Université de Montréal - Thèse sous forme numérique

197[Constitutionality]infringe 1 , vt: LAW1 ~ LAW2The legislation (LAW1) does not infringe s. 2(b) or 15 of the Canadian Charter ofRights and Freedoms (LAW2) .[Constitutionality]violate 1 , vt: LAW1 ~ LAW2Part 2 of the Act (LAW1) does not violate s. 15 of the Charter (LAW2) .e. IRREGULARITY: The Black Law‟s Dictionary – Free online edition (henceforth,BLD online) defines irregularity as a ―violation or nonobservance of establishedrules and practices [...] defect in practical proceedings, or the mode ofconducting an action or defense [...] The doing or not doing that, in the conductof a suit at law, which, conformably with the practice of the court, ought orought not to be done‖. Irregularity is a core FE in frames such as Remedy, inwhich verbs are regularly followed by objects denoting negative events. Thislabel reflects the ―strongly negative prosody‖ of some verbs, which is describedin Atkins et al. (2003), in Stubs (1976), and in Xiao and Mcenery (2006).Irregularity is one of the actants of terms such as allege 1 and impugn 1 and thecore FE of frames such as [Contesting], [Irregularity] and [Make an Error].[Contesting]allege 1 , vt: ARGUER ~ IRREGULARITYMr. Singh alleges no other error (IRREGULARITY) in principle and, in my view,understandably so.Appendix 8 lists some of the labels we used to describe the actantial structure ofterms. As actants are assumed to correspond to core FEs, the labels provided in Appendix 8can be found in the column called ―Frame Elements‖. The appendix also includes the labelsused to describe circumstants or non-core FEs (optional participants in the meaning ofterms). Non-core FEs will be dealt with in section 4.3.8 (annotation of contexts).