jap. and UJap. or Uzb. data. In addition, we conducted contrastive analysis in this study. Contrastive analysis is a way of showing similarities and differences by contrasting two different languages. This reveals characteristics that make it easier or harder for language learners. By contrasting Japanese and Uzbek data, we identified what is difficult for Uzbeks to learn about Japanese. As mentioned in “1. Depth and context,” we could find differences between the two languages in hedge markers through contrastive analysis.

3. Theoretical comparison:

Incorporating the results into theoretical frameworks or previous studies would improve the theoretical contribution of the study. Discussing the extent to which the findings are consistent with or differ from existing research provides context and depth.

→ We have already mentioned previous studies in the discussion. However, we did not compare the results of the previous studies with the results of our research to show the degree of agreement between the two. We showed that in our revised version. First, we compared the results of Hashimoto et al. (1992), who gave the same warning about the prohibition of Japanese as in our research. There were some differences between Hashimoto and our research. We examined the causes of some of these differences, but could not say anything important. Second, we discussed the relationship with Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1986), who investigated the redundancy of learners’ language. See Tables 13 and 14.

4. Presentation of data:

While the quantitative data provides valuable insights, the inclusion of qualitative findings or examples would enrich the context and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the warning strategies used by the participants.

→ It is important to conduct a qualitative analysis. However, as there were few open-ended responses in the questionnaire for this study, we will not conduct a qualitative analysis for this study. As we did not assume that we would collect data with the intention of conducting a qualitative analysis, we will leave the qualitative analysis as a topic for the future.

Discussion

1. Lack of comparative analysis: 

In the discussion, the Uzbek Japanese learners are often compared to the native Japanese speakers and native Uzbekistan groups, but a clear comparative analysis is not always made. Statements such as " Uzbek Japanese learners participants probably used the negative politeness strategy of apologizing" lack a direct comparison with the native Japanese speakers group. The lack of a direct comparison makes it difficult to understand the significance of the observed differences and their effects .

→ We constantly compared the data from Jap. and UJap. The statement “Uzbek Japanese learners’ participants probably used the negative politeness strategy of apologizing” means that the UJap. group apologized more than the Jap. group, and this is clear from Figure 3.

2. Assumption of trust as the only reason for verbosity: 

In the discussion, verbosity is attributed exclusively to a lack of confidence, without taking other factors into account. Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1986) are cited in the discussion to support this claim. While lack of trust may be a factor, other factors such as cultural norms or level of language proficiency should also be considered.

→ We can show cultural norms. As mentioned in “3. Theoretical Comparison” in the results, redundancy will be a characteristic of the learner language. If the redundancy were due to Uzbek cultural norms, it would also have been observed in the Uzbek data. However, only UJap. actually had a higher rate of use of support moves. Both Jap. and Uzb. had a lower usage rate of supportive moves than UJap. Therefore, it is unlikely that the redundancy is due to the influence of Uzbek. From the other previous studies, it was not understood that Uzbeks speak in a redundant way. As for the language proficiency, we did not gather enough participants to observe it. This will be a future issue.

3. Overemphasis on the apology strategy: 

The discussion focuses largely on the apology strategy without examining other supportive measures in depth. The discussion repeatedly mentions the apology strategy but does not address other supportive measures used by learners. This narrow focus cannot fully capture the complexity of learners' communicative strategies .

→ The clearest polity strategy of the UJap. was apology. Of course, we also observed patterns of supportive moves other than apology and head acts, and clarified the characteristics of the politeness strategies of the UJap. group. Another important politeness strategy was the use of “Right not to Verb”-form in Figure 2. This was added in the text. As for the category of “citation of a fact,” which conveys the fact of prohibition, UJap. used it more frequently than Jap. However, there was no statistical significance. In the same way, in the category of “sentence final ellipsis,” UJap. was also more common than Jap., but there was no statistical significance.

4. Lack of contextual explanation for directness: 

In the discussion, the directness of Uzbek Japanese learners is attributed solely to their non-native speaker status without examining other contextual factors. Statements such as "The reason why the Uzbek Japanese learners participants often used the “Wrong to V” form was not the influence of their native language, but that of their non-native language" lack contextual depth. Contextual factors such as the influence of textbooks or cultural differences have not been sufficiently researched.

