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