Four Dialectal Uses of the Adverb Siempre and Their Grammatical Properties
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
COMMENTS ON REPORT 1
I thank reviewer #1 for all his/her comments, which have been very useful. I have incorporated all his/her suggestions into the new, revised, version of the article, with the only exceptions mentioned below. A brief explanation of each follows.
“Uses of the term “standard”: this term is undefined”
My reply: I have clarified the use of the term standard in the revised version of the paper (instead of deleting it). In any case, the problem of how to refer to the set of shared or majority lexical and grammatical options within Spanish is purely terminological. The terms "common Spanish", "standard Spanish", "general Spanish", and even "neutral Spanish" have been used in the literature. Each author seems to have his/her own preferences. My only point is that it seems convenient to have some label.
“It would be better to have a separate subsection comparing the values in Spanish with those of other Romance languages “
My reply: I do not find it strictly necessary to create a subsection for this sole purpose. In the new version I have attempted to clarify these different values in the text without adding such a subsection.
“this meaning […] should be formalized”
My reply: This is not a paper on formal semantics, but a study on grammatical variation. I understand, therefore, that it is not strictly necessary to formalize the semantic interpretations analyzed. It necessary to explain the characteristics of each of them, as well as their limits, and (to the extent that this is possible) their origin and their geographical extension. I have added some clarifications in relation to each of these interpretations along the paper, but I still think that the formalization of each interpretation is not essential.
“It is possible that the claim about grammaticalization made in this paragraph is true, but in this short paragraph it feels like a supposition. I would either develop it more into a subsection”
My reply: The idea introduced in that paragraph is simply that successions can be non-temporal. This applies to the examples in (6), and also to the varieties of Spanish that accept this interpretation of siempre, and their direct equivalents in French and Italian. In that paragraph, I suggest that the capability of the temporal adverb siempre to form “non-temporal series” is linked to the concept of "retention" or "persistence" that characterizes many analyses of grammaticalization today. Certainly, the development of this relation would give for a much more elaborate study, not just for a subsection of the present article. However, my purpose here goes no further than to note that such a connection exists.
“In (7a-c) siempre is translated in English in 3 different ways, but the examples are presented as instantiating the same (“adversative-concessive”) value. The author does not explain why this is called “adversative-concessive”, and instead provides a quantificational interpretation”
My reply: First, there is nothing against the fact that some interpretation of a particular expression in a given language corresponds to different translations in another language. Second, along this section it is now explained more clearly why this value is concessive-adversative. I agree that the previous version did not make it absolutely clear.
“surprisingly, instead of giving an analysis of adversative meanings, the author relies on a “dictionary definition” of English after all”
My answer: This is not entirely correct. The text elaborates on possible paraphrases of this use of siempre (a variant of which has been extensively analyzed in the French literature) with expressions equivalent to Eng. in spite of all this or after all, which contain universal quantifiers. Reviewer #1 suggests that I should read Schwenter's work on the pero-sino opposition, but the aim of this section is not to analyze adversativity in Spanish, but to argue that the use of siempre here called "concessive-adversative" involves a quantifier refereeing to a universal set of discarded options. In the same section, this particular interpretation is related to similar uses of siempre in other Romance languages.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article deals with a very interesting issue not explored so far: the dialectal uses of the adverb “siempre” in varieties of Spanish in America. The meanings distinguished are characterised by specific semantic and syntactic properties, which are clearly explained and shown with examples. The author argues convincingly the hypothesis posited; however, it would be strengthened by further work on the diachrony of these meanings.
Author Response
COMMENTS ON REPORT 2
I thank reviewer #2 for his/her comments. The reviewer considers that “the hypothesis posited […] would be strengthened by further work on the diachrony of these meanings”. I agree. The revised version of the article makes it clear that the historical origin of the interpretations analyzed is more plausible in some cases (the continuative or the progressive-comparative sense) than in others (the concessive-adversative and the attenuated reading). The article focuses on the semantic components shared and not shared by the usages that I have addressed. The diachronic and sociolinguistic aspects of their distribution are undoubtedly important, but —with the exception of Rioplatense Spanish calques from Italian— they have been (deliberately) left out of the present research and can be addressed in a separate study.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is both empirically and theoretically relevant. The author accurately describes and analyzes the semantic and syntactic properties of four non-standard dialectal uses of the Spanish adverb siempre and convincingly proposes that, in at least three of these uses (the continuous interpretation, the progressive-comparative interpretation and the concessive-adversative use), the adverb is interpreted as a universal quantifier, the difference between the three uses lying in the semantic nature of the quantified variable.
