Applied Linguistics 2022: XX/XX: 1–29

https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amac040

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac040/6759387 by Suzhou University user on 16 October 2022

Move–Bundle Connection in Conclusion
Sections of Research Articles Across
Disciplines
1
LIMING DENG AND 2,*JING LIU
1
Foreign Language Research Institute, School of Foreign Languages and Literature,
Wuhan University, China
2
School of Foreign Languages, Hubei University of Economics, Wuhan, China
*E-mail: jingyu1260@163.com
Address for correspondence: School of Foreign Languages, Hubei University of Economics,
Wuhan 430205, China. <jingyu1260@163.com>

This study explores how lexical bundles link smaller functional units (steps) in
research article (RA) conclusions in hard and soft science knowledge fields by
using corpus-based and corpus-driven approaches. RA conclusion corpora from
the hard and soft sciences were compiled and four-word lexical bundles were
extracted from each corpus. Conclusions containing lexical bundles were then
imported into the UAMCorpus tool for manual tagging of functions, structures,
moves, and steps associated with lexical bundles. It has been found that the
four-word bundles play an important role in realizing the communicative pur-
pose of the functional units in RA conclusions in both the hard and soft sciences.
The results demonstrate that the resultative lexical bundle (e.g. the findings of the)
is a strong indicator of the conclusions in both soft and hard sciences. Specific
bundle structures and functions are identified as signalling different steps of the
conclusions. The findings of this study add to the growing body of knowledge
regarding the bundle–move connections and contribute to the construction of
the RA conclusions in different disciplinary cultures.

INTRODUCTION
Since the early 1980s, due to the importance of research articles (RAs) attached
to scholarly communication, numerous studies have examined the linguistic
characteristics of RAs across disciplines (e.g. Swales 1981, 1990, 2004; Biber
et al. 1999; Hyland 2008a, b; Cortes 2013; Lu and Deng 2019; Li et al. 2020).
A good number of the studies have contributed to our understanding of the
linguistic realization of different RA sections, including abstracts (Omidian et
al. 2018), introductions (Swales 1981, 1990, 2004; Lu and Deng 2019), meth-
ods (Martı́nez 2003), results (Lim 2010) and discussions (Brett 1994). Swales’
(1990) Create-a-Research-Space (CARS) model has generated considerable
research concerning the introductions of RAs. However, relatively few studies

© The Author(s) (2022). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions,
please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
2 L. DENG AND J. LIU

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac040/6759387 by Suzhou University user on 16 October 2022

have explored the conclusions of RAs (e.g. Loi et al. 2016) despite their impor-
tance in the RAs.
The popular IMRD (Introduction–Method–Result–Discussion) model of
RAs that conflates conclusions and discussions has been challenged by ESP/
EAP scholars (Lin and Evans 2012; Loi et al. 2016; Sheldon 2018; Ye 2019).
According to Yang and Allison (2003), conclusions and discussions are not the
same. Lin and Evans (2012: 158) suggest that the IMRD structure is ‘by no
means the default option’ for RAs. In addition, Ye (2019) also points out that
the IMRD model cannot be generalized to all disciplines. Furthermore, previous
studies suggest that the two sections may serve different communicative func-
tions. Lin and Evans (2012: 151) hold that regarding the conclusion as a ‘variant
of the discussion section’ may undermine its precise communicative purposes.
Therefore, recent studies begin to explore the differences between conclusions
and discussions regards communicative purposes. In terms of the chief com-
municative purpose for the discussion section, studies demonstrate that writers
use discussions to achieve the purpose of justifying the findings. However, con-
clusions are constructed to present the contribution, new directions for future
research, and implications of the research findings (Yang and Allison 2003; Lin
and Evans 2012; Amnuai and Wannaruk 2013; Sheldon 2018).
Consequently, the typical IMRD structure has changed, with a ‘free-stand-
ing’ conclusion playing an important role in the macrostructure of RAs across
different disciplines (Tessuto 2015: 18), which corresponds to the ‘evolving and
dynamic nature’ of genres (Askehave and Swales 2001: 208). Ye (2019) discov-
ered that 86 per cent of RAs in her corpus chose the IM[RD]C macrostructure
in engineering. Tessuto (2015) states that Abstract–Introduction–-Background
review–Method–Result–Discussion–Conclusion (A-I-BR-M-R-D-C) is a typical
structure for constructing text relating to research in law. Further, when com-
paring the RA macrostructure in engineering, applied sciences, social sciences,
and the humanities, Lin and Evans (2012) found that the most frequently
used pattern in those disciplines is Introduction–Literature Review–-Method–-
Results and Discussion–Conclusion (ILM[RD]C). The findings of these studies
help justify the necessity and the importance of the conclusions in RAs across
disciplines.
Several recent studies (e.g. Loi et al. 2016; Sheldon 2018; Liu and Xiao 2022)
have shed light on the significance of exploring the linguistic features in conclu-
sions. Within a genre analysis framework (Swales 1990, 2004), Loi et al. (2016)
apply appraisal theory (Martin and Rose 2003) to explore the functions of eval-
uative stance in RA conclusions with a particular focus on lexical choice in dif-
ferent steps or moves in the conclusion. They hold that the functional categories
such as evaluative stance (e.g. ‘further’ in ‘limited further’) (p. 9) help ‘produce the
rhetorical effects’ (p.12) in RA conclusions. They also find that English conclu-
sions contain many low force graduations (e.g. ‘only’) in the move of ‘indicating
a limitation’ of the study. Sheldon (2018) extends earlier research by including
writers from different language backgrounds to examine the variation in the
 MOVE-BUNDLE CONNECTION IN CONCLUSION SECTIONS ACROSS
DISCIPLINES 3

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac040/6759387 by Suzhou University user on 16 October 2022

use of evaluative language across different moves of conclusions. According to
her research, writers frequently employ modal auxiliaries such as ‘will’, ‘can’,
and ‘would’ in Move 3 (further research suggested) of conclusions to negotiate
with readers (p. 33). The results of her study demonstrate that writers have a
‘purposefully defined range of textual choices at their disposal’ (p. 23) in each
move of RA conclusions.
The above two studies of identifying linguistic features across moves/steps
of RA conclusions are part of a growing research tradition focusing on the
use of multi-word sequences in RA sections in recent decades (Swales 1981;
Kanoksilapatham 2003; Csomay 2005; Biber et al. 2007; Cortes 2013; Omidian
et al. 2018; Li et al. 2020). Swales (1981) provides a list of expressions that can
locate a specific move and step in introductions, which serves as a guide to
more recent studies. Swales (2004: 228–229) regards the move as a ‘rhetorical
unit that performs a coherent communicative function’. A move can be fur-
ther divided into specific functional steps (Cotos et al. 2015). The findings from
investigating move-linguistic feature connections in the previous research are
beneficial not only for developing the ‘move-schema theory’ (Cortes 2013) but
also for illuminating EAP pedagogy.
Looking at the linguistic features and functional categories in parts of a RA,
variation in these categories across disciplines has also attracted wide attention
(Hyland 2004, 2008a, b; Hyland and Tse 2005; Durrant 2017). Writers from dif-
ferent disciplines may vary in using linguistic features and rhetorical patterns in
RAs. Hyland (2008a: 20) points out that ‘writers in different fields draw on dif-
ferent resources to develop their arguments, establish their credibility, and per-
suade their reader’. Based on Hyland’s observation, research-oriented bundles
(e.g. the use of the) were more frequently used in the hard sciences than in the
soft sciences. Durrant (2017) explores disciplinary variations in using bundles
and claims that language practitioners and researchers should develop a strong
understanding of the nature of disciplinary variation. Wood and Appel (2014)
identify that bundles are discipline-bound. However, little is known about how
disciplines vary in move–bundle connections in the conclusions. Given the crit-
ical communicative purposes of conclusions and the limited literature found on
linking linguistic characteristics to discourse structures in the conclusions, this
study aims to investigate how writers employ four-word bundles in moves and
steps of the conclusions across disciplines. The bundles were analysed based on
Swales’ (1990, 2004) CARS model to examine the bundle–move/step connec-
tion in the RA conclusions.

ALIGNING LEXICAL BUNDLES WITH MOVES AND STEPS

Biber et al. (1999: 990) define lexical bundles (LBs) as ‘recurrent expressions,
regardless of their idiomaticity, and their structural status,’ considering them as
‘building blocks’ of discourse. Biber et al. (2013) and Cortes (2004) argue that
learning the discourse conventions of advanced academic writing, including
4 L. DENG AND J. LIU

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac040/6759387 by Suzhou University user on 16 October 2022

the appropriate use of bundles, seems necessary to all novice writers. Cortes
(2013) further explains that identifying bundles in the rhetorical move of
introductions and other sections would help obtain expressions that trigger or
initiate moves.
Studies have investigated the lexical items that are considered as markers for
moves/steps in academic genres (e.g. Swales 1981, 1990; Henry and Rosenberry
2001; Kanoksilpatham 2007; Durrant and Mathews-Aydinli 2011; Cortes 2013;
Omidian et al. 2018; Li et al. 2020). Particular functional and semantic purposes
of the text are realized through various linguistic features (Kanoksilpatham
2007). Also, a strong relationship has been identified between bundle functions
and communicative functions presented by discourse structure (Csomay 2013).
Swales (1981, 1990) initiated the studies on linking lexical items to moves/steps
and the purpose of this paper would be the possible expression to mark Move 3
(introducing the present work) in the RA introductions. By following Swales’
work, Henry and Rosenberry (2001) examined linguistic markers of move
boundaries in the genre Letter of Application, shedding light on linking linguis-
tic characteristics with moves in this ESP area. Durrant and Mathews-Aydinli
(2011: 63) employed a function-first approach to investigate formulaicity in
the ‘indicating structure’ step of students’ essay introductions and published
RAs. Their findings suggest that lexical formulaicity appears mostly in papers
written by advanced English writers. Based on previous research, Cortes (2013)
discussed possible connections between bundles and moves. She adopted the
terms ‘trigger’ and ‘complement’ to link the bundles to moves and suggested
further studies for the bundle–move connection in other sections of RAs across
disciplines. Her study provides the motivation and a valuable direction for
examining the bundle–move connection in the current study. Research that
explores bundle–move studies in the academic genre is inspiring. However, very
few of the previous studies have researched the bundle–step connection and
even fewer have paid attention to move-specific or step-specific bundles in RA
conclusions.
In a recent study, Omidian et al. (2018) explored LBs by relating them to the
move structures of research abstracts across disciplines. Li et al. (2020) exam-
ined the sentence-initial LBs in PhD abstracts and found that almost all bundles
serve as indicators of moves. Previous studies thus strongly suggest that bundles
can help realize the communicative purposes of a particular move and influ-
ence the overall rhetorical framing of RAs. Therefore, this study sets the goal to
examine bundles in each step of the conclusion section in an attempt to fill in
this gap and contribute to the existing literature. Specifically, we aim to address
the research questions as follows:
1. What are the distribution patterns of lexical bundles in moves in the conclu-
sion sections of hard and soft disciplines?
2. What are the disciplinary variations of lexical bundle use within moves and
steps in the conclusion sections in terms of functional and structural distri-
bution?
 MOVE-BUNDLE CONNECTION IN CONCLUSION SECTIONS ACROSS
DISCIPLINES 5

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac040/6759387 by Suzhou University user on 16 October 2022

METHODOLOGY
This study employed both corpus-driven and corpus-based research methods.
LBs were extracted by a corpus-driven method, followed by a corpus-based
approach using the UAMCorpus tool to manually analyse the tagged bundles
for their functions, structures, and roles in functional units.
In this study, we selected texts from hard sciences and soft sciences to investi-
gate bundle distribution within moves and steps. By referring to previous taxon-
omies (Biglan 1973a; Hyland 2004; Belcher and Trowler 2006), we established
the corpus using the broad term ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ knowledge, as described by
Hyland (2004), who regarded the sciences and engineering as hard knowledge,
and the social sciences and humanities as soft knowledge.
Given that no representative corpus is available for analysing the conclusion
sections in RAs, we therefore designed our own corpus. The journals included
in the corpus are international peer-reviewed journals indexed in either the
SSCI (Social Sciences Citation Index) or SCI (Science Citation Index) databases.
Additionally, we consulted the JCR reports of 2017 published by ClarivateTM.
Articles in the journals selected should have independent conclusion sec-
tions and include introductions, methodology, results, and discussion sections.
Therefore, we went to the JCR website, chose the categories/field, and then
chose SSCI or SCI indexed journals, the website generated the list of journals
according to the impact factors. For example, in the field of Linguisitics, we
chose the field ‘Linguistics’ under the category of ‘Literature & Language’, and
then clicked SSCI database. The top five journals generated according to the
impact factors of 2017 are Annual Review of Applied linguistics (4.880, Q1), Journal
of Second Language Writing (3.324, Q1), Applied Linguistics (3.225, Q1), Brain and
Language (2.851, Q1), and Journal of Memory and Language (2.829, Q1). Then we
started checking the journals according to the list and downloaded the arti-
cles that include all the five sections. Finally, we chose the following four jour-
nals in the field of linguistics: Journal of Second Language Writing (3.324), Applied
Linguistics (3.225), Brain and Language (2.851), and System (1.547). Articles selected
were published between 2007 and 2018. For some journals, we can only down-
load full articles back till the year 2007 due to the limited library digital open
resources access. At last, 31 journals from six fields were incorporated into our
corpus and the journal list is presented in Appendix 1.
In selecting the RA conclusions, we only chose the conclusion section with
the conventional functional heading of ‘Conclusion’. Articles with the last sec-
tion labelled as ‘Discussion and Conclusion’ were excluded from the corpus. The
final corpora consist of biology, physics, and engineering disciplines from the
hard sciences, and linguistics, sociology, and education from the soft sciences.
We finally included 500 texts in each discipline as shown in Table 1.
All articles were saved in a.pdf format and converted to a.txt format. The
conclusion sections were extracted to be saved independently. Each text was
named to contain discipline information, the publishing year, the name of the
journal, and a serial number. For example, ConL_HS_2007BioS_001 refers to the
6 L. DENG AND J. LIU

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac040/6759387 by Suzhou University user on 16 October 2022

Table 1: Corpus description of CCHS and CCSS
Corpus Disciplines Texts Words
Conclusion Corpus of Soft Science (CCSS) Applied linguistics 500 163,102
Sociology 500 199,575
Education 500 173,457
Sub-Total 1,500 536,134
Conclusion Corpus of Hard Science (CCHS) Biology 500 86,316
Engineering 500 160,834
Physics 500 97,989
Sub-total 1,500 345,139
Total 3,000 881,273

conclusion from the hard sciences published in the journal Biosystem in 2007.
The Sublime Text software was used to check the spellings, collapse broken sen-
tences, and find non-ASCII characters. The hard science conclusion corpus
(CCHS) contains 1,500 texts and 345,139 word tokens. The soft science conclu-
sion corpus (CCSS) includes 1,500 texts and 536,134 word tokens.

Identifying bundles and tagging moves/steps

We decided to look at four-word bundles by using Antconc 3.5.8 (Anthony
2019) as they are more common and can present a ‘wider range of structures
and functions than three-word bundles’ (Hyland 2008b: 44).
The thresholds previously used typically range from 20 occurrences per mil-
lion words (pmw) to 40 pmw. A relatively conservative cut-off point of 25
pmw was preferred for the current study (c.f. Chen and Baker 2010, Ädel and
Erman 2012). Since the two sub-corpora differ in size, the standardized cut-off
point was equivalent to a raw frequency of 9 (25 × 345,139/1,000,000 ≈ 9) in
CCHS and 13 (25 × 536,134/1,000,000≈ 13) in CCSSi1. The dispersion rate is
set to help ‘adjust for the differences in the representation of the sub-corpora’
(Biber and Barbieri 2007: 268). The cut-off point for range (the number of
texts in which a bundle has to occur) was kept at five or more texts for the two
corpora.
In the lists of bundles generated by Antconc 3.5.8 (Anthony 2019), we chose
to exclude the context-dependent bundles (e.g. in the United States) and con-
tent-dependent phrases (e.g. in vivo and vitro), which bears limited discourse
function (Chen and Baker 2010; Huang 2015). Word combinations interrupted
by comma and dash (e.g. in this paper, I) were not included (Biber et al. 1999).
As overlapping word sequences could inflate quantitative results, we excluded
the case of complete subsumption (c.f. Chen and Baker 2010). For example,
concordance analyses presented that all instances of would be interesting to follow
it; therefore, we subsumed the lower frequency bundles would be interesting to
under the higher frequency ones it would be interesting.
 MOVE-BUNDLE CONNECTION IN CONCLUSION SECTIONS ACROSS
DISCIPLINES 7

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac040/6759387 by Suzhou University user on 16 October 2022

