1

Abstract

The current study aims at showing whether book review authors differed in terms of

types of rhetorical moves in the book reviews they write. Book review genre has been the

interest of many authors such as (Basturkmen, 2014; Montazeran, 2014; Bhatia, 2006) for

last one and a half decade. Book review genre has not got the attention of scholars in

Pakistan yet. Twenty book reviews from different websites selected randomly.

Researcher has chosen those book reviews which books she has not studied to analyze

them critically. The analysis was conducted to explore the rhetorical moves followed in

the book reviews by keeping in mind the Motta Roth (1995) model for writing book

reviews. Researcher used mix method to analyze the results. Results show that M2 is

being followed repeatedly in the book reviews with greater percentage while M4 is being

followed by some authors. At the end, researcher presented her own model which is

flexible, synchronized and more detailed model for writing book reviews which provides

a vast canvas to review writers where they can observe the book in question from a

variety of perspectives and also reflect their personal but unbiased and honest views.
 2

CHAPTER-1

INTRODUCTION

A book review is like a critique in the terms that it makes an assessment of knowledge

production (Motta-Roth, 1995). It is categorized as a form of literary evaluation as it

appreciates, analyzes, interprets or comments literary works (Pacific Lutheran University,

findit.library.plu.edu). Merriam Webster defines a book review as a descriptive and

critical or evaluative account of a book. Definitions inform us that book reviews have

significant role to play both in academic circle as well as marketing world. As far

academics, they are a gateway to reviewers to transfer their views, help academics identify

books of interest, and provide prized information about how latest books may add to the

development of a given field and expertise of its practitioners. (De Carvalho, 2001;

Junqueira & Cortes, 2014; Suárez & Moreno, 2008).Regarding marketing, publishing

houses increasingly depend on book reviews to advertise their books, and guide

customers to purchase them. It is through these reviews areas of interest are highlighted.

Book-reviewing can be viewed as a process whereby field-authorities assess the validity

and significance of a particular scholar’s contribution (Hyland, 2000). It mainly describes

a book’s purpose, structure and style, highlights key parts of the book and attempts to

evaluate and place it in a larger context of its field. It is thus a discursive genre

characterized by being informative, descriptive and evaluative (De Carvalho, 2001;

 3

Hyland, 2000). Toper form their function, book reviews are expected to follow acceptable

conventions that may use a large number of lexical features, syntactic features, cohesive

devices and above all the structural moves.

According to Dudley-Evans and St John (1998, p. 89), “A ‘move’ is a unit that relates

both to the writer’s purpose and to the extent that s/he wishes to communicate. A ‘step’ is

a lower level text unit than the move that provides a detailed perspective on the options

open to the writer in setting out the moves in the introduction.” Swales and Feak (2003,

p. 35), too, defined the term ‘move’ or ‘schematic unit’ as referring to “. . . a defined and

bounded communicative act that is designed to achieve one main communicative

objective. Because it is a functional category the length of a move can range from a

single finite clause to several paragraphs.” Henry and Roseberry (1997) stated three

reasons for any move study: 1. introducing the overall organization of text 2, clarifying

the linguistic features for specific communicative purpose 3. Connecting the organization

of text and the linguistic features of social context Ding (2007) asserted that move

analysis is an inevitable part in genre studies. He held the idea that moves are semantic

and functional units of texts, which can be distinguished due to their communicative

purposes and linguistic boundaries. It can be said that the building blocks of a genre are

moves; a ‘move’ in a genre is comprised of some parts of that genre that serves a

communicative purpose. As mentioned earlier, move analyses are done either at the

surface level or what is referred to as lexico grammatical features of a given text, or they

deal with the identification of rhetorical structures of texts—what is called Structural

Move Analyses (SMA). Example of the surface level analysis studies include Hyland
 4

(1994, 1996) on epistemic modality or heghes, Lindermann and Mauranen (2001) on

function words like just, Hewings and Hewings (2002) on it, Thompson (2001) on

citation analysis, and Tarone, Gillette, Dwyer, and Icke (1998) on passive voice.

