Université de Montréal - Thèse sous forme numérique

45assistance to identify and validate candidate equivalents. Instead of calling this externalentity tertium comparationis, in this research we will call it frame. Chapter 3 accountsfor the theoretical basis of frames which will be used in Chapter 4 to link candidateequivalents.2.2.1.5. Equivalence types[Q5] “Is equivalence a unitary concept or should different types thereof berecognized?”The discussion developed in the previous sections indicates that definitions ofequivalence may vary. This section investigates why equivalence may not be a unitaryconcept and lists the kinds of equivalence that can be identified in the literature.Based on the comparison of the definitions of equivalence included in thelexicographic works that she quotes, Adamska-Sałaciak (2010) argues that equivalenceis not a unitary notion. She corroborates this conclusion with a review of literature aswell as with a review of the terminology used to refer to the equivalence relationship.Another argument she seems to put forth is that the existence of degrees in thecorrespondence or sameness relationship that characterizes equivalence may explain thedifficulty in elaborating a single definition of what lexicographic equivalence is. Theauthor supports this argument with a reference to Sovran (1992) who demonstrates that―similarity‖ and ―sameness‖ are not unitary concepts themselves. It follows thatequivalence defined as a ―similarity‖ or ―sameness‖ relationship between at least twoentities cannot be a unitary concept because the nature of the relationship itself is notunitary. Thus, although terminological variations do not necessarily mean that differentphenomena are being discussed, some are. Based on the literature review, Adamska-Sałaciak then presents a classification of the several types of equivalence: