American Journal Of Philological Sciences
62
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue07 2025
PAGE NO.
62-65
10.37547/ajps/Volume05Issue07-16
The Study of Plant Names in World Linguistics
Sattorova Shahnoza
Basic Doctoral Student in 10.00.06 – Comparative Literature, Comparative Linguistics, and Translation Studies at Karshi State
University, Uzbekistan
Received:
20 May 2025;
Accepted:
16 June 2025;
Published:
18 July 2025
Abstract:
The investigation of plant names, or phytonymy, represents a dynamic intersection of linguistics,
anthropology, ethnobotany, and cultural studies. This article explores the multifaceted nature of plant name
studies across global linguistic traditions, emphasizing the significance of nomenclature in shaping human
interaction with flora, encoding ecological knowledge, and reflecting cultural values. Through a comparative
analysis of diverse language families and historical contexts, this work uncovers patterns in naming, semantic
evolution, borrowing, and cultural symbolism. Special attention is paid to the mechanisms underlying plant name
formation, the transmission of botanical knowledge through language, and the challenges of standardization in
scientific and folk contexts. The research draws upon both theoretical models and practical examples from various
regions, highlighting the value of phytonymy in linguistic typology, translation studies, and cross-cultural
communication. The conclusion proposes a framework for further interdisciplinary research and emphasizes the
relevance of plant name studies in preserving intangible cultural heritage and supporting biodiversity
conservation.
Keywords
: Phytonymy, plant names, linguistics, ethnobotany, nomenclature, cultural symbolism, language
typology.
Introduction:
The names attributed to plants by
different linguistic communities constitute a unique
domain within the broader study of language and
culture. Known as phytonymy, the study of plant names
reveals a wealth of information about a community’s
environment, traditional knowledge systems, and
worldview. Plant nomenclature not only reflects the
ecological landscape in which a language evolves but
also encapsulates the cultural, symbolic, and utilitarian
relationships that humans maintain with their natural
surroundings. Historically, the field has developed at
the crossroads of linguistics, ethnobotany, folklore, and
taxonomy, often mirroring shifts in scientific paradigms
and societal attitudes towards nature.
The relevance of plant name studies in world linguistics
is multifaceted. On the one hand, it contributes to
understanding the processes of lexicalization, semantic
change, and lexical borrowing. On the other hand, it
provides valuable insights into the mechanisms of
knowledge transmission, cultural adaptation, and
linguistic typology. Furthermore, the globalization of
botanical science and the increasing need for
standardized nomenclature highlight the practical
implications of this field, particularly in translation,
ethnobotanical
surveys,
and
biodiversity
documentation. This article aims to synthesize current
theoretical approaches and empirical findings related
to plant names, tracing their significance in world
linguistics and offering perspectives for future
research.
The present research adopts an interdisciplinary
methodology, drawing on descriptive linguistics,
comparative philology, ethnobotanical fieldwork, and
semiotic analysis. Primary sources include botanical
glossaries, historical dictionaries, and folk taxonomies
from various language families, such as Indo-European,
Uralic, Turkic, Sino-Tibetan, and Niger-Congo. Data
were collected from published monographs, field
reports, and open-access digital corpora, with special
attention given to regional studies from Europe,
Central Asia, Africa, and the Americas.
Secondary sources involve recent linguistic literature
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
63
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
on phytonymy, language contact, and semantic change,
as well as foundational works in anthropology and the
history of science. The methodological framework
combines qualitative and quantitative analyses: the
qualitative aspect examines the semantic and
pragmatic dimensions of plant names, while the
quantitative aspect involves the frequency and
distribution of lexical patterns across languages and
regions. Comparative methods are used to analyze
naming conventions, patterns of lexical borrowing, and
semantic shifts in relation to cultural contact and
ecological adaptation. Fieldwork data, where available,
provide context-specific examples and reflect the living
dynamics of plant name use in oral traditions.
Special emphasis is placed on the challenges of
standardizing plant names across different linguistic
and cultural settings, drawing on the International
Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants
(ICN), and the implications for cross-cultural
communication and documentation.
