FALSE EQUIVALENCE OF RUSSIAN AND KOREAN MILITARY-LEGAL TERMS

Abstract

The article examines the phenomenon of false equivalence in Russian and Korean military-legal terminology as a significant source of semantic distortion in professional discourse. Particular attention is paid to terminological units that demonstrate formal, lexical, or contextual similarity but differ in their conceptual scope, normative function, institutional status, or conditions of use. The study proceeds from the assumption that military-legal terminology is formed at the intersection of military and legal discourse and therefore requires a high degree of semantic precision. The analysis focuses on cases in which apparent equivalence between Russian and Korean terms may lead to an inaccurate transfer of professional meaning, especially in translation, interpretation, and AI-generated texts. The paper identifies the main types of false equivalence, including partial semantic overlap, divergence in normative meaning, differences in subject-reference relations, and mismatches in functional and contextual usage. It is argued that terminological equivalence should be assessed not only at the lexical level but also with regard to institutional, pragmatic, and legal context. The findings demonstrate that false equivalence may preserve the external linguistic correctness of a text while simultaneously transforming its professional and normative content. The study therefore proposes a semantic-functional approach to the comparative analysis of Russian and Korean military-legal terms and emphasizes the need to distinguish formal similarity from genuine professional equivalence.