→ This study showed that the reason UJap. used the “Wrong to verb”-form so frequently was not due to the influence of the native language, but due to the influence of a non-native language, especially textbooks. This is discussed in the next point (5. “Unclear influence of textbooks”). The influence of Uzbek culture on the frequency of the “Wrong to verb”-form usage in the UJap. group was also examined, but no influence was found. The words meaning “wrong” in Uzbek are xato and noto'g'ri. As shown in Figure 2, expressions using words such as xato were rarely seen in Uzb. If there had been more of these expressions in Uzb., we could have pointed to the influence of the native language as a reason for the high frequency of the “Wrong to Verb”-form in UJap. In other studies, we could not find any that showed that Uzbeks tended to generally use the words xato and noto'g'ri (wrong) when giving warnings about prohibitions. However, if there were any, the question of why the Uzbek group in this study did not use the “Wrong to Verb”-form would arise.

5. Unclear influence of textbooks :

The discussion mentions the influence of Japanese textbooks but does not elaborate on this. The discussion cites the use of the word "ikenai" from a textbook without exploring how the content of the textbook may influence learners' language use. Understanding the role of textbooks could provide valuable insights into learners' language acquisition and use.

→ We revised the main text. Previous studies have pointed out that textbooks have an impact on learners. While there are studies that question the influence of textbooks, such as Yamada (2004: 150), some studies pointed out the influence of textbooks is particularly strong in the early stages of learning (Park 2017, Honda 2019). According to Honda (2019: 125), “the first 1000 words that learners of Japanese learn are often influenced by the textbook they use.” According to Park (2019: 125), the usage of “ totemo” (very) by learners of Japanese differs from that of native speakers of Japanese, and is closer to the usage of “ totemo” in textbooks, especially beginner-level textbooks. Our research showed the two “Wrong to V”-forms: “ dame” and “ ikenai.” The “ dame” was used more frequently than “ ikenai” in Jap., on the other hand, “ ikenai” was used more frequently than “ dame” in UJap. This characteristic of UJap. is probably because “ ikenai” appeared in beginner Japanese textbooks, so UJap. easily learned and used the word “ ikenai” as an expression of warning.

6. Lack of discussion of cultural factors.:

The discussion does not adequately address cultural factors that may influence learners' communicative strategies. While the differences between native and non-native groups are mentioned, there is no elaboration on how cultural differences can affect communication. Cultural factors can have a significant impact on communication strategies and their omission limits the depth of the discussion.

→ Based on previous studies, we discuss the cultural influence. This point was added in the text. First, this study found that while apology was frequently used in the UJap. data, it was not frequently used in the Uzb. data. When surveying the results of cultural studies on Uzbeks, it is possible that Uzbeks apologize more frequently (Turdonova 2024, Abduvahobovna & Ibragimova 2024). According to Turdonova (2024), Uzbeks apologized more than English speakers. The frequent use of apology in UJap. in this study could not be explained by the Uzbek data, but it can be explained by cultural studies of Uzbek. However, that does not answer the question of why apology was less in the Uzb. data. This feature of UJap. could be due to learner language. This feature of the UJap. data will be influenced by the language of the learner. It is known that not only Uzbeks but also Thai learners of Japanese make extensive use of apology.

This study showed that the Jap. group made frequent use of hedge markers. This use by the Japanese is also supported by cultural studies. Yang and Cao (2005: 46-47) pointed out that Japanese tend to speak ambiguously: “Japanese people consciously change their speech style from direct to indirect and indirect to euphemistic, and deliberately use ambiguous expressions to avoid direct expressions,” indicating that Japanese people tend to prefer vague expressions. Japanese ambiguity was expressed in the form of hedge markers in this study.

In the last part of the discussion, we conducted a contrastive analysis between Japanese and Uzbek, and discussed the influence of the native Uzbek language on UJap. We focus on the category of “inference from evidence” in the hedged infringement-indication. Neither Jap. nor Uzb. changed the usage rates, but the number of types differed. The number of varieties of “ mitai”, “ rashii”, “ ppoi”, “ sooda”, and “ yooda” were found in Jap., but one type, “ ekan”, was found in Uzb. From the above, we stated that “Based on the results of this contrastive analysis, we can predict that it would be difficult for Uzbeks to understand and learn the characteristics of Japanese hedge markers that they cannot use in Uzbek. In fact, the hedge markers used in UJap. were mainly two types, so it can be seen that UJap. does not fully master Japanese hedge markers.”

7. Lack of discussion of social parameters:       

Social parameters such as warning strangers are briefly mentioned in the discussion, but this aspect is not explored in depth. Statements such as "We found that the three language groups did not warn strangers" are mentioned without discussing the implications or reasons for this result. Understanding the social parameters could provide valuable context for interpreting learners' communicative strategies.

