The meaning of the term dialectic, as in Transcendental Dialectic, in the Critique Of Pure Reason, is obscure. This, mixed with the already complex text, makes this term difficult to assess.
A list of possible meanings that might fit:
- Argumental: Reason would be an argumental mechanism, as Hegel's, producing assertions as the result of the process.
The second part of the transcendental logic [...] is called transcendental dialectic, not as an art of dogmatically arousing such illusion [...], but rather as a critique of the understanding and reason [...], in order to uncover the false illusion of their groundless pretensions and to reduce their claims to invention and amplification, putatively to be attained through transcendental principles, to the mere assessment and evaluation of the pure understanding[...]. (A64)
- Discoursive: Reason would be the equivalent of a discourse, a structure of ideas, product of the tendency to make judgements that conduct to the unity of the self.
Only reason in its attempts to make out something about objects a priori and to extend cognition beyond the bounds of possible experience is wholly and entirely dialectical, and its illusory assertions do not fit into a canon of the sort that the analytic ought to contain. (B171)
Above we have called dialectic in general a logic of illusion. (B350)
- Linguistic: When the Transcendental Dialectic process is associated with syllogisms.
Starting with the Transcendental Logic here, so, any help is appreciated.
- Found this after Conifold's answer(thanks!): Paul Rabe's influence on Kant's analytic/dialectic distinction: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268814181_Kant_Rabe_e_la_logica_aristotelica and https://users.manchester.edu/facstaff/ssnaragon/kant/lectures/lecturesTextbooks.htm