Mardi Juansyah / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
12 No.
Online version available in : http://arbitrer.
JURNAL ARBITRER
| 2339-1162 (Prin.
| 2550-1011 (Onlin.
| Article Book Review Papers in Language Related Journals:
How Authors Evaluate and Promote the Books Under Review Mardi Juansyah1.
Safnil Arsyad2*.
Dian Eka Chandra Whardana3.
Yusri Fajri Annur4 Doctoral Program of Applied Linguistics.
Faculty of Education.
Bengkulu University.
Bengkulu Indonesia English Education Postgraduate Program.
Faculty of Education.
Bengkulu University.
Bengkulu Indonesia
1,2,3
Submission Track
A B S T R A C T
Received: February 18, 2025 Final Revision: August 17, 2025 Accepted: August 20, 2025 Available Online: September 25, 2025 Writing a research article for a reputable journal is not easy especially for new authors or postgraduate students in social sciences and humanities including language related fields but they can write and publish a book review paper .
enceforth BRP) in a high impact journal to practice writing in English at an advanced level.
This study is aimed at analyzing the discourse structure and argument style of BRPs in language related fields published in high impact journals.
Sixty BRPs were chosen from six different journals published in several countries analyzed in this The four move BRP discourse pattern model as suggested by Bezerra .
was used in this study.
The results show that, in terms of the appearance of moves: Move 1 or introducing the book and Move 4 or addressing a final idea about the book are categorized as conventional while Move 2 or outlining the book content and Move 3 or examining the book are obligatory.
However, only one step (Move 2-Step B or highlighting the topic of the boo.
out of 16 steps in all moves is obligatory.
7 steps are classified as conventional and the other 8 are optional.
In other words, in each move, there is at least one obligatory or conventional step.
This implies that only a half or 50% of the steps are obligatory or conventional while the other half are optional.
The optional steps are possibly used by the BRP authors to provide additional important information about the book being reviewed to attract readers to read and/or own the book.
Keywords Discourse study, book review paper, language related journal, evaluate, high impact journals Correspondence *E-mail: safnil@unib.
INTRODUCTION
Publishing an article in a reputable journal is hard for almost every one particularly in the fields of social sciences and humanities and therefore, many authors are unsuccessful in doing it (Adnan.
Arono & Arsyad, 2019 and Arsyad & Adila.
However, apart from publishing research articles authors can also publish book review papers in reputable journals.
Therefore, they can practice writing academic texts at an advance level and publish it in a high-ranking journal.
Indonesian context, reputable journal publication is dominated by scholars from the fields of sciences, medicine, computer, agriculture and engineering (Kemristekdikti, 2.
According to the report, the DOI: https://doi.
org/10.
25077/ar.
contribution of scholars from Social Sciences and Humanities is only 5.
65% of the whole publication.
This is considered to be very low given the large number of researchers in these fields, such as education, social and political sciences, economics, languages, arts, etc.
Faculty members and postgraduate students can also write a BRP which can also be published in reputable or indexed journals.
Bal-Gezegin .
defines a book review as an assessment that includes both an explanation and an analysis of a fictional or nonpartisan work.
Similarly, according to Lindholm-Romantschuk .
, a BRP is written to introduce and review the scientific work of a peer in the literary community.
BRP is also defined as a Under License of Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.
0 International.
Mardi Juansyah / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
12 No.
type of scholarly article that describes and critically evaluates the structure, content, quality, and contribution of a book to the field for an interested audience (Hyland, 2.
According to Hyland.
BRPs are meant to be interpretations and critical assessments of newly published literature and contribute to scholarship, support for knowledge production and social cohesion in professional Therefore, no description of the book would be complete without describing how it was reviewed in a BRP.
A BRP is also viewed as a form of assessment from a critical perspective.
the general purpose of reviewing newly published books is to evaluate the publication of knowledge (Motha-Roth, 1.
According to Babaei and Ansari .
, if we accept that the main purpose of book reviews at the end of most academic journals is to review the knowledge produced, it can be argued that these are helpful in acquiring literacy.
However, since reading and writing BRPs in English and published in reputable journals require an advanced English ability, new authors or postgraduate students need to practice reading and writing this genre to improve their English ability before they can read and write high quality journal articles.
This is because, according to Nodoushan & Montazeran .
, a BRP is much shorter than a normal journal article.
a BRP is usually less than 2000 words in long and consists of only four moves.
Thus, reading and writing a BRP is easier than reading and writing a research However, although very important discourse studies about BRPs are rare in the literature and this is why this study is necessary.
This study is aimed at answering the following questions.
What moves are often found in the BRPs published in reputable journals in language related field? What steps are often found in the BRPs published in reputable journals in language related field? and What linguistic resources are often used by the authors in evaluating the book under review? reviews in three distinct academic disciplines:
chemistry, economics, and linguistics.
Using four move model .
Move 1: introduction.
Move 2: outlining the book.
Move 3: highlighting parts of the book, and Move 4: providing closing evaluation of the boo.
