This study is an attempt to systematically characterize Book Reviews (BRs) as an academic written genre in terms of the elements of the transitivity system with a view to exploring the effects of disciplinary variation on the lexico-grammatical features of this genre. A corpus of 90 academic BRs from discipline-related professional journals (physical science, social science and Humanity) was randomly selected and analysed by using the lexico-grammatical model of Halliday’s systemic functional linguistics. Significant differences were observed in terms of both the type and frequency of processes and participants. This, it seems, points to a difference in the semantic configuration of BRs peculiar to each discipline, although they all seem to fulfil a similar communicative purpose, evaluating knowledge production in the academic milieu. The observed features indicate that BRs in pure science journals, as compared to their counterparts in social science and humanities journals, appear to carry a higher percentage of passive construction, non-human concrete participants and the relational and existential processes, together with a lower percentage of specific human participants, hence, leading to texts heavily laden with grammatical metaphor and impersonality.
Keywords: Academic Book Reviews, Disciplinary Variation, Lexicogrammar
Usman, S. I., & Gadanya, W. L. (2026). Lexicogrammatical Variation in Academic Book Reviews. British Journal of Advanced Research, 1(4), Article 006. https://doi.org/10.68263/BJAR-ASYFXYBU
MLA
Usman, Sani Iguda, and Wasila Lawan Gadanya. "Lexicogrammatical Variation in Academic Book Reviews." British Journal of Advanced Research, vol. 1, no. 4, 2026, article 006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.68263/BJAR-ASYFXYBU
Chicago
Usman, Sani Iguda, and Wasila Lawan Gadanya. "Lexicogrammatical Variation in Academic Book Reviews." British Journal of Advanced Research 1, no. 4 (2026): 006. https://doi.org/10.68263/BJAR-ASYFXYBU
References
Bloor, T., and Bloor, M. (1995). The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach.London: Arnold.
Crookes, G. (1986). Towards a Validated Analysis of Scientific Text Structure. Applied Linguistics,7, 7-70.
Eggins, S., Wignell, P., and Martin, J. (1993). The Discourse of History: Distancing the Recoverable Past. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Register Analysis: Theory and practice (pp. 75-109). London: Pinter.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.
Gosden, H. (1993). Discourse Functions of Subject in Scientific Research Articles. Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 56-75.
Halliday, M. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
Halliday, M. (1988). On the Language of Physical Science. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Registers of Written English: Situational Factors and Linguistic Features (pp. 162-178). London: Pinter.
Halliday, M. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. and Mathiessen, C.M.I (1999). Construing Experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London and New York: Continuum
Halliday, M.A.K. and Mathiessen, C.M.I (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Hodder
Halliday, M.A.K. and Mathiessen, C.M.I (2014). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Hodder
Halliday, M., McIntosh, A., and Strevens, P. (1964). The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. London: Longman.
Halliday, M., and Martin, J. (Eds.). (1993). Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press
Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1996). Language as Ideology. London: Longman.
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), 321-37.
Love, A. (1993). Lexico-Grammatical Features of Geology Textbooks: Process and Product Revisited. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 197-218.
Martinez, I. (2001). Impersonality in the Research Article as Revealed by Analysis of the Transitivity Structure. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 227-247.
McKenna, B. (1997). How Engineers Write: An Empirical Study of Engineering Report Writing Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 189-211.
Paltridge, B. (1993). Writing up Research: A systemic Functional Perspective System, 21(2), 175-192.
Paltridge, B. (1995). Analysing Genre: A Relational Perspective. System, 23(4), 503-11.
Samraj, B. (2002). Introductions in Research Articles: Variations Across Disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 1-17.
Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and Corpus Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Thompson, S. (1994). Frameworks and contexts: A Genre-based Approach to Analysing Lecture Introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 171-186.
Thompson, G. (1996). Introducing Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
Trimble, L. (1985). English for Science and Technology. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Usman, S. I. (2018). Transitivity Pattern in Newspaper Headlines: A Comparative Study of the Daily Trust and The Guardian. TECHNO-SCIENCE AFRICANA Journal: Kano University of Science and Technology, Wudil, Kano State Nigeria, Vol. 14 No. 2 PP. 170-186
Widdowson, H. (1979). Explorations in Applied Linguistics I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, I. (1999). Results Sections of Medical Research Articles: Analysis of Rhetorical Categories for Pedagogical Purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 18(4), 347-366.
Young, R., and Nguyen, H. (2002). Modes of Meaning in High School Science. Applied Linguistics,23, 348-372.
