Université de Montréal - Thèse sous forme numérique

289considered candidate equivalents when they were grouped into the same frame becausethey would convey the same scenario and, therefore, would have the potential to be used inthe translation of the specialized texts. This hypothesis was based on the idea that framescould function as interlingual representations (Boas 2005) that would help us assign theequivalents of the verbs. The second hypothesis that we tested was whether differences inthe way in which the conceptual scenarios are instantiated in the Portuguese and Englishdiscourse were the reason why some equivalents are not always interchangeable in allcontexts and, therefore, could only be considered partial equivalents.We believe that the results that were presented in this chapter confirm thehypothesis that we had formulated because they show that, although 29% of the verbsgrouped into the same frame are only partial equivalents, the vast majority are fullequivalents. It should be noted, however, that the methodology that we proposed alsoallowed us to differentiate between full and partial equivalents. Based on the observation ofthe findings, it seems that the criterion of belonging to the same frame is indeed a goodstarting point even if not a sufficient condition for full equivalence. It is a good startingpoint namely because we were able to differentiate between full equivalents and partialequivalents by analyzing the items of information contained in the description of eachframe, e.g. the core FEs, their linguistic realizations, their syntactic patterns. Thus, in orderto be considered full equivalents a given pair of verbs must: 1) evoke the same frame; 2)profile the same FEs, i.e. have the number of the actants; 3) have comparable actants, i.e.combine with linguistic realizations that denote the same kind of entities; and 4) display nosignificant differences in their valence patterns. Equivalents were considered partialwhenever any of the criteria 2-4 were not met.These findings have two implications. Firstly, they presuppose that the onlycharacteristic that full equivalents mandatorily need to share with partial equivalents andvice versa is the association to the same frame (criterion 1). Secondly, they confirm the idea