pmla-argument-development

Argument Development (pmla-argument-development)

At PMLA a reading is not a contribution until it becomes an argument the field can use — a claim that addresses a significant problem and whose implications are drawn out clearly. This skill turns interpretation into argument: a thesis, the reasoning that supports it, and the stakes that make it matter.

When to trigger

• The reading is rich but the "so what" is thin
• A reader said the essay is "descriptive," "a series of observations," or "without a thesis"
• You need to state the claim, the warrant, and the stakes explicitly
• The essay is doing several things and needs one governing argument

Build the argument

1. Thesis. State the central claim in one sentence — contestable, specific, and consequential. Not "the novel explores memory," but what about its handling of memory changes how we read it.
2. The move. Name what the essay does to the conversation: re-reads, reframes, recovers, complicates, or overturns. This is the verb of your contribution.
3. Warrant. Show why the textual evidence supports the claim — the interpretive reasoning that links reading to thesis. Close reading supplies the evidence (pmla-textual-evidence-and-close-reading); the warrant is the logic that makes it count.
4. Stakes. Draw out the implications: for how we read this text, this genre or period, or this critical or theoretical problem. A PMLA essay says why the claim matters beyond the single case.
5. Counter-reading. State the strongest rival interpretation and show how your argument answers it — not by dismissal but by accounting for the same evidence better.

The "so what" test (PMLA-specific)

Ask: If a reader granted my reading, what would they now have to think differently? If the answer is only "they would notice this detail," the stakes are too low. Push until the claim reorganizes something — a text, a genre, a method, a debate. If it cannot, reframe (back to pmla-topic-selection).

Field-stakes ledger

Before polishing the thesis, write a compact ledger that proves the argument matters beyond the primary text:

Ledger row	PMLA test
Object of revision	Which concept, periodization, genre category, language history, or interpretive method changes if the claim holds?
Evidence hinge	Which passage, archive, translation choice, or formal feature does the argument actually turn on?
Rival reading	Which respected alternative account can explain much of the same evidence?
Consequence	What can future readers, teachers, or scholars now do differently with this text or corpus?

If the consequence row says only "this text is more complex," the argument is not yet PMLA-ready. Convert texture into a portable claim: a revised concept, a changed map of a field, or a method other readers can reuse. This keeps the essay from becoming elegant close reading without disciplinary stakes.

Keep the argument honest

• Let the text constrain the claim; do not over-read a detail into a thesis it cannot bear.
• Distinguish what the text shows from what your framework asserts (see pmla-theory-and-method).
• Acknowledge counter-evidence in the text rather than selecting only confirming passages.
• One governing argument; subordinate observations to it, or cut them.

Anti-patterns

• A thesis so safe it cannot be argued against (no real claim)
• Description dressed as argument — observations with no governing thesis
• "Reading" that only restates plot or applies a label
• Stakes asserted in the last paragraph but never earned
• Burying the claim — the intervention must be stated plainly, early

Output format

【Thesis】one contestable sentence
【Move】re-reads / reframes / recovers / complicates / overturns
【Warrant】why the evidence supports the claim
【Stakes】what a reader must now think differently
【Counter-reading】the rival, and how the argument answers it
【Next】pmla-textual-evidence-and-close-reading

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — theory and concept references for stating stakes precisely
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — PMLA's "significant problem / draw out implications" standard