My experience as a college writing instructor for 32 years, and as a writer, editor, and consultant for nearly 20 years
Method/evidence: Essayistic argument using experiential and anecdotal evidence (teaching tenure, professional roles, stories).
What this lets the author prove (and what it can’t): It shows practitioner perspective and patterns he’s observed, but not generalized causal proof from empirical studies.
People evolve a language in order to describe and thus control their circumstances, or in order not to be submerged by a reality that they cannot articulate.
Method/evidence: Historical-cultural reasoning + sociolinguistic examples (France, Basque/Welsh, U.S. slavery/church).
What this shows / can’t show: Explains functional origins and politics of language; not a quantitative study.
In this section, we offer specific ways of using our rich language practicesto understand how they might contribute to our academic writing.
Method/evidence: Scholarly essay + strategy toolkit; blends research framing with concrete classroom practices.
What this lets the authors prove (and what it can’t): Shows actionable pedagogy and rationale; not a quantitative outcomes study.
Code meshing be everywhere. It be used by all types of people.
Method/evidence: Essayistic argument using concrete contemporary examples (tweets, journalism, scholarship) to demonstrate widespread practice.
What this lets the author prove (and what it can’t): Shows real-world usage across domains; not a controlled empirical study.
The young narrator's language makes her ethnicity quite clear in its phonology, morphology, lexicon, and syntax.
Literary linguistic analysis: close reading of phonology, morphology, lexicon, and syntax, supported by scholarship.
What this lets the author prove (and what it can’t): Demonstrates how form (AAVE features) builds theme/identity; not an empirical workplace or survey study.