Introduction
Terminological variability, understood as the existence of a range of different linguistic signs to denote a single scientific concept within one language, is an inherent property of developed term systems (Shelov, 2014; Pecman, 2014). Unlike general literary synonymy, variability is rarely reducible to purely stylistic differences. Different variants typically form under the influence of diachronic, paradigmatic, and pragmatic factors, resulting in stable sets of lexical units which, while referring to a common conceptual core, often differ in their scope of application or theoretical affiliation (Averbukh, 2006; Pecman, 2014).
The problem of variability becomes particularly acute in psychological terminology, where the multiplicity of theoretical approaches and constant rethinking of the subject of research are directly reflected in the language (Danziger, 1997). Conceptual fields such as affective disorders or developmental disorders are characterized by the coexistence of numerous synonymous terms (e.g., "deficit" ["defitsit"] or "disorder" ["narushenie"]). The choice between them is far from arbitrary, as each term variant often carries its own history of the concept, methodological preferences, and frequently a specific ethical stance. This inherent variability of psychological language constitutes the main difficulty for the translator, whose task is not the simple substitution of one word for another, but the conscious selection and transfer into a different linguistic and conceptual context of the entire complex of meanings, connotations, and pragmatic orientations behind the term.
For the methodological distinction between variability and synonymy in terminology, the concept of A.A. Reformatsky is of fundamental importance. He views a term as a "servant of two masters" – *lexis* (general language) and *logos* (the system of specialized knowledge). From this dual nature it follows that the purely linguistic phenomenon – synonymy of terms – is determined by the mechanisms of the general language, its lexical-grammatical structure, and is acquired based on general language competence without necessarily resorting to specialized knowledge (Reformatsky, 1968). Thus, in a general language context, terms like "perception" ["vospriyatie"] and "perception" ["pertseptsiya"], "giftedness" ["odaryonnost"] and "talent" ["talant"] are often perceived as synonyms.
Conversely, relations of denotative identity, where different term variants denote the same specialized concept but are not general language synonyms (e.g., "mental retardation" ["umstvennaya otstalost"] – "intellectual developmental disorder" ["narushenie intellektual'nogo razvitiya"] (ICD-11, 2022) or "state of vital exhaustion" ["sostoyanie vital'nogo istoshcheniya"] – "burnout" ["vygoranie"] (ICD-11, 2022)), require professional knowledge for their establishment and belong to the realm of *logos*.
This distinction substantiates the need to differentiate between *terminological synonyms* (units of *lexis*) and *terminological equivalents* (units of *logos*), which is directly relevant to translation practice (Reformatsky, 1968). In translation, the choice often occurs precisely in the field of terminological equivalents, where superficially similar variants may conceal different conceptual affiliations (e.g., "deficit" ["defitsit"] and "disorder" ["narushenie"] for rendering the term *deficit*, or "intervention" ["vmeshateĺstvo"] and "treatment" ["lechenie"] for rendering the term *treatment* (APA Dictionary of Psychology, 2015), which generates the risk of cognitive-pragmatic distortions.
Modern research in terminology science is united in recognizing variability as a fundamental property of term systems (Shelov, 2014). Moreover, Yu. V. Slozhenikina believes that "variability is inherent in term systems even more than in the general literary language" (Slozhenikina, 2010, p. 250). This is associated with the conventional nature of the specialized sign: unlike words of the general language, which form spontaneously, terms are consciously created by the scientific community as designations for strictly defined concepts. It is this purposiveness that generates the special character of terminological variability. Since the same phenomena can be conceptualized by different scientific schools, and the concepts themselves develop historically and adapt to different communicative contexts, a multitude of normative designations arises around a common conceptual core. The differences between them are not so much stylistic as paradigmatic and functional in nature (Slozhenikina, 2010).
As noted by K.Ya. Averbukh, a term is not a single lexeme but a class of variants united by the identity of the expressed concept (Averbukh, 2006, p. 192). This approach, emphasizing the priority of conceptual unity over formal diversity, is key to comprehending translation difficulties in the field of psychological terminology. For example, within the general language consciousness of a native speaker, units such as "post-traumatic stress disorder" ["posttravmaticheskoe stressovoe rasstroĭstvo"], "PTSD" ["PTSP"], "traumatic stress" ["travmaticheskiĭ stress"], or "post-traumatic syndrome" ["posttravmaticheskiĭ sindrom"] may be perceived as situational variants of one class. However, in strict scientific discourse (e.g., in DSM-5-TR, 2022), clear definitional boundaries are drawn between them, marking different concepts (disorder, factor, syndrome).
Therefore, the main problem lies not in variability itself, but in the need to recognize and reproduce it. The translator must identify whether different lexical forms belong to the same conceptual field (as in the example PTSD/post-traumatic stress disorder) or whether they mark different scientific concepts. Failure to draw this boundary leads to the substitution of concepts and cognitive distortions in the interlingual transfer of scientific knowledge.
A fundamentally new stage in understanding the phenomenon of terminological variability is associated with the linguo-communicative concept of the term by M.T. Cabré. Her approach, formed in polemics with the classical General Theory of Terminology by E. Wüster, shifts the focus from an idealized conceptual system to the real conditions of specialized vocabulary functioning (Cabré, 1999). If for E. Wüster's theory, variability was a deviation from the norm, subject to elimination in the process of standardization (Wüster, 1983), then M.T. Cabré considers it an inherent and functionally significant property of the term realized in discourse. Within this framework, a term is understood not as a static label for a concept but as a dynamic unit of professional communication, varying depending on specific pragmatic tasks – be it adapting a message for different audiences or modifying meaning in a certain context (Cabré, 1999). Thus, the role of variability is rethought – from a potential source of interference, it becomes a natural mechanism for adapting specialized knowledge.
A logical development of the communicative-functional approach is the sociocognitive theory of terminology by R. Temmerman, which offers the most consistent rejection of the classical dogmas of E. Wüster's General Theory of Terminology. Her fundamental contribution lies in a radical reinterpretation of the very nature of terminological meaning: rejecting the ideal of strict univocality, R. Temmerman introduces the key concept of the "unit of understanding" (Temmerman, 2000).
According to her view, the meaning of a term is constructed in the process of socio-cognitive categorization of knowledge by the professional community. Such "units of understanding" often have a prototypical structure, where a clear core and a blurred periphery reflect the dynamics of scientific cognition. It is the diffuse nature of the boundaries of these cognitive structures that serves as the source of terminological polysemy and synonymy (Temmerman, 2000).
Psychological terminology serves as an illustration of this approach, where the flexibility of "units of understanding" manifests itself in several key aspects. For example, the term "anxiety" ["trevoga"] demonstrates a prototypical structure: while maintaining a stable core – a state of unease and tension (Bolshoy psikhologicheskiy slovar, 2009; Spielberger, 2004) – its periphery includes a wide spectrum of features, from everyday nervousness to clinical disorder criteria (Prihozhan, 2000).
This same dynamic of semantic boundaries is evident in historical retrospect. For instance, the content of the term "depression" ["depressiya"] has evolved from the amorphous concept of "melancholy" ["unynie"] to a strict diagnostic construct (ICD-11), illustrating the transformation of a "unit of understanding" in the process of scientific development.
Besides historical evolution, the meaning of a term is also determined by the current theoretical context. This is clearly seen in the example of "reflection" ["refleksiya"], which, within different theoretical paradigms, actualizes different semantic components – from introspective self-observation in classical psychology of consciousness (James, 1991) to a mechanism of activity regulation within the activity approach (Leontiev, 2005; Stepanov, Semenov, 1985). Thus, variability appears not as a random property but as a systemic consequence of the dynamics of scientific cognition.
The view of a term as a class of variants united by a common concept is further developed in corpus linguistics research. In particular, B. Daille defines a term variant as a lexical unit semantically or conceptually correlated with a base nomination (Daille, 2017). A key criterion here, consonant with the ideas of K.Ya. Averbukh (Averbukh, 2006), is the preservation of the conceptual essence: variability is such a modification of form or semantic nuance that does not lead to the emergence of a new concept. For translation practice, distinguishing between semantic and conceptual identity is of fundamental importance. The translator's task is to start with an analysis of semantic correspondence and ensure the preservation of the term's place in the scientific system, i.e., to verify whether the chosen variant corresponds not only to the dictionary meaning but also to the specific scientific concept it is meant to denote.
In terminology science, an approach to classifying the causes of terminological variability has developed, which can be divided into two key groups (León-Araúz, Cabezas-García, Reimerink, 2020). The first group is related to the subject of knowledge itself (the author or scientific community): here, variability acts as a consequence of national traditions, shifts in scientific paradigms over time, or affiliation with a particular theoretical school (geographical, temporal, social variability) (Kerremans, 2017; Gledhill, Pecman, 2018). In this aspect, it serves as a kind of marker, fixing the context of a concept's emergence. The second group of causes is related to the communication situation: variability allows the adaptation of a term to the audience (e.g., colleagues, students, patients) and the channel of information transmission (scientific article, lecture, popular text) (Gregory, Carroll, 1978). In this case, variability acts as a tool for fine-tuning the scientific message, ensuring its precision and accessibility in different communicative conditions. Additionally, variability can be determined by discursive factors, such as the need to avoid repetitions in a text.
- Freixa proposes an expanded taxonomy, distinguishing five main groups of causes for variability: dialectal (due to geographical or institutional origin of the author), functional (related to register and target audience), discursive (generated by stylistic and expressive tasks), interlinguistic (caused by interlingual interaction), and cognitive (stemming from different conceptualizations of reality) (Freixa, 2006).
In psychological terminology, these causes manifest themselves with full clarity. For example, the cognitive aspect of variability underlies the distinction between the terms "reflection" ["refleksiya"] and "introspection" ["introspectsiya"], which reflect different theoretical perspectives on the process of self-knowledge (Bolshoy psikhologicheskiy slovar, 2009). The functional aspect of variability manifests itself in the choice between the nominations "panic attack" ["panicheskaya ataka"] (DSM-5-TR, 2022) and "paroxysmal anxiety" ["paroksizmal'naya trevoga"]. While the former belongs to the generally accepted clinical usage, the latter belongs to a more formal, academic register, possessing a pronounced descriptive function.
Thus, awareness of the entire set of causes of variability – from paradigmatic to discursive – allows the translator to move from the mechanical selection of synonyms to a meaningful choice of a term adequate to the specific scientific tradition, theoretical context, and communicative task of the author.
In this work, when analyzing translation decisions in the field of psychological terminology, we will rely on an understanding of terminological variability encompassing a wide spectrum of phenomena – from formal modifications of a term to semantic discrepancies within a single conceptual field. Term variants will be understood as linguistic units correlated with one scientific concept, even if they belong to different stylistic registers or theoretical traditions (e.g., "perception" ["vospriyatie"] and "perception" ["pertseptsiya"]).
