--- name: linguistic-inquiry description: Use when targeting Linguistic Inquiry (MIT Press) or deciding whether a generative-linguistics manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit in generative syntax and its interfaces, the formal-analysis bar, squib format, house style, glossing and double-blind norms, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. --- # 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 - [ ] There is an explicit, formally precise proposal with stated consequences for generative theory. - [ ] The data genuinely discriminate the proposal from the leading alternatives. - [ ] Derivations are shown and the predictions are falsifiable and tested. - [ ] Numbered examples carry Leipzig-style interlinear glosses, translations, and sources. - [ ] The manuscript is anonymized and notation/citation follow the current style. - [ ] A squib (if applicable) is self-contained and poses one focused problem. ## 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 ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] Linguistic Inquiry [Area] [Claim] [Data/framework] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check]
[Re-route suggestion] ```