Université de Montréal - Thèse sous forme numérique

48language‖ (2006 [1979]: 235). Adamska-Sałaciak explains that this type of equivalencehas the same objective of conveying meaning as the cognitive type of equivalence, butwhile it is always possible to provide an explanatory type of equivalent it is not alwayspossible to provide a cognitive one. Svensén (2009: 255) provides the example ofKriegskind whose explanatory equivalent is child born during the war. Terminologistsnever refer to this type of equivalence except when mentioning the strategies for copingwith the absence of equivalents. In lexicography, explanatory equivalence is usuallycontrasted with the translation type of equivalence, to which we will refer next.Translational equivalenceCop (1991: 2776) calls it insertable, whereas Zgusta (1971: 319), Hausmann andWerner (1991: 2745), Piotrowski (1994: 134) and Svensén (2009: 255) call ittranslational. The translational equivalent must be a lexicalized unit of the targetlanguage that can be inserted in the running target-language text, and that has anexplanatory power, although to a lesser extent than the explanatory equivalent. Svensén(2009: 255) provides the example of Kriegskind whose translational equivalent is warbaby.In terminology, Chromá (2004) mentions this type of equivalence in a similarsense to the aforementioned lexicographers. Nielsen (1994) seems to use this term in thesense of ―semantic equivalence‖ because he states that the establishment of translationequivalents is the linguistic task of bilingual lexicography. He explains that in thesubject field of law it is not always possible to provide ―real lexical units in the targetlanguage which express exactly the same meaning as their respective source languageterms owing to the different legal systems and terminological incongruency‖ (1994:157).