A Special (Question) View on Wh-Doubling in Lombard Varieties

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper offers a valid empirical contribution. It is clearly written and well structured. It engages with the literature on the topic. The analysis is not very perspicuous, but, admittedly, the phenomenon is very complex.

I suggest the paper be proofread by a native speaker and accepted as is.

 

Author Response

English has been checked. Thanks for the nice comment!

Reviewer 2 Report

See the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We have modified the paper according to all the comments by reviewer  2. More precisely:

 

Section 2: we would keep this part as a separate section since it is required by the style sheet of the journal. We have added some information about the collection procedure, but in general we would refer to the cited work.

Page 4: we have added both Benincà and Poletto, and Munaro. Thanks for pointing out these references to us.

Page 6: we also added the data reported by Munaro 1999 and, very briefly, the context in which  they were discussed in his work.

Page 9: we cited Hinterhölzl and Munaro (2015) and briefly described  their proposal.

Page 10: we have tried  to improve the  argumentation by adding the lower [kuza] in 23a (notice that we simplified the structure given that there are different analyses of clefts but these are not directly relevant for wh-doubling) and eliminating the intermediate one in 23c (its presence was a mistake since that  structure represents a stage where the higher wh-item is grammaticalized and likely directly merged in its positions).

We have also cited Giorgi (2018) about 'ma' in Italian.