本研究旨在探討TED 演講中常被使用的詞串(Lexical bundles)，以了解TED 演講之語言本質及建構方式，本研究探討以下四個研究問題:（一）TED 演講中常用之詞串為何？（二）TED 演講中的詞串與學術口語詞串組合相似度為何？（三）TED演講中詞串之結構及功能為何？（四）在TED 演講不同文部(Moves)中，講者使用哪些詞串？
本研究採用並過濾Liu和Chen (2019)蒐集之TED演講語料庫，經本研究篩選後，總語料庫大小約為兩百五十萬字。為分析TED演講文步中的詞串，本研究採用Chang和Huang (2015)所建立之TED演講的文步，即TED演講之組織架構。TED演講中詞串之結構及功能使用WordSmith 7.0和Sketch Engine做為本研究使用之語料庫工具，進行資料分析。詞串與文步之連結由兩位專家依據各個詞串每次出現時之溝通目的及情境，將TED演講中之詞串與文步進行分類。除詞串與文步之連結，本研究亦分析詞串之結構及功能，並將TED 演講中之詞串與另外兩個學術口語詞串所提供之詞串表作比較。
研究結果顯示，本研究整理之TED演講語料庫中，共有119個常用詞串，全部詞串發生總次數為12,572次，主要研究結果摘述如下：
（一） 學習TED演講中的常用詞串組合也可能同時幫助理解學術課堂之內容；
（二） 百分之六十之TED演講常用詞串以動詞為基礎所組成；而TED演講之詞串平均地分布於三種主要功能類別，而其中指示詞串佔了多一點比例 (36.1%)；
（三） TED演講中之常用詞串大多為多功能；
（四） TED演講中，主題發展為擁有最多詞串數之文步(66%)，主題介紹則為次之(19.7%)，演講者介紹位居第三位(6.5%)；
（五） TED演講者在七個文步使用之詞串組合因其溝通目的而有不同之性質。
本研究針對各個文步中所使用的詞串進行詳盡之描述，並提供真實使用情境以做教學之參考，協助未來研究者更容易了解TED演講中常用之語言特質。依據研究結果本研究提供相關之啟示，本研究期許能對口語語料庫之研究有所貢獻，更提供口語教學上實用的引導及教學素材。

The current study aimed to explore the lexical bundles in TED Talks to better understand the linguistic nature of TED Talks and the way they were constructed. Four research questions were addressed in this study: 1) What are the common lexical bundles in TED Talks? 2) How are the lexical bundles in TED Talks similar to those in academic contexts? 3) What are the structures and functions of the lexical bundles in TED talks? 4) What are the lexical bundles in different moves in TED talks?
The TED Talk corpus compiled by Liu and Chen (2019) was filtered, and the resulting corpus was about 2.5 million words. To investigate the lexical bundles in different moves in TED Talks, the move framework established by Chang and Huang (2015) was adopted. Two corpus tools, WordSmith 7.0 and Sketch Engine, were employed to extract and analyze lexical bundles in TED Talks. The identified lexical bundles were assigned to the moves by two raters. In addition, structural and functional analysis of the lexical bundles were also carried out. TED Talk bundles were also compared with those found in academic contexts.
The results showed there were a total of 119 recurrent lexical bundles in TED Talks, with 12,572 bundle tokens. The major research findings were summarized as follows: 1) The lexical bundles found in TED Talks were likely to help comprehension of academic lectures. 2) About 60% of the bundles were verb-based. Also, it was found the three functional types of lexical bundles accounted for almost the same proportion, with referential bundles having slightly higher proportion (36.1%). 3) The lexical bundles in TED Talks were multi-functional. 4) The move Topic Development was assigned the most bundle tokens (66% of all), followed by Topic Introduction (19.7%) and Speaker Presentation (6.5%). 5) The seven moves were characterized by different sets of lexical bundles to achieve the specific communicative purposes. Aside from these results, the lexical bundles of each move were also illustrated in detail in actual contexts.
This research expected to offer practical pedagogical materials for instructors or learners who want to teach or master the language of TED Talks. At the same time, this study also added more knowledge to the spoken genres and described the linguistic characteristics of TED Talks.

