Linguistic Inquiry

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

[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>