Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› language
language
GitHub辅助评估语言学论文是否符合《Language》期刊标准，涵盖跨领域重要性、理论主张与数据要求、格式规范及拒稿风险，帮助作者进行投稿适配与框架调整。
Trigger Scenarios
作者指定投稿《Language》并需评估契合度
需将子领域成果重构以体现学科广泛意义
在《Language》与专业期刊间犹豫
需要了解该刊证据门槛及拒稿启发式规则
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill language -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "language",
"description": "Use when targeting Language (the Linguistic Society of America journal) or deciding whether a linguistics manuscript fits this discipline-wide flagship. Encodes the journal's fit across all subfields, the claim-plus-data bar, theoretical and cross-linguistic expectations, house style, glossing and double-blind norms, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics."
}
Language (language)
Journal positioning
Language is the flagship journal of the Linguistic Society of America and the discipline-wide generalist venue for all of linguistics — phonetics and phonology, morphology and syntax, semantics and pragmatics, sociolinguistics, historical and typological linguistics, language acquisition, and psycholinguistics. Its defining expectation is a clearly stated claim supported by rigorous language data and/or formal argument that speaks beyond a single sub-community: a result a linguist in another subfield will recognize as consequential. A solid descriptive note or a framework-internal exercise with no broader stake is a poor fit, however careful. 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 Language author instructions and style sheet, and defer all reporting specifics to the official page.
When to trigger
- The author names Language for a linguistics article and wants a fit/framing check.
- A subfield-specific result must be re-framed to show discipline-wide significance.
- The author is choosing between Language and a framework- or subfield-specialist venue.
- The author needs Language's evidence/argument bar and desk-reject heuristics.
Scope & topic fit
- Original work in any core subfield: phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, historical linguistics, typology, acquisition.
- Experimental and corpus-based studies (psycholinguistics, phonetics, variationist sociolinguistics) where method and data are sound and the finding generalizes.
- Theoretical contributions that are framework-aware but legible across approaches, not only to adherents of one formalism.
- Documentation and description of under-studied languages when it yields a result of general theoretical or typological interest.
- Work bridging subfields (e.g., phonology–morphology, syntax–semantics interfaces) that a single-subfield journal would under-serve.
Method & evidence bar
- The contribution is a clearly stated claim backed by empirical language data, formal argument, or both; the stake is named early, not left implicit.
- Linguistics is partly empirical: examples, judgments, corpus, or experimental data must be representative and adequate to the claim — defer exact reporting/statistical specifics to the official guidance.
- Cross-linguistic or otherwise representative evidence supports generality; a single-language pattern is framed for its broader import.
- The theoretical framework is made explicit and the analysis is internally consistent and falsifiable, with alternatives considered.
- Engagement with the relevant literature is current and fair across (not only within) the chosen approach.
- Data are transparent: numbered examples with morpheme-by-morpheme interlinear (Leipzig-style) glosses and free translations where the language is not English.
Structure & house style
- Full-length research article with a sustained argument; re-check current length limits and article types (including short reports/discussion notes) on the live guide.
- Citation follows the journal's current author-date style sheet with a reference list.
- Double-blind review: anonymize the manuscript (self-citations and acknowledgements) per current policy.
- Numbered linguistic examples with aligned interlinear glosses and source attribution; follow Leipzig glossing conventions and the journal's example formatting.
- Phonetic transcription in IPA; figures, spectrograms, and tables meet the journal's specifications and are legible in print.
Official-submission checklist
- Before giving submission-ready advice, read
../../resources/source-basis.mdand../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the LSA anchors, then cite the current Language page you checked. - Search the live site for "Language LSA author guidelines" and follow the current version.
- Re-check article types, length limits, abstract requirement, and the LSA style sheet.
- Confirm anonymization for double-blind review and the example/glossing format.
- Re-check data-availability/replication expectations and any elicitation/IRB ethics reporting for experimental or fieldwork data.
- Re-check competing-interest, funding, and AI-use disclosures.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
- There is a single clear claim whose significance reaches beyond one subfield.
- Language data (examples, corpus, or experiment) are representative and adequate to the claim.
- Cross-linguistic or otherwise general evidence supports the generality asserted.
- Numbered examples carry Leipzig-style interlinear glosses and translations.
- The manuscript is anonymized and follows the current LSA style sheet.
- Engagement with the literature is fair and current across approaches, not only one.
Common desk-reject triggers
- A descriptive note with no general theoretical or typological stake.
- A framework-internal exercise legible only to adherents of one formalism.
- Claims of generality resting on a single language or thin, non-representative data, or under-controlled experimental/corpus data unfit for the claim.
- Examples without proper interlinear glosses, translations, or sources.
- Scope too narrow for a discipline-wide audience (better at a subfield specialist).
Re-routing decision
- Generative syntax and its interfaces, or a short squib →
linguistic-inquiry. - Framework-neutral general theoretical linguistics →
journal-of-linguistics. - Theoretical syntax/morphology with deep cross-linguistic data →
natural-language-and-linguistic-theory. - Philosophy-of-language argument rather than a linguistic result →
the-philosophical-review. - Broad cultural-theory framing of language →
critical-inquiry(generically).
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Language (LSA)
[Subfield] <closest linguistic subfield>
[Claim] <the central claim in one line>
[Data/framework] <do the language data + theoretical framing clear Language's discipline-wide bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <length / style sheet / anonymization / glossing / data + ethics>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:57
