Language Workflow Router (lang-workflow)

The orchestrator for a submission to Language, the flagship journal of the Linguistic Society of America (LSA), published continuously since 1925 and, from January 2026, by Cambridge University Press (fully open access from Volume 102). Language takes work from every subfield — phonology, phonetics, syntax, semantics, morphology, historical and typological linguistics, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and computational linguistics — and judges each by the standards of its own tradition while demanding one thing across the board: a theoretically grounded claim carried by rigorous linguistic evidence, legible to a general linguistics readership, not to one framework's insiders.

When to trigger

• Starting a new Language manuscript and unsure where to begin
• Mid-project and unsure which skill applies next
• Deciding whether the work is a full General Research Article or a shorter Research Report
• Considering an online-only section (Perspectives / Phonological Analysis / Language and Public Policy / Teaching Linguistics)
• Returning with a decision letter (route to lang-rebuttal)

First question: which piece type?

A General Research Article over 12,000 words is held to a more stringent standard — length must be earned. Confirm current section rules in lang-submission.

Routing map (stage → skill)

Idea / fit for Language?            → lang-topic-selection
What is the theoretical claim?      → lang-theory-building
In dialogue with which literature?  → lang-literature-positioning
Is the design/data defensible?      → lang-research-design
Are the analyses sound?             → lang-data-analysis
Data + annotation transparent?      → lang-data-and-transparency
Are examples/exhibits clean?        → lang-tables-figures
Does it read across frameworks?     → lang-writing-style
Ready for ScholarOne?               → lang-submission
How will it be judged?              → lang-review-process
Got an R&R / writing a Rejoinder?   → lang-rebuttal

Default order

topic-selection → theory-building → literature-positioning → research-design → data-analysis → data-and-transparency → tables-figures → writing-style → submission → review-process → rebuttal

Iterate: Language papers typically loop theory ↔ data ↔ analysis several times — the account that explains the pattern usually sharpens after the data are in hand, not before.

Calibration anchors (what a Language trajectory feels like)

Orienting heuristics, not editorial guarantees; confirm volatile specifics on the current author pages.

• Evidence-first, framework-fluent. The router never rewards a formalism for its own sake. A clean analysis in one theory that ignores rival accounts is routed back to lang-theory-building; a pile of glossed data with no claim is routed to lang-topic-selection.
• Cross-subfield legibility. Reviewers may sit outside your subfield. The router prioritizes making the stakes and the data readable to a syntactician and a sociolinguist, not only to specialists.

Stage-to-symptom dispatch (route on the complaint, not the calendar)

Worked micro-example (illustrative)

A study of an understudied Bantu tone alternation opens the router unsure where to begin. The glossed data are rich but the contribution reads as "language X does this," so the router sends it to lang-topic-selection, then lang-theory-building to state what the alternation is a case of (an illustrative claim about the phonology–morphology interface), then lang-research-design to defend the elicitation and consultant sampling, looping theory↔data twice. At an illustrative 14,000 words it is a full General Research Article — but every section must earn its place under the more-stringent bar past 12,000 words.

Anti-patterns

• Treating Language like a subfield venue — the claim must read across linguistics, not one framework
• Submitting a descriptive data dump with no theoretical stakes (a classic desk return)
• Single-framework parochialism — analyzing only inside one formalism and ignoring rivals
• Assuming a generic style — Language uses the Language Style Sheet and Leipzig glossing
• Quantitative claims with no proper modeling or shared data (route to lang-data-analysis)
• Routing as if acceptance were quick; a substantive R&R is the normal first-round outcome

Output format

【Stage】idea / theory / positioning / design / analysis / transparency / exhibits / writing / submit / review / rebut
【Type】General Research Article / Research Report / Review Article / Discussion Note / Perspectives / Teaching Linguistics / Language & Public Policy
【Route to】lang-<skill>
【Why】one line
【Then】the next skill after that

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — linguistics data + software by subfield
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — official LSA/CUP URLs behind every fact in this pack