However, there are a number of studies that based their analyses on the rhetorical patterns

of texts or what Nwogu (1997, p. 122) referred to as “schematic units or moves.” Studies

like Hill, Soppelsa, and West (1982) on structural organization of research articles,

Salager-Meyer (1990) on abastract, Wood (1982) on method section, Brett (1994) and

Williams (1999) on result section, Belanger (1982) and DudleyEvans (1994) on discusion

section, and Hopkins and Dudley-Evans (1988) on dissertations fall into this latter

category. As such, a study of the move structure of book reviews falls in the latter

category.

Genre has been defined as the staged, structured, communicative events, motivated by

various communicative purposes, and performed by specific discourse communities’

(Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995; Bhatia, 1993; Bhatia, 2004; Flowerdew & Wan, 2010;

Johns, 1997; Swales, 1990; Swales, 2004). Genres have been approached by researchers

on two plains: (1) the lexicogrammatical features of a given text, and (2) the

identification of their rhetorical structures or ‘structural move analysis’ (Hyon, 1996).

This latter approach is what Nwogu (1997, p. 122) referred to as “the identification of

schematic units or moves.”

A book review is a kind of evaluation from a critical point of view. In other words, the

communicative purpose of a book review is to evaluate knowledge production (Motta-

 5

Roth, 1996). Book reviews are of paramount importance because of a number of reasons.

According to Babaii and Ansari (2005), if we accept that the main purpose of book

reviews at the end of most academic 4 | Mohammad Ali Salmani Nodoushan & Hamed

Montazeran journals is to evaluate the produced knowledge, then it can be claimed that

they are an aid in the acquisition of academic literacy.

So review is a critical assessment of a text, performance, and event, an object of art or

architecture, or a phenomenon. Besides books, articles, and many other forms of

literature, or in broader terms entire genre, are encompassed for reviewing. During our

school days as a student we were taught that a book review offers a critical multi-

dimensional stance on a text making an argument. The most important element as some

of the teachers thought was that, a book review is not a summary but a commentary. At a

later stage we were instructed that a good book review allows you to address not only the

work’s creator but commence a dialogue and discussion with each reader of the book. As

reviewers we can agree or disagree, we can identify the deficiencies in terms of

knowledge, viewpoint or organization and can clearly state our own opinion of the work

in question was all explained to us as students developing academic writing skills. In

spite of all these instructions every individual was developing review writing in a

different way.

So through such experience the need of a more appropriate and effective model regarding

the moves involved in book review writing is conceived to be inevitable. It is expected

that through this study sound additions would be made in already prevailing move-

models of writing a book review. The present study aims to develop a framework used as
 6

the basis for writing a comparatively more comprehensive and effective book review.

The proposed model is expected to enhance the existing models in terms of new moves

for better results regarding the construction of a critical and sequential evaluation of the

text in question.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Authors have adopted different types of rhetorical moves with regard to the particular

aspects of writing a book review. But still their unfamiliarity and sometimes ignorance

with the structure of book reviews and their inability to streamline their moves causes a

serious discomfort to the one who endeavors to write a book review. Hence, the need to

design a specific structure of moves as the stylistic content of a review is inevitable.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

Following are the research objectives:

1- To find out the moves frequently adopted by most of the people in writing book

reviews.

2- To identify whether review writers are following any particular model of moves.

3- To design a structural model for book review writing based on the move analysis

of the data collected

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Following are the research questions:

 7

1- Why do people differ in their choice of moves in the book reviews they write?

2- Which move-model is more frequently used?

3- What can be more appropriate structural moves for writing an effective book

review?