Table 2: Functional categories of lexical bundle
Functional category
Research-oriented: help struc-
ture writers’ activities and
experiences of the real world
Text-oriented: help writers
organize the text and how the
meaning of its elements relates
to each other
Stance-oriented: help convey
writers’ attitude towards a
statement and help engage with
readers
Sub-categories
Location: indicating time and place (at the same
time)
Procedure: indicating how and why something is
done (the use of the)
Quantification: indicating the quantity/extent of
something (a wide range of)
Description: indicating the physical properties of
something (the size of the)
Intangible Framing: indicating an abstract property
of something (the nature of the)
Transition signals: indicating relations of addition,
contrast, or equivalence between elements (on the
other hand)
Resultative signals: indicating inferential or causa-
tive relations between elements
(as a result of)
Structuring signals: indicating stretches of dis-
course or referring readers to other
parts of the text (in the present study)
Framing signals: indicating statements within a
context or specifying their scope (on the basis of)
Stance signals: indicating writers’ attitude and
engagement with readers (it is possible that)

Adapted from Biber et al. (2004), Durrant (2017), and Hyland (2008a, b)

Hyland’s (2008a, b) classification was chosen as a basis for the functional

categorization of bundles (Table 2). Intangible framing was added into the
research-oriented category following Biber et al. (2004). As in Durrant (2017),
stance bundles were promoted to a major heading.
The final structural classification of bundles is shown in Table 3 by referring
to the studies by Biber et al. (2004) and Lu and Deng (2019). Swales’ (1990)
‘move-step’ analysis was employed as the basic framework for coding bundles.
Loi et al.’s (2016) move structure for the conclusions was also referred to. The
final framework is shown in Table 4.
As Cortes (2013: 37) claims, ‘it was not necessary to use a corpus tagged for
moves as there were many moves in the corpus that did not use lexical bun-
dles’. Therefore, we focused on the moves or steps in which the bundles appear
in the present study.

Tagging bundles with moves and steps

After identifying the bundles, we imported conclusion texts that contained bun-
dles from CCSS and CCHS into UAMCorpus Tool 3.3v (O’Donnell 2019) for
8 L. DENG AND J. LIU

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac040/6759387 by Suzhou University user on 16 October 2022

Table 3: Structural classification of lexical bundles
Bundle Structure Example
structure
NP-based Noun phrase+ of-phrase fragment a wide range of
Noun phrase + other post-modifier the ways in which
fragment
That + Noun phrase fragment that the proposed method
PP-based Preposition with embedded of-phrase In the case of
fragment
Other preposition phrase for the first time
VP-based PP with infinitive phrase in order to achieve
Copula be + noun/adjective is one of the
PP+ NP+ Copula be of this study was
VP with infinitive phrase more likely to be
VP with active verbs improve the performance
of
PP + VP+ active verbs of this study suggest
Clause-based NP + active verb/modal verb results show that the
NP+ passive verb the results obtained from
Active verb + that have shown that the
That + passive verb that can be used
1st personal pronoun/demonstrative we were able to
pronoun + copula be +adj.
1st personal pronoun+ active verb+ that we have shown that
Anticipatory it +copula be + adj.(+that) it is possible to
Anticipatory it+ passive verb(+that) It should be noted
Anticipatory it + modal verb it may be that
Passive verb + to-infinitive was found that the
NP + copula be the proposed method is
There be+… there is a need
That there be that there is a
Conjunctions as well as the

functional, structural, and move/step coding. Altogether 1,009 conclusion texts

from CCHS and 1,177 texts from CCSS were submitted for manual coding. To
ensure the reliability of the results, the authors first analysed 10 sample texts
to familiarize themselves with the analytical framework, then independently
identified 10 per cent texts from CCHS and CCSS, respectively.
Inter-coder reliability was calculated using Cohen’s Kappa in SPSS 25.0 (for
MAC) for functions, structures, and moves and steps. The final scores for inter-
rater reliability are 0.94 for coding bundle structures, 0.816 for bundle moves,
and 0.876 for bundle functions, indicating the near-perfect agreements between
the two coders.
 MOVE-BUNDLE CONNECTION IN CONCLUSION SECTIONS ACROSS
DISCIPLINES 9

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac040/6759387 by Suzhou University user on 16 October 2022

Table 4: Moves and Steps in the Conclusion Section of the Research Article.
Adapted from Loi et al. (2016)
Moves
Move 1: Summarizing the study
Move 2: Evaluating the study
Move 3: Deductions from the research
Steps
Step 1: Presenting overall findings
Step 2: Making reference to past studies
Step 3: Making reference to issues related
Step 4: Reiterating the objective/focus of the study
Step 5: Describing research procedure/methodology
Step 6: Indicating the research gap
Step 7: Explaining the findings
Step 1: Indicating the significance of the study
Step 2: Indicating the limitations of the study
Step 3: Evaluating the methodology
Step 4: Providing a counterclaim
Step 1: Recommending future research
Step 2: Drawing pedagogical implications
Step 3: Drawing empirical/theoretical implications

Paul Rayson’s log-likelihood tests which can be retrieved at http://ucrel.lancs.

ac.uk/llwizard.html were employed (e.g. Cortes 2013) to examine the variation
of bundle distribution in steps between CCHS and CCSS. In the tests, LL = 3.84
means p < 0.05; LL = 6.63 means p < 0.01; LL = 10.83 means p < 0.001; LL =
15.31 means p < 0.0001.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Overall distribution pattern of lexical bundle in CCSS and CCHS
One hundred and fifty-five bundle types and 3,990 bundle tokens in CCSS and
158 bundle types and 2,518 bundle tokens in CCHS were detected. Significant
disciplinary differences were found regarding the distribution of bundle types
(LL = 16.41*, p < 0.00) in conclusions. The type/token ratios illustrate that hard
science writers (6 per cent) adopt a broader set of bundles than soft science writ-
ers (3.8 per cent). A list of LBs in each step is presented in Appendix 2.
The overall distribution pattern of bundles in moves and steps across disci-
plines is shown in Table 5, in response to Research Question #1. Overall, bundles
were found to occur more frequently in Move 1. Specifically, most bundles were
used in M1S1 in both corpora as the core and conventional move in conclusions
summarizes the general findings of the study (Swales 1990, 2004; Posteguillo
1999; Yang and Allison 2003; Sheldon 2018).
The results show that soft science conclusion writers use more bundle tokens
in M2S1 than their counterparts. It is also been reported in the literature that
soft science researchers often lack agreement in terms of goals and methods
10 L. DENG AND J. LIU

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac040/6759387 by Suzhou University user on 16 October 2022

Table 5: Types and Token distribution of lexical bundles across Move 1, Move 2
and Move 3
Moves Steps Types Tokens Percentage LL
CCSS CCHS CCSS CCHS CCSS CCHS
Move 1 S1 Summa- 140 143 1336 1029+ 33.48% 40.86% 18.53*
Presenting rizing overall
the overall findings
findings S2 Making 69 27 145+ 29 3.63% 1.15% 41.70*
reference to past
studies
S3 Making ref- 56 71 94+ 51 2.36% 2.03% 0.98
erence to issues
related
S4 Reiterating 53 55 147 156+ 3.68% 6.20% 18.81*
the objective
S5 Describing 30 69 50 175+ 1.25% 6.95% 139.43*
the research
procedure
S6 Indicating 8 3 9+ 3 0.23% 0.12% 1.07
the research gap
S7 Explaining 102 81 375+ 212 9.40% 8.42% 2.31
the findings
Sub-Total 2156 1655+ 54.04% 65.73% 28.74*
Move 2 S1 Indicating 81 55 316+ 133 7.92% 5.28% 17.80*
Evaluating significance/
the study advantage
S2 Indicating 97 34 331+ 51 8.29% 2.03% 124.37*
limitations
S3 Evaluating 12 51 14 81+ 0.35% 3.22% 86.34*
methodology
S4 Providing a 58 22 83+ 24 2.08% 0.95% 13.58*
counterclaim
Sub-Total 744+ 289 18.64% 11.48% 56.75*
Move 3 S1 Recom- 116 74 570+ 201 14.29% 7.98% 58.62*
Deductions mending fur-
from the ther research
study S2 Drawing 79 - 197+ - 4.94% - -
pedagogical
implication
S3 Drawing 109 97 323 373+ 8.09% 14.81% 59.10*
empirical impli-
cation
Sub-Total 1090+ 574 27.32% 22.79% 15.47*
Total 3990 2518 100% 100% .61

(Note: * indicate significant differences and p<0.05; + indicate ‘overuse’ of bundles)

(Biglan 1973b), thus requiring the introduction of the research importance in

each piece of writing (Hyland 2004).
The findings of the study also suggest that soft science writers usually use
bundles (e.g. ‘More research is needed’) to directly point out future research
 MOVE-BUNDLE CONNECTION IN CONCLUSION SECTIONS ACROSS
DISCIPLINES 11

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac040/6759387 by Suzhou University user on 16 October 2022

(M3S1) (Example 1) at the beginning of the step, which, to some extent, shows
the writer’s conviction and assurance of the future research. However, the
judgement of future paths is introduced by using hedges (e.g. it is expected that)
(Example 2) in the hard fields. The finding indicates that writers in hard science
may avoid direct assertiveness of the argument, especially when they are direct-
ing the future that is still uncertain.

