Challenges of Phraseological Translation in the Era of AI: Georgian-Russian MT Perspectives and the Role of Intermediary Languages

Shorena Tsabadze

Authors

Shorena Tsabadze Caucasus International University

Abstract

This article examines the core challenges of translating phraseological units in Machine Translation (MT) and Artificial Intelligence (AI), focusing on the Georgian-Russian language pair. Phraseologisms, characterised by cultural specificity and semantic indivisibility, pose a significant hurdle for automated systems that often rely on morphological and syntactic analysis rather than deep semantic synthesis. This research adopts a complex comparative-experimental methodology, analysing translations of idiomatic expressions from Mikhail Javakhishvili’s novel Arsena Marabdeli within the digital framework of the Electronic Text Analysis Group at Tbilisi State University (ETAG-TSU). By comparing professional human translations with machine-generated outputs, this study identifies critical failures in AI systems, including literalism, an inability to distinguish homonyms, and misinterpretation of cultural and biblical realia. Furthermore, the paper investigates the computational stylistics of phraseological transformations in literary prose, highlighting how algorithmic models struggle with authorial style and figurative nuances. A key finding is that English serves as a “pivot” or intermediary language in the Georgian-Russian MT process, introducing additional phonetic and lexical errors. The paper concludes that, for AI to achieve functional proficiency in translating idioms, it must be equipped with extensive electronic corpora, Parallel Idiomatic Corpora, and Specialised Knowledge Graphs in which phraseologisms are treated as independent, indivisible semantic components.

Author Biography

Shorena Tsabadze, Caucasus International University

M. Pintér Tibor is an associate professor at Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church in Hungary. His research lies in applied linguistics, with a focus on corpus linguistics, sociolinguistics, bilingualism, and translation studies, particularly Bible translation, alongside work in language pedagogy, terminology, and digital humanities, including recent engagement with educational technology and AI‑supported research.

References

Catford, J. C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford University Press.

de Waard, J., & Nida, E.A. (1986). From One Language to Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation. Thomas Nelson Inc.

Floor, S. (2007). Four Bible Translation Types and Some Criteria to Distinguish Them, Journal of Translation, 3(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.54395/jot-pfw5h

Holmes, J. S. (1972). The Name and Nature of Translation Studies, In Holmes, J. S., Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies (pp. 67–80). Rodopi.

Jakobson, R. (1959/2000). On linguistic aspects of translation, In Venuti, L. (Ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (pp. 113–118). Routledge.

M. Pintér, T. (2025). Explicit information on translation theory in contemporary Hungarian and English Bible prefaces – a contrastive approach. Acta Academiae Beregsasiensis, Philologica, 4(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.58423/2786-6726/2025-1-77-94

Munday, J. (2001). Main issues of translation studies, In Munday, J., Introducing Translation Studies. Theories and applications (pp. 7–17). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429352461-2

Nida, E. A., & Taber, Ch. R. (1982). The Theory and Practice of Translation. E. J. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004669147

Nord, Ch. (2018). Translating as Purposeful Activity. Functionalist Approaches Explained. Routledge.

Norton, G. J. (2006). Ancient Versions and Textual Transmission of the Old Testament, In Rogerson, J. W., & Lieu, Judith M. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies (pp. 226–227). Oxford University Press.

Ortega y Gasset, J. (1958/2000). The misery and the splendor of translation, In Venuti, L. (Ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (pp. 49–63). Routledge.

Smith, K. G. (2000). Bible Translation and Relevance Theory. The Translation of Titus. University of Stellenbosch.

Statham, N. (2003). Dynamic Equivalence and Functional Equivalence: How Do They Differ? The Bible Translator, 54(1), 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/026009350305400102

Wendland, E., & Noss, Ph. (2013). Bible Translation, In Chapelle, C. A. (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 1–8). Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0089