Proceedings of the International scientific and practical conference ―Science, Technology and Culture: Interaction, Evolution and Progress‖ (December 21-23, 2025) / Publisher website: www.naukainfo.com. – Copenhagen, Denmark, 2026. – 161 p.

129 purpose determines translational strategies, suggesting that military translations must prioritize operational functionality over literal fidelity. A field manual translated for allied forces may require different approaches than intelligence documents translated for analysis purposes. Terminological theory, grounded in the work of Eugen Wüster [2] and further developed by scholars like Maria Teresa Cabré [3], provides frameworks for understanding concept systems within specialized domains. Military terminology functions as a structured system where terms relate hierarchically and associatively. Understanding these relationships proves essential for achieving accurate interlingual correspondence, as direct lexical equivalence rarely captures the full conceptual framework. Relevance theory, proposed by Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson [4], offers insights into how military texts achieve optimal relevance for target audiences. Military translators must balance the cognitive effort required to process translated texts against the contextual effects achieved, ensuring that translations communicate efficiently within operational constraints. Military translators confront numerous obstacles in achieving terminological precision. Anisomorphism – the lack of one-to-one correspondence between languages – creates fundamental difficulties. Military organizational structures, ranks, weapons systems, and tactical concepts may not align across different armed forces. The French rank adjudant occupies a position within the NCO hierarchy that doesn‘t correspond precisely to any single English-language rank, requiring contextual adaptation rather than simple substitution. False friends represent another significant hazard. Terms that appear similar across languages may carry divergent military meanings. The Ukrainian term brigade historically designated a much larger formation than its NATO counterpart, while sharing orthographic similarity. Such discrepancies can lead to serious misunderstandings in intelligence assessment or operational planning. Neologisms and technological terminology present ongoing challenges. As military technology advances, new systems require naming conventions that may be