Author Guidelines
The journal of
linguistics Kalbotyra focuses on research into various aspects of language
studies as well as the ones addressing cross-linguistic issues. It publishes
articles, reviews of books and reports of conferences. Proceedings of
conferences are also invited.
Papers submitted
for publication should not have been published or submitted for publication
elsewhere. They are reviewed by at least two anonymous referees following the
double blind refereeing procedure.
All manuscripts in
an electronic version should be sent to the editor-in-chief Aurelija
Usonienė by e-mail (aurelia@usonis.lt) in two formats: MS Word (*.doc or
*.docx ) and Portable Document Format (*.pdf). Please
check the converted PDF for formatting errors (margins, paragraphing, charts, pictures,
etc.)
Papers should not
normally exceed 8,000 words in length; only in exceptional circumstances can
significantly longer papers be considered.
Papers should be
prepared according to the requirements set out below in one of the following
languages: English, French, German or Lithuanian. If the language of the paper
is not a native language of the author(s), the paper should be proof-read by a
native-language specialist to check its correctness.
It is the authors’
responsibility to ensure that the final version of their paper fully conforms
to this style sheet.
The author(s)
warrant that their paper is original and no property rights (including
copyright or other intellectual property rights) of any third parties have been
violated. Kalbotyra follows the policy of screening for plagiarism. The authors
will be required to sign a licence agreement and an honesty declaration.
Articles published in Kalbotyra are distributed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (CC BY-NC 4.0).
The editorial team
and reviewers of Kalbotyra follow the COPE (the Committee on Publication
Ethics) code of conduct and best practice guidelines which aim to define best
practice in the ethics of scholarly publishing. The authors who submit articles
for publication to Kalbotyra are also strongly recommended to follow the
guidelines of COPE for best publishing practices.
Since the journal
follows a double blind review policy, the author(s) have to submit two versions
of the paper. Version one should be prepared according to this style sheet and
version two should have all author identifying features removed both from the
text of the article and from the document properties.
1 Structure and
form
Papers submitted
for publication should correspond to the general requirements of research
papers and cover the following points: the research question/problem, review of
previous research on the subject, data and methods, research findings/results
(evaluated and validated), evidence (documented), conclusions and references.
Papers that do not conform to the requirements will be returned to the authors
for revision before further processing.
Papers should be
printed on A4 paper size with a 1.5 cm margin on the right and 2.5 cm margins
on the top, left and bottom; the pages should be numbered beginning with the
title page at the top right corner of the page. The authors should use 1.5
spacing between the lines throughout the paper. The font is 12 pt Times New
Roman. The text should be justified left.
The paper should
contain:
(1) the title of the paper, 14 pt, bold
(2) the full name(s) in bold and affiliation(s) of the
author(s),12 pt. The affiliation should be given in the language of the
publication in full, including departments/centres, postal address, authors’
e-mail address (hyperlink should be removed), in this order
Evidential
adjectives in Lithuanian academic discourse
Anna Ruskan
Department of
English Philology
Vilnius University
Universiteto g. 5
LT-01513 Vilnius,
Lithuania
E-mail:
anna.ruskan@flf.vu.lt
(3) Abstract
All articles must
have an abstract in English (180-350 words). An abstract should clearly
describe the purpose of the research, data and methodology, the main results
and the principal conclusions. The second abstract in Lithuanian or any other
language of the journal is optional. Abstracts in languages other than the
language of the publication should bear the title (in bold, 12 pt) and the
words Abstract / Santrauka.
(4) Keywords: a
list of 5–7 key words separated by commas is provided below every abstract in
the language of the abstract. For example, articles written in English should
have keywords in English.
2 The text
The text should be
divided into sections and subsections, each of them decimally numbered
beginning with 1 (e.g.: 1, 1.1, 1.1.1, etc.) and titled. The number and title
should be in bold type. The block organisation of paragraphs (not indented)
should be used throughout the whole text with spaces of 12 pt before each new
paragraph.
Figures and tables
(12 pt) should be numbered and titled separately under the figure/table. The
illustrations will be printed black and white, their resolution should not be
less than 300 dpi.
