Mardi Juansyah / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 3 (2025) 289 Online version available in : http://arbitrer.fib.unand.ac.id | 2339-1162 (Print) | 2550-1011 (Online) | JURNAL ARBITRER 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 (henceforth 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 research. The four move BRP discourse pattern model as suggested by Bezerra (2001) 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 book) 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.ac.id 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 1,2,3Doctoral Program of Applied Linguistics, Faculty of Education, Bengkulu University, Bengkulu Indonesia 4English Education Postgraduate Program, Faculty of Education, Bengkulu University, Bengkulu Indonesia Under License of Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International.DOI: https://doi.org/10.25077/ar.12.3.289-303.2025 I. 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, 2014; Arono & Arsyad, 2019 and Arsyad & Adila, 2018). 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. In Indonesian context, reputable journal publication is dominated by scholars from the fields of sciences, medicine, computer, agriculture and engineering (Kemristekdikti, 2016). According to the report, the 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 (2015) 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 (1998), a BRP is written to introduce and review the scientific work of a peer in the literary community. BRP is also defined as a Mardi Juansyah / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 3 (2025) 290 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, 2000). 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 environments. 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, 1995). According to Babaei and Ansari (2005), 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 (2012), 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 article. 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. 1. What moves are often found in the BRPs published in reputable journals in language related field? 2. What steps are often found in the BRPs published in reputable journals in language related field? and 3. What linguistic resources are often used by the authors in evaluating the book under review? Studies on the rhetorical structure of BRP are very rare in literature; this is probably because not all journals publish a BRP and therefore, they are not as popular as research articles. One of the rare studies on this subject was carried out by Motta-Roth (1995), who looked into book reviews in three distinct academic disciplines: chemistry, economics, and linguistics. Using four move model (i.e., Move 1: introduction, Move 2: outlining the book, Move 3: highlighting parts of the book, and Move 4: providing closing evaluation of the book), he found that, despite adhering to strict guidelines regarding content, purpose, and setting, book reviews do occasionally deviate. Motta-Roth further explains that compared to economics and languages, chemistry’s BRPs are less judgmental, shorter descriptive objective writings. 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 (2005) 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 (physics, sociology, and literature) and used this information to analyze book reviews in their second phase of research. They found that there were differences in semantic structure in each discipline’s book reviews. 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 (2012) found that the language origins of writers (i.e., native and nonnative English authors in Applied Linguistics) 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. The rhetorical structure of BRPs published in English newspapers in Pakistan was investigated by Shahnaz (2018). Using Motta-Roth’s 1995 model, she found that all four moves (i.e., M1- Mardi Juansyah / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 3 (2025) 291 introducing the book, M2-outlining the book, M3- highlighting parts of the book and M4-final closing evaluation of the book) are obligatory since they occur in more than 50% of the BRPs. However, not all BRPs included in Shahnaz’s 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 (2020) who analyzed 45 papers in Linguistics published in three periods of time: 1) from 1953-1970, 2) from 1971-2000, and 3) from 2001-2015. Following the rhetorical models suggested by Motta-Roth (1995), Araújo (1996) and Bezerra (2001 cited in Carvalho, 2020). Carvalho found that the majority of the BRPs have all four moves: 1) introducing the publication, 2) outlining the content, 3) examining the book, and 4) addressing a final idea particularly in BRPs published in the third period (from 2001-2015). 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 change; some steps gradually decrease while some others gradually increase. 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 (WOS). Also, in the studies discussed above, the authors did not mention whether or not the corpus of 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 al., 2024; Arsyad & Zainil, 2023; Martin, 2022; & Kurniawan et al., 2019). 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, 2015). 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 (2020). 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 (2009). 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, Sandova’s (2018) study comparing BRPs in Czech and English only included only 40 BRPs in Linguistics. In a similar vein, Carvalho (2020) 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. In choosing the journals, we consider the following factors: 1) the journals publish book review papers in language related field; 2) the Table 1: The Corpus of the Study No. Journals Code Quartile Value Number of papers Country of publisher 1. Journal of Asia TEFL JAT Q1 10 South Korea 2. 