Move from task to rhetorical function

Academic writing is easier to revise when every sentence has a job. A literature review may define a field, organise positions, compare findings, identify uncertainty, or establish a research gap. A discussion may interpret a result, connect it to prior work, bound its scope, and explain an implication. These functions are related, but they are not interchangeable.

Before drafting, write a plain-language label beside each paragraph: context, problem, evidence, interpretation, limitation, or contribution. If a paragraph needs three labels, its logic may need to be separated. Once the sequence is clear, use the Phrase Explorer to find a pattern for the specific move.

Control stance across a paragraph

Stance is not a single hedge added near a verb. It is the relation among evidence quality, claim strength, scope, and certainty. Direct evidence can support an assertive descriptive claim. Observational evidence can support association, but it normally cannot support an unqualified causal statement. Contextual evidence may motivate a question without resolving it.

Writing needUseful moveCheck before use
Connect studiesSynthesise agreement and contrastDo the cited studies support the same scope?
State a gapDefine the unresolved issueIs the gap specific and demonstrable?
Interpret a resultOffer a bounded explanationCould another mechanism fit the evidence?
ConcludeReturn to contribution and limitsDoes the conclusion exceed the analysis?

Revise for continuity and precision

Read the first sentence of every paragraph as a sequence. The sequence should reveal the paper's argument without relying on formulaic transitions. Then inspect each claim for its evidence anchor. A citation must still support the same proposition after a rewrite. A number must retain its unit, comparison group, interval, and direction. Negation and limiting words such as only, may, within, and under should be treated as protected meaning.

Finish with a compression pass. Remove phrases that repeat the claim without adding logic. Prefer a precise subject and verb over abstract nominalisations when the actor or process matters. Keep technical terms when a shorter synonym would change disciplinary meaning.