Use italics for
foreign words (especially et al.); use bold face for emphasis. Use square
brackets [like this] for personal additions.
Quotations. Short
quoted sections in the running text should be enclosed in double quotation
marks “like this” (the original citation is given in round brackets). Use
single quotes for special forms, for quotations within quotations, and for
glosses and paraphrases of (foreign) words. Quotations longer than three lines
(ca. 40 words) should be given in a separate indented paragraph (5 pt) in
italics.
Listings for the
purpose of classification should be written in a new indented (5 pt) line,
e.g.:
a) the first
model …
b) the second
model …
Examples (words,
phrases, sentences, etc.) are not indented, they are given in italics and
numbered consecutively throughout the article; the numbers (regular) are
enclosed in round brackets, e.g.: (1), (2). References for cited examples
should be indicated, translation correspondences of all language data in a
language other than the language of the paper should be given in single commas,
e.g.: eiti ‘to go’.
Translation and
word-by-word glosses are provided for all quotations/examples from languages
other than the language of the article. Translation is given in single
quotation marks. Words are aligned vertically using tab key rather than space
bar key. Use small caps to indicate grammatical information (NOM.SG.F), for
example:
(1) Jai reikia eiti namo.
she.DAT.SG need.3PRS go.INF home.ADV
‘She has to go home’
For more details
about glossing refer to: http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php
Footnotes set in 10
pt can be used only for very brief explanatory remarks and their frequency of
occurrence is limited to no longer than 3 lines. They should be numbered
consecutively throughout the text using superscript Arabic numerals.
Acknowledgements
They follow the
main text of the paper.
List of
Abbreviations should precede Data sources or References.
Below the body of
the article, the date of its submission for publication should be indicated.
3 References in the
text
All references should
be given at the appropriate point in the text in brackets (author’s name or
title of publication, year of publication, comma page(s) referred to, if
relevant), like this: (Howarth 1998, 27–28). Different sources of reference
should be separated by semi-colons (Aijmer 1996, 1997; van der Auwera, Schalley
& Nuyts 2005). If letters of Slavic or some other non-Latin alphabet have
been used, the names and titles should be transliterated.
4 Reference list
All data sources
cited in the text, and only those, should be listed alphabetically at the end
of the paper in separate sections under the headings Data Sources and
References. Each reference entry is given in a separate paragraph; the second
line of the paragraph is indented by 10 pt. All lexical words are capitalized
only in the Names of Periodicals; only the first word is capitalized in the
Titles of books (proper names, etc. are exceptions). Papers written in
languages other than Lithuanian should provide translations of Lithuanian,
Latvian, Russian, Polish book and article titles in brackets. Please follow the
pattern given below:
Holvoet, Axel,
Loreta Semėnienė, red. 2004. Gramatinių kategorijų tyrimai.
[Studies in grammatical categories]. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.
Data Sources
BNC The British
National Corpus. Davies, M. 2004–. BYU–BNC. Available at:
http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc
CorALit Lietuvių mokslo kalbos tekstynas
(Corpus Academicum Lithuanicum). Interneto prieiga: http://www.coralit.lt/
References
Ambrazas, Vytautas.
1990. Sravnitel’nyj sintaksis pričastij baltijskich jazykov. [Comparative
syntax of participles in Baltic languages]. Vilnius: Mokslas.
Barbieri, Federica.
2008. Patterns of age-based linguistic variation in American English. Journal
of Sociolinguistics 12 (1), 58–88.
Bolinger, Dwight.
1965. The atomization of meaning. Language 41, 555–573.
Gansel, Christina,
Frank Jürgens. 2007. Textlinguistik und Textgrammatik. Eine Einführung.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Haß, Ulrike, Hg.
2005. Grundfragen der elektronischen Lexikographie. elexiko
– das Online-Informationssystem zum deutschen Wortschatz. Berlin, New York:
Walter de Gruyter.
Holvoet, Axel,
Loreta Semėnienė, red. 2004. Gramatinių kategorijų tyrimai.
[Studies in grammatical categories]. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.
Huddleston, Rodney
& Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jaszczolt,
Katarzyna. 2009. Default semantics. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic
analysis. Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
193–221.