, he found that, despite adhering to strict guidelines regarding content, purpose, and setting, book reviews do occasionally Motta-Roth further explains that compared to economics and languages, chemistryAos BRPs are less judgmental, shorter descriptive objective It is suggested by Motta-Roth that distinct configurations of text features can result from distinct epistemic organizations in the disciplines of chemistry, languages, business and finance.
A different study was conducted by Babaii and Ansari .
who attempted to systematically define book reviews as a scholarly text in relation to their equivalent system.
They examined variations of BRPs in three different disciplines .
hysics, sociology, and literatur.
and used this information to analyze book reviews in their second phase of They found that there were differences in semantic structure in each disciplineAos book For example.
BRPs in physics journals seem to contain a higher percentage of passive construction, non-human concrete participants, and existential and relational processes than their counterparts in sociology and literature journals.
This, in turn, appears to be accompanied by a lower percentage of specific human participants, resulting in texts that are heavily symbolic and impersonal.
Similarly.
Nodoushan & Montazeran .
found that the language origins of writers .
, native and nonnative English authors in Applied Linguistic.
have a statistically significant impact on the moves and structures they choose for BRPs.
Additionally, it was discovered that reviews of books can be classified as either informative or evaluative, with the distinction between the two being whether or not the writers provide a detailed analysis of the benefits and/or drawbacks of the books they are reviewing.
Native writers consistently either strongly suggested or disqualified the books they were reviewing, or they just suggested the book in spite of any flaws that were pointed up, but nonnative authors did not succeed in doing so.
Studies on the rhetorical structure of BRP are very rare in literature.
this is probably because The rhetorical structure of BRPs published in not all journals publish a BRP and therefore, they are not as popular as research articles.
One of English newspapers in Pakistan was investigated the rare studies on this subject was carried out by Shahnaz .
Using Motta-RothAos 1995 by Motta-Roth .
, who looked into book model, she found that all four moves .
M1290
Mardi Juansyah / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
12 No.
introducing the book.
M2-outlining the book.
M3highlighting parts of the book and M4-final closing evaluation of the boo.
are obligatory since they occur in more than 50% of the BRPs.
However, not all BRPs included in ShahnazAos corpus were written by faculty members.
some of them were written by the staff reporters of the newspapers.
A more recent study on BRPs was conducted by Carvalho .
who analyzed 45 papers in Linguistics published in three periods of time:
from 1953-1970, .
from 1971-2000, and .
from 2001-2015.
Following the rhetorical models suggested by Motta-Roth .
Arayjo .
and Bezerra .
1 cited in Carvalho, 2.
Carvalho found that the majority of the BRPs have all four moves: .
introducing the publication, .
outlining the content, .
examining the book, and .
addressing a final idea particularly in BRPs published in the third period .
rom 2001-2.
However, in terms of the frequency of steps Carvalho found variations between each move and among the periods of publication time.
According to Carvalho, in terms of the frequency of move the BRPs are rather stable over times but in terms of the frequency of steps, the BRPs significantly some steps gradually decrease while some others gradually increase.
their study were taken from high-ranking journals.
This is important because the rhetorical structure and linguistics features of journal articles published in different quality journals are different (Arsyad et , 2024.
Arsyad & Zainil, 2023.
Martin, 2022.
Kurniawan et al.
, 2.
Linguistic resources often used by the authors in evaluating the books under review are also important to investigate because different communicative units have been found to use different linguistic resources (Bal-Gezegin.
These are the rationals of this study.
II.
METHODS
The study employed a mixed method approach, which combines qualitative and quantitative approaches, as suggested by Carvalho .
In a single study, mixed methods research employs two data formats and a range of designs that incorporate various theoretical frameworks and philosophical presumptions, according to Creswell .
The BRPs Included in this Research Six separate language-related fields (LRF) journals yielded 60 BRPs for this investigation.
Even though this study only contained 60 articles, it is thought to be adequate to represent the linguistic qualities, argument style, and rhetorical structure of BRPs in language-related domains.
For instance.
SandovaAos .
study comparing BRPs in Czech and English only included only 40 BRPs in Linguistics.
In a similar vein.
Carvalho .
looked for a common rhetorical pattern across BRPs produced between the 20th and 21st centuries, in the subject of linguistics, using only 45 BRPs.
The distribution of the BRPs in the data of this research is presented in Table 1.
Studies on the rhetorical structure of BRPs are still very limited in literature although this is important for new authors or postgraduate students to know how authors published in high impact journals write a BRP.
If they know the typical rhetorical and linguistic characteristic of BRP, they can learn or be taught how to produce high quality BRPs publishable in high impact journals, such as those indexed by Scopus and Web of Science In choosing the journals, we consider the (WOS).
Also, in the studies discussed above, the following factors: .
the journals publish book authors did not mention whether or not the corpus of review papers in language related field.
the Table 1: The Corpus of the Study No.
Journals Journal of Asia TEFL 3L: Language.
