Politeness strategies when native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners give warnings about prohibited acts: a cross-sectional study

Politeness strategies when native Japanese speakers... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1416" }, "headline": "Politeness strategies when native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners give warnings about prohibited...", "datePublished": "2023-10-27T16:08:47", "dateModified": "2025-09-19T09:45:26", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Takashi Ninomiya" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Masaki Ono" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Munojot Umarova" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background Based on signs prohibiting certain actions, people warn others using imperative forms of verbs or give a soft warning using politeness strategies. This study clarified how native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners perform warnings based on prohibited signs. Methods After clarifying the difference between prohibition and warning, we proposed a classification scheme for the latter speech act in terms of politeness. Data were elicited using a discourse completion task. We prepared tasks for how participants verbally warn people who are about to perform prohibited acts in museums and hospitals, based on the prohibited signs. Results Native Japanese speakers tended to mitigate warnings by using two politeness strategies. The first politeness strategy was the use of rule-based expressions such as “It is forbidden.” However, such expressions may make the hearer feel that the speaker is an overbearing person who wields authority. To avoid this risk, Japanese speakers used the second politeness strategy of hedging inference, as in “Looks like it is forbidden.” They made it clear that the power to forbid does not rest with them, but with the public authorities, and furthermore, that it is only a possibility of their own speculation. The Uzbek learners of Japanese, on the other hand, were more direct in their warnings than the Japanese, and implemented a politeness strategy of apology as compensation. In some cases, the Japanese group and the Uzbek Japanese learners’ group did not warn. They did not warn strangers. Conclusions The characteristics of Uzbek learners of Japanese were found to follow the general characteristics of the learners’ language. This study presented a framework for classifying warnings about prohibited acts. This framework is applicable to languages other than Japanese, Uzbek, and Japanese spoken by Uzbek learners of Japanese. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1416", "name": "Politeness strategies when native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese..." } } ] } Home Browse Politeness strategies when native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Ninomiya T, Ono M and Umarova M. Politeness strategies when native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners give warnings about prohibited acts: a cross-sectional study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 12 :1416 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.130926.3 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised Politeness strategies when native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners give warnings about prohibited acts: a cross-sectional study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] Previously titled: Politeness when native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners give warnings about prohibited acts: a cross-sectional study Takashi Ninomiya https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9703-2556 1 , Masaki Ono https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3104-1801 2 , Munojot Umarova 3,4 Takashi Ninomiya https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9703-2556 1 , Masaki Ono https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3104-1801 2 , Munojot Umarova 3,4 PUBLISHED 19 Sep 2025 Author details Author details 1 Faculty of Oriental Studies, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty, Kazakhstan 2 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan 3 Innovation Center, Uzbekistan State World Languages University, Tashkent, Uzbekistan 4 Tashkent Oriental Philology Faculty, Uzbekistan State World Languages University, Tashkent, Uzbekistan Takashi Ninomiya Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Masaki Ono Roles: Supervision Munojot Umarova Roles: Data Curation, Validation OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Japan Institutional Gateway gateway. Abstract Background Based on signs prohibiting certain actions, people warn others using imperative forms of verbs or give a soft warning using politeness strategies. This study clarified how native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners perform warnings based on prohibited signs. Methods After clarifying the difference between prohibition and warning, we proposed a classification scheme for the latter speech act in terms of politeness. Data were elicited using a discourse completion task. We prepared tasks for how participants verbally warn people who are about to perform prohibited acts in museums and hospitals, based on the prohibited signs. Results Native Japanese speakers tended to mitigate warnings by using two politeness strategies. The first politeness strategy was the use of rule-based expressions such as “It is forbidden.” However, such expressions may make the hearer feel that the speaker is an overbearing person who wields authority. To avoid this risk, Japanese speakers used the second politeness strategy of hedging inference, as in “Looks like it is forbidden.” They made it clear that the power to forbid does not rest with them, but with the public authorities, and furthermore, that it is only a possibility of their own speculation. The Uzbek learners of Japanese, on the other hand, were more direct in their warnings than the Japanese, and implemented a politeness strategy of apology as compensation. In some cases, the Japanese group and the Uzbek Japanese learners’ group did not warn. They did not warn strangers. Conclusions The characteristics of Uzbek learners of Japanese were found to follow the general characteristics of the learners’ language. This study presented a framework for classifying warnings about prohibited acts. This framework is applicable to languages other than Japanese, Uzbek, and Japanese spoken by Uzbek learners of Japanese. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Warning, prohibition, native Japanese speakers, Uzbek Japanese learners, quantitative analysis, politeness strategies Corresponding Author(s) Takashi Ninomiya ( [email protected] ) Masaki Ono ( [email protected] ) Munojot Umarova ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding authors: Takashi Ninomiya, Masaki Ono, Munojot Umarova Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: This work was supported by JSPS, Asia-Africa Science Platforms (B) “Project to establish a Center for Training Japanese Language Teachers to meet Social Needs” (Ono Masaki, 2020-2022, Grant Number: JPJSCCB20200001). The University of Tsukuba will provide support with the article processing charge. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2025 Ninomiya T et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The author(s) is/are employees of the US Government and therefore domestic copyright protection in USA does not apply to this work. The work may be protected under the copyright laws of other jurisdictions when used in those jurisdictions. How to cite: Ninomiya T, Ono M and Umarova M. Politeness strategies when native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners give warnings about prohibited acts: a cross-sectional study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 12 :1416 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.130926.3 ) First published: 27 Oct 2023, 12 :1416 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.130926.1 ) Latest published: 19 Sep 2025, 12 :1416 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.130926.3 ) Revised Amendments from Version 2 We made some changes to the Title and Abstract. We corrected the name of the third author's affiliation, which was incorrect. The main text was significantly revised in accordance with the second reviewer's comments. Based on additional analysis, we revised the labeling data in the Word file and the Data analysis in Excel. We added Figures 1, 4, Tables 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 15. Furthermore, we attached our responses to the questions raised by the second reviewer. We made some changes to the Title and Abstract. We corrected the name of the third author's affiliation, which was incorrect. The main text was significantly revised in accordance with the second reviewer's comments. Based on additional analysis, we revised the labeling data in the Word file and the Data analysis in Excel. We added Figures 1, 4, Tables 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 15. Furthermore, we attached our responses to the questions raised by the second reviewer. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Muhammad Alif Redzuan Abdullah READ REVIEWER RESPONSES 1. Introduction This study began with the question of how the relationship between signs indicating prohibition and linguistic expressions is. We are interested not only in what linguistic expressions are used in prohibition signs, but also in how people warn others after seeing a prohibition sign. The way people warn others may differ depending on the language. For example, in a no-smoking situation, speakers of a language will clearly order people not to smoke, based on the idea that smoking goes against social rules. On the other hand, speakers of another language will issue vague warnings so as not to offend the hearer. The authors, who are Japanese language teachers, became interested in warnings based on prohibition signs in Japanese and began to investigate them. Some people may have the stereotype that Japanese people give vague warnings out of consideration for the hearer. It is necessary to clarify whether this idea is correct and, if it is correct, what form vague warnings take. We are interested not only in the speech acts of native speakers of Japanese, but also in the speech acts of learners of Japanese. The purpose of this study is to clarify pragmatic features when native speakers of Japanese and Uzbek learners of Japanese give warnings about prohibited acts. The authors investigated the classification criteria for speech acts such as prohibition and warning that previous studies have shown, and verified their validity. We did not create the classification criteria for warnings based on prohibition signs from scratch, but rather improved on the classification criteria proposed by previous studies. The classification proposed in this study was developed with the aim of analyzing Japanese data. However, due to its versatility, it can also be applied to languages other than Japanese, and thus this classification can be seen as a framework that forms the basis for more comprehensive classification criteria in warning research. Japanese and Uzbek, both of which are Asian languages, are agglutinative and have a subject-object-verb structure and similar usage of auxiliary verbs: e.g., both -te miru in Japanese and -b koʻrmoq in Uzbek mean “to try to Verb” using verbs derived from the word “to see” ( Yamazaki 2017 ). For this reason, one might expect that Uzbeks could learn Japanese grammar relatively easily. However, even if learners are familiar with Japanese grammar and can produce grammatically correct sentences, they may not be able to successfully implement Japanese speech acts that warn others based on a prohibited sign. There are two reasons for focusing on Uzbek learners of Japanese. First, as Japanese language education has flourished in Uzbekistan in recent years ( Iwasaki and Umarova 2019 : 231), we expect research on Uzbek learners of Japanese will continue to develop. In order to avoid communicative misunderstandings between Uzbek Japanese learners and native Japanese speakers, it is necessary to clarify the pragmatic characteristics of learners. Second, our 2021 survey 1 examined warning of prohibitions by native speakers of Japanese, as well as by Chinese, Korean, and Uzbek learners of Japanese, but failed to elucidate the characteristics appertaining to Uzbek learners. To address this oversight, this study raises the following research questions: 1) Which politeness strategies do native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners use more frequently when warning of prohibitions? 2) What what pragmatic features other than the politeness strategies do the two language groups display? Previous studies 1.1 Studies of speech acts and politeness 1.1.1 A warning against prohibition is a speech act taken to avoid possible bad consequences after someone (the “hearer” or “addressee”) is observed performing a prohibited act. This study focused on two speech acts: prohibition and warning. However, rather than comparing these, the study investigated warnings in situations where something is prohibited. Erler (2020 : 41) defined prohibition based on Bach and Harnish (1979) as follows: “The speaker believes that the utterance prohibits the hearer from doing something because of the authority the speaker has over the hearer; the speaker expresses the intention that the hearer should not do what is prohibited because the speaker says so.” Bataineh and Aljamal (2014 : 88) explained warning as follows: “warning refers to the different strategies used for getting the attention of the addressee and alerting him/her to a specific danger or bad consequences.” For example, a guard in a museum can prohibit a visitor from taking photos by saying “Photography is prohibited.” Even if the visitor’s friend says the same thing, they cannot prohibit the act. Since the friend has no authority, they give a warning, not utter a prohibition. In addition to the presence or absence of authority, there are several differences between prohibition and warning. First, their categories are different. According to Hussein and Khalaf (2018) , in Searle’s classification of speech acts, while prohibition has the illocutionary point of directive, which makes the hearer act, warning not only has directive, but also has the illocutionary point of representative, which conveys the state of facts. Searle (1976) proposed five basic kinds of illocutionary acts: representative, directive, commissive, expressive, and declaration. Searle (1976 : 22) gave the following examples of directive and representative in warning: (1a) is directive, and (1b) is representative. (1) a. I warn you to stay away from my wife! (directive) b. I warn you that the bull is about to charge. (representative) Another difference between prohibition and warning is the recipient of the benefit. Hussein and Khalaf (2018) pointed out that while prohibition is beneficial to the speaker, warning is beneficial to the hearer. For example, if a museum guard sees a visitor taking photos illegally and says “Photography is prohibited,” the guard will benefit from maintaining order in the museum. On the other hand, if the visitor’s friend says the same thing as a warning, it will help the friend, or hearer, avoid the unpleasant result of being scolded by the museum guard. A warning against prohibited acts is a speech act that can cause the hearer to lose face. In order to compensate for this face, the speaker may implement politeness strategies. Brown and Levinson (1987) set out 14 positive and 10 negative politeness strategies for compensating for face that is undermined by speech acts. Brown and Levinson (1987) did not indicate any politeness strategies specific to warnings, but rather pointed out that in some cases, politeness strategies are not used in warnings. When it is in the hearer’s benefit to perform an FTA (face-threatening act), no compensation will be given ( Brown and Levinson 1987 : 98). They pointed out that because speech acts such as sympathetic advice and warning are concerned with the hearer, politeness strategies do not work, and there is a possibility that these speech acts will be carried out baldly. Based on Brown and Levinson’s point, we can predict that Japanese, Uzbeks, and Uzbek learners of Japanese will not implement politeness strategies in the data for this study. If politeness strategies do not occur, we wondered what the rate of non-occurrence would be, in what situations they do not occur, and whether there are any differences between native Japanese speakers and Uzbek learners of Japanese. The following section shows the research situation for warning and prohibition in Japanese and Uzbek. Studies of prohibitions and warnings against prohibited acts 1.1.2 Hashimoto et al . (1992) investigated warnings against prohibitions in eight languages including Japanese and proposed 10 categories of this particular speech act. In the “No photography” situation, the Japanese used the category “Value judgment about a rule” ( e.g. , Koko de satsuee-shite wa ikemasen “It’s wrong to take photos here”) most frequently. In this study, several categories were created for warnings against prohibitions and analyzed quantitatively. The study then formulated a classification system focusing on social parameters such as status, but did not analyze and discuss how warnings are given in terms of politeness. Previous studies on prohibition have often covered linguistic landscapes: e.g., signboards in public places in Japanese and Korean ( Kim 2011 ), and signs on university campuses in China and Japan ( Wang 2017 ). Kishie (2008) analyzed prohibition expressions in the “No dumping” situation in the Tokushima dialect. He established the following five categories: Direct Prohibition I ( e.g. , Suteruna “Don’t throw out the trash!”), Direct Prohibition II ( e.g. , Sutetara dame “It’s wrong to throw out the trash”), Indirect Prohibition ( e.g. , Suterarenaiyo “It’s not possible to throw out the trash”), Request I ( e.g. , Sutenaide “Don’t throw out the trash!”), Request II ( e.g. , Motte kaeriyo “Take your trash and go home!”), and Reason ( e.g. , Kyoo wa gomi no hijanaiyo “It’s not garbage day today”). Because his description of some categories was insufficient, the precise forms of the categories are not entirely clear. The definition of categories in Kishie (2008) requires some caution. For instance, concerning Request I, Kishie (2008 : 41) gave only the imperative form, stating that it is used when the speaker orders the hearer not to throw garbage away. However, the study of Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) set nine levels of request in terms of indirectness. If Request I corresponds only to the imperative form ( i.e. , mood derivable) and does not include the other categories, it is not appropriate to label the category with the name Request. One should refer to it as the imperative. Also, despite the formal difference between Direct Prohibition I’s Verb- na (prohibited form) and Request I’s Verb-naide (negation + te -form), both are pragmatically classified as imperative in Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) . Dessari et al. (2021) investigated politeness in Japanese prohibitions. Their research is similar to this study in that it focuses on politeness, but the direction of the research is different: their research focused on prohibitions rather than warnings, and they analyzed prohibitive expressions in Japanese dramas rather than using the discourse completion test used in this study. For these reasons, it is not possible to compare the results of their research with the results of our research. However, the Japanese prohibitive predicates that they focused on ( e.g. - dame , - naide , - na ) can also be applied to our research. Regarding Uzbek prohibition, Kobilova (2020) only enumerated prohibition expressions in Uzbek and English and did not discuss them. The study of prohibition in Uzbek did not indicate a category of prohibition. 2. Methods Participants 2.1 Because we were assumed situations where university students would be issuing warnings, we included university students and university graduates as participants, and excluded those who had not yet entered university. The members of the practical research project 2 that the authors participated in were university faculty members, so there was the advantage that it was easy to collect data from students and graduates. Survey participants of this study fall into three groups: 36 native speakers of Japanese (Jap.), 36 Uzbek speakers who were learning or had learnt Japanese (UJap.), and 36 native speakers of Uzbek (Uzb.). We focused on Jap. and UJap. surveys and also analyzed the Uzb. data as a reference. With regard to the Jap. group, faculty members from Japanese universities (Dr. Ono and Dr. Ju) sent a questionnaire in Japanese to Japanese students and colleagues at their own universities, as well as to Japanese faculties and students at universities with whom they had a connection. Ms. Umarova and Ms. Turdiyeva, who teach at a university in Uzbekistan, collected the data on UJap. and Uzb. The UJap. data were obtained from Uzbeks who were studying or had studied Japanese at Uzbek or Japanese universities. The Uzb. data were obtained from Uzbek students enrolled at the university where Ms. Umarova and Ms. Turdiyeva teach from their Uzbek colleagues, and from Uzbek faculty members and students with whom they were acquainted. The UJap. participants’ Japanese language level was basically intermediate ( i.e. , level between N3 and N2 of Japanese language proficiency test). 3 The Uzb. data were collected and analyzed to investigate the possibility of Uzbek interference with the UJap. data. Data collection method 2.2 The current study collected the data by means of a discourse completion task (DCT). Members of the above research project created scenarios for the DCT with university students and graduates as respondents. The project members assumed that the students would visit a museum and a hospital and would use warnings based on signs displaying prohibitions. Situations were set up in which a student sees two prohibition signs in a museum and two prohibition signs in a hospital. In order to investigate the social relationship between the speaker and the hearer, the members created eight scenarios, focusing on the social parameters of social distance (SD) 4 and age as shown in Table 1 (see extended data for English translation of the scenarios). Table 1. Discourse completion task (DCT) scenarios. Situations Social Distance (SD) Age Situation 1 i No photography -SD x = y ii No entry -SD x = y Situation 2 i No photography -SD x < y ii No entry -SD x < y Situation 3 i No food or drink +SD x = y ii No mobile phone +SD x = y Situation 4 i No food or drink +SD x < y ii No mobile phone +SD x < y See Situation 1-(i) and Situation 2-(i). Although the situations are the same, the social parameters with the hearers are different. In Sit. 1, the speaker warns a friend who is around the same age as the speaker (x = y). Also, in Sit. 2, the speaker warns a professor who is older than the speaker (x < y). In Sits. 3 and 4, the speaker warns a stranger (+SD). The respondents had to consider the social distance and age between himself/herself and the person who was about to commit the prohibited act. The DCT required the respondents to say something in response to the offender’s action, based on a sign that showed what was prohibited. After creating the scenarios, we created a questionnaire form in Google Docs (see extended data) and sent the link to the Jap., UJap., and Uzb. groups. The Jap. participants performed the task in Japanese, the Uzb. participants did the task in Uzbek, and the UJap. participants did the task in both Uzbek and Japanese. We gave the participants descriptions of the four situations to elicit warning expressions about a prohibition in oral conversation. At the beginning of the questionnaire, it was stated that only those who were willing to cooperate with the survey should respond and that we would take steps to protect their personal information. The response data from the Google form was exported to an Excel file (see underlying data). In cases where the data were incomprehensible, we contacted the respondent concerned and asked him/her to clarify his/her response (the incomprehensible data were marked in yellow on the sheet). Data analysis 2.3 We created a classification scheme, based on request and prohibition studies comprising Searle (1976) , Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) , Trosborg (1995) , Kishie (2008) , and Bella (2012) . First, we presented two head acts and one supportive move, with reference to the frameworks of Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) and Trosborg (1995) . A head act is the minimal unit which can realize a warning against prohibition and is the core of the warning sequence. A supportive move is a unit external to the warning, which modifies its impact by mitigating its force. While the head act is essential, the supportive move is not obligatory. We divided the two head acts into directive and representative based on Searle’s (1976) classification of warnings. The framework of Kishie (2008) as well as Searle (1976) influenced the classification proposed in this study. The category of directive by Searle can be equivalent to the request-type of Kishie (2008) . When previous research on requests has focused on politeness, indirectness has often been the subject of analysis. In typical studies such as Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) and Trosborg (1995) , request strategies were classified into a scale of nine or eight. Kishie (2008) established the categories of Request I and Request II, as confirmed in the previous studies section, but these categories were not named based on indirectness. We established the following eight categories in terms of indirectness based on the research of Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) and Trosborg (1995) : Level 1 imperative “Don’t take photos!”; Level 2 explicit performative “I ask you not to take photos”; Level 3 hedged performative 5 “I would like to ask you not to take photos”; Level 4 obligation statement “You should not take photos”; Level 5 want statement “I want you not to take photos”; Level 6 suggestory formula “How about not taking photos?/Let’s not take photos”; Level 7 query preparatory “Could you not take photos?”; Level 8 hint 6 “You can take photos in another place.” We called these categories Directive-Warning (DW) because the request-type categories can only be interpreted as directive. As the second head act, we proposed Representative-Directive-Warning (RDW). Searle’s (1976) point that warnings have representative features as well as directive features led to the name RDW in this study. For example, the sentence “Photography is prohibited” functions as a directive in that the speaker stops the hearer from being about to take photos, but superficially it seems to be representative. Since there are sentences that have both representative and directive features, we made the RDW-type. As with the DW-type, when considering the sub-classification of the RDW-type, we wondered how many levels of indirectness should be assumed in the RDW-type. First, we referred to the explicit and hedged performatives in the DW-type. The difference between these strategies is based on whether or not a hedge marker is used. We also focused on hedge markers in the RDW-type and created the category of explicit and hedged infringement-indications 7 : hedged infringement-indication is more indirect than explicit infringement-indication. Second, when we observed the RDW-type data, we found expressions that confirm facts, such as “Isn’t it prohibited?” In the DW-type, the expression of questions is highly indirect, except for hints: Level 6 suggestory formula and Level 7 query preparatory. For this reason, we identified fact-checking as a category with a higher degree of indirectness than hedged infringement-indications. Based on the above, we created the following categories in the RDW-type based on indirectness: Level 1 explicit infringement-indication “Photography is prohibited”; Level 2 hedged infringement-indication “Looks like photography is prohibited”; Level 3 fact-checking “Isn’t it wrong to take photos?” After examining examples of the RDW-type from a different point of view than indirectness, we found that there are characteristic differences between Jap. and UJap. in the form of the predicates. We set up four predicate forms, “Prohibited to Verb”-form, “Not possible to Verb”-form, “Wrong to Verb”-form, and “Right to Verb”-form (Verb is hereinafter abbreviated as V), and found a difference in their utilization between the Jap. and UJap. groups. Furthermore, when observing the data on hedged infringement-indications of the RDW-type, we found various hedge markers. We classified them and created the following three categories: inference from evidence, citation of a fact, sentence-final ellipsis. With reference to Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) and Bella (2012) , who conducted the research on request, we made the following classification scheme for supportive moves: (i) preparator “I have a favor to ask. (Can you stop calling here?)”; (ii) getting a precommitment “Can I have a word with you? (Looks like drinking isn’t allowed)”; (iii) grounder “There is a sign that says, “Staff only!” (You can’t enter there)”; (iv) alternative “(You can’t enter there) I’ll show you to a restroom”; (v) apology “Sorry. (Photography is prohibited here).” One can place the first and second categories not only in the context of a request, but also in the context of a warning. The third category, grounder involves external mitigation where the speaker gives reasons, explanations, or justifications for his/her warning. The fourth alternative corresponds to Blum-Kulka et al. ’s (1989) “promise of reward.” In the case of a request, the speaker may give the hearer a reward, but in the case of a warning, the speaker may suggest to the hearer an alternative plan to replace the prohibited act instead of giving a reward. Regarding the fifth category, Bella (2012) , who investigated linguistic mitigation in Greek requests, set this category as one of the supportive moves. Based on the above, this study created two head acts, the DW-type (eight subcategories) and the RDW-type (three subcategories), and one supportive move (five subcategories). The RDW-type was also classified into four categories according to predicate form. Furthermore, hedged infringement-indication in the RDW-type was classified into three types based on the type of hedge marker. In the utterance of a warning against prohibited acts, either a head act of the DW or RDW-type is mandatory, but a supportive move is not mandatory. While observing the data, we found situations in which nothing was said, that is, no warning was given. Such no warning situations were labeled by the participants as “Don’t do FTA.” The three authors used this coding manual to label the data: Figure 1 is a summary of the coding procedure. Figure 1. Summary of the warning categories against prohibited acts in Japanese and Uzbek. Following the above procedure, we labeled all the utterances pertaining to warning against prohibited acts as follows. (2) Koko shashin totcha dame mitai yo. Asoko ni hyooji ga aru. Hedged infr-ind (Wrong to V, Inference from evidence) Grounder You’re not supposed to take pictures here. There is a sign over there. The example (2) above is from Situation 1-i “No photography” in Japanese. In the example, there was one hedged infringement-indication for the RDW-type, and one grounder for the supportive moves. In the RDW-type, one “Wrong to V”-form was counted. Furthermore, in the case of the hedged infringement-indication, the type of hedge marker was noted: this example showed that there was one inference from evidence. We presented the eight scenarios ( Table 1 ) to three groups (36 participants each) and obtained the following data sets: Jap. 288, Uzb. 288, and UJap. 288 (total 864). These data were analyzed quantitatively. First, we counted the number of main categories and subcategories of the DW-type, RDW-type, and supportive moves. The number of data labeled as “No warning” ( i.e. , “Don’t do FTA”) was also recorded. The percentage of each subcategory of DW and RDW-types was divided by the total number of head acts. To calculate the utilization rate of the four predicate forms of the RDW-type, the number of each predicate form was divided by the total number of RDW-type. Furthermore, to calculate the utilization rate of the hedge markers of hedged infringement-indication, the number of each hedge marker was divided by the total number of hedged infringement-indication. To calculate the utilization of the three subcategories of supportive moves, the number of each subcategory was divided by the total number of supportive moves. In addition, we analyzed each social parameter. Since there were many apologies among the supportive moves, we counted the number of apologies in each social parameter ( i.e. , social distance and age). Also, we counted the number of “Don’t do FTA” for each social parameter. To obtain the utilization rate of the DW-type, RDW-type, supportive moves, and “Don’t do FTA,” the number of those four semantic formulae was divided by the total number of semantic formulae. Calculations were made using Microsoft Excel (see extended data). We conducted a statistical analysis to show the differences between the two languages by comparing data from native Japanese speakers and Uzbek learners of Japanese ( i.e. , t-test). One point to note about classification was that the same expression form may be labeled differently depending on the context. For example, in a situation where “No entry for unauthorized personnel,” the following example was found in the Japanese data. (3) a. Sochira wa kankee-sha nomi ga haireru tokorodesu . (That place is for authorized personnel only.) b. Soko wa kankee-sha iriguchinanode , hoka no toire o sagashimashoo! ( That is the entrance for the authorized personnel, so let’s find another restroom!) The above (3a) 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 underlined part of (3b) means that the place is the entrance for unauthorized personnel, and it has the same meaning as (3a). However, the underlined part is a reason for looking for another toilet, in other words, it functions as a grounder. We coded the data while considering the context. 3. Results Table 2 indicates the DW-type categories and examples found in the Jap. and UJap. data. Contrary to our expectations, we did not find any examples of categories other than the imperative, want statement, and hint. Also, we did not find any examples of categories other than imperative, obligation statement, suggestory formula and hint in the Uzb. data. 8 Negative imperative forms that would stop the hearer’s action were classified as imperative. The desiderative form in which the speaker wishes the hearer to stop an action, were classified as want statements. 9 Vague warning without a specific form was classified as hint. We can say that these three languages lack diversity in relation to the DW-type. Table 2. Directive-Warning type categories in Japanese and Uzbek Japanese. Level Categories Examples 1 Imperative Japanese: Shashin o toranaide kudasai “Don’t take photos!”; Uzbek Japanese: Koko de shashin o toranaide “Don’t take photos here!” 2 Explicit performative — 3 Hedged performative — 4 Obligation statement — 5 Want statement Japanese: ( Koko satsuee-kinshi dakara ) yameyoo “(It is prohibited to take photos here, so) I want you to stop doing”; Uzbek Japanese: — 6 Suggestory formula — 7 Query preparatory — 8 Hint Japapnese: Soko toirejanaiyo “That’s not a toilet”; Uzbek Japanese: Kochira wa sutaffuyoo mitai desu “This seems to be for the staff” Table 3 shows the categories of the RDW-type. The most direct category in this RDW-type is explicit infringement-indication, which is an expression with a bare predicate form of prohibition, such as “ kinshi da ” and “ dame. ” Hedged infringement-indication is a category that is one step more indirect than explicit infringement-indication. This is an expression in which a hedge is added to explicit infringement-indication (For details of hedge markers, see Table 5 ). The most indirect category in RDW-type is fact-checking, which asks the hearer whether his or her action is prohibited. The sentences in which explicit infringement-indication was negativized and interrogativized were classified into this category. This study shows that Jap. had examples of this but UJap. did not. Table 3. Representative-Directive-Warning type categories in Japanese and Uzbek Japanese. Level Categories Examples 1 Explicit infringement-indication Japanese: Koko wa satsuee-kinshi desuyo “It is prohibited to take photos here”; Uzbek Japanese: Kochira wa satsuee-kinshi desu “It is prohibited to take a photo here” 2 Hedged infringement-indication Japanese: Shashin-satsuee dame mitaiyo “Looks like photography is wrong”; Uzbek Japanese Koko de shashin totte wa ikenai mitaiyo “Looks like it’s wrong to take photos here” 3 Fact-checking Japanese: Soko haiccha damejanai? “Isn’t it wrong to enter there?”; Uzbek Japanese: — As shown in Table 4 , we divided the three RDW-type categories into four in terms of predicate form. The first “Prohibited to V”-form means that the hearer’s action is not permitted according to a rule. The second “Not possible to V”-form has the meaning that the hearer cannot perform the action. Using the third “Wrong to V”-form and the fourth “Right not to V”-form, the speaker communicates that the hearer’s act is bad and not good based on the speaker’s value judgment. 10 If the speaker warns by using the second, third and fourth forms without adding an expression like “It’s a rule” or “There’s a no photography sign over there,” the basis for their warning is not due to a rule, but a value judgment. However, if the speaker uses the first form, they can warn the hearer on the basis of the rule, even without giving a reason for the warning. Concerning the third “Wrong to V”-form, we set two forms: dame and ikenai. As described below, we found differences in the utilization of these two forms between the Jap. and UJap. groups. Table 4. Predicate forms of Representative-Directive-Warning type inJapanese and Uzbek Japanese. Form names Japanese and Uzbek Japanese forms Prohibited to Verb kinshi da Not possible to Verb dekinai, kibishii Wrong to Verb dame, ikenai Right not to Verb shinai hoo ga ii Table 5 shows the three categories of hedge markers in hedged infringement-indication: Inference from evidence, citation of a fact, and sentence-final ellipsis. The category of inferences from evidence is a way of expressing inferences based on a situation, such as “it looks like”, “it’s like”, and “I think”, and in both Japanese and Uzbek, this hedged marker is placed after the predicate. Detailed observation revealed that there were six forms in Japanese and four forms in UJap. in this category. The category of citation of a fact is an expression that cites a prohibited fact. Like inference from evidence, this category is also placed after the predicate in both Japanese and Uzbek. The last category is sentence-final ellipsis, which is unique to Japanese grammar. According to Iwasaki (2006 : 262), “ kedo ” and “ ga ” are used to express a contrary conjunction such as although, but, and were originally only used as conjunctions that connect to the predicate on the left sentence. In modern Japanese, he pointed out that these conjunctions appear even when there is no main clause and function as pragmatic particles that weaken the force of the assertion. In this study, not only the conjunctions “ kedo ” and “ ga ,” which indicate a contrary conjunction, but also the conjunction “ node ,” which expresses a reason such as because were observed as sentence-final ellipsis in Jap. and UJap. Table 5. Types of Hedge markers of Representative-Directive-Warning type. Categories Examples Inference from evidence (“looks like, it‘s like, it seems that, they say, I think that”) Japanese: (1) Predicate (Pr.) + mitai , (2) Pr. + rashii , (3) Pr. + ppoi (4) Pr. + soo , (5) Pr. + yooda , (6) Pr. + to omou ; Uzbek Japanse: (1) Pr. + mitai , (2) Pr. + soo , (3) Pr. + to omou ; Uzbek: (1) Pr. + ekan Citation of a fact (“(it says) that, there is a sign that, (it has been established) that”) Japanese: (1) Pr. + tte kaitearu , (2) Pr. + no hyooji ga aru , (3) Pr. + datte ; Uzbek Japanese: (1) Pr. + to kaitearu , (2) Pr. + no sain/kanban ga aru , (3) Pr. + no maaku o hatte aru , (4) Pr. + to natte iru , (5) Pr. + tte ; Uzbek: (1) Pr. + degan yozuv bar , (2) Pr. + deb yozib qoyilgan , (3) Pr. + belgi bar Sentence-final ellipsis (“although, because”) Japanese: (1) Pr. + ga. .., (2) Pr. + node. ..; Uzbek Japanese: (1) Pr. + ga. .., (2) Pr. + node. .. Table 6 shows the numbers and percentages for the DW and RDW-types. Figure 2 shows the percentages in graphical form. Table 6. Numbers of head acts (Directive Warning and Representative-Directive Warning types) categories. Categories Japanese Uzbek Japanese Uzbek Imperative 2 (0.8%) 28 (10.3%) 34 (12.6%) Obligation statement 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.4%) Want statement 1 (0.4%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Suggestory formula 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.4%) Hint 27 (10.4%) 15 (5.5%) 57 (21.1%) Explicit infringement-indication 71 (27.4%) 145 (53.1%) 70 (25.9%) Hedged infringement-indication 153 (59.1%) 85 (31.1%) 106 (39.3%) Fact-checking 5 (1.9%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.4%) Total 259 (100%) 273 (100%) 270 (100%) Figure 2. Percentages of head acts (Directive-Warning and Representative-Directive-Warning types)’ categories. The following shows the results of the t -test for the DW and RDW-types in the Jap. and UJap. groups. • Imperative: t (37) = -2.73, p < 0.05; Jap. M = 0.06, SD = 0.23; UJap. M = 0.78, SD = 1.57 • Obligation statement: The number of data for Jap. and UJap. was 0. • Want statement: The number of data for UJap. was 0. • Suggestory formula: The number of data for Jap. and UJap. was 0. • Hint: t (70) = 1.32, p = 0.19; Jap. M = 0.75, SD = 1.02; UJap. M = 0.41, SD = 1.11 • Explicit infringement-indication: t (60) = -3.59, p < 0.05; Jap. M = 1.97, SD = 1.86; UJap. M = 4.03, SD = 2.89 • Hedged infringement-indication: t (70) = 3.43, p < 0.05; Jap. M = 4.25, SD = 2.36; UJap. M = 2.36, SD = 2.31 • Fact-checking: The number of data for UJap. was 0. The results of the statistical analysis showed that there were statistically significant differences in the use of imperative, explicit infringement-indication, and hedged infringement-indication. From the above, it was clear that the UJap. group used imperative and explicit infringement-indication more frequently than the Jap. group, while the Jap. group used hedged infringement-indication more frequently than the UJap. group. Table 7 shows the numbers and percentages of the four predicate forms in RDW. Figure 3 shows the percentages in graphical form. Table 7. Predicate forms of Representative-Directive-Warning type in Japanese and Uzbek Japanese. Categories Japanese Uzbek Japanese Uzbek Prohibited to Verb 153 (66.8%) 102 (44.3%) 56 (31.6%) Not possible to Verb 22 (9.6%) 13 (5.7%) 97 (54.8%) Wrong to Verb 45 (19.7%) 77 (33.5%) 1 (0.6%) Right not to Verb 9 (3.9%) 38 (16.5%) 23 (13.0%) Total 229 (100%) 230 (100%) 177 (100%) Figure 3. Percentages of Representative-Directive-Warning type’s predicate forms. The following shows the results of the t -test for the predicate forms in the Jap. and UJap. groups. • Prohibited to Verb: t (70) = 2.29, p = 0.02; Jap. M = 4.25, SD = 2.36; UJap. M = 2.83, SD = 2.85 • Not possible to Verb: t (56) = 1.27, p = 0.21; Jap. M = 0.61, SD = 1.02; UJap. M = 0.36, SD = 0.59 • Wrong to Verb: t (57) = -2.18, p = 0.03; Jap. M = 1.25, SD = 1.25; UJap. M = 0.36, SD = 2.10 • Right not to Verb: t (47) = -2.91, p < 0.05; Jap. M = 0.25, SD = 0.65; UJap. M = 1.06, SD = 1.52 The Jap. group used the “Prohibited to V”-form the most (about 70%), the Uzb. group used the “Not possible to V”-form the most (about 50%), and the UJap. group used the “Prohibited to V” and “Wrong to V”-forms to the same degree (30-40%). Statistical analysis showed significant