Université de Montréal - Thèse sous forme numérique

221the semantic nature of the terms that instantiate the FEs PROTAGONIST and ACT.In contrast, we can observe that the terms denoting the FE LAW in the contextsof the verb exceed 1 are slightly different from the terms denoting the FE LAW inthe contexts of the verbs infringe 2 , violar 2 and violate 2 . Whereas, the linguisticrealizations of the FE LAW in the contexts of the verbs infringe 2 , violar 2 andviolate 2 refer to principles and norms established in the written law, thelinguistic realizations of the FE LAW in the contexts of the verb exceed 1 refer tothe scope and limit of the principles and norms established in the written law.This difference leads us to consider exceed 1 as a less suitable equivalent forviolar 2 when compared to the other candidate equivalents infringe 2 and violate 2that have fully met the criteria applied up to this point.4. The syntactic patterns of the verbs. Finally, it was necessary to verify if therewas any significant difference between the syntactic patterns of the verbs. Majordifferences between the syntactic patterns of the verbs, such as the lack ofcoincidence of the syntactic patterns of two or more actants of a verb, can raisetranslation challenges and may indicate that we are not dealing with fullequivalents. From Table 21, we can observe that the actants of infringe 2 , violate 2and violar 2 have at least one syntactic pattern in common.For all these reasons, we considered comply 2 and cumprir 1 as well as exceed 1 andviolar 2 as partial equivalents, infringe 2 and violar 2 as full equivalents and violate 2 andviolar 2 as full equivalents.