Université de Montréal - Thèse sous forme numérique

31(2005) and most recently in Adamska-Sałaciak (2010). Some of the questionsAdamska-Sałaciak raises are similar to those raised by Wiegand (2005) but are notlimited to them. From our point of view, these questions are so relevant to understandwhat the phenomenon of equivalence involves that we will reproduce them here(Adamska-Sałaciak 2010: 387-388):1. At what level of organization should one look for the entities between whichthe relationship of equivalence obtains?2. What exactly are those entities?3. What is the nature of the relationship between them (e.g. identity,interchangeability, similarity, correspondence)?4. What is the feature according to which the relationship is established ormeasured (e.g. meaning, reference, message, effect)?5. Is equivalence a unitary concept or should different types thereof berecognized?6. Is equivalence „discovered‟ (does it exist prior to being established by thelexicographer) or is it „created‟ by the lexicographer‟s act?7. Are the answers to 1-6 in agreement with the findings of linguists andtranslation theorists?The following sections proceed as follows. Firstly, we summarize the answersthe author provides for the first six questions concerning specifically the literature onbilingual lexicography. We will not refer to the seventh question because it is out ofscope of our project. Secondly, we comment on the answers the author provides forlexicography by directly or indirectly confirming or refuting the author‘s views. Finally,we attempt to answer the same questions regarding the practices adopted byterminologists so as to compare the theoretical grounds as well as the types ofequivalence formulated in lexicography and in terminology.