Université de Montréal - Thèse sous forme numérique

46cognitive equivalence (also called semantic, systemic, prototypical,conceptual, decontextualized, notional);explanatory equivalence (also called descriptive);translational equivalence (also called insertable, textual, contextual);functional equivalence (also called situational, communicative,discourse, dynamic).To use the distinction made earlier in this sub-chapter, the first two types ofequivalence can be considered interlingual while the last two are intertextual. Beforeexamining each type of equivalence, it is important to mention that in terminology, incontrast with lexicography, not many types of equivalence such as the ones listed aboveare discussed. In fact, one could well say that, in terminology, there is one only kind ofequivalence, i.e. terminological equivalence, although some authors also call itconceptual equivalence (Arnzt 1993; Bach et al. 2000). As there are differences in thedefinition of and approach to equivalence in lexicography and in terminology, weconsider it relevant to add a fifth type of equivalence called terminological equivalenceto the four types of equivalence presented above and that will be discussed below.Cognitive equivalenceAccording to Adamska-Sałaciak, the cognitive equivalence refers to what Zgusta (1987:30), Gouws (2000: 102) and Svensén (2009: 255) call semantic, to what Hausmann andWerner (1991: 2745) call systemic, to what Cop (1991: 2776) calls prototypical, and towhat Piotrowski (1994: 134) calls cognitive. All these terms mainly differ in emphasisbecause they all describe equivalents whose function is to convey the meaning of agiven linguistic unit and not necessarily to substitute it. Thus, Zgusta (1987: 30), Gouws(2000: 102) and Svensén (2009: 255) prefer the term semantic to emphasize thedenotational identity of lexical items. Hausmann and Werner (1991: 2745) prefer theterm systemic (interlingual) to differentiate it from the translational equivalence type