PONE-D-22-29580The Effect of script reform on levels of orthographic knowledge: Evidence from alphasyllabary Malayalam scriptsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bhargava,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 11 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Iftikhar Ahmed Khan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please change "female” or "male" to "woman” or "man" as appropriate, when used as a noun (see for instance https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/gender).

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for submitting your manuscript #PONE-D-22-29580 entitled "The Effect of script reform on levels of orthographic knowledge: Evidence from alphasyllabary Malayalam scripts" to PLOS One.

Based on reviewer reports, I recommend minor revisions in the manuscript. Please find the reviewer comments below in the email. I urge you to complete revision as soon as possible so that we can take our final decision.

Regards,

Reviewer 1 comments:

The study carried out is technically sound with adequate supported research. The argument is well established through literature review and structured methodology. References substantiate the central idea of the paper.

The following are some of the concerns that needs to be reviewed:

In the data provided (uploaded Excel sheet), the classification of word type – Complex/ Non-Complex is confusing. In the study, you have mentioned that;

“The sentences had total 59 words with complex glyphs, such that each sentence had at least four instances of the complex glyphs.”

Please elaborate the premise you used to characterize certain glyphs as complex glyphs.

Additionally, the classification in terms of Word Type requires further justification as in some sentences, 1 or 2 words are classified as ‘Complex’ Word Type while in other sentences, there are NO words that are classified as ‘Complex’ Word Type.

Additional concerns with LINE number:

Line 350-353

“We checked the correlation between the age group of the participants and the RS glyphs written by them using the Pearson's product-moment correlation. The r value was 0.73. The r value between the age group of participants and the TS glyphs written by them was 0.73.”

Please add the interpretation of this particular analysis.

Line 453-460

The reference is on point. So, it can be backed up with further explanation. If possible, please elaborate on how the present study explores the mentioned aspect (Line 460)

Line 131-132 (In-Text citation)

“Studies have indeed shown that the orthographic knowledge for a language form early on in a speaker’s life, and is a function of exposure through education and reading habits (Apel, 2011; Apel et al., 2006; Masterson & Apel, 2010).”

All other references citation in-text has been numbered with the exception of this.

Line 611-612

Lond Rev Educ

The abbreviation of this journal in the journal homepage is mentioned as “The London Review of Education (LRE)”

Journal homepage: https://uclpress.scienceopen.com/collection/2122ff6c-4fcf-4054-a1f0-3be2b1ac2eae#:~:text=The%20London%20Review%20of%20Education,sectors%20and%20phases%20of%20education.

Journal article: https://uclpress.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.1080/13603110600574454

Please revise accordingly.

Figure 2

In Figure 2, the schematic representation of the self-paced reading experiment shows the instruction page followed by a sentence in RS. If possible, please add a sentence in TS also.

Reviewer 2:

The paper presents a very interesting processing study that has a cultural as well as historical aspect to it. I recommend it for publication. The study looks at whether orthographic knowledge is affected by changes (institutionalised reform) in the standard orthography of a language. Specifically, the paper looks at how the Malayalam script reform in 1971 affected the lexical and sublexical orthographic knowledge in the users of the script. The chronology of the reform allowed the authors to have a pre-reform and a post-reform group. The expectation was that the pre-reform group would take longer to read the reformed script (RS) and the post reform, the traditional script (TS). The participants were also given a production task, specifically a writing task, where they were asked to write down sentences that were dictated to them. I must mention at this point that the script reform was intended as a solution to 'redundant complex grapheme' and an absence of space in the typical manual typewriter of the time. It was predicted that the pre-reform group would choose to write in TS and the post-reform group in RS. Findings showed that both groups were faster in reading RS; and for the writing task, the pre-reform group continued to use TS but the post-reform group wrote in RS.

