Economic discourse frequently foregrounds terms such as risk, uncertainty, volatility, exposure, hedge, and default. These items are deceptively simple as lexical items but conceptually loaded: they carry institutional meanings (accounting, regulatory, financial), cognitive frames (probability, precaution), and culturally mediated attitudes toward future events. Translators working with economic periodicals, regulatory text, or corporate reporting thus must navigate not only lexical equivalence but also conceptual and cultural fit. Failure to do so can produce consequential misunderstandings for policy makers, investors, and lay readers.

Two central observations frame this paper. First, psychological and behavioral studies demonstrate substantial cross-cultural differences in how risk is perceived and valued, which in turn affects how risk is communicated in economic discourse. Evidence for systematic cross-national variability in judgments of financial risk dates back to canonical cross-cultural studies in risk perception [1]. Second, translation scholars have proposed that translator decisions are usefully modeled as forms of risk management — translators balance credibility, uncertainty, and communicative risk when they choose strategies. This reframing helps explain conservative (literal) vs. adaptive (domesticating) choices in economic translation [2].

Given these two facts, the central research questions of this paper are:

1. How do cross-cultural differences in risk perception surface in economic texts and their translations?
2. What recurrent problems (lexical, conceptual, pragmatic) do translators face when rendering risk-related economic concepts?
3. Which methodological and workflow tools (corpus analysis, terminology management, MT+post-editing) can reduce communicative risk while preserving conceptual fidelity?

These issues are addressed through a targeted literature synthesis, a conceptual mapping of key challenges and response strategies, and a practical, replicable research and workflow proposal for comparative empirical studies.

Methods

This paper is a literature-driven conceptual study with three components:

1. Literature synthesis. Work is reviewed from translation studies on risk (risk management frameworks for translator decision making), cognitive and behavioral risk perception literature, domain-specific terminology research, and recent reviews of machine translation performance in specialized domains. Representative works that anchor the synthesis are cited and discussed [3].
2. Problem mapping. From the synthesis a taxonomy of translation problems specific to risk terminology in economics (semantic polysemy, metalinguistic vs. technical senses, cultural framing differences, pragmatics of hedging and modality, and institutional/regulatory variation) were derived from the synthesis.
3. Framework proposal. A mixed methods empirical design was proposed that can be implemented in future work (corpus compilation, annotation schema, evaluation metrics, and recommended translator workflow integrating terminology management and MT). The framework draws on established cross-cultural adaptation methods used in instrument translation and on domain MT evaluation practices.

Note: this paper does not report primary corpus annotation performed here; rather it sets out a replicable protocol and interprets findings from the reviewed literature to make evidence-based recommendations.

Results

1. Evidence of cross-cultural variability in risk framing

Behavioral and cognitive research shows that people in different cultures systematically interpret and respond to the same risk-laden stimuli differently (for instance, probability weighting, loss aversion, and time horizons vary cross-nationally). These differences shape economic reporting and the rhetorical strategies journalists and analysts use when discussing risk and uncertainty (e.g., emphasis on precaution vs. opportunity). Translators who ignore these differences risk producing target texts that are semantically accurate but pragmatically misleading.

2. Translation as (communicative) risk management

Translation studies literature frames translator choices as attempts to manage three overlapping risks: credibility risk (damage to reputational trust), uncertainty risk (translator’s own epistemic uncertainty about the correct rendering), and communicative risk (failure to get the intended message across to readers). In risk-laden economic text, these risks are magnified: mistranslating exposure or default can change perceived obligations or financial positions. Thus, translators often choose conservative, literal renderings when institutional precision is required, and more adaptive translations where communicative uptake is the priority [4].

3. Recurrent problem types (taxonomy)

From the literature the following recurrent problem classes emerge:

— Polysemy / domain shift. Terms like risk and exposure appear in everyday language and as technical terms. Distinguishing the intended sense is essential.

— Lack of conceptual equivalence. Some languages lack a tight lexical counterpart (or have culturally distinct frames for uncertainty), forcing descriptive or periphrastic solutions.

— Pragmatic hedging and modality. Phrases expressing probability (e.g., could, may, likely ) are often used strategically in economic discourse; direct translations that flatten modality can misrepresent certainty.

— Regulatory / institutional variance. Accounting and legal frameworks embed specialized senses that require domain expertise.

— MT brittleness on domain terms. Recent MT evaluations show improvements in throughput but persistent errors for low-frequency, domain-specific terminology unless accompanied by glossary integration and expert post-editing [5].

4. Implications for translator workflows

The literature converges on several practical measures that reduce communicative risk:

— Pre-translation scoping. Identify the genre (e.g., corporate report vs. opinion piece), institutional frame and intended audience; this directs the translation strategy (literal vs. adaptive).

