Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› linguistic-inquiry
linguistic-inquiry
GitHub用于评估生成语法论文或短评是否符合《Linguistic Inquiry》期刊要求，提供格式规范、形式分析标准及拒稿启发式建议。
Trigger Scenarios
作者指定投稿 Linguistic Inquiry 的生成语法文章或短评
需将分析提炼为对生成理论有明确影响的正式提案
在 Linguistic Inquiry 与其他理论期刊间做选择
需要该刊的形式严谨性标准和拒稿启发规则
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill linguistic-inquiry -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"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.mdand../../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
[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>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:57