→ Social parameters have been the focus of attention in studies of pragmatics, such as Brown and Levinson (1987). Brown and Levinson cited P (Power), D (Distance), and R (Ranking). In our research, we focused on P (Age in this study) and D (Social Distance in this study), and excluded the R parameter. We thought that if we assumed a high-load R parameter in warning situations, we would get unnatural data, so we excluded it. Hashimoto’s research on warning, like this study, focused on P and D to create the situations.

Our research did indeed point out that “in the three groups, people do not warn strangers.” Some participants wrote the reason of the saying “I won’t say anything,” that is, “Don’t do FTA.” For example, in Situation 3-ii, the Jap. participant No.29 answered, “(I won’t say anything,) because the threshold of warning is not reached. Also, even if and the stranger calls and receives a complaint, I’m not interested in it.” This Jap. participant may be not interested in other people. In UJap., no one gave a reason. In Uzb., participant No. 15 gave the opinion that “I don’t want to offend a stranger by giving them a warning” in Situation 3-ii, and participant No. 26 made a comment considering the situation of the person giving the warning, such as “drinking water may be necessary for health” in a situation where eating and drinking are prohibited, as in Situation 4-i. From these questionnaire data, it is possible that Japanese people do not give warnings others because they are not interested in strangers, while Uzb. people may be interested in strangers and may have not done the FTA out of respect for them. However, because there were not many people who wrote the reasons for their choice of Don’t do FTA, this study cannot fully explain the reasons. It is necessary to create a questionnaire that can be used to find the reasons for not giving warnings in another study.

8. Insufficient discussion of politeness strategies:     

The discussion briefly touches on politeness strategies but does not elaborate on their role. The discussion mentions strategies such as "Prohibited to V" and hedging but does not address their effectiveness or Politeness strategies play a crucial role in intercultural communication, and their inadequate discussion limits the depth of the analysis.

→ A politeness strategy part was established in the discussion. Simply put, politeness strategies are strategies that compensate for face-threatening act caused by speech acts. We investigated what politeness strategies existed and whether there were politeness strategies specific to warnings and prohibitions. In addition, the politeness strategies are not simply a way to compensate for acts that threaten face, but also has the complexity of the politeness strategies, where one politeness strategy becomes an act that threatens face, and another politeness strategy occurs to compensate for it.

We examined which strategies in Brown and Levinson (1987) were used by the participants in this study for each group. From Brown and Levinson (1987), we found that when a speech act that benefit the hearer, such as a warnings or advice, occur, FTA can occur in the on record, i.e., no politeness strategy. In the Japanese data, the politeness strategy “state the FTA as a general rule” was often used. To compensate for this, another politeness strategy called “hedge” was used. This alone would have been FTA, such as a show of authority. In order to compensate for this, another politeness strategy of “hedge” was used.

Conclusion

1. Lack of Clear Implications:     

In conclusion, the implications of the results for teaching or practical application are not clearly formulated. Whilst the study discusses the speech acts used by learners and native speakers, it does not provide any insight into how these findings could inform language teaching or intercultural communication. Without clear implications, the relevance of the study for language teaching or practical applications remains unclear.

→ Uzbek Japanese learners don’t need to apologize. It would be good if they generalized like “It is prohibited” and used verbal suffix hedge markers like Japanese people do. If they say “Photography is prohibited” without using hedges, there is a possibility of FTA and interpersonal friction.

2. Incomplete addresses of Pragmatic Features:          

Two pragmatic features are mentioned in the conclusion, but their significance or implications are not fully explored. The study mentions the “Don’t do FTA” strategy and the use of the RDW type over the DW type but does not address why these findings matter or what they say about learners' pragmatic competence. A more detailed discussion of these pragmatic features could provide valuable insights into learners' communicative strategies and their development of pragmatic competence.

→ Using Don’t do FTA to strangers means that it is sometimes better not to warn strangers. For students with a high level of Japanese ability, we recommend that they try to warn people using general rules such as “ kinshi desu” (It’s prohibited) and using hedges that are often used by Japanese people. However, for Uzbel learners with insufficient Japanese ability, it is probably better to choose Don’t do FTA for strangers, that is, not to warn them at all. If these learners carelessly give a warning, they may offend the stranger’s face and the learner themselves may be scolded.

