Université de Montréal - Thèse sous forme numérique

273propugnar 1Por último, na contestação que apresentou, a ré P..., invocou a prescrição doscréditos reclamados pela autora e propugnou pela sua absolvição.Translation:Finally, in the statement of defence that the defendant P. presented, she pled thelimitation of the credits that the author was claiming and she argued that she shouldbe acquitted.argue 1The accused also argued that his acquittal for obstructing justice should beaccepted as fresh evidence in his appeal of the aggravated assault conviction.Translation:No recurso que interpôs da condenação por assalto à mão armada, o arguidopropugnou pela aceitação da prova da sua absolvição do crime de obstrução dajustiça.As this is the only difference observed between argue 1 and propugnar 1 , they weregiven ―full equivalence‖ status. As this kind of information may be relevant for translationpurposes, we provide the users of the resource with it by means of tables with a summary ofthe semantic and syntactic annotation.5.3.2. Partial equivalentsCandidate equivalents were given the ―partial equivalence‖ status when the comparison ofthe descriptions of each verb pair revealed differences in: 1) the actantial structures of theverbs; 2) the linguistic realizations of the core FEs in the contexts; and 3) the syntacticpatterns of the verbs. 48 out of the 165 pairs of equivalents (29%) that we observed wereconsidered partial equivalents because: the verbs do not have the same number of actants;the semantic nature of the actants differs; and/or their syntactic patterns are considerablydifferent.