Université de Montréal - Thèse sous forme numérique

352.2.1.2. Concepts and designations[Q2] “What exactly are those entities [between which the relationship of equivalenceobtains]?”Here, it is a matter of examining whether the phenomenon of equivalence is establishedbetween word senses, concepts or designations. For Adamska-Sałaciak‘s (2010) theentities between which the relationship of equivalence is obtained can, on the one hand,be word senses: ―when we talk about a lexical item X in the SL being equivalent to alexical item Y in the TL, what we mean is that X in a particular sense is equivalent to Yin a particular sense‖. On the other, if one accepts senses are artefacts of lexicographicanalysis as some authors defend they are (Wierzbicka 1992, 1993; Rivelis 2007), theentities have to be words or expressions. For Wiegand (2005: 21), the entities are―lexikalsemantische Einheiten‖, a notion which roughly corresponds to that of ―lexicalunits‖ (Cruse 1986), i.e. words or expressions taken in one of their senses.Interestingly, the International Standards Organisation (henceforth, ISO) definesequivalence as ―the relation between designations in different languages representingthe same concept‖ (ISO 1087-1 2000: 30). So, although we mentioned previously thatequivalence is formulated at the conceptual level, the definition of equivalence providedby ISO (2000) seems to suggest that the entities in question are a matter of designationsmore than a matter of concepts. Rondeau‘s definition of equivalence also mentionsdesignations but is not limited to them (1981: 33):Deux termes, T1 et T2, de différentes langues, L1 et L2, sont considéréséquivalents parfaits si la dénomination D de la L1 partage une relation identiqueavec la dénomination D de la L2, et le concept C de la L1 partage une relationidentique avec le concept C de la L2.For Rondeau, both designations and concepts are the entities between which therelationship of equivalence is obtained. This is because Rondeau views terms as