1) More research is needed to uncover the beliefs motivating employ-

ers’ attitudes and the actual experiences of NNES teachers... (ConL.
SS_2007Sys._004).
2) …it is expected that the multi-armed bandit problem substantially dif-
fers from the multi-bandit problem. The investigation of the…differences
between the parallel and… will be an interesting subject in our future
studies (ConL.HS_2010BioS_0010).

Regarding the grammatical patterns, conclusions in both corpora prefer

using phrasal bundles, with 60.87 per cent used in CCSS and 51. 41 per
cent in CCHS (Figure 1). This finding demonstrates that academic writing
relies heavily on noun and prepositional phrases (Biber et al. 2004; Pan et
al. 2016).
However, hard science writers use more VP-based and Clause-based bundles.
Specifically, bundle structures such as active verb + that clause (Example 3), that
+ passive verb, and passive verb+ that/to-infinitive (Example 4) are absent in CCSS.
While the existential bundle structure there + be bundle is only used in CCSS
to ‘build interaction with readers and claim credit for their ideas’ (Jiang and
Hyland 2020: 13).

Figure 1: Token distribution of bundle structures in CCSS and CCHS.

12 L. DENG AND J. LIU

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac040/6759387 by Suzhou University user on 16 October 2022

3) In conclusion, we have shown that the spide C. salei expresses three iso-
forms of… (ConL.HS_2010CLMD_002).
4) This work opens the door for further investigations on how nature-based
methods can be used to solve complex problems. (ConL.HS_2008AI_004).

First-person pronouns bundles were employed in conclusions in both science fields

(Example 5), indicating a trend of adding informal elements to academic writing
(Hyland and Jiang 2017). According to Biber and Gray (2016: 33), also note
that academic writing has evolved to incorporate ‘colloquial features’ in recent
years, in particular ‘first-person pronouns, contractions, and semi-modals.’

5) We believe that the proposed approach to classifier can be widely adopted

in the sequence-based prediction of…(HS_2009BioS_005).

As shown in Figure 2, the functional distribution of LBs in conclusions indicates

that text-oriented bundles are most prevalent. Specifically, the resultative bundles
in the conclusions are 26.69 per cent in CCSS and 23.11 per cent in CCHS, respec-
tively. The most frequently used resultative bundle is the results of this (120 times/
pmw) in the soft sciences and the results of the (35 times/pmw) in the hard sciences.
Soft science writers prefer to use stance-oriented bundles, whereas hard sci-
ence writers tend to use research-oriented bundles in general, especially pro-
cedure bundles, in order to emphasize the ‘research practices and the methods,
procedures, and equipment used’ (Hyland 2008a: 15).
In the following section, we demonstrate the disciplinary variation of bundles
used in the steps and moves of conclusions to address Research Question #2.

Lexical bundles in moves and steps

Move 1: Presenting the overall findings Conclusions in both fields employ a wide
range of NP- and PP-based bundles that incorporate noun phrase fragments

Figure 2: Token distribution of bundle functions in CCSS and CCHS.

 MOVE-BUNDLE CONNECTION IN CONCLUSION SECTIONS ACROSS
DISCIPLINES 13

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac040/6759387 by Suzhou University user on 16 October 2022

(Table 6). These results are consistent with Biber et al.’s (2004: 382) study, which
claimed that nearly ‘70 percent of the common bundles in academic prose incor-
porate noun phrase expressions’. The hard science writers use twice as many
clausal bundles (tokens) as their counterparts in M1S1. These clausal bundles
were found to trigger the M1S1 of conclusions.
The functional distribution in Move 1 (Table 7) shows that conclusion writ-
ers from both science fields possess a large inventory of text-oriented bundles
to summarize the findings (M1S1), suggesting the discursive patterns of argu-
ments (Hyland 2008a) in conclusion writing. Discussion of the bundle–step
connection is conducted in M1S1 and M1S5.

M1S1: Summarizing the overall findings As shown in Table 6, the M1S1 of con-
clusions in both corpora is characterized by a heavy reliance on NP-based and
PP-based bundles, reflecting the highly informational condensed nature of jour-
nal articles (Gray 2015). Particularly, soft science conclusions utilize noun phrases
with embedded of bundles more frequently (LL = 22.78, p < 0.00) in Step 1. On
the other hand, VP-based and Clause-based bundles (Example 6) tend to be the
major indicators of M1S1 in the soft science conclusions. Clausal bundles are
frequently used in Step 1 (62.5 per cent) by hard science writers. Furthermore,
VP + passive verb (Example 7) and it + passive verb bundles were used to signal
M1S1 in hard science conclusions.

6) These findings suggest that the RAP not only has utility with Black youth
and adults, but with White youth…as well. (ConL.SS_2012RSP_003)
7) It can be concluded that this catalyst prepared via the CVAP technique
is assumed to be a promising ORR catalyst…(ConL.HS_2015ASS_0026)
(M1S1)

Moreover, writers from both science fields prefer using noun phrase + active verb
to trigger M1S1 in conclusions. The results indicate that 86.69 per cent of bun-
dle tokens in the noun phrase+ active verbs structure incorporate the verbs ‘suggest’
and ‘indicate’ in M1S1 by soft science writers, whereas 62.34 per cent of the
bundles in this structure incorporate the verb ‘show’ by hard science writers. The
use of ‘research’ verbs (e.g. show) in Example 8 from CCHS reflects the ‘scien-
tific ideology’ that regards ‘laboratory activity’ as ‘impersonal, cumulative, and
inductive’ in hard disciplines, which is in contrast to the interpretive operations
found in soft knowledge fields (Example 6) (Hyland 2004: 38).

8) …our results show that the traditional models have lower predictive capac-
ity than the machine learning models (ConL.HS_2017ESA_0031) (M1S1).

First-person pronoun + active verb/+that bundles appear more frequently in CCHS.

Among the total 81 First-person pronoun +active verb bundle tokens (four types)
are used in the hard sciences, 53 bundle tokens are used in M1S1, whereas, soft
 14
L. DENG AND J. LIU

Table 6: Distribution pattern of bundle structure across seven steps of Move 1

M1S1 M1S2 M1S3 M1S4 M1S5 M1S6 M1S7
CCSS CCHS CCSS CCHS CCSS CCHS CCSS CCHS CCSS CCHS CCSS CCHS CCSS CCHS
NP-based 11.53% 7.5% 1.65% 0.28% 0.68% 0.56% 0.91% 1.35% 0.65% 3.38% 0.03% 0.04% 2.24% 2.62%
PP-based 8.77% 11.6% 1.83% 0.40% 1.09% 0.71% 1.65% 2.34% 0.56% 2.30% 0.15% 0.00% 4.25% 3.14%
VP-based 5.24% 4.9% 0.56% 0.20% 0.68% 0.60% 0.94% 1.43% 0.03% 0.48% 0.00% 0.00% 2.27% 1.67%
Clause-based 7.32% 15.1% 0.15% 0.16% 0.21% 0.08% 0.74% 0.83% 0.12% 0.52% 0.06% 0.04% 2.12% 0.71%
Conjunctions 0.63% 1.7% 0.09% 0.12% 0.12% 0.08% 0.09% 0.24% 0.12% 0.28% 0.03% 0.04% 0.18% 0.28%

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac040/6759387 by Suzhou University user on 16 October 2022

 MOVE-BUNDLE CONNECTION IN CONCLUSION SECTIONS ACROSS
DISCIPLINES 15

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac040/6759387 by Suzhou University user on 16 October 2022

Table 7: Distribution pattern of bundle function across seven steps of Move 1
Text-oriented Research-oriented Stance-oriented
CCSS CCHS CCSS CCHS CCSS CCHS
M1S1 23.93% 29.19% 3.91% 8.62% 5.64% 3.06%
M1S2 2.26% 0.75% 0.88% 0.36% 0.50% 0.04%
M1S3 1.08% 0.60% 0.43% 1.03% 0.85% 0.40%
M1S4 2.41% 3.14% 0.98% 2.26% 0.30% 0.79%
M1S5 0.65% 2.70% 0.48% 3.81% 0.13% 0.44%
M1S6 0.08% 0.04% 0.10% 0.04% 0.05% 0.04%
M1S7 3.61% 4.01% 1.83% 3.10% 3.96% 1.31%

science writers use only 2 tokens in M1S1 out of the total 14 bundle tokens in
the conclusions. The results suggest that hard science writers intend to present
themselves as researchers and promoters of their study.
First-person pronoun + active verb bundles are usually (Example 9) used to sig-
nal M1S1 in the hard science conclusions. Hyland (2002: 1104) notes that using
first-person pronouns would help readers establish a personal authority based on
the confidence and command of their arguments, therefore, creating a plausible
interpretation of the findings.

