| name | lang-workflow |
| description | Use when starting or navigating any manuscript aimed at Language (Linguistic Society of America) and unsure which skill applies — it reads your stage and piece type (General Research Article, Research Report, Review Article, Discussion Note, or an online-only section: Perspectives, Phonological Analysis, Language and Public Policy, Teaching Linguistics) and routes you to the matching sub-skill. It dispatches; it does not draft analysis. |
Language Workflow Router (lang-workflow)
The orchestrator for a submission to Language, the flagship journal of the Linguistic Society of
America (LSA), published continuously since 1925 and, from January 2026, by Cambridge University
Press (fully open access from Volume 102). Language takes work from every subfield — phonology,
phonetics, syntax, semantics, morphology, historical and typological linguistics, sociolinguistics,
psycholinguistics, and computational linguistics — and judges each by the standards of its own
tradition while demanding one thing across the board: a theoretically grounded claim carried by
rigorous linguistic evidence, legible to a general linguistics readership, not to one framework's
insiders.
When to trigger
- Starting a new Language manuscript and unsure where to begin
- Mid-project and unsure which skill applies next
- Deciding whether the work is a full General Research Article or a shorter Research Report
- Considering an online-only section (Perspectives / Phonological Analysis / Language and Public
Policy / Teaching Linguistics)
- Returning with a decision letter (route to
lang-rebuttal)
First question: which piece type?
| Situation | Piece type | Route to |
|---|
| In-depth study advancing linguistic theory for a general audience | General Research Article (≤18,000 words incl. notes/tables/appendices, excl. references) | full pipeline below |
| Smaller, sharply targeted empirical or analytic contribution | Research Report | lang-topic-selection → compressed pipeline |
| State-of-the-art synthesis of a research area (≤5,000 words) | Review Article | lang-literature-positioning → lang-writing-style |
| Comment on a published Language piece / a focused analytic point | Discussion Note | lang-literature-positioning + lang-rebuttal |
| Field-shaping thesis inviting responses | Perspectives (target article + Commentaries + Rejoinder) | lang-theory-building + lang-rebuttal |
| Pedagogy analysis / policy application | Teaching Linguistics / Language and Public Policy (online-only) | lang-topic-selection |
A General Research Article over 12,000 words is held to a more stringent standard — length must
be earned. Confirm current section rules in lang-submission.
Routing map (stage → skill)
Idea / fit for Language? → lang-topic-selection
What is the theoretical claim? → lang-theory-building
In dialogue with which literature? → lang-literature-positioning
Is the design/data defensible? → lang-research-design
Are the analyses sound? → lang-data-analysis
Data + annotation transparent? → lang-data-and-transparency
Are examples/exhibits clean? → lang-tables-figures
Does it read across frameworks? → lang-writing-style
Ready for ScholarOne? → lang-submission
How will it be judged? → lang-review-process
Got an R&R / writing a Rejoinder? → lang-rebuttal
Default order
topic-selection → theory-building → literature-positioning → research-design → data-analysis → data-and-transparency → tables-figures → writing-style → submission → review-process → rebuttal
Iterate: Language papers typically loop theory ↔ data ↔ analysis several times — the account
that explains the pattern usually sharpens after the data are in hand, not before.
Calibration anchors (what a Language trajectory feels like)
Orienting heuristics, not editorial guarantees; confirm volatile specifics on the current author pages.
- Evidence-first, framework-fluent. The router never rewards a formalism for its own sake. A clean
analysis in one theory that ignores rival accounts is routed back to
lang-theory-building; a pile
of glossed data with no claim is routed to lang-topic-selection.
- Cross-subfield legibility. Reviewers may sit outside your subfield. The router prioritizes making
the stakes and the data readable to a syntactician and a sociolinguist, not only to specialists.
Stage-to-symptom dispatch (route on the complaint, not the calendar)
| The author says… | Route to |
|---|
| "Reviewer 2 says it's just description." | lang-theory-building |
| "It feels too narrow for the flagship." | lang-topic-selection |
| "They said I ignored the competing framework." | lang-literature-positioning |
| "The data can't bear the generalization." | lang-research-design |
| "Reviewer doubts my statistics." | lang-data-analysis |
| "Glosses and examples are a mess." | lang-tables-figures |
| "Desk-returned before review." | lang-review-process then lang-submission |
Worked micro-example (illustrative)
A study of an understudied Bantu tone alternation opens the router unsure where to begin. The glossed
data are rich but the contribution reads as "language X does this," so the router sends it to
lang-topic-selection, then lang-theory-building to state what the alternation is a case of (an
illustrative claim about the phonology–morphology interface), then lang-research-design to defend the
elicitation and consultant sampling, looping theory↔data twice. At an illustrative 14,000 words it is a
full General Research Article — but every section must earn its place under the more-stringent bar past
12,000 words.
Anti-patterns
- Treating Language like a subfield venue — the claim must read across linguistics, not one framework
- Submitting a descriptive data dump with no theoretical stakes (a classic desk return)
- Single-framework parochialism — analyzing only inside one formalism and ignoring rivals
- Assuming a generic style — Language uses the Language Style Sheet and Leipzig glossing
- Quantitative claims with no proper modeling or shared data (route to
lang-data-analysis)
- Routing as if acceptance were quick; a substantive R&R is the normal first-round outcome
Output format
【Stage】idea / theory / positioning / design / analysis / transparency / exhibits / writing / submit / review / rebut
【Type】General Research Article / Research Report / Review Article / Discussion Note / Perspectives / Teaching Linguistics / Language & Public Policy
【Route to】lang-<skill>
【Why】one line
【Then】the next skill after that
Supplementary resources
