No -- you have merely claimed such, and the word "refers" does not mean "translates".
Greeks called the languge spoken by the Jews in the 1st century Hebraisti because it was spoken by Hebrews.
So then they called the Greek language spoken by Jews "Hebraisti" as well??? No wonder they were confused.
The word "Aramaic" did not exist in Greek.
Wow -- so then how do you know that it existed at all if the Greeks did not have a word for it??? What did the Greeks call that language issuing forth from the lips of the Syrians of Mesopotamia. Wasn't it called "Syriac" also later referred to as "Aramaic"??? but always distinguishable from "Hebraisti".
The NIV substitutes "Aramaic" for every NT KJV reference to "Hebrew" (language). NAB has four references to Aramaic (only in the OT), and KJV has NO "Aramaic" in the OT or the NT!
You said it right: "substitutes" -- they "substituted" rather than do what they were supposed to do: "translate". That must be why many call it the NIV Substitution rather than the NIV Translation because it is not a faithful translation of the original Hebrew and Greek words.
The KJ uses talitha cumi in Mk.5:41,which is, I believe, an Aramaic expression, the same word that the NIV uses.