We present new data on peer review practices in linguistics journals, reporting the results of an online survey of editors. This paper aims to increase understanding of the processes and practices of peer review for everyone involved—editors, authors, reviewers, and readers. Apprehending concretely how peer review happens from beginning to end and how editors think about it should help to demystify the process, especially for graduate students and early career researchers, and make the experience somewhat less stressful across the board. Editors, authors, and reviewers all share, we trust, a desire for high professional standards and best practices. We hope to stimulate further discussion of these issues in the field and development of field-wide standards.

In his target article, ‘Autism, constructionism, and nativism’, Kissine (2021) argues that data from autism should be taken into consideration in the debate about L1 acquisition. This paper responds to Kissine's piece by pointing out several of its underlying assumptions and suggesting directions for future research on the topic. Traditional framings of autism as a deficit have recently been challenged in favor of an identity-based approach, the neurodiversity paradigm, which suggests that autistic speech should not be measured in terms of its resemblance to nonautistic speech and that literature on intercultural miscommunication may offer insights into autistic communication. There are some indications that distinct autistic discourse practices may be identifiable in communities of practice, and studies on autistic literacy could benefit from considering the theoretical perspectives found in literature on multimodality and translanguaging. Finally, research on language acquisition might be strengthened by the incorporation of holistic neurocognitive theories about autistic minds.

In this commentary, we emphasize the importance of the observations presented by Kissine (2021) in his target article for our understanding of the nonmonolithic nature of pragmatics. Our first aim is to complement Kissine's argument, discussing some critical cases of linguistic processes that demonstrate the need for a finer-grained characterization of pragmatic phenomena. In addition, we report some findings that suggest that perspective taking may emerge as atypical even in autistic individuals who appear to be able to pass the standard theory-of-mind tasks. Our second aim is thus to argue that, albeit difficult to spot in experimental settings, the atypical theory-of-mind profile of low- and high-functioning autistic individuals is mirrored in their difficulties in everyday sociocommunicative interactions. Moreover, we claim that subtle differences in perspective-taking abilities may explain the highly heterogeneous linguistic profile of autistic individuals. Ultimately, with this commentary we wish to highlight the need for an increased appreciation of the role of perspective taking in typical and atypical language acquisition. This is crucial to our understanding of the nature of language acquisition, and can shed more light on the interaction between language and other aspects of human cognition.

In this impressive volume, GREGORY MATOESIAN and KRISTIN ENOLA GILBERT provide the field of law-and-language studies with an important set of analytic tools, insisting that systematic study of multimodal conduct be integrated into research on legal communication. In particular, M&G focus on modes of communication such as gesture, gaze, posture, movement, and speakers' interactions with physical objects—modes that have not received as much attention within language-and-law research as has legal language in a more traditional conception. For scholars who are unfamiliar with studies of multimodal conduct, the book offers a rigorous but accessible introduction to the field, along with sophisticated analyses of legal interactions demonstrating the value of the authors' approach. For linguists, sociolinguists, and linguistic anthropologists more generally, the volume offers an inventive entry in the growing literature integrating multimodal analysis into microanalysis of linguistic exchanges—and the macroanalysis of language within institutions. For those interested in research on legal language, this study advances the field through its comprehensive vision of how we can incorporate multimodal analysis into existing paradigms.

1. Introduction. The diversity and the scope of the responses to my target article (Kissine 2021) demonstrate the great potential linguistic research has for the field of autism. These responses also reveal, albeit sometimes implicitly, that a chief challenge in researching language in autism lies in the complexity and the subtlety of the data. In organizing my own response under this angle, I hope to react in a constructive way to most of the criticisms and suggestions voiced in these commentaries. In the next section, I return to the relationship between socio-communicative skills and language trajectories in autism; in particular, I argue that it is crucial to distinguish between predictors of language delays and those of language outcomes. Next, I discuss the complexity of pragmatics in autism, warning against reductionist attempts to subsume all data on pragmatics in autism under a single processing model. In the third section, I turn to the more general issue of the variability of individual profiles on the autism spectrum and ask how it can be integrated in a meaningful way within research on language in autism. I conclude this brief response to commentators by issuing a plea to think of the diversity of linguistic theories and schools as an opportunity for better understanding language in autism.

This study examines high school English teachers' beliefs about language as part of a project to align language teaching with contemporary linguistic understandings of language as a social process. The authors interviewed twenty-seven teachers from varied contexts across Missouri. Analysis shows that English teachers believe that (i) they are less judgmental about language than the rest of society, (ii) society discriminates against people who do not use Standardized English, (iii) students need Standardized English to be successful in school and work, and (iv) a teacher's job is to prepare students to conform to the expectations of society. As a whole, this chain of beliefs constitutes a dominant school language narrative that reproduces existing linguistic hierarchies. Teachers struggle to resolve the conflict between valuing diverse language practices and preparing students for a society that expects Standardized English. Implications suggest that supporting English teachers to take a critical stance, such as that embedded in critical language awareness, might provide teachers a new critical narrative that increases students' language knowledge while also disrupting social inequities tied to language use.

Nouns in Nuer (Western Nilotic) have been presented as an extreme example of inflectional complexity, where a ‘chaotic’ distribution of suffixes combines with dozens of different stem modifications to yield dozens of inflection classes (Frank 1999, Baerman 2012). We show that all of the apparent surface variety can be reduced to a handful of operations. The proliferation of inflection classes is due to a property we call paradigmatic saturation: practically every combination of inflectional operations is attested, yielding the maximum variety with the minimum of means.