Université de Montréal - Thèse sous forme numérique

30The second reason why lexicographers and terminologists have formulateddistinct definitions of equivalence lies in the fact that they adopt or are expected toadopt radically different approaches or methodologies to the compilation of dictionaries.The former typically adopt a semasiological approach, in which the need to presentequivalents for every source language lexical item has long led lexicographers to reflecton the phenomenon of equivalence. In contrast, most terminologists adopt anonomasiological approach that aims first and the foremost to document concepts andreduce ambiguity in expert communication. Van Campenhoudt (2001) rightlycomments that compared to metalexicography considerations on equivalence found interminology manuals are much poorer. We agree with him when he writes that this canbe explained by the normative view in classic terminology (Van Campenhoudt 2001: 3):Dans la logique viennoise, sont réputés équivalents les termes qui expriment unmême concept. La problématique de l‘équivalence partielle n‘est pas niée, maiselle est davantage décrite comme un problème à éviter que comme un fait àgérer dans le plus grand respect des différences culturelles.But even in lexicography, equivalence requires more thorough studies. Themetalexicographer Wiegand (2002: 241) argues that the concept of equivalence stillneeds to be defined specifically for dictionary research and be differentiated from theconcepts from neighbouring disciplines. Adamska-Sałaciak (2010) seems to agree thatthis has not yet been fully accomplished in lexicography. We will try to demonstratethat, in this respect, the situation in terminology is not much different and that theconcept of equivalence is either simplified or even rejected here. The main questionguiding this section is then: what is equivalence?Adamska-Sałaciak (2010: 387) reminds us that ―to be able to talk aboutequivalence, there must be (at least) two entities of some kind, a certain relationshipbetween those entities, and a certain value of that relationship‖. This statementgenerates a further number of questions that were raised in Werner (1999), in Wiegand