Pluri-Grammars for Pluri-Genders: Competing Gender Systems in the Nominal Morphology of Non-Binary French
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an important paper. Thank you for writing it. See my comments in PDF.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Hello,
Thank you for your comments. I am attaching my responses below.
Best,
Jennifer
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I don't know the literature which has been referred to in the article, therefore I cannot judge whether it was correctly presented. I have, however, doubts with respect to the originality of the paper. The mentioned own empirical research has been published before and the sociolinguistic interview are not presented at all, for example what questions were asked, who was interviewed, etc. The criticism on the three presented approaches has been published before as well. In essence, I have doubts with respect to the originality of the paper.
The paper only contains one error which has to be corrected: Table 5: -écrivain must be written écrivan.
Author Response
Hello,
Thank you for your comments. I am attaching my response below.
Best,
Jennifer
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript fills a gap in the emerging study of inclusive language strategies. It presents a detailed description of several different approaches to the formation of non-binary nouns and constitutes a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussion of the subject in the field. The manuscript is dense in information and the tables and appendices are particularly useful to the reader. A couple more examples in the text wouldn’t hurt, though (see below).
The authors should revise the entire manuscript for typos and format inconsistencies. For their convenience, I list some of them below:
- Lines 126-135. The paragraph is in bold.
- Line 129. It would be nice to have an example of the use of punctuation and capitalization
- used for this purpose
- Lines 139-160. I’m not sure the line of argument flows very well in this part of the section
- Line 195. agreement error: it should read “predominates”
- Line 215. Extra space between the period and the superscript (footnote) number
- Footnote 2. « …d’une variaton morphologique de neuter en… » Shouldn’t it be « neutre »?
- Line 271. Would it be possible to have an example of the use of -xe?
- Line 274. Typo, there something missing in the sentence: “Noe, who works as a preschool”
- Lines 276-283. The formatting of the text does not make it totally clear where the participants’ statements end, and the author’s text begins.
- Line 366. Closing bracket is missing
- Line 464. Typo: “as basd”
- Lines 526-528. I can’t tell the difference between the neuter and feminine versions, there may be a typo in the neuter form.
- Line 559. There is a typo or something missing: “… that could be used to both men and…”
- Line 577. Typo: “homphny”
- Line 595. Revise Bardot’s statement, there is a typo or something missing.
- Line 643. There are two periods at the end of the sentence.
- Lines 645-646. Revise wording of the sentence
- Lines 673-674. The word “forms” is written twice.
- Lines 688. Typo: “systermatic”
Author Response
Hello,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I have attached my responses below.
Best,
Jennifer
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