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study will help to find out the rhetoric moves adopted by most of the writers in

writing book reviews. It will also help to identify the deficiencies if any in already

existing models used for analysis of a book. Above all the present study is significant due

to its implication of designing a new set of moves for composing an evaluative comment

or review on a book. The study will provide his readers with new ideas for what a

reviewer actually needs to focus and how he has to synchronize his analysis of the book.

The book review in itself is a move analysis of the book in question. The present study

resembles this aspect of the book review as it aims to evaluate the move analysis of the

reviews to determine whether an existing framework is enough to be followed or more

moves should be added. The present study is significant because it aims to promote a

more flexible and adaptable model on the basis of which writers enjoy more space like a

vast spread canvass where they can throw their personal views about the book to either

attract readers’ attention or probably to distract them away.

DELIMITATION
 8

The study is delimited to the twenty book reviews which were selected randomly from

different websites. Researcher only analyzed the moves in the book reviews followed by

different authors in their writings. Book reviews are of different genres.

CHAPTER-2

LITERATURE REVIEW

A book review is like a critique in the terms that it makes an assessment of knowledge

production (Motta-Roth, 1995) According to the dictionary meaning a formal assessment

of something with the intention of instituting change if necessary is a review. Besides a

critical appraisal of a book, play, film, etc. published in a newspaper or magazine is also a

review of that genre. So a review is a critical assessment of not only a text but also of an

incident, character, object, or phenomenon.

Reviews can include an entire range of literary genres. A review is a critique or an

evaluation, not merely a summary. It does an argument. It allows the writer to enter into

dialogue and discussion with the creator of the work and with all other readers. He

critically appreciates the work in question, and his style should be in keeping with other

types of academic writing, with a thesis statement in the beginning, supporting

paragraphs following, and then a conclusion.

REVIEW AN ACADEMIC GENRE

Genre is defined as a communicative event which inherits a set of relationships between

people that are behaving in a specific social context and performing certain roles

characterizing that occasion and in this respect language plays a valuable part. Swales
 9

(1990:46). So number of communicative events form a genre if they share a set of

communicative purposes. Thus, genres are communicative vehicles for the achievement

of goals that operate upon the discourse structure, offering constraints for the beginning

development, and ending of the text.

According to Hyland (2009) most of the evaluative genre-based studies of 1980s and

1990s reflected rhetorical strategies and practice of the researchers from hard sciences

including Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Engineering. Several recent comparative

genre-based studies have also been produced from hard sciences (physics, Chemistry,

Biology etc) and soft sciences (Humanities & Social Sciences) both such as Atai &

Samani, (2012); Ozturk, 5 5 (2007); Yakhontova, (2006); Shehzad, 2007, 2008, 2011;

Holmes, (1997) and Samraj, (2002). On the other hand, comparatively, less genre-based

investigations of RA genre of soft sciences have been done (Khan, 2013; Briones, 2012;

Krishnasamy, 2011; Azirah, 2001; Smaraj, 2008; Loi, 2010; Ozturk, 2007).

Swales (1990:46) pinned up a number of criteria to classify genre. He thinks that genre

involves communicative events and a number of communicative purposes and such

purposes can be differentiated by expert members of a discourse community and thus

form the ground of the genre. Moreover this ground constructs formal schemata (reader's

knowledge of previous text) and schemata (reader's previous background knowledge of

the world) are connected with genre.

Following these criteria, a book review is considered as a kind of genre for three reasons.

The first reason is that it consists of a set of communicative events. It includes a set of

relationship between participants that are occurring in a certain social context and doing

certain roles connected with that occasion and with specific goals introducing and
 10

evaluating new publications in the field. Secondly, the expert members of a discourse

community recognize the communicative purposes. Expert reviewers and readers identify

the exemplars of a genre by using their schemata. Expert reviewers and readers cope with

book reviews using content schemata previous knowledge of a academia in general and

disciplinary culture in particular) and formal schema (background knowledge about

textual features of book reviews). Furthermore, accurate reading and writing skills allow

these experts to bring to the text sufficient suppositions about the potential content and

form. Finally, the communicative purpose of introducing and evaluating new publications

restrict the rhetoric of genre. Readers search the description and evaluation of the latest

publications in the field and book reviewers try to make texts that respond to these

expectations.

