Université de Montréal - Thèse sous forme numérique

234subject field of law, in general, and to what the macro-scenario of a judgment involves, inparticular. What is more, neither their actants nor their morphological derivatives are termsof the subject field of law, in general, or of the judgments, in particular. Finally, they do notestablish paradigmatic relations to other valid terms.For instance, to deduct has a high specificity score (67) and a high frequency (115),but its meaning is not specific to the subject field of law, in general, and to what the macroscenarioof a judgment involves, in particular. Consider the following sentences thatillustrate this verb:[1] He deducted the interest on the loan claiming that the borrowed money nowrepresented his investment in the law firm.[2] In calculating his income, he deducted $81,655 as a Canadian explorationexpense in 1992, and an additional $14,854 in 1994, reducing his pool accordingly.In these sentences that are representative of what we observed in the concordancesof to deduct, the verb conveys the idea of taking away a sum of money. This meaningseems to relate more to the subject field of finances than to the subject field of law. For thisreason, we decided to not retain the candidate term deduct.5.1.2.2. Retained candidate termsAll verbs that we selected have a meaning that is related to the subject field of the law,namely to what happens in the judgments, and their actants typically correspond to legalterms (Appendix 15). However, some terms are not morphologically and semanticallyrelated to other terms of the subject field, and some terms do not have paradigmaticrelations to other terms of the subject field. Therefore, the English terms that we selectedcan be grouped into three categories. The first one contains verbs that meet all four criteria