Armstrong S., Jackson J.A., Hoffman J.L. 2018. The role of the primary care provider in longterm counselling: Establishing a therapeutic alliance with child and family. – Freemark M. (ed.). Pediatric obesity. Contemporary endocrinology. Cham: Humana Press: 685–693.

Bednarek M. 2006. Epistemological positioning and evidentiality in English news discourse: A text-driven approach. – Text & Talk 26.6: 635–660.

Biber D., Johansson S., Leech G., Conrad S., Finegan E. 1999. The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.

Bongelli R., Riccioni I., Fermani A., Philip G. 2020. Hypothetical questions in everyday Italian conversations. – Lingua 246: 102951.

Brodsky S.L, Titcomb C., Sams D.M., Dickson K., Benda Y. 2012. Hypothetical constructs, hypothetical questions, and the expert witness. – International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 35: 354–361.

Byrne R.M.J. 2007. Précis of The Rational Imagination: How people create alternatives to reality. – Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30: 439–480.

Catellani P., Bertolotti M., Vagni M., Pajardi D. 2021. How expert witnesses’ counterfactuals influence causal and responsibility attributions of mock jurors and expert judges. – Applied Cognitive Psychology 35: 3–17.

Coleridge S.T.C. 1888. Table-talk, December 27, 1831 – Ashe T. (ed.). The table talk and omniana of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. London: George Bell and Sons: 147.

Cotterill J. 2003. Language and power in court: A linguistic analysis of the O.J. Simpson trial. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Dancygier B., Sweetser E. 2000. Construction with if, since and because: Causality, epistemic stance, and clause order – Couper-Kuhlen E., Kortmann B. (eds.). Cause-condition-concession-contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives. [Topics in Linguistics 33]. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 111–142.

Dancygier B., Sweetser E. 2005. Mental spaces in grammar. Conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Davis B.G. 2009. Tools for teaching. [2nd edition]. San Francisco (CA): John Wiley & Sons. Drew P. 1992. Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape. – Drew P., Heritage J. (eds.). Talk at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 470–520.

Fauconnier G. 1985. Mental spaces. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.

Fauconnier G. 1994. Mental spaces. Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fetzer A. 2014. Foregrounding evidentiality in (English) academic discourse: Patterned co-occurrences of the sensory perception verbs seem and appear. – Intercultural Pragmatics 11.3: 333–355.

Golato A. 2012. Impersonal quotation and hypothetical discourse. – Buchstaller I., Van Alphen I. (eds.). Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and cross disciplinary perspectives. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 3–36.

Gutheil T.G., Hauser M., White M.S., Spruiell G., Strasburger L.H. 2003. “The whole truth” versus “the admissible truth”: An ethics dilemma for expert witnesses. – The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 31: 422–427.

Heffer C. 2005. The language of jury trial. A corpus-aided analysis of legal-lay discourse. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hobbs P. 2002. Tipping the scales of justice: Deconstructing an expert’s testimony on cross-examination. – International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 15.4: 411–424.

Holt E., Johnson A. 2010. Legal talk. The sociopragmatics of legal talk: Police interviews and trial discourse. – Coulthard M., Johnson A. (eds.). The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. London: Routledge: 21–36.

Hurley G.F. 2018. The playbook of persuasive reasoning: Everyday empowerment and like-ability. Wilmington, Malaga: Vernon Press.

Johnson A. 2002. So…? Pragmatic implications of so-prefaced questions in formal police interviews. – Cotterill J. (ed.). Language in the legal process. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan: 91–110.

Johnson T.R. 2004. Oral arguments and decision making on the United States Supreme Court. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Kahneman D., Miller D. 1986. Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. – Psychological Review 93: 136–153.

Koester A., Handford M. 2018. ‘It’s not good saying “Well it it might do that or it might not”: Hypothetical reported speech in business meetings. – Journal of Pragmatics 130: 67–80.