As a result, instances of book reviews are expected to have the same patterns in structure,

style, content and specific audience that help define genre. A reviewer should not

describe and characterize the book in question only but the subjects with which it is

connected. The reviewer tries to pass information about the reader and its relation with

the other books in the same area and similar topics. A reliable reviewer is the person who

is able to evaluate the quality of the book reviewed. Evaluating text is welcome but

personal attacks are undesirable.

RHETORIC MOVES IN BOOK REVIEWS

Move is observed as a text block or a stretch of discourse that may by be represented in

one sentence or more and this move in connection with other moves comprise the whole

information structure that must be found in the text to recognize it as an example of a

 11

given genre. (Nwogu: 1990:127) A move consists of a number of smaller functional

units called steps. Steps are "constituent elements" that are mixed to build the information

which comprises the move (Paltrige: 1994: 295). Again, Swale's new model has been also

criticized for not telling in advance the cyclical patterns of occurrence of moves and

missing of given moves actually found in similar data analysis. (Motta-Roth, 1998:56).

Starting with the traditional analysis of book reviews by Swales (1981-1990) and Motta-

Roth (1998), the present study at the end aims to sum up with a new and a more

appropriate model. Swale's model CAR Swale's ( 1981) study is based on the

introductions to forty- eight articles, from various fields in pure, applied and social

science, sixteen for each.

SWALE AND MOTTA ROTH ON BOOK REVIEWS

Swale's model is a schema-theoretic model. It is ranking of schematic units of

information. Each schematic unit is rhetoric in that it supplies pieces of information to the

total text which is characterized as a move. For Swale Move 1 is introducing the book

and the sub-functions include defining the general topic of the book, informing about

potential readership, informing about the author and making topic generalization as well

as inserting the book in the field. Move 2 is outlining the book with the sub-function of

providing general view of the organization of the book, stating the topic of each chapter,

citing extra material (Journal University of Kerbala, Vol. 14 No.3 Humainies.2016)

Move 3 is highlighting parts of the book with the sub-function of providing specific

evaluation. Lastly move 4 providing evaluation of the book with the sub-function of
 12

defining recommending the book/disqualify the book. The lastsub-function is

recommending the book despite indicating shortcomings.

Motta- Roth’s model(1998) and other supportive studies of DeCarvalho (2001) and

Nicolaisen (2002) show that the rhetorical organization of book reviews in many

disciplines is fairly uniformed. Motta-Roth's (1998:131) genre analytical study of book

reviews in Chemistry, Economics, and Linguistics fields display specific invariable

features of rhetorical organization in content and form. She formulated a schematic

description of the typical structural organization of book review consisting of four

rhetorical moves composing of a number of sub function.

In move 1, the reviewer starts the book review with an introduction composing of five

sub functions providing the reader with five types of information. In sub-function1, the

writer gives the reader pieces of information about the book or about the theoretical

approach adopted by the author to talk about such topic as: Academic Writing

Techniques and Task by Iona Leki is a writing text book for advanced ESL

student(Motta-Roth, 1998:150). In sub–function 2, the reviewer specifies the reader to

which the book addressed (Suarez and Moreno, 2014:191). In the above example, the

statement, "for advanced ESL student” is sub function 2, indicating the kind of readership

who has much knowledge about the writing text book. In sub- function 3, information

about the author's academic background and previous work is given. The writer,

sometimes, uses author's name with terms referring to his/her profession (staff member,

politician, scientist) or terms showing authority as expert, researcher, and thinker

expressing his/her position in the field of the study, for instance Professor Roger Shuy

would add a new category of forensic expertise to the pantheon: linguistics (Lininger,
 13

2005: 833). Here the name of the author with title is mentioned. The word "professor"

means he has university degree in linguistics and is well-known in the field. In sub-

function 4, the writer gives information about the book reviewed by using his own past

knowledge. The reviewer points out the aim of the text and sums up the main findings or

arguments, for instance: Goodwin et al (2000) conduct a study on the influence of culture

on ethical decision between two groups of accountants from Australian and Singapore.

