Université de Montréal - Thèse sous forme numérique

285Translation:* Este Tribunal pode suprir a questão legal que se apresenta sem emitir umaopinião sobre este ponto.suprir 1Serão de suprir as omissões e lacunas de factualização apontadas.Translations:* One has to amend the omissions in the presented facts.One has to remedy the omissions in the presented facts.* One has to resolve the omissions in the presented facts.The following pairs of terms are partial equivalents for similar reasons: amend 1 andsuprir 1 , constitute 1 and padecer 2 , impugn 1 and invocar 1 , impugn 1 and arguir 1 , resolve 1 andsuprir 1 .5.3.1.3. Differences in the valence patternsAbout 6% of the total number of equivalent pairs (i.e. 10 out of the 165 pairs ofequivalents) and about 20% of the total number of partial equivalents were given the partialequivalence status because the comparison of the actantial structures of the verbs revealedthat the verbs‘ valence patterns are different.For instance, commit 2 , impose 1 , order 1 , require 1 and determinar 2 were groupedtogether into the frame [Order] illustrated in Table 42. This frame describes a scenario inwhich the LAW or its representative, the JUDGE commands somebody to do something.Thus, this frame involves four core FEs: JUDGE, LAW, DUTY and PROTAGONIST. Eachlexical unit grouped into this frame profiles the FEs in a given way. For instance, the termcommit 2 profiles the JUDGE, the PROTAGONIST and the DUTY. The JUDGE is typically thesyntactic subject of the verb; the PROTAGONIST is typically the syntactic object of the verb;and the DUTY is a complement that takes the form of a PP. In contrast, the term impose 1profiles all four FEs but the FE PROTAGONIST is typically a complement of the verb in the