differences between the Jap. and UJap. groups in the use of the “Prohibited to V,” “Wrong to V,” and “Right not to V”-forms. The Jap. group used the “Prohibited to V”-form more than the UJap. group, but the UJap. group used the “Wrong to V” and “Right not to V”-forms more than the Jap. group. When the “Wrong to V”-form was subdivided, the forms “ dame ” and “ ikenai ” were identified. The number and percentage of these two forms are shown in Table 8 . Table 8. Two forms of the “Wrong to V”-form. Categories Japanese Uzbek Japanese dame -form 38 (84.4%) 19 (24.7%) ikenai -form 7 (15.6%) 58 (75.3%) Total 45 (100%) 77 (100%) Table 9 shows the numbers and percentages of hedge markers in hedged infringement-indication. Figure 4 shows the percentages in graphical form. Table 9. Predicate forms of Hedge markers. Categories Japanese Uzbek Japanese Uzbek Inference from evidence 117 (73.6%) 27 (27.8%) 102 (83.6%) Citation of a fact 37 (23.3%) 51 (52.6%) 18 (14.8%) Sentence-final ellipsis 5 (3.1%) 19 (19.6%) 0 (0%) Other 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (1.6%) Total 159 (100%) 97 (100%) 122 (100%) Figure 4. Percentages of hedge markers in Hedged infringement-indication. The following shows the results of the t -test for hedge markers in the Jap. and UJap. groups. A statistically significant difference was found only in the category of inference from evidence. • Inference from evidence: t (70) = 5.01, p < 0.05; Jap. M = 2.92, SD = 2.03; UJap. M = 0.75, SD = 1.61 • Citation of a fact: t (70) = -1.11, p = 0.27; Jap. M = 1.03, SD = 1.25; UJap. M = 1.42, SD = 1.69 • Sentence-final ellipsis: t (42) = -1.61, p = 0.11; Jap. M = 0.14, SD = 0.42; UJap. M = 0.53, SD = 1.38 • Other: The number of data for Jap. and UJap. was 0. From the statistical analysis, a significant difference was found between the Jap. and UJap. groups in the category of inference from evidence. The Jap. group used inference from evidence more than the UJap. group. When subdividing the hedge markers for inference from evidence based on the categories in Table 5 , we obtained the following results ( Table 10 ). Table 10. Types of Hedge markers in Predicate forms of by Japaneseand Uzbek Japanese. Categories Japanese Uzbek Japanese Predicate + mitai 73 (62.4%) 13 (48.1%) Predicate + rashii 21 (17.9%) 0 (0%) Predicate + ppoi 3 (2.6%) 0 (0%) Predicate + soo 9 (7.7%) 1 (3.7%) Predicate + yooda 5 (4.3%) 0 (0%) Predicate + to omou 6 (5.1%) 13 (48.1%) Total 117 (100%) 27 (100%) The table above shows that the Jap. group used several hedge markers, centering on “ mitai ” and “ rashii ”, but that the UJap. group used the two categories of “ mitai ” and “ to omou ” exclusively. As Table 11 shows, the Jap. and UJap. groups did not produce any examples of “preparator” and “getting a pre-commitment” in the supportive moves. The Uzb. participants also gave no examples of these categories. Table 12 shows the numbers and percentage of supportive moves used, and Figure 5 shows the percentages. • Grounder: t (54) = -1.30, p = 0.20; Jap. M = 0.14, SD = 0.42; UJap. M = 0.33, SD = 0.79 • Alternative: t (70) = 1.01, p = 0.31; Jap. M = 0.64, SD = 1.29; UJap. M = 0.36, SD = 1.02 • Apology: t (53) = -3.92, p < 0.05; Jap. M = 0.78, SD = 1.35; UJap. M = 2.69, SD = 2.61 Table 11. Supportive moves in Japanese and Uzbek Japanese. Categories Examples Preparator — Getting a precommitment — Grounder Japanese: Koko wa kankeesha-no-hito-no-basho dakara (watashitachi wa hairenai tokoro dayo) “This place is for authorized persons, so (it’s a place where we can’t enter)”; Uzbek Japanese: Soko wa sutaffu tame-no-toire da, (hairanai hoo ga iiyo). “That’s a staff bathroom. (It’s better not to go in there)” Alternative Japanese: (Koko keetai-denwa tsukaccha dame mitainanode,) denwa wa soto de shita hoo ga ii desuyo “(As it’s wrong to use your cell phone here,) it’s better to use outside”; Uzbek Japanese: (Koko wa inshoku kinshinanode,) chotto soto ni itte, nonda hoo ga iinjanai desu ka? “(Food and drink are prohibited here, so) wouldn’t it be better that you go outside and drink it?” Apology Japanese: Sumimasen. Koko inshoku-kinshi desuyo “Sorry. Eating and drinking is prohibited here”; Uzbek Japanese: Mooshiwake-arimasen-ga, (inshoku kinshi-sa-rete-imasu-yo.) “I’m sorry, but (food and drink are prohibited)” Table 12. Supportive moves in Japanese and Uzbek Japanese. Categories Japanese Uzbek Japanese Uzbek Grounder 5 (8.9%) 12 (9.8%) 9 (17.0%) Alternative 23 (41.1%) 13 (10.7%) 16 (30.2%) Apology 28 (50.0%) 97 (79.5%) 28 (52.8%) Total 56 (100%) 122 (100%) 53 (100%) Figure 5. Percentages of supportive moves’ categories. The results of the statistical analysis of the supportive moves showed that the only significant difference between the Jap. and UJap. groups was in the use of apologies. The UJap. group used apologies more than the Jap. group. As in the examples of apology in Table 11 , the DCT data revealed that apology 11 almost always preceded a head act. Furthermore, Figure 6 shows the number of apologies by social parameter. According to the results, it was clear that while Jap. participants apologized only to people they did not know (+SD), whereas UJap. participants apologized not only to people they did not know (+SD), but also to people they knew well (-SD). Figure 6. Number of apologies by social parameter. Participants noted that they do not warn the hearer in some situations. We categorized the case as “Don’t do FTA.” Table 13 indicates the number and percentage of DW, RDW, supportive moves, and Don’t do FTA. Table 13. Number and percentage of Directive-Warning, Representative-Directive-Warning, Supportive moves, and Don’t do “face-threatening act (FTA)”. Japanese Uzbek Japanese Uzbek Directive-Warning 30 (8.3%) 43 (10.2%) 92 (24.5%) Representative-Directive-Warning 229 (63.6%) 231 (54.6%) 177 (47.1%) Supportive moves 55 (15.3%) 121 (28.8%) 53 (14.1%) Don’t do FTA 46 (12.8%) 28 (6.6%) 54 (14.4%) Total 360 423 376 The results of the t -test for the four categories above in Jap. and UJap. are shown below. Of these, only supportive moves showed a significant difference. As a result, the UJap. group used supportive moves more than the native groups, about twice as often. • DW: t (56) = -1.04, p = 0.30; Jap. M = 0.83, SD = 1.03; UJap. M = 1.19, SD = 1.80 • RDW: t (70) = -0.05, p = 0.96; Jap. M = 6.36, SD = 2.38; UJap. M = 6.39, SD = 2.35 • Supportive moves: t (55) = -2.87, p < 0.05; Jap. M = 1.56, SD = 1.89; UJap. M = 3.39, SD = 3.33 • Don’t do FTA: t (70) = 1.27, p = 0.21; Jap. M = 1.28, SD = 1.71; UJap. M = 0.81, SD = 1.41 Figure 7 shows the sub-classification of “Don’t do FTA” by social parameter. This figure revealed that all the groups implemented the “Don’t do FTA” strategy for +SD, namely unknowns. Figure 7. Number of Don’t do “face-threatening act (FTA)” by social parameter. 4. Discussion One of the significant findings from this study was that Uzbek learners of Japanese tended to be verbose. Analysis of the data in Figure 4 and Table 13 revealed that the UJap. group used more supportive moves, especially apology, than the Jap. and Uzb. groups, although the native groups avoided verbose utterances by providing only the necessary information. The verbosity of the learner group would not have been influenced by their native language, but by the characteristics of the learner language. If the result showed that the Uzb. group frequently used supportive moves, or if there were previous studies showing that Uzbeks tend to speak in a redundant way, there would have been a possibility of a cultural influence of the native language. However, the data from this study showed that the influence of the learners’ language was stronger than the influence of Uzbek and its culture. The influence of the learner’s language can be derived from the similarity of the data in Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1986) , which investigated the redundancy of the learners’ language. Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1986 : 172) showed the ratio of supportive moves with and without native speakers and non-native speakers as follows ( Table 14 ). Table 14. Ratio of supportive moves by native and non-natives in request situations ( Blum-Kulka and Olshtain 1986 ). Group Parameter Percentages Native With supportive moves 40% Without supportive moves 60% Non-native With supportive moves 55.5% Without supportive moves 44.5% Meanwhile, the results of the ratio of supportive moves in this study were as follows ( Table 15 ). Cases where no warning was issued were labeled as “Don’t do FTA,” and the number and ratio of these cases were shown. Table 15. The numbers and percentages of supportive moves and “Don't do FTA” used by natives and non-natives in this study. Group Parameter Number Percentages Total Japanese (native) With supportive moves 53 18.4% 100% Without supportive moves 189 65.6% Don’t do FTA 46 15.9% Uzbek Japanese (non-native) With supportive moves 110 38.1% 100% Without supportive moves 149 51.7% Don’t do FTA 29 10.0% Uzbek (native) With supportive moves 49 17.0% 100% Without supportive moves 185 64.2% Don’t do FTA 54 18.7% The following is a comparison between Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1986) and the present study. According to Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1986) , non-native speakers used supportive moves nearly 15% more often than native speakers (native speakers 40.0%; non-native speakers 55.5%). On the other hand, the non-native UJap. group in this study used the supportive moves about 20.0% more frequently than the native Jap. and Uzb. groups (Jap. 18.4%; Uzb. 17.0%; UJap. 38.1%). This study clearly showed a tendency for more learners to use supportive moves than Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1986) . Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1986 : 177) asserted that lengthening of speech act patterns and addition of supportive moves in languages spoken by learners, especially advanced learners, are due to the learners’ lack of confidence. They want to get their message across but are not confident in their speaking ability. Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1986 : 173) said that grounder, which provides reasons and explanations to justify the need to make a request, was the most common in the supportive moves that learners used in request. Ito (2002) reported that lengthening of speech act patterns (especially reasons for refusal) occurred in refusal expressions in Japanese made by groups of native Malay speakers. UJap. subjects tended to be at the intermediate level of Japanese language proficiency (N3-N2 levels), but as Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1986 : 177) previously noted, the subjects exhibited “lengthening of speech act patterns” found in advanced level learners. Unlike the previous studies of request and refusal, this study showed that apology was more common than grounder. In the scenario where the speaker warned about a prohibition, many Uzbek learners of Japanese may have assumed that the speaker does not need to actively explain the reason for the warning because the situation pertaining to the warning is clear and that the speaker expects the hearer to know that one is not allowed to take pictures in certain areas of a museum or use their cell phone in certain areas of a hospital. For this reason, UJap. participants probably implemented the negative politeness strategy of apology to express their feeling of being sorry for having to issue a warning rather than to give reasons for the warning. Also, Figure 5 shows, UJap. participants apologized to both strangers and those who they knew, while Jap. participants apologized only to strangers. The more extensive use of apology in UJap. than in Jap. means that Uzbek learners of Japanese may apologize more readily than Japanese. There may be a stereotype that learners speak bluntly to their hearers, but they used a lot of the politeness strategy called apology, which is not often used by Japanese people. Then, we consider why this learners’ group used apology so much. The possibility of the influence of Uzbek culture is low. Surveying the results of cultural studies on Uzbeks, it is possible that Uzbeks apologize frequently ( Turdonova 2024 ; Abduvahobovna and Ibragimovna 2024 ). However, Figure 4 shows that there were few instances of apology in the Uzb. group. If apology was used frequently in Uzb. as well as in UJap., it would be possible to say that it was influenced by Uzbek culture. This phenomenon of frequent apologies can be explained by the characteristics of the learner language. It was reported that in refusal situations, Japanese learners whose native language is Thai tended to apologize more than native Japanese speakers ( Roungtheera 2005 ). From the above, it can be said that Japanese learners generally tend to apologize. Because the expression of apology is convenient, learners may use it frequently. The UJap. group’s apology is a politeness strategy that can be easily done by simply placing the word “ Sumimasen ” before the warning. Unlike reasons, this strategy does not need to be explained in accordance with the situation. Furthermore, by making use of the stereotype that Japanese people apologize frequently, UJap. may have frequently used the apology strategy. According to Takahashi (2012) , this characteristic of Japanese people to apologize often is in contrast to the characteristic of Chinese people who do not admit their own mistakes, and is a cause of cultural friction between Japan and China. In situations where Uzbek learners of Japanese warn Japanese people based on a prohibition sign, it may be better not to apologize too much. An analysis of the head acts, the core of warning, revealed that Jap. warning was indirect. Their warning was based on the rules of prohibition, and it also showed their own speculation that the existence of the rules is uncertain. On the other hand, UJap. warning was direct and that it was based on the speaker’s value judgment. First, regarding indirectness, see the RDW-type’s categories in Figure 2 . The Jap. group used hedged infringement-indication frequently, while the UJap. group used a lot of explicit infringement-indication, which was more direct. While the Jap. group in Figure 3 used “Prohibited to V”-form frequently, the UJap. group used both “Prohibited to V” and “Wrong to V”-forms frequently. From this fact, it can be seen that while Jap. tended to give warnings based on rules, UJap. tended to give warnings based on the speaker’s own judgment. While Jap. transferred the responsibility for warning to the museum or hospital, about half of the UJap. participants themselves took on the responsibility that originally belonged to those institutions and conveyed the opinion that the hearer’s action was wrong. Furthermore, from the results of the frequent use of hedge markers such as “inference from evidence” in the