The results are very interesting, and the analysis provided was enlightening. The reason for both groups being faster was attributed to longer exposure to RS script post 1971. This is taken to imply that lexical orthographic knowledge is flexible depending on exposure. Then the question is, why is this pattern not observed in the writing task? This is where sublexical orthographic knowledge comes into play; the study suggests that sublexical rules ‘seem’ rigid, although their rigidity may be due to a lack of writing practice in the age of digital media. Even if you are a fluent reader of RS, if you learnt TS in school, you might choose TS. This is because writing is also a production task, which may be affected by writing practice. The correlation between group type and script type is taken as further evidence for this type of analysis. An important conclusion that the paper arrives at is the confirmation that orthographic knowledge consists of two independent but related levels: lexical and sublexical orthographic knowledge.

Additional interesting points from the paper:

1. The paper provides a good overview of certain characteristics of Malayalam orthography that can have consequences in terms of language processing, such as complex glyphs. Additionally, it also provides the historical context and contemporary relevance for orthography reforms.

2. The paper also explains how experimental methodologies such as self-paced reading tasks and writing tasks differ; the former is a perception-based task whereas the latter is a production task. The suggestion that a lack of exposure in the form of practice affects production tasks, as they generally incur more processing load is significant.

Points to improve/Suggestions for further research:

In section 6 (lines 414-415), the paper states that the correlation between group type and script type confirms that sublexical knowledge is determined by the script one learns in elementary education. However, does this correlation imply causation or confirmation? This question is significant because the later discussion mentions that sublexical orthographic knowledge could be restructured through continued exposure in the form of writing practice. There seems to be some conflict in clarity there.

In addition to writing being a production skill, it also differs from reading in terms of modality. Writing also has a motor processing component to it in addition to retrieval of orthographic representations. The paper briefly mentions age being a possible factor in writing speed in older participants. Is it possible for this difference in modality to have other consequences when it comes to the choice or preference of script type apart from exposure/writing practice?

It would have been helpful if lexical and sublexical orthographic knowledge were explained using examples/language data.

Similarly, more explanation for certain memory and processing related terms such as retrieval would be helpful for a reader who may be new to the area.

Is it possible that changes made in the script reform were also keeping in view that these revisions would simplify the script in terms of the cognitive load on the user? The paper passingly suggests otherwise. However, do you think it would be right to assume that reforms with such pragmatic intentions would naturally result in a simpler yet more efficient orthographic system?

I would also like to alert the authors of some minor proof-reading errors that need to be corrected.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The study carried out is technically sound with adequate supported research. The argument is well established through literature review and structured methodology. References substantiate the central idea of the paper.

The following are some of the concerns that needs to be reviewed:

In the data provided (uploaded Excel sheet), the classification of word type – Complex/ Non-Complex is confusing. In the study, you have mentioned that;

“The sentences had total 59 words with complex glyphs, such that each sentence had at least four instances of the complex glyphs.”

Please elaborate the premise you used to characterize certain glyphs as complex glyphs.

Additionally, the classification in terms of Word Type requires further justification as in some sentences, 1 or 2 words are classified as ‘Complex’ Word Type while in other sentences, there are NO words that are classified as ‘Complex’ Word Type.

Additional concerns with LINE number:

Line 350-353

“We checked the correlation between the age group of the participants and the RS glyphs written by them using the Pearson's product-moment correlation. The r value was 0.73. The r value between the age group of participants and the TS glyphs written by them was 0.73.”

Please add the interpretation of this particular analysis.

Line 453-460

The reference is on point. So, it can be backed up with further explanation. If possible, please elaborate on how the present study explores the mentioned aspect (Line 460)

Line 131-132 (In-Text citation)

“Studies have indeed shown that the orthographic knowledge for a language form early on in a speaker’s life, and is a function of exposure through education and reading habits (Apel, 2011; Apel et al., 2006; Masterson & Apel, 2010).”

All other references citation in-text has been numbered with the exception of this.

Line 611-612

Lond Rev Educ

The abbreviation of this journal in the journal homepage is mentioned as “The London Review of Education (LRE)”

Journal homepage: https://uclpress.scienceopen.com/collection/2122ff6c-4fcf-4054-a1f0-3be2b1ac2eae#:~:text=The%20London%20Review%20of%20Education,sectors%20and%20phases%20of%20education.

Journal article: https://uclpress.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.1080/13603110600574454

Please revise accordingly.

