Université de Montréal - Thèse sous forme numérique

76The theory of the classes of objects has been applied to the description of LSPssuch as medicine (Gross and Mathieu-Colas 2001), football (Gross and Guenthner2002; Clas and Gross 2003) and the law (Lerat 2002a, 2002b, 2005; Chodkiewicz andGross 2005). We will focus here on its application to legal language as well as tospecialized verbs.For Lerat (2002a) there are three types of verbs that occur in specializeddiscourse: very specialized verbs (―verbes très specialisés‖), support verbs andpolysemous verbs. By stating that ―tout emploi d‘un mot spécialisé renvoie à unscénario de réalité lexicalisé au moyen d‘un schéma d‘arguments‖ (Lerat 2002b: 159),the author is suggesting using the identification of the schemata of arguments todifferentiate between them. For instance, intenter is a specialized verb whose argumentscan be une demande en justice, une accusation and un procès. These entities can begrouped into one and the same class, i.e. the class of objects of thatintimately relates to the subject field of law. In fact, the first type of verbs, i.e.specialized verbs, is used with very strict classes of objects which can be described interms of contextual rules as the following ones (Lerat 2002a: 206):adjuger N abroger N allouer N antidater N contrevenir N , The type of constructions in which they appear are not always free and should bemade explicit and formalized as above. The second type of verbs, i.e. support verbs likeavoir, donner, mettre, porter or prendre, are not specialized and, according to theauthor, should be treated under the noun forms with which they occur because the nounforms are the ones that are semantically relevant. This position is in line with commonpractices in specialized-dictionary making, in which verb supports are generally nevergiven an independent entry.