Université de Montréal - Thèse sous forme numérique

266verbs and as frames can include terms that belong to other parts of speech, the frames thathave already been defined could very probably be further enriched.In chapter 2 (section 2.1.), we mentioned that legal language is said to be normativein that it is related to norm creation. Indeed, the frames that were identified support thisidea. Firstly, the frame that grouped together the greatest number of terms is the frame[Regulations], a scenario in which the law guides the human behaviour. This indicates thatthis frame is particularly relevant in the corpus texts. Secondly, we also identified otherframes related to the idea of norm creation such as [Apply law], [Authorization], and[Order] in which the LAW or its representative in the judgments, the JUDGE, create or applythe norms. Again, we confirm the hypothesis according to which knowledge about thecharacteristics of legal discourse as well as about judgments as a legal genre are helpful foridentifying and describing the frames.At the same time, the frames that were identified proved to be useful forunderstanding the most relevant participants in the macro-scenario of judgments. As in thetheory of the classes of objects (Chodkiewicz and Gross 2005), the FEs correspond toclasses of entities that are specific to the conceptual scenarios. Whenever the arguments ofthe verbs denoted different classes of entities, they were assigned different meanings byintegrating a different frame. For instance, we find the verb to establish in two differentframes: in the frame [Regulations] (Table 22) to establish corresponds to the termestablish 1 and in the frame [Proof] (Table 23) it corresponds to the term establish 2 . In thecontext of the former, the verb evokes a scenario in which the LAW regulates an ISSUEbecause its arguments denote entities associated with these two categories. In the context ofthe latter, the verb evokes a scenario in which an ARGUER has to provide a logicallysufficient reason for assenting the truth of a proposition, i.e. the [Proof]. The entitiesassociated with these two categories are necessarily different from those associated with