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

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.

strengthen research capacity and promote academic excellence (Isa & Ahmad, 2018). At these levels, students

are expected to conduct systematic research and generate original contributions that advance existing

knowledge, with their impact reflected in institutional indicators such as the QS World University Rankings

and the MyRA KPI (Isa & Ahmad, 2018).

Despite these expectations, postgraduate students (hereafter referred to as student writers) continue to face

persistent challenges in academic writing, including articulating ideas, structuring arguments, and developing

writing skills (Isa & Ahmad, 2018). To address this, universities have introduced seminars and workshops

aimed at strengthening writing abilities. For instance, UiTM offers a research skills seminar with modules on

literature review, methodology, and proposal writing, including guidance on drafting effective reviews

(Information for Applicants, 2024). Such initiatives are crucial, as postgraduate research culminates in thesis

perspectives.

The literature review is a central element of academic writing because it fulfils several key objectives in

scholarly inquiry. Demonstrating criticality within the review enables writers to identify research gaps

(Fernandez, 2019; Kwan, 2006; Hart, 1998), position their studies within the broader academic conversation

(Fernandez, 2019; Hart, 1998; Rowle & Slack, 2004), develop hypotheses or theoretical perspectives

(Fernandez, 2019; Hart, 1998), and synthesize and evaluate prior research (Boote & Beile, 2005; Hart, 1998;

Shahzavar & Kourepaz, 2020). By critically engaging with existing studies, authors can assess their strengths

and limitations and establish a rationale for their own contributions (Akindele, 2008; Bruce, 2014). Mastering

this skill equips writers to navigate these demands effectively, producing literature reviews that are not only

coherent in structure but also persuasive in demonstrating the significance of new research.

provide more targeted support for student writers

Although extensive guidance exists on writing literature reviews (Boote & Beile, 2005; Denny & Tewksbury,

2013; Lim et al., 2022; Oosterwyk et al., 2019; Randolph, 2009; Snyder, 2019), little attention has been given

to how criticality is enacted in this context. In particular, the roles of strategies and linguistic devices in

conveying critical evaluation remain underexplored. Much of the existing research has focused on rhetorical

establish research space and construct arguments (Kwan, 2006; Gil-Salom & Soler-Monreal, 2014; Kwan et

al., 2012; Rabie & Boraei, 2021). Other studies have considered evaluative dimensions (e.g., Xie, 2017),

offering insights into how writers position their work within disciplinary dialogues. While these contributions

enhance understanding of organizational and rhetorical features, comparatively less is known about how

as the linguistic devices through which these strategies are realised. By examining these elements, the study

seeks to offer postgraduate writers practical guidance for developing persuasive and critical reviews. Such

critically is fundamental to demonstrating academic competence and contributing meaningfully to scholarly

debates.

The present study examines how student writers express criticality in applied linguistics literature reviews in

comparison with expert counterparts. It addresses the following research questions:

Literature review writing is complex, as it involves extensive searching, critical evaluation of sources, and

David, 2015); and synthesizing prior work into a coherent argument rather than simply summarizing or listing

sources (Boote & Beile, 2005; Shahsavar & Kourepaz, 2020). These challenges are further intensified by

students’ reluctance to critique established scholars, which contributes to descriptive rather than evaluative

reviews (Akindele, 2008; Shahsavar & Kourepaz, 2020).

Several factors underlie these difficulties. Situational constraints include limited training, insufficient feedback,

and restricted access to resources (Boote & Beile, 2005; Randolph, 2009; Dina, 2023). Cognitive factors such

as language proficiency, underdeveloped critical thinking, and limited ability to synthesize and evaluate

information also play a role (Bruce, 2014; Akindele, 2008; Hei & David, 2015). In addition, psychological

pressures, such as fear of critiquing others’ work, may hinder engagement (Randolph, 2009). Considering the

situational and cognitive challenges faced by student writers, one of the key elements missing in many cases is

The literature emphasizes the importance of demonstrating criticality in literature reviews, as it enables writers

to analyse, evaluate, and synthesize studies rather than merely summarizing them (Akindele, 2008; Bruce,

2014; Shahsavar & Kourepaz, 2020). Through critical engagement, writers can identify gaps, highlight

connections, and position their work within broader scholarly conversations, thereby establishing credibility

and advancing knowledge (Boote & Beile, 2005; Hart, 1998).

Many student writers, however, struggle to demonstrate criticality due to underdeveloped critical thinking and

analytical skills (Akindele, 2008; Boote & Beile, 2005; Hei & David, 2015; Shahsavar & Kourepaz, 2020).

Critical thinking, defined as the disciplined process of analysing, evaluating, and synthesizing information

(Cottrell, 2011; Khairuddin et al., 2021), underpins effective academic writing. Without it, reviews often

remain descriptive rather than evaluative, limiting engagement with sources.

broader orientations to knowledge.

In literature reviews, this involves expressing analysis through judgments rather than merely reporting prior

work. Yet definitions of criticality remain contested, with overlapping terms such as stance (Hyland, 2005),

(Bruce, 2014). Consequently, studies have examined criticality through linguistic, rhetorical, and cognitive

perspectives (Azar & Hashim, 2019; Stotesbury, 2003; Petterson, 2023).

proposition, encompassing both affect and evidentiality. Given its central role in academic writing, it is

essential to examine how criticality is expressed linguistically, particularly how writers communicate

evaluations, positions, and attitudes to establish stance and engage effectively in scholarly discourse.

In academic writing, and particularly in literature reviews, criticality is expressed through a range of linguistic

resources. It is closely tied to frameworks such as stance, appraisal, and evaluation, which explain how writers

position themselves, assess knowledge claims, and engage with readers. Among the most influential are Martin

The following table presents the adapted strategies for expressing criticality in literature reviews, including

Hedging, Boosting, Attitude Markers, Disclaim Markers, and Self-Mentions, along with the linguistic devices

Scholars have examined various thesis sections such as acknowledgements, introductions, and discussions, but

comparatively less attention has been given to the literature review. Research on this section has focused

mainly on its structure, rhetorical moves, and functions, showing that literature reviews form the foundation of

research and require writers to engage critically with prior studies rather than merely summarize them (Bruce,

2014; Fernandez, 2019; Kwan, 2006; Winchester & Salji, 2016).

Early work by Kwan (2006) linked the rhetorical structure of literature reviews with Swales’ CARS model.

Further work has highlighted evaluation practices in specific contexts. Kwan et al. (2012) compared

behavioural science and design science research articles, showing disciplinary contrasts in how evaluation was

used to critique or justify research. Bruce (2014) examined criticality in literature reviews, focusing on attitude

markers and concession–contra expectation as ways of expressing stance. His analysis showed how writers

highlight weaknesses, acknowledge counterarguments, and reinforce positions through linguistic devices. Xie

(2016) similarly investigated evaluation in Chinese MA theses, finding that students often used explicit

evaluation while balancing assertiveness and neutrality, shaped by both cognitive and social factors.

Despite these insights, research remains uneven. Many studies rely on rhetorical or genre-based models such as

CARS, while fewer adopt corpus-based approaches that capture broader patterns. Moreover, while stance and