9) We found that the most influencing bond is the Cenp-W-H3 interaction

(ConL.HS_2015BioS_001) (M1S1)

In M1S1, resultative bundles are found to take up 45.99 per cent and 42.37 per
cent in soft and hard science conclusions, respectively, indicating that the com-
municative function of drawing primary findings from research (Hyland 2008a)
can be realized by using resultative bundles in different disciplines.
It is suggested that ‘knowledge in the hard sciences is mainly achieved
through the correct use of prescribed procedures, and nature reveals itself
directly through the scientific method’ (Hyland 1999: 355). It may be for this
reason that hard science writers use more procedure and location bundles in
M1S1 to specify the research procedures by describing the instruments used
(Example 10) and the properties of the objects investigated (Example 11).

10) Further, it is noted that with the use of the feature selection, the classifica-
tion performance improved for all TPMs with a smaller number of features
(ConL.HS_2015ESA_0023) (M1S1).
11) For un-doped TiO2 thin films, the nanoparticles reveal a polyhedral struc-
ture, and the surface of the polyhedron was level and smooth (ConL.
HS_2014ASS_002) (M1S1).

Additionally, most of the stance bundles used in soft science conclusions in

M1S1 are based on the bigram ‘likely to’ to present the research outcomes. In
16 L. DENG AND J. LIU

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac040/6759387 by Suzhou University user on 16 October 2022

Example 12, it is demonstrated that soft science writers use a less assertive tone,
indicating the intention to avoid generalizations when summarizing the find-
ings (Omidian et al. 2018). In this case, hedges are used to help soft science writ-
ers avoid complete commitment to the proposition (Hyland 2008a). As opposed
to hedging their tone with stance bundles, hard science writers use stance bun-
dles to show confidence when presenting findings (Example 13).

12) Together with the finding that own-account knowledge workers are more
likely to be satisfied with their jobs than the permanent workers … (ConL.
SS_2016SIR_0024) (M1S1).
13) In this report, we show for the first time that this posttranslational
modification is also present in human embryonic stem cells… (ConL.
HS_2014SCR_0022) (M1S1).

M1S5: Describing the research procedure/method Table 6 illustrates that hard science
conclusions employ more bundle tokens in M1S5. Writers from both science
fields are found to rely on NP- and PP-based bundles to describe the research
procedures with hard science writers using slightly more NP + of and PP + of
bundles (Examples 14 and 15) in M1S5.

14) The performance of the proposed method is then compared with PSO ...
based methods (ConL.HS_2016ESA_0016) (M1S5).
15) Hence the proposed technique was tested in the presence of noise cor-
rupted signals as it was illustrated in…(ConL.HS_2016AI_002) (M1S5).

Hyland (2008a) also found that bundles used to describe research objects or
contexts were typically realized by NP + of structure. Furthermore, the incor-
poration of nouns in bundles can contribute to the informational purpose of
academic writing (Biber 1988) in the hard sciences. It has also been found that
NP- and PP-based bundles serve more often as lexical complements to M1S5
than as triggers to M1S1 in the hard sciences.
Disciplinary variations are found in employing structuring bundles (LL =
17.45, p < 0.00), location bundles, and intangible framing bundles in M1S5.
Framing bundles such as on the basis of (Example 16) and is based on the are
used distinctively by hard science writers to introduce the steps/instruments
employed. Soft science writers often use within the context of to refer to the gen-
eral framework applied in the study (Example 17).

16) In the next step, by using hybrid feature selection algorithm on the basis
of 9 different filter algorithms and function-based clustering method…
(ConL.HS_2015ESA_003) (M1S5).
17) Within the context of expanded econometric framework, a wide range of
variables are considered (ConL.SS_2013HE_004) (M1S5).
 MOVE-BUNDLE CONNECTION IN CONCLUSION SECTIONS ACROSS
DISCIPLINES 17

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac040/6759387 by Suzhou University user on 16 October 2022

The examples above show that hard science conclusion writers emphasize the
exact instruments used, whereas soft science conclusion writers adopt a general
statement that allows flexibility in interpreting the framework.
In indicating the abstract concept of the object, hard science writers employ
intangible bundles in the * of the, with the slot filled by nouns such as effectiveness,
robustness, accuracy, effect, efficiency, which are often used as the pre-modifiers of
the research instruments (e.g. crossover operator; the algorithm in Example 18)
employed in the research.

18) Therefore, we tested the influence of the crossover operator on effec-

tiveness of the algorithm in the problem of optimization… (ConL.
HS_2016BioS_0019) (M1S5).

In general, soft science writers use more NP + active verbs in M1S1, whereas hard
science writers prefer anticipatory it + passive verbs bundles, suggesting an objec-
tive and ‘impersonal way’ of communicating research findings across differ-
ent science fields (Li et al. 2020: 95). Moreover, intangible framing bundles are
found to be closely associated with M1S5 in hard science conclusions to modify
the abstract properties of the instruments.

Move 2: Evaluating the study

Significant disciplinary variations are found in using NP-based and VP-based bun-
dle structures in Move 2 as shown in Figure 3. The text-oriented bundles are

Figure 3: Distribution pattern of bundle structure in Move 2.

18 L. DENG AND J. LIU

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac040/6759387 by Suzhou University user on 16 October 2022

Figure 4: Distribution pattern of bundle function in Move 2.

also favoured by the writers in both science fields; however, stance bundles are
used more frequently in M2S1 than in other moves and steps (Figure 4). The
following sections discuss the bundle–move connection in M2S1 and M2S2 in
greater detail.

M2S1: Indicating significance/advantage of the study It is found that both the VP +

active verb (Example 19) and the NP + active verb bundle structures are closely
associated with M2S1 of soft science conclusions, suggesting an active tone in
communicating the significance of the study. In hard science conclusions, trig-
gering bundles may signal the beginning of M2S1, for instance, the main contri-
butions of in Example 20.

19) This study contributes to the literature on L2 writing assessment in a num-

ber of ways (ConL.SS_2014JSLW_008) (M2S1).
20) The main contributions of the work are the proposed use of a new dis-
tance function for clustering…(ConL.HS_2015ESA_0017) (M2S1)

Resultative bundles in M2S1 are used together with verb phrases can contribute,
may serve, and provide to indicate the contribution and the value of the research
in soft science conclusions (Example 21).

21) The findings of this study can contribute to the discussions around pro-
fessional identity formation (ConL.SS_2009TTE_009) (M2S1).

Distinctive stance bundles are found in M2S1 in the two clusters. For example,
for the first time and to the best of are distinctively adopted and used together in
 MOVE-BUNDLE CONNECTION IN CONCLUSION SECTIONS ACROSS
DISCIPLINES 19

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac040/6759387 by Suzhou University user on 16 October 2022

CCHS to signal M2S1 (Example 23), while soft science writers prefer using this
study contributes to (the) to trigger M2S1.

22) This paper shows for the first time the hierarchy of different stimuli, as well
as the combined effect of … on stimuli type (ConL.HS_2014BioS_006)
(M2S1).
23) In addition, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first report show-
ing the effect(s) of AMPs on the membrane permeability (ConL.
HS_2013CLMS_005) (M2S1).

According to the examples above, writers from both fields use the evaluative
adjective ‘first’ to emphasize the uniqueness and the significance of their contri-
bution. By adding the word ‘first’, the argument sounds less intrusive, fulfilling
the communicative function of convincing the readers that the study is worth-
while (Loi et al. 2016).

M2S2: Indicating the limitations It is found in this study that soft science writers
mainly use noun phrase with embedded of bundles to construct M2S2. In this step,
triggering bundles are found in soft science conclusions, such as the limitation of
this (study) and limitation of the current (study) (Example 24).

24) There are numbers of potential limitations of this study. First, the level of
specificity of the competencies…(ConL.SS_2015IHE_002) (M2S2).

