Individual differences 1 in discourse management

Derya ÇOKAL ^1* Jason Bishop ² Jacopo Torregrossa ³ Clare Patterson ¹ Martine Grice ¹ Simon Wehrle ¹ Maria Lialiou ¹ Sophie Repp ¹ Heiko Seeliger ¹ Sonja Eisenbeiß ¹ Klaus von Heusinger ¹ Kai Vogeley ¹ Petra B. Schumacher ¹

• ¹ University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
• ² The City University of New York, New York, New York, United States
• ³ Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Hesse, Germany

Thanks for the revisions and explanations. I think my comments have been addressed appropriately and I greatly appreciate the clarity in terms of modality stated, clarifications around individual di=erences and the reworkings in the introduction. Thank you! Finally, while I am convinced that a strong proposal should be modality independent, I believe that multimodality should be discussed expliclity, possibly in the final section of the paper. In your response here above you mention that the proposal also extends to sign languages, however, the paper now stresses the focus on the spoken and written modality and I do not see much engagement at all with the visual spatial modality. That's okay but I think it is important to carefully consider whether the proposal can indeed be extended to sign language and gesture without further explicit considerations and I would advise to explicitly state that this still has to happen in the future.Thank you for your comment. We have revised the Future Directions section to explicitly address multimodality and emphasize the need for further exploration of visual-spatial modalities, such as sign language and gesture (see page 22). minor comment. Similar to the cello example, it would be nice to state upfront that example 3 is a written example.We have added the word 'written text' to the cello example (please see page 4)