先前的研究指出文步在學術期刊中的重要性，因為文步被視為是建構學術文章架構的重要核心。許多學者著重於對學術文章中不同文步的研究。然而，探討常用字串與文步關聯的研究卻很少。
有鑑於此，本研究回答以下三個研究問題：(一)、哪些是社會科學領域以及自然科學領域共同常用的字串？(二)、哪些是社會科學領域以及自然科學領域分別特有的字串？(三)、在學術文章中，字串以及文步在緒論中的關聯是什麼？
語料庫分析法乃本文探討常用字串的方式。研究者建置了由一千兩百篇由國際期刊論文所組成的學術寫作語料庫，一共一千三百多萬字，內容包含社會科學領域以及自然科學領域之學術期刊，各領域所包含的學科如下：化學、數學、物理學、經濟學、語言學、心理學。研究者採用關鍵字串以及檢索的方式找出學術文章緒論中的常用字串。
本研究結果共發現兩百一十一個的常用字串，其中社會科學領域及自然科學領域共有八十個常用字串，社會科學領域特有的常用字串共有七十六個，自然科學領域特有的常有字串共有五十五個。以字串的長度而言，在學術語料庫中，共有一百零四個四字常用字串、六十四個五字常用字串、二十個六字常用字串、十一個七字常用字串、以及十二個八字或以上的常用字串。
常用字串的結構性及功能性亦被檢視及歸類，就結構性而言，四字字串中含有較多名詞或介係詞，含有動詞的比例則較少，隨著字串長度的增加，字串中同時含有名詞及動詞的比率也隨之增加。針對字串的功能性，社會科學領域及自然科學領域的學者都傾向大量的篇章組織字串來組織學術文章。
研究者更進一步分析這些常用字串與文步之間的關聯，以回答第三個研究問題。有些字串只會在特定文步中被使用，有些則會在多於一個文步中被使用。在所有文步中，第一文步第三次要文步包含了最多的字串，共有九十七個的字串被用來協助回顧文獻，而第三文步第七次要文步中的字串則較具有專一性，共有四十八個字串只會在這個文步中被使用來協助概述學術文章的結構。
本文研究結果顯示，不同領域的期刊作者在文步的使用上有其異同之處。研究者建議學術英語教學者能將此研究所列的字串與文步關係引入課程，以期能為增進學習者與新手研究學者的學術寫作能力盡棉薄之力。

Previous studies have shed light on the importance of rhetorical moves in research articles, for moves are viewed as the core organization of constructing research articles. Many researchers have focused on investigating and exploring the different rhetorical moves in the different sections of the RAs. However, empirical findings that linked particular frequent lexical bundles to moves or steps in moves have been limited.
Specifically, three research questions were proposed in this study. (1) What are the shared lexical bundles frequently used between social sciences and physical sciences? (2) What are the lexical bundles exclusively used in social sciences or physical sciences? (3) How do lexical bundles connect to the moves and steps in research article introductions?
The corpus-based analysis was applied in the present study. The corpus is comprised of a total of 1200 published RA introductions in well-known international journals, including approximately 1.3 million words. The RA introduction sections are from a variety of academic disciplines, which are chemistry, mathematics, physics, economics, linguistics, and psychology. The wordlist and the concord function were employed to extract the frequent lexical bundles in the research article introductions.
A total of 211 frequent lexical bundles were extracted and the bundle lists were compiled. There are a total of 80 lexical bundles commonly used both in social sciences and physical sciences. For social sciences, there are 76 bundles exclusively used. There are 55 bundles exclusively used in the field of physical sciences. In terms of the word length, there are 104 four-word bundles, 64 five-word bundles, 20 six-word bundles, 11 seven-word bundles, and 12 eight-word and longer bundles identified in the corpus.
The structure and function of the identified bundles are also examined in the present study. For the structural classification, there are more four-word bundles incorporating noun phrase or prepositional phrase fragments in the structure. As the word length increase, bundles including noun phrase and verb phrase increase. As for functional classification, researchers in both disciplines tend to use discourse organizers to help construct the research.
A further step in the analysis matched these lexical bundles to the moves and steps so as to answer the third research question. Some lexical bundles were exclusively linked to one move or step in a move while others occurred across more than one move and steps. Among all the moves, move 1 step 3 contains the most lexical bundles. There are 97 lexical bundles identified to review the items of previous literature. As for the bundles only used in the certain move or step, there are 48 bundles exclusively identified in move 3 step 7 for outlining the structure of the paper.
The findings indicate that there are similarities and differences between the lexical bundles used by researchers from different disciplines. The researcher suggests that English instructors and teachers can introduce the list of lexical bundles and the corresponding moves and steps in the academic courses. Some pedagogical implications for future research are proposed.

Ädel, A. (2014). Selecting quantitative data for qualitative analysis: A case study connecting a lexicogrammatical pattern to rhetorical moves. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 16, 68-80.
Ädel, A., & Erman, B. (2012). Recurrent word combinations in academic writing by native and non-native speakers of English: A lexical bundles approach. English for specific purposes, 31(2), 81-92.
Ahmadi, H. S., Ghonsooly, B., & Fatemi, A. H. (2013). An analysis of lexical bundles in research article abstracts by Iranian and native English-speaking authors of applied linguistics articles. The Asian ESP Journal, 9(1), 5-25.
Aktas, R. N., & Cortes, V. (2008). Shell nouns as cohesive devices in published and ESL student writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 3-14.
Alamri, B. M. (2017). Connecting Genre-Based and Corpus-Driven Approaches in Research Articles: A Comparative Study of Moves and Lexical Bundles in Saudi and International Journals.
Alipour, M., Jalilifar, A., & Zarea, M. (2013). A corpus study of lexical bundles across different disciplines. The Iranian EFL Journal, 7(2), 11.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson.
Biber, D., & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for specific purposes, 26(3), 263-286.
Bunton, D. (2014). Generic moves in Ph. D. thesis introductions. In Academic discourse (pp. 67-85). Routledge.
Can, S., Karabacak, E., & Qin, J. (2016). Structure of moves in research article abstracts in applied linguistics. Publications, 4(3), 23.
Chen, Y. H., & Baker, P. (2010). Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 30-49.
Conrad, S. M., & Biber, D. (2005). The frequency and use of lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. Lexicographica, 20, 56-71.
Cortes, V. (2002). Lexical bundles in academic writing in history and biology. Northern Arizona University.
Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for specific purposes, 23(4), 397-423.
Cortes, V. (2008). A comparative analysis of lexical bundles in academic history writing in English and Spanish. Corpora, 3(1), 43-57.
Cortes, V. (2013). The purpose of this study is to: Connecting lexical bundles and moves in research article introductions. Journal of English for academic purposes, 12(1), 33-43.
Cotos, E., & Pendar, N. (2016). Discourse classification into rhetorical functions for AWE feedback. calico journal, 33, 1.
Cotos, E., Huffman, S., & Link, S. (2015). Furthering and applying move/step constructs: Technology-driven marshalling of Swalesian genre theory for EAP pedagogy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 19, 52-72.
Cotos, E., Huffman, S., & Link, S. (2017). A move/step model for methods sections: Demonstrating rigour and credibility. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 90-106.
Del Saz Rubio, M. M. (2011). A pragmatic approach to the macro-structure and metadiscoursal features of research article introductions in the field of Agricultural Sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 30(4), 258-271.
Durrant, P. (2017). Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation in university students’ writing: Mapping the territories. Applied Linguistics, 38(2), 165-193.
Durrant, P., & Mathews-Aydınlı, J. (2011). A function-first approach to identifying formulaic language in academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 30(1), 58-72.
Esfandiari, R., & Barbary, F. (2017). A contrastive corpus-driven study of lexical bundles between English writers and Persian writers in psychology research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 29, 21-42.
Farjami, H. (2014). Key lexical chunks in article abstracts of 30 applied linguistic journals. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 6(3), 51-73.
Farnia, M., & Rahimi, S. (2017). Comparative generic analysis of introductions of English and Persian dentistry research articles. Research in English language pedagogy, 5(1), 27-40.
Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. L. (2001). A narrow-angled corpus analysis of moves and strategies of the genre: ‘Letter of Application’. English for Specific Purposes, 20(2), 153-167.
Hung, H., Chen, P. C., & Tsai, J. J. (2012). Rhetorical structure and linguistic features of case presentations in case reports in Taiwanese and international medical journals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(3), 220-228.
Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for specific purposes, 27(1), 4-21.
Jahangard, A., Rajabi-Kondlaji, A., & Khalaji, K. (2014). A comparison of moves in conclusion sections of research articles in Mechanical Engineering and Applied Linguistics. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 5(2), 346-359.
Jiang, F. K., & Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscursive nouns: Interaction and cohesion in abstract moves. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 1-14.
Joseph, R., Lim, J. M. H., & Nor, N. A. M. (2014). Communicative moves in forestry research introductions: Implications for the design of learning materials. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 134, 53-69.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2007). Rhetorical moves in biochemistry research articles. Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure, 73-119.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2012). Facilitating scholarly publication: Genre characteristics of English research article Introductions and Methods. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 18(4), 5-19.
Kawase, T. (2015). Metadiscourse in the introductions of PhD theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 114-124.
Kazemi, M., Katiraei, S., & Rasekh, A. E. (2014). The impact of teaching lexical bundles on improving Iranian EFL students’ writing skill. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 864-869.
Khany, R., & Tazik, K. (2011). The Relationship between Rhetorical moves and Lexical Cohesion Patterns; the case of Introduction and Discussion sections of Local and International Research Articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 2(222), 71-95.
Le, T. N. P., & Harrington, M. (2015). Phraseology used to comment on results in the Discussion section of applied linguistics quantitative research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 39, 45-61.
Li, L. J., & Ge, G. C. (2009). Genre analysis: Structural and linguistic evolution of the English-medium medical research article (1985–2004). English for Specific Purposes, 28(2), 93-104.
Loi, C. K. (2010). Research article introductions in Chinese and English: A comparative genre-based study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(4), 267-279.
Loi, C. K., & Evans, M. S. (2010). Cultural differences in the organization of research article introductions from the field of educational psychology: English and Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10), 2814-2825.
Lorés, R. (2004). On RA abstracts: from rhetorical structure to thematic organisation. English for specific purposes, 23(3), 280-302.
Louvigné, S., Shi, J., & Sharmin, S. (2014, August). A corpus-based analysis of the scientific RA genre and RA introduction. In Advanced Mechatronic Systems (ICAMechS), 2014 International Conference on (pp. 123-127). IEEE.
Martín, P., & Pérez, I. K. L. (2014). Convincing peers of the value of one’s research: A genre analysis of rhetorical promotion in academic texts. English for Specific Purposes, 34, 1-13.
Mizumoto, A., Hamatani, S., & Imao, Y. (2017). Applying the Bundle–Move Connection Approach to the Development of an Online Writing Support Tool for Research Articles. Language Learning, 67(4), 885-921.
Moreno, A. I., & Swales, J. M. (2018). Strengthening move analysis methodology towards bridging the function-form gap. English for Specific Purposes, 50, 40-63.
Ngadiman, A. (2013). The lexical phrases employed in the thesis abstracts of English department students. Magister Scientiae, (33), 93-106.
Nimehchisalem, V., Tarvirdizadeh, Z., Paidary, S. S., & Hussin, N. I. S. B. M. (2016). Rhetorical Moves in Problem Statement Section of Iranian EFL Postgraduate Students' Theses. Advances in Language and literary Studies, 7(4), 173-180.
Niu, G. (2014). Structurally and functionally comparative analysis of lexical bundles in the English abstracts of Chinese and international journals. In Workshop on Chinese Lexical Semantics (pp. 349-357). Springer, Cham.
Niu, G. (2015). A Corpus-Based Analysis of Lexical Bundles in English Introductions of Chinese and International Students’ Theses. In Workshop on Chinese Lexical Semantics(pp. 486-493). Springer, Cham.
Samar, R. G., Talebzadeh, H., Kiany, G. R., & Akbari, R. (2014). Moves and steps to sell a paper: A cross-cultural genre analysis of applied linguistics conference abstracts. Text & Talk, 34(6), 759-785.
Samraj, B., & Monk, L. (2008). The statement of purpose in graduate program applications: Genre structure and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(2), 193-211.
Shamsudin, S., & Ebrahimi, S. J. (2013). Analysis of the moves of engineering lecture introductions. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1303-1311.
Sidek, H. M., Saad, N. S. M., Baharun, H., & Idris, M. M. (2016). An analysis of rhetorical moves in abstracts for conference proceedings. IJASOS-International E-journal of Advances in Social Sciences, 2(4), 24-31.
Soler-Monreal, C. (2015). Announcing one's work in PhD theses in computer science: A comparison of Move 3 in literature reviews written in English L1, English L2 and Spanish L1. English for Specific Purposes, 40, 27-41.
Soler-Monreal, C., Carbonell-Olivares, M., & Gil-Salom, L. (2011). A contrastive study of the rhetorical organisation of English and Spanish PhD thesis introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 30(1), 4-17.
Suryani, I., & Rahim, A. (2016). A genre analysis of the introduction section of computer science research articles by Malaysian researchers (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Utara Malaysia).
Tankó, G. (2017). Literary research article abstracts: An analysis of rhetorical moves and their linguistic realizations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 27, 42-55.
Tessuto, G. (2015). Generic structure and rhetorical moves in English-language empirical law research articles: Sites of interdisciplinary and interdiscursive cross-over. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 13-26.
Tománková, V. (2016). Lexical bundles in legal texts corpora–selection, classification and pedagogical implications. Discourse and interaction, 9(2), 75.
Wei, Y., & Lei, L. (2011). Lexical bundles in the academic writing of advanced Chinese EFL learners. RELC journal, 42(2), 155-166.
Wongwiwat, M.T. (2016). Move analysis and lexical bundle analysis of conference abstracts: A case study of Thailand TESOL international conferences (Doctoral dissertation, THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY).
Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied linguistics, 21(4), 463-489.
Zhang, X. A. (2010). Corpus-based Study on the Characteristics of Lexical Chunks Used by Chinese Advanced EFL learners. Foreign Language World, 140(5), 48-57.