It is interesting to observe that the * of the and the * of this bundle frames are
typically used by soft science writers to highlight the current findings in M2S2.
Usually, the two slots are filled by results and findings, along with negative
words (e.g. cannot in Example 25, and be cautious in Example 26) to indicate the
limitations.

25) Because the characteristics of students in this course may differed from
other …, the results of this study cannot be generalized beyond the educa-
tion program…(ConL.SS_2011IHE_002) (M2S2).
26) We would need to be cautious in generalizing the findings of this study to
the development of English listening strategy… (ConL.SS_2016Sys_0019)
(M2S2).

Framing bundles, such as beyond the scope of and in the absence of, contribute to a
negative evaluation of the study (Example 27), which may indicate M2S2 in the
soft sciences. Often, hard science writers use negative evaluation words instead
to indicate limitations (‘drawbacks’ and ‘disadvantages’ in the examples below).

27) The present study is characterized by certain drawbacks which

limit the generalizability of…findings. In the absence of a database
20 L. DENG AND J. LIU

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac040/6759387 by Suzhou University user on 16 October 2022

containing information on key properties of Hindi…and so on…(ConL.
SS_2015BL_0010) (M2S2).
28) Irrespective of good classification results and ease of utilization of the pro-
posed method, it has a few disadvantages… First,… Second, although these
ROIs manually are drawn with the help of well-known altas…(ConL.
HS_2015ESA_0023) (M2S2).

It can be concluded that the noun phrase with embedded of structure is preferred
in M2S1 and M2S2 of the soft science conclusions. Specifically, the contribution of
the can be viewed as a trigger to M2S1, while limitations of the study is an indica-
tor of M2S2 which is used exclusively by soft science writers. Additionally, VP +
active verbs and NP + active verbs were found to be closely associated with M2S1
in the soft sciences.
Both corpora use evaluative words to help ‘assert the writer’s position and
perspective’ in Move 2 which is consistent with Loi et al.’s study (2016: 12).
Moreover, the results indicate that M2S1 is characterized by stance bundles in
both knowledge fields, and structuring bundles are connected to M2S2 in the
soft sciences.

Move 3: Deductions from the study

As shown in Figure 5, soft science conclusion writers demonstrate a preference
for clausal bundles in Step 1, whereas hard science writers are more likely to use
NP-based bundles in M3S1 and VP-based bundles in M3S3.
The conclusions in both corpora make extensive use of the research bundles
in M3S3 (Figure 6), suggesting that Move 3 has a research-based communicative

Figure 5: Distribution pattern of bundle structure in Move 3.

 MOVE-BUNDLE CONNECTION IN CONCLUSION SECTIONS ACROSS
DISCIPLINES 21

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac040/6759387 by Suzhou University user on 16 October 2022

Figure 6: Distribution pattern of bundle function in Move 3.

purpose. Only soft science conclusions are found to employ bundles in Step 2,
indicating that soft science writers tend to be more focused on seeking pedagog-
ical implications.

M3S1:Recommending further research Soft science writers tend to use clause-based

bundles when recommending further research, while hard science writers pre-
fer to use NP-based bundles. Particularly, NP+ passive bundles and Anticipatory
it+ be + adjective structures are associated with Step1 in soft sciences. In M3S1,
for example, soft science writers use two distinctive clause-based bundles: more
research is needed and further research is needed (Example 29) to point out future
directions.

29) Clearly, further research is needed on how MOOCs can better reach, retain
and support under-served populations (ConL.SS_2017IHE_005) (M3S1).

In the case of bundle functions, writers from both science fields utilize framing
bundles to convey the aim of the future study, such as for the purpose of in the
hard sciences (Example 30) and with the aim of (Example 31) in the soft sciences.

30) For the purpose of future testing, trade-off issues could be addressed by
placing a greater emphasis on the service…(ConL.HS_2017ESA_0041)
(M3S1).
31) Additional analysis, both quantitative and qualitative, needs to be car-
ried out, with the aim of revealing the mechanism of the change…(ConL.
SS_2016TTE_0013) (M3S1).

Similarly, distinctive structuring bundles (e.g. of the proposed methodology) along

with future research indicators (e.g. ‘future directions’) (Example 32) are also
22 L. DENG AND J. LIU

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac040/6759387 by Suzhou University user on 16 October 2022

used in the hard sciences to mark M3S1. Structuring bundles, such as of the pres-
ent study, can be seen as ‘complements’ in triggering M3S1 in the soft sciences
and they are often associated with phrases signalling future research (e.g. future
research) (Example 33).

32) Hence, one of the major future directions for the current research is to
reduce the computational complexity of the proposed method… (ConL.
HS_2016ESA_0029) (M3S1).
33) To validate the findings of the present study, future research should
engage a larger number of participants in different EFL…contexts (ConL.
SS_2008JSLW_001).

Conclusion writers from both fields usually use structuring bundles together
with phrases ‘future research/studies/work’ as complementary elements to recom-
mend further research. However, soft science writers prefer procedure bundles
such as more research is needed and stance bundles (e.g. it would be interesting) to
help trigger M3S1.

M3S3: Drawing empirical implications Writers from both science fields attempt to
highlight the empirical and theoretical implications in M3S3. In hard sciences,
writers tend to rely heavily on VP + passive verbs and anticipatory it with passive
verb bundles (Example 34). However, VP with active verbs and anticipatory it +
copula be + adjectives structures are more frequent in the soft sciences (Example
35). Bundles with the passive structure are often based on the bigrams ‘be
used’ (Example 36) and ‘be applied’ found in M3S3 which is corroborated by
Durrant’s (2017) finding that bundles with ‘used to’ are common in science
and technology texts. It is also found that ‘be used’ occurs most often in the
bundle ‘can be used’ and is often followed by prepositions: in, to, for, and as
(Example 36).

34) Therefore, it is suggested that hospitals make early planning, properly

allocate available resources, and encourage and nurture staff… (ConL.
HS_2011ESA_006) (M3S3).
35) It is important to develop mental healthcare policies and programs that are
appropriate and meet the needs of individuals… (ConL.SS_2017SIR_003)
(M3S3).
36) It is obvious that the method can also be used to optimize structures of
robot mechanisms and many other design… (ConL.HS_2008AI_004)
(M3S3).

The use of procedure bundles in M3S3 differs between the two fields. Hard
science writers often use the hedging word ‘could’ to collocate with ‘be used to’
(Example 37), which indicates writers’ intervention in the discourse to evaluate
(Hyland 2004) and provide readers with practical suggestions.
 MOVE-BUNDLE CONNECTION IN CONCLUSION SECTIONS ACROSS
DISCIPLINES 23

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac040/6759387 by Suzhou University user on 16 October 2022

37) The proposed method could be used to reduce the ancillary service demand
and also to improve performance…(ConL.HS_2016EPSR_002) (M3S3).

Soft and hard science conclusion writers employ stance bundles we believe that
the and we were able to in M3S3 to express confidence in the implications of their
findings/approach and promote the study (Examples 38 and 39).

38) We believe that the application of MDA in various contexts supplements

more… analytical approaches developed for a range of comprehensive
research goals (ConL.SS_2014JSLW_003) (M3S3).
39) We believe that the u-map representation, as well as the theoretical frame-
work …, constitutes a useful toolset for the FST experts to carry out fur-
ther theoretical development…(ConL.HS_2016ESA_0040) (M3S3).

Overall, VP-based bundles with passive verbs are associated with M3S3 in the
hard sciences to draw empirical findings, whereas clausal bundles with passive
verbs are likely to trigger M3S1 (e.g. further research is needed) in the soft sci-
ences. Additionally, writers from both knowledge fields make extensive use of
stance bundles that include cognitive nouns in first-person pronouns + active verb
structure (e.g. believe) to promote the empirical implications.

CONCLUSIONS
Summary of findings
This paper attempts to analyse the disciplinary variations in the conclusion sec-
tions of RA as reflected in the use of four-word LBs relating to moves and steps.
Unlike previous studies, it focuses not only on bundle–move connections but
also on bundle–step and bundle–move relations by combining corpus-driven
and corpus-based methods as well as genre analysis. The findings of this study
shed light on how bundle structures and functions are linked with steps and
how specific four-word LBs trigger particular steps of conclusions. Although not
all the bundle–step connections can be discussed, the present study has gener-
ated some major findings.
First, regarding the overall distribution of LBs, writers from both soft and hard
sciences make extensive use of bundles in M1S1 (summarizing the findings).
Although hard science writers adopt a wider range of LBs than their counter-
parts in soft sciences, soft science writers tend to use more bundle tokens in
general. Moreover, soft science conclusion writers employ more bundle tokens
in M2S1 (indicating the significance/advantage of the study) and M3S1 (recom-
mending future research).
In terms of the grammatical structure of LBs across disciplines, writers from
both science fields still rely heavily on NP-based and PP-based LBs, especially
‘the noun phrases with embedded of’ phrase fragment bundles in conclusions,
24 L. DENG AND J. LIU

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac040/6759387 by Suzhou University user on 16 October 2022

which conforms to the general conventions of academic writing (Biber et al.
1999). The results of this study also suggest that the bond between bundle and
step in conclusions is well connected by using VP-based and Clause-based bun-
dles in both knowledge fields. However, it is found that writers from the hard
sciences employ more clausal bundles than soft science writers to indicate dif-
ferent functional units.
As for the functional features of LBs appearing in conclusions, resultative
bundles are the most salient bundle functions occurring in the soft and hard sci-
ences, which is perhaps influenced by the communicative functions of present-
ing the overall findings in the conclusion sections. The variation in using bundle
functions is reflected in the disciplinary practices that soft science writers prefer
using more stance bundles (e.g. it is possible that) while hard science writers rely
relatively more on employing research bundles (e.g. can be used to).
Secondly, the present study explores how the grammatical and functional
elements of bundles mark a specific step in the conclusion sections across dis-
ciplines. Triggering bundles are found to facilitate the construction of the con-
clusions in different fields. In M1S1, hard science writers often use NP + passive
voice (e.g. conclusions can be drawn) or anticipatory it+ passive verbs (e.g. it can be
concluded) to trigger M1S1 (summarizing the study) and to make a general state-
ment of the findings. In contrast, soft science writers usually use NP+ of-phrase
fragment collocating with the verbs ‘indicate’ and ‘suggest’ to signal M1S1 (e.g.
the results of this).
Concerning the functional distribution, resultative bundles closely connect
with M1S1 in both science fields. And structuring bundles in the form of VP+
active verb and NP+ active verb (e.g. this study contributes to) structure link closely
with M2S1 (Indicating significance of the study) in soft science conclusions,
whereas evaluative stance bundles (e.g. for the first time) are preferred in hard
science conclusions. ‘Triggering’ bundles have been found in M2S2 and M3S1
(recommending further research) in soft sciences to indicate the limitations of
the study (e.g. limitations of the study) and point out future research (e.g. fur-
ther research is needed). Procedure bundles (e.g. can be used to) are found to asso-
ciate closely with M3S3 (present the empirical implications) in hard science
conclusions.

Implications and limitations

This study extends previous work (e.g. Kanoksilapathem 2003; Cortes 2013; Li
et al. 2020) on the functional units (rhetorical moves) and their linguistic reali-
zations. The findings of this investigation complement those of earlier research
results that the IMRD model is not a standard option for RAs (Lin and Evans
2012), and that independent conclusion section should be given more prom-
inence. Thus, the present study strengthens the crucial role of conclusions in
RAs and contributes to the growing body of knowledge regarding the bundle–
move connection in the subsection of RAs.
 MOVE-BUNDLE CONNECTION IN CONCLUSION SECTIONS ACROSS
DISCIPLINES 25

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac040/6759387 by Suzhou University user on 16 October 2022

However, the results generated in the current study are subject to certain lim-
itations. This study does not examine the move–bundle connection in a specific
discipline which may fail to yield more enlightening results. Besides, due to the
relatively small corpus size and the subjectivity of manual analysis of each move
and step, the findings are less generalizable and representative to disciplinary
variations. Accordingly, future studies should be based on a larger corpus for
each discipline.
Notwithstanding these limitations, this study offers some insights into ESP
and EAP teaching. We assume that the bundle–move/step ‘skeleton’ frame-
work, which can be further applied to disciplinary RA conclusion teaching
and writing should be the most important implication. Moreover, the disci-
plinary variations identified in the current study shed light on how novice
writers from different fields utilize triggering bundles to construct conclu-
sions. Therefore, it is necessary that genre-based teaching activities and
teaching materials should be designed within the bundle–move ‘skeleton’
framework proposed in this study so as to cater to student writers from dif-
ferent disciplines.
Further research might explore variation of bundle–move connections in the
genre sets of RAs such as comparing introductions and conclusions. In addition,
future studies could investigate the application of the move–bundle connection
in English academic writing courses by EAP and ESP instructors. In so doing,
instructors will be able to provide their student writers with effective rhetorical
structure scaffolding so that student themselves can better manipulate the over-
all structure of RA genre writing and further enhance their writing competence
in an appropriate manner.

END NOTE
1 Since we set the cut-off point at 25
times per million words when we
retrieve the bundles in Antconc, we
pre-calculated the raw frequency
that the bundles should appear in the
whole corpus. The equations are as fol-
lowing:For soft science corpus:The raw
frequency = 25 × 536,134/1,000,000 ≈
13For hard science corpus:The raw fre-
quency = 25 × 345,139/1,000,000 ≈ 9

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to extend our great gratitude to the editors and the blind review-
ers for the valuable comments and suggestions for the manuscript.
This manuscript is part of the research output of the National Social Sciences
research project entitled ‘A Genre-based Study of the Dynamic Interdiscursive
System in Chinese and Foreign Professional Discourse’ (China National Social
Sciences, NO. 17BYY033). It is also supported by Project No.19G002 from Hubei
Provincial Department of Education, China. This manuscript is also supported
by Hubei University of Economics under grant no. XJ20BS39.
26 L. DENG AND J. LIU
REFERENCES
Ädel, A. and B. Erman. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2011.08.004.
Amnuai, W. and A. Wannaruk. 2013. ‘A move-
based analysis of the conclusion sections of
research articles published in international
and Thai jounals,’ The Southeast Asian Journal of
English Language Studies 19/2: 53–63.
Anthony, L. 2019. AntConc (3.5.8) [Computer.
Software]. Waseda University.
Askehave, I. and J. M. Swales. 2001. ‘Genre
identification and communicative purpose:
a problem and a possible solution,’ Applied
Linguistics 22/2: 195–212. doi: 10.1093/
applin/22.2.195.
Belcher, T. and P.R. Trowler. 2006. Academic
Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and
the Culture of Disciplines. 2nd edn. The Society
for Research into Higher Education & Open
University Press.
Biber, D. 1988. Variation Across Speech and Writing.
Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D. and F. Barbieri. 2007. ‘Lexical bundles
in university spoken and written registers,’
English for Specific Purposes 26: 263–86. doi:
10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.003.
Biber, D. and B. Gray. 2016. Grammatical
Complexity in Academic English: Linguistic Change
in Writing. Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., G. Bethany, and P. Kornwipa. 2013.
‘Pay attention to the phrasal structures: going
beyond T-units—a response to WeiWei Yang,’
TESOL Quarterly 47: 192–201. doi: 10.1002/
tesq.84.
Biber, D., U. Connor, and T.A. Upton. 2007.
Discourse on the Move: Using Corpus Analysis to
Descsribe Discourse Structure. John Benjamins
Company.
Biber, D., S. Conrad, and V. Cortes. 2004. ‘If you
look at…: lexical bundles in university teach-
ing and textbooks,’ Applied Linguistics 25: 371–
405. doi: 10.1093/applin/25.3.371.
Biber, D. et al. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken
and Written English. Pearson Education.
Biglan, A. 1973a. ‘The characteristics of subject
matter in different academic areas,’ Journal
of Applied Psycholinguistics 57/3: 195–203. doi:
10.1037/h0034701.
Biglan, A. 1973b. ‘Relationships between subject
matter characteristics and the structure and
output of university departments,’ Journal of
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac040/6759387 by Suzhou University user on 16 October 2022
Applied Psychology 57/3: 204–13. doi: 10.1037/
h0034699.
Brett, P. 1994. ‘A genre analysis of the results
section of sociology articles,’ English
for Specific Purposes 13/1: 47–59. doi:
10.1016/0889-4906(94)90024-8.
Chen, Y. H. and Baker, P. 2010. ‘Lexical bun-
dles in L1 and L2 student writing,’ Language,
Learning and Technology 14/30: 49. http://llt.
msu.edu/vol14num2/chenbaker.pdf.
Cortes, V. 2004. ‘Lexical bundles in published
and student disciplinary writing: examples
from history and biology,’ English for Specific
Purposes 23/4: 397–423. doi: 10.1016/j.
esp.2003.12.001.
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: 33–43. doi:
10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.002.
Cotos, E., S. Huffman, and S. Link. 2015.
‘Futhering and applying move/step constructs:
technology-driven marshalling of Swalesian
genre theory for EAP pedagogy,’ Journal of
English for Academic Purposes 19: 52–72. doi:
10.1016/j.jeap.2015.05.004.
Csomay, E. 2013. ‘Lexical bundles in discourse
structure: a corpus-based study of classroom
discourse,’ Applied Linguistics 34/3: 369–88.
doi: 10.1093/applin/ams045.
Csomay, E. 2005. ‘Linguistic variation within uni-
versity classroom talk: a corpus-based perspec-
tive,’ Linguistics and Education 15: 243–74. doi:
10.1016/j.linged.2005.03.001.
Durrant, P. 2017. ‘Lexical bundles and disci-
plinary variation in university students’ writ-
ing: mapping the territories,’ Applied Linguistics
38: 165–93. doi: 10.1093/applin/amv011.
Durrant, P. and J. Mathews-Aydinlin. 2011.
‘A function-first approach to identifying for-
mulaic language in academic writing,’ English
for Specific Purposes 30: 58–72. doi: 10.1016/j.
esp.2010.05.002.
Gray, B. 2015. Linguistic Variation in Research
Articles: When Discipline Tells Only Part of the
Story. John Benjamins.
Henry, A. and R. L. Rosenberry. 2001. ‘A nar-
row-angled corpus analysis of moves and
strategies of the genre: ‘Letter of Application,’
English for Specific Purposes 20: 153–67. doi:
10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00037-X.
Huang, K. 2015. ‘More does not mean better: fre-
quency and accuracy analysis of lexical bundles
 MOVE-BUNDLE CONNECTION IN CONCLUSION SECTIONS ACROSS
in Chinese EFL learners’ essay writing,’ System
53: 13–23. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2015.06.011.
Hyland, K. 1999. ‘Academic attribution: citation
and the construction of disciplinary knowl-
edge,’ Applied Linguistics 20: 341–67. doi:
10.1093/applin/20.3.341.
Hyland, K. 2008b. ‘Academic clusters: text pat-
terning in published and postgraduate writing,’
International Journal of Applied Linguistics 18:
41–62. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8.
Hyland, K. 2008a. ‘As can be seen: lexical bun-
dles and disciplinary variation,’ English for
Specific Purposes 27: 4–21. doi: 10.1016/j.
esp.2007.06.001.
Hyland, K. 2002. ‘Authority and invisibility:
authorial identity in academic writing,’ Journal
of Pragmatics 34: 1091–112. doi: 10.1016/
S0378-2166(02)00035-8.
Hyland, K. 2004. Disciplinary Discourses: Social
Interactions in Academic Writing. 2nd edn.
Longman.
Hyland, K. and F. Jiang. 2017. ‘Is academic
writing becoming more informal?,’ English
for Specific Purposes 45: 40–51. doi: 10.1016/j.
esp.2016.09.001.
Hyland, K. and P. Tse. 2005. ‘Hooking the reader:
a corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts,’
English for Specific Purposes 24: 123–39. doi:
10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.002.
Jiang, F. and K. Hyland. 2020. ‘“There are signifi-
cant differences…” The secret life of existential
there in academic writing,’ Lingua 233: 1–17.
doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102758.
Kanoksilapatham, B. 2003. A corpus-based inves-
tigation of scientific research articles linking move
analysis with multidimensional analysis. Available
at ProQuest Dissertation & Thesis Global.
Georgetown University.
Kanoksilapatham, B. 2007. ‘Rhetorical moves
in biochemistry research articles’ in D. Biber,
U. Connor, and T. A. Upton (eds.): Discourse
on the Move: Using Corpus Analysis to Describe
Discourse Structure. John Benjamins, pp.
73–119.
Li, L., M. Franken, and S. Q. Wu. 2020. ‘Bundle-
driven move analysis: sentence initial lex-
ical bundles in PhD abstracts,’ English for
Specific Purposes 60: 85–97. doi: 10.1016/j.
esp.2020.04.006.
Lim, J. M. -H. 2010. ‘Commenting on research
results in applied linguistics and education: a
comparative genre-based investigation,’ Jounal
of English for Academic Purposes 9: 280–94. doi:
10.1016/j.jeap.2010.10.001.
Lin, L. and S. Evans. 2012. ‘Structural patterns in
empirical research articles: a cross-disciplinary
DISCIPLINES 27
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac040/6759387 by Suzhou University user on 16 October 2022
study,’ English for Specific Purposes 31: 150–60.
doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2011.10.002.
Liu, J. and Xiao, L. 2022. ‘A multi-dimensional
analysis of conclusions in research articles:
variation across disciplines,’ Journal of English
for Specific Purposes 67: 46–61.
Loi, C. -K., J. M. -H. Lim, and S. Wharton. 2016.
‘Expressing an evaluative stance in English
and Malay research article conclusions: inter-
national publications versus local publica-
tions,’ Journal of English for Academic Purposes
21: 1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.08.004.
Lu, X. F. and J. L. Deng. 2019. ‘With the rapid
development: a contrastive analysis of lexical
bundles in dissertation abstracts by Chinese
and L1 English doctoral students,’ Journal of
English for Academic Purposes 39: 21–36. doi:
10.1016/j.jeap.2019.03.008.
Martin, J. R. and D. Rose. 2003. Working
with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause.
Continuum.
Martı́nez, I. A. 2003. ‘Aspects of theme in the
method and discussion sections of biology
journal articles in English,’ Journal of English for
Academic Purposes 2/2: 103–23. doi: 10.1016/
S1475-1585(03)00003-1.
O’Donnell, M. 2019. UAMCorpusTool (Version
3.3v2). Available at: http://corpustool.com.
Omidian, T., H. Shahriari, and A. Siyanova-
Chanturia. 2018. ‘A cross-disciplinary investi-
gation of multi-word expressions in the moves
of research article abstracts,’ Journal of English
for Academic Purpose 26: 1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.
jeap.2018.08.002.
Pan, F., R. Reppen, and D. Biber. 2016.
‘Comparing patterns of L1 versus L2 English
academic professionals: lexical bundles in tele-
communications research journals,’ Journal
of English for Academic Purposes 21: 60–71. doi:
10.1016/j.jeap.2015.11.003.
Posteguillo, S. 1999. ‘The schematic structure
of computer science research articles,’ English
for Specific Purposes 18: 139–60. doi: 10.1016/
S0889-4906(98)00001-5.
Sheldon, E. 2018. ‘Dialogic spaces of knowl-
edge construction in research article con-
clusion sections written by English L1,
English L2 and Spanish L1 writers,’ Ibérica
35: 13–40. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/
articulo?codigo=6378727.
Swales, J. 1981. Aspects of Article Introductions. The
University of Aston, Language Studies Unit.
Swales, J. 1990. Genre Analysis. Cambridge
University Press.
Swales, J. 2004. Research Genres: Exploration and
Applications. Cambridge University Press.
28 L. DENG AND J. LIU
Tessuto, G. 2015. ‘Generic structure and rhetorical
moves in English-language empirical law research
articles: site of interdisciplinary and interdiscur-
sive cross-over,’ English for Specific Purposes 37:
13–26. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.002.
Wood, D. and R. Appel. 2014. ‘Multiword con-
structions in first year business and engineer-
ing university textbooks and EAP textbooks,’
Journal of English for Academic Purposes 15: 1–
13. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2014.03.002.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac040/6759387 by Suzhou University user on 16 October 2022
Yang, R. and D. Allison. 2003. ‘Research
articles in applied linguistics: moving
from results to conclusions,’ English for
Specific Purposes 23: 365–85. doi: 10.1016/
S0889-4906(02)00026-1.
Ye, Y. P. 2019. ‘Macrostructures and rhetorical
moves in energy engineering research articles
written by Chinese expert writers,’ Journal of
English for Academic Purposes 38: 48–61. doi:
10.1016/j.jeap.2019.01.007.
 MOVE-BUNDLE CONNECTION IN CONCLUSION SECTIONS ACROSS
DISCIPLINES 29

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amac040/6759387 by Suzhou University user on 16 October 2022

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTOR
Liming Deng (The first author) Liming Deng is professor at English Department,
College of Foreign languages and Literature and the chair of Foreign Language
Research Institute, Wuhan University, China. Her main research interests
include discourse studies, applied linguistics, English for Specific Purposes and
second language writing. <lmdeng1216@163.com>
Jing Liu (The corresponding author) Jing Liu has obtained her PhD degree
from Wuhan University, China. Currently, she is lecturer at English depart-
ment, Hubei University of Economics, China. Her research interests include dis-
course analysis and corpus-driven pedagogy. Address for correspondence: School
of Foreign Languages, Hubei University of Economics, Wuhan 430205, China.
<jingyu1260@163.com>