Université de Montréal - Thèse sous forme numérique

277The following pairs of verbs are partial equivalents because they do not have thesame number of actants: apply 3 and deduzir 1 , apply 4 and interpor 1 , convict 1 and aplicar 3 ,convict 1 and condenar 1 , discharge 1 and absolver 1 , err 1 and incorrer 2 , proceed 2a andproceder 2 , remit 1 and transitar 2 , rebut 1 and arguir 1 , rebut 1 and impugnar 2 , rebut 1 andinvocar 1 , request 1 and requerer 1 , seek 1 and requerer 1 .5.3.1.2. Differences in the nature of the actantsAbout 16% of the total number of equivalent pairs (i.e. 27 out of the 165 pairs ofequivalents) and about 56% of the total number of partial equivalents were given the partialequivalence status because the comparison of the actantial structures of the verbs revealedthat the nature of the actants differs from one verb to another. The nature of the actants doesnot entirely coincide due to: 1) metonymies; 2) different semantic preference; and 3)different semantic prosody.5.3.1.2.1. MetonymiesAbout 4% of the total number of equivalent pairs (i.e. 7 out of the 165 pairs of equivalents)and about 15% of the total number of partial equivalents were given the partial equivalencestatus because the comparison of the descriptions revealed that one of the verbs in theequivalent pair allows for the metonymy of one of the actants, whereas the other does not.Consider, for instance, apply 2 , aplicar 2 and vincular 1 in the [Law applicability]frame illustrated in Table 39. This frame describes a scenario in which certain pieces ofwritten law (LAW) guide a specific matter (CASE) or a certain human behaviour(PROTAGONIST) while other pieces of written law guide another. Therefore, the frame [Lawapplicability] contains two slots which correspond to three core FEs: the core FE LAWcorresponds to one of the slots, CASE and PROTAGONIST correspond to another. This meansthat the latter can alternate depending on whether LAW applies to a matter or to a person.