Linguistic Inquiry

---
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] <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>
```