Jap. group in Figure 4 , it was found that Jap. thought that the existence of the prohibition rule is uncertain. From the results of the analysis of the head acts above, we clarified the characteristics of the Jap. and UJap. groups. We wondered why the UJap. group used “Wrong to V”-form so frequently. Since the Uzb. group used the “Not Possible to V”-form most frequently and hardly used the “Wrong to V”-form at all, it is likely that the reason why the UJap. participants used the “Wrong to V”-form so frequently was due to the influence of the learner language, not the influence of their native language. If native language or culture had an effect, we would have seen the “Wrong to V”-form frequently in the data of Uzb. group’s data as well. The UJap. group may have used the “Wrong to V”-form frequently due to the influence of the learner language, particularly the textbook. The influence of textbooks on learners has been studied in the past. Certainly, there are studies that do not emphasize the influence of textbooks, such as Yamada (2004 : 150), but some studies pointed out that the influence of textbooks is strongly apparent in the initial stages of learning, such as Park (2017) and Honda (2019) . Also, Honda (2019 : 125) stated that “the first 1000 words that Japanese learners learn are often influenced by the textbooks they use.” Park (2017 : 101) also pointed out that the actual usage of “ totemo ” (very) by Japanese learners differs from that of native Japanese speakers, and is closer to the usage of “ totemo ” in textbooks, especially beginner-level textbooks. For the “Wrong to V”-form, two subcategories were set up: “ dame ” and “ ikenai. ” As Table 8 shows, there are differences between the Jap. and UJap. groups, with Jap. using “ dame ” frequently and UJap. using “ ikenai ” frequently. The “ ikenai ” form is practiced in the early stages of Japanese language learning. This form appeared in Lesson 15 of Minnano Nihongo, Shokyuu (Beginner) I , a textbook that is representative of Japanese language textbooks worldwide ( Three A Network 2012a : 126-129), and is within the first 1000 words that Japanese language learners learn. On the other hand, “ dame ” appeared in Lesson 9 of Minnano Nihongo, Shokyuu (Beginner) I , but it only appeared once and was not used as much as “ ikenai ” for practice. It is likely that UJap. participants used the word “ ikenai ” frequently because they had practiced it a lot in their textbooks. As Figure 3 shows, UJap. used “Right not to V”-form as well as “Wrong to V”-form more than Jap. frequently. According to Takanashi (2011 : 3-4), the Japanese phrase “shinai hooga ii,” which belongs to the “Right not to V”-form, is an expression that “gives the hearer a benefit or favor and gives the hearer the option of not carrying out the action.” In other words, such expressions are not just a way of advising the hearer not to suffer any disadvantage. They are also an indirect way of showing respect for the hearer’s face and conveying that the hearer does not have to follow the speaker’s advice ( Brown and Levinson 1987 : 172). The result that UJap. used this form frequently may suggest that in Uzbek society, when giving advice, there is a culture that respects the hearer’s face and gives the hearer options. As Figure 3 shows, the Uzb. group also had a higher usage rate of the “Right not to V”-form than the Jap. group. The high usage of the “Right not to V”-form in the UJap. group may be due to the influence of the culture of their native language. Regarding the indirectness of Jap. and UJap., we noted above that Jap. made frequent use of hedged infringement-indication, while UJap. made frequent use of the more direct explicit infringement-indication. The fact that Jap. used hedges to speak ambiguously is supported from the perspective of cultural studies. Yang and Cao (2005 : 46-47) stated that “Japanese people consciously change their speaking style from direct to indirect, and from indirect to euphemistic, and deliberately use ambiguous expressions to avoid direct expressions,” indicating that Japanese people tend to prefer ambiguous expressions. In second language acquisition research, there were reports of research showing that language learners are more direct than native speakers ( Fukushima 1990 ; Cenoz 1995 ). Fukushima (1990) pointed out that offer and request by Japanese learners of English were more direct than the forms used by native English speakers. Many UJap. participants did not use hedged forms that Jap. participants used frequently. The tendency for Japanese language learners not to use hedges was also pointed out in Hotta and Horie (2012) , who investigated hedges in the speech of refusals. The results of this study showed the same tendency as their research. Japanese hedges can be difficult for learners in general. The UJap. and Jap. groups showed differences not only in the usage rate of hedges, but also in the type of hedges. As Table 10 shows, UJap. tended to use two types of hedge, “ to omou ” and “ mitai ,” within the category of inference from evidence. This result made us wonder why there were so few types of inference from evidence in UJap. One possible reason for this scarcity is the influence of the native language, Uzbek. From Table 10 , we found that Uzb. only showed the word “ ekan ” as inference from evidence. The word “ ekan ” is used to express what the speaker learned from a third party or what the speaker judged or guessed based on circumstantial evidence, and is equivalent to verbal suffixes such as “ mitai ,” “ rashii ,” and “ yooda ” in Japanese ( Shimada 2019 : 182). As inference from hearsay, Uzbek only has “ ekan ,” but Japanese has more types. The small number of varieties of inference from evidence in Uzbek may have led to the small number of forms in the category of inference from evidence in UJap. It is imperative to pay attention to the aforementioned statement, which pointed out that “UJap. tended to use two types of hedges, “ to omou ” and “ mitai ,” within the category of inference from evidence.” The Japanese “ to omou ” is translated as “I think that,” and “ mitai ” is translated as “looks like, it’s like, it seems.” The fact that the UJap. group used the verb “ omou ” (about 48% of the total) so frequently in the category of inference from evidence may be due to the influence of learner language. This theory is also supported by the statement in Hotta and Horie (2012 : 15) that “learners tended to use verbs like “ omou ” (I think), and Nikula’s (1997) observation that learners tended to overuse “I think” as a hedge. On the other hand, the reason for the high frequency of “mitai” (48% of the total) in UJap. was unknown. As in the case of “ ikenai ,” we considered the possibility of the influence of the textbook, but this is unlikely. While the form “ mitai ” is not taught in the beginner’s level of “ Minnano Nihongo ,” it is taught in the second lesson of Intermediate I ( Three A Network 2008 ). The lessons on the other forms of inference from evidence were as follows: “ yooda ” is taught in Lesson 47 of Beginner II, “ soo ” is taught in Lesson 3 of Intermediate I, “ rashii ” is taught in Lesson 11 of Intermediate I, and “ ppoi ” is taught in the third section of the Additional Section of Intermediate II ( Three A Network 2008 , 2012b , 2013 ). If we base the theory that learners tend to frequently use the items they learn at the beginning of the textbook, it was expected that because UJap. learn “ yooda ” at an earlier stage of beginner level, they would use it frequently in this survey, but this was not the case. We also considered the possibility of influence from their native language, Uzbek, but this is also unlikely. As we pointed out above, the Uzbek word “ ekan ” indicates a guess based on hearsay, and it does not correspond only to the Japanese form “ mitai. ” The above is a discussion of the RDW-type of head acts. As Figure 2 shows, the DW data was less than the RDW data. Although participants of the three language groups could show indirectness in the DW-type as well as in the RDW-type, they did not use any indirect strategies of the DW-type except for hint. While request categories and DW-type categories of warning were the same, the frequency of use was different. Harting (2008 : 125) showed that in request situations, more than 50% of the Japanese participants used the highly indirect query preparatory and about 20% of them used the moderately indirect want statement. However, in the warning situations, none of the groups used such indirect DW strategies. The participants may have avoided using such indirect strategies because the strategies were too euphemistic or because directive speech acts were not appropriate for the warning scenarios. None of the three language groups used a preparator or attempted to get a precommitment in the supportive moves. In the warning scenarios, although the speaker does not have the authority to prohibit, they can serve as a spokesperson for the authority. Because of this role, the participants may have thought that there was no need to use a preparator to inform the hearer that a warning was about to be given, nor does the speaker feel the need to try to secure a pre-commitment before the warning. The participants in all the language groups would not have used such circuitous strategies because the speaker does not need to adopt a humble attitude toward the hearer in warning situations. We found that the three language groups did not warn strangers. All the groups implemented the “Don’t do FTA” strategy towards the +SD attribute, that is, unknowns (see Figure 6 ). Warning was given to people with other attributes. Participants in all the groups issued warnings without hesitation not only to the hearer who were the same age as the speaker and whom the speaker knew well (-SD, x=y), but also to the hearer who were older than the speaker and whom the speaker knew well (-SD, x<y). In all the language groups, whether or not the speaker knows the hearer well was an important indicator of whether or not a warning would be given. It is possible that they did not want to threaten the face of a stranger and receive a hostile reaction from the stranger. We summarize the characteristics of Jap. and UJap. from the perspective of politeness strategies. As mentioned in previous studies, Brown and Levinson (1987 : 98) stated that the speaker will not provide compensation if it is in the hearer’s benefit to perform an FTA. They pointed out that the warning itself shows that the speaker is concerned about the hearer, so the politeness strategy does not work, and the warning may be carried out baldly. However, the following politeness strategies were actually observed in the data from this study. The Jap. groups used the strategy of “State the FTA as a general rule” by using the “Prohibited to V”-form. This is a strategy that conveys that the speaker does not want to interfere, but is only compelled to do so by rules, regulations, or obligations ( Brown and Levinson 1987 , negative politeness strategy 8). With the “Prohibited to V”-form, many Jap. participants did not want to warn, but may have wanted to imply that they had to warn due to the rules of the museum or hospital. Although the use of the “Prohibited to V”-form has the advantage of allowing the speaker to transfer the responsibility for the warning to an authority, there is a danger that the expression alone may lead the hearer to feel that the speaker is an overbearing person who enjoys wielding authority. To avoid this risk, the Jap. group also frequently implemented the second politeness strategy of hedge ( Brown and Levinson 1987 , negative politeness strategy 2). Of the hedges, the Japanese used inferences from evidence frequently. This is the hedge that Brown and Levinson (1987 : 164-165) explained as “the speaker does not take full responsibility for the truth of his utterance.” By using this hedge, the Jap. participants tried to escape from responsibility by conveying that the fact of the prohibition was only their own prediction. In contrast, the UJap. participants used the “Wrong to V”-form to take on the responsibility that the institution should have originally taken on, and to express his or her opinion that the hearer’s action was wrong. The UJap. probably thought that the hearer would be offended by the situation and added the apology ( Brown and Levinson 1987 , negative politeness strategy 6). The UJap. group also used the “Right not to V”-form, a strategy of indirectness that gives the hearer the option of whether or not to do the action ( Brown and Levinson 1987 , negative politeness strategy 1). From the above, we could see that there were differences in the politeness strategies used in warning between Jap. and UJap. If Uzbek learners of Japanese were to find employment in Japan and have to communicate with Japanese people, they would probably need to be careful about the use of apologies. They may be apologizing unnecessarily in situations where Japanese people would not. Above, we compared data from native speaker and non-native speaker groups. Finally, as a supplement, we contrast the native languages of Japanese and Uzbek. The results of this contrast supplement the explanation of the characteristics of UJap. shown above. Firstly, the main similarities between Japanese and Uzbek are that RDW-type was used more than DW-type, and that there was a certain number of people who did not give strangers any warning. On the other hand, the main difference occurred in the RDW-type. The Jap. group used “Prohibited to Verb”-form frequently, while the Uzb. group used “Not possible to Verb” frequently. In other words, while Jap. focused on the fact of prohibition, Uzb. focused on the possibility of prohibition. Furthermore, when observing the hedge markers of Jap. and Uzb. in the RDW-type, it was found that the number of types of inference from evidence differed between the two languages. The Jap. group showed various forms of the hedge markers in the category of inference from evidence. In Jap., six types were used: “ mitai ,” “ rashii ,” “ ppoi ,” “ soo ,” “ yooda ,” and “ to omou ,” but in Uzb., only one type was used: “ ekan ” ( Table 5 ). 