However, an important clarification is necessary. Cases where terms denote related but distinct concepts, even if they are connected by relations of logical derivation, should not be attributed to terminological variability (Shelov, 2014). Thus, terms like "anxiety" ["trevoga"] (a situational state) and "anxiousness" ["trevozhnost"] (a personality trait), as well as "fear" ["strakh"] (a basic emotion) and "phobia" ["fobiya"] (a clinical syndrome), are not variants but independent terms, assigned to different fragments of the scientific picture of the world (Bolshoy psikhologicheskiy slovar, 2009; Prihozhan, 2009; DSM-5-TR, 2022). It is precisely the confusion of these two levels – the choice between different variants denoting one concept and the choice between superficially similar terms denoting different concepts – that constitutes one of the key difficulties for the translator and serves as a source of the most serious cognitive distortions in the translated text.
Despite the recognition of variability as an immanent property of the term system, modern translation studies lacks a comprehensive model that would translate the above theoretical propositions into the plane of specific strategies for translating psychological terminology. This gives rise to a number of particular but critically important gaps:
- Lack of algorithms for new borrowings. The active process of borrowing English-language terms reflecting the latest concepts (e.g., microaggression, gaslighting) outpaces the development of scientifically grounded principles for their adaptation or translation into Russian, leading to chaotic synonymy and loss of conceptual precision (Balygina, Ermolova, 2018; Mikhalchenkova, 2025).
- Underdevelopment of principles for working with "term-classes." Translation resources (dictionaries, glossaries) still more often record static, single equivalents, ignoring the dynamic "class of variants" (abbreviations, syntactic and stylistic modifications) (Averbukh, 2006). This prevents the translator from adequately responding to the discursive and pragmatic variability of the term in the source text.
- Methodological uncertainty in solving the problem of culturally-conditioned and conceptual non-equivalence. The essence of this problem lies in the fundamental mismatch of semantic scopes and conceptual boundaries of similar terms in different linguacultures. Within one language, for example English, variability can manifest as a synonymous series (*anxiety – worry – distress*), where the elements, while preserving a common conceptual core, reflect differences in intensity, duration, and clinical significance of states (APA Dictionary of Psychology, 2015).
However, when translating into another language, in this case Russian, each element of this series encounters a different conceptual grid: for instance, *anxiety* may require a choice between "trevoga" (situational state), "trevozhnost" (personality trait), and "distress" ["distress"] (maladaptive state), while *worry* correlates with segments like "bespokoĭstvo" or "ozabochennost."
Thus, the holistic "terminological cluster" of the source language lacks a ready, systematic reflection in the target language. There are no formalized criteria allowing the translator to make a conscious and consistent choice in this zone of incomplete semantic overlap, leading to random, intuitive, and hence unpredictable decisions that violate the conceptual rigor of scientific discourse.
The relevance of this study is determined by the need to bridge the gap between the theoretical understanding of terminological variability as a systemic phenomenon and the practical needs of translation. The work aims to translate the abstract categories of "paradigmatic," "pragmatic," and "discursive" variability into the plane of diagnosable translation problems and propose possible strategies for their solution, using the material of psychological terminology. This will shift work with terminology from the realm of intuitive choice to that of scientifically grounded decision-making.
Based on the identified problem field, the **aim** of this study is to develop, based on empirical analysis, a diagnostic approach to assessing the adequacy of psychological terminology translation. This approach is based on a systematic comparison of translation variants with the typology of terminological variability in the source text and is aimed at identifying regular connections between the nature of variability and the types of resulting distortions. To achieve this aim, a set of tasks is addressed: inductive analysis and classification of errors in the translation material; establishing correlation between error types and variability categories (paradigmatic, pragmatic, discursive); formulating criteria for diagnosing the degree of adequacy of terminological choice; developing practical recommendations.
The empirical base consisted of a specialized corpus of English-language texts on clinical psychology and developmental psychology and their translations, completed by master's students of the Faculty of "Clinical and Special Psychology" at MGPPU. The choice of this field is due to the high variability of its term system, situated at the intersection of various discourses, which creates numerous situations of ambiguous equivalent choice.
The subject of the study is the objective regularities connecting the type of terminological variability in the original scientific text with the nature of distortions in its translation. The analysis focuses on specific translation decisions, captured in the written text, and their correspondence or non-correspondence to the conceptual, paradigmatic, and communicative parameters of the original.
The research logic follows the principle "from general to specific": from a theoretical analysis of the nature of variability to considering specific translation difficulties and a detailed analysis of examples. The analysis is structured as a sequence of key stages: from the objectively inherent variability of the term in the original discourse – through the subjective choice of equivalent by the translator – to the emergence of systemic cognitive-pragmatic distortion in the translated text. Such a reconstruction of the chain "variability → choice → distortion" ensures a transition from merely stating an error to understanding the logic of its occurrence.
Thus, the study not only diagnoses errors but also reveals the logic of their emergence, which serves as a basis for developing preventive strategies in scientific translation.
Materials and Methods
The methodological basis of the work is comparative analysis, implemented at several levels. The key research method applied is the inductive method: from analyzing a set of specific translation decisions (variants of term translation) to identifying stable patterns and systematizing typical problems. The theoretical basis for categorization is provided by the concepts of terminological variability (Averbukh, 2006; León-Araúz, Cabezas-García, Reimerink, 2020), within which the correspondence of the chosen variant to the conceptual field, professional usage, and discursive context of the original is analyzed. Verification of observations is carried out through the method of expert assessment by referring to a corpus of Russian-language scientific publications on psychology and specialized sources (Bolshoy psikhologicheskiy slovar, 2009; APA Dictionary of Psychology, 2015).
Russian-language variants of key terms were evaluated according to three parameters – conceptual-cognitive (preservation of the conceptual core), stylistic (correspondence to usage and register), and pragmatic (ability to perform the communicative function).
A sequential three-level analysis was applied to each terminological choice in the corpus of translations. This procedure begins at the **lexico-semantic level**, where for a given original term the entire spectrum of encountered Russian-language correspondences in the translations is identified. At this stage, the formal possibility of choice, based on general dictionary meaning, is recorded.
Then, a transition is made to the **definitional level**. Here, each identified variant is checked for correspondence to a strictly defined core of the scientific concept, reconstructed from authoritative sources and professional usage (Bolshoy psikhologicheskiy slovar, 2009; ICD-11, 2022; DSM-5-TR, 2022). This level answers the question of the conceptual adequacy of the translation variant, separating terms belonging to different conceptual spheres.
Finally, the analysis rises to the systemic-conceptual level, where the adequacy of the variant is verified within the holistic conceptual system of the discipline. Here, it is assessed whether the Russian-language equivalent of the term preserves its relations (hyper-hyponymic, antonymic, associative) with other elements of the system and whether it is capable of performing the same structural-semantic role in the translated text as the original term. This level reveals whether the choice leads to systemic distortions in the logic of scientific exposition.
Such a multi-stage methodology allows diagnosing not only the fact of an error but also precisely determining at which stage of understanding – recognizing meaning, assimilating the definition, or comprehending systemic relations – a failure occurred, causing terminological distortion.
The practical part of the study implements the proposed methodological approach on the material of a specialized corpus of translations. The analysis focuses on identifying recurring patterns in rendering key concepts of English-language scientific texts on psychology.
As a representative example demonstrating the application of the proposed methodology, the translation of a fragment from Stephen M. Edelson's article "Understanding Challenging Behaviors in Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Multi-Component, Interdisciplinary Model" (Edelson, 2022) was chosen. In this text, the term *challenging behavior* acts as a key system-forming concept, functioning as a generalizing hypernym for aggression, self-injurious behavior, and severe tantrums. In the analyzed translation, completed by a master's student, this term was consistently and uniformly translated as "nezhelatel'noe povedenie" ("undesirable behavior"). This choice represents a typical case from the corpus, allowing for tracing the formation of a systemic error across all levels of analysis.
The sequential application of the three-aspect methodology to this case reveals the mechanism of terminological distortion. At the first, lexico-semantic level, the variant "nezhelatel'noe povedenie" seems acceptable, as it conveys the general idea of behavior that one seeks to change.
However, the second, definitional level of analysis, directed at the core of the scientific concept, reveals a fundamental mismatch. In the source text, *challenging behavior* is defined through a complex of features related to serious risk to health and safety and the need for structured behavioral intervention, which in Russian-language professional usage of clinical psychology and applied behavior analysis is unambiguously fixed by the term "problemnoe povedenie" ("problem behavior"). The choice of the variant "nezhelatel'noe povedenie" narrows and shifts the conceptual core, accentuating the sign of social unacceptability, characteristic of general pedagogical, not clinical-correctional discourse.
The third, systemic-conceptual level of analysis finally confirms that the identified substitution of terms leads to a conceptual shift throughout the translated text. In the original article, *challenging behavior* stands in antonymic relation to *adaptive behavior* and is the target object for *treatment* within an interdisciplinary model. The adequate equivalent "problemnoe povedenie" fully preserves these systemic connections in the Russian-language scientific paradigm. The used translation variant "nezhelatel'noe povedenie" logically fits into a different conceptual network, where its antonym becomes "primernoe (poslushnoe) povedenie" ("exemplary (obedient) behavior"), which completely negates the interdisciplinary clinical context of the original.
Thus, this case, selected from the corpus, clearly illustrates the general pattern: ignoring the systemic nature of terminological variability and choosing an equivalent based on superficial lexical similarity lead to a transformation of the text's discursive affiliation, representing an essential cognitive-pragmatic distortion.
The second object of analysis was the translation of a fragment from the article by R. Thompson et al. "Enhancing Early Communication Through Infant Sign Training" (Thompson, 2007). The original terms and their interlingual equivalents in the translation were subjected to a similar three-level analysis to identify patterns in rendering key terms and their systemic connections.
At the lexico-semantic level, for the key concept *sign language*, the translator identified and used a whole spectrum of variants: "zhestovyy yazyk" ("sign language"), "zhestovye sistemy kommunikatsii" ("gestural communication systems"), "zhestovaya kommunikatsiya" ("gestural communication"), "zhestovoe obshchenie" ("gestural interaction"), "zhesty" ("gestures"). This variability, while reflecting a search for an adequate form, already at the initial stage creates a threat to terminological consistency.
The transition to the definitional level of analysis requires recourse to current sources that fix the meaning of terms in the modern scientific paradigm. According to (Yazyk i zhest…, 2025), the term "zhestovyy yazyk" ("sign language") is defined as a "full-fledged sign linguistic system" possessing its own lexical-grammatical structure, which most accurately reflects the methodology of R. Thompson et al. (2007) regarding the systemic teaching of functional communication. Modern linguistics (Yazyk i zhest…, 2025) emphasizes the status of sign language as a "natural language," independent of sound forms.
Descriptive constructions, such as "zhestovye sistemy kommunikatsii" or "zhestovoe obshchenie," focus attention only on the pragmatic function of information exchange. For a strictly scientific text, they may be insufficiently specific, as they blur the boundaries between the linguistic object and situational interaction.
The most critical simplification is the reduction of *sign language* to the concept of "zhesty" ("gestures"). In linguistic-cultural studies (Problemy znakovykh sistem…, 2024), a gesture is considered a separate "kinetic act" or element of nonverbal behavior, lacking the systemic organization of language. Thus, using the term "zhestovyy yazyk" is the only correct way to observe the criterion of conceptual precision at the definitional level.
