THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO TERMINOLOGY TRANSLATION: EQUIVALENCE, GAPS, AND LINGUISTIC STRATEGIES

Аннотация

This article examines the theoretical foundations of terminology translation, focusing on the complex relationship between linguistic precision and conceptual transfer in specialized discourse. Drawing on frameworks from Sager (1990), Felber (1984), and L’Homme (2020), it analyzes key challenges such as non-equivalence, polysemy, and conceptual gaps. The study argues that terminologists serve as crucial mediators between languages and knowledge systems, requiring both linguistic expertise and domain-specific awareness. The article concludes by advocating for interdisciplinary collaboration to address these challenges systematically. Keywords: Terminology, equivalence, conceptual gaps, polysemy, cognitive linguistics Terminology constitutes the backbone of specialized communication, enabling the precise encoding and transmission of domain-specific knowledge across languages and cultures. Unlike general vocabulary, terms are characterized by their monosemy (single meaning) and consistency within a given field, making their accurate translation critical for international collaboration in science, law, medicine, and technology. However, the process of translating terms is fraught with theoretical and practical challenges, as it involves not just lexical substitution but the transfer of complex conceptual systems embedded in socio-cultural and epistemological frameworks. Theoretical approaches to terminology translation have evolved from prescriptive, equivalence-based models to dynamic frameworks that incorporate cognitive semantics, cultural adaptation, and functionalist principles. This article explores these theoretical foundations and their implications for addressing persistent challenges in the field. Theoretical Frameworks: Sager’s Functional Interface Model Juan C. Sager (1990) conceptualizes terminology as a "functional interface" between language and specialized knowledge. His model emphasizes that term translation must prioritize communicative adequacy over formal equivalence. For instance, the legal term habeas corpus lacks direct equivalents in civil law systems; translators must therefore adapt its function (judicial review of detention) rather than its form. Sager’s work underscores the role of context in 165 ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN MODERN SCIENCE International scientific-online conference disambiguating polysemous terms and the need for translators to align terms with target-language discourse conventions. Felber’s Terminological Equivalence Helmut Felber (1984) identifies three layers of equivalence in terminology translation: 1. Denotative: The term must refer to the same concept in both languages (e.g., diabetes mellitus → qandli diabet in Uzbek). 2. Morpho-syntactic: The term should conform to target-language structures (e.g., calquing superconductor as supero‘tkazuvchi). 3. Pragmatic: The term must be acceptable to domain experts and end-users. Felber’s framework highlights the negotiative nature of term translation, where ideal equivalence is often unattainable due to linguistic or cultural asymmetries. L’Homme’s Cognitive-Semantic Approach Marie-Claude L’Homme (2020) integrates cognitive linguistics into terminology studies, arguing that terms are "conceptual tools" shaped by domain-specific categorization. For example, the term spam emerged from a cultural context of digital communication; languages without this concept may adopt descriptive phrases (e.g., Uzbek keraksiz xabarlar, "unwanted messages"). L’Homme advocates for corpus-based analysis to identify usage patterns and conceptual prototypes, ensuring translations reflect real-world discourse. Major Challenges in Terminology Translation: Lack of Equivalence Non-equivalence arises when a concept or institution is absent in the target culture. Legal terms like habeas corpus or trust (in civil law systems) require functional adaptations or explanatory glosses. Baker (2011) notes that such gaps often reflect deeper epistemological differences between legal traditions. Polysemy and Homonymy Polysemous terms (e.g., operation in medicine vs. mathematics) risk misinterpretation if context is insufficient. Sager (1990) warns that technical translations must enforce domain-specific constraints to prevent ambiguity. For example, cell in biology (hujayra) versus prison architecture (kamera). Conceptual Gaps When a concept is alien to the target culture (e.g., cybersecurity in pre- digital societies), translators must choose between borrowing (kiberxavfsizlik), neologisms, or descriptive phrases. L’Homme (2020) stresses the importance of institutional support to standardize such terms. 166 ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN MODERN SCIENCE International scientific-online conference The translation of terminology demands more than linguistic skill; it requires collaboration between translators, domain experts, and cultural mediators. Theoretical frameworks like Sager’s functionalism, Felber’s equivalence, and L’Homme’s cognitive approach provide tools to navigate