3L: Language, Linguistic and Literature LLL Q1 10 Malaysia 3. Discourse and Interaction DAI Q2 10 Czech Republic 4. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching SSLLT Q1 10 Poland 5. Teaching English as Second or Foreign Language: Electronic Journal TESL-EJ Q1 10 USA 6. MEXTESOL Journal MTESOL Q2 10 Mexico Mardi Juansyah / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 3 (2025) 292 Table 3: The Rhetorical Model of Book Review Papers Moves Steps and descriptions Move 1 (introducing the book) Step 1: Delineating the general topic of the book Step 2: Advising potential readership Step 3: Notifying the author/s Step 4: Making topic generalization Step 5: Entering book in the field Move 2 (outlining the book) Step 6: Providing general view of the organization of the book Step 7: Announcing the topic of each chapter Step 8: Citing extra-text material Move 3 (highlighting parts of the book) Step 9: Giving focused evaluation Move 4 (final closing evaluation of the book) 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-Roth’s model also contains of four moves but Bezerra’s model has more steps in each move. This implies that Bezerra’s model is more detailed than that of Motta-Roth. Then, in accordance with Arsyad and Zainil (2023), linguistic realizations like discourse markers, text-specific terminology, and textual inference were used to analyze the units and sub- units of communicative purposes in the BRPs. The frequency and proportion of each motion and step in the BRPs were finally calculated. 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., 2010). When promoting a book, authors may use phrases like “this is an exceptional book,” “this is a stimulating book,” or “the book has an essential contribution,” according to Motta-Roth (1995). 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., 2010). journals are high impact or reputable journals indexed by Scopus or Web of Science; 3) the papers can be written by native or nonnative writer of English, 4) the papers are written in English, and 5) the journals are open access in which the BRPs published in the journals can be downloaded for free. Data Collection Procedure To answer the first and second research questions, we used the four move-step model as suggested by Bezerra (2001) as presented in Table 2 below. Table 2: Discourse Pattern Model of the BRPs Moves & Steps Description Move 1 Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step F 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 Move 2 Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E 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 Move 3 Step A Step B Step C Examining the book Evaluating the book Providing focus assessment highlighting suggestions for improvement Move 4 Step A Step B Addressing a final idea Recommending/disqualifying the book Expressing wishes for future publication The examples of each move and step taken from Carvalho (2020) are given in appendix. We used Bezerra’s model in this study because this is the most recent one to use in one of the latest study on BRPs. Compared to Motta-Roth’s model, this model is very similar; the main difference is that in Motta-Roth’s model, the evaluation of the book under review is in Move 4 (final closing evaluation of the book), containing two steps (definitely recommending/disqualifying the book or recommending the book despite indicated shortcomings). The model suggested by Motta- Roth (1995) is presented below. Mardi Juansyah / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 3 (2025) 293 Data Analysis Procedure The following steps were part of the data collection processes for this investigation. We 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 (2001). 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 (2012), 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 (2005), 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 Cohen’s Kappa coefficient analysis, given that the identification and coding of the moves may involve subjective judgment. A lecturer who holds a master’s 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 examiner’s and co-coder’s 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. Cohen’s kappa statistical analysis has a maximum score of 1.00 and a minimum score of 0.00 (Corder and Foreman, 2014). According to Kanoksilapatham (2005), the score of below 0.40 was categorized as poor, 0.40-0.59 moderate, 0.60- 0.74 adequate, and 0.75 or higher extraordinary (Kanoksilapatham, 2005). As can be seen in Table 5, the obtained Cohen Kappa’s mean score is 0.87 or 87% showing an extraordinary total inter-coder reliability. III. 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 4) appear in 40 BRPs or 80% and categorized conventional and two moves (Move 2 and 3) 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 Cohen’s Kappa Score ScoreScore 1. Move 1: introducing the book 0.83 2. Move 2: Outlining the book content 0.91 3. Move 3: Examining the book 0.75 4. Move 4: Addressing a final idea 1 Mean 0.87 Table 6: Frequency of Moves in the BRPs Move Frequency Percentage Category Move 1: introducing the book 40 80 Conventional Move 2: Outlining the book content 50 100 Obligatory Move 3: Examining the book 50 100 Obligatory Move 4: Addressing a final idea 40 80 Conventional Mardi Juansyah / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 3 (2025) 294 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 The results show that the two most frequent steps in Move 1 are Step A (Making topic generalizations) and Step B (Defining the general topic of the book). The occurrences of steps are presented in the Figure 1. Steps A and B of Move 1 appear prominently because they provide readers with a foundation for understanding the reviewed book. Step A (making topic generalizations) occurred 40 times or 80% across all articles. It allows the authors to set a broad context for the book by relating it to larger issues or trends in the field. Below is an example taken from the data of the study. Excerpt 1 In recent years, historical scholarship on British Malaya has moved beyond the conventional emphasis on the four largest racial categories within the polity – the Malays, the Chinese, the Indians, and the British – to present a more complex and granular understanding of its pluralism. (3L-1) Step B (defining the general topic of the book), appears 23 times offering a concise summary of the book’s focus, highlighting its main subject and scope. This step is important as it introduces the book’s main topic, giving readers an immediate understanding of what the book addresses. Below is an example taken from the corpus of the study. Excerpt 2 Scientific communication is an essential part of research as it provides the public with access to findings outside the traditional specialized platforms like journals and conferences. (DAI-2) Move 2: Outlining the Book Content The results also show that the most frequent steps of Move 2 are Step B (highlighting the topics of the book) and Step C (discussing the content of the book), each appearing 50 and 42 times, respectively. The occurrences of steps are presented in the Figure 2. Step B (highlighting the key points of the book) 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. 3 (2025) 295 the book’s contents by chapter or section, making it easier for readers to grasp the overall structure and range of subjects covered. This step gives a clear overview of how the book is structured, helping readers understand its layout. An example taken from the data is given below. Excerpt 3 In the first three chapters, Nutta focuses on the challenges and particular needs of very young learners by presenting the stories of a pre-K stu- dent, a kindergarten student, and a third grader. (TESLEJ-7) Step C (Discussing the content of the book) 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 book’s contribution to the field. Excerpt 4 Although most of the previous studies had reported similar and positive findings on students’ perception of using L1 in English language classrooms, a sparing number of studies refuted this position. (SSLLT-10) Move 3: Examining the Book The most frequent steps in Move 3 are Step A (evaluating the book) and Step B (providing focused assessment), both appearing 40 times can be seen in the Figure 3. In Step A (evaluating the book), authors typically offer a general evaluation of the book’s strengths and weaknesses. This general evaluation gives readers an understanding of the overall quality and reliability of the book. Excerpt 5 Notably, the book chapters are grounded in the personal experience of their authors, adding credibility to their suggestions. (TESLEJ-9) In Step B (providing focused assessment), authors address a more detailed critique, focusing on specific chapters or sections that stood out, either positively or negatively. Focused assessment helps readers grasp the book’s specific strengths and areas that may need improvement. 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-8) Move 4: Addressing a Final Idea In Move 4, Step A (Recommending/ disqualifying the book) appears most frequently, with 36 instances. The occurrences of steps are presented in the Figure 4. Step A (recommending/disqualifying the book): This step is where authors provide a final verdict on the book, either recommending it for certain readers or suggesting it could be improved. Excerpt 7 I therefore recommend the book for everyone interested in the intersection between media and academic discourse. (DAI-4) This recommendation helps readers decide if the book is worth their time and provides closure to the review. These steps are the most common because they directly address the core goals of book reviews: to summarize, evaluate, and offer recommendations, ensuring both an overview of the book’s content and a critical assessment of its value. Figure 3. Frequency of Steps in Move 3 Mardi Juansyah / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 3 (2025) 296 Common Linguistic Features in BRPs The third research question addressed in this study is what linguistic features are often used by the authors in evaluating the book under review. The analysis results show that authors evaluate the book consistently using several linguistic resources to emphasize both positive and negative aspects of the reviewed work; these are hedging expressions, positive reinforcement, contrastive conjunctions, and evaluative adjective and adverbs. 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 “seems to,” “appears to,” or “might be” were commonly employed. For example, an author may comment in certain evaluations, “Although the book makes a valuable contribution, it would benefit from a more thorough examination of the main subjects” (P7:S49,S50- SSLT8). 