Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-7mrzp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-12-25T15:23:34.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 August 2025

Susan Hunston
Susan Hunston
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Pattern, Construction, System
A Unified Approach to Grammar and Lexis
 , pp. 238 - 244
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This content is Open Access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence CC-BY-NC 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/cclicenses/

References

Aarts, B. 2023. Oblique predicative constructions in English with for and as: qua vs qualitate qua. English Language and Linguistics 27(4): 773–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andor, J. 2015. Trains of thought on the issue of syntax, the lexicon, and pragmatics: An interview with Noam Chomsky. International Review of Pragmatics 7(1): 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barlett, T. and O’Grady, G. (eds.) 2017. The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnbrook, G. 2002. Defining Language: A Local Grammar of Definition Sentences. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnbrook, G. and Sinclair, J. 1995. Parsing Cobuild entries. In Sinclair, J., Hoelter, M., and Peters, C. (eds.) The Languages of Definition: The Formalization of Dictionary Definitions for Natural Language Processing. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. pp. 13–58.Google Scholar
Barnbrook, G. and Sinclair, J. 2001. Specialised corpus, local and functional grammars. In Ghadessy, M., Henry, A., and Roseberry, R. (eds.) Small Corpus Studies and ELT: Theory and Practice. Amsterdam: Benjamins. pp. 237–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bender, E. and Kathol, A. 2001. Constructional effects of ‘just because … doesn’t mean’. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 27(1): 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., and Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Billig, M. 2008. The language of critical discourse analysis: The case of nominalization. Discourse and Society 19(6): 783–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. 2008. Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6: 113–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charles, M. 2006. The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics 27(3): 492–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, W. and Ching, T. 2018. ‘Not a guarantee of future performance’: The local grammar of disclaimers. Applied Linguistics 39(3): 263–301.Google Scholar
Chrispin, L. 2021. A Cognitive Functional Account of Pure Intransitive Classification. Unpublished PhD thesis, Cardiff University.Google Scholar
Croft, W. and Cruse, A. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidse, K. 2017. Systemic functional linguistics and the clause: The experiential metafunction. In Barlett and O’Grady (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge. pp. 79–95.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. 2020. A dynamic network approach to the study of syntax. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 604853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. 2023. The Constructicon: Taxonomies and Networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, T. 2008. Critical discourse analysis and nominalization: Problem or pseudo-problem? Discourse and Society 19(6): 821–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N., Römer, U., and O’Donnell, M. 2016. Usage-Based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Processing: Cognitive and Corpus Investigations of Construction Grammar. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. 2017. From meaning to form in the Cardiff Model of language and its use. In Barlett and O’Grady (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge. pp. 56–76.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. 1976. Frame semantics and nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 280(1): 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. 2013. Berkeley Construction Grammar. In Hoffman, T. and Trousdale, G. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 111–132.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. 2014. Frames, constructions, and FrameNet. In Herbst, T., Schmid, H.-J., and Faulhaber, S. (eds.) Constructions Collocations Patterns. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 121–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., and O’Connor, M. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of ‘let alone’. Language 64(3): 501–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C., Johnson, C., and Petruck, M. 2003. Background to Framenet. International Journal of Lexicography 16(3): 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C., Lee-Goldman, R. and Rhomieux, R. 2012. The FrameNet constructicon. In Sag, I. and Boas, H. (eds.) Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI. pp. 283–322.Google Scholar
Fontaine, L. 2017. Lexis as most local context: Towards an SFL approach to lexicology. Functional Linguistics 4(1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fontaine, L. (2025). Lexicogrammar: The powerhouse of language. In Sellami-Baklouti, A., Benelhaj, F., Choura, S. and Abid, N. (eds.) SFL: Power and Empowerment in SFL: Papers from the 48th International Systemic Function Congress. Sfax, Tunisia: University of Sfax. Special issue of Academic Research: Revue d’études littéraire, linguistique et de science humaines 1(19). pp. 10–30.Google Scholar
