Université de Montréal - Thèse sous forme numérique

68Arnzt (1993) underlines the importance of using definitions to compare the concepts,but he admits that these can sometimes be problematic as concepts may be defineddifferently as regards the structure of the description and the point of view. He gives theexample of the terms ultrasonic welding and Ultraschallschweiβen that, based on thecomparison of the definitions provided in the British and German standards, possessthree common characteristics and five differing ones (he calls them additionalcharacteristics). Nevertheless, Arnzt considers these two terms equivalents becausethey occupy the same position within the system of concepts.This approach is, actually, very productive in legal terminography which alsohappens to be strongly influenced by theory on legal translation, especially byfunctional theories. For instance, Groffier and Reed (1990) adhere to the notion of―functional equivalence‖ as a method to solve problems of language transfer. In order todetermine the accuracy of functional equivalents, they propose the followingmethodology (Groffier and Reed 1990: 84):(…) analyser le terme à traduire dans la langue source pour en dégager lescaractéristiques essentielles et accessoires et à faire la même chose dans lalangue cible. L‘évaluation finale consiste à comparer les caractéristiquescorrespondantes.Unfortunately, the authors do not explain how they select candidate equivalents,what is considered ―essential‖ and ―accessory‖, nor do they provide an exampleillustrating the methodology. We assume that their intuition as subject field expertsmay guide them in this task.The most radical approach concerning methodologies for establishingequivalence is that of de Groot (1990), Šarčević (1991) and Sandrini (1995, 1996,1999). Like other terminologists mentioned in the section 2.2.1.5 (cf. functionalequivalence), Šarčević (1991) not only questions the acceptability of functional