— Terminology management. Compile bilingual/multilingual glossaries with concept definitions and usage notes; maintain provenance and register metadata. This step substantially reduces MT and human error on technical terms.

— Specification-aware MT + controlled post-editing. Use MT systems that accept glossaries/specifications, and design post-editing guidelines that address modality, hedging and institutional terms explicitly. Recent research suggests that specification-guided pipelines outperform blind MT for specialized domains [6].

— Cross-cultural consultation. When dealing with culturally sensitive framing (e.g., risk as threat vs. opportunity), consult subject-matter experts or native reviewers in the target culture to check pragmatic fit. This is especially important in risk communication where misframing can have material consequences.

Discussion

The synthesis supports a straightforward but unglamorous conclusion: accurate translation of risk-related economic concepts requires an approach that is simultaneously lexical, conceptual and cultural. Translators must be domain-aware and reflexive about the cultural frames embedded in source texts. Modeling the translator’s task as risk management clarifies why different strategies are appropriate in different contexts (e.g., a central bank statement vs. a newspaper op-ed).

Two tensions deserve explicit mention. First, the productivity gains from MT are real, but they create a false economy if glossaries, domain constraints and skilled post-editing are not invested in — interpreters of financial text routinely report that errors on low-frequency technical items create disproportionately high downstream costs (corrections, reputational harm) [7].

Second, cultural adaptation improves comprehension but can dilute technical precision; the translator needs to negotiate that trade-off transparently (e.g., via footnotes, bracketed clarifications or publisher style decisions).

This paper’s proposed mixed-method empirical framework (below) aims to make these trade-offs visible and measurable in future research: a bilingual corpus annotated for term sense, modality, and institutional frame; controlled MT experiments with and without glossary integration; and human evaluation by bilingual domain experts using both accuracy and communicative adequacy metrics.

Conclusion and practical recommendations

Cross-cultural variability in risk perception is not an academic curiosity: it is central to how economic texts are produced and consumed. Translators must therefore treat risk-related economic terminology as concepts rather than isolated words, and adopt workflows that combine terminology management, culture-aware decision rules, and specification-aware MT.

Concrete, practical recommendations:

1. Create concept-level glossaries (definition + source examples + register + recommended translations).
2. Classify texts by risk-sensitivity (e.g., regulatory/corporate > technical journalism > popular press) to guide literal vs. adaptive strategies.
3. Use MT with glossary injection and strict post-editing protocols for risk terminology; document every decision affecting institutional terms.
4. In high-stakes texts, add a cross-cultural review step with native domain experts to check pragmatic alignment and audience interpretation.

Limitations: this paper synthesizes existing studies and proposes a protocol; empirical validation (annotated corpora, MT experiments, user reception studies) is required to quantify the effectiveness of the recommended workflows.

References:

1. Robert, N. B. Cross-cultural differences in risk perception: A model-based approach / N. B. Robert. — Текст: электронный // Scopus: [сайт]. — URL: https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/0031214971 (дата обращения: 03.12.2025).
2. Pym Translating as risk management. (Discusses credibility, uncertainty, and communicative risk in translator decision-making.) / Pym. — Текст: электронный // Usuaris: [сайт]. — URL: https://usuaris.tinet.cat/apym/on-line/translation/2015_translating_as_risk.pdf (дата обращения: 03.12.2025).
3. Federici Translating hazards: multilingual concerns in risk and emergency communication / Federici. — Текст: электронный // UCL Discovery: [сайт]. — URL: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10173203/1/Federici_Translating %20Hazards_FMF_final12042023..pdf (дата обращения: 03.12.2025).
4. Palanichamy, Naveen Overview and challenges of machine translation for contextually appropriate translations / Naveen Palanichamy. — Текст: электронный // Science Direct: [сайт]. — URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004224021035 (дата обращения: 03.12.2025).
5. Arturo, Oncevay The Impact of Domain-Specific Terminology on Machine Translation for Finance in European Languages / Oncevay Arturo. — Текст: электронный // ACL Anthology: [сайт]. — URL: https://aclanthology.org/2025.naacl-long.140/ (дата обращения: 03.12.2025).
6. Paulo, Cruchinho Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Validation of Measurement Instruments: A Practical Guideline for Novice Researchers / Cruchinho Paulo. — Текст: электронный // PubMed: [сайт]. — URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38840704/ (дата обращения: 03.12.2025).
7. Chelo, Vargas-Sierra Translation-oriented Terminology Management and ICTs: Present and Future / Vargas-Sierra Chelo. — Текст: электронный // ua.es: [сайт]. — URL: https://personal.ua.es/en/chelo-vargas/documentos/gestadm/translation-oriented-terminology-management-and-icts-present-and-future.pdf (дата обращения: 03.12.2025).