Constructing Criticality: A Corpus Contrastive Analysis of Applied Linguistics Literature Reviews

Literature review is a central element of academic writing, that enables researchers to identify gaps, position their studies, and synthesize prior work. Its effectiveness relies on criticality, which allows writers to evaluate existing knowledge, highlight strengths and limitations, and establish a foundation for new contributions. Developing this skill is crucial for producing coherent and persuasive review of literature. However, many student writers struggle to demonstrate criticality, as they tend to summarize previous findings without making a critical analysis or presenting their own perspective when reviewing the literature. This tendency weakens their ability to strike a balance between caution and assertion, and to project a convincing authorial voice. The current study examines how criticality is expressed in literature reviews through five strategies: hedging, boosting, attitude markers, disclaim markers, and self-mentions. To this end, two specialized corpora were compiled: the expert corpus (Expert Literature Review Corpus (ELRC), 1.26 million words) and the learner corpus (Malaysian Literature Review Corpus (MLRC), 696,494 words). Using Wordsmith Tools 6.0, a corpus-based contrastive analysis was conducted to identify the frequencies of linguistic devices associated with these strategies. Findings reveal that while both expert and student writers employed all five strategies, expert writers used them more frequently and with greater lexical variety. This suggests that experts are more adept at striking a balance between caution and evaluation, thereby constructing stronger criticality in their writing. The study underscores the importance of pedagogical support to help students move beyond reliance on hedging and adopt a broader range of linguistic resources that foster more critical and impactful literature reviews.

Keywords

Criticality, Literature Reviews, Corpus-Linguistics, Corpus-Based Study, Contrastive Analysis