Francis, G. 1993. A corpus-driven approach to grammar: Principles, methods and examples. In Baker, M., Francis, G. and Tognini-Bonelli, E. (eds.) Text and Technology: in Honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: Benjamins. pp. 137–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, G., Hunston, S., and Manning, E. 1996. Collins Cobuild Grammar Patterns 1: Verbs. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Francis, G., Hunston, S., and Manning, E. 1998. Collins Cobuild Grammar Patterns 2: Nouns and Adjectives. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G. 2010. Corpus, Cognition and Causative Constructions. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 2006. Constructions at Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. and Jackendoff, R. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80(3): 532–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. and Herbst, T. 2021. The nice-of-you construction and its fragments. Linguistics 59(1): 285–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Götz-Votteler, K. 2007. Describing semantic valency. In Herbst, T. and Götz-Votteler, K. (eds.) Valency: Theoretical, Descriptive and Cognitive Issues. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. 2019. 15 years of collostructions: Some long overdue additions/corrections (to/of actually all sorts of corpus-linguistics measures). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24(3): 385–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. and Stefanowitsch, A. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1): 97–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, M. 1993. Local grammars and their representation by finite automata. In Hoey, M. (ed.) Data, Description, Discourse. London: HarperCollins. pp. 26–38.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. 1961. Categories of the theory of grammar. Word 17(3): 241–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. 1970. Language structure and language function. In Lyons, J. (ed.) New Horizons in Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. pp. 140–165. Reprinted in Halliday MAK. 2002. On Grammar (edited by J. Webster) London: Continuum. pp. 173–195.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. 1973. Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 1st ed. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. 1991/2007. The notion of ‘context’ in language education. In Webster, J. (ed.) Language and Education: Collected Works of MAK Halliday Volume 9. London: Continuum. pp. 269–290.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. 1993. Quantitative studies and probabilities in grammar. In Hoey, M. (ed.) Data, Description, Discourse: Papers on the English Language in Honour of John McH Sinclair. London: HarperCollins. pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. 2013. Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday. Vol 11: Halliday in the 21st Century. Webster, J. (ed.). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. and James, Z. 1993. A quantitative study of polarity and primary tense in the English finite clause. In Sinclair, J., Hoey, M., and Fox, G. (eds.) Techniques of Description: Spoken and Written Discourse. London: Routledge. pp. 32–66.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. and Matthiessen, C. 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. 4th ed. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, P. 2004. Corpus pattern analysis. In Williams, G. and Vessier, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 11th Euralix International Congress. Lorient: UBS. pp. 87–98.Google Scholar
Hanks, P. 2013. Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploitations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasan, R. 1996/1984. The nursery tale as genre. Nottingham Circular 13: 71–102. Reprinted in R. Hasan. Ways of Saying: Ways of Meaning: Selected Papers of Ruqaiya Hasan (C. Cloran, D. Butt, and G. Williams eds.) London: Cassell. pp. 51–72.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 1996/1987. The grammarian’s dream: Lexis as most delicate grammar. Published 1987 in Halliday, M. and Fawcett, R. (eds.) New Developments in Systemic Linguistics: Volume 1. London: Pinter. pp. 184–212. Republished in C. Cloran, D. Butt, and G. Williams (eds.) Ways of Saying: Ways of Meaning: Selected Papers of Ruqaiya Hasan. London: Cassell. pp. 73–103.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2023. On what a construction is. Constructions 15(1): 1–15.Google Scholar
Herbst, T. 2007. Valency complements or valency patterns? In Herbst, T. and Götz-Votteler, K. (eds.) Valency: Theoretical, Descriptive and Cognitive Issues. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 15–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, T. 2024. From learner’s dictionaries to construction. Paper given at PhrasaLex III: Phraseological approaches to Lexicography. Universität Innsbruck July 2024.Google Scholar
Herbst, T., Heath, D., Roe, I., and Götz, D. 2004. A Valency Dictionary of English. London: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, T. and Götz-Votteler, K. (eds.) 2007. Valency: Theoretical, Descriptive and Cognitive Issues. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, T. and Uhrig, P. 2019. Towards a valency and argument structure constructicon of English: Turning the valency patternbank into a constructicon. Lexicographica 35(1): 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. 2014. Construction Grammar and Its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hiltunen, T. 2010. Grammar and Disciplinary Culture: A Corpus-Based Study. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Hoey, M. 2005. Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hoffman, T. 2016. Construction Grammars. In Dancygier, B. (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 310–329.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. 1995. A corpus study of some English verbs of attribution. Functions of Language 2(2): 133–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S. 2008. Starting with the small words: Patterns, lexis and semantic sequences. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(3): 271–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S. 2011. Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. 2013. Systemic functional linguistics, corpus linguistics, and the ideology of science. Text and Talk 33(4): 617–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S. 2019. Patterns, constructions, and applied linguistics. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24(3): 324–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S. 2022. Corpora in Applied Linguistics. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S. 2024. Coming to terms with success. Journal of Corpora and Discourse Studies 7: 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S. and Sinclair, J. 1999. A local grammar of evaluation. In Hunston, S. and Thompson, G. (eds.) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 75–100.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. and Francis, G. 2000. Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-Driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S. and Su, H. 2019. Pattern, construction and local grammar: The case of evaluation. Applied Linguistics 40(4): 567–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S. and Sui, X. 2024. Modelling the Output from Concordance Lines. Paper given at ICAME45, University of Vigo, Spain, June 2024.Google Scholar
Katamba, F. 1993. Morphology. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kay, P. and Fillmore, C. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The ‘what’s X doing Y’ construction. Language 75(1): 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khachatryan, R. 2009. Ways of expressing causation in Modern English. Armenian Folia Anglistika 5(1–2): 125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. 2006. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laffut, A. 2006. Three-Participant Constructions in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lin, F. Y. and Peng, A. X. 2006. Systemic Functional Grammar and Construction Grammar. In Barbara, L. and Berber Sardinha, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the 33rd International Systemic Functional Congress. São Paulo: Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo. pp. 331–347.Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Ohara, K., and Torrent, T. (eds.). 2018. Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, P. 2007. The scope of valency in grammar. In Herbst, T. and Götz-Votteler, K. (eds.) Valency: Theoretical, Descriptive and Cognitive Issues. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. 1999. Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In Hunston, S. and Thompson, G. (eds.) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 143–175.Google Scholar
Martin, J. 2008. Incongruent and proud: De-vilifying ‘nominalization’. Discourse and Society 19(6): 801–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. and White, P. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, C. 1999. The system of transitivity: An exploratory study of text-based profiles. Functions of Language 6(1): 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, C. 2006. Frequency profiles of some basic grammatical systems: An interim report. In Thompson, G. and Hunston, S. (eds.) System and Corpus: Exploring Connections. London: Equinox. pp. 103–142.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, C. 2014. Extending the description of process type within the system of transitivity in delicacy based on Levinian verb classes. Functions of Language 21(2): 139–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, C. 2023. System in Systemic Functional Linguistics: A System-Based Theory of Language. Sheffield: Equinox.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEnery, T. and Hardie, A. 2012. Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. 2004. Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15(1): 1–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. 2024. Staying terminologically rigid, conceptually open and socially cohesive: how to make room for the next generation of construction grammarians. Constructions and Frames 16(2): 278–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moon, R. 2007. Sinclair, lexicography, and the Cobuild project: The application of theory. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12(2): 159–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moon, R. 2009. Sinclair, lexicography, and the Cobuild project: The application of theory. In Moon, R. (ed.) Words, Grammar, Text: Revising the Work of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: Benjamins. pp. 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mumford, S. and Anjum, R. 2013. Causation: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neale, A. 2002. More Delicate Transitivity: Extending the Process Type System Networks for English to Include Full Semantic Classifications. Unpublished PhD thesis, Cardiff University.Google Scholar
Neale, A. 2006. Matching corpus data and system networks: Using corpora to modfy and extend the system networks for Transitivity in English. In Thompson, G. and Hunston, S. (eds.) System and Corpus: Exploring Connections. London: Equinox. pp. 143–163.Google Scholar
Neale, A. 2017. Transitivity in the Cardiff Grammar. In Bartlett and O’Grady (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Routledge. pp. 178–193.Google Scholar
O’Grady, G. 2019. SFL and critical discourse analysis. In Thompson, G., Bowcher, W., Fontaine, L., Schönthal, D. (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 462–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perek, F. 2021. Constructions Grammar in action: The English constructicon project. Cognitextes 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perek, F. 2005. Beyond evocation: Frames and constructional meaning in the English Constructicon. In Ziem, A., Willich, A., and Michel, S. (eds.) Constructing Constructicons: Issues, approaches and cross-linguistic perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Perek, F. and Patten, A. 2019. Towards an English constructicon using patterns and frames. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24(3): 354–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M., Johnson, C., and Schffczyk, J. 2016. FrameNet II: Extended Theory and Practice. Berkeley: ICSI.Google Scholar
Sass, B. 2024. Identifying Constructicon Entries in Query Text. Paper presented at the International Conference on Construction Grammar 13, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, August 2024.Google Scholar
Semino, E. and Short, M. 2004. Corpus Stylistics: Speech, Writing and Thought Presentation in a Corpus of English Witing. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. (ed.) 1987. Looking Up: An Account of the Cobuild Project in Lexical Computing and the Development of the Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary. London: Collins.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (ed.) 1990. Collins Cobuild Student’s Dictionary. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. 1991. Corpus Concordance Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (ed.) 1995. Collins Cobuild English Dictionary. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. 2004. Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, J., Yang, C., Sun, Y., et al. 2024. Quantitative research on Chinese sentences structure based on Pattern Grammar. Sage Open July–September14: 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. and Gries, S. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2): 209–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Su, H. 2018. ‘Thank bloody God it’s Friday’: A local grammar of thanking. Corpus Pragmatics 2(1): 83–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Su, H. 2020. Local grammar and diachronic speech analysis: A case study of apology in the history of American English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 21(1): 109–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Su, H. and Wei, N. 2018. ‘I’m really sorry about what I said’: A local grammar of apology. Pragmatics 28(3): 439–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Su, H., Zhang, Y., and Chau, M. H. 2022. Exemplification in Chinese English-major MA students’ and expert writers’ academic writing: A local grammar based investigation. Journal of English for Academic Writing 58: 101120.Google Scholar
Taverniers, M. 2021. Modelling interfaces with context in SFL: Stratification, instantiation, metafunctions. Functions of Language 28(3): 291–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, G. 1994. Collins Cobuild English Guides 5: Reporting. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. 2014. Introducing Functional Grammar. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, G., Bowcher, W., Fontaine, L., and Schönthal, D. (eds.) 2019. The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, G. 1998. The Lexicogrammar of Adjectives: A Systemic-Functional Approach to Adjectives. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Webster, J. 2019. Key terms in the SFL model. In Thompson, G., Bowcher, W., Fontaine, L., and Schönthal, D. (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 35–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, M. 1953. A General Service List of English Words. London: Longman, Green.Google Scholar
Wible, D. and Tsao, N. L. 2020. Constructions and the problem of discovery: A case for the paradigmatic. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 16(1): 67–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Y. 2023. The diachronic analysis of resultative constructions: A systemic functional framework. Language, Context and Text 5(1): 80–107.Google Scholar
Yu, D., Li, L., Su, H., and Fuoli, M. 2024. Assessing the potential of LLM-assisted annotation for corpus-based pragmatics and discourse analysis: The case of apology. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 29(4): 534–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, L., Jiang, R., and Zhang, J. 2024. ‘Table 1 shows that … ’: A local grammar of graphic data commentary in discourse of Economics. English for Specific Purposes 74: 68–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y. and Su, H. 2023. (Mis)use of definition in Chinese EFL postgraduate students’ academic writing: A local grammar based investigation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 65: 101283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziem, A., Flick, J., and Sandkühler, P. 2019. The German constructicon project: Framework, methodology, resources. Lexicographica 35(1): 15–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The HTML of this book complies with version 2.1 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved user experiences and achieves the intermediate (AA) level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Susan Hunston, University of Birmingham
  • Book: Pattern, Construction, System
  • Online publication: 21 August 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009629065.010
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Susan Hunston, University of Birmingham
  • Book: Pattern, Construction, System
  • Online publication: 21 August 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009629065.010
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Susan Hunston, University of Birmingham
  • Book: Pattern, Construction, System
  • Online publication: 21 August 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009629065.010
Available formats
×