The study addressed an important topic of rising interest in the field but the manuscript benefits from substantial revisions (in particular, the introductory section and literature review) before it can be considered again in the journal. I made the following observations:

1. In the abstract: I am not sure of what it means to say ‘With the ever-changing drastically mobilizing world’. The first sentence highlights the shifting contexts of Saudi Arabia but it does not add much to the argument for the study. What does ‘gently’ mean? The first few sentences of the abstract should really help justify why translanguaging and teachers’ attitudes should be investigated in the study. Then the authors can talk about what they would like to pursue in the study, how they conducted the study (data collection and analysis), what findings the authors identified, and what implications readers can draw from the study. It is insufficient to talk about quantitative and qualitative data as readers would like to know what kind of quantitative and qualitative data were collected (how they were collected) and analyzed (how they were analyzed). Incorporating more than one linguistic codes does not necessarily mean translanguaging. In short, the abstract needs to be substantial revised to capture the study in a more informative but concise manner.
2. The authors talk about the importance of English in Saudi Arabia but this does not explain why translanguaging should be explored by the study. The writing following the first paragraph (contextual description) suggests that the study is more about the role of L1 in L2 teaching. There are a lot of studies on this issue and they are not always about translanguaging although translanguaging is emerging to be an important perspective among the related studies. If the authors want to use the introduction to justify the focus on translanguaging, then they should have engaged with relevant discussions of L1 in L2 teaching and identify how the theory of translanguaging can move the relevant discussion forward. The introduction should also explain why the study should focus on teachers’ attitudes. The introduction also needs substantial revisions to have a better flow of argument and a much more focused argument for the study’s focus.
3. I found it difficult to follow the argument elaborated in the literature review. The definition of translanguaging came too late in the middle of the literature review. The concept should be properly defined when it was first mentioned. Besides, the literature review is said to review empirical research in the first paragraph but these empirical studies appear on page 4 in one paragraph. They do not give readers any sense of what has been achieved and what needs to be done. They do not present a compelling argument for the study and its focus on teachers’ attitudes. And the literature review should really motivate the research questions to be addressed in the study but it was interrupted by the reference to the study’s methodological approach at the end of the literature review. I feel that the literature review and introductory section need to be substantial revised to have an easy to follow argument flow. The writing has too many distractions such as in the middle of literature review, the authors talk about World Englishes, which should have been part of the contextual background.
4. Have the authors explained why university professors should be examined in terms of their attitudes towards translanguaging? Mixed methods were adopted to achieve more breadth and width than what? What does ‘more rigorous dimensions’ mean? When adopting an existing instrument for the study, it is still necessary to talk about the features of the instrument. Did the authors review relevant studies that used the same instrument in the literature review? How would this study add to the findings that were identified in the relevant studies that used the same instrument?
5. The findings seem to be interesting and useful for readers. The authors made reasonable attempt to discuss the findings and the study’s contributions but I believe that the manuscript needs a conclusion. The conclusion can talk about the limitations of the study and future research directions. It can also talk about the implications that the findings have for future research and practice.
6. Basically, I believe that the manuscript needs a much stronger introduction and literature review. I also suggest that the authors engage with recent scholarship on translanguaging in language teaching. They can find more recent updated studies on the topic in journals such as English Language Teaching Journal (OUP), System and Language Teaching Research.

I appreciate the authors' efforts to revise the manuscript but it still benefits from further substantial revisions. I do not think that we have a coherent manuscript. I highlight the following issues for the authors to address through revision:
1. The authors should really put more efforts in removing stylistical and linguistics issues in the writing. It is important for the authors to double check every 'adjective' and 'adverb' they used in the manuscript. These words are indicative of the authors' judgement but often it is not clear on what basis these judgements were made. For this reason, it is not clear what their intended message is. For instance, 'hotly', 'relying heavily on' ' fertile'.
2. The writing up to the methodology needs to be revised and restructured. It is better to have two or three sections: an introduction to present why the study should be done, a literature review section to elaborate the relevant key concepts and review studies to strengthen the argument for the study. It is possible to have one more section on the contextual description.
3. The research question should be clearly motivated by the literature review. It should be answered by the research findings. How is xxx perceived? Does the question ask the participants' attitudes or perceptions? I suggest that the authors have some careful think through. How many questions does the manuscript have?
4. Are Figure 1 and Figure 2 different from Table 1 and Table 2 in terms of information? How do these results answer the research question? I do not think so. The findings are to do with the participants' beliefs and perceived practice. It is necessary to make it explicit how both qualitative and quantitative findings answer the research question.
5. Some of the writing in the discussion are really about findings. They can be moved to the findings' to organize the presentation of findings. The discussion should highlight how the findings from the study advance our understanding of translanguaging and key stakeholders' attitudinal responses? I think that the authors should made it much more explicit about the study's focus and consistently address it throughout the mansucript.

I appreciate that the authors have undertaken quite some efforts to revise the manuscript. I suggest that they address the following issues before finalizing it for resubmission.
1. Please note it is LI Wei. Li is the surname.
2. I do not think that figures are needed as they do not add much information to the writing. I am not sure if they are needed. The tables need to be revised to make them fit. Since the findings include only descriptive statistics, they can present the percentages of never and not often together (on the negative) and often/very often together (on the positive side).
3. I suggest that authors engage with some more recent references on translanguaging or the use of L1 in language classrooms such as (just for reference):
Martínez-Adrián, M. (2020). ¿Los juntamos? A study of L1 use in interactional strategies in CLIL vs. NON-CLIL primary school learners
. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 58(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2015-0120
Zhou, X. (Emily), Li, C., & Gao, X. (Andy). (2021). Towards a Sustainable Classroom Ecology: Translanguaging in English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) in a Finance Course at an International School in Shanghai. Sustainability, 13(19), 10719. MDPI AG. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su131910719