This research aimed to provide further evidence on the effect of cultural differences.

(Mort et al,2005:3) In sub-function 5, the writer puts the book in a specific area by

speaking about the preceding books dealing with same subject or by showing the weak

points in the previous books. The reviewer emphasizes the importance of this new book

by filling up a gap as: This book is the most wide-ranging account so far of the

economics of privatization. (Nicolaisen,2002: 129).

The second move is the longest one. It is divided into three sub-functions. The sub

function 1, detailed description of the organization of the book as: The book itself is

organized into five parts. In sub-function 2,the content of each chapter is described either

by giving a detailed description for each chapter by discussing different views sustained

along the book as in Chapter 1 introduces the several techniques and cover…….. the

theory of chromatography is presented in chapter 2 …….and resolution are the subjects

in chapter 3. While chapter 4 covers some aspects of qualitative and quantitative. In a

telling phrase the authors assert that Gerald Ford's 1975 Whip inflation. …….They view

the deliberate unemployment….. Their discussion of third World debt suffers from an

exaggerated fear of the dangers of Latin American default to the banking system. (Motta-

Roth,1998:170). The extra-text materials appears in sub-function 3 of move 2 like

 14

bibliographies, appendices, tables, illustrations, graphs, pictures, etc.(Nicolaisen,

2002:140) Journal University of Kerbala, Vol. 14 No.3 Humainies. 2016.

In move 3, the reviewer usually discusses and evaluates strong and weak points in the

text to make the readers know the reviewer's opinion concerning the book as Mr. Arditti

has been written with sensitivity about many weighty issues ….(positive). So it is a

puzzle that he could render such a compelling life story in a manner so dull. (negative).

(Cacchiani, 2005:3).

The chief aim of move 4 is to close-up the text of the reviewer and to give a final

evaluation of the text reviewed by total approving or disapproving or by mixing or

criticizing the text reviewed with a final positive evaluation as in sub-function 1of the

move 4, such as this is a very interesting book ….. which provides a good introduction to

the topic …… and a good starting point for each chapter

THE PRESENT STUDY

Review is an academic writing. In newspapers and academic journals, they rarely exceed

one to two thousand words. They are brief but they need to be succinct. While they vary

in tone, subject, and style, they share some common features. The move-analysis of book

reviews that people follow Swale’s or Motta Roth’s models in the production of their

evaluation of a text or a complete book. With most of the writers a perfect review

includes the following:

 A concise summary of the content which is a relevant description of the topic as

well as its overall perspective, argument, or purpose.

 15

 A critical assessment of the content which involves the writer’s reactions to the

work under review, what strikes him as noteworthy, whether or not it was

effective or persuasive, and how it enhanced his understanding of the issues at

hand.

 A suggestion whether or not the audience would admire it.

Reviewing is a daring task. Observing the material carefully, providing judgments with

reason, voicing agreement and disagreement tactfully, praising and criticizing, all is all

the more challenging when as per the aim of study done in synchronization and in the

frame of the proposed model comprising the moves of already existing models and also a

few more which will further enhance the stylistic features of review writers.
 16

CHAPTER-3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 RESEARCH TYPE

This research type would be qualitative because I will analyze the quality of reviewing

books by looking at the moves people follow to write book reviews. The analysis will be

qualitative.

3.2 SAMPLE

For the analysis of data, thirty book reviews published on different websites selected

randomly. These book reviews are from different genres.

