Université de Montréal - Thèse sous forme numérique

xiList of TablesTable 1. Equivalent terms in DiCoInfo ................................................................................ 44Table 2. Anisomorphism: example of differences in the conceptual structures (adapted fromSvensen 2009) .............................................................................................................. 53Table 3. Example of full equivalents ................................................................................... 59Table 4. Partial equivalence by inclusion ............................................................................ 60Table 5. Partial equivalence by intersection ........................................................................ 61Table 6. Ontological structure of condenar (Alves et al 2005a: 131). ............................... 104Table 7. Elements of the frame evoked by buy .................................................................. 122Table 8. Elements of the frame evoked by sell .................................................................. 123Table 9. Confirming cross-linguistic correspondences and solving cross-linguisticdivergences (based on Schmidt 2009: 107-110) ........................................................ 147Table 10. Summary of the annotation of the contexts of the term install 2 in DiCoInfo(2012) ......................................................................................................................... 149Table 11. Features of the corpus used in the research........................................................ 158Table 12. Example of the identification section of the acórdãos ...................................... 161Table 13. Example of the summary section of the acórdãos ............................................. 162Table 14. Beginning of the thematic part relatório with Roman numerals ....................... 163Table 15. Beginning of the thematic part relatório with a header ..................................... 163Table 16. Mandatory elements in the identification section of Canadian judgments (adaptedfrom Pelletier et al. (2002) and Pelletier et al. (2009)) .............................................. 170Table 17. Comparison of the Portuguese and Canadian judgments................................... 174Table 18. comply 1 , infringe 1 , satisfy 1 and violate 1 evoke the [Constitutionality] frame .... 199Table 19. comply 2 , exceed 1 , infringe 1 , and violate 1 evoke the [Compliance] frame .......... 200Table 20. The [Compliance] frame groups together candidate equivalents....................... 218Table 21. The pairs of candidate equivalents grouped together into the frame [Compliance].................................................................................................................................... 222Table 22. The [Regulations] frame .................................................................................... 243