Often, and despite our best efforts, the evidence we employ does not actually support the premises or claims we make immediately prior to presenting our evidence. Similarly, the way we attend or respond to our evidence—how we follow up or analyze our use of the evidence—doesn’t always engage with the meaning of the evidence. This, of course, impacts the extent to which our readers trust the Evidence and Analysis we include to make our Argument. We call these rhetorical disturbances evidentiary disconnects: the moment where our use of or engagement with our evidence does not align with the reality of what the evidence demonstrates. In this entry, we propose a way to double-check the “quotation sandwich” that encourages you to isolate your premise, evidence, and response (how you address your evidentiary material) from one another and independently determine their “meaning” and “purpose.” This is “thinking through the vacuum.”

The causes of evidentiary disconnects are legion. They include, but are not limited to, using the wrong signal phrase to introduce evidence, failing to completely unpack an idea before moving on to another claim, assuming that your audience understands the value of the evidence to your Argument, or simply misunderstanding the evidence. Sometimes, our own readerly biases—or desire for the evidence to prove our claims—color our use of the evidence in a way that attempts (however innocently) to manipulate the meaning of the evidence.

Like many of the revision strategies presented in this guide “Thinking Through the Vacuum” is a labor of love. It takes time. But we believe that this will prove to be time well spent. Ultimately, this entry encourages you to practice a kind of mindfulness in employing your evidence that will, hopefully, render the advice below superfluous.

Consider reserving this revision strategy for evidence you quote rather than paraphrase. This entry assumes that you have already done the work of identifying your quoted material with quotation marks and the proper citation information.

Step 1: Identify and mark each piece of evidence in your text. We suggest that you highlight your evidence—quoted material or factual, uninterpreted description—in yellow .

Step 2: Copy and paste the evidentiary material highlighted yellow in Step One into a new document—this is the vacuum.

Step 3: Try to distill the purpose (the “so what”) and/or unpack the meaning of the evidentiary material apart from the document you pulled it from and specifically, your premise and response—this is “thinking Through the Vacuum.”

Step 4: Turn back to your original text. Identify and mark the premise or claim supported by the evidence highlighted yellow in Step 1. Highlight the premise in a different color—let’s say green.

Step 5: Distill the green-highlighted text into a word phrase that captures the purpose (the “so what”) of your premise. Try to think of this text existing in a vacuum. Identify just what’s written, not your intent, not what the highlighted text means supported by the claims made in the sentences that surround your premise or the quote that follows it. You may need to cut and paste your premise into a separate document. Sometimes, it’s hard to conceptualize the space of the vacuum.

Step 6: Identify and mark your response to the evidence highlighted yellow in Step 1. Highlight your response in another color. Let’s say turquoise ; light colors work best.

Step 7: Compare the purpose of the yellow-highlighted evidentiary material you distilled in Step 3 with the purpose of the turquoise-highlighted response you identified in Step 5.

Ask yourself, do the “so what” of my evidence and the work I do in my response align? Do they maintain a sound logical relationship? Does my response unpack/use/in some way attend to my evidentiary material?

If yes, great! You’re all set. Move on to the next quotation.

If not, full-stop. Reconsider the “meaning” of the quote and the purpose of your premise. Then, Reshape your response.

Step 8: Repeat Steps 2 through 7 for each of quote or uninterpreted summary of facts in your text.

Note: Even if you don’t put every single piece of evidence in your text through the process described above, distilling the meaning and purpose of your premises, evidence, and responses, and practicing this kind of relational thinking can help you prioritize the moments when you make claims that are especially crucial to your argument.

Step 9: Sometimes comparing the material discerned and highlighted green in Step 5 and the turquoise-highlighted text marked in Step 6 can be a useful tool in identifying possible moments of disconnect in how you set up and attend to your evidence. If you can’t see a clear logical relationship between the highlighted material in Steps 5 and 6, you’ve likely assumed too much of your reader.

Example:

The following excerpt comes from a student essay:

The mythologizing of Standard English as the marker of academic success and intellect continues to invalidate, stereotype, and subjugate Black American Vernacular English and other divergent Englishes in American society. As Hooks explains “When young white kids imitate this speech in ways that suggest it is the speech of those who are stupid or who are only interested in entertaining or being funny, then the subversive power of this speech is undermined” (171). Treating the speech of a marginalized Other as if it were a comedy bit can create internalized insecurities with respect to the use of language. This works to exclude Black American English from legitimate forms of speech further marginalizing an already disenfranchised social body.