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 book’s strengths is positive reinforcement or appreciation vocabulary. This frequently contained statements such as “This volume makes a significant contribution to...” or “The author has done a great job in...” These affirmations are purposefully positioned to create a fair review and draw attention to the book’s strengths, particularly prior to offering any criticism. “Notably, the book chapters are anchored in human experience, providing credibility to their proposals,” for instance, is what an author would remark (P7:S38,S39-TESL EJ9). Before any restrictions are specified, this provides a strong endorsement. Contrastive Conjunctions In order to contrast the book’s advantages and disadvantages, the authors additionally used contrastive conjunctions and phrases like “however,” “despite,” “although,” and “while.” This pattern enables authors to point out areas for development while also acknowledging the book’s good contributions. “Despite the many benefits supplied from this book, it has some small faults that need attention,” is an example of a typical statement. (P8:S1 TESL EJ1). 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 “important,” “insightful,” “difficult,” or “limited” were commonly employed to convey thoughts on the content’s quality. An author may say that a certain piece is “very perceptive,” or on the other hand, “somewhat restricting in scope.” 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. Figure 4. Frequency of Steps in Move 4 Mardi Juansyah / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 3 (2025) 297 IV. DISCUSSION This study’s 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 (i.e., Move 1 or introducing the book, Move 2 or outlining the book’s content, Move 3 or examining the book, and Move 4 or addressing a last idea about the book) are significant. These actions are significant because they satisfy the scholarly book review requirements (Carvalho, 2020). This also suggests that Bezerra’s (2001) four-move model is a good way to capture the key communication units in a BRP. A study by Carvalho (2020) on BRPs in the field of Linguistics found similar results in which the four moves of BRPs from Bezerra (2001) 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 (1953-2015) but in the last period of 15 years (2001-2015), there have been a stable rhetorical pattern with the four core moves. Carvalho also used the other two frameworks as suggested by Motta-Roth (1995) and Araujo (1996) to analyse the 45 BRPs in his corpus but the results are slightly different particularly about the frequency of Moves 3 (examining the book) and Move 4 (addressing a final idea) that are not as consistent as the results when he used Bezerra’s 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 Bezerra’s model, there is only one obligatory step, 7 conventional steps and 8 optional steps. 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 (2020) 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 4) 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 obligatory. This different finding may be caused by the different fields of BRPs analyzed in these two studies: Linguistics and Applied Linguistics consecutively. According to Lu et al. (2021), 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 communities. Similarly, Liu and Zhu (2023) 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 study’s 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 (conventional and mandatory procedures) in the BRPs. The authors use these linguistic repertoires to strengthen the logic, coherence, and cohesiveness of their BRPs. Crossley (2020) asserts that linguistic resources— such as claims, arguments, theses, and rhetorical devices—are essential for identifying discourse structures, which are elements that predict writing quality. In order to enhance the quality of academic writings, such as journal articles that contain BRPs, the selection of linguistic resources is crucial. According to Awagu (2021), a research manuscript’s language quality determines its admissibility for academic publication; linguistic 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 don’t, a journal editor or reviewer may reject the BRP article. Mardi Juansyah / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 3 (2025) 298 Similar finding was obtained by Bal- Gezegin (2015) 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 Bal- Gezegin, 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., 2018). Thus, because reviewing a book necessitates evaluation, the reviewer’s 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 four- move 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 readers’ expectation about the style and quality of BRP draft to be published in a targeted journal. This will help increase the potential of the BRP draft to be accepted and published by n reputable journal. This study is not without limitations. First, this study only analyzed 60 BRPs in language related fields which might be considered small in sample size since there are many journals publishing BRPs. Therefore, future studies should include more papers taken from more journals in the same field to be more representative. First, the BRPs included in this study are only from language related fields (i.e., linguistics and English language teaching) 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 authors. V. CONCLUSION From the research findings, it can be summarized that 1) from the move frequency and percentage point of view all moves are categorized as obligatory and conventional and none is optional, 2) from the frequency appearance of steps, a half of the steps are classified as conventional or obligatory while another half are optional, and 3) 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 (2001) 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 coded the moves and steps in the papers. He also categorized the frequency of the moves and steps and put them into tables. Juansyah also helped edit the article drafts. Safnil Arsyad wrote the article draft using the data already identified by the other writers. As the corresponding author, he submitted the manuscript to Jurnal Arbiter, revised and edited the article Mardi Juansyah / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 3 (2025) 299 drafts following reviewers’ comments, corrections and suggestions. Dian Eka Chandra Whardana helped edit the article draft particularly about the data display; these are the frequency and percentage of moves and steps and helped edit the text samples or excerpts taken from the papers to be used in the results section of the article. 