Alexy, R. (2008). On the Concept and the Nature of Law. Ratio Juris, 21(3), 281–299.
Almeida, G. da F. C. F., Struchiner, N., & Hannikainen, I. R. (2023). Rule Is a Dual Character Concept. Cognition, 230, 105259. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105259
Ashby, F. G., & Valentin, V. V. (2018). The Categorization Experiment: Experimental Design and Data Analysis. In E.-J. Wagenmakers, J. T. Wixted (Eds.), Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience (4th ed., vol. 5, pp. 307-334). Wiley. DOI: 10.1002/9781119170174.epcn508
Bajčić, M. (2017). New Insights into the Semantics of Legal Concepts and the Legal Dictionary. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Baker, L. R. (2004). The Ontology of Artifacts. Philosophical Explorations, 7(2), 99-111. DOI: 10.1080/13869790410001694462
Barsalou, L. W. (2021). Categories at the Interface of Cognition and Action. In C. Mauri, I. Fiorentini, & E. Goria (Eds.), Building Categories in Interaction: Linguistic Resources at Work (pp. 35-72). John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: 10.1075/slcs.220.03bar
Beaney, M. (2016). Analysis. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2016 ed.). URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/analysis/
Berlin, I. (1999). Concepts and Categories – Philosophical Essays. Pimlico.
Bix, B. (2003). Raz on Necessity. Law and Philosophy, 22(6), 537-559.
Bix, B. H. (2013). Ideals, Practices, and Concepts in Legal Theory. In J. Ferrer Beltrán, J. J. Moreso & D. M. Papayannis (Eds.), Neutrality and Theory of Law (pp. 33-47). Springer.
Bix, B. (2021, August 2). Against Jurisprudence’s New Metaphysical Focus. JOTWELL. URL: https://juris.jotwell.com/against-jurisprudences-new-metaphysical-focus/
Burazin, L., Himma, K. E., & Roversi, C. (Eds.). (2018). Law as an Artifact. Oxford University Press.
Campbell, B. (1978). The Marriage of Soldiers under the Empire. The Journal of Roman Studies, 68, 153-168. DOI: 10.2307/299633
Chiassoni, P. (2016). Supporting The Force of Law: A Few Complementary Arguments Against Essentialist Jurisprudence. In C. Bezemek & N. Ladavac (Eds.), The Force of Law Reaffirmed – Frederick Schauer Meets the Critics (pp. 61-71). Springer.
Cole, D. (1999, February 1). Note on Analyticity and the Definability of “Bachelor”. Philosophy Department of the University of Minnesota Duluth. 1 February 1999.
Collins. (n.d.). Smirting. In Collinsdictionary.com. Retrieved February 26, 2025, from https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/smirting.
Contrera, J. (2015, August 31). Your fancy scooter is cool, but it’s not a “hoverboard.” Why don’t we have hoverboards yet? The Washington Post. URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2015/08/31/a-dad-in-a-garage-wiz-khalifa-and-tony-hawk-all-want-the-hoverboard-to-be-born/
Cummins, R. (1998). Reflection on Reflective Equilibrium. In M. R. DePaul & W. M. Ramsey (Eds.), Rethinking Intuition: The Psychology of Intuition and Its Role in Philosophical Inquiry (pp. 113-128). Rowman & Littlefield.
Dickson, J. (2022). Elucidating Law. Oxford University Press.
Donelson, R., & Hannikainen, I. R. (2020). Fuller and the Folk: The Inner Morality of Law Revisited. In T. Lombrozo, J. Knobe & S. Nichols (Eds.), Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy, Volume 3 (pp. 6-28). Oxford University Press.
Fillmore, C. J. (1975). An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning. Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 123-131. DOI: 10.3765/bls.v1i0.2315
Finnis, J. (2011). Natural Law and Natural Rights. Oxford University Press.
Flanagan, B., & Almeida, G. de. (2024). Lawful, But Not Really: The Dual Character of the Concept of Law. Law and Philosophy, 43(5), 507–548.
Flanagan, B., & Hannikainen, I. R. (2020). The Folk Concept of Law: Law Is Intrinsically Moral. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 100(1), 165-179.
Fox, M. J. (2011). Prototype Theory: An Alternative Concept Theory for Categorizing Sex and Gender? Proceedings from North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization, 3, 151-159.
Gardner, J. (2012). Law as a Leap of Faith. Oxford University Press.
Geerearts, D. (2016). Prospects and Problems of Prototype Theory. Diacronia, 3, 1-16. DOI: 10.17684/i4A53en
Green, L. (2013). The Morality in Law. In L. D. d’Almeida, J. Edwards, & A. Dolcetti (Eds.), Reading HLA Hart’s ‘The Concept of Law’ (pp. 198-224). Hart Publishing.
Green, L. (2016). The Forces of Law: Duty, Coercion and Power. Ratio Juris, 29(2), 164-181. DOI: 10.1111/raju.12122
GrrlScientist. (2019, October 17). Meet The Blob, A Creature That Has Almost 720 Sexes – But No Brain. Forbes. URL: https://www.forbes.com/sites/grrlscientist/2019/10/17/meet-the-blob-a-creature-that-has-almost-720-sexes--but-no-brain/?sh=7f95f8787542
Hage, J. (2021). Are the Cognitive Sciences Relevant for Law? In B. Brożek, J. Hage, & N. A. Vincent (Eds.), Law and Mind: A Survey of Law and the Cognitive Sciences (pp. 17-49). Cambridge University Press.
Hampton, J. A. (1989). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind by George Lakoff – Review. Mind & Language, 4(1-2), 130-137.
Hampton, J. A. (2001). The Role of Similarity in Natural Categorization. In U. Hahn & M. Ramscar (Eds.), Similarity and Categorization (pp. 13-28). Oxford University Press.
Hannikainen, I. R. et al. (2021). Are There Cross-Cultural Legal Principles? Modal Reasoning Uncovers Procedural Constraints on Law. Cognitive Science, 45(8), e13024. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.13024
Hart, H. (2012). The Concept of Law (3rd ed.). Clarendon Press.
Hilferty, J. (1997). Mothers, Lies, and Bachelors: A Brief Reply to Wierzbicka (1990). Word, 48(1), 51-59. DOI: 10.1080/00437956.1997.11432462
Himma, K. E. (2015). Conceptual Jurisprudence: An Introduction to Conceptual Analysis and Methodology in Legal Theory. Revus – Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law, 26, 65-92. DOI: 10.4000/revus.3351
Himma, K. E. (2020). Coercion and the Nature of Law. Oxford University Press.
Himma, K. E. (2023a). Replacement Naturalism and the Limits of Experimental Jurisprudence. Jurisprudence, 14(3), 348-373. DOI: 10.1080/20403313.2023.2208002
Himma, K. E. (2023b). In defence of the Coercion Thesis and modest conceptual methodology. A reply to critics. Revus – Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law, 51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/revus.9984
Holzer, L. (2020). What Does it Mean to be a Woman in Sports? An Analysis of the Jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Human Rights Law Review, 20(3), 387–411.
Jackson, F. (1998). From Metaphysics to Ethics – A Defence of Conceptual Analysis. Clarendon Press.
Jackson, F. (2021). Conceptual Analysis and the Coercion Thesis. Revus – Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law, 45. DOI: 10.4000/revus.7594
Jovanović, M. (2019). The Nature of International Law. Cambridge University Press.
Jovanović, M. (2020). Global/Transnational Law Challenges to Theorizing about Law. In J. L. Fabra-Zamora (Ed.), Jurisprudence in a Globalized World (pp. 54-83). Edward Elgar.
Jovanović, M. (2021a). On Law and Coercion – Once Again. Jurisprudence, 12(3), 417-425.
Jovanović, M. (2021b). On The Nature of International Law: Rejoinder. Revus – Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law, 43. DOI: 10.4000/revus.7283
Katz, J. J. & Fodor, J. A. (1963). The Structure of a Semantic Theory. Language, 39(2), 170–210.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (2007). Cognitive Models and Prototype Theory. In V. Evans, B. K. Bergen & J. Zinken (Eds.), The Cognitive Linguistics Reader (pp. 132-168). Equinox.
Langacker, R. W. (1988). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind by George Lakoff– Review. Language, 64(2), 384-395.
Leiter, B. (2007). Naturalizing Jurisprudence: Essays on American Legal Realism and Naturalism in Legal Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
Leiter, B. (2020, October 15). Critical Remarks on Shapiro’s Legality and the “Grounding Turn” in Recent Jurisprudence. SSRN. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3700513.
Margolis, E., & Laurence, S. (2023). Concepts. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2023 ed.). URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/concepts/
Marmor, A. (2013). Farewell to Conceptual Analysis (in Jurisprudence). In W. Waluchow & S. Sciaraffa (Eds.), Philosophical Foundations to the Nature of Law (pp. 209-229). Oxford University Press.
Martin, E. A. (1997). A Dictionary of Law (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Confirmed bachelor. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved February 26, 2025, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/confirmed%20bachelor
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Law. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved February 26, 2025, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/law
Millikan, R. G. (1984). Language, Thought and Other Biological Categories: New Foundations for Realism. MIT Press.
Millikan, R. G. (1989). In Defense of Proper Functions. Philosophy of Science, 56(2), 288-302.
Miotto, L., Almeida, G. FCF., & Struchiner, N. (2023). Law, Coercion and Folk Intuitions. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 43(1), 97–123.
Murphy, M. C. (2015). Two Unhappy Dilemmas for Natural Law Jurisprudence. The American Journal of Jurisprudence, 60(2), 121–141.
Osherson, D. N., & Smith, E. E. (1981). On the Adequacy of Prototype Theory as the Theory of Concepts. Cognition, 9(1), 35-58. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(81)90013-5
Pelczar, R. M. & Pelczar M. J. (2025, February 4). Protozoa. Britannica. URL: https://www.britannica.com/science/microbiology/Protozoa
Perelli-Harris, B., & Gassen, N. S. (2012). How Similar Are Cohabitation and Marriage? Legal Approaches to Cohabitation across Western Europe. Population and Development Review, 38(3), 435-467. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41857400
Priel, D. (2011). Jurisprudence and Psychology. In M. Del Mar (Ed.), New Waves in Philosophy of Law (pp. 77-99). Palgrave Macmillan.
Priel, D. (2015). The Misguided Search for the Nature of Law. Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper No. 34, 11(07), 1-52.
Ramsey, W. M. (1992). Prototypes and Conceptual Analysis. Topoi, 11(1), 59-70.
Ramsey, W. M. (2007). Representation Reconsidered. Cambridge University Press.
Raz, J. (2002). Practical Reason and Norms (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Raz, J. (2005). Can There Be a Theory of Law? In M. P. Golding & W. A. Edmundson (Eds.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory (pp. 324-342). Blackwell Publishing.
Raz, J. (2007). Theory and Concepts: Responding to Alexy and Bulygin. In Una Discusion Sobre la Teoria del Derecho. Marcial Pons.
Reuters. (2019, October 16). Paris zoo unveils the ‘blob’, an organism with no brain but 720 sexes. Reuters. URL: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-zoo-blob-idUSKBN1WV2AD
Rocca, F. X. (2019, October 6). Pope Opens Debate on Celibacy Requirement for Catholic Priests: Ordination of married men is the most controversial proposal at a three-week meeting on the church’s challenges in South America’s Amazon region. The Wall Street Journal. URL: https://www.wsj.com/articles/pope-opens-debate-on-celibacy-requirement-for-catholic-priests-11570352167
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of Categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization (pp. 27-48). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rosch, E. (1999). Reclaiming Concepts. The Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(11-12), 61-77.
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605.
Schauer, F. (2015). The Force of Law. Harvard University Press.
Schauer, F. (2017). Law’s Boundaries. Harvard Law Review, 130(9), 2434-2462.
Schlegel, A., & Barry III, H. (1991). Adolescence – An Anthropological Inquiry. The Free Press.
Shapiro, S. J. (2011). Legality. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Shea, A. (n.d.). Hoverboard: Floating skateboards existed (sort of) before Back to the Future II. Merriam Webster. Retrieved February 26, 2025, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/when-did-we-start-talking-about-hoverboards
Simon, S. & Bowman, E. (2019, October 20). ‘The Blob,’ A Smart Yet Brainless Organism Fit For Sci-Fi, Gets Its Own Exhibit. NPR. URL: https://www.npr.org/2019/10/20/771285312/the-blob-a-smart-yet-brainless-organism-fit-for-sci-fi-gets-its-own-exhibit
Slocum, B. (2015). Ordinary Meaning – A Theory of the Most Fundamental Principle of Legal Interpretation. University of Chicago Press.
Solan, L. M. (2010). The Language of Statutes Laws and Their Interpretation. University of Chicago Press.
Statt, N. (2016, January 8). They’re called hoverboards now, and there’s nothing we can do about it – Just let it go. The Verge. URL: https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/8/10737210/hoverboard-vs-scooter-vs-segway-name-battle-is-lost
Tamanaha, B. Z. (2017). A Realistic Theory of Law. Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, D. (2011). “Smirting” in the Designated Area: The Smoking Shelter and the English Public House. Interiors: Design, Architecture and Culture, 2(2), 239-254.
Tobia, K. (2022). Experimental Jurisprudence. The University of Chicago Law Review, 89(3), 735-802.
Tobia, K. (2023). Methodology and Innovation in Jurisprudence. Columbia Law Review, 123(8), 2483-2515.
Vervaeke, J., & Green, C. D. (1997). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Theories: A Critique of Lakoff's Theory of Categorization. Metaphor and Symbol, 12(1), 59-80.
Wierzbicka, A. (1990). “Prototypes Save”: On the Uses and Abuses of the Notion of ‘Prototype’ in Linguistics and Related Fields. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and Prototypes – Studies in Linguistic Categorization (pp. 347-367). Routledge.
Winter, S. L. (2001). A Clearing in the Forest: Law, Life, and Mind. Chicago University Press.
Wittgenstein, L. (1958[1953]). Philosophical Investigations. Basil Blackwell.
Zeifert, M. (2025). Law and Cognitive Linguistics: A Prototype Theory Approach to Legal Categorisation. Routledge.