My take on "I argue" and other signposting metalanguage in ac writing: It works when it lets the reader do less work. It doesn't work when the writer uses it to do less work. The problem for the writer is distinguishing between the two.

Some ppl think if you have a concise, clear statement of argument in your intro, prefacing with "I argue that..." isn't necessary. Valid! But it can be a shortcut for the reader, like a library book where someone has already highlighted the important bits.

It says, "Thesis here! Pay attention! Don't skim! Keep this in mind as you read!" It helps ensure you're understood, that the reader can come away with the one big idea you want them to come away with.

However! If there are a bunch of "I argue" statements throughout, especially in quick succession or god forbid in one paragraph, this isn't a shortcut for the reader. It's a shortcut for the writer, who hasn't yet articulated how those statements relate to each other.

Doing the work of thinking through and writing out how your ideas relate to one another is probably the necessary step that will be able to lead you to the one statement that should encapsulate the whole of your argument. You can put "I argue" in front of that one!

Similarly, with words that describe what your writing is doing. Explore, examine, investigate, analyze: helpful when used sparingly to narrow down a focus, but when I see these in excess, they seem to be trying to stand in place of a clearly stated argument.

Shed light on: almost never useful, just tell us what the result of shedding light is. Problematize, nuance, complicate: ok as long you don't withhold the payoff, otherwise you are writing around an argument without stating one.

The most frustrating thing I see is statements about the argument that don't state an argument. "I make an original argument." "My argument overthrows assumptions in x and y fields." "My argument shows the limits of this methodology and that theory."

Also, as @lportwoodstacer really helpfully pointed out to me: https://twitter.com/lportwoodstacer/status/1388297996563992577

These all strike me to be attempts to fulfill the obligation to have an argument, but have the actual effect of papering over what argument is actually there to be advanced.

Anyways, I have little interest in issuing proscriptions about writing, and I find rules are rarely as helpful as reasoning. Just my two cents to explain my own reactions as a reader as I #AmEditing on a Friday night!

Also a thread for another night or when I am finished with this manuscript (so, another night): roadmapping! I have a lot of thoughts!