--- name: journal-of-linguistics description: Use when targeting Journal of Linguistics (Cambridge University Press, for the Linguistics Association of Great Britain) or deciding whether a general theoretical-linguistics manuscript fits this framework-neutral venue. Encodes the journal's broad fit, the argument-and-data bar, framework-neutrality, house style, glossing and double-blind norms, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. --- # Journal of Linguistics (journal-of-linguistics) ## Journal positioning Journal of Linguistics, published by Cambridge University Press for the Linguistics Association of Great Britain, is a general theoretical-linguistics venue that is deliberately **framework-neutral** and open across subfields — phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, historical linguistics, and the philosophy and methodology of the field. Its defining expectation is a **well-argued theoretical contribution intelligible to linguists of different persuasions**: a clear problem, a careful analysis, and a result whose interest does not depend on prior commitment to one formalism. A narrowly framework-internal exercise, or a purely descriptive report with no theoretical pay-off, 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 Journal of Linguistics author instructions, and defer all reporting specifics to the official page. ## When to trigger - The author names Journal of Linguistics for a general theoretical-linguistics article and wants a fit/framing check. - A framework-specific analysis must be re-framed so its interest is legible across approaches. - The author is choosing between Journal of Linguistics and a single-framework or US-based generalist venue. - The author needs the journal's argument bar and desk-reject heuristics. ## Scope & topic fit - Theoretical work in any core subfield, presented so non-adherents of the chosen framework can follow and assess it. - Comparative and typological linguistics where the analysis bears on general theory. - Historical and diachronic linguistics with a theoretical argument, not only a description. - Morphology, phonology, syntax, and semantics studies that engage broad questions of linguistic structure and explanation. - Methodological and foundational articles about how linguistic analysis should proceed. - Review articles that synthesize and critically advance a theoretical debate. ## Method & evidence bar - The contribution is a **clear theoretical argument** whose interest is framework-neutral; the problem and the claimed advance are stated explicitly and early. - Empirical language data motivate and test the argument; linguistics is partly empirical, so examples, judgments, or corpus/experimental data must be adequate and representative — defer reporting specifics to the official guidance. - Cross-linguistic or otherwise representative evidence supports any claim of generality. - The analysis is internally consistent and falsifiable, with alternative accounts weighed on their merits rather than dismissed by allegiance. - Engagement with the literature spans relevant frameworks, situating the contribution fairly across approaches. - Data are transparent: numbered examples with morpheme-by-morpheme interlinear (Leipzig-style) glosses and translations where the language is not English. ## Structure & house style - Full-length theoretical article with a sustained argument (and, where offered, review articles); re-check current length limits and article types on the live guide. - Citation follows the journal's current Cambridge author-date style with a reference list. - 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 format; IPA for phonetic transcription. - Tables, figures, and any formal notation meet the journal's specifications and are defined for a cross-framework readership. ## Official-submission checklist - Before giving submission-ready advice, read `../../resources/source-basis.md` and `../../resources/official-source-map.md`; start from the CUP / LAGB anchors, then cite the current Journal of Linguistics page you checked. - Search the live site for "Journal of Linguistics instructions for authors" and follow the current Cambridge version. - Re-check article types (articles, review articles), length limits, and the abstract requirement. - Confirm the Cambridge citation style and anonymization for double-blind review. - Re-check the example/glossing format and figure/table specifications. - Re-check any data-availability, 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 - [ ] The theoretical contribution is legible and assessable across frameworks, not only to adherents. - [ ] The problem and claimed advance are stated explicitly and early. - [ ] Language data motivating the argument are adequate and representative. - [ ] Cross-linguistic or representative evidence supports any generality claimed. - [ ] Numbered examples carry Leipzig-style interlinear glosses and translations. - [ ] The manuscript is anonymized and follows the current Cambridge style. ## Common desk-reject triggers - A framework-internal exercise whose interest collapses without prior allegiance. - A purely descriptive report with no theoretical argument or pay-off. - Alternative analyses dismissed by allegiance rather than weighed on the evidence, or generality claimed on thin, non-representative data. - Examples without proper interlinear glosses, translations, or sources. - Scope or significance too slight for a general theoretical readership. ## Re-routing decision - Discipline-wide result, including experimental/sociolinguistic → `language` (LSA). - Generative syntax and its interfaces, or a short squib → `linguistic-inquiry`. - Theoretical syntax/morphology with deep cross-linguistic empirical grounding → `natural-language-and-linguistic-theory`. - Philosophy of language / foundations argued philosophically → `the-philosophical-review` (generically). - Broad theory-of-language framing in the humanities → `critical-inquiry` (generically). ## Output format ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] Journal of Linguistics (CUP / LAGB) [Subfield] [Claim] [Data/framework] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check]
[Re-route suggestion] ```