Anderson, C. (2016). TED Talks: The official TED guide to public speaking. London: John Murray Press.
Biber, D. (2009). A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English. International journal of corpus linguistics, 14(3), 275-311.
Biber, D., & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for specific purposes, 26(3), 263-286.
Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T. A. (2007). Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure (Vol. 28). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (1999). Lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. Language and Computers, 26, 181-190.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied linguistics, 25(3), 371-405.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
Blass, L., Vargo, M., & Wisniewska, I. (2016). 21st Century Reading: Creative Thinking and Reading with TED Talks. National Geographic Learning.
Carter-Thomas, S., & Rowley-Jolivet, E. (2003). Analysing the scientific conference presentation (CP), A methodological overview of a multimodal genre. ASp. la revue du GERAS, (39-40), 59-72.
Chang, Y. J., & Huang, H. T. (2015). Exploring TED Talks as a pedagogical resource for oral presentations: A corpus-based move analysis. English Teaching & Learning, 39(4), 29-62.
Cheng, S. W. (2012). “That’s it for today”: Academic lecture closings and the impact of class size. English for Specific Purposes, 31(4), 234-248.
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.
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. (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.
Cunningham, K. J. (2017). A phraseological exploration of recent mathematics research articles through key phrase frames. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 25, 71-83.
Danilina, S., & Shabunina, V. (2018). TED Talk in the ESP Classroom of Philosophy Students. Advanced Education, 5, 47-54.
Durrant, P., & Mathews-Aydinli, J. (2011). A function-first approach to identifying formulaic language in academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 30(1), 58-72.
Durrant, P., & Schmitt, N. (2009). To what extent do native and non-native writers make use of collocations?. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(2), 157-177.
Elk, C. K. (2014). Beyond mere listening comprehension: Using TED Talks and metacognitive activities to encourage awareness of errors. International Journal of Innovation in English Language Teaching and Research, 3(2), 215.
Ellis, N. C., Simpson‐Vlach, R. I. T. A., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 42(3), 375-396.
Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 20(1), 29-62.
Gallo, C. (2014a). Talk like TED: the 9 public-speaking secrets of the world's top minds. London: Pan MacMillan.
Gallo, C. (2014b, March 13). The Science Behind TED’s 18-Minute Rule. Retrieved June 14, 2020, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140313205730-5711504-the-science-behind-ted-s-18-minute-rule
Granger, S., & Meunier, F. (2008). Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.
Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2013). Lexical frames in academic prose and conversation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 109-136.
Hayward, P. A. (2017). Incorporating TED Talk assignments into a public-speaking course. Communication Teacher, 31(4), 239-244.
Heller, N. (2012, July 9). Listen And Learn. The New Yorker. Retrieved June 14, 2020, from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/07/09/listen-and-learn
Helm, B. (2013, September 26). How to Give a Great TED Talk. Inc. Retrieved June 14, 2020, from https://www.inc.com/magazine/201310/burt-helm/how-to-give-a-great-ted-talk.html
Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Wagner, D., & Cortes, V. (2010). Lexical bundle analysis in mathematics classroom discourse: The significance of stance. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(1), 23-42.
Hu, G., & Liu, Y. (2018). Three minute thesis presentations as an academic genre: A cross-disciplinary study of genre moves. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 35, 16-30.
Hoey, M. (1983). On the surface of discourse. London: Allen & Unwin.
Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for specific purposes, 27(1), 4-21.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2007). Rhetorical moves in biochemistry research articles. Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure, 73-119.
Karia, A. (2015). TED Talks Storytelling: 23 Storytelling Techniques from the Best TED Talks. CreateSpace.
Kaur, K., & Ali, A. M. (2017). Exploring the genre of academic oral presentations: A critical review. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7(1), 152-162.
Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P. & Suchomel, V. (2014). The Sketch Engine: ten years on. Lexicography, 1(1), 7-36.
Kuo, C. W. (2017). Hard or Soft Science? Conceptualizing Educational Technology through a Lexical Bundle Analytical Approach. Education and Linguistics Research, 3(1), 43-68.
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.