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. This contrastive analysis supplemented the feature of UJap. 5. Conclusions Referring to prohibition and request studies, this study created a taxonomy of warnings against prohibited acts and compared the speech act used by native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners. The two language groups used the RDW-type more than the DW-type. Among the RDW-type, the Japanese participants used indirect expressions ( i.e. , hedged infringement-indication) more frequently than the Uzbek learners of Japanese. By using the “Prohibited to V”-form, the Japanese participants conducted a politeness strategy of stating warning as a rule. However, simply using the “Prohibited to V”-form runs the risk that the hearer feels that the speaker is an overbearing person who enjoys wielding authority. To avoid this risk, the Japanese participants used the hedge’s politeness strategy, especially the inference based on the fact of prohibition (e.g., “Looks like photography is wrong”), to make it clear that the right to prohibit rests with the public authority, not with themselves. On the other hand, the Uzbek learners of Japanese used more direct expressions ( i.e. , explicit infringement-indication) than the Japanese. Previous studies on second language acquisition indicated that learners tend to speak more directly than native speakers. The Uzbek Japanese learners tended to apologize more than the native Japanese speakers. Because of frequently using explicit infringement-indication, it seems as if they gave a blunt warning. To compensate for doing the FTA, the learners implemented the politeness strategy of apology. The Japanese participants also made apologies, but only when the hearer was a stranger. In contrast, Uzbek learners of Japanese made apologies regardless of whether the hearer was a stranger or not. From the above, we can see that the native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners used different politeness strategies. In this study, there were participants who not only did not use politeness strategies, but also did not give warnings. Whether or not the speaker gives warnings depends on the social parameters of the hearer. The native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners only used the “Don’t do FTA” strategy only with strangers. Whether or not the hearer was an acquaintance was an important indicator of whether or not to give warnings, whether the hearer was a native Japanese speaker or a learner of Japanese. Based on the results of this research, we can make the following suggestions to Uzbek learners of Japanese. Don’t do FTA to strangers means that there are cases where it is better not to warn strangers. For learners with a high level of Japanese ability, we recommend that they try to give warnings using general rules such as “ kinshi desu ” (It’s prohibited) and using hedges that Japanese people frequently use. If they say “ kinshi desu ” without using hedges, there is a possibility of FTA and interpersonal friction. In the case of learners whose Japanese language skills are insufficient, it would be best not to give any warnings. If such inexperienced learners carelessly warn a stranger, they may end up threatening the face of the stranger and getting themselves into trouble. Uzbek learners’ overuse of apology means that they may apologize excessively in situations where the Japanese do not. Uzbek learners of Japanese do not need to apologize when warning Japanese people. Although the learners may be a stereotype that Japanese people apologize, this is a different situation to a warning. We will point out the possibilities and issues for future research. The present study created a classification scheme for warning against prohibitions, based on the Japanese and Uzbek Japanese data, and referring to the Uzbek data. In the future, we will use this framework to analyze this speech act of learners of Japanese other than Uzbeks and native speakers of Asian languages other than Japanese. By examining data from a large number of languages, we can develop a more general classification scheme. As mentioned above, this study found cases where participants of all the groups did not warn. Each of the DCT’s questionnaire statements did not ask whether the warning was given in the first place. In the DCT, if we ask not only “What do you say to the hearer to warn him/her?” but also “Do you warn the hearer in this situation?,” the majority of the participants may not warn unknowns. Some participants gave reasons for not warning in certain situations. Because the number of such comments was small, we did not analyze them qualitatively in this study. In the future, we would like to create a questionnaire that asks why participants choose not to give warnings when they do not, and perform a qualitative analysis to clarify the cultural backgrounds of Japanese and Uzbek people. Since we did not collect data with a view to conducting a qualitative analysis in this study, qualitative analysis is a task for the future. In response to the need to expand the study of Uzbek Japanese, we conducted a pragmatic study focusing on Uzbek learners of Japanese as well as native Japanese speakers. In order to survey pragmatic competence, it is important to understand not only the speech act but also the social and cultural context ( Bachman 1990 : 42). 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 such situations, the learners may not have thought about being able to use the language appropriately in Japanese society. However, since 2020, there has been an increase in the number of Uzbeks studying Japanese in order to get a job in Japan ( Japan Foundation 2022 ). Obtaining a work visa for Japan and working for a Japanese company has become a motivation for their studies. There will probably be more learners and teachers who think about being able to use the appropriate language in work situations in Japan, such as avoiding friction with Japanese businesspeople. It will also become important for Japanese language teachers in Uzbekistan who teach Japanese to their students to provide not only Japanese language knowledge to help them pass the Japanese Language Proficiency Test, but also lessons that convey appropriate language use for Japanese people. Research that supports Japanese language teachers in Uzbekistan is needed. In addition, it is also important to study the acquisition of Japanese by Uzbek learners of Japanese from the perspective of acquisition research. The acquisition of speech acts involves going through several stages in order for speech acts to be performed appropriately. In order to clarify the developmental process of learners’ acquisition of warning, it would be effective to divide learners into levels. In this study, we gathered a group of intermediate learners with an average level of N3-N2. In the future, we will need to increase the number of participants from Uzbek learners of Japanese and investigate the warning according to the level of Japanese ability. Furthermore, in order to observe the differences in the acquisition situation of Uzbek learners of Japanese and the acquisition situation of other foreign learners of Japanese, it would be effective to use a large-scale database called the “International Corpus of Japanese as a Second Language.” This corpus can show results by controlling several conditions such as native language, learning environment, and developmental level. We will be able to compare the Japanese of Uzbeks with the Japanese of other foreigners at each stage of development. One possible direction for research would be a contrastive study of Japanese and Uzbek. By contrasting not only warnings but also other speech acts, it would be possible to clarify the cultural backgrounds of Japanese and Uzbek people. Furthermore, the results of this research can also be applied to the creation of Japanese language textbooks. In Japanese language education, the creation of textbooks based on the “Can do” approach, such as the “ Marugoto ” series published by the Japan Foundation, has already begun. Using the classification scheme and survey results from this research, we would like to contribute to the creation of Japanese language teaching materials based on the “Can do” approach for warning. In addition, there are Japanese language textbooks that aim to teach speech acts such as requests and apologies, such as Shimizu (2013) . With the aim of creating this textbook, we plan to write Japanese language teaching materials related to speech acts that include warnings. Ethics and consent information Retrospective ethical approval for this study on the 01/05/2023. All participants provided implicit consent by completing the online questionnaire. Data availability Figshare: All data on Politeness when native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners give warnings about prohibited acts, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24179064.v1 ( Ninomiya 2025 ). Underlying data This paper contains the following underlying data: • Raw data.xlsx • Labelling data: Japanese labelling.docx, Uzbek Japanese labelling.docx, Uzbek labelling.docx Extended data This paper contains the following extended data: • Original scenario questionnaires: Japanese questionnaire.pdf, Uzbek Japanese questionnaire.docx, Uzbek questionnaire.pdf • English translation of questionnaires.docx • Data analysis.xlsx Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). References Abduvahobovna XM, Ibragimovna TG:Kechirim – Nutqiy akt sifatida. Int. J. Sci. Res. 2024; 5 (2):235–237. Bach K, Harnish RM: Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1979. Bachman L: Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford:Oxford University Press;1990. Bataineh RF, Aljamal MA: Watch out and beware: Differences in the use of warning between American and Jordanian undergraduate students. J. Theor. Linguist. 2014; 11 (1): 87–110. Bella S: Length of residence and intensity of interaction: Modification in Greek L2 requests. Pragmatics. 2012; 22 (1): 1–39. Publisher Full Text Blum-Kulka S, Olshtain E: Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure. Stud. Second. Lang. Acquis. 1986; 8 (2): 165–179. Publisher Full Text Blum-Kulka S, House J, Kasper G: Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood: Albex; 1989. Brown P, Levinson SC: Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1987. Cenoz J: American vs. European requests: Do speakers use the same strategies? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the international conference on pragmatics and language learning (9th, Urbana, IL). 1995; 2–18. Dessari H, Haristiani O, Haristiani N:Politeness in Japanese prohibition. Proceedings of the 5th international conference on language, literature, culture, and education. 2021;715–721. Erler B: The speech act of forbidding and its realizations. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Muller; 2020. Fukushima S: Offers and requests: performance by Japanese learners of English. World Englishes. 1990; 9 (3): 317–325. Publisher Full Text Harting A: Nihongo to doitsugo ni okeru e-meeru no koozoo no chigai: Doitsugo kyooiku e no shisa. [Requests in German and Japanese e-mails: A contrastive analysis]. Hiroshima Gaukokugo kyooiku kenkyuu. [Hiroshima Studies in Language and Language Education]. 2008; 11 (1): 121–131. Hashimoto Y, Sasagawa Y, Kenjo T, et al. : Enkyokuteki komyunikeeshon hooryaku no ibunkakan hikaku: 9 gengo hikaku choosa. [Euphemistic Communication Strategy: Cross-Cultural Studies on Indirect speech acts]. Tookyoodaigaku shakai joohoo kenkyuujo choosa kenkyuu kiyoo. [The Research Bulletin of the Institute of Socio-Information and Communication Studies, the University of Tokyo]. 1992; 1 : 107–159. Honda Y:Koopasu ni motodzuku “dokkai kihon goi 1 man-go” no sentei. [Compiling a corpus-based educational word list for learners of Japanese: “Basic vocabulary of 10,000 words for reading Japanese text”]. Nihongo kyooiku. [Journal of Japanese Language Education]. 2019; 172 :118–133. Hotta T, Horie K:Nihongo gakushuusha no “kotowari” koodoo ni okeru hejji no koosatsu: Chuukan gengo goyooron bunseki o tsuujite. [Hedges in refusals of invitations by Japanese learners: An interlanguage pragmatic analysis]. Goyooron kenkyuu. [Studies in Pragmatics]. 2012; 14 :1–19. Hussein AL, Khalaf SQ:Iraqi EFL university students’ linguistic strategies in approaching warning and prohibition. English Language Teaching. 2018; 11 (12):11–37. Publisher Full Text Ito E: Mareego bogo washa no chuukan gengo ni mirareru goyooronteki tokuchoo: Kotowari hyoogen ni okeru fuhensei to tokushusei. [Pragmatic features in the interlanguage of native Malay speakers: Universality and particularity in refusal expressions]. Kotoba no kagaku. [Studia Linguistica]. 2002; 15 : 179–195. Iwasaki S: Japanese Revised ed. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company; 2006. Iwasaki T, Umarova M: Hairyo hyoogen no nihongo/uzubekugo taishoo: Juju-hojo dooshi o chuushin ni. [A contrastive analysis of considerate expressions in Japanese and Uzbek: Focusing on benefactive auxiliary verbs].Yamaoka M, editor. Nihongo-hairyo-hyoogen-no-genri to shosoo [Principles and aspects of Japanese considerate expressions]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers; 2019; 231–245. Japan foundation: Uzbekistan: FY2022. 2022. https://www.jpf.go.jp/j/project/japanese/survey/area/country/2022/uzbekistan.html Kim S: Nihongo to kankokugo no gengo keikan ni okeru kinshi hyoogen: Basho ni yoru chigai o chuushin ni. [A comparative study on the expression of prohibition in Japanese and Korean linguistic landscape-focusing on the place]. Meikai nihongo. [Meikai Japanese Language Journal]. 2011; 16 (2): 53–62. Kishie S: Shikoku hoogen ni okeru kinshi hyoogen to kinshi hyoogen koodoo. [Expressions and language behaviors of prohibition in Shikoku dialects].Yamaguchi Yukihiro hakase no koki o oiwaisuru kai [Organization to celebrate Dr. Yamaguchi Yukihiro’s 70th birthday], editor. Hoogen kenkyuu no zenei. [The vanguard of dialect studies]. Toyama: Katsura-Shobo; 2008; 29–46. Kobilova NI: Speech acts of prohibition in the English and Uzbek languages. Materials of the republican 23-multidisciplinary online distance conference on scientific and practical research in Uzbekistan Part 7. 2020; 19–20. Nikula T:Interlanguage view on hedging. In Markkanen R, Schroder H (eds.) Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter; 1997; 188–207. Publisher Full Text Ninomiya T: All data of Politeness when native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners give warnings about prohibited acts. figshare. Dataset. 2025. Publisher Full Text Park S:“Totemo” ni okeru Nihongo gakushuusha to nihongo bogo washa no shiyoo jittai no chigai: Hanashikotoba o chuushin ni. [The differences in the use of totemo between non-native speakers and native speakers: Focusing on spoken language]. Nihongo/Nihongo-kyooiku-kenkyuu. [Studies in Japanese language and Japanese language teaching]. 2017; 8 :101–114. Roungtheera W:Taigo o bogo to suru nihongo gakushuusha to nihongo bogowasha no kotowari hyoogen ni kansuru kenkyuu. [A study of refusal expressions between native Thai learners of Japanese and native speakers of Japanese]. PhD dissertation,Osaka University. 2005. Searle J: A classification of illocutionary acts. Lang. Soc. 1976; 5 (1): 1–23. Publisher Full Text Shimada S: Daigaku no uzubekugo [Uzbek language for students]. Tokyo:Tokyo University of Foreign Studies Press.2019. Shimizu T: Chuujookyuu gakushuusha no tame no burashuappu nihongo kaiwa [ Brush up Japanese conversation for intermediate and advanced learners ]. Three A Network. 