[Adams, Kenneth A. and Alan S. Kaye. 2007. Revisiting The Ambiguity of “And” and “Or” in Legal Drafting. St. John’s Law Review vol. 80: 1167–98.]Search in Google Scholar
[Berger, Linda L. 2004. What is the Sound of a Corporation Speaking? How the Cognitive Theory of Metaphor Can Help Lawyers Shape the Law. Journal of the Association of Legal Writing Directors 2004/2, vol. 169: 169–208.]Search in Google Scholar
[Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (Polish edition: Zagadnienia teorii składni. 1982. Transl. I. Jakubczak. Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk–Łódź: Ossolineum).]Search in Google Scholar
[Dyer, Charles R. 2007. The Queen of Chula Vista: Stories of Self-Represented Litigans and a Call for Using Cognitive Lingusitics to Work with Them. Law Library Journal 99: 717–56.]Search in Google Scholar
[Endicott, Timothy. 2001. Vagueness in law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Farrell, Robert C. 2008. Why Grammar Matters: Conjugating Verbs in Modern Legal Opinions. Loyola University Chicago School of Law Law Review, vol. 40: 1–44.]Search in Google Scholar
[Guastini, Riccardo. 2006. A Sceptical View on Legal Interpretation. In Analisi e diritto 2005. Ricerche di giurisprudenza analitica, ed. by Paolo Comanducci and Riccardo Gaustini, 139–144. Torino: Giappichelli.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hart, Herbert L.A. 1961. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press (Polish edition: Pojęcie prawa. 1998. Transl. J. Woleński. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo PWN.]Search in Google Scholar
[Jellum, Linda D. 2008. Mastering Statutory Interpretation. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Jodłowski S. 2002. Zasady Interpunkcji. Podręcznik. Wydanie nowe, zmienione i rozszerzone, ed. Jan Gostyń. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Tomasz Strutyński.]Search in Google Scholar
[Johnson, Mark. 2002. Brooklyn Law Review 67, no. 4: 949–62.]Search in Google Scholar
[Johnson, Mark. 2007. Mind, Metaphor, Law. Mercer Law Review 58/3: 845–68.]Search in Google Scholar
[Kirk, M. B. 1970-1971. Legal Drafting: The Ambiguity Of “And” and “Or”, Texas Tech Law Review, vol 2: 235–53.]Search in Google Scholar
[Lakoff, George. 1989. Cognitive Science and the Law. Toronto: University of Toronto.]Search in Google Scholar
[Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: a Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press (Polish edition: Gramatyka kognitywna. Wprowadzenie. 2009. Transl. E. Tabakowska, M. Buchta, H. Kardela, W. Kubiński, P. Łozowski i in. Kraków: Universitas).]Search in Google Scholar
[Llewellyn, Karl N. 1950. Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decision and the Rules or Canons about How Statutes Are to Be Construed. Vanderbilt Law Review, vol. 3: 395–406.]Search in Google Scholar
[MacCormick, Neil i Robert S. Summers. 1991. Interpreting Statutes. A Comparative Study, ed. Neil MacCormick, Robert S. Summers. Routledge: Dartmouth–Worcester.]Search in Google Scholar
[Malinowski, Andrzej. 2006. Polski język prawny. Wybrane zagadnienia. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo LexisNexis.]Search in Google Scholar
[Malinowski, Andrzej. 2008. Redagowanie tekstu prawnego. Wybrane wskazania logiczno-językowe. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo LexisNexis.]Search in Google Scholar
[Manzanares Javier V. 2014. Cognitive Linguistics and the Law. Anuari de Filologia. Estudis de Linguistica 4: 185–200.]Search in Google Scholar
[Marcin, Raymond B. 1977. Punctuation and the Interpretation of Statutes, Connecticut Law Review, vol. 9: 227–45.]Search in Google Scholar
[Opałek, Kazimierz and Jerzy Wróblewski. 1991. Prawo: Metodologia, filozofia, teoria prawa. Warszawa: Pastwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.]Search in Google Scholar
[Osenga, Kristen. 2011. A Penguin’s Defence of the Doctrine of Equivalents: Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Patent Law. New York University Journal of Law & Liberty 6: 313–58.]Search in Google Scholar
[Rabault, Hugues. 1997. Les limites de l’interpretation juridictionelle (Polish edition: Granice wykładni sędziowskiej, Warszawa 1997. Tłum. B. Janicka. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar).]Search in Google Scholar
[Scalia, Antonin and Bryan A. Garner. 2012. Reading Law: the interpretation of legal texts. St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West.]Search in Google Scholar
[Schane Sanford A. 2006. Language and the Law. London–New York: Continuum.]Search in Google Scholar
[Scott, J. 2010. Codified Canons and the Common Law of Interpretation, Georgetown Law Journal, vol. 98: 341–431.]Search in Google Scholar
[Solan, Lawrence (ed.) 2001. Symposium: Cognitive Legal Studies: Categorization and Imagination in the Mind of Law. A Conference in Celebration of the Publication of Steven L. Winter’s Book, A Clearing in the Forest: Law, Life, and Mind, Brooklyn Law Review vol. 67, no. 4.]Search in Google Scholar
[Solan, Lawrence M. 2010. The Language of Statutes. Laws and Their Interpretation. Chicago–London: The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226767987.001.0001]Search in Google Scholar
[Solan, Lawrence. 2001. Why Laws Work Pretty Well, but not Great: Words and Rules in Legal Interpretation. Review of Words and Rules: the Ingredients of Language by Steven Pinker. Law and Social Inquiry 26: 243–71.]Search in Google Scholar
[Taylor, John. 2002. Cognitive Grammar (Oxford Textbook in Linguistics). Oxford–New York: Oxford University Press (Polish edition: Gramatyka kognitywna. 2007. Transl. M. Buchta, Ł. Wiraszka. Kraków: Universitas).]Search in Google Scholar
[Tobor, Zygmunt. 2013. W poszukiwaniu intencji prawodawcy. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska.]Search in Google Scholar
[Turner, Mark and Mathew McCubbins. 2013. Concepts of Law. Southern California Law Review 86/3: 517–72.]Search in Google Scholar
[Winter, Steven. 2001. A Clearing In the Forest: Law, Life, and Mind. Chicago–London: The University of Chicago Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Wróblewski, Jerzy. 1990. Rozumienie prawa i jego wykładnia. Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk–Łódź: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.]Search in Google Scholar
