Over the past several months I have been wrestling with academic expression on the web. I have been trying to think through what it should look like. What do I want my footprint to be? How do I want to participate in the discussions I am involved in? Part of the struggle has been with content distribution v.s. content publishing. In using the web as a content distribution platform the web technology question looks more like "how are we going to arrange these PDFs". Where as the web publishing question looks more like blog posts published directly to web browser oriented venues. Academic writing has traditionally been the written discussion between professionals in various pursuits of life. But as the web has shaped how we communicate academia must (and is) consider how it is going to participate in the discussion. If social media and its various forms are where the discussion is happening then how is academia going to stay relevant or connected? This is most relevant in the area of citations and links. These questions are not just relevant for the individual but are also relevant to academic institutions like, SIL International, Linguistic Society of America, Academy of the Sciences, etc.

Should be considering is that in a world where academic writing is reduced, where is their place. The LSA has a journal, Language, which I enjoy reading. But are they the center of academic thought that they once were? is their presentation of knowledge really the medium of use today?

While I agree that the web is radically changing the way information is decimated. I doubt that the structure of argumentation will change. We may have to find new ways of expressing the points of the argument but an argument will still have points. So, till our professors stop making us write papers, and allow us to tweet our contradictions, and assertions of scientific fact.... How to build an argument and how to write a paper are still important.

I have come across some interesting resources. One of them reminded me of something taught in my undergraduate degree. My philosophy professor made us learn an outline for paper writing which has proven most helpful.

Here is the original outline

1:Issue: What is integration

2. Position: for integration

+3. Argument 1: social pluses
-4. Objection 1 social negatives
+5. Reply 1: with out the negatives of life are we really preparing students for life

+6. Argument 2: Child’s desire
-7. Objection 2: state responsibilities
+8. Reply 2: Parents ultimate rights/responsibilities

+9. Argument 3:
-10. Objection 3:
+11. Reply 3:

+12. Argument 4:
-13. Objection 4:
+14. Reply 4:

-15. Objection to the position: Separation
-16. Argument for the objection to the position: separation is necessary for lower salaries on school budgets
+17. Objection to the objection to the position:
-18. Reply to the Argument for the objection to the position: Even with a higher budgets on salaries lowering the student to teacher ratio and paying more would help all student overall.

19. Restate issue with final opinion:

This website was given as the resource from which the outline pulled its content. http://www.sedl.org/change/issues/issues43.html

This argument still needed to demonstrate the dichotomy of a paragraph.

Introduction :: why should the reader read this? - the grab.
Definition :: What are you talking about?
Relationship to higher-level thought :: how does this relate to what the reader knows?
Conclusion :: what does your claim imply?
Transition :: What question does this lead us to ask?In this outline he showed that one needs a

Proposition

Some supporting elements

Some supporting elements

Some supporting elements

Then to strengthen the argument a counter proposition is needed.

One could choose to be very crafty and make the counter argument a counter to one of the supporting elements of the original proposition. But regardless of the quality of the counter proposition, it still needs several supporting elements.

Element supporting counter position

Element supporting counter position

Element supporting counter position

Then the author needs some discourse to deconstruct the counter supporting elements and explain why they are not valid contradictions supporting the counter position. During this discourse the opposing opinion is clearly presented. Eventually, this discourse will then refute the counter proposition. At which time a second counter proposition is needed.

Second counter proposition

Element supporting counter position

Element supporting counter position

Element supporting counter position

More discourse.... and the process repeats itself until a point is proven or considered well laid out.

The importance of the point in explaining the opposing side better than the opposing side can, was recently brought back into focus as I read a post by Nagesh Belludi ^[1]Nagesh Belludi. 12 December 2008. [Effective Arguments] Explain Your Opponent’s Perspective. [Accessed: 11 November 2011] … Continue reading . Recently I have also encountered several works of interest regarding academic discourse. The following presentation from Beyond the PDF ^[2]Anita de Waard, Paul Thompson, Maria Liakata, Raheel Nawaz and Sophia Ananiadou. Comparing scientific discourse annotation schemes for enhanced knowledge extraction. Paper presented at the Beyond the … Continue reading Has a really good break down in the first 10 minutes of the presentation on the discourse structure of an academic paper.

From time to time, I read an academic paper, or journal article which really shines. It is engaging, it tells a compelling story, presents new insights and knowledge, and it brings me to a new conclusion or awareness of my surroundings.
I recently had the pleasure of reading a paper by Alexandre François, on some phonology aspects of a language he was doing research in. ^[3] Alexandre François. 2010. Phonotactics and the prestopped velar lateral of Hiw: resolving the ambiguity of a complex segment. Phonology Vol. 27 (3):393-434. DOI:10.1017/S0952675710000205 [Link] He did a marvelous job at presenting an issue, the evidence to be considered, and then also the propositions and the objections. He brought the reader with him as he explained the issues. The level of background knowledge needed was minimized, yet this work was not focused on presenting just the background issues and story. It is a recommended read if you are interested in phonology sorts of things, but also if you are interested in looking at the presentation of argumentation.