Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› natural-language-and-linguistic-theory
natural-language-and-linguistic-theory
GitHub辅助判断理论句法/形态学论文是否适合投递NLLT期刊。提供基于丰富跨语言数据的正式分析评估、实证门槛、排版规范及拒稿启发式规则，用于选刊与重构建议。
Trigger Scenarios
作者提及向NLLT投稿基于详细语言数据的理论句法或形态学文章
需通过更丰富的跨语言实证支持强化形式化提案
在NLLT与其他侧重形式主义或综合性期刊间犹豫不决
需要了解NLLT的实证基准和桌面拒绝启发式规则
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill natural-language-and-linguistic-theory -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "natural-language-and-linguistic-theory",
"description": "Use when targeting Natural Language & Linguistic Theory (Springer) or deciding whether a theoretical-syntax\/morphology manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit in formal analysis grounded in rich cross-linguistic data, the empirical-grounding bar, house style, glossing and double-blind norms, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics."
}
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory (natural-language-and-linguistic-theory)
Journal positioning
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory (NLLT), published by Springer, is a leading venue for theoretical linguistics — especially syntax and morphology — distinguished by its insistence that formal analyses be tested against rich, often cross-linguistic empirical data. Its defining expectation is a theoretical proposal that is both formally explicit and deeply grounded in careful language description: the analysis must earn its keep on detailed data, frequently from less-studied languages, and yield consequences for grammatical theory. A formalism-driven paper that is thin on data, or a description with no theoretical proposal, 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 NLLT author instructions, and defer all reporting specifics to the official page.
When to trigger
- The author names NLLT for a theoretical syntax or morphology article grounded in detailed language data.
- A formal proposal must be strengthened with richer, more representative cross-linguistic empirical support.
- The author is choosing between NLLT and a more formalism-focused or generalist venue.
- The author needs NLLT's empirical-grounding bar and desk-reject heuristics.
Scope & topic fit
- Theoretical syntax: clause structure, movement, case and agreement, argument structure, ellipsis, locality — argued on detailed data.
- Theoretical morphology and the morphology–syntax interface, including word-formation and inflectional systems.
- In-depth analyses of individual languages (often less-studied) that yield general theoretical consequences.
- Comparative and microcomparative studies where dialect or language variation tests a theoretical proposal.
- Interface work (syntax–semantics, morphology–phonology) where the empirical base is central to the argument.
Method & evidence bar
- The contribution is a formally explicit proposal grounded in rich language data; the analysis and its theoretical consequences are stated clearly and early.
- Empirical grounding is the differentiator: data must be detailed, representative, and carefully sourced — judgments, paradigms, and patterns from primary or well-documented description, with reporting specifics deferred to the official guidance.
- Cross-linguistic or microcomparative evidence is used to test, not merely decorate, the proposal; the data genuinely discriminate among analyses.
- The formal analysis is consistent, derivations or feature systems are shown, and predictions are falsifiable and checked.
- Alternative analyses are weighed and shown to be less adequate against the data.
- Data are transparent: numbered examples with morpheme-by-morpheme interlinear (Leipzig-style) glosses, translations, and sources; fieldwork data are attributed.
Structure & house style
- Full-length theoretical article with detailed data sections and a sustained formal argument; re-check current length limits and article types on the live guide.
- Citation follows the journal's current Springer author-date style with a reference list; formal notation is defined and consistent.
- 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 where phonetic detail matters.
- Trees, feature matrices, and tables meet 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 Springer anchors, then cite the current NLLT page you checked. - Search the live site for "Natural Language Linguistic Theory submission guidelines" and follow the current Springer version.
- Re-check article types, length limits, and the abstract requirement.
- Confirm the Springer citation/notation style and anonymization for double-blind review.
- Re-check the example/glossing format, data sourcing/attribution, and any fieldwork elicitation-ethics expectations.
- 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
- The formal proposal is grounded in detailed, representative language data, not asserted on sparse examples.
- Cross-linguistic or microcomparative data genuinely test the proposal.
- Theoretical consequences for syntax/morphology are stated explicitly.
- Derivations or feature systems are shown and predictions are falsifiable.
- Numbered examples carry Leipzig-style glosses, translations, and proper sources.
- The manuscript is anonymized and follows the current Springer style.
Common desk-reject triggers
- A formalism-driven analysis thin on data or resting on sparse, non-representative examples.
- A rich description with no theoretical proposal or consequence.
- Data that do not actually discriminate the proposal from leading alternatives, or ignoring strong competing analyses and established cross-linguistic results.
- Fieldwork or primary data without attribution, glossing, or translation.
- Scope or generality overstated relative to the empirical base provided.
Re-routing decision
- Generative syntax/interface argument that is theory-internal and data-light →
linguistic-inquiry. - Discipline-wide result across subfields, incl. experimental →
language(LSA). - Framework-neutral general theoretical linguistics →
journal-of-linguistics. - Formal semantics or philosophy-of-language argument of philosophical interest →
the-philosophical-review. - Discipline-wide descriptive/typological result with broad significance →
language.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Natural Language & Linguistic Theory
[Area] <syntax / morphology / interface>
[Claim] <the formal proposal in one line>
[Data/framework] <does the cross-linguistic empirical grounding clear NLLT's data bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <length / Springer style / anonymization / glossing / data sourcing + ethics>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:57