Kleiber, Georges. 1990. La sémantique du prototype: catégories et sens
lexical. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Langacker, Ronald
W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2. Descriptive application.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Rayson, Paul. 2004.
Log-likelihood calculator. Available at: www.ucrel.lancs.ac.uk. Accessed: 5
October 2008.
Šinkūnienė,
Jolanta. 2011. Autoriaus pozicijos švelninimas rašytiniame moksliniame
diskurse: gretinamasis tyrimas. [Hedging in written academic discourse: A
cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary study], (ms.). Humanitarinių mokslų daktaro disertacija
[PhD dissertation]. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas.
Peer-Review
This journal uses double-blind review,
which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the
reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. To facilitate this,
authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does
not give away their identity.
Based on the following criteria, the
reviewers assess if the paper may be accepted without revisions, with minor or
major revisions, or if it should be rejected. The core of any review is an
objective assessment of both the technical rigour and the novelty of the
presented work.
The criteria
1. Clarity of thesis statement and
declaration of purpose.
2. The relevance of the theoretical
discussion and description of the empirical investigation.
3. Reproducible methods of the research
and results.
4. Well-founded discussion/analysis.
5. Well-structured and logically
coherent composition.
6. Unambiguous and properly analysed
data.
7. Data supported by conclusions.
8. The originality of the work.
Awareness of relevant research.
Peer-reviewer responsibilities
to readers
1. Provide written, unbiased feedback on
the scholarly merits and scientific value of the work, together with the
rationale for your opinion.
2. Provide your peer-review as soon as
possible within 21 day. If you cannot do so, please contact the journal
office immediately at journal platform.
Indicate whether the writing is clear,
concise, and relevant and rate the work’s composition, scientific accuracy,
originality, and interest to readers.
3. Avoid personal comments or criticism.
4. Maintain the confidentiality of the
peer-review process by not sharing, discussing with third parties, or
disclosing information from the reviewed paper without permission from the
editorial office.
5. Alert the editor to any potential
personal or financial conflict of interest (see Ethical policy, Conflicts
of interest) you may have and decline to review when a possibility of a
conflict exists.
6. Determine scientific merit, originality,
and scope of the work and suggest ways to improve it.
7. Note any ethical concerns, such as
the substantial similarity between the reviewed manuscript and any published
paper or any manuscript concurrently submitted elsewhere.
Peer-reviewer responsibilities to
readers
1. Ensure
that positively reviewed papers meet the journal standards.
2. Protect readers from incorrect or
flawed research or studies that cannot be validated by others.
3. Be alert to
any failure to cite relevant work by other scientists.
Reviews can and should be critical, but
we ask reviewers to keep in mind that dismissive language and personalised
criticisms may be viewed as reflecting bias or ulterior motives on the part of
the referee.
The journal Editorial Office handles the
administrative aspects of the peer-review process for contributed papers. All
peer-reviews must be submitted through the Peer-review system.
Editors of the journal are asking
reviewers to prepare their reviews using a template. [nuoroda
į template]
Instructions to Reviewers
In the journal, we aim to provide authors with clear feedback that will help to
guide them as they improve their work. To help us do this, we ask (but do not
require) that you prepare your review using the template below. The idea is to
anchor specific criticisms and suggestions to the specific points in the paper.
In our experience, reviews prepared this way are clearer, and they help us to
understand your concerns better so that we can make decisions that are as
specific and as helpful as possible.
Comments to authors
Summary: Please provide a general summary of the paper. This summary can be
brief. Your thoughts on the level of advance the paper provides and its
importance/interest to the community would be helpful. If you feel that prior
literature undercuts any part of the paper, please provide references.
Critique: Please list the main points of
the paper. For each point, indicate whether the data sufficiently support that
point. If the point is not sufficiently supported, please indicate the kind of
evidence is you feel is required, and include any suggestions for specific
experiments. If you feel that certain concerns are more crucial than others, it
would be helpful to highlight them.
Other comments: Please comment on any
other issues (technical, data presentation, textual changes) that are not
necessarily linked to any of the specific points of the paper.
“Open Access Journal”