Lee, J. J. (2009). Size matters: an exploratory comparison of small-and large-class university lecture introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 28(1), 42-57.
Lee, J. J. (2016). “There's intentionality behind it…”: A genre analysis of EAP classroom lessons. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 99-112.
Leopold, L. (2016). Honing EAP Learners’ Public Speaking Skills by Analyzing TED Talks. TESL Canada Journal, 33(2), 46-58.
Li, Y., Gao, Y., & Zhang, D. (2016). To Speak Like a TED Speaker--A Case Study of TED Motivated English Public Speaking Study in EFL Teaching. Higher Education Studies, 6(1), 53-59.
Liu, D. (2012). The most frequently-used multi-word constructions in academic written English: A multi-corpus study. English for Specific Purposes, 31(1), 25-35.
Liu, C. Y., & Chen, H. H. J. (2019). Academic Spoken Vocabulary in TED Talks: Implications for Academic Listening. English Teaching & Learning, 43(4), 353-368.
Liu, C. Y., & Chen, H. J. H. (2020). Analyzing the functions of lexical bundles in undergraduate academic lectures for pedagogical use. English for Specific Purposes, 58, 122-137.
Lu, X., Yoon, J., & Kisselev, O. (2018). A p-frames list for social science research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 36, 76-85.
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.
Morley, J. (2014). Academic phrasebank. Retrieved November 24, 2019, from http://www.phrasebank.manchester.ac.uk/
Neely, E., & Cortes, V. (2011). A little bit about: analyzing and teaching lexical bundles in academic lectures.
Nguyen, C. D., & Boers, F. (2019). The effect of content retelling on vocabulary uptake from a TED Talk. TESOL Quarterly, 53(1), 5-29.
Nesi, H., & Basturkmen, H. (2006). Lexical bundles and discourse signalling in academic lectures. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 11(3), 283-304.
Nurmukhamedov, U. (2017). Lexical coverage of TED Talks: Implications for vocabulary instruction. TESOL Journal, 8(4), 768-790.
Omidian, T., Shahriari, H., & Siyanova-Chanturia, A. (2018). A cross-disciplinary investigation of multi-word expressions in the moves of research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 36, 1-14.
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Natural selection in syntax: Notes on adaptive variation and change in vernacular and literary grammar. Journal of Pragmatics, 7(5), 551-579.
Ratanakul, S. (2017). A study of problem-solution discourse: Examining TED Talks through the lens of move analysis. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 10(2), 25-46.
Römer, U. (2010). Establishing the phraseological profile of a text type: The construction of meaning in academic book reviews. English text construction, 3(1), 95-119.
Rowley‐Jolivet, E., & Carter‐Thomas, S. (2005). The rhetoric of conference presentation introductions: Context, argument and interaction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 45-70.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Scott, M. (2017). WordSmith (Version 7.0) [TComputer software]. Retrieved from https://www.lexically.net/wordsmith/
Shin, D., & Nation, P. (2007). Beyond single words: The most frequent collocations in spoken English. ELT journal, 62(4), 339-348.
Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. C. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied linguistics, 31(4), 487-512.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance and collocation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., & Martinez, R. (2014). The idiom principle revisited. Applied Linguistics, 36(5), 549-569.
Swales, J. M. (1981). Aspects of article introductions. Aston ESP Research Report No. 1.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Takaesu, A. (2013). TED Talks as an extensive listening resource for EAP students. Language Education in Asia, 4, 150-162.
TED. (n.d.). Our organization. TED. Retrieved June 14, 2020, from https://www.ted.com/about/our-organization
Thompson, S. (1994). Frameworks and contexts: A genre-based approach to analysing lecture introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 171-186.
Vincent, B. (2013). Investigating academic phraseology through combinations of very frequent words: A methodological exploration. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(1), 44-56.
Wingrove, P. (2017). How suitable are TED Talks for academic listening? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 30, 79-95.
Wood, D. (2009). Effects of focused instruction of formulaic sequences on fluent expression in second language narratives: A case study. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 39-57.
Wray, A., & Perkins, M. R. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language & Communication, 20(1), 1-28.
Yang, R., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for specific purposes, 22(4), 365-385.