Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Publisher Login

New from Cambridge University Press!


Revitalizing Endangered Languages

Edited by Justyna Olko & Julia Sallabank

Revitalizing Endangered Languages "This guidebook provides ideas and strategies, as well as some background, to help with the effective revitalization of endangered languages. It covers a broad scope of themes including effective planning, benefits, wellbeing, economic aspects, attitudes and ideologies."

We Have a New Site!

With the help of your donations we have been making good progress on designing and launching our new website! Check it out at!
***We are still in our beta stages for the new site--if you have any feedback, be sure to let us know at***

Guidelines for Submitting Reviews

Thank you for your willingness to write a book review for the LINGUIST List. This document covers the mechanics of writing and submitting your review. Beyond the information provided here, we urge reviewers (especially less experienced reviewers) to look at recent LINGUIST book reviews for models of how to approach reviewing in particular subfields, particular types of books (e.g., monographs versus edited volumes or conference proceedings), and so on.

Once your review has been submitted, we will edit and post it if there are no substantial questions or changes. If we have questions or need to ask for revisions, we will send you an edited version and ask that you return revisions within two weeks.

Note that LINGUIST List only publishes reviews that have been solicited through the reviews system. Unsolicited reviews will not be accepted.

General Instructions

Please read these instructions carefully; they have changed as of November 2012. The big changes are:
  1. You no longer have to include the short bibliographical description of the book (that will be inserted automatically).
  2. You no longer have to put your by-line into your review (you will enter that as part of the submission process).
  3. You no longer have to include the "About the Reviewer" section at the end of the review (you will enter that as part of the submission process).

Your review should consist of the following parts in this order (but without numbers).

  1. A summary of the book's purpose and contents.

    For example, if you are reviewing a textbook, indicate what audience it is intended for, and briefly what it covers. If it is a monograph, summarize its main points without going into technical detail. If it is an edited collection of papers by different authors, state what each paper is about, and how they fit together.

    Please insert the header SUMMARY above this section.

  2. An evaluation of the book.

    A high-quality review will normally include pointing out some of the book's merits and shortcomings, identifying problems, asking questions, and presenting positive or negative implications of the analyses. LINGUIST reviews are often the first evaluations of a book available to the linguistics community, and unlike paper journals, LINGUIST encourages authors and readers to reply and offers them the immediate opportunity to do so. In keeping with standard LINGUIST policy, reviewers must keep the tone of reviews scholarly, and avoid attacking persons and institutions. This does not mean that the reviewer should avoid controversy or criticism, only that the tone of that criticism must be professional and scientific. Reviews that do not meet LINGUIST standards for scholarly discourse will be returned to the author for revision.

    When you write your evaluation section, consider the following questions:

    • Have you been explicit about whether the author(s) have achieved their goals with the book?
    • Is there a specific kind of audience the book would be especially good (or bad) for?
    • Have you contextualized the book, i.e., explained how it fits with other literature on the topic?
    • Does the volume cohere or not? (This is especially important for edited volumes.)
    • Is there potential future research that this work opens up or suggests, either empirically or theoretically?
    • Have you exemplified the points you raise in the evaluation clearly and concretely?

    Please insert the header EVALUATION at the beginning of this section.

  3. References.

    A complete list of references to works that you have cited in the body of the review. Where you cite references, give the authors' names and dates of publication, and page numbers if relevant, as in the following example.

    “It is particularly fitting, however, for the minimalist project as laid out in considerable detail in Chomsky (1995) and much subsequent work by Chomsky (such as Chomsky 2001) as well as many other scholars (see e.g. Epstein & Hornstein 1999b, Baltin & Collins 2001, Hendrick 2003 for collections of recent appraisals).”

    Put the complete references of citations at the end of the review, as in the following examples. You may use any common reference style, though we encourage use of the Unified Style Sheet for Linguistics.


    Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.

    Coetsem, Frans van. 2000. A general and unified theory of the transmission process in language contact. Heidelberg: Winter.

    Franks, Steven. 2005. Bulgarian clitics are positioned in the syntax. May, 2006.)

    Iverson, Gregory K. 1983. Korean /s/. Journal of Phonetics 11. 191-200.

    Lahiri, Aditi (ed.). 2000. Analogy, leveling, markedness: Principles of change in phonology and morphology (Trends in Linguistics 127). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Murray, Robert W. & Theo Vennemann. 1983. Sound change and syllable structure in Germanic phonology. Language 59(3). 514-528.

    Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edn. 1989. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  4. About the Reviewer:

    Write a short paragraph (approximately 100 words) about yourself, describing your research interests, career goals, etc. Take a look at recently posted reviews for examples. This description will be requested in the online form when you submit the review.

Some Practical Considerations.

  1. Length: We recommend 1500 to 2500 words. Reviews of edited volumes tend to be somewhat longer, approximately 3500 words.
  2. Normally reviews are written in English. However, if a book is written in German or Spanish and aimed primarily at a German- or Spanish-speaking audience, the review may be written in that language. The review must contain a short summary at the beginning in English. Important: you must contact the review editors ahead of time if you plan to write your review in German or Spanish. If a review is written in another language without first consulting the Reviews Team, we reserve the right to reject the review.
  3. If you use acronyms, even those you think every linguist knows, write them out in full at first mention, and put the acronym in parentheses, as in the following example.
    “In this theory, the mapping between phonetic form (PF) and logical form (LF) is mediated by the level of surface structure (SS). However it is possible for a particular PF not to be associated with any LF.”
  4. Do not use any special formatting, such as italics, boldface, underlining, superscripts, or subscripts. Do not include tables or charts. Make the best use of the resources at hand, such as single and double quotation marks and capitalization. Also please do not use the Tab character.
  5. If you need to use IPA characters in your review, make sure to use a Unicode font when submitting your review.
  6. Reviews of edited volumes or handbooks normally include a brief description of each chapter. In that situation, please give the title and author's full name for each chapter. (We recognize that for books with a large number of chapters, this is not always practical.)
  7. Please submit your review within six weeks of receiving your copy of the book. If you are not able to complete the review in that time, please let the reviews team know.
  8. Send the review in rich text format (.rtf) by email to reviews @ symbol
  9. If you have any problems, drop a note to reviews @ symbol explaining your situation. Also, if you feel you have any conflict of interest – anything that would interfere with you judging the manuscript at hand fairly – please let us know immediately. These include a relationship with the author(s) of the work under review as colleague or former colleague, (former) student or advisor or professor, collaborator or someone you have a professional or personal conflict or dispute with.
  10. Keep an electronic copy of the version of the review that you send us, because your review may not reach us the first time you send it, it may become garbled in transmission, or because we may require revisions.
  11. You have the right to republish your review elsewhere. We ask only that you include the complete URL for your review as it appears in LINGUIST, as in:
    “This review appeared originally in the LINGUIST List at”
  12. Once your review is posted, you are welcome to keep the book.

If you have any other questions or comments, please contact our Book Review editors, at reviews

Back to Reviews Index page