Université de Montréal - Thèse sous forme numérique

235(section 5.1.1.2.1); the second one contains verbs that do not meet the criterion ofmorphological derivation (section 5.1.1.2.2); and the last category groups together verbsthat do not establish paradigmatic relations to other terms (section 5.1.1.2.2).5.1.2.2.1. Verbs that meet all four criteriaThe vast majority of terms, i.e. 84% of the English terms, meet all four criteria set out inchapter 4. Some selected terms relate to the subject field of law in general such as to enactand to violate, but for the most part the selected terms are specific to what happens in ajudgment. As the subject field of law is very broad we relied on the general characteristicsof legal discourse as well as on the specificities of the judgments as a legal genre set out inthe first part of chapter 4 to apply the first validation criterion (meaning related to thesubject field).This way, the selected terms can correspond to performative verbs such as theverdictive verbs to acquit and to convict that are at the typical of what happens in ajudgment and, by implication, related to the subject field of law as well. They cancorrespond to argumentation-related verbs such as to allege and to argue due to themandatory role of argumentation that the parties in the law suit as well as the judges haveto provide. The selected terms can also correspond to those actions that mandatorily occurin a given moment of the judgment such as to conclude which evokes either the ratiodecidendi, the reason for the decision, or the ―Conclusion‖.5.1.2.2.2. Verbs without morphological derivativesWe did not find any morphological derivatives of the verbs to adduce, to confer, tocontend, to deem, to engage, to exceed, to render, to seek and to uphold in reference workssuch as BLD online nor were they found in the corpus. These verbs correspond to 9% of thetotal number of verbs that we selected.