3.3 METHODOLOGY

This study is based on twenty book reviews which were gathered from different websites

and journals. These are the reviews of those books which researcher has not read before

so that he can analyze the moves in the better way. Researcher has read the book reviews

thoroughly and analyzed the moves that are being followed by the writers in writing the

book review. Are they following any specific pattern or they are just writing in their own

way.

3.4 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

 17

For this study, researcher has taken the grounded theory/model of Motta Roth for the

analysis of book reviews and then will give his own model for the writing book reviews

for different genres. This model provides a rhetorical structure for book reviews.

Move 1= introducing the book

Move 2= outlining the book

Move 3= highlighting the parts of book

Move 4= providing closing evaluation of the book

 18

CHAPTER-4

DATA COLLECTION AND DATA ANALYSIS

This section is consisting of two sections, one will be the move analysis of selected book

reviews and the second will be about the frequency of each move. Each book review has

given keen reading and moves were identified. Identification of different moves was done

on the paragraph basis. First researcher had identified and mentioned all the moves in

each book review and thirty book reviews respectively.

Move 1- Introducing the book

Move 2- Outlining the book

Move 3- Highlighting the parts of book

Move 4- Commenting final commentary and recommendations

Move Analysis of selected book reviews

Table 1

samples Moves
1 M1-M1-M2-M2-M2-M2-M2SM2(M3)-M3-M3-M3-M4(M2)
2 M1-M1-M1-M1(M2)-M2-M2-M2-M2-M3-M3-M2-M2-M3-M2-M3-M4(M1)
3 M1-M2-M1-M1-M1-M1-M1-M1-M1-M2-M2-M2-M3(M4)-M2-M2
4 M1-M1-M1-M2(M1)-M4-M4-M2-M2-M2-M2-M2-M2-M2-M2-M3(M4)
5 M1-M2-M2-M2-M2-M2-M2-M2-M2-M3-M3
6 M1,M1,MI,M1,M1,M1,M1,M3,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2
 19

,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M3,M3,M1,M1,M1,M3,M4,M2,M2,M2
7 M1,M1,M1,M1,M2,M1,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M3,M2,M

2,M2,M4,M4,M4,M3,M4,M4
8 M1,M1,M1,M1,M1,M2,M4,M4+M2,M2,M2,M3,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2+

M3,M2,M1+M4,M4,M4,M4,M3,M4,M4
9 M1,M1,M1,M1,M1,M1+M1,M3,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2+M2,M2,M2,M2,

M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M3,M4,M4,M3
10 M1,M1,M1,M1,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M

2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M4,M4,M4,M4,M3,M4,M4,M3,M3
11 M1(M1),M1,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M3,M3,M3,M3,M3,M3,M3,M3,M

3,M1,M4,M1(M4).
12 M1,M1,M2,M1(M4),M2,M2,M3,M3,M1,M3.
13 M1(M2),M2,M2,M3,M2,M3,M3,M3 (M2),M3(M2),M3,M3.
14 M1,M1,M1,M1,M1,M1(M2,M2),M3,M3(M2),M3(M2),M3,M1(M4,M4

).
15 M1,M1(M1),M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M3(M4),M3,M4,M3,M3.
16 M1, M1,M1, M2, M2, M2, M2, M2, M2, M2, M2, M2, M3, M3, M3,

M3, M3, M3, M3, M3, M3, M3, M3, M3, M3

17 M1, M1, M1, M1, M2, M2, M2, M2, M2, M3, M3, M3, M4, M4
18 M1(M2),M2,M2,M3,M2,M3,M3,M3 (M2),M3(M2),M3,M3.
19 M1,M1,M1,M1,M2,M1,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M2,M3,M2,M