Linguistic and Literature Discourse and Interaction Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching Teaching English as Second or Foreign Language: Electronic Journal
MEXTESOL Journal
Code
JAT
Quartile Value Number of papers Country of publisher South Korea
Malaysia
DAI
SSLLT
Czech Republic Poland
TESL-EJ
USA
MTESOL
Mexico Mardi Juansyah / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
12 No.
journals are high impact or reputable journals indexed by Scopus or Web of Science.
the papers can be written by native or nonnative writer of English, .
the papers are written in English, and .
the journals are open access in which the BRPs published in the journals can be downloaded for Table 3: The Rhetorical Model of Book Review Papers Moves Move 1 .
ntroducing the Step 4: Making topic generalization To answer the first and second research questions, we used the four move-step model as suggested by Bezerra .
as presented in Table 2 below.
Move 2 .
utlining the Table 2: Discourse Pattern Model of the BRPs Move 4 Step A Step B Move 3 .
ighlighting parts of the boo.
Move 4 .
inal closing evaluation of the Description introducing the book Making topic generalizations Defining the general topic of the book Informing about the author Informing about potential readership Informing the origin of the book Inserting book in the field Outlining the book content Describing the overall organization Displaying the key points of the book Discussing the content of the book Reporting the methodology Citing extra-text material Examining the book Evaluating the book Providing focus assessment highlighting suggestions for Addressing a final idea Recommending/disqualifying the book Expressing wishes for future Step 2: Advising potential readership Step 3: Notifying the author/s Data Collection Procedure Moves & Steps Move 1 Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step F Move 2 Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Move 3 Step A Step B Step C Steps and descriptions Step 1: Delineating the general topic of the book Step 5: Entering book in the field Step 6: Providing general view of the organization of the book Step 7: Announcing the topic of each Step 8: Citing extra-text material Step 9: Giving focused evaluation Step 10: Definitely recommending/ disqualifying the book Step 11: Recommending the book despite indicated short comings As can be seen in Table 3, the rhetorical pattern of a BRP in Motta-RothAos model also contains of four moves but BezerraAos model has more steps in each move.
This implies that BezerraAos model is more detailed than that of Motta-Roth.
Then, in accordance with Arsyad and Zainil .
, linguistic realizations like discourse markers, text-specific terminology, and textual inference were used to analyze the units and subunits of communicative purposes in the BRPs.
The frequency and proportion of each motion and step in the BRPs were finally calculated.
The examples of each move and step taken from Carvalho .
are given in appendix.
used BezerraAos model in this study because this is the most recent one to use in one of the latest study on BRPs.
Compared to Motta-RothAos model, this model is very similar.
the main difference is that in Motta-RothAos model, the evaluation of the book under review is in Move 4 .
inal closing evaluation of the boo.
, containing two steps .
efinitely recommending/disqualifying the book or recommending the book despite indicated The model suggested by MottaRoth .
is presented below.
By examining the precise words, phrases, or sentences that the authors employ to address the motions and phases in the book under examination, the last research question was addressed.
Lexical, syntactic, and coherence are the three primary categories of language characteristics that writing researchers usually examine (McNamara et al.
When promoting a book, authors may use phrases like Authis is an exceptional book,Ay Authis is a stimulating book,Ay or Authe book has an essential contribution,Ay according to Motta-Roth .
Motta-Roth does not, however, provide instances of the words or sentences that the authors used to disqualify the work in question.
Lexical, syntactic, and coherence are the three primary categories of language characteristics that writing researchers usually examine (McNamara et al.
, 2.
Mardi Juansyah / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
12 No.
Data Analysis Procedure The following steps were part of the data collection processes for this investigation.
began by compiling a corpus of BRPs from the chosen journals, as shown in Table 1.
Second, in order to have a comprehensive comprehension of the subject, the papers were read at least twice.
Third, every possible move in the papers was found and coded using the method proposed by Bezerra .
After that, each paper was read through a second time with the aim of identifying and classifying each phrase and/or clause that could be regarded as the rhetorical effort for a move and step.
After that, linguistic realizations like discourse markers, text-specific terminology, and textual inference were used to identify the moves and steps.
The frequency of moves in the BRPs were divided into three categories based on how often they appear in the papers.
Following Rasmeenin .
, a move is categorized as obligatory if it appears in 100% of the papers, conventional if it appears in 66% to 99% of the papers, and optional if it appears in less than 66% of the papers.
According to Kanoksilapatham .
, the main objective of classifying the moves into three frequencies is to determine which moves and techniques are more regular than the others.
Inter-coder Reliability Analysis To assess the inter-coder reliability of the moves detected in the BRPs, we employed CohenAos Kappa coefficient analysis, given that the identification and coding of the moves may involve subjective judgment.
A lecturer who holds a masterAos degree in applied linguistics was the independent coder.
Initially, she received instruction on identifying and categorizing moves and steps in a BRP.
She was then given 20% or 12 randomly chosen BRPs from the research corpus to examine with the same research instrument.
Ultimately, a comparison was made between the examinerAos and co-coderAos analytical results.
The researcher and the independent coder compared their analytic results, and the results are shown in Table 5 along with the Kappa coefficient score.
