Université de Montréal - Thèse sous forme numérique

572.2.3. Qualitative and quantitative discrimination of equivalentsDue to the phenomena of anisomorphism and directionality, the first and last types ofequivalence discussed in the previous section (cognitive equivalence andterminological) are usually attributed a gradation from full through partial to zero.Therefore, our next step must be to identify the typologies of degrees described in theliterature as well as the criteria underlying them.There are two different typologies: a qualitative one based on the nature ofequivalence and a quantitative one based on the number of equivalents (Duda et al.1986). The terminology used to refer to the different degrees of equivalence as well asthe classifications thereof proposed in the literature vary widely. As for the qualitativetypology of equivalence, most authors seem to agree that there are three main degrees ofequivalence: full equivalence, partial equivalence and zero equivalence. Variations canbe seen in the terminology used to differentiate types of partial equivalence.In lexicography, Yong and Peng (2007) identify five types of partialequivalence: analytical equivalents, approximative equivalents, synthetic equivalents,subordinate equivalents and superordinate equivalents. Svensén (2009) distinguishesbetween convergence and divergence. In terminology, Felber (1987) distinguishesbetween overlapping and inclusion. Arnzt (1993) adopts the same classification.Nielsen (1994) talks about inclusion and intersection. Šarčević (2000) makes the samedistinction but adds that functional equivalence is usually a type of partial equivalence.Van Campehoudt (2001) makes the same distinction as Nielsen but he specifiesinclusion types: inclusion and hyponymy and inclusion and meronymy. Thiry (2006)concentrates on the reasons why equivalents are only partial.