Figure 2

In Figure 2, the schematic representation of the self-paced reading experiment shows the instruction page followed by a sentence in RS. If possible, please add a sentence in TS also.

Reviewer #2: The paper presents a very interesting processing study that has a cultural as well as historical aspect to it. I recommend it for publication. The study looks at whether orthographic knowledge is affected by changes (institutionalised reform) in the standard orthography of a language. Specifically, the paper looks at how the Malayalam script reform in 1971 affected the lexical and sublexical orthographic knowledge in the users of the script. The chronology of the reform allowed the authors to have a pre-reform and a post-reform group. The expectation was that the pre-reform group would take longer to read the reformed script (RS) and the post reform, the traditional script (TS). The participants were also given a production task, specifically a writing task, where they were asked to write down sentences that were dictated to them. I must mention at this point that the script reform was intended as a solution to 'redundant complex grapheme' and an absence of space in the typical manual typewriter of the time. It was predicted that the pre-reform group would choose to write in TS and the post-reform group in RS. Findings showed that both groups were faster in reading RS; and for the writing task, the pre-reform group continued to use TS but the post-reform group wrote in RS.

The results are very interesting, and the analysis provided was enlightening. The reason for both groups being faster was attributed to longer exposure to RS script post 1971. This is taken to imply that lexical orthographic knowledge is flexible depending on exposure. Then the question is, why is this pattern not observed in the writing task? This is where sublexical orthographic knowledge comes into play; the study suggests that sublexical rules ‘seem’ rigid, although their rigidity may be due to a lack of writing practice in the age of digital media. Even if you are a fluent reader of RS, if you learnt TS in school, you might choose TS. This is because writing is also a production task, which may be affected by writing practice. The correlation between group type and script type is taken as further evidence for this type of analysis. An important conclusion that the paper arrives at is the confirmation that orthographic knowledge consists of two independent but related levels: lexical and sublexical orthographic knowledge.

Additional interesting points from the paper:

1. The paper provides a good overview of certain characteristics of Malayalam orthography that can have consequences in terms of language processing, such as complex glyphs. Additionally, it also provides the historical context and contemporary relevance for orthography reforms.

2. The paper also explains how experimental methodologies such as self-paced reading tasks and writing tasks differ; the former is a perception-based task whereas the latter is a production task. The suggestion that a lack of exposure in the form of practice affects production tasks, as they generally incur more processing load is significant.

Points to improve/Suggestions for further research:

In section 6 (lines 414-415), the paper states that the correlation between group type and script type confirms that sublexical knowledge is determined by the script one learns in elementary education. However, does this correlation imply causation or confirmation? This question is significant because the later discussion mentions that sublexical orthographic knowledge could be restructured through continued exposure in the form of writing practice. There seems to be some conflict in clarity there.

In addition to writing being a production skill, it also differs from reading in terms of modality. Writing also has a motor processing component to it in addition to retrieval of orthographic representations. The paper briefly mentions age being a possible factor in writing speed in older participants. Is it possible for this difference in modality to have other consequences when it comes to the choice or preference of script type apart from exposure/writing practice?

It would have been helpful if lexical and sublexical orthographic knowledge were explained using examples/language data.

Similarly, more explanation for certain memory and processing related terms such as retrieval would be helpful for a reader who may be new to the area.

Is it possible that changes made in the script reform were also keeping in view that these revisions would simplify the script in terms of the cognitive load on the user? The paper passingly suggests otherwise. However, do you think it would be right to assume that reforms with such pragmatic intentions would naturally result in a simpler yet more efficient orthographic system?

I would also like to alert the authors of some minor proof-reading errors that need to be corrected.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Princy Pappachan

Reviewer #2: Yes: Revathi Suresh

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review.pdf

The Effect of script reform on levels of orthographic knowledge: Evidence from alphasyllabary Malayalam scripts

PONE-D-22-29580R1

Dear Dr. Bhargava,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Iftikhar Ahmed Khan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Princy Pappachan

Reviewer #2: Yes: Revathi Suresh

**********