A similar problem arises when translating the antonymous pair *vocal language* with the expression "ustnaya rech" ("oral speech"). To preserve the strict opposition of modalities, fixed in modern works (Yazyk i zhest…, 2025), an equivalent articulating the essential feature "vocal/sound" (e.g., "zvukovoy yazyk" ["sound language"]) is necessary.
The use of the variant "ustnaya rech" is incorrect, as sign language is also recognized as a form of direct "oral" communication. Scientific literature emphasizes that the dichotomy "oral/written" describes the method of information fixation, while the opposition "vocal/gestural" (vocal vs. manual) describes the very physical modality of language. In the fundamental collection "Problemy znakovykh sistem" (2024), it is noted that reducing *vocal language* to "ustnaya rech" erases the key differential feature of the concept. Consequently, translating *vocal language* with the expression "ustnaya rech" indicates a methodological failure at the definitional stage of analysis: the translator did not identify the key differential feature of the concept.
The systemic-conceptual level of analysis demonstrates the consequences of these decisions. Inconsistency in choosing equivalents (*sign language* → "zhestovaya kommunikatsiya", *vocal language* → "ustnaya rech") destroys the fundamental binary opposition of two linguistic modalities central to the original. Instead, a blurred opposition between a gestural mode of interaction and oral speech arises in the translated text.
Analysis at the systemic-conceptual level also reveals problems in rendering other key terms, where the choice of equivalent leads to a violation of conceptual precision and professional usage. For instance, to denote the concept *developmental disabilities*, the expansive equivalent "narusheniya razvitiya" ("developmental disorders") was chosen. This nomination does not reflect the specificity of the original term *developmental disabilities*, which in modern clinical and psychological-pedagogical practice, according to ICD-11, correlates with the category "Disorders of psychological development" (categories 6A00–6A0Z).
The more general equivalent diminishes the important distinction for specialists between disorders of mental (psychological) development proper and other developmental disorders (physical, sensory), united in English under the broad term *disabilities*.
The most significant ethical-terminological distortion is related to rendering the concept *mental retardation*. The used equivalent "umstvennaya otstalost" ("mental retardation"), although fixed in outdated editions of classifiers (e.g., ICD-10), contradicts the modern scientific and humanistic paradigm. As indicated in the diagnostic manuals of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-5-TR, 2022) and in Russian clinical guidelines (Rasstroĭstva autisticheskogo spektra…, 2024), this stigmatizing term is consistently being replaced by neutral formulations: "intellektual'nye narusheniya" or "narushenie intellektual'nogo razvitiya" (corresponding to *intellectual developmental disorder* in ICD-11). Choosing the outdated variant indicates non-compliance with contemporary professional usage.
Thus, problems in rendering the terms *developmental disabilities* and *mental retardation* demonstrate that a translation not verified at the definitional and systemic levels violates not only conceptual adequacy but also conformity to modern norms of scientific communication.
Analysis of this example confirms that the proposed three-level methodology functions as an effective diagnostic tool. It allows not only to classify errors but also to precisely determine the stage of decision-making (lexical selection, definitional understanding, systemic comprehension) at which the failure occurs. An inadequate choice at any of these levels leads to the accumulation of cognitive-pragmatic distortions, violating the conceptual rigor and discursive integrity of scientific translation.
The third object of analysis was the translation of the abstract to the study by F. DiGennaro Reed et al. "Applications of technology to teach social skills to children with autism" (DiGennaro Reed, 2011). This material demonstrates how the choice of equivalent at the definitional level directly determines the conceptual boundaries and disciplinary affiliation of the translated text.
The key concept of the original *deficits in social skills* was translated as "narusheniya sotsial'nykh navykov" ("disorders of social skills"). However, in the context of behavioral sciences and within ICD-11, where autism spectrum disorders are coded in the block "Disorders of psychological development," the term "deficit" ["defitsit"] is precisely used to describe the insufficiency of specific skills (cf. in the original ICD-11: *deficits in verbal and nonverbal social communication* – defitsity verbal'noy i neverbal'noy sotsial'noy kommunikatsii).
Unlike "narushenie" ("disorder"), which often merely states the general fact of pathology, the term "deficit" indicates a systemic insufficiency of a function, which can manifest both quantitatively (lack or absence of a skill) and qualitatively (inadequacy of its realization for communication goals) (Bolshoy psikhologicheskiy slovar, 2009). Choosing the word "deficit" allows for a more precise reflection of the methodological shift towards describing the autism spectrum as a set of specific cognitive and behavioral deficits, rather than simply diffuse developmental disorders.
If in English *deficit* is a neutral statement of neurodiversity features, the term "narushenie" (deviation from the norm according to the "Bolshoy psikhologicheskiy slovar") introduces an excessive pathologizing nuance into the text, activating associations with illness or defect.
Thus, the very first terminological replacement shifts the emphasis from stating a skill insufficiency amenable to correctional training towards a more global developmental anomaly.
The most conceptually significant replacement is related to rendering the term *treatment* as "lechenie" ("medical treatment"). In the original text, dedicated to teaching technologies, the reference is to psychological-pedagogical intervention, corresponding to the broad, interdisciplinary meaning of *psychological treatment* in the APA Dictionary of Psychology (2015), where this term is defined as a procedure aimed at creating healthy and adaptive changes in a person's actions, thoughts, and feelings. It is emphasized that such a procedure differs from medication treatment, although drugs may be used as an auxiliary means.
Choosing the narrow medical equivalent "lechenie" is a terminological reduction, since in ICD-11 (2022) this term is assigned to biomedical interventions aimed at the etiology and pathogenesis of a disease. The phrase "standardizirovannaya otsenka pered nachalom lecheniya" ("standardized assessment before the start of treatment") in the translation creates a false implication that the study describes clinical therapy, rather than correctional-developmental skill training.
