---

name: lang-theory-building description: Use when turning a linguistic pattern into a theoretically grounded claim for a Language (LSA) manuscript — an analysis with explicit assumptions, observable predictions, and engagement across competing frameworks rather than inside one formalism. Structures the argument; it does not gloss data or run the statistics.

Theory & Analysis Building (lang-theory-building)

At Language the analysis is the contribution. A glossed pattern, a corpus trend, or an experimental effect is not a Language paper until it is attached to an explicit account — what the data are a case of, what the analysis predicts, and how it fares against rival analyses. The journal's defining demand is theoretical grounding without framework parochialism: state your assumptions, but engage the alternatives a reader from another tradition would raise.

When to trigger

• The data are solid but the "so what for linguistic theory" is thin
• A reader called the paper "descriptive," "stipulative," or "framework-internal"
• You need to make the analysis's predictions explicit and testable
• Fieldwork or corpus work whose theoretical claim is implicit and needs surfacing

Build the analysis (by mode of work)

Formal (phonology / syntax / semantics / morphology)

1. Generalization — state the empirical generalization crisply, in theory-neutral terms first, so any reader can see the pattern before any formalism.
2. Analysis — give the account (e.g., a constraint ranking, a feature geometry, a derivation, a type-driven composition); make each assumption explicit and non-vacuous.
3. Predictions — what should and should not occur if the analysis is right; these become the probes in lang-research-design.
4. Adjudication — show where a leading rival framework makes a different prediction, and which the data support.

Variationist / sociolinguistic

• Name the linguistic and social constraints and the mechanism of change or variation; connect the variable to a general model, not just a local correlation.

Historical / typological

• State the generalization across languages and the diachronic or structural mechanism behind it; say what the sample is a sample of.

Psycholinguistic / computational

• Tie the model or experiment to a claim about grammar or processing; distinguish what the result shows about the representation from what it shows about the task or architecture.

The cross-framework test (Language-specific)

Ask: Would a linguist working in a different framework accept the generalization and see why my analysis is a contender? If the argument only makes sense once your formalism is granted, you have a framework-internal exercise, not a Language contribution. Restate the generalization framework-neutrally and let the analysis compete on predictions.

The analytic-depth ladder (calibration, hedged)

An orienting heuristic, not an editorial rubric; confirm expectations against the current author pages.

Rung	What the paper offers	Likely Language verdict
0	Glossed data, no analysis	desk-returned as description
1	Data + an analysis in one framework	promising but parochial
2	Analysis with explicit predictions, tested	the modal strong submission
3	Predictions that adjudicate between rival frameworks	the Language target

Aim for rung 2 minimum; rung 3 wins. This premium on adjudication distinguishes Language from a subfield venue that accepts a clean derivation inside the house framework.

Engaging the tradition (a Language expectation)

Reviewers expect the analysis located against foundational work — the relevant classic account (structuralist, generative, functionalist, Optimality-theoretic, usage-based) used, not name-dropped. If your account revises a standard analysis, say exactly what it keeps and what it overturns.

Referee-pushback patterns and the venue-specific fix

Referee writes…	The Language-specific fix
"Descriptively adequate, theoretically thin."	climb to rung 2–3; state the general claim + predictions
"Stipulative / analysis does no work."	show the analysis rules out attested-but-unwanted patterns
"Ignores the [rival] account."	make the adjudicating prediction explicit and test it
"Reads as framework-internal."	restate the generalization framework-neutrally

Illustrative: a study of a reduplication pattern draws "competent description, thin analysis." Climbing the ladder, the author states a general claim (an illustrative constraint interaction at the morphology–phonology interface), derives a prediction about which bases block reduplication, and shows a rival prosodic-template account predicts the opposite — moving from rung 1 to rung 3.

Anti-patterns

• Presenting a gloss table or a corpus trend as the contribution, analysis left implicit
• "Analysis" that merely restates the data in formal notation (does no predictive work)
• Assuming one framework and never engaging the alternatives (parochialism)
• Predictions stated so loosely nothing could falsify them
• Ignoring the foundational account the reviewer will expect you to build on

Output format

【Generalization】the pattern, stated theory-neutrally
【Analysis】the account + its explicit assumptions
【Predictions】what should / should not occur → research-design
【Rival adjudicated】the competing framework + the deciding prediction
【Scope】languages / constructions where the claim holds
【Cross-framework legibility】would an outsider accept the generalization? [Y/N]
【Next】lang-literature-positioning

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — analysis tooling across subfields
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — Language theory-grounding and general-audience expectations