СХІДНІ МОВИ ТА ЛІТЕРАТУРИ. 1(29)/2023 ~ 43 ~ ISSN 1728-242х (Print), ISSN 2786-5983 (Online) УДК 811.512.161:81'366.55 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17721/1728-242X.2023.29.07 Ganna SPOTAR-AYAR, PhD (Philol.) Assoc. Prof. ORCID ID: 0000-0002-2861-6339 e-mail: spotar@knu.com Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine Mariana TSVYD, Master of Arts (Philol.) ORCID ID: 0009-0002-4307-0618 e-mail: tsvyd.mariana@gmail.com Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine TERM CONCEPTS FOR DISABILITY: SPECIFICS OF NOMINATION, FUNCTIONING AND TRANSLATION (BASED ON MATERIALS OF TURKISH) Background. In linguistics only few works are dedicated to the study of the vocabulary to denote people with disabilities in the Turkish language (Y. Şişman, M. Öztürk, Z. Baykan, A. Demir, A. Efe), just as there are few specialized works in this filed in Ukrainian linguistics, who describe in their studies the problem of terminological irregularity and the lack of terms approved at the state level to denote disability. The relevance of this study is due to the need to popularize the principles of barrier-free society and inclusiveness, the large request for the translation of texts of rehabilitation and treatment, as well as the revitalization of relations between Ukraine and Turkey in these spheres. Methods. During the course of the study over two hundred term concepts used to denote disability and rehabilitation terms functioning from the end of the 19th to the beginning of the 21th century were analyzed with the complex methodology including methods of cognitive linguistics and sociolinguistic approach, the method of contextual analysis and the method of dictionary definitions analysis. Results. The terminology on disabilities in modern Turkish has disorganization that can be explained by such factors as: simultaneous usage of Turkish and foreign lexemes (Arabic Persian, English, French, Latin), euphemization of terms, orientation to international standards and agreements and, as a result, use of English lexemes etc. The vocabulary of international agreements and national legislation was found to differ in some cases. Quick formation of negative connotation is the main influencing factor on the terminology formation process and results in creation of a new replacing term without negative meaning. Conclusions. Summarizing the main difficult issues in translation we suggest to use the complex of methods and approaches, translation tactics and strategies to help for choosing an equivalent according to the type of discourse, such as using WHO classification for translation of medical documentation, taking into account the requirements of the legislation in force and amendments to it for official documents, being careful using periphrastic explanations, making the person as the main concept but not their characteristic. Adaptation for correctness is essential when translating social texts, advertising, fiction, excessive euphemization of concepts should be avoided when working with any type of text and terms for disability. Keywords: impairment, inclusiveness, term, terminological concepts, terms for disability, person with disability, the Turkish language. Background The study of the terminology and its various aspects and characteristics by scholars of language has been the leading scientific interest of many scientists for decades. There are many works dedicated to studies of terminological irregularity, the phenomenon of synonymy, the search for equivalents, or inventory and unification of terminological devices of various fields. The relevance of this study is due to the need to popularize the principles of barrier-free society and inclusiveness, the large request for the translation of texts of rehabilitation and treatment, as well as the revitalization of Ukraine and Turkey in these spheres. The aim of our article is comprehensive study of term concepts for disability in modern Turkish, connotation they express in different discourses, the specifics of their functioning, and to specify translation methods that allow finding suitable equivalents for such terms. Literature review. Active scientific studies of the term began only in the 20s and 30s of the 20th century and as a result a branch known as terminology was formed in linguistics, the official founder of which is considered to be the German scientist O. Wüster. The catalyst for this shift was the rapid emergence of new terms as a result of the rapid development of science (Diakov et al., 2000, p. 5). At the same time, a need to study terminological systems occurred, so most of the works on terminology in the middle of the 20th century focused on arrangement of terminological systems and formation and compilation of dictionaries of various fields. During the 90s of the 20th century, a branch known as linguistic conceptology, which includes cognitive terminology, was formed. The characteristic feature of cognitive terminology is the combination of the established traditional term theories together with the acquired features of interdisciplinary, openness, asystemicity, polyparadigmality, anthropocentrism, and synergism (Petrova, 2020, p. 97). This branch of linguistic research generally considers language as the most important cognitive ability of a person, which is closely related to the characteristic of his/her thinking and activity. Therefore, studying the term formation process from this perspective gives us an understanding that it is the person who forms the meaning of language units and chooses means for interpreting different situations. This is explained by the fact that language is the result and tool of cognition, i.e. scientific and ordinary cognition, which is practically implemented in the processes of categorization and conceptualization of the world (Doskach, 2018, p. 32). Sociocognitive terminology was developed by the Belgian researcher R. Temmerman (Temmerman, 2000). The communicative theory of terminology was developed by M. T. Cabre Castelvi (Cabre, 1999), a representative of the Spanish school. According to this theory, language units for special purposes are multidimensional and include cognitive, linguistic and socio-communicative components. The researcher suggests considering the terms as "sets of conditions" and as an example gives the concept of a polyhedron with three dimensions: cognitive, linguistic and communicative (Petrova, 2020, p. 97). The scientific interest of modern researchers who study the process of © Spotar-Ayar Ganna, Tsvyd Mariana, 2023