CohenAos kappa statistical analysis has a maximum score of 1.
00 and a minimum score of 00 (Corder and Foreman, 2.
According to Kanoksilapatham .
, the score of below 0.
was categorized as poor, 0.
59 moderate, 0.
74 adequate, and 0.
75 or higher extraordinary (Kanoksilapatham, 2.
As can be seen in Table 5, the obtained Cohen KappaAos mean score is 0.
or 87% showing an extraordinary total inter-coder i.
RESULTS
Frequency of Moves in the BRPs The initial query addressed in this research is what moves are often found in the BRPs published in the language-related field.
The analysis results are displayed in Table 3.
Table 6 shows that two moves (Move 1 and .
appear in 40 BRPs or 80% and categorized conventional and two moves (Move 2 and .
in 100 BRPS and categorized as obligatory.
It is interesting to know that all moves appear very frequently in the BRPs in the corpus of this study revealing that Table 5: Inter-coder Reliability Results No.
Moves Move 1: introducing the book Move 2: Outlining the book content Move 3: Examining the book Move 4: Addressing a final idea CohenAos Kappa Score ScoreScore Mean Table 6: Frequency of Moves in the BRPs Move Move 1: introducing the book Move 2: Outlining the book content Move 3: Examining the book Move 4: Addressing a final idea Frequency Percentage Category Conventional Obligatory Obligatory Conventional Mardi Juansyah / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
12 No.
the framework is very effective in capturing the core moves in the investigated discourse.
Frequency of Steps in the BRPs Move 1: introducing the Book to present a more complex and granular understanding of its pluralism.
L-.
Step B .
efining the general topic of the boo.
, appears 23 times offering a concise summary of the bookAos focus, highlighting its main subject and This step is important as it introduces the bookAos main topic, giving readers an immediate understanding of what the book addresses.
Below is an example taken from the corpus of the study.
The results show that the two most frequent steps in Move 1 are Step A (Making topic generalization.
and Step B (Defining the general topic of the boo.
The occurrences of steps are presented in the Figure 1.
Excerpt 2 Steps A and B of Move 1 appear prominently Scientific communication is an essential part of because they provide readers with a foundation for research as it provides the public with access to findings outside the traditional specialized platforms understanding the reviewed book.
Step A .
aking like journals and (DAI-.
topic generalization.
occurred 40 times or 80% across all articles.
It allows the authors to set a Move 2: Outlining the Book Content broad context for the book by relating it to larger The results also show that the most frequent issues or trends in the field.
Below is an example steps of Move 2 are Step B .
ighlighting the topics taken from the data of the study.
of the boo.
and Step C .
iscussing the content of the boo.
, each appearing 50 and 42 times.
In recent years, historical scholarship on British respectively.
The occurrences of steps are presented Malaya has moved beyond the conventional emphasis in the Figure 2.
Excerpt 1 on the four largest racial categories within the polity Ae the Malays, the Chinese, the Indians, and the British Ae Step B .
ighlighting the key points of the boo.
is common because it allows authors to break down Figure 1.
Frequency of Steps in Move 1 Figure 2.
Frequency of Steps in Move 2 Mardi Juansyah / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
12 No.
the bookAos contents by chapter or section, making it Excerpt 5 easier for readers to grasp the overall structure and Notably, the book chapters are grounded in the personal experience of their authors, adding credibility to their range of subjects covered.
This step gives a clear (TESLEJ-.
overview of how the book is structured, helping readers understand its layout.
An example taken In Step B .
roviding focused assessmen.
, from the data is given below.
authors address a more detailed critique, focusing on specific chapters or sections that stood out.
Excerpt 3 either positively or negatively.
Focused assessment In the first three chapters.
Nutta focuses on the helps readers grasp the bookAos specific strengths challenges and particular needs of very young and areas that may need improvement.
learners by presenting the stories of a pre-K student, a kindergarten student, and a third grader.
(TESLEJ-.
Step C (Discussing the content of the boo.
follows naturally, providing a more detailed discussion of key topics, methodology, and arguments presented in the book.
By discussing the content in more depth, this step helps evaluate the bookAos contribution to the field.
Excerpt 6 While the book offers many enriching opportunities to better understand the phenomenon in question, a few limitations can be observed in Part 3.
(SSLT-.
Move 4: Addressing a Final Idea In Move 4.
Step A (Recommending/ disqualifying the boo.
appears most frequently, with 36 instances.
The occurrences of steps are presented in the Figure 4.
Excerpt 4 Step A .
ecommending/disqualifying the Although most of the previous studies had reported boo.
: This step is where authors provide a final similar and positive findings on studentsAo perception verdict on the book, either recommending it for of using L1 in English language classrooms, a sparing certain readers or suggesting it could be improved.
number of studies refuted this position.
(SSLLT-.
Move 3: Examining the Book Excerpt 7 I therefore recommend the book for everyone The most frequent steps in Move 3 are Step interested in the intersection between media and academic discourse.
(DAI-.
A .
valuating the boo.
and Step B .
roviding focused assessmen.
