As noted above, the Generals process requires you to show the ability to formulate a significant
research question of real interest to the field, carry out the research necessary to investigate your
question, and report your findings in a paper written to a professional standard. At the same time, we
know full well that not all projects are equally successful, and they do not require equal amounts of
time and effort. This is especially true of projects carried out under the artificial constraints of the
Generals deadlines, by researchers just starting out in the field. Unforeseen difficulties and last-minute
counterexamples are facts of life that neither you nor your advisors can predict or control for. For these
reasons, we do not expect or require that your papers present conclusive results. Furthermore, contrary
to persistent rumor, we do not require that your papers be “publishable”.
A paper that reports an experiment that needs to be redone to eliminate an unanticipated confound, a
proposal that works for Icelandic but fails for Faroese, or a paper that answers two of the three most
obvious objections to your otherwise excellent analysis might not pass muster with a journal reviewer
without more work — but if it is a well-written report on a well-conducted investigation of an
interesting question, it is a perfectly satisfactory Generals paper. If you find yourself able to write such
a paper, and the Generals deadline is at hand: write it up, defend it, and get on with your life as a
linguistics grad student.
Yes, your next step after defending your imperfect paper might indeed include fixing its problems,
with the ultimate goal of publication. Many Generals papers do indeed lead to conference talks and
published papers. But by finishing and defending your actual Generals paper in a timely fashion, you
set yourself free to complete your research and polish your paper without the formal Generals
requirement hanging over your head. Trust us, it’s a good feeling.
