Linguistic Inquiry (linguistic-inquiry)
Journal positioning
Linguistic Inquiry, published by MIT Press, is the leading venue for theoretically
driven work in generative grammar — principally syntax and its interfaces with
morphology, semantics, and phonology. Its defining expectation is a formal analysis
that advances generative theory: a precise proposal, motivated by sharp data, that
makes the grammar more explanatory or revises a theoretical assumption with consequences
beyond the immediate case. The journal also publishes short squibs posing a focused
empirical or theoretical problem. A broad descriptive survey, a framework-agnostic
overview, or a paper indifferent to generative architecture is a poor fit. This skill is
a fit / venue-selection / re-framing aid. It does not replace the journal's current
submission guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live Linguistic Inquiry author
instructions, and defer all reporting specifics to the official page.
When to trigger
- The author names Linguistic Inquiry for a generative-grammar article or a squib.
- An analysis must be sharpened into an explicit, falsifiable formal proposal with
consequences for generative theory.
- The author is choosing between Linguistic Inquiry and a generalist or
cross-linguistically oriented theoretical venue.
- The author needs Linguistic Inquiry's formal-rigor bar and desk-reject heuristics.
Scope & topic fit
- Generative syntax: argument structure, movement, locality, binding, case and
agreement, ellipsis, and the architecture of the grammar.
- Syntax–semantics, syntax–morphology, and syntax–phonology interfaces analyzed in
generative terms.
- Formal morphology and phonology where the proposal bears on grammatical architecture.
- Squibs: a compact, self-contained problem or counterexample that sharpens or
challenges an existing analysis.
- Theory-comparison work where a new proposal is shown to be more explanatory than
established alternatives.
Method & evidence bar
- The contribution is an explicit, formally precise proposal whose theoretical
consequences are stated; the central claim and its stakes for the grammar are clear early.
- Empirical data (judgments, paradigms, well-chosen examples) are marshaled to motivate
and test the proposal; linguistics is partly empirical, so the data must genuinely
discriminate between analyses — defer reporting specifics to official guidance.
- The formal analysis is consistent, derivations are shown, and predictions are
falsifiable and checked against the data.
- Alternative analyses are considered and shown to be less adequate or less general.
- Cross-linguistic evidence is brought in where it bears on the generality of the proposal.
- Numbered examples carry morpheme-by-morpheme interlinear (Leipzig-style) glosses and
translations; judgment diacritics are used consistently.
Structure & house style
- Full-length article building a formal argument step by step; squibs are short and
tightly focused — re-check current length limits and article types on the live guide.
- Citation follows the journal's current style with a reference list; theoretical
notation and tree/derivation conventions are consistent and defined.
- Double-blind review: anonymize the manuscript (self-citations and acknowledgements)
per current policy.
- Numbered examples with aligned interlinear glosses, translations, and sources, in the
journal's example format; IPA where phonetic detail matters.
- Trees, feature matrices, and derivations are typeset to the journal's specifications
and remain legible in print.
Official-submission checklist
- Before giving submission-ready advice, read
../../resources/source-basis.md and
../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the MIT Press anchors, then cite
the current Linguistic Inquiry page you checked.
- Search the live site for "Linguistic Inquiry submission guidelines" and follow the
current MIT Press version.
- Re-check article types (Article vs. Squib), length limits, and the abstract requirement.
- Confirm the citation/notation style and anonymization for double-blind review.
- Re-check the example/glossing format and tree/derivation typesetting requirements.
- Re-check any data, elicitation ethics, and AI-use/competing-interest disclosures.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
Common desk-reject triggers
- A descriptive or survey paper with no formal proposal or theoretical consequence.
- An analysis indifferent to generative architecture or untestable as stated.
- Data that do not actually distinguish the proposal from existing analyses, or ignoring strong competing analyses and established results in the area.
- Examples lacking proper glosses, translations, or consistent judgment diacritics.
- A squib padded into a full paper, or a full claim compressed into a squib.
Re-routing decision
- Discipline-wide result across subfields →
language (LSA generalist).
- Framework-neutral general theoretical linguistics →
journal-of-linguistics.
- Theoretical syntax/morphology grounded in rich cross-linguistic data →
natural-language-and-linguistic-theory.
- Formal semantics or philosophy-of-language argument of philosophical interest →
the-philosophical-review.
- Sociolinguistic or experimental result, better at the disciplinary flagship →
language.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Linguistic Inquiry
[Area] <syntax / interface / squib>
[Claim] <the formal proposal in one line>
[Data/framework] <do the data + formal analysis clear LI's generative-theory bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type/squib / length / notation style / anonymization / glossing>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