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. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was financially supported by the Doctoral Program of Applied Linguistics of Faculty of Teacher Training and Education of Bengkulu University with contract number: 3884/UN30.07/ PP/2024. Therefore, we thank them very much. DECLARATION OF COMPETING INTERESTS 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, Z. (2014). Prospects of Indonesian research articles (RAs) 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, cross- culturality and aculturality in academic research (pp. 79-99). Springer. Arono & Arsyad, S. (2019). 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(3), 35-50. DOI: 10.29333/iji.2019.1233a Araujo, A. D. (1996). Lexical signalling: A study of unspecific nouns in book reviews. Pós-Graduação em Inglês e Literatura Correspondente, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. Arsyad, S., Ramadhan, S., & Hakim, H. (2024). 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(4), 488–500. https://doi.org/10.25077/ar.11.4.488-500.2024 Arsyad, S., & Zainil, Y. (2023). Research Gap Strategies in Article Introductions of Different Rank Applied Linguistics Journals. Studies in English Language and Education, 10(1), 216–234. https:// doi.org/10.24815/siele.v10i1.25302 Arsyad, S., & Adila, D. (2018). Using local style when writing in English: The citing behaviour of Indonesian authors in English research article introductions. Asian Englishes, 20(2), 170-185. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2017.1327835 Awagu, I.V. (2021). Language in Academic Writing: Features and Topical Issues. Linguistics and Literature Studies, 9(2), 49-56. DOI: 10.13189/lls.2021.090201 Babaii, E., & Ansary, H. (2005). 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://www. researchgate.net/publication/255597726 Bal-Gezegin, B. (2015). 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, J.R.Q. (2020). Diachronic genre analysis: patterns of rhetorical organization in academic book reviews. Revista da Albralin, 19(3), 715-739. DOI.10.25189/rabralin.v19i3.1763. Corder, G. W., & Foreman, D. I. (2014). Non-parametric statistics for non-statistician: A step-by-step approach. John Willey and Sons. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mix method approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Mardi Juansyah / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 3 (2025) 300 Crossley, S. (2020). Linguistic features in writing quality and development: An overview. Journal of Writing Research, 11(3), 415-443. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.11.03.01 Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London, UK: Longman. Jalilifar, A., Hayati, S., & Don, A. (2018). Investigating metadiscourse markers in book reviews and blurbs: A study of interested and disinterested genres. Studies about Languages, 33, 90-107. http:// dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.sal.33.0.19415 Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 269-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.08.003 Kemenristekdikti (2016). Kekuatan 50 institusi ilmiah Indonesia: Profil publikasi ilmiah terindeks Scopus [The strength of 50 Indonesian universities: Publication profile in Scopus indexed journals]. Jakarta, Indonesia: Direktorat Pengelolaan Kekayaan Intelektual, Direktorat Jenderal Penguatan Riset dan Pengembangan Kemristekdikti Indonesia. Kurniawan, E.; Lubis, A.H.; Suherdi, D.; Danuwijaya, A.A. (2019). Rhetorical Organization of Applied Linguistics Abstracts: Does Scopus Journal Quartile Matter? GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 19(4), 184-202. http://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2019-1904-10 Lindholm-Romantschuk, Y. (1998). Scholarly Book Reviewing in the Social Sciences and Humanities: The Flow of Ideas Within and Among Disciplines (Contributions in Librarianship and Information Science). London: Greenwood Press. Liu, X. and Zhu, H. (2023). Linguistic positivity in soft and hard disciplines: temporal dynamics, disciplinary variation, and the relationship with research impact. Scientometrics, 128, 3107–3127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04679-5 Lu, X., Yoon, J., Kisselev, O., Jasal, J.E., Liu, Y., Deng, J., and Nie, R. (2021). Rhetorical and phraseological features of research article introductions: Variation among five social science disciplines. System, 100 (August), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102543 Martin, L. (2022). Does Quartile Matter? Investigating syntactic complexity of international publication. 9th International Conference on Science & Social Research, UiTM Shah Alam, Malaysia, E-BPJ 8(SI16), Nov 2023 (pp. 17-22) McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M. (2010). The linguistic features of quality writing. Written Communication, 27 (1), 57-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088309351547 Motta-Roth, D. (1995). Book reviews and disciplinary discourses: Defining a genre. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages - 29th Annual Convention Long Beach, CA, USA. Nodoushan, M.A.S. & Montazeran, H. (2012). The book review genre: A structural move analysis. International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), 6(1),1-30. Retrieved in October 2024 from https:// www.researchgate.net/publication/260211139_ The_book_review_genre_A_structural_move_ analysis Rasmeenin, C. (2006). A structural move analysis of MA thesis discussion sections in applied linguistics. Unpublished MA thesis, Mahidol University. Sandova, J. K. (2018). Rhetorical Structure of English and Czech Academic Book Reviews. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics (Online), 15(3), 202-2016. Available on web page http://www. skase.sk/Volumes/JTL38/pdf_doc/13.pdf. ISSN 1336-782X. Shahnaz, A. (2018). Rhetorical Structure of the Book Reviews Published in Pakistani English Newspapers: A Study in Genre Analysis. NUML Journal of Critical Inquiry, 16(2), 75-99. Retrieved in August Mardi Juansyah / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 3 (2025) 301 2025 fromhttps://www.numl.edu.pk/ journals/subjects/1613292793Vol%2016(II)-Atteya%20 Shahnaz-75-99.pdf List of BRPs cited in the body of the article 1. 3L-1 (French Memories of Malaysia: Literary Excursions & Fortuitous Encounters Reviewed by: Augustine Chay). 2. DAI-2 (Mur-Dueñas, P. & Lorés, R. (2022) Scientific and Parascientific Communication Reviewed by: Marina Ivanova). 3. TESLEJ-7 (Dexter, T. (2022), English Learners at Home and at School: Stories and Strategies, Joyce W. Nutta (2021). Teaching English as a Second Language Electronic Journal). 4. SSLLT-10 (Teacher development for immersion and content-based instruction, Reviewed by: Katarzyna Papaja University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland) 5. TESLEJ-9 (Qualitative Research Topics in Language Teacher Education May 2020 – Volume 24, Number 1, Reviewed by: Elise Brittain The University of Texas at San Antonio, USA. 6. SSLT-8 (Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective, Reviewed by: Ella Alhudithi, Iowa State University, Ames, USA). 7. DAI-4 (Dontcheva-Navratilova, O., Adam, M., Povolná, R. and Vogel, R. (2020) Persuasion in Specialized Discourses. Reviewed by: Josef Sch Mardi Juansyah / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 3 (2025) 302 Appendix Research Instrument (From Carvalho, 2020) Moves Steps Examples Notes Move 1: Introducing the book Step A (Making topic generalizations) Unfortunately, publications in the North and Northeast of the country do not reach us easily, … Step B (Defining the general topic of the book) 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 Step C (Informing about the author) 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 potential readership) Saying that the pretensions of his book were modest, Gladstone Chaves de Melo intended it for Portuguese teachers who could not have a college degree (...). Step E (Informing the origin of the book) The linguistic lessons from professor Câmara Júnior were first 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, 1942. Step F (Inserting book in the field) The importance of this work, in the field of Applied Linguistics, can be attributed to the fact that it is the first work published in Brazil’s editorial market … Move 2 (Summarizing the book content) Step A (Describing the overall organization) The book has the following disposition: Chapter I — Origins of the Language, pp. 1-51; Chapter II — Old High German, pp. 52- 132; Chapter III —Middle High German, pp. 133-227; Chapter IV — Transitional Period, pp. 228257; Chapter V — Modern German, pp. 258-315; Chapter VI — Word formation, pp. 316- 334; Chapter VII — Syntax in modern German pp. 335-425; Bibliography, pp. 426-434. Step B (highlighting the topics of the book) In chapter I, In the origins of the linguistic policy, Calvet exposed the emergence and evolution of the binomial policy and linguistics planning in the second half of the 20th century, seeking to correlate with some political challenges of that time. Step C (Discussing the content of the book) One of the points highlighted by Calvet (attribution) is that there must be a language equipment, in the sense that they are equipped with necessary and sufficient resources to fulfill certain functions assigned by the State. Step D (Reporting the methodology) To arrive at this reconstitution, he applied the only viable method in similar research: the historical-comparative one ... Step E (Citing extra-text material) The outline of the work is presented in the preface. [...]. An explicative note justifies this subdivision. … Move 3 (Examing the book) Step A (Evaluating the book) What most impresses, undoubtedly, in Professor Bahamani’s work, is the effort to be clear and exhaustive… Step B (Providing focused assessment) This chapter and the first of the work in question, although of great linguistic interest, are the ones with the least original contribution, since they disseminate widespread ideas in General Linguistics, as well as in previous works by the author Step C (highlighting suggestions for improvement) Some aspects could deserve additions or modifications in a possible reissue [...] a list of suggested parallel readings – that is, a brief list of commented bibliographic references – would further contribute to the didactic value of the work. Mardi Juansyah / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 12 No. 3 (2025) 303 Move 4 (Addressing a final idea) Step A (Recommending/ disqualifying the book) In our view, the work reviewed here presents a valuable contribution and can be considered a must-read for both teachers and students of Language Teaching Practice. Step B (Expressing wishes for future publication) I submit these considerations to Herculano de Carvalho as a modest contribution to his valuable study, and I close this Review with the hope that we will soon have the following volumes, which together will give the scientifically modern version of the curious language of Miranda’s Land.