The paper can thus be published in its present form, just after the following typos have been corrected:
. line 38: The timeline is this example > The timeline in this example
. line 133: As it obvious > As it is obvious
. line 159: argue that is natural consequence > argue that this is a natural consequence
. line 209: llevaban peso era > llevaban peso eran
. line 251: Others accepted of all these examples > Others accepted all these examples
. line 261: Dobrovie-Sorin (2002) Check! 2003 in the references section
. line 298: Bosque and Masullo (1988) > (1998)
. line 312: qualifying import > quantifying import??
. line 420: the idea the adverb > the idea that the adverb
. line 438: 'any': > 'any',
. line 475: this a somewhat > this is a somewhat
. note 4: here by girls here > here by girls
. references: in Kany, Sintaxis hiapanoamericana > hispanoamericana
Author Response
COMMENTS ON REPORT 3
I thank reviewer #3 for his/her comments. All the typos noted have been corrected in the revised version.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author will find the reviewer's comment in the PDF below.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
COMMENTS ON REPORT 4
I thank reviewer #4 for all his/her comments, which have been very useful. I have incorporated all his/her suggestions into the new, revised, version of the article, with the only exceptions mentioned below. A brief explanation of each follows.
- “I strongly believe the formalization of some of the sequences could build upon the analysis developed by the author.”
My reply: This is not a paper on formal semantics, but a study on grammatical variation. I understand, therefore, that it is not strictly necessary to formalize the semantic interpretations analyzed. It necessary to explain the characteristics of each of them, as well as their limits, and (to the extent that this is possible) their origin and their geographical extension. I have added some clarifications in relation to each of these interpretations along the paper, but I still think that the formalization of each interpretation is not essential.
- “Let us assume that events show a complex internal structure into which some insight can be (and must be, indeed) provided.”
My reply: The continuative interpretation of siempre demands the same requirements as the adverb todavía or the periphrasis “seguir+gerund”, which is made clear in the article. The (non-dialectal) durative reading of siempre certainly requires that the event be decomposed into successive stages, but this property has been unanimously pointed out in the literature cited in the paper for English always. As for the progressive-comparative reading, the revised version makes it clear that the stages of the necessary succession are time instances in some cases, but individuals in some other cases.
- “Examples as those in (4) are perfectly grammatical for my peninsular Spanish informants, as are for me”
My reply: In the revised version it is made clear that the relevant point is not whether they are grammatical, but whether they admit the interpretations provided by the English paraphrases in (4). It is to be expected that all Spanish speakers will accept these examples in the durative reading of siempre.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate the author's attention to my comments. I believe that the changes made have improved the paper significantly. Below you find additional comments that should be addressed before the paper can be published:
- In the keywords, I wouldn't use "time adverb" but rather "temporal adverbs" or "frequency adverbs"
- Lines 152 and following: the author describes the semantic values of Portuguese "sempre" that I had pointed out. However, the newly added text talks about Brazilian Portuguese (BP). This is inaccurate: the article by Amaral and Del Prete is about *European Portuguese* (EP). Crucially, BP does not have the "truth persistence" value that those authors examine. All the mentions of BP should be replaced by EP. Same for line 490.
- The additional explanations provided for the semantic analysis of the different values have improved the paper because now the analyses are more explicit.
- I still believe that the paragraph that mentions grammaticalization, if it is not developed into a sub-section, feels like speculation. It may work better as an endnote to the text.
Author Response
Comments to reviewer #1
I am very grateful to reviewer #1 for his/her comments on the revised version of the paper. All of them have been accepted, and highlighted in yellow background font, in the latest version of the article. As for the paragraph on grammaticalization, it has been moved to the end of the text, along with other issues that would be interesting to investigate further.