Land V., Parry R., Pino M., Jenkins L., Feathers L., Faull C. 2018. Addressing possible problems with patients’ expectations, plans and decisions for the future: One strategy used by experienced clinicians in advance care planning conversations. – Patient Education and Counseling 102.4: 670–679.

Lohrová H., Koester A. 2023. Formulating hypothetical talk. An action-driven approach to communicating stance in business meetings. Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 140.1: 1–25.

Luchjenbroers J. 1997. “In your own words …”: Questions and answers in a Supreme Court trial. – Journal of Pragmatics 27: 477–503.

Malphurs R.A. 2013. Rhetoric and discourse in Supreme Court oral arguments. Sensemaking in judicial opinions. London, New York: Routledge.

Marín Arrese J. 2011. Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity in political discourse. Legitimising strategies and mystification of responsibility. – Hart C. (ed.). Critical discourse studies in context and cognition. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 193–223.

Marín Arrese J. 2015. Epistemicity and stance: A cross-linguistic study of epistemic stance strategies in journalistic discourse in English and Spanish. – Discourse Studies 17.2: 210–225.

Matoesian G., Gilbert K.E. 2018. Multimodal conduct in the law. Language, gesture and materiality in legal interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Meyer M. 1980. Dialectic questioning: Socrates and Plato. – American Philosophical Quarterly 17: 281–289.

Mortensen S.S. 2020. A question of control? Forms and functions of courtroom questioning in two different adversarial trial systems. – Scandinavian Studies in Language 11.1: 239–278.

Nuyts J. 2001. Epistemic modality, language and conceptualisation: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

O’Barr W. 1982. Linguistic evidence. Language, power, and strategy in the courtroom. San Diego, New York: Academic Academic Press.

Ochs E. 1996. Linguistic resources for socialising humanity. – Gumperz J.J., Levinson S.C. (eds.). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 407–437.

Partington A., Duguid A., Taylor C. 2013. Patterns and meanings in discourse. Theory and practice in corpus-assisted discourse studies (CADS). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Peräkylä A. 1993. Invoking a hostile world: Discussing the patient’s future in AIDS counselling. – Text 13.2: 291–316.

Peräkylä A. 1995. AIDS counselling. Institutional interaction and clinical practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Prettyman E.B., Jr. 1984. The Supreme Court’s use of hypothetical questions at oral argument. – Catholic University Law Review 33: 555–591.

Renoe C.E. 1996. Seeing is believing: Expert testimony and the construction of interpretative authority in an American trial. – International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 9: 115–137.

Rocci A. 2009. Doing discourse analysis with possible worlds. – Renkema J. (ed.). Discourse, of course. An overview of research in discourse studies. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 15–35.

Scott M. 2012. WordSmith Tools. [version 6], Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.

Speer S.A. 2012. Hypothetical questions: A comparative analysis and implications for “applied” vs “basic” conversation analysis. – Research on Language and Social Interaction 45.4: 352–374.

Speer S.A., Parsons C. 2006. Gatekeeping gender: Some features of the use of hypothetical questions in the psychiatric assessment of transsexual patients. – Discourse and Society 17.6: 785–812.

Tetlock P.E., Lebow R.N., Parker G. 2005. Unmaking the West: Counterfactuals, contingency, and causation. Ann Arbor (MI): University of Michigan Press.

Tognini-Bonelli E. 2001. Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Tversky A., Kahneman D. 1973. Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. – Cognitive Psychology 5.2: 207–232.

Ward T. 2017. Expert testimony, law and epistemic authority. – Journal of Applied Philosophy 34.2: 263–277.

Wigmore J.H. 1940. Evidence in trials at common law. [4th edition]. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Winchatz M.R., Kozin A. 2008. Comical hypothetical: Arguing for a conversational phenomenon. – Discourse Studies 10.3: 383–405.

Woodbury H. 1984. The strategic use of questions in court. – Semiotica 48.3–4: 197–228.