, both appearing 40 times can This recommendation helps readers decide if be seen in the Figure 3.
the book is worth their time and provides closure In Step A .
valuating the boo.
, authors to the review.
These steps are the most common typically offer a general evaluation of the bookAos because they directly address the core goals of strengths and weaknesses.
This general evaluation book reviews: to summarize, evaluate, and offer gives readers an understanding of the overall recommendations, ensuring both an overview of the bookAos content and a critical assessment of its quality and reliability of the book.
Figure 3.
Frequency of Steps in Move 3 Mardi Juansyah / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
12 No.
Figure 4.
Frequency of Steps in Move 4 Common Linguistic Features in BRPs restrictions are specified, this provides a strong The third research question addressed in this endorsement.
study is what linguistic features are often used by Contrastive Conjunctions the authors in evaluating the book under review.
In order to contrast the bookAos advantages The analysis results show that authors evaluate and disadvantages, the authors additionally the book consistently using several linguistic used contrastive conjunctions and phrases like resources to emphasize both positive and negative Auhowever,Ay Audespite,Ay Aualthough,Ay and Auwhile.
Ay aspects of the reviewed work.
these are hedging This pattern enables authors to point out areas for expressions, positive reinforcement, contrastive development while also acknowledging the bookAos conjunctions, and evaluative adjective and adverbs.
good contributions.
AuDespite the many benefits Hedging Expressions Hedging devises were frequently used by authors to deliver their criticisms in a fair and courteous way.
To soften negative evaluations, common expressions like Auseems to,Ay Auappears to,Ay or Aumight beAy were commonly employed.
For example, an author may comment in certain evaluations.
AuAlthough the book makes a valuable contribution, it would benefit from a more thorough examination of the main subjectsAy (P7:S49,S50SSLT.
This kind of wording lessens the impact of the criticism by being more tactful and indirect.
Positive Reinforcement Another linguistic device commonly employed by authors to highlight the bookAos strengths is positive reinforcement or appreciation vocabulary.
This frequently contained statements such as AuThis volume makes a significant contribution Ay or AuThe author has done a great job in.
Ay These affirmations are purposefully positioned to create a fair review and draw attention to the bookAos strengths, particularly prior to offering any AuNotably, the book chapters are anchored in human experience, providing credibility to their proposals,Ay for instance, is what an author would remark (P7:S38,S39-TESL EJ.
Before any supplied from this book, it has some small faults that need attention,Ay is an example of a typical (P8:S1 TESL EJ.
This pattern, which is frequently used as a rhetorical tactic in academic assessments, successfully strikes a balance between praise and criticism.
Evaluative Adjectives and Adverbs Lastly, authors frequently highlight both positive and negative assessments by using evaluative adjectives and adverbs.
Words like Auimportant,Ay Auinsightful,Ay Audifficult,Ay or AulimitedAy were commonly employed to convey thoughts on the contentAos quality.
An author may say that a certain piece is Auvery perceptive,Ay or on the other hand.
Ausomewhat restricting in scope.
Ay By using these evocative words, the reviewer can express particular advantages or disadvantages and provide a more nuanced evaluation.
We can draw the conclusion that the evaluation portions of BRPs commonly use contrastive language to balance positive and negative evaluations, positive reinforcement to highlight strengths, and hedging terms to soften critique.
These characteristics help to provide a thorough, impartial, and expert evaluation of the book being reviewed.
Mardi Juansyah / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
12 No.
IV.
DISCUSSION
This studyAos initial research question focuses on motions that are frequently seen in BRPs that have been published in respectable publications in language-related subjects.
The findings indicate that Moves 1 and 4 appear frequently and fall under the category of conventional moves, whereas Moves 2 and 3 are found in every BRP and fall under the category of mandatory moves.
This suggests that each of the four BRP moves .
Move 1 or introducing the book.
Move 2 or outlining the bookAos content.
Move 3 or examining the book, and Move 4 or addressing a last idea about the boo.
are significant.
These actions are significant because they satisfy the scholarly book review requirements (Carvalho, 2.
This also suggests that BezerraAos .
four-move model is a good way to capture the key communication units in a BRP.
A study by Carvalho .
on BRPs in the field of Linguistics found similar results in which the four moves of BRPs from Bezerra .
are frequently found in their data.
According to Carvalho, although there have been changes in the rhetorical pattern of BRPs in the last 70 years or so .
but in the last period of 15 years .
, there have been a stable rhetorical pattern with the four core moves.
Carvalho also used the other two frameworks as suggested by Motta-Roth .
and Araujo .
to analyse the 45 BRPs in his corpus but the results are slightly different particularly about the frequency of Moves 3 .
xamining the boo.
and Move 4 .
ddressing a final ide.
that are not as consistent as the results when he used BezerraAos model.
The second research question is about the appearance of steps in the BRPs published in reputable journals in language related field.
The results reveal that out of 16 possible steps in the four moves in BezerraAos model, there is only one obligatory step, 7 conventional steps and 8 optional This shows that a half of the steps are either obligatory or conventional and in each move there is at least one conventional or obligatory step revealing that the move and step framework suggesting that some steps in each move are important steps particularly at the beginning steps in each move while the other steps are only additional steps to add extra promotional force for readers about the book being reviewed.
