The Linguistic Features in Egyptian-Authored English Research Article Literature Reviews in Linguistics

Hend Rabie, Deena Boraie


The current study aims at investigating and comparing the linguistic features of lexical items, tense usage, and voice choice in a sample of ten Egyptian-authored linguistics research article (RA) literature reviews (LRs) in local and international English-medium journals between 2013 and 2019. The paper followed a combination of genre-based and corpus-driven approaches, analyzing the data qualitatively and quantitatively. It adopted the state-of-the-art #LancsBox. The analysis revealed interesting differences between both sub-corpora in the use of lexis, especially in Moves 2 and 3. It was found that lexis varied to reflect the different rhetorical functions of the LR. They also differed in the use of the past simple tense. However, both sub-corpora agreed on using the present simple tense and active voice the most. This paper contributes to the literature by providing a helpful guide for Egyptian and novice researchers to use the linguistic features more appropriately in their LRs. It has pedagogical implications for designing EAP and ESP courses. Further studies on larger corpora are needed to analyze the linguistic features and highlight variations across genres, disciplines, and languages.


research articles; literature reviews; lexical items; tense usage; voice choice

Full Text:



Anthony, L. (2017). AntFileConverter (Version 1.2.1) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Retrieved from

Arsyad, S., Zaim, M., & Susyla, D. (2018). Review and citation style in research article introductions: A comparative study between national and international English-medium journals in medical sciences. Discourse and Interaction, 11(1), 28-51.

Banks, D. (2017). The extent to which the passive voice is used in the scientific journal article, 1985-2015. Functional Linguistics, 4(12), 1-17.

Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T. (2007). Discourse analysis and corpus linguistics. In D. Biber, U. Connor, & T. Upton (Eds.), Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure (pp. 1-20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 2-20.

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Pearson Education.

Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3-15.

Brezina, V., Weill-Tessier, P., & McEnery, A. (2020). #LancsBox v. 5.x. [software]. Available at:

Bunton, D. (2002). Generic moves in Ph.D. thesis introductions. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 57-75). London: Pearson Education.

Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Charles, M., & Pecorari, D. (2016). Introducing English for academic purposes. London: Routledge.

Chen, M. (2009). Tense of reporting in dissertation literature reviews. Journal of Cambridge Studies, 4(2), 139-150.

Cortes, V. (2013). The purpose of this study is to: Connecting lexical bundles and moves in research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(1), 33-43.

Dastjerdi, Z. S., Tan, H., & Abdullah, A. N. (2017). Tense analysis in the rhetorical movement of results and discussion chapters of Master's theses in hard sciences. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 4(6), 1-18.

Fazel, I. (2019). Writing for publication as a native speaker: The experiences of two Anglophone novice scholars. In P. Habibie, & K. Hyland (Eds.), Novice writers and scholarly publication: Authors, mentors, gatekeepers (pp. 79-95). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Feak, C. B., & Swales, J. M. (2009). Telling a research story: Writing a literature review. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Fink, A. (2014). Conducting research literature reviews from the internet to paper (4th ed.). London: Sage Publications.

Flowerdew, J., & Wang, S. H. (2016). Author’s editor revisions to manuscripts published in international journals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32, 39-52.

Flowerdew, L. (2004). The argument for using English specialized corpora to understand academic and professional language. In U. Connor & T. A. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the Professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 11-33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Güngör, F., & Uysal, H. (2016). A comparative analysis of lexical bundles used by native and non-native scholars. English Language Teaching, 9(6), 176-188.

Habibie, P. (2019). To be native or not to be native: That is not the question. In P. Habibie, & K. Hyland (Eds.), Novice writers and scholarly publication: Authors, mentors, gatekeepers (pp. 35-52). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hinkel, E. (2004a). Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hinkel, E. (2004b). Tense, aspect and the passive voice in L1 and L2 academic texts. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 5-29.

Ho, D. (2020). Notepad++ (Version 7.8.6) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from

Hsiao, C. H., & Yu, H. Y. (2012). Knowledge presentation in thesis writing- Examining move use in reviewing literature. English Teaching & Learning, 36(3), 133-179.

Hsiao, C. H., & Yu, H. Y. (2015). Move distribution and configuration of literature reviews at four levels. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 7(1), 51-77.

Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 4-21.

Ivanič, R., & Camps, D. (2001). I am how I sound: Voice as self-representation in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1-2), 3-33.

Jesson, J. K., Matheson, L., & Lacey, F. M. (2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques. London: Sage Publications.

Jian, H. (2010). The schematic structure of literature review in research articles of applied linguistics. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(5), 15-27.

Koester, A. (2010). Building small specialized corpora. In A. O’Keeffe, & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 66-79). London: Routledge.

Kwan, B. S. C. (2006). The schematic structure of literature reviews in doctoral theses of applied linguistics. English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 30-55.

Kwan, B. S. C., 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.

Leong, A. P., Toh, A. L., & Chin, S. F. (2018). Examining structure in scientific research articles: A study of thematic progression and thematic density. Written Communication, 35(3), 286-314.

Lewin, B. A., Fine, J., & Young, L. (2001). Expository discourse: A genre-based approach to social science research texts. New York: Continuum.

Li, L-J., & Ge, G-C. (2009) Genre analysis: Structural and linguistic evolution of the English-medium medical research article (1985-2004). English for Specific Purposes, 28(2), 93-104.

Maroko, G. M., & Kiai, A. (2014). Tense usage in selected humanities and science dissertations. Beyond Words 2(2), 54-85.

Martín, P. M. (2003). A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 22(1), 25-43.

Murray, N., & Hughes, G. (2008). Writing up your university assignments and research projects: A practical handbook. England: Open University Press.

Nhat, T. N. (2019). Insights into international publication: A synthesis of move-based literature on the research article genre. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies,35(1), 84-98.

Normore, A. H. (2011). The process of transforming the dissertation or thesis into publication. In T. S. Rocco, & T. Hatcher (Eds.), The handbook of scholarly writing and publishing (pp. 75-88). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Leech, N. L., & Collins, K. M. (2012). Qualitative analysis techniques for the review of the literature. The Qualitative Report, 17(28), 1-28.

Peacock, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System, 30(4), 479-497.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of English language. London and New York: Longman.

Reeves, A. (2009). Tense matters: The preterite and present perfect in scientific texts. The Journal of the European Medical Writers Association, 18(2), 99-101.

Reid, J. (2000). The process of composition. New York: Longman.

Rocco, T. S. (2011). Reasons to write, writing opportunities, and other considerations. In T. S. Rocco, & T. Hatcher (Eds.), The handbook of scholarly writing and publishing (pp. 3-12). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Seone, E. (2013). On the conventionalisation and loss of pragmatic function of the passive in Late Modern English scientific discourse. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 14(1), 70-99.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Webster, J. & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii-xxiii.

Woodrow, L. (2014). Writing about quantitative research in applied linguistics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

StatisticsArticle Metrics

This article has been read : 61 times
PDF file viewed/downloaded : 35 times


  • There are currently no refbacks.

SALTeL Journal is abstracted and indexed in




Creative Commons License
SALTeL Journal. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.