2,M2,M4,M4,M4,M3,M4,M4
20 M1-M1-M1-M2(M1)-M4-M4-M2-M2-M2-M2-M2-M2-M2-M2-M3(M4)
 20

Occurrence of Moves

Table 2

Samples Move 1 Move2 Move 3 Move 4

1 2 6 3 1
2 4 8 3 1
3 8 6 1 1
4 4 9 1 3
5 1 8 2 0
6 10 19 4 1
7 5 13 2 4
8 6 10 3 6
9 7 16 2 2
10 4 18 2 6
11 4 6 9 2
12 2 3 1 1
13 1 6 5 0
14 6 4 2 2
15 3 6 4 2
16 3 9 13 0
17 4 5 3 2
18 1 6 6 0
19 5 13 2 4
20 4 9 1 3

Total no of occurrences of moves

Table 2
 21

Move 1 84
Move 2 180
Move 3 69
Move 4 41

Analysis of the Data:

The above mentioned analysis of the data is indicative of the following result:

 Move one is used by every writer more than twice. In twenty reviews the first

move is used more than eighty times. It shows that every writer is giving ample

space to the introduction part.

 Move two is the move which is used repetitively by every writer. We can say that

it is the most favorite move and writers enjoy outlining the text and summarizing

it. This move indeed plays a vital role in constructing the review. In twenty the

book reviews this move is used time and again by every writer. The researcher

has identified the occurrence of this move more than 180 times.

 The third Move indicates the highlighting of the important segments of the book.

The aim of this move is to make the reader aware of what the book signifies or

aims to convey. Without this move the content of the book cannot be made known

to the reader. Most of the book reviews have used it more than once but still it is a

comparatively less occurred move. From the current data the writer could identify

it occurring only 69 times.

 The fourth and the last move is used to evaluate the book. This move includes the

writer’s evaluative comment or his critical appreciation of the text. This move is

the one which is least used by the writers. In the present data it is used only 40
 22

times. The reason why it is ignored is probably because writers consciously or

unconsciously avoid critiquing the text.

By keeping in mind the analysis of selected book reviews and the model mentioned

above, here are some reasons to present the new model.

The purpose behind writing a book review is to attract reader attention and motivates him

to read the book because the one, who is reading the book review, is the one who has not

read the book yet or going to read the book. It should be written in such a way that it

convince reader to read the book. The book reviews which researcher has selected for

analysis, they all are following the same pattern. In my opinion, there must be no

uniformity in writing the book reviews because it’s actually an argument or debate

between reader and author in which authors motivates him to read that book. It is purely

personal opinion that what author feels about the book and what are the reasons he wants

others to read that book.

If all the authors are following same pattern and sequencing or putting the same ideas

then what is the purpose of writing book reviews if one is just summarizing the book or

highlighting the main events in the book. The presented model is flexible, synchronized

and more detailed model for writing book reviews which provides a vast canvas to review

writers where they can observe the book in question from a variety of perspectives and

also reflect their personal but unbiased and honest views.

In the presented model, first move will be about the determining of genre or the choice of

genre which author has chosen for reviewing. It is important to mention the genre to the

reader to develop his interest. Second move will be on introduction which consists of
 23

further points related to the introduction of author. In this portion, author must motivate

the reader to read that author’s book because of some special qualities of writing and with

the mention of the context of the book. The third move will be about the summary of the

book which includes the subject of the book, description of contents and highlighting the

main and important event in the book. Fourth move will be about the evaluative comment

which is also the main point of review. It further consists of comment on theme,

significance of theme and objective to write the review. Fifth move is about style of

language, sequence and mood. Sixth move is about argumentation and personal opinion

which in other sense called the critique and the last move is about recommendations.

