Université de Montréal - Thèse sous forme numérique

37in Hartmann and James (1998: 51) and concludes that the nature of the relationshipdescribed in both dictionaries slightly differs:OED onlineequivalence1.a. The condition of being equivalent; equality of value, force, importance,significance, etc.equivalent (n.)2. A word, expression, sign, etc., of equivalent meaning or import.equivalent (a.)1. Equal in value, power, efficacy, or import.2. Having equal or corresponding import, meaning, or significance: chiefly ofwords and expressions.Dictionary of Lexicography (Hartmann and James, 1998: 51)equivalenceThe relationship between words or phrases, from two or more languages, whichshare the same MEANING. Because of the problem of ANISOMORPHISM,equivalence is ‗partial‘ or ‗relative‘ rather than ‗full‘ or ‗exact‘ for mostcontexts. Compilers of bilingual dictionaries often struggle to find and codifysuch translation EQUIVALENTS, taking into account the directionality of theoperation. In bilingual or multilingual TERMINOLOGICAL DICTIONARIES,equivalence implies interlingual correspondence of DESIGNATIONS foridentical CONCEPTS.This way, the relationship between words or expressions or phrases is one ofequality or correspondence for the former dictionary and one of ―sharing (meaning)‖ or―corresponding (meaning)‖ for the latter.According to ISO‘s definition quoted previously (2000: 30), the relationshipbetween designations is one of ―sameness‖ and Termium (2011) also formulates therelationship in the same terms: