Université de Montréal - Thèse sous forme numérique

247We can observe that both terms evoke the same scenario in which somebody has toprovide a logically sufficient reason for assenting to the truth of a proposition or argumentadvanced. Thus, conceptually the terms establish 2 and prove 1 require two core FEs: anARGUER and a PROOF. These core FEs correspond to the actants of the verbs and these arefrequently expressed in the corpus. We can also observe that the linguistic realizations ofthe actants denote the same kind of entities, i.e. they have the same semantic nature, andthey occur in the English corpus with the same syntactic patterns.Finally, the comparison of the annotated contexts of establish 2 and prove 1 revealsthat there are many different non-core FEs in the contexts of establish 2 whereas MANNER isthe only non-core FE present in the contexts of prove 1 and it occurs very frequently inthem. Nevertheless, although the contexts of establish 2 contain several non-core FEs,MANNER is present in them too. Basically, these two terms seem to be very identical inmeaning.To further test the synonymy relation between the verbs, we can easily replace oneby the other in the following contexts extracted from the corpus without changing theirmeaning:establish 2[1] In such a case, the cause of action is not complete until the plaintiff canestablish that the conviction was in fact wrongful.In such a case, the cause of action is not complete until the plaintiff can prove thatthe conviction was in fact wrongful.[2] This in turn means that the accused need not definitely establish that he or sheis not a slow eliminator of alcohol.This in turn means that the accused need not definitely prove that he or she is not aslow eliminator of alcohol.[3] The Crown must also establish that the powers were used in a way that met thestandard of what is reasonably necessary in light of the totality of thecircumstances.