This error at the systemic-conceptual level leads to a discursive shift: a text belonging to the paradigm of applied behavior analysis and special education is erroneously represented as part of the clinical-medical discourse. This case clearly shows that choosing a term-equivalent is not a linguistic but a conceptual operation, upon which the adequacy of perceiving the entire scientific model described in the text depends.
In this context, the sentence *All but one study included standardized assessment before treatment* requires the following translation: "Vo vsekh issledovaniyakh, krome odnogo, pered nachalom vmeshateĺstva provodilas' standartizirovannaya otsenka" ("In all studies, except one, standardized assessment was conducted before the start of intervention"), where the word *treatment* is translated using the term "vmeshateĺstvo" ("intervention").
The fourth object of analysis within the study was the translation of an excerpt from Sheila R. Woodward's article "The role of psycholinguistic properties of language in supporting children’s language learning" (Woodward, 2018). In the original sentence "*Exposure to CDS, as opposed to adult-directed speech, supports children’s language development...*" the master's student translates the key term *CDS (Child-Directed Speech)* as "obrashchennaya rech" ("addressed speech").
Applying the three-level model to this case reveals a systemic terminological inaccuracy. At the first, lexico-semantic level, the choice seems justified, as the phrase describes addressed speech. However, definitional analysis, directed at the core of the concept, reveals a mismatch. According to the APA Dictionary of Psychology (2015), CDS is defined as a special prosodically and lexically modified speech adapted for communication with a child.
In the Russian-language scientific tradition, based on the activity approach of A.N. Leontiev (Leontiev, 2005), the usage-based and terminologically precise equivalent "rech', obrashchyonnaya k rebyonku" ("speech directed to a child") is established, which explicitly indicates the addressee. The chosen variant "obrashchennaya rech" is too broad, as it encompasses any dialogic speech without specifying the addressee. Such a translation does not allow differentiation of the narrowly specialized concept *Child-Directed Speech* from the general designation of an addressed utterance, leading to a loss of the specificity of the original scientific concept.
Systemic-conceptual analysis allows assessing the consequences of this substitution for the integrity of the scientific exposition. Using the general designation "obrashchyonnaya rech" instead of the term "rech', obrashchyonnaya k rebyonku" disrupts its connection with fundamental concepts of domestic psychology within which it functions. Concepts such as the "zone of proximal development" and "socially mediated activity" (L.S. Vygotsky) are based on the idea of specific interaction oriented precisely at the child. Replacing the term blurs this theoretical link, depriving the text of clear paradigmatic affiliation.
Let us further consider the translation of a fragment containing the term *vocabulary acquisition*. In the original sentence "*...positive influence on children’s vocabulary acquisition*" this concept is translated as "usvoenie slovarnogo zapasa" ("assimilation of vocabulary"). Sequential application of the three-level methodology allows identifying a substantive shift in this choice affecting the theoretical foundations of the text.
At the lexico-semantic level, the word "usvoenie" can be perceived as a superficial equivalent of the English *acquisition*. However, definitional analysis, directed at the essential core of the concepts, reveals a fundamental divergence between linguistic traditions. In English-language psycholinguistics, the term *acquisition* (contrasted with *learning*) emphasizes the natural, spontaneous, and active nature of the process of language ability formation.
In the Russian psychological-pedagogical terminology system, rooted in activity theory, there exists a substantive difference between the concepts of "usvoenie" and "ovladenie." As follows from the works of L.S. Vygotsky on internalization and A.N. Leontiev (Leontiev, 2005) on the structure of activity, "usvoenie" is traditionally associated with the passive appropriation of ready-made knowledge, norms, or models. Whereas "ovladenie" implies the active, activity-based appropriation of a cultural tool (in this case, language) as an instrument for solving communicative tasks. Therefore, the usage-based and conceptually precise equivalent within this scientific paradigm is the combination "ovladenie leksikoy" or "ovladenie slovarnym zapasom" ("mastery of vocabulary").
The systemic-conceptual level of analysis finally clarifies the consequences of the chosen replacement. Using the term "usvoenie" is not a neutral stylistic variation, as it implicitly reduces the original developmental model presented in the original: the active process ("ovladenie") is substituted by a model of passive-receptive appropriation of external information ("usvoenie"). This distorts the theoretical context of discussing the role of *Child-Directed Speech*, which in the original is considered as an element of the environment supporting the child's own activity, not as material for rote learning.
Thus, an incorrect choice of term-equivalent at the definitional level leads to a systemic distortion of one of the key theoretical premises of the scientific text, demonstrating how terminological inaccuracy can affect the foundations of interpreting the phenomenon under study.
Results
Theoretical Substantiation of the Diagnostic Approach
Theoretical analysis within this study confirmed that the difficulties of translating psychological terminology are not random but systemic. The problem lies in the fundamental gap between the modern understanding of a term as a dynamic "class of variants" (Averbukh, 2006), whose variability is functionally determined, and traditional translation practice focused on finding a single static equivalent.
Analysis of the literature on terminology science allows us to assert that the variability of a term is not "noise" or interference to be eliminated. On the contrary, variability acts as a significant diagnostic feature reflecting the scientific, communicative, and historical specificity of the term.
The taxonomy of causes of variability proposed by J. Freixa (Freixa, 2006) and other researchers (León-Araúz, Cabezas-García, Reimerink, 2020; Kerremans, 2017) allowed systematizing these factors along three grounds: paradigmatic (affiliation with a specific scientific school), pragmatic (target audience and genre), and discursive (stylistic tasks). This comprehensive approach formed the basis for developing the analytical toolkit of the study.