Apart from investigating the frequency and status of moves.
Carvalho .
also analyzed the frequency of steps in the BRPs he included in his corpus but found only 3 steps are conventional (Steps 2 & 3 of Move 2 and Step 1 of Move .
while none is obligatory.
This finding is different from the finding in this study where 7 steps are categorized as conventional and 1 step is This different finding may be caused by the different fields of BRPs analyzed in these two studies: Linguistics and Applied Linguistics According to Lu et al.
, the way academic writers from various disciplines linguistically present their research can vary depending on the epistemological orientations and discourse practices of their respective disciplinary Similarly.
Liu and Zhu .
discovered that journal article abstracts from hard and soft disciplines used different amounts of positive language, with the hard disciplines using more positive language than the soft disciplines.
The studyAos final query concerns the linguistic tools that the BRP authors frequently employ while assessing the book they are reviewing.
The findings indicate that the writers frequently employ four categories of language resources: evaluative adjectives and adverbs, contrastive conjunctions, positive reinforcement, and hedging expressions.
The authors use these linguistic resources to address the crucial communicative units .
onventional and mandatory procedure.
in the BRPs.
The authors use these linguistic repertoires to strengthen the logic, coherence, and cohesiveness of their BRPs.
Crossley .
asserts that linguistic resourcesAi such as claims, arguments, theses, and rhetorical devicesAiare essential for identifying discourse structures, which are elements that predict writing In order to enhance the quality of academic writings, such as journal articles that contain BRPs, the selection of linguistic resources is According to Awagu .
, a research manuscriptAos language quality determines its admissibility for academic publication.
variations among different national and cultural traditions have an impact on the use of scholarly language in academic research.
To put it another way, the linguistic resources utilized in a BRP must meet the expectations of all readers, including journal editors and reviewers.
if they donAot, a journal editor or reviewer may reject the BRP Mardi Juansyah / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
12 No.
Similar finding was obtained by BalGezegin .
when they compared the usage of language resources, such as meta-discourse markers, adjectives and adverbs in BRPs and research articles.
they found that BRPs are more evaluative than research articles and this is marked by the frequent use of attitude interactional markers, adjectives and adverbs.
According to BalGezegin, it is anticipated that book reviews would incorporate more attitude indicators since they must express their opinions, make their presence known, and advise readers about the book they are reviewing.
Adjectives and adverbs are heavily employed by the authors to evaluate and show their remarks about the book under review which serves the underlying purpose of the genre (Jalilifar et al.
Thus, because reviewing a book necessitates evaluation, the reviewerAos attitudes are in line with the evaluative nature of BRPs.
The findings of this study have some important pedagogical implications.
First, this study provides further evidence about the effectiveness of the fourmove model for BRPs to analyse the communicative units in BRPs in the field of language related fields.
In addition, our findings indicate that although all moves are obligatory or conventional but only a half of the possible steps are obligatory or conventional.
This suggests, when writing a BRP, new authors or postgraduate students should initially focus on the obligatory or conventional steps before considering to address the additional or extra steps to add extra flavour to the BRP.
Finally, since different disciplines may have different rhetorical structures and language resources, authors should be familiar with the specific discourse structure and features of BRPs in a particular field before beginning to draft a new manuscript.
This is important to anticipate and match readersAo expectation about the style and quality of BRP draft to be published in a targeted This will help increase the potential of the BRP draft to be accepted and published by n reputable journal.
, linguistics and English language teachin.
which can not represent other fields in humanities.
Therefore, it is suggested that the future studies include BRPs from other fields in humanities, such as visual and performing arts, philosophy, literature, religion, history, art history, classics, anthropology, and cultural and gender studies.
Second, this study used a descriptive approach.
a future study should use a comparative approach to search for the similarities and differences of rhetorical structure and language resources used in BRPs of different disciplines or those written by different groups of CONCLUSION From the research findings, it can be summarized that .
from the move frequency and percentage point of view all moves are categorized as obligatory and conventional and none is optional, .
from the frequency appearance of steps, a half of the steps are classified as conventional or obligatory while another half are optional, and .
there are three frequent linguistics resources are used by the BRP authors: hedging expressions, positive reinforcement, contrastive conjunctions, and evaluative adjective and adverbs.
Thus, it can be concluded that the four-move model of BRPs as suggested by Bezerra .
is effective in capturing the important communicative units of BRPs at a macro level or moves and less effective in capturing the communicative units at the micro level or steps.
ETHICS STATEMENT
We have read and followed the ethical requirements for publication in Jurnal Arbitrer and the current work does not involve human subjects, animal experiments, or any data collected from social media platforms.
CREDIT AUTHOR STATEMENT
Mardi Juansyah collected the book review articles from the chosen journals and identified and This study is not without limitations.
First, this coded the moves and steps in the papers.