2013. Takanashi S:Kooi yookyuu ni tsuite: Nihongo kyooiku ni okeru mondai. [On directives in Japanese: A discussion from a educational point of view]. Koobedaigaku ryuugakusee sentaa kiyoo. [Bulletin of Kobe University International Student Center] .2011; 17 . :1–17. Takahashi Y:Kore made no nitchuu no “shazai” hyoogen kenkyuu no mondaiten to kongo no kadai. [Current and future issues in research on expressing apologies in Japan and China]. Bunka gaikokugo senmon gakkoo kiyoo. [Annual reports of studies, Bunka institute of language]. 2012; 25 :1–8. Three A Network: Minna no nihongo intermediate I. Tokyo: Three A Network; 2008. Three A Network: Minna no nihongo elementary I. Tokyo: Three A Network; 2012a. Three A Network: Minna no nihongo intermediate II. Tokyo: Three A Network; 2012b. Three A Network: Minna no nihongo elementary II. Tokyo: Three A Network; 2013. Trosborg A: Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter; 1995. Turdonova S: Ingliz va O‘zbek tillarida “Kechirim” so‘rash nutq aktlari: O‘xshash va farqli jihatlari. Miasto Przyszłości ;2024; Special issue: 72–78. Yamada Y:Chuugakkoo eigo kyookasho no bunseki to hihan. [A critical analysis of junior-high English textbooks]. Hiroshima shuudai ronshuu: Jinbun-hen. [Studies in the humanities and sciences Hiroshima shudo University]. 2004; 45 (1):149–203. Yamashita Y: “ Shiyoo ” no imi/yoohoo: “Hinan”/ “Ganboo hyooshutsu” no “ Shiyooyo. ” [The meaning and usage of shiyoo : “Criticism” and “desire expression”: Shiyoo-yo]. Nihongo/Nihongo-kyooiku-kenkyuu. [Studies in Japanese language and Japanese language teaching]. 2014; 5 : 91–106. Yamazaki M: Arutaishogo, choosengo to nihongo ni okeru shikaku dooshi no shikoosoo bunpooka yoohoo no tenkai. [Grammaticalization of the tentative usage of visual perception verbs in Altaic, Korean and Japanese]. Gengo shori gakkai dai 23-kai nenji taikai happyo ronbun-shuu. [Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference of the Association for natural language processing]. 2017; 70–73. Yang X, Cao J:“Aimai” na nihongo o sai ninshiki: Nihongo kyooiku no tachiba kara. [Reconceptualizing “Ambiguous” Japanese: From the Standpoint of Japanese Language Education]. Fukuidaigaku kyooiku chiiki kagaku-bu kiyoo, dai 1-bu jinbunkagaku. Memoirs of the Faculty of Education, Fukui University. Series 1, Humanities. 2005; 7 :43–49. Wang T: Daigaku-kyanpasu niokeru kinshi-hyoogen no nitchuu taishoo kenkyuu. [The comparative analysis of the refusal expressions in Japanese and Chinese universities]. Nihongo kyooiku hoohoo kenkyuukai-shi. [Journal of Japanese language education methods]. 2017; 24 (1): 28–29. Footnotes 1 The results of this research were presented at the Symposium on Japanese Language Education at the University of Tsukuba on February 13, 2021: Ninomiya T., Li G., Lina A., Ju Hy., Gao, Y., Umarova M., Turdiyeva X, Li Ts. X., and Ono M. (2021) “Nihongo bogo washa nihongo gakushuusha ni yoru kinshi irai hyoogen no hyooka: Poraitonesu no kanten kara” [Evaluation of prohibitive and requestive expressions by native Japanese speakers and learners of Japanese: From the viewpoint of Politeness]. In: Shinpojiumu mirai shikoo no nihongo kyooiku 2.0. [Future-oriented Japanese language education 2.0]. 2 The presenters in footnote 1 are members of the research group. 3 Of the 36 respondents, 27 indicated their level of JLPT: 0 were at N5, 4 at N4, 9 at N3, 12 at N2, and 2 at N1. The majority of the UJap. respondents were at N2 and N3, which correspond to intermediate level, while there were only a few at N5 and N4, which correspond to beginner level, and at N1, which corresponds to advanced level. 4 According to Blum-Kulka et al. (1989: 15) , social distance is associated with familiarity, which indicates the closeness of the relationship between speaker and hearer. If the relationship is not distant, it could be a family member or friend; if the relationship is distant, it could be a person one does not usually greet, or it could be a stranger. 5 Regarding hedged performative, Blum-Kulka et al. (1989: 287) stated that the illocutionary verb denoting the requestive intent is modified by modal verbs or verbs expressing intention. Hedged performative in Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) is created not by inserting a lexical hedge adverb ( e.g. , somehow, kind of ) into the explicit performative’s sentence, but by adding an auxiliary verb or a verbal phrase to the explicit performative verb. 6 According to Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) and Trosborg (1995) , hint consists of strong hint and mild hint. Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) considered the strong hint to be more direct than the mild hint and placed them in separate categories, while Trosborg (1995) placed them in one category. 7 As with hedged performative in footnote 5, sentences hedged by adverbs were not classified as hedged infringement-indication. 8 We found one example of an obligation statement in the Uzb. data. 9 In this study, only the form yameyoo , a morpheme of desire - yoo is added to the verb yameru “stop,” which functions as a want statement, was observed. That this morpheme implies desire was described in Yamashita (2014 : 93, 98). 10 According to Hashimoto et al. (1992 : 132), the word ikenai is the result of a value judgment about rules. Therefore, this study positioned the “Wrong to Verb”-form as being due to the speaker’s value judgment. 11 This category’s examples consist of those that could be classified not only as apologizing for warning ( e.g. , Mooshiwake arimasen ga “I’m sorry but,” Sumimasen ga “Sorry but,”), but also as both apologizing for warning and alerters ( e.g. , Sumimasen “Sorry/Excuse me”). One cannot strictly classify the examples of “Sorry” as either an apology for a warning or as an alerter. This study labeled the examples that could be interpreted either way as an apology. Whether an apology for a warning or an alerter, the speakers probably said “Sorry” to convey something that was difficult for them to say. Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 27 Oct 2023 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Faculty of Oriental Studies, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty, Kazakhstan 2 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan 3 Innovation Center, Uzbekistan State World Languages University, Tashkent, Uzbekistan 4 Tashkent Oriental Philology Faculty, Uzbekistan State World Languages University, Tashkent, Uzbekistan Takashi Ninomiya Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Masaki Ono Roles: Supervision Munojot Umarova Roles: Data Curation, Validation Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information This work was supported by JSPS, Asia-Africa Science Platforms (B) “Project to establish a Center for Training Japanese Language Teachers to meet Social Needs” (Ono Masaki, 2020-2022, Grant Number: JPJSCCB20200001). The University of Tsukuba will provide support with the article processing charge. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (3) version 3 Revised Published: 19 Sep 2025, 12:1416 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.130926.3 version 2 Revised Published: 08 Nov 2023, 12:1416 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.130926.2 version 1 Published: 27 Oct 2023, 12:1416 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.130926.1 Copyright © 2025 Ninomiya T et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The author(s) is/are employees of the US Government and therefore domestic copyright protection in USA does not apply to this work. The work may be protected under the copyright laws of other jurisdictions when used in those jurisdictions. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Ninomiya T, Ono M and Umarova M. Politeness strategies when native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners give warnings about prohibited acts: a cross-sectional study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 12 :1416 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.130926.3 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 08 Nov 2023 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Alif Redzuan Abdullah M. Reviewer Report For: Politeness strategies when native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners give warnings about prohibited acts: a cross-sectional study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 12 :1416 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.158503.r250178 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1416/v2#referee-response-250178 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 18 Apr 2024 Muhammad Alif Redzuan Abdullah , Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.158503.r250178 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 ... Continue reading READ ALL 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. Abstract 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. 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. 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? 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 differ in detail and what might this tell us about cultural or linguistic differences? 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? Sampling procedure: How were the participants selected from each group? Was it a random sample, a random sample, or some other method? 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. 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? 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. 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. 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? Validity and reliability: There is no mention of how the validity and reliability of the coding scheme or data analysis process were ensured. 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. 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. Clarity: Some sections are dense with technical terms and classifications that could be made clearer with visual aids such as flowcharts or tables. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 . 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. 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 . 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. References Delete the obsolete references. Cite more from current references - the last five years. Overall Evaluation While the paper offers valuable insights into the politeness strategies used by native Japanese speakers and Uzbek learners of Japanese when giving warnings, it could benefit from improvements in the title, abstract, introduction, previous studies, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion sections. In particular, the paper could benefit from a clearer research question or hypothesis, a more comprehensive review of previous studies, a more detailed methodology section, a clearer presentation and interpretation of results, and a more thorough discussion of the implications of the findings. In addition, the paper could benefit from a clearer articulation of practical implications, a reflection on the limitations of the study, and clear directions for future research. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Comparative Applied Linguistic I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Alif Redzuan Abdullah M. Reviewer Report For: Politeness strategies when native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners give warnings about prohibited acts: a cross-sectional study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 12 :1416 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.158503.r250178 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1416/v2#referee-response-250178 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 26 Sep 2025 Masaki Ono , Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan 26 Sep 2025 Author Response 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 ... Continue reading 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 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. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Author Response 27 Sep 2025 Takashi Ninomiya , Faculty of Oriental Studies, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University,, Almaty, Kazakhstan 27 Sep 2025 Author Response 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 ... Continue reading 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. 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. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 26 Sep 2025 Masaki Ono , Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan 26 Sep 2025 Author Response 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 ... Continue reading 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 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. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Author Response 27 Sep 2025 Takashi Ninomiya , Faculty of Oriental Studies, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University,, Almaty, Kazakhstan 27 Sep 2025 Author Response 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 ... Continue reading 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. 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. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Abdul Rashid R. Reviewer Report For: Politeness strategies when native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners give warnings about prohibited acts: a cross-sectional study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 12 :1416 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.158503.r250181 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1416/v2#referee-response-250181 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 26 Mar 2024 Roswati Abdul Rashid , Languages and Communication, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.158503.r250181 Takashi et al. al (2023) conducted a study to clarify pragmatic features when native speakers of Japanese and Uzbek learners of Japanese give warnings of prohibited acts. This study is executed based on a study that involves research on the ... Continue reading READ ALL Takashi et al. al (2023) conducted a study to clarify pragmatic features when native speakers of Japanese and Uzbek learners of Japanese give warnings of prohibited acts. This study is executed based on a study that involves research on the classification scheme of prohibition in Uzbek and comparing this statement in Japanese society is very limited. This research design is very detailed, organized and successfully unravels the categorization based on the cultural norms that are influenced in the use of language from these two communities in uttering the warning of prohibition. However, there is a slight deficiency because this research refers to the research that has gone beyond research more than ten years ago. If Takashi et al. al (2023) have the opportunity, he can add the latest research to the Previous Studies segment to show the latest research on speech acts - warning of prohibition. However, it is not a problem with the existing reference because it is a reference to the theory of politeness and speech acts which is certainly not the latest in the era of 1980s. This study is a qualitative study uses DCT as a tool to collect data. The item involves the situation of a visit to a museum and a hospital and would use warnings based on signs displaying prohibitions. Total respondents for the study were 108 consisting of 36 native speakers of Japanese (Jap.), 36 Uzbek speakers who were learning or had learned Japanese (UJap.), and 36 native speakers of Uzbek (Uzb.). Focus of the study is given to Jap. and UJap. surveys and analyse the Uzb. data as a reference. Japanese respondents need to give feedback in Japanese language and Uzbek respondents need to give feedback in both Uzbek and Japanese language. The analytical framework is appropriate and can be used as a reference for future researchers to study other aspects in the field of warning of prohibition. Besides every analytical interpretation is appropriate against the data that has been identified. The identified data is reliable. Overall, the finding identified Japs implemented 2 politeness strategies, namely expression in hedged form and positioning the warning as a rule in uttering the warning of prohibitions. Both expressions are used as a strategy to avoid FTA ​​and as a reference to regulations from the authorities. This is in line with the nature of Japanese society which always takes all rules seriously and does not add facts as stated and only provides important information in every communication. Meanwhile, what is interesting from the findings of this study is that instead UJaps uses the phrase apologize in situations while Japs and Uzebs do not use it. This shows that this language habit is influenced by learning the Japanese language from the Japanese society who are always polite in their speech. Whereas the Japanese society in uttering the warning of prohibition does not do so. Overall, this article has a high value in researching the classification scheme of politeness strategies in uttering warnings of prohibitions. It will be a reference to the field of pragmatics, especially Speech Acts - Prohibition and Request Studies and the learning and teaching of the Japanese language. The framework of this study can be used as a basis for the study of warnings of prohibition for other languages to have a better understanding. And it is strongly agreed that for future research, more detailed warning of prohibition research needs to be executed for the languages so that a universal classification scheme can be obtained. And the factors that underlies the application of RDW are much wider compared to the DW that will be obtained. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes References 1. Hussein A, Khalaf S: Iraqi EFL University Students’ Linguistic Strategies in Approaching Warning and Prohibition. English Language Teaching . 2018; 11 (12). Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Applied Linguistics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Abdul Rashid R. Reviewer Report For: Politeness strategies when native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners give warnings about prohibited acts: a cross-sectional study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 12 :1416 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.158503.r250181 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1416/v2#referee-response-250181 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 27 Oct 2023 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 Version 3 (revision) 19 Sep 25 Version 2 (revision) 08 Nov 23 read read Version 1 27 Oct 23 Roswati Abdul Rashid , Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Kuala Nerus, Malaysia Muhammad Alif Redzuan Abdullah , Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Alif Redzuan Abdullah M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 18 Apr 2024 | for Version 2 Muhammad Alif Redzuan Abdullah , Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia 0 Views copyright © 2024 Alif Redzuan Abdullah M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (2) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions 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. Abstract 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. 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. 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? 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 differ in detail and what might this tell us about cultural or linguistic differences? 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? Sampling procedure: How were the participants selected from each group? Was it a random sample, a random sample, or some other method? 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. 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? 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. 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. 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? Validity and reliability: There is no mention of how the validity and reliability of the coding scheme or data analysis process were ensured. 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. 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. Clarity: Some sections are dense with technical terms and classifications that could be made clearer with visual aids such as flowcharts or tables. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 . 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. 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 . 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. References Delete the obsolete references. Cite more from current references - the last five years. Overall Evaluation While the paper offers valuable insights into the politeness strategies used by native Japanese speakers and Uzbek learners of Japanese when giving warnings, it could benefit from improvements in the title, abstract, introduction, previous studies, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion sections. In particular, the paper could benefit from a clearer research question or hypothesis, a more comprehensive review of previous studies, a more detailed methodology section, a clearer presentation and interpretation of results, and a more thorough discussion of the implications of the findings. In addition, the paper could benefit from a clearer articulation of practical implications, a reflection on the limitations of the study, and clear directions for future research. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Comparative Applied Linguistic I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (2) Author Response 26 Sep 2025 Masaki Ono, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan 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. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Author Response 27 Sep 2025 Takashi Ninomiya, Faculty of Oriental Studies, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University,, Almaty, Kazakhstan 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. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Alif Redzuan Abdullah M. Peer Review Report For: Politeness strategies when native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners give warnings about prohibited acts: a cross-sectional study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 12 :1416 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.158503.r250178) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1416/v2#referee-response-250178 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Abdul Rashid R. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 26 Mar 2024 | for Version 2 Roswati Abdul Rashid , Languages and Communication, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia 0 Views copyright © 2024 Abdul Rashid R. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Takashi et al. al (2023) conducted a study to clarify pragmatic features when native speakers of Japanese and Uzbek learners of Japanese give warnings of prohibited acts. This study is executed based on a study that involves research on the classification scheme of prohibition in Uzbek and comparing this statement in Japanese society is very limited. This research design is very detailed, organized and successfully unravels the categorization based on the cultural norms that are influenced in the use of language from these two communities in uttering the warning of prohibition. However, there is a slight deficiency because this research refers to the research that has gone beyond research more than ten years ago. If Takashi et al. al (2023) have the opportunity, he can add the latest research to the Previous Studies segment to show the latest research on speech acts - warning of prohibition. However, it is not a problem with the existing reference because it is a reference to the theory of politeness and speech acts which is certainly not the latest in the era of 1980s. This study is a qualitative study uses DCT as a tool to collect data. The item involves the situation of a visit to a museum and a hospital and would use warnings based on signs displaying prohibitions. Total respondents for the study were 108 consisting of 36 native speakers of Japanese (Jap.), 36 Uzbek speakers who were learning or had learned Japanese (UJap.), and 36 native speakers of Uzbek (Uzb.). Focus of the study is given to Jap. and UJap. surveys and analyse the Uzb. data as a reference. Japanese respondents need to give feedback in Japanese language and Uzbek respondents need to give feedback in both Uzbek and Japanese language. The analytical framework is appropriate and can be used as a reference for future researchers to study other aspects in the field of warning of prohibition. Besides every analytical interpretation is appropriate against the data that has been identified. The identified data is reliable. Overall, the finding identified Japs implemented 2 politeness strategies, namely expression in hedged form and positioning the warning as a rule in uttering the warning of prohibitions. Both expressions are used as a strategy to avoid FTA ​​and as a reference to regulations from the authorities. This is in line with the nature of Japanese society which always takes all rules seriously and does not add facts as stated and only provides important information in every communication. Meanwhile, what is interesting from the findings of this study is that instead UJaps uses the phrase apologize in situations while Japs and Uzebs do not use it. This shows that this language habit is influenced by learning the Japanese language from the Japanese society who are always polite in their speech. Whereas the Japanese society in uttering the warning of prohibition does not do so. Overall, this article has a high value in researching the classification scheme of politeness strategies in uttering warnings of prohibitions. It will be a reference to the field of pragmatics, especially Speech Acts - Prohibition and Request Studies and the learning and teaching of the Japanese language. The framework of this study can be used as a basis for the study of warnings of prohibition for other languages to have a better understanding. And it is strongly agreed that for future research, more detailed warning of prohibition research needs to be executed for the languages so that a universal classification scheme can be obtained. And the factors that underlies the application of RDW are much wider compared to the DW that will be obtained. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes References 1. Hussein A, Khalaf S: Iraqi EFL University Students’ Linguistic Strategies in Approaching Warning and Prohibition. English Language Teaching . 2018; 11 (12). Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Applied Linguistics I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Abdul Rashid R. Peer Review Report For: Politeness strategies when native Japanese speakers and Uzbek Japanese learners give warnings about prohibited acts: a cross-sectional study [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 12 :1416 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.158503.r250181) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1416/v2#referee-response-250181 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Politeness strategies when native Japanese...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1416/v3" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1416/v3&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1416/v3" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Ninomiya T et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1416/v3/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1416", templates : { twitter : "Politeness strategies when native Japanese speakers and Uzbek.... Ninomiya T et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/12-1416/v3" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/130926/180617") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "180617"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "242177": 0, "250179": 0, "250178": 34, "250177": 0, "250183": 0, "250182": 0, "250181": 23, "250180": 0, "459599": 0, "250186": 0, "459598": 0, "250185": 0, "459597": 0, "250184": 0, "459596": 0, "459595": 0, "459594": 0, "459593": 0, "469335": 0, "469334": 0, "459602": 0, "459601": 0, "459600": 0, "266588": 0, "454238": 0, "469343": 0, "266589": 0, "454239": 0, "469342": 0, "266590": 0, "454236": 0, "469341": 0, "266591": 0, "454237": 0, "469340": 0, "469339": 0, "266585": 0, "454235": 0, "469338": 0, "266586": 0, "469337": 0, "266587": 0, "469336": 0, "454244": 0, "454245": 0, "266592": 0, "454242": 0, "266593": 0, "454243": 0, "454240": 0, "454241": 0, "221830": 0, "221829": 0, "221828": 0, "231307": 0, "231306": 0, "231311": 0, "231310": 0, "231309": 0, "231308": 0, "231315": 0, "231314": 0, "231313": 0, "231312": 0, "465615": 0, "465614": 0, "465613": 0, "465612": 0, "242129": 0, "465621": 0, "465620": 0, "242135": 0, "465619": 0, "465618": 0, "465617": 0, "465616": 0, "242142": 0, "242147": 0, "242152": 0, "242157": 0, "475127": 0, "242162": 0, "475126": 0, "475125": 0, "219899": 0, "415486": 0, "219898": 0, "475134": 0, "219897": 0, "475133": 0, "242168": 0, "415485": 0, "475132": 0, "475131": 0, "475130": 0, "219901": 0, "475129": 0, "219900": 0, "242172": 0, "475128": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "6307158e-f6ff-46cd-9303-74b9a92903f2"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });