Barth D. 2000. “that’s true, although not really, but still”: Expressing concession in spoken English. – Couper-Kuhlen E., Kortmann B. (eds.) Cause, condition, concession, contrast: cognitive and discourse perspectives. Berlin: 411–437.

Barth-Weingarten D. 2003. Concession in spoken English. On the realisation of a discourse pragmatic relation. Tübingen.

Bhatia V.K. 1993. Analysing genre. Language in use in professional settings. London.

Bhatia V.K. 2002. Applied genre analysis: a multi-perspective model. – IBÉRICA 4.2002: 3–19.

Crevels M. 2000. Concessives on different semantic levels: A typological perspective. –

Couper-Kuhlen E., Kortmann B. (eds.) Cause, condition, concession, contrast: cognitive and discourse perspectives. Berlin: 313–339.

Couper-Kuhlen E., Thompson S.A. 1999. On the concessive relation in conversational English. – Neumann F.W., Scheulting S. (eds.) Anlistentag 1998 Erfurt Proceedings. Trier: 29–39.

Couper-Kuhlen E., Thompson S.A. 2000. Concessive patterns in conversation. –

Couper-Kuhlen E., Kortmann B. (eds.) Cause, condition, concession, contrast: cognitive and discourse perspectives. Berlin: 381–410.

Couper-Kuhlen E., Kortmann B. (eds.) 2000. Cause, condition, concession, contrast: cognitive and discourse perspectives. Berlin.

Ford C.E. 1994. Dialogic aspects of talk and writing: because on the interactive-edited continuum. – Text 14.4: 531–554. [quoted in: Barth-Weingarten D. 2003. Concession in spoken English. On the realisation of a discourse-pragmatic relation. Tübingen].

Grochowski M. 1976. O strukturze semantycznej przyzwolenia. – Mayenowa M.R. (ed.) Semantyka tekstu i języka. Wrocław: 25–237.

Grote B. et al. 1997. Ma(r)king concessions in English and German. – Discourse Processes 24: 87–117.
Halliday M.A.K., Hasan R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London.

Knott A. 1996. A data-driven methodology for motivating a set of coherence relations. [unpublished Ph.D. diss.]. University of Edinburgh.

Knott A., Dale R. 1994. Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. – Discourse Processes 18: 35–62.

König E. 1988. Concessive connectives and concessive sentences: cross-linguistic regularities and pragmatic principles. – Hawkins J.A. (ed.) Explaining language universals. New York: 321–349.König E., Siemund P. 2000. Causal and concessive clauses: Formal and semantic relations. –

Couper-Kuhlen E., Kortmann B. (eds.) Cause, condition, concession, contrast: cognitive and discourse perspectives. Berlin: 341–360.

Kurzon D. 1997. ‘Legal language’: varieties, genres, registers, discourses. – International Journal of Applied Linguistics 7.2: 119–139.
Le Ch. et al. 2008. Contrastive analysis of Chinese and American court judgments. – Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 2.1: 49–58. [Available at: http://cadaad.rg/ejournal]

Łyda A. 2007. Concessive relation in spoken discourse. A study into academic spoken English. Katowice.

Mann W., Thompson S.A. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: toward a functional theory of text organization. – Text 8.3: 243–281.

Mazzi D. 2005. Grounds and reasons. Argumentative signals in judicial texts. – Linguistica e Filologia 20: 157–178.

Mazzi D. 2006. “This is an attractive argument, but ...”: argumentative conflicts as an interpretive key to the discourse of judges. – Bhatia V.K., Gotti M. (eds.) Explorations in specialised genres. Bern: 271–290.

Mazzi D. 2007. The construction of argumentation in judicial texts: combining a genre and a corpus based perspective. – Argumentation 21: 21–38.

Oates S.L. 2000. Multiple discourse marker occurrence: creating hierarchies for natural language generation. – ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. [vol. V Proceedings of the workshop on student research]. Seattle, Wa: 41–45.

Pincoff E. 1971. The audiences of the judge. – Hubien H. (ed.) Legal reasoning (Proceedings of the world congress for legal and social philosophy). Bruxelles: 337–344.

Pisarkowa K. 1974. O stosunkach między parataksą i hipotaksą. Na przykładzie polskich zdań przeciwstawnych i przyzwalających. – Język Polski 54.2: 81–93.

Porter J.E. 1986. Intertextuality and the discourse community. – Rhetoric Review 5.1: 34–47.

Quirk R., Greenbaum S. 1973. A university grammar of English. Harlow.

Rudolph E. 1996. Contrast: adversative and concessive relations and their expressions in English, German, Spanish and Portuguese on sentence level and text level. Berlin, New York.

Sanders T.J.M. et al. 1992. Towards a taxonomy of coherence relations. – Discourse Processes 15: 1–35.

Swales J.M. 1990. Genre analysis. English in academic and research settings. Cambridge.

Taboada M. 2006. Discourse markers as signals (or not) of rhetorical relations. – Journal of Pragmatics 38.4: 567–592.

Thompson G., Zhou J. 2000. Evaluation and organisation in text: The structuring role of evaluative disjuncts. – Hunston S. (ed.) Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourses. Oxford: 121–141.