Based on this theoretical foundation, a three-level diagnostic model was developed, intended for verifying translation choices. Each level of this model corresponds to one of the tasks the translator must solve to achieve conceptual precision:
- Lexico-semantic level – analysis of the spectrum of formal correspondences, forming the initial basis for translation choice. At this stage, the dictionary meaning of the term outside the narrow context is verified.
- Definitional level – comparison of translation variants with the invariant core of the concept, fixed in authoritative sources (Bolshoy psikhologicheskiy slovar, 2009; ICD-11, 2022; APA Dictionary of Psychology, 2015). The level is oriented towards identifying errors caused by incorrect interpretation of the paradigmatic specificity of the term.
- Systemic-conceptual level – verification of the functional adequacy of the equivalent in the conceptual structure of the discipline and the specific discourse. This stage allows diagnosing distortions arising from ignoring the pragmatic and discursive parameters of the term, i.e., its connections within the holistic system of scientific knowledge.
Thus, the proposed model operationalizes theoretical postulates about variability (Averbukh, 2006; Slozhenikina, 2010), transforming them into a sequential analytical procedure. It allows not only stating an error but also diagnosing which specific aspect of the original – paradigmatic, pragmatic, or discursive – was distorted in translation. This creates a basis for transitioning from intuitive choice to scientifically grounded translation decision.
Classification and Sources of Terminological Distortions in the Translation of Psychological Literature
Applying the three-level model to analyze the translation corpus allowed not only systematizing the observed errors but also identifying their stable sources and specifics of manifestation precisely in psychological discourse. Empirical data indicate that terminological distortions are not random but regular, recurring in similar conceptual contexts and having a clear correlation with specific stages of the translation process.
- Paradigmatic distortions as the dominant error type.
The most frequent source of semantic shifts is the incorrect interpretation of the term's paradigmatic affiliation, diagnosed at the definitional level. The translator, working with a term as a lexical unit, often fails to recognize its connection to a specific scientific school or practical approach. For example, analysis of translating the term *challenging behavior* (Edelson, 2022) showed that its consistent rendering as "nezhelatel'noe povedenie" is not a stylistic choice but a gross discursive substitution. The translator replaced a concept from the field of applied behavior analysis (where it denotes behavior posing a risk and requiring structured intervention) with a term from general pedagogical discourse (where "nezhelatel'noe povedenie" is associated with rule-breaking).
Analysis of the empirical material demonstrated that such errors regularly arise at the intersection of clinical psychology, pedagogy, and medicine, where terms formally close in meaning perform fundamentally different functions in various professional paradigms.
- Systemic-conceptual distortions and violation of the logical text structure.
The second group of errors, identified at the systemic-conceptual level, is associated with the destruction of the term's conceptual connections within the scientific text. A vivid example is the translation of the binary opposition *sign language / vocal language* (Thompson, 2007) as "zhestovoe obshchenie / ustnaya rech."
Despite the correct rendering of lexical meanings, the translator ignores the systemic opposition of linguistic modalities (gestural vs. vocal) embedded in the original. As a result, a logically heterogeneous opposition between a communicative process ("obshchenie") and a form of speech activity ("rech") arises in the translated text, destroying the author's theoretical model.
Such distortions are especially critical for psychological literature, where the accuracy of defining connections between constructs (cause-effect, part-whole, opposition) is the basis of scientific argumentation.
- Ethical-terminological distortions conditioned by shifts in scientific paradigms.
A separate, socially significant category comprises errors related to the use of outdated or stigmatizing terminology, ignoring modern norms of scientific ethics. The persistent use of the term "umstvennaya otstalost" for translating *intellectual (developmental) disability* – given the existence of WHO-recommended (ICD-11, 2022) equivalents "intellektual'nye narusheniya" or "narushenie intellektual'nogo razvitiya" – indicates not only terminological inaccuracy but also the translator's detachment from the current scientific and social context. This example confirms that adequate translation of psychological texts requires from the specialist not only linguistic but also ethical sensitivity, as well as constant monitoring of the evolution of the discipline's conceptual apparatus (DSM-5-TR, 2022; Rasstroĭstva autisticheskogo spektra…, 2024).
- Discursive-stylistic transformation based on the accumulation of terminological errors.
A crucial conclusion of the empirical analysis is the observation that the indicated distortions rarely occur in isolation. On the contrary, they form a stable cause-and-effect chain: term variability in the original → its erroneous interpretation or ignorance by the translator → inadequate choice of equivalent → accumulation of conceptual shifts → transformation of the discursive affiliation of the entire text.
Thus, replacing *treatment* (meaning behavioral intervention) with "lechenie" consistently shifts the text from the psychological-pedagogical plane to a purely medical one, altering its perception by the reader (APA Dictionary of Psychology, 2015; ICD-11, 2022). This pattern confirms that working with terminology in psychological translation is working with a holistic conceptual system, where an error in one link leads to a systemic distortion of meaning.
Thus, the specificity of translating psychological literature lies in the need for constant balancing at the intersection of several discursive systems (clinical, academic, pedagogical, ethical). Typical errors arise precisely when the translator attempts to solve the complex, multi-criteria task of choosing an equivalent, relying on only one parameter (most often lexico-semantic), while ignoring the paradigmatic context, systemic connections of the term, and current norms of scientific communication.
Practical Recommendations for Organizing the Translation Process Based on Research Results
Empirical analysis of translation decisions and the diagnostic potential of the three-level model allow moving from describing typical errors to formulating specific strategies aimed at their prevention. These strategies represent a sequence of analytical actions integrating the theoretical understanding of terminological variability (Averbukh, 2006; Freixa, 2006) into the practice of working with a scientific text.
- Strategy of mandatory definitional verification of the term.
A key condition for preventing paradigmatic distortions is shifting the priority from searching for lexical correspondence to analyzing conceptual content. The first step in working with a term should be not consulting bilingual dictionaries but reconstructing its precise scientific content within the specific disciplinary paradigm to which the source text belongs.
This requires going beyond the narrow context of the sentence and referring to authoritative sources: current diagnostic manuals (ICD-11, 2022; DSM-5-TR, 2022), specialized encyclopedias (Bolshoy psikhologicheskiy slovar, 2009; APA Dictionary of Psychology, 2015), monographs, and the corpus of Russian-language publications on the topic. For example, choosing an equivalent for *developmental disabilities* requires not selecting a synonym but checking its correspondence to the category "Disorders of psychological development" in the modern classification (ICD-11, 2022). This strategy formalizes the procedure of transitioning from the lexico-semantic to the definitional level of analysis, ensuring conceptual precision.
- Strategy of analyzing systemic context and conceptual connections.
To prevent systemic distortions, the choice of term-equivalent must be subjected to verification of its ability to integrate into the logical-conceptual network of the text and the discipline. The translator must identify the main systemic relations in which the term participates in the original (whether it is a specific or generic concept, part of any opposition, an element of a cause-and-effect chain) and assess whether the Russian-language equivalent preserves these connections.
Thus, translating the antonymous pair *sign language / vocal language* requires selecting two terms that are in the same opposition of modalities in Russian-language scientific discourse. This strategy corresponds to the systemic-conceptual level of the model and aims to preserve the integrity and internal logic of scientific argumentation.
- Strategy of accounting for discursive and pragmatic conditioning of the term.
The final verification of the chosen equivalent requires analyzing its communicative adequacy within the genre and objectives of the specific scientific text. The translator must assess whether the choice of a certain variant in the original is dictated by stylistic register, audience features, or intra-textual tasks (e.g., the need to avoid lexical repetition). However, the key principle is the search for a functionally analogous, not formally literal, way of conveying this pragmatic markedness.
In the analyzed translation of the article on gestural communication (Gregory, Carroll, 1978), the original constant term *sign language* was rendered using five different variants: "zhestovyy yazyk," "zhestovye sistemy kommunikatsii," "zhestovaya kommunikatsiya," "zhestovoe obshchenie," "zhesty." The translator, striving to avoid repetitions, applied an inadequate tactic of lexical variation, violating the main pragmatic imperative of a scientific text – terminological stability.
In this context, the original author did not seek to avoid repetitions; on the contrary, the uniform use of *sign language* served as a marker of scientific rigor. Consequently, the functionally adequate solution would have been the consistent use of the main usage-based equivalent "zhestovyy yazyk" throughout the translation. The task of facilitating perception could have been solved by other, non-terminological means (e.g., syntactic variety).
Thus, this strategy prescribes not mechanical copying or alteration of form, but an analysis of the term's pragmatic function within the text system. Its correct application allows preserving the discursive integrity of the translation, turning variability from a potential source of errors into a conscious tool for achieving adequacy. In conjunction with the previous strategies, it forms a sequential work algorithm, representing a practical embodiment of the three-level diagnostic model and ensuring conscious management of terminological choice.
Together, these strategies form a sequential algorithm for working with a term, which is a practical embodiment of the three-level diagnostic model. Their systematic application allows the translator to consciously manage terminological variability, turning it from a source of potential errors into a tool for ensuring the precision and adequacy of scientific translation.
Conclusion
This study was dedicated to solving the current problem of terminological adequacy in scientific translation using the material of psychological literature. As a result of the conducted work, the main aim was achieved: a diagnostic approach to translation assessment was developed and empirically tested, the fundamental basis of which is not combating terminological variability but its systematic recognition and consideration as a key diagnostic feature.
The conducted study allowed obtaining the following main results determining its scientific contribution:
- An approach is proposed that integrates the provisions of modern terminology science (the concept of K.Ya. Averbukh (2006) on the "class of variants," M.T. Cabré (1999) on the communicative nature of the term, the taxonomy of variability causes by J. Freixa (2006)) into a practical model for analyzing translation decisions.
- A three-level diagnostic model was developed, which operationalizes the abstract categories of variability (paradigmatic, pragmatic, discursive) in the form of a sequential analytical procedure (lexico-semantic → definitional → systemic-conceptual level). This model allows not only stating an error but also precisely determining the stage of the translation process at which the failure occurred, establishing a cause-and-effect connection between the type of variability and the nature of distortion.
- Based on specific material, stable patterns were identified and systematized, such as paradigmatic substitutions (e.g., *challenging behavior* → "nezhelatel'noe povedenie"), systemic violations of logical connections (destruction of oppositions), and ethical-terminological distortions (use of outdated nomenclature).
- Practical strategies were formulated, stemming directly from the diagnostic model: the strategy of definitional verification, the strategy of analyzing systemic context, and the strategy of accounting for discursive-pragmatic parameters. These strategies form a sequential algorithm of actions, shifting the translator's work from the plane of intuitive choice to the area of methodologically grounded decision-making.
The practical significance of the study lies in the fact that its results – the specific diagnostic methodology and set of translation strategies – can be directly integrated into the educational process of training translators of scientific literature and also used in the practice of editorial expertise and compiling specialized glossaries.
Thus, the conducted work contributes both to translation theory, specifying the mechanisms of cognitive-pragmatic distortion emergence, and to translation practice, offering the scholar and translator a strict analytical toolkit for ensuring conceptual precision and preserving scientific rigor in the interlingual transfer of knowledge.