Downloads

PDF Full Text HTML JATS XML

References

1. Akindele, O. (2008). A critical analysis of the literature review section of graduate dissertations at the University of Botswana. http://www.espworld. info/Articles_20/DOC/GRADUATE_WRITING_site.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Aull, L. L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written communication, 31(2), 151-183. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Azar, A. S., & Hashim, A. (2019). The impact of attitude markers on enhancing evaluation in the review article genre. In GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies (Vol. 19, Issue 1). https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2019-1901-09 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Aziz, A., Fook, C. Y., & Alsree, Z. (2010). Computational text analysis: a more comprehensive approach to determine readability of reading materials. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 1(2), 200–219. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.1n.2p.200 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Biber, D. (2004). Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 5(1), 107–136. https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.5.1.06bib [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Biber, D. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Biber, D. (2012). Corpus-Based and corpus-driven analyses of language variation and use. In Oxford University Press eBooks (pp. 159–192). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511814358 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at ...: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. In Applied Linguistics (Vol. 25, Issue 3). https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.3.371 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of spoken and Written English. Pearson Education ESL. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars Before Researchers: On the Centrality of the Dissertation Literature Review in Research Preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6). https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034006003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Bruce, I. (2014). Expressing criticality in the literature review in research article introductions in applied linguistics and psychology. English for Specific Purposes, 36(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Can, T., & Cangır, H. (2019). A corpus-assisted comparative analysis of self-mention markers in doctoral dissertations of literary studies written in Turkey and the UK. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100796 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Chen, D. T. “Victor,” Wang, Y. M., & Lee, W. C. (2015). Challenges confronting beginning researchers in conducting literature reviews. Studies in Continuing Education, 38(1), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2015.1030335 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Chen, Y., & Baker, P. (2010). Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 30–49. http://llt.msu.edu/vol14num2/chenbaker.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Cottrell, S. (2011). Critical thinking skills: Developing effective analysis and argument (2nd ed.). Macmillan Education UK. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA76094526 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Critical. 2020. In Oxford Learner’s Disctionari.com. Retrieved May, 8, 2020, from https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/academic/critical [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to Write a Literature Review. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 24(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2012.730617 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Dina, Y. (2023). EFL UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’ DIFFICULTIES IN WRITING LITERATURE REVIEW OF THEIR THESIS. JELT (Jambi-English Language Teaching). https://doi.org/10.22437/jelt.v7i2.14057. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Dobakhti, L. (2013). Attitude markers in discussion sections of qualitative and quantitative research articles. International Journal of English and Education, 2(3), 39. ISSN: 2278-4012. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2023). Self-mention in L2 (Czech) learner academic discourse: Realisations, functions and distribution across master’s theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 64, 101272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101272 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Dunne, G. (2015). Beyond critical thinking to critical being: Criticality in higher education and life. International Journal of Educational Research, 71, 86–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2015.03.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Fernandez, K. v. (2019). Critically reviewing literature: A tutorial for new researchers. Australasian Marketing Journal, 27(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2019.05.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., & McEnery, T. (2017). Exploring learner language through Corpora: Comparing and interpreting corpus frequency information. Language Learning, 67(S1), 130–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12226 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Gil-Salom, L., & Soler-Monreal, C. (2014). Writers’ positioning in literature reviews in English and Spanish computing doctoral theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 16, 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2014.08.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Granger, S. (2008). Learner corpora. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook. Vol. 1 (pp. 259–275). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Granger, S. (2011). How to use foreign and second language learner corpora. Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide, 5-29. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Hart, C. (2018). Doing a literature review: Releasing the research imagination. http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=14&n=13 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Hei, K. C., & David, M. K. (2015). Basic and Advanced Skills They Donâ€™t Have: The Case of Postgraduate and Literature Review Writing. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 12, 131–150. https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2015.12.7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Hidalgo, H., & Funderburk Razo, R. M. (2014) "Writing the Literature Review: Challenges of Two Mexican Novice Writers," Journal of Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization: Vol. 6: No. 1, Article 3. Available at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/rpcg/vol6/iss1/3Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (Kevin). (2018). Academic lexical bundles. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 23(4). https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.17080.hyl [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Hsiao, C. (2019). Attitudes: Authorial Stance in the Review Genre of Taiwanese MA Graduates. The Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 7(2), 171-183. https://doi.org/10.22190/JTESAP1902171H [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. In Pragmatics & beyond. New series. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.54 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: social interactions in academic writing. Harlow: Pearson Education [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Hyland, K. (2004). Graduates' gratitude: The generic structure of dissertation acknowledgements. English for Specific purposes, 23(3), 303-324. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Hyland, K. (2012). Bundles in academic discourse. Annual review of applied linguistics, 32, 150-169. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2018). Academic lexical bundles: How are they changing? International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 23(4), 383-407. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Imm, L. G., Eng, W. B., Heng, C. S., & Abdullah, M. H. (2014). STANCE-TAKING USING LEXICO-GRAMMATICAL FEATURES IN ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING OF MALAYSIAN UNDERGRADUATES. LANGUAGE & COMMUNICATION, 1(2), 113-124. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Information for applicants. (2024, March 31). IPSis UiTM. https://ipsis.uitm.edu.my/index.php/rss [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Isa, P. M., & Ahmad, Y. (2018). Scrutinizing the issues and challenges faced by postgraduate students: An effort to design specific programs to inculcate research culture. Journal of Administrative Science, 15(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Jeyaraj, J. J. (2018). It’s a jungle out there: Challenges in postgraduate research writing. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2018-1801-02 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Joharry, S. A. (2021). Repetitive bundles in Malaysian learner writing. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 44(1), 82-108. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Khairuddin, Z., Ismayatim, W. F. A., Ismail, O., Rahmat, N. H., & Zamri, N. A. (2021). Exploring critical thinking in writing. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research/Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.211227.012 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Kim, S., & Kessler, M. (2022). Examining L2 English university students’ uses of lexical bundles and their relationship to writing quality. Assessing Writing, 51, 100589. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Kuzborska, I., & Soden, B. (2018). The construction of opposition relations in high-, middle-, and low-rated postgraduate ESL Chinese students’ essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 34, 68–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.03.013 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Kwan, B. S. C. (2006). The schematic structure of literature reviews in doctoral theses of applied linguistics. English for Specific Purposes, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.06.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Kwan, B. S., Chan, H., & Lam, C. (2012). Evaluating prior scholarship in literature reviews of research articles: A comparative study of practices in two research paradigms. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 188–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2012.02.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Lancaster, Z. (2016). Expressing stance in undergraduate writing: Discipline-specific and general qualities. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 16-30. Lee, D. Y. W., & Chen, S. X. (2009). Making a bigger deal of the smaller words: Function words and other key items in research writing by Chinese learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.05.004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Lee, D. Y., & Chen, S. X. (2009). Making a bigger deal of the smaller words: Function words and other key items in research writing by Chinese learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 281-296. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., & Ali, F. (2022). Advancing knowledge through literature reviews: ‘what’, ‘why’, and ‘how to contribute’. The Service Industries Journal, 42(7-8), 481-513. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. In Palgrave Macmillan eBooks. http://community.hciresearch.org/sites/community.hciresearch.org/files/Languageof EvaluationBook.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Mukundan, J. (2007). Evaluative Criteria of an English Language Textbook Evaluation Checklist. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3, 1128-1134. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Mukundan, J., & Hussin, A. A. (2006). Automatic and semi-automatic processes of WordSmith 3.0 as a textbook evaluation instrument: A case study. TEFLIN Journal, 17(2), 200-219. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Oosterwyk, G., Brown, I., & Geeling, S. (2019). A Synthesis of Literature Review Guidelines from Information Systems Journals. 12. https://doi.org/10.29007/42v2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Osman, H. (2012). Planning a Review of Literature. In Strategies for Academic Writing. Shah Alam: UPENA. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Pettersson, H. (2023). From critical thinking to criticality and back again. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 57(2), 478–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopedu/qhad021 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Rabie, H., & Boraie, D. (2021). The rhetorical structure of literature reviews in Egyptian-Authored English research articles in Linguistics. Asian Social Science and Humanities Research Journal (ASHREJ), 3(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.37698/ashrej.v3i1.63 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Randolph, J. (2009) A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Shahsavar, Z., & Kourepaz, H. (2020). Postgraduate students’ difficulties in writing their theses literature review. Cogent Education, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1784620 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Soylu, M., Soylu, A., & Das, R. (2023). A new approach to recognizing the use of attitude markers by authors of academic journal articles. Expert Systems With Applications, 230, 120538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120538 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Stotesbury, H. (2003). Evaluation in research article abstracts in the narrative and hard sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 327–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1475-1585(03)00049-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Tarmizi, M. L. B. M., & Aziz Hussin, A. (2021). Expressions of Criticality in Expert and Student Writing: A Corpus Contrastive Analysis of Literature Reviews. International Journal of Modern Languages And Applied Linguistics, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.24191/ijmal.v5i3.12190 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Thompson, G. G. and Hunston, S. (2006). Evaluation in text. Encyclopedia of Language &Amp; Linguistics, 305-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/b0-08-044854-2/00509-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Thompson, G., & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation: An Introduction. In G. Thompson, & S. Hunston (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp. 1-27). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Walková, M. (2019). A three-dimensional model of personal self-mention in research papers. English for Specific Purposes, 53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.09.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Wang, J., & Zeng, L. (2021). Disciplinary Recognized Self-Presence: Self-Mention Used With Hedges and Boosters in PhD Students’ Research Writing. SAGE Open, 11. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211005454. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. Warren, M. (2012). Corpora: specialized. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0234 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Winchester, C. L., & Salji, M. (2016). Writing a literature review. Journal of Clinical Urology, 9(5), 308–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/2051415816650133 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. Wu, B., & Paltridge, B. (2021). Stance expressions in academic writing: A corpus-based comparison of Chinese students’ MA dissertations and PhD theses. Lingua, 253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103071 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. Xie, J. (2017). Evaluation in Moves: An Integrated Analysis of Chinese MA Thesis Literature reviews. English Language Teaching, 10(3), 1. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n3p1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

74. Zhang, S., Yu, H., & Zhang, L. J. (2021). Understanding the sustainable growth of EFL students’ writing skills: Differences between novice writers and expert writers in their use of lexical bundles in academic writing. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105553 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

Constructing Criticality: A Corpus Contrastive Analysis of Applied Linguistics Literature Reviews

Authors

Article Information

Publication Timeline

Abstract

Keywords

Downloads

References

Metrics

Views & Downloads

Similar Articles