As I cannot make an important point about the other pragmatic feature of the frequent use of the RDW-type rather than the DW-type, we left it out of the conclusion. From the results, it is possible that there is no significant difference between Japanese culture and Uzbek culture in the situation of prohibition warnings, in that the DW-type was used frequently in Uzb. as well as Jap.

3. Lack of Direction to Future Research :

While the conclusion points to future research, it does not mention specific directions or questions that future studies could address. The study mentions that the framework will be used to analyze other Japanese language learners and that a future survey will be conducted, but it does not specify what aspects these future studies will focus on. A clear direction for future research would help to build on the findings of the current study and overcome its limitations.

→ We wrote about this at the end of the conclusion. We made several suggestions. Especially, from the perspective of second language acquisition, we plan to study the acquisition process of warnings by Uzbek learners of Japanese. For other suggestions, see the main text.

4. Limited Discussion of the Background of Uzbek Japanese Learners:    

The conclusion briefly mentions the background of Uzbek Japanese learners but does not address how their background might influence their pragmatic competence. The study mentions that the Uzbek Japanese learners studied Japanese to gain cultural understanding and to pass the Japanese Language Proficiency Test, but does not address how these motivations or their background might influence their language use. Understanding the learners' background and motivations may provide valuable context for interpreting their language use and could help tailor language instruction to their needs.

→ We received the following comment: “The conclusion briefly mentions the background of Uzbek Japanese learners but does not address how their background might influence their pragmatic competence.” Individual learners’ motivations, their social and cultural backgrounds, and their educational environments all have an impact on their language use. Considering Bachman’s (1990) definition of language ability, it is important to have a firm grasp of the social and cultural context in order to understand pragmatic competence, which is the ability to use language appropriately. Then, what are the motivations of Uzbek learners of Japanese? The motivations of Uzbek learners of Japanese have changed. In the past, when it was difficult for Uzbeks to go to Japan, their motivation for learning Japanese was to learn about Japanese culture and to get good marks in the Japanese Language Proficiency Test. In that situation, the learners themselves may not have thought about whether they would be able to use the language appropriately in Japanese society. However, since 2020, the number of Uzbeks studying Japanese in order to get a job in Japan has been increasing (according to the Japan Foundation). Obtaining a work visa and working for a Japanese company is a motivating factor for them to learn Japanese. Many learners and teachers will want to be able to use Japanese appropriately in work situations in Japan, such as avoiding friction with Japanese business people. Pragmatic knowledge cannot be acquired simply by studying Japanese daily in Uzbekistan. This is because they do not know the reality of Japanese communication. Even if Uzbeks have a high level of Japanese language ability and are highly motivated, it is difficult for them to learn about the use of the Japanese language.

5. Lack of Reflection on the Limitations of the Study :

The conclusion does not reflect on the limitations of the study, nor does it mention areas where the study may fall short. Reflecting on the limitations of the study could provide a more balanced view of the findings and help guide future research.

→ Because this study focused on establishing a classification of warnings for prohibited acts and conducting a quantitative analysis, it was not possible to conduct a qualitative study. In this survey, participants were asked how they would warn the hearer against prohibited acts, and some of them provided comments in response. In the future, it will be possible to qualitatively analyze the comments and compare the quality of warnings between Japanese and Uzbeks. Participants who said they would not warn a stranger were found in the Japanese, Uzbek learners of Japanese, and Uzbek groups. We did not expect the participants to make such comments. In the future, we would like to create a questionnaire that asks why they chose “Don’t do FTA,” and clarify the cultural background of Japanese and Uzbek people.

6. Overemphasis on the Classification Scheme:

The conclusion emphasizes the development of a classification scheme but does not address its practical utility or limitations. The conclusion mentions the development of a classification scheme based on the data but does not address how this scheme might be applied or its limitations. While the development of a classification scheme is valuable, its practical utility and limitations should be discussed to provide a fuller understanding of its importance.

→ The classification form and analysis results of this study clarified the features of the warning against prohibited acts by Japanese and Uzbek learners of Japanese. We would like to write a Japanese language teaching material based on “Can do” such as “ Marugoto,” that is a famous Japanese textbook, and describe levels and strategies of warning against prohibited acts.

References

Delete the obsolete references. Cite more from current references - the last five years.

→ In fields where research is well advanced, it is possible to cite the latest studies from within the last five years. Of course, we tried to cite new studies in some parts. However, research on Japanese warnings against prohibited acts is lacking in basic research, and we drew up a classification scheme and examined politeness strategies based on solid research such as Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) and Brown and Levinson (1987), which are often used in current pragmatic studies.