[Breeze, R. 2011. ‘Disciplinary values in legal discourse: a corpus study.’ Iberica 21, 93–116.]Search in Google Scholar
[Brostoff, T. & Sinsheimer, A. 2003. Legal English. An Introduction to the Legal Language and Culture of the United States. New York: Oceana Publications, Inc.]Search in Google Scholar
[Fairclough, I. and Fairclough, N. 2012. ‘Values as premises in practical arguments: Conceptions of justice in the public debate over bankers’ bonuses’ in: van Emerson, F. and Garssen, B. (eds.) Exploring Argumentative Contexts, pp. 23–41. Amterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/aic.4.02fai]Search in Google Scholar
[Goźdź-Roszkowski, S. 2018. ‘Facts in Law: a comparative study of fact that and its phraseologies in American and Polish judicial discourse’ in Goźdź-Roszkowski, S. and Pontrandolfo, G. (eds.). Phraseology in Legal and Institutional Settings. A Corpus-based Interdisciplinary Perspective, pp. 143–159. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315445724-9]Search in Google Scholar
[Goźdź-Roszkowski, S. 2017. “Justice with an attitude?” – towards a corpus-based description of evaluative phraseology in judicial discourse’ in Pêzik, P. and Waliñski, J. (eds.) Language, Corpora and Cognition, pp. 107–127. Frankfurt am Main. Peter Lang.]Search in Google Scholar
[Goźdź-Roszkowski, S. 2011. Patterns of Linguistic Variation in American Legal English. A Corpus-based Study. Frankfurt am Main. Peter Lang.10.3726/978-3-653-00659-9]Search in Google Scholar
[Goźdź-Roszkowski, S. and Pontrandolfo, S. 2013. ‘Evaluative patterns in judicial discourse: a corpus-based phraseological perspective on American and Italian criminal judgments.’ International Journal of Law, Language and Discourse, vol 13, Issue 2, pp. 9–69.]Search in Google Scholar
[Macagno, F. 2016. Defining Marriage: Classification, Interpretation, and Definitional Disputes. Informal Logic, 36.3, pp. 309–332.]Search in Google Scholar
[Mazzi, D. 2010. ‘This Argument Fails for Two Reasons... A Linguistic Analysis of Judicial Evaluation Strategies in US Supreme Court Judgements.’ International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 23 No. 4: 373–385.10.1007/s11196-010-9162-0]Search in Google Scholar
[Partington, A., Duguid, A. and Taylor, C. (eds.). 2013. Patterns and Meanings in Discourse. Theory and practice in corpus-assisted discourse studies (CADS). Amsterdam: John Benajmins.10.1075/scl.55]Search in Google Scholar
[Partington, A. 2004. ‘Corpora and Discourse: A most congruous beast’ in A. Partington, J. Morley & L. Haarman (eds.) Corpora and Discourse., 11–20. Bern: Peter Lang.]Search in Google Scholar
[Perelman, Ch. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 1969. The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame.]Search in Google Scholar
[Rayson, Paul. 2008. ‘From key words to key semantic domains.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. 13:(4): 519–549.10.1075/ijcl.13.4.06ray]Search in Google Scholar
[Scott, M. 2008. WordSmith Tools Help Manual. Version 5.0. Liverpool. Lexical Analysis Software.]Search in Google Scholar
[Thompson, G. & Alba Juez L. 2014. Evaluation in Context. Amsterdam: John Benajmins.10.1075/pbns.242]Search in Google Scholar
[Thompson, G. and Hunston, S. 2000. Evaluation. An Introduction. In: Hunston, S. and Thompson, G. (eds.) Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. pp. 1–27. Oxford: OUP.]Search in Google Scholar
[Williams, R. 1995. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Zimmerman, J. 2015. Wartoœci w prawie administracyjnym. [Values in Administrative Law) Warszawa: LEX. Wolters Kluwer.]Search in Google Scholar