Structure of presented model

Move 1~ Determining type of genre

 About the genre

 Justifying the type of genre

Move 2~ introduction

 About the author

 About motivation

 About the socio-cultural context

Move 3~ Summary

 Subject of the book

 Description of content

 Highlighting the main content/aspects

 24

Move 4~ Evaluative comment

 Comment on theme

 Comment on significance of theme

 Comment on objective

Move 5~ Style

 sequence

 language

 mood

Move 6~ Argumentation

 author’s argument

 personal opinion

Move 7~ Recommendations
 25

CHAPTER-5

CONCLUSION

The study found that all the authors introduced the book under review in all of their

reviews. It was further noticed that authors sometimes did not expand the introduction of

the book under review either by topic generalization or by recommending the book, or

inserting it in a specific genre. The findings showed that the sequencing of moves in

almost all book reviews is same and almost all of them ended up with the specific move

that is M4. Move sequence and occurrences are mentioned in Table 1, table 2 and Table

3. The dominant move is M2 that is about the introduction of book and least focused

move is M4 that is about the critiquing on a book and recommendations. The length of

book reviews varied from author to author; there is no certain limit to write the book

reviews.

Current study showed that there is uniformity in all book reviews that they are following

almost same pattern to write the review. The purpose of writing book review is to

convince and motivate reader to read the book not to detract his attention by same ideas.

There are some features lacking in the book reviews which in my point of are necessary
 26

part to attract the reader attention. The proposed model focused on that features as well.

However, the presented model is more flexible and synchronized model which provides

vast canvas to book review writers to observe the book from different perspectives

REFERENCES

Azirah, H. (2001). So What's New?: The Discussions In Medical Research Articles. Pan-
Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 127-152.

Bhatia, V. (1993). Analyzing genre: Language use in professional settings. New York:
Longman.

Bhatia, V. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. London:

Continuum.

Basturkmen, H. (2014). Replication research in comparative genre analysis in English for

Academic Purposes. Language Teaching, 47(03):377-386.

Babaii, E., & Ansary, H. (2005). On the effect of disciplinary variation on transitivity:
The case of academic book reviews. Asian EFL Journal, 7, (3), 113-126.

Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Genre analysis: An approach to text analysis in ESP. In M.

Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 219-228). London: Routledge.

Dudley-Evans, T. (2000). Genre analysis: A key to the theory ESP. URL:

www.aelfe.org/documents/text2-Dudley.pdf.

Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, A. M. J. (1998). Developing English for specific purposes:
A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ding, H. (2007). Genre analysis of personal statements: Analysis of moves in application

essays to medical and dental schools. English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 368-392.
 27

Hewings, M., & Hewings, A. (2002). “It is interesting to note that”: A comparative study
of anticipatory ‘it’ in student and published writing. English For Specific Purposes,
21,367-383

Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis and the social sciences: An investigation of the
structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific
Purposes, 16(4), 321–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(96)00038-5

Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific
Purposes, 13, 239-256.

Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles.

Applied Linguistics, 17, 433-454.

Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30,
693-722.

Loi, K. C. (2010). Research Article Introductions in Chinese and English: A Comparative

Genre-Based Study. Journal of English for Academic Purpose, 9 (4), 297-279.

Motta Roth, D. (1995). Book reviews and disciplinary discourses: Defining a genre.
Proceedings of the TESOL 29th Annual Convention & Exposition (pp.385-86). Long
Beach, CA, USA.

Motta Roth, D. (1996). Investigating connections between text and discourse

communities: A cross-disciplinary study of evaluative discourse practices in academic
book reviews. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for
Applied Linguistics (18th, Chicago, IL, March.

Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for
Specific Purposes, 16, 119-138.

Ozturk, I. (2007). The textual Organisation of Research Article Introduction in Applied

Linguistics: Variability Within a Single Discipline. English for Specific Purposes, 26 (1),
25‐38
 28

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2003). English in today's research world: A writing guide.
Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Samraj, B. (2002). Introductions in research articles: Variations across disciplines.

English for Specific Purposes, 21 (1), 1–17.

Samraj, B. (2008). A Discourse Analysis of Master's Theses Across Disciplines With a

Focus on Introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7 (1), 55–67

Yakhontova, T. (2006). Cultural and Disciplinary Variation in Academic Discourse: The

Issue of Influencing Factors. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5 (2), 153– 167