Université de Montréal - Thèse sous forme numérique

36Saussurre views linguistic signs. For Rondeau, terms are composed of a designation anda concept, which constitutes a viewpoint different from that of Wüster (cf. Figure 5).We can formulate two hypotheses on why sometimes equivalence is defined as arelationship between concepts and some other times as a relationship betweendesignations. Firstly, ISO (ISO 1087-1 2000) identifies three types of relations betweendesignations of concepts, i.e. synonymy, antonymy and equivalence. Each of these isdefined as a kind of relation between two or more designations. Thus, equivalence is arelation between designations in different languages. However, most terminologistsdisagree with such formulation of equivalence and reiterate that equivalence is arelation between concepts and not designations or ―terms‖ (Felber and Budin 1989).Secondly, for a very long time partisans of the classical approach to terminologybelieved that designations should be ‗transparent‘ and reflect the concept and the placethe concept occupies in the conceptual system (Felber and Budin 1989: 123). Thus, ifdesignations mapped concepts, it would not make a difference to formulate equivalenceeither as a relation obtained between designations or as a relation established betweenconcepts.2.2.1.3. Similarity and interchangeability[Q3] “What is the nature of the relationship between them [the entities] (e.g. identity,interchangeability, similarity, correspondence)?”The phenomenon or the ―relationship‖ of equivalence, as Adamska-Sałaciak calls it, ismost often seen as a matter of similarity and interchangeability between two or more ofthe entities to which we referred in the previous section. Therefore, question 3 addressesthe nature of equivalence.Adamska-Sałaciak examines the definitions of ‗equivalence‘ and ‗equivalent‘provided in the Oxford English Dictionary online (henceforth, OED online) as well as