IDENTIFY AND MARK:

The mythologizing of Standard English as the marker of academic success and intellect continues to invalidate, stereotype, and subjugate Black American Vernacular English and other divergent Englishes in American society. As Hooks explains “When young white kids imitate this speech in ways that suggest it is the speech of those who are stupid or who are only interested in entertaining or being funny, then the subversive power of this speech is undermined” (171). Treating the speech of a marginalized Other as if it were a comedy bit can create internalized insecurities with respect to the use of language. This works to exclude Black American English from legitimate forms of speech further marginalizing an already disenfranchised social body.

THINK THROUGH THE VACUUM:

The Quote:

As Hooks explains “When young white kids imitate this speech in ways that suggest it is the speech of those who are stupid or who are only interested in entertaining or being funny, then the subversive power of this speech is undermined” (171).

A little context here helps . . . “this speech” refers to Black American Vernacular English.

Purpose (“so what”): when a member of the dominant class flippantly imitates BAVE, they weaken the power of BAVE to act as a space of resistance.

The Premise:

The mythologizing of Standard English as the marker of academic success and intellect continues to invalidate, stereotype, and subjugate Black American Vernacular English and other divergent Englishes in American society.

Purpose (“so what”): Barthian Myth making marks Standard English as elect at the expense of other forms of English.

The Response:

Treating the speech of a marginalized Other as if it were a comedy bit can create internalized insecurities with respect to the use of language. This works to exclude Black American English from legitimate forms of speech further marginalizing an already disenfranchised social body.

Purpose (“So what”): Connects use of BAVE by “white kids” to internalizing ideas of self-worth in the Black Community. “Then” seems to connect internalized insecurities to BAVE and the marginalization of the Black Community from spaces of power.

COMPARE

The mythologizing of Standard English as the marker of academic success and intellect continues to invalidate, stereotype, and subjugate Black American Vernacular English and other divergent Englishes in American society.

As Hooks explains “When young white kids imitate this speech in ways that suggest it is the speech of those who are stupid or who are only interested in entertaining or being funny, then the subversive power of this speech is undermined” (171).

Here, the premise—centered on the process of myth-making—seems adjacent to but disconnected from the central claim of the evidence, which is not about how Standard English invalidates BAVE but how the aping of BAVE by “white kids” diminishes the power of BAVE as a language of resistance.

Verdict: Evidentiary Disconnects abound

As Hooks explains “When young white kids imitate this speech in ways that suggest it is the speech of those who are stupid or who are only interested in entertaining or being funny, then the subversive power of this speech is undermined” (171).

Treating the speech of a marginalized Other as if it were a comedy bit can create internalized insecurities with respect to the use of language. This works to exclude Black American English from legitimate forms of speech further marginalizing an already disenfranchised social body.

At first blush, the response appears to logically follow the claim made by the evidence. But upon further consideration, we see a leap in the logic. How do we move from the linguistic parroting of BAVE by “white kids” to processes of internalization in the Black Community? Further, the second sentence of the response doesn’t really address the claim in the quote but the claims made in the premise immediately preceding the quote (Note: italicized text does the work of Step 9).

Verdict: Evidentiary Disconnect present, though sentence two does engage with claims made in the premise.

REPAIR

The primacy of Standard English as a marker of cultural capital in the public sphere often invalidates, stereotypes, and subjugates Black American Vernacular English and other divergent Englishes in American society. When the language of a marginalized social body breaks into the public sphere it can act as a form of dissent challenging the primacy of Standard English by showing society a new mode of expression. Though, moving into the public sphere comes with some risk. As Hooks explains “When young white kids imitate this speech in ways that suggest it is the speech of those who are stupid or who are only interested in entertaining or being funny, then the subversive power of this speech is undermined” (171). For hooks, Hip-Hop—though a vital form of Black expression—has the potential to invalidate the very language it celebrates. When “white kids” consume and treat the speech of a marginalized Other as if it were a comedy bit or something to be blithely echoed at a concert, they diminish the revolutionary potential of BAVE as a site of resistance that challenges the hegemony of Standard English in the public sphere.

Verdict: No Evidentiary Disconnect.

 

For more on “thinking through the vacuum” check out: “Do Your Topic Sentences and Paragraphs Align: Thinking Through the Vacuum.”