He also study only analyzed 60 BRPs in language related categorized the frequency of the moves and steps fields which might be considered small in sample and put them into tables.
Juansyah also helped edit size since there are many journals publishing BRPs.
the article drafts.
Therefore, future studies should include more Safnil Arsyad wrote the article draft using the papers taken from more journals in the same field data already identified by the other writers.
As the to be more representative.
First, the BRPs included corresponding author, he submitted the manuscript in this study are only from language related fields to Jurnal Arbiter, revised and edited the article Mardi Juansyah / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
12 No.
drafts following reviewersAo comments, corrections ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS and suggestions.
This study was financially supported by the Dian Eka Chandra Whardana helped edit the Doctoral Program of Applied Linguistics of Faculty article draft particularly about the data display.
of Teacher Training and Education of Bengkulu these are the frequency and percentage of moves University with contract number: 3884/UN30.
and steps and helped edit the text samples or PP/2024.
Therefore, we thank them very much.
excerpts taken from the papers to be used in the DECLARATION OF COMPETING results section of the article.
INTERESTS
Yusri Fajri Annur analysed the BRPs on the linguistic features often used by the authors in addressing the moves and steps in the papers.
Yusri also helped edit the final version of the article draft.
We declare that there is no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
REFERENCES
Adnan.
Prospects of Indonesian research articles (RA.
being considered for publication in center journals: A comparative study of rhetorical patterns of RAs in selected humanities and hard science discipline.
In A.
Lyda & K.
Warchal (Eds.
Occupying niches: Interculturality, crossculturality and aculturality in academic research .
Springer.
Arono & Arsyad.
The Effect of Genre-Based Mentoring on Rhetorical Quality of Research Article Drafts by Indonesian Lecturers in Social Sciences and Humanities.
International Journal of Instruction, 12.
, 35-50.
DOI: 10.
29333/iji.
Araujo.
Lexical signalling: A study of unspecific nouns in book reviews.
Pys-Graduayyo em Inglys e Literatura Correspondente.
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina.
Arsyad.
Ramadhan.
, & Hakim.
Linguistic and Content Features of Article Titles Published in Local & High-Impact Foreign Journals in English Education : How Are They Similar and Different?.
Jurnal Arbitrer, 11.
, 488Ae500.
https://doi.
org/10.
25077/ar.
Arsyad.
, & Zainil.
Research Gap Strategies in Article Introductions of Different Rank Applied Linguistics Journals.
Studies in English Language and Education, 10.
, 216Ae234.
https:// org/10.
24815/siele.
Arsyad.
, & Adila.
Using local style when writing in English: The citing behaviour of Indonesian authors in English research article introductions.
Asian Englishes, 20.
, 170-185.
https:// org/10.
1080/13488678.
Awagu.
Language in Academic Writing: Features and Topical Issues.
Linguistics and Literature Studies, 9.
, 49-56.
DOI: 10.
13189/lls.
Babaii.
, & Ansary.
On the effect of disciplinary variation on transitivity: The case of academic book reviews.
Asian EFL Journal.
January 2005.
Retrieved in July 2024 from https://w.
net/publication/255597726 Bal-Gezegin.
Book review genre in academic writing a comparative study of English and Turkish across ten disciplines.
A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of Social Sciences.
Middle East Technical University.
Carvalho.
Diachronic genre analysis: patterns of rhetorical organization in academic book Revista da Albralin, 19.
, 715-739.
DOI.
25189/rabralin.
Corder.
, & Foreman.
Non-parametric statistics for non-statistician: A step-by-step John Willey and Sons.
Creswell.
Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mix method approaches.
Los Angeles.
CA: Sage.
Mardi Juansyah / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
12 No.
Crossley.
Linguistic features in writing quality and development: An overview.
Journal of Writing Research, 11.
, 415-443.
https://doi.
org/10.
17239/jowr-2020.
Hyland.
Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing.
London.
UK:
Longman.
Jalilifar.
Hayati.
, & Don.
Investigating metadiscourse markers in book reviews and blurbs: A study of interested and disinterested genres.
Studies about Languages, 33, 90-107.
http:// org/10.
5755/j01.
Kanoksilapatham.
Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles.
English for Specific Purposes, 24, 269-292.
https://doi.
org/10.
1016/j.
Kemenristekdikti .
Kekuatan 50 institusi ilmiah Indonesia: Profil publikasi ilmiah terindeks Scopus [The strength of 50 Indonesian universities: Publication profile in Scopus indexed journal.
Jakarta.
Indonesia: Direktorat Pengelolaan Kekayaan Intelektual.
Direktorat Jenderal Penguatan Riset dan Pengembangan Kemristekdikti Indonesia.
Kurniawan.
Lubis.
Suherdi.
Danuwijaya.
Rhetorical Organization of Applied Linguistics Abstracts: Does Scopus Journal Quartile Matter? GEMA OnlineA Journal of Language Studies, 19.
, 184-202.
http://doi.
org/10.
17576/gema-2019-1904-10 Lindholm-Romantschuk.
