| name | lang-writing-style |
| description | Use when polishing the prose and house style of a Language (LSA) manuscript so it reads for a general linguistics audience and conforms to the Language Style Sheet / Unified Style Sheet for Linguistics. Language prizes analysis legible across frameworks and subfields; jargon and single-formalism prose lose readers. Polishes and conforms; it does not build the argument. |
Writing Style & House Style (lang-writing-style)
Language is read across the whole discipline, so its prose bar is legibility across subfields and
frameworks: a syntactician should follow a phonology paper's argument, and vice versa. The journal
also has a specific citation and formatting house style — the Language Style Sheet, closely tied to
the Unified Style Sheet for Linguistics Journals — that differs from APA, Chicago, or a subfield's
local habits. This skill polishes the writing and conforms the mechanics; it does not build the argument
(that is lang-theory-building).
When to trigger
- Polishing a draft before submission
- A reader said the paper is "only readable by [framework] people" or "buried the claim"
- Converting citations/references to Language house style
- Tightening a General Research Article toward or under the length bar
Write for the whole discipline
- Front-load the claim. By the end of the introduction the reader should know the generalization,
the analysis, its key prediction, and why a linguist outside the subfield should care.
- Gloss your jargon. Define framework-specific terms on first use; give the theory-neutral
statement of the pattern before the formal one, so the data are legible without the formalism.
- Let the numbered example carry the point. Prose should set up and interpret examples, not
restate them; refer to data by example number.
- Earn the length. A General Research Article is capped at 18,000 words and held to a stricter bar
past 12,000; cut throat-clearing, redundant derivations, and literature-for-coverage.
Language house style (verify on the Style Sheet)
- Citations: author-date, in the Unified/Language Style Sheet form — e.g., in-text
(Author 2020:145), and a reference list with the Style Sheet's punctuation and capitalization
(sentence-style article titles, full journal names, page ranges).
- Examples and glosses: numbered, Leipzig-glossed (see
lang-tables-figures).
- Terminology and symbols: consistent IPA; grammatical labels in small caps; language names and
ISO 639-3 codes where helpful.
- Notes: footnotes for substantive asides, kept lean; do not offload the argument into notes.
Conform the mechanics (checklist)
Referee-pushback patterns on prose (Language fixes)
| Referee writes… | The Language-specific fix |
|---|
| "Impenetrable to non-[framework] readers." | give the theory-neutral generalization first; gloss terms |
| "The contribution is buried." | front-load the claim and prediction in the intro |
| "References not in journal style." | convert to the Unified/Language Style Sheet form |
| "Padded / over the bar." | cut coverage citations and redundant derivations |
Calibration (Language voice, hedged)
Reflects Language's house and readership, not universal rules; confirm wording on the Style Sheet.
The most common avoidable style failure is prose that assumes the reader already lives inside your
formalism — a general reader bounces off undefined notation. The second is mis-applied citation style
(APA/Chicago instead of the Unified/Language Style Sheet). Illustrative: a Minimalist syntax paper opens
with three pages of framework machinery before any data; the fix leads with the descriptive
generalization and a glossed example, defers the formal derivation, and reformats 60 references from APA
into Style Sheet form — the same analysis, now legible to a semanticist or a typologist.
Anti-patterns
- Prose readable only by insiders of one framework (undefined notation, no theory-neutral statement)
- Burying the claim until the discussion section
- APA/Chicago/subfield-local citation style instead of the Unified/Language Style Sheet
- Offloading the real argument into dense footnotes
- Padding to look comprehensive, pushing a General Research Article past the earned length
Output format
【Reads across subfields】claim + example legible to an outsider? [Y/N]
【Front-loaded】claim + prediction in the intro? [Y/N]
【House style】Unified/Language Style Sheet citations + refs? [Y/N]
【Glossing/IPA】examples and symbols conform? [Y/N]
【Length】within the section cap, earned? [Y/N]
【Next】lang-submission
Supplementary resources
