A Schematic and Linguistic Analysis of the Literature Review Section of MPhil Research Proposals in English

research designs, methods and conclusions. literature review critical compilations of studies previously, make a critical evaluation of the literature that was studied and progress a critical attitude.According Swales and Feak (2013), theliterature review section can explain clearly which potential areas for inclusion have not been covered in the review and why they have been omitted. Abstract : Writing a literature review has been noted as a challenging activity for novice writers in recent times. This study was conducted based on observations made in existing literature. It has been noted that novice writers hardly assess or evaluate their literature review sections. The study used the modified version of Swales’ CARS model and Halliday’s interactional resource respectively to help identify the various moves and steps used in the English of MPhil Research proposals of students of University of Cape Coast, specifically, MPhil in English Language students. Data was randomly selected from forty MPhil Research Proposals. The study identified three Moves in the literature review section of the proposals. The study found that Moves in the literature review section are sequentially arranged. The study also found that 25% of the research proposal writers use interactional resources to evaluate their literature. Hence, the study has confirmed that Bruce’s observation that novice writers do not assess the literature review section but just summarize related studies, as true, since the majority of the research proposal writers were found not to have used any of the interactional resources to evaluate their related studies. The research proposal writers showed interest in summarizing related studies as compared with criticizing the method, theories and other related matters in the related studies. This study has significant implications for academic writing instructors, genre analysts and further studies.