Aher, M. (2013). Deontic contexts and the interpretation of disjunction in legal discourse. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique, 58(1), 13–42. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100002504.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100002504
Google Scholar
Ammann, O. (2020). Domestic courts and the interpretation of international law. Brill Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004409873.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004409873
Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (2008). Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791314.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791314
Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (2012). Relational and independent and conjunctions. Lingua, 122(14), 1692–1715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.001.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.001
Google Scholar
Ariel, M., & Mauri, C. (2018). Why use or? Linguistics, 56(5), 939–993. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2018-0020.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2018-0020
Google Scholar
Ariel, M., & Mauri, C. (2019). An ‘alternative’ core for or. Journal of Pragmatics, 149, 40–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.06.004.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.06.004
Google Scholar
Assimakopoulos, S. (2015). Motivating the procedural analysis of logical connectives. Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique française, 32, 59–70.
Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding utterances: Introduction to pragmatics. Blackwell.
Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486456.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486456
Google Scholar
Blakemore, D., & Carston, R. (2005). The pragmatics of sentential coordination with and. Lingua, 115, 569–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.016.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.016
Google Scholar
Börjesson, K. (2014). The semantics–pragmatics controversy. Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110333411.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110333411
Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances. Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603
Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2005). Relevance Theory, Grice, and the neo-Griceans: A response to Laurence Horn’s “Current issues in neo-Gricean pragmatics.” Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(3), 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2005.2.3.303.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2005.2.3.303
Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2013). Legal texts and canons of construction: A view from current pragmatic theory. In M. Freeman & F. Smith (Eds.), Law and Language (pp. 8–33). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199673667.003.0010.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199673667.003.0010
Google Scholar
Chevallier, C., Noveck, I., Nazir, T., Bott, L., Lanzetti, V., & Sperber, D. (2008). Making disjunctions exclusive. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(11), 1741–1760. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701712960.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701712960
Google Scholar
Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2016 O.J (C202) 1.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-54482-7_1
Google Scholar
Dörr, O. (2012). Article 31. In O. Dörr & K. Schmalenbach (Eds.), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A commentary (pp. 521–570). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55160-8.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19291-3_34
Google Scholar
Feteris, E. T. (2017). Fundamentals of legal argumentation (2nd ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1129-4.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1129-4
Google Scholar
Gardiner, R. (2010). Treaty interpretation. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780199597048.001.0001.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780199597048.001.0001
Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1958). Positivism and the separation of law and morals. Harvard Law Review, 71(4), 593–629. https://doi.org/10.2307/1338225.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1338225
Google Scholar
Hirschberg, J. L. B. (1991). A theory of scalar implicature. Garland Publishing.
Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications (pp. 11–42). Georgetown University Press.
Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1995). Vehicles of meaning: Unconventional semantics and unbearable interpretations. Washington University Law Quarterly, 73, 1145.
Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1996). Presupposition and implicature. In S. Lappin (Ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory (pp. 299–319). Blackwell Reference.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/b.9780631207498.1997.00014.x
Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (2004). Implicature. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 3–28). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756959.ch1.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756959.ch1
Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (2007). Neo-Gricean pragmatics: A Manichaean manifesto. In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 158–183). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-73908-0_9.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-73908-0_9
Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (2009). WJ-40: Implicature, truth, and meaning. International Review of Pragmatics, 1(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1163/187731009X455820.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/187731009X455820
Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (2014). The roots of (scalar) implicature. In S. P. Reda (Ed.), Pragmatics, semantics and the case of scalar implicatures (pp. 13–39). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137333285_2.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137333285_2
Google Scholar
Mauri, C., & van der Auwera, J. (2012). Connectives. In K. Allan & K. M. Jaszczołt (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 347–402). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022453.019.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022453.021
Google Scholar
Miller, G. P. (1990). Pragmatics and the maxims of interpretation. Wisconsin Law Review, 1179–1227.
Google Scholar
Moeschler, J. (2016). Where is procedural meaning located? Evidence from discourse connectives and tenses. Lingua, 175–176, 122–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.11.006.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.11.006
Google Scholar
Murphy, S. D. (2019). The utility and limits of canons and other interpretive principles. In J. Klingler, Y. Parkhomenko, & C. Salonidis (Eds.), Between the lines of the Vienna Convention? Canons and other principles of interpretation in public international law (pp. 13–24). Kluwer Law International.
Google Scholar
Noveck, I., & Sperber, D. (2012). The why and how of experimental pragmatics: the case of ‘scalar inferences.’ In D. Wilson & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and relevance (pp. 307–330). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370.018.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370.018
Google Scholar
Radivojević, Z., & Raičević, N. (2017). Financial sanctions against member states for infringement of EU law. EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series (ECLIC), 1, 171–191.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.25234/eclic/6527
Google Scholar
Separate Opinion of Judge Tomka, Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2019, p. 614.
Google Scholar
Skoczeń, I. (2019). Implicatures within legal language. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12532-5.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12532-5
Google Scholar
Smolka, J. (2022). Argumentation in the interpretation of statutory law and international law: Not ejusdem generis. Languages, 7(2), 132. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7020132.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7020132
Google Scholar
Smolka, J., & Pirker, B. (2018). International law, pragmatics and the distinction between conceptual and procedural meaning. International Journal of Language & Law, 7, 117–141. https://doi.org/10.14762/jll.2018.117.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3230954
Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Blackwell.
Google Scholar
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331.
Google Scholar
von Achenbach, J. (2014). Demokratische Gesetzgebung in der Europäischen Union. Springer.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23917-5
Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2003). Relevance theory and lexical pragmatics. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 15(2), 273–291.
Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756959.ch27.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756959.ch27
Google Scholar
Wojtczak, S., & Zeifert, M. (2024). Statutory interpretation and levels of conceptual categorisation: The presumption of legal language explained in terms of cognitive linguistics. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law – Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-024-10118-2.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-024-10118-2
Google Scholar
Zeifert, M. (2018). Grammatical issues in judicial interpretation – does legal practice needs linguistic theory? based on Polish courts’ decisions. Comparative Legilinguistics, 34, 51–68. https://doi.org/10.14746/cl.2018.34.2.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/cl.2018.34.2
Google Scholar
Zufferey, S., Moeschler, J., & Reboul, A. (2019). Implicatures. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316410875.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316410875
Google Scholar
https://doi.org/10.31261/FL.2026.14.1.09
Język Polski
English