Scholarly Book Reviewing in the Social Sciences and Humanities:
The Flow of Ideas Within and Among Disciplines (Contributions in Librarianship and Information Scienc.
London: Greenwood Press.
Liu.
and Zhu.
Linguistic positivity in soft and hard disciplines: temporal dynamics, disciplinary variation, and the relationship with research impact.
Scientometrics, 128, 3107Ae3127.
https://doi.
org/10.
1007/s11192-023-04679-5 Lu.
Yoon.
Kisselev.
Jasal.
Liu.
Deng.
, and Nie.
Rhetorical and phraseological features of research article introductions: Variation among five social science disciplines.
System, 100 (Augus.
, https://doi.
org/10.
1016/j.
Martin.
Does Quartile Matter? Investigating syntactic complexity of international publication.
9th International Conference on Science & Social Research.
UiTM Shah Alam.
Malaysia.
E-BPJ 8(SI.
Nov 2023 .
McNamara.
Crossley.
, & McCarthy.
The linguistic features of quality writing.
Written Communication, 27 .
, 57-86.
https://doi.
org/10.
1177/0741088309351547
Motta-Roth.
Book reviews and disciplinary discourses: Defining a genre.
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages - 29th Annual Convention Long Beach.
CA.
USA.
Nodoushan.
& Montazeran.
The book review genre: A structural move analysis.
International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), 6.
,1-30.
Retrieved in October 2024 from https:// net/publication/260211139_ The_book_review_genre_A_structural_move_ Rasmeenin.
A structural move analysis of MA thesis discussion sections in applied linguistics.
Unpublished MA thesis.
Mahidol University.
Sandova.
Rhetorical Structure of English and Czech Academic Book Reviews.
SKASE
Journal of Theoretical Linguistics (Onlin.
, 15.
, 202-2016.
Available on web page http://w.
sk/Volumes/JTL38/pdf_doc/13.
ISSN 1336-782X.
Shahnaz.
Rhetorical Structure of the Book Reviews Published in Pakistani English Newspapers:
A Study in Genre Analysis.
NUML Journal of Critical Inquiry, 16.
, 75-99.
Retrieved in August Mardi Juansyah / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
12 No.
fromhttps://w.
Shahnaz-75-99.
journals/subjects/1613292793Vol 16(II)-Atteya List of BRPs cited in the body of the article 3L-1 (French Memories of Malaysia: Literary Excursions & Fortuitous Encounters Reviewed by:
Augustine Cha.
DAI-2 (Mur-Dueyas.
& Lorys.
Scientific and Parascientific Communication Reviewed by: Marina Ivanov.
TESLEJ-7 (Dexter.
English Learners at Home and at School: Stories and Strategies.
Joyce Nutta .
Teaching English as a Second Language Electronic Journa.
SSLLT-10 (Teacher development for immersion and content-based instruction.
Reviewed by:
Katarzyna Papaja University of Silesia.
Katowice.
Polan.
TESLEJ-9 (Qualitative Research Topics in Language Teacher Education May 2020 Ae Volume 24.
Number 1.
Reviewed by: Elise Brittain The University of Texas at San Antonio.
USA.
SSLT-8 (Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective.
Reviewed by: Ella Alhudithi.
Iowa State University.
Ames.
USA).
DAI-4 (Dontcheva-Navratilova.
Adam.
Povolny.
and Vogel.
Persuasion in Specialized Discourses.
Reviewed by: Josef Sch Mardi Juansyah / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
12 No.
Appendix Research Instrument (From Carvalho, 2.
Moves Move 1:
Steps Step A (Making topic Step B (Defining the general topic of the Step C (Informing about the autho.
Examples Notes Unfortunately, publications in the North and Northeast of the country do not reach us easily.
A Introducing the It is a book that should teach the basic notions of Portuguese needed for those who wish to take action, with solid foundations, a fruitful secondary course A contribution in this regard is the work translated into Portuguese and recently launched in Brazil called The Linguistic Policies, by Louis-Jean Calvet.
Professor of Sociolinguistics at the University of Provence.
France Step D (Informing about Saying that the pretensions of his book were modest.
Gladstone potential readershi.
Chaves de Melo intended it for Portuguese teachers who could not have a college degree (.
Step E (Informing the The linguistic lessons from professor Cymara Jynior were first origin of the boo.
published in the Revista de Cultura8, from Rio, in 1939-1941, and later improved and expanded, they were present in the issue with the same title above, edited by F.
Briguiet & Cia.
Rio.
Step F (Inserting book in The importance of this work, in the field of Applied Linguistics, the fiel.
can be attributed to the fact that it is the first work published in BrazilAos editorial market A Move 2 Step A (Describing the The book has the following disposition: Chapter I Ai Origins of (Summarizing overall organizatio.
the Language, pp.
Chapter II Ai Old High German, pp.
52the book conten.
Chapter i AiMiddle High German, pp.
Chapter IV Ai Transitional Period, pp.
Chapter V Ai Modern German, pp.
Chapter VI Ai Word formation, pp.
Chapter VII Ai Syntax in modern German pp.
Bibliography, pp.