Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The text has been improved and completed since my first review. However, the lack of examples is still blatant and it makes the article a little bit meager and poor. Moreover, it is a pity that the very few examples given in the article pertain to one unique language (English). In such a theoretical article, it would be expected that other languages than English be represented as illustrations of the dynamics described here.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

As a theoretical introduction to the line of applied linguistics that focuses on the study of standards, this is a very clear and explanatory paper. The metaphors used help to understand an abstract and complex process, that of speakers from different CoPs selecting standardized and relatively close linguistic modalities in order to understand each other.

As suggestion, some of the ideas put forward by the author about the phenomenon of standardization that occurs when two or more CoPs need to communicate and, to do so, adapt their standards to make the communication effective are related to what Ralph Penny puts forward in his book Variation and Change in Spanish and, before him, by Haugen in "Dialect, Language, Nation" (1972).

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study on the contrast between "communities of practice" (probably a synonym for sociolect) and standards is very general (only two or three examples superficially analyzed) and it is tantamount to breaking down an open door. Moreover, the notion of standard is not sufficently defined and seems to be used in an excessively broad gamut of meanings.

I do not think that this too general approach to the contrast between communities of practice (sociolectal use of the language) and the standards (a concept that remains to be defined in a more rigorous way) constitutes a real contribution to the research.

I noticed several typos:

• p. 6, paragraph 2, antepenultimate row: .. what are these two dots staying for: is that a misspelling for one dot or for three dots (...)?
• p. 6, paragraph 4, row 1: : is expected after the word observe and before the quotation starting with Indeed
• p. 7, paragraph 3, row 4: *standards process does the author mean "standardization process"
• p. 7, paragraph 3, antepenultimate row: *standards organizations does the author mean "organization of standards"

Reviewer 2 Report

The author wants to write about the paradox of establishing standards in any field when language (what we need to use to articulate standards) is itself infinitely variable. This idea that language plays an important role in the development of standards is scientifically valid and can be supported with research. Personally, I think it is an important endeavor.

The author has, generally, an understanding of a linguist's view of the way language works, However, it is not well developed or supported by citations to previous research. Therefore, the author's argument is not convincing. That said, I do not know this journal or the context for this particular article. 

If the author and journal editors want to include this for publication, I recommend finding a collaborator in linguistics, a discourse analyst whose specialty is field specific language, language in the professions, English for specific purposes. 

I strongly recommend taking out the discussion of Community of Practice. It is not really helpful for the argument this paper wants to make. It was a theory developed to better understand how learning works as a process. The argument can be made by discussing language variation, field specific registers,  and speech communities that develop within a field. 

I have included a copy of the paper with my comments on it.

best wishes

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

As a theoretical introduction to the line of applied linguistics that focuses on the study of standards, this is a very clear and explanatory paper. The metaphors used help to understand an abstract and complex process, that of speakers from different CoPs selecting standardized and relatively close linguistic modalities in order to understand each other.

As suggestion, some of the ideas put forward by the author about the phenomenon of standardization that occurs when two or more CoPs need to communicate and, to do so, adapt their standards to make the communication effective are related to what Ralph Penny puts forward in his book Variation and Change in Spanish and, before him, by Haugen in "Dialect, Language, Nation" (1972).