1

"Between 30 and 40 per cent of children attending school A had problems in the areas of spelling, listening, articulation and concentration in classes, while the equivalent/counterpart figures for school B stood at between 5 and 15 per cent."

I wonder if the two words "equivalent" and "counterpart" are interchangeable to each other here in the context as I checked up on the dictionary that the two words both means having same purpose or value as something else does.

1
  • 6
    “Corresponding figures” might work.
    – Xanne
    Commented May 13, 2020 at 2:10

3 Answers 3

1

No, they aren't interchangeable here. Neither of them work. Equivalent is an error and counterpart is being used in a nonidiomatic way, although the general sense of the word is appropriate to the sentence's objective. BoldBen's answer handles the counterpart issue.

Equivalent is used when establishing a comparison, not when establishing a contrast. So you can say

The test scores had different distributions—a score of 80 on test A being equivalent to an 83 on test B.

Here you are establishing differently-valued numbers as equivalent statistics.

Equivalence is about establishing interchangeability between easily distinguishable things. 1/2 and 2/4 are equivalent fractions. It doesn't work with contrasts because contrasting items are not interchangeable.

In a related question Equal vs equivalent ..., John Lawler wrote in a comment

... whereas equivalent means 'is a satisfactory substitute for'. And substitution requires a context.

Clearly, in the example statement, satisfactory substitute for is not the context.

0

The phrase equivalent figures is fairly common.

However, while the phrase counterpart figures is syntactically possible, I'd say it's so unusual that it's not something that should be considered if you want to sound natural.

Google Ngram Viewer indicates that counterpart figures is much less common—and it almost flatlines at the bottom of the usage chart, with only a slight increase around 1980 for some reason.

equivalent figures versus counterpart figures

In short, keep to equivalent in this phrase and context.

5
  • Hi Jason, thank you so much for the prompt and detailed answer, especially with the line graph. Commented May 13, 2020 at 2:52
  • @WilliamSong Your comment made me realize I'd forgotten to provide a link to that chart in my answer. I've updated it. ;) Commented May 13, 2020 at 3:08
  • 1
    With all due respect for descriptivists, the fact that the phrase equivalent figures is more frequent does not automatically entail that it is the best, clearest expression to use, and that its alternatives are to be avoided. Given that the figures are, in fact, different, there is something odd about saying that they are equivalent (i.e. equal), notwithstanding the frequency of the expression. The alternatives, such as counterpart figures, analogous figures, and corresponding figures, avoid that oddness.
    – jsw29
    Commented Jun 12, 2020 at 20:41
  • @jsw29 Equivalence has several senses, and not all of them mean exactly equal. For instance, one sense, which seems quite applicable here, is "having the same solution set" and "capable of being placed in one-to-one correspondence." That does not mean that the values of both sets of data are the same, but that they share the same structure. Commented Jun 12, 2020 at 21:50
  • @JasonBassford, yes, of course, people who use the phrase equivalent figures in this way mean that, even though the figures are different, and thus not equal in themselves, there is some respect in which they are the same (e.g. they are the results of calculations that have the same structure). Dictionaries permit such use of the word. That's why I did not say that this use of the phrase is incorrect, but only that there is something odd about it. The fact that the alternatives avoid this oddness may be a reason for preferring them.
    – jsw29
    Commented Jun 13, 2020 at 3:35
0

The Cambridge Online Dictionary defines counterpart as

a person or thing that has the same purpose as another one in a different place or organisation

This means that 'counterpart' relates people, things or other entities to others of the same type. It does not, usually, relate characteristics of entities to each other.

Also if you look at the definition and examples in the Merriam Webster entry for 'counterpart' you will see the same thing but with more examples. For instance MW gives the example

The secretary of defense met with his counterparts in Asia to discuss the nuclear crisis.

That means you could say that "The figures for A's counterpart, B, were between 5 and 15 percent" and use counterpart in its normal way but that talking about "the counterpart figures for B" is definitely not standard.

Jason Bassford's answer includes an Ngram showing that there are a very few cases where the phrase 'counterpart figures' has been used in published work but I would suggest that many, if not all, of those are cases where 'figures' does not mean numbers, or indeed any characteristics of entities. I think they could easily be phrases such as "The great Impressionists and their counterpart figures from the Renaissance" or "The leaders of the Russian revolution such as Lenin and their counterpart figures in the Chinese communist revolution such as Mao"

In a comparison of statistics from two schools the correct term is "equivalent figures".

2
  • 1
    I agree right down to the last line. I consider this use of equivalent figures an error because the point of the sentence is to contrast the figures. You could manage something like "the test scores had different distributions—a score of 80 on test A being equivalent to an 83 on test B." Here, you are equating the scores, not contrasting them.
    – Phil Sweet
    Commented Oct 10, 2020 at 12:23
  • @PhilSweet For me and, I believe, in general use the term 'equivalent figures' means the figures which represent the same property of the people, things or organisations to which they refer regardless of the values. For example if person A charges £50 per hour and person B chages £25 per hour for the same job then the cost of using A for a 4 hour job is £200 but the equivalent cost for emplying B is £100. However if A works so fast that he can complete the job in 1 hour but B takes 4 hours then A will cost £50 and the equivalent cost for B will be £100.
    – BoldBen
    Commented Oct 11, 2020 at 12:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .