A Pragma-Dialectical Study of Pragmatic Argumentation in Academic Argument
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Academic argumentation refers to a concrete form of theoretical thinking embodied in academic works. It is a process of exposition of scientific materials to illustrate academic issues and proves that academic opinions have a true value. Academic argumentation is also an inference method and form exploited by countless preconditions to withdraw conclusions. In academic papers, authors are likely to use practical arguments to convince their target audiences by highlighting the positive or negative results that a particular standpoint has. Current research on pragmatic argumentation in institutional contexts mainly concentrates on the legal and political domains. Few researchers pay enough attention to pragmatic argumentation used in academic argument, let alone formulate proper soundness criteria for evaluating its reasonableness. Given all this, within the framework of Pragma-dialectics, this paper analyzes and evaluates the pragmatic argumentation typically used in the paper How Applied Linguistics is the same as other science in the Applied Linguistics. The general goal of this research is to reveal how pragmatic argumentation is used in academic argument. Based on the institutional preconditions of academic argument and the general pragma-dialectical soundness criteria for pragmatic argumentation, this study puts forward specific criteria for evaluating pragmatic argumentation in case of academic argument. This paper aims to evaluate the use of pragmatic argumentation in How Applied Linguistics is the same as other science and finds that academic argument may sometimes fail to keep the balance between reasonableness and effectiveness and consequently commits derailed fallacies, when they overwhelmingly pursue the persuasive effects of pragmatic argumentation and its extensions. This research is of both theoretical and practical significance. In theory, this study develops a pragma-dialectical research framework for academic argument, thus expanding the research perspectives and methods of academic argument. Meanwhile, the scope of institutional contexts of Pragma-dialectics is extended by studying academic argument. In practice, this study enlightens academic researchers who are responsible for international communication on how to use pragmatic argumentation both reasonably and effectively. More importantly, it provides a crucial analytic tool for readers to interpret academic argument appropriately and improve their critical thinking abilities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".