Academic English revision

Your Psych Lit Review Reads Like a Translation. Here’s Why

Stiff phrasing stems from direct translation of Chinese logic, not a lack of academic vocabulary.

You stare at the third draft, muttering that you've checked every definition, yet your supervisor’s comment remains a brutal 'too stiff.' This is the universal frustration of the international psych grad student. The issue was never your vocabulary. It’s that you are running Chinese syntax on an English operating system. Academic English demands immediate agency—subject, verb, object. Chinese academic writing often buries the subject in background context. When you transplant that indirectness directly, your prose reeks of 'Chinglish' academia.

The biggest killer is the overuse of passive voice and inanimate subjects. You think 'It was found that...' sounds objective. In Anglo-American journals, it signals a lack of agency and dated style. Native scholars prefer to give the method or the phenomenon direct action. ❌ It is generally accepted that cognitive bias affects decision making. ✅ Cognitive biases consistently drive decision-making errors in behavioral studies. See the difference? The second sentence has weight; the first reads like a government report nobody wanted to write.

Next is the connector overdose. Almost every draft crams in 'moreover,' 'furthermore,' and 'in addition.' These are grammatically correct but rhythmically useless. True flow comes from logical cohesion, not glue words. ❌ Moreover, the sample size was small. Furthermore, there were confounding variables. ✅ The study’s validity is undermined by its small sample size and uncontrolled confounds. Compressing two loose sentences into one causal statement creates the tension that defines high-quality prose.

Many students then fall into the 'AI polish' trap: over-decorating. AI loves adjectives like 'sophisticated,' 'robust,' and 'nuanced.' The result is flowery but hollow. Naturalization is about subtraction, not addition. Before you add an adjective, ask: does the meaning change if I remove it? If not, cut it. ✍️ I never do this manually; I just run the draft through easydue to strip away those decorative residues, letting the argument skeleton stand on its own strength.

In psychology specifically, collocation beats grammar. ❌ The participants performed well in the experiment. ✅ The participants demonstrated high compliance during experimental trials. 'Performed' is too vague; 'demonstrated compliance' is the precise terminology of experimental psych. You won’t find these subtle distinctions in a flashcard deck. You build them through exposure to the specific rhythm of your subfield’s discourse.

The final test is breath. If you have to pause to finish a clause, your reader’s brain likely has too. English allows long sentences, but they need clear breathing points. If your logic chain exceeds three layers of subordination without a reset, it breaks. ✍️ I use easydue again here to identify buried subjects and restructure for pacing. This saves you hours of manual staring, but more importantly, it buys you the confidence to defend your voice.

Natural does not mean casual. Rigor is non-negotiable, but your expression can have life. Stop hiding behind 'It is suggested that...' when you actually know the answer. Your insights deserve to be seen clearly, not fogged over by passive structures. Break them down, rebuild them with intent, and make your lit review sound like you, not a translation engine.