Université de Montréal - Thèse sous forme numérique

268the linguistic realizations of the actants and their syntactic patterns are similar. These wereconsidered full equivalents. 48 pairs of equivalents (29%) do not entirely meet these criteriaand were considered partial equivalents.This sub-chapter is organized as follows. Section 5.3.1. describes the fullequivalents that we observed. Section 5.3.2. describes the partial equivalents. Finally,section 5.3.3. discusses the results obtained and confirms and refutes some of the principlespresented in the state of the art.5.3.1. Full equivalentsCandidate equivalents were given the ―full equivalence‖ status when the comparison of thedescriptions of each pair of verbs revealed no differences in: 1) the actantial structures ofthe verbs; 2) the linguistic realizations of the actants in the contexts; and 3) the syntacticpatterns of the verbs. 117 out of the 165 pairs of equivalents (71%) that we observed can beconsidered full equivalents (cf. Appendix 17). For example, amend 2 and revogar 2 weregrouped into a frame called [Law changes] (Table 36).Not only do these verbs evoke the same conceptual scenario, but the way they evokethe conceptual scenario is the same. They both refer to the action of formally changing thetext of a written law so as to better it. The action that amend 2 and revogar 2 denote isnecessarily carried out by a new law or by somebody with power to alter the law. Bothverbs have the same actantial structure composed of two actants and both their actantialstructure allows for the alternation between NEW LAW and LEGISLATOR as one of the coreFEs. Although the types of laws differ from one legal system to another, the linguisticrealizations of NEW LAW, LEGISLATOR and OLD LAW are comparable and equivalent in theEnglish and Portuguese contexts.