Analysis of plant names across world languages reveals
several core tendencies in naming conventions,
semantic structure, and cultural associations. One key
observation is the prevalence of metaphorical and
descriptive naming, whereby plant names encapsulate
physical features, habitat, or utilitarian properties. For
instance, many languages use analogies with animals,
div parts, or colors to construct plant names,
reflecting both sensory perception and symbolic
meaning. In Slavic languages, for example, the common
nettle (Urtica dioica) is referred to as “крапива”
(krapiva), deriving from an old verb meaning “to
scratch” or “to sting,” thus encoding the plant’s
tactile
property within its very name.
A second notable pattern involves the role of folk
taxonomy. Unlike scientific taxonomy, which seeks
universal, stable, and systematic classification, folk
taxonomy is embedded in local knowledge and
practices. Plant names in many indigenous and rural
communities reflect local ecological relationships,
cultural salience, and traditional uses, rather than
strictly biological criteria. The same plant may have
different names depending on its stage of
development, use, or associated myth. In the languages
of the Amazon basin, one tree species may bear
multiple names, each tied to a particular ecological
niche or cultural function.
The transmission and transformation of plant names in
the context of language contact also present important
findings. Lexical borrowing is particularly evident in
regions of intense cultural exchange. For example, the
spread of crop plants such as maize, potato, or tea led
to the adoption and adaptation of foreign plant names
in dozens of languages, often accompanied by semantic
shifts. In Central Asia, the Persian word “чаи” (chai) for
tea became embedded in Turkic, Russian, and even
European languages, evolving into forms such as “чай”
(Russian), “çay” (Turkish), and “chai” (English).
Comparative analysis also uncovers processes of
calquing and hybridization, where new plant names are
formed by translating components of borrowed terms
or combining local and foreign elements. In many
African languages, the introduction of New World crops
prompted creative linguistic responses, merging native
naming strategies with imported concepts. The sweet
potato, originally from South America, is called
“batata” in many Romance languages, but local
variants often reference its taste, color, or growing
conditions.
The research further documents the challenges
inherent in standardizing plant names. Scientific
nomenclature, governed by Latin binomials, aims for
universal precision but often coexists uneasily with
local naming traditions. The process of assigning
scientific names sometimes disregards indigenous
knowledge, leading to confusion or loss of cultural
information. Ethnobotanical surveys repeatedly
underscore the importance of documenting both
scientific and vernacular plant names to ensure
accuracy and cultural sensitivity in research,
conservation, and healthcare.
Semantic evolution is another central theme. Over
time, plant names may shift in meaning, expand to
cover new referents, or become polysemous. The
English word “daisy,” for instance, originally
meant
“day’s eye,” referring to the flower’s opening at dawn;
its semantic field has broadened to encompass multiple
related
species
in
popular
usage.
Similarly,
metaphorical extensions frequently occur, where plant
names are applied to objects, phenomena, or even
people, as seen in nicknames, toponyms, and folk
expressions.
Cultural symbolism attached to plant names reveals
deep layers of meaning. In many traditions, certain
plants acquire sacred or taboo status, and their names
are invoked in rituals, proverbs, and literature. The
lotus in South and East Asian cultures, the olive in the
Mediterranean, or the oak in Celtic and Slavic
mythologies exemplify how plant names become
vehicles for shared identity and values. Linguistic
analysis of plant names thus provides access to the
symbolic landscapes of different societies.
The role of plant names in translation studies is equally
significant. Translators must navigate between literal
rendering, cultural adaptation, and scientific accuracy
when conveying plant names between languages.
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
64
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
Misinterpretation can lead to loss of ecological nuance
or cultural context. In literary translation, the
treatment of plant names often involves negotiation
between exoticization, domestication, or explanatory
annotation.
Finally, ongoing research highlights the role of plant
name studies in preserving intangible cultural heritage
and
supporting
environmental
education.
Documenting and revitalizing vernacular plant names
contribute to the resilience of endangered languages
and the maintenance of traditional ecological
knowledge. In the context of global biodiversity crises,
linguistic documentation of plant names supports
conservation initiatives, facilitating communication
between
scientists,
policymakers,
and
local
communities.
The study of plant names in world linguistics illuminates
the complex interplay between language, culture, and
the environment. At its core, phytonymy demonstrates
how linguistic systems encode, transmit, and transform
ecological knowledge across generations. The
formation and evolution of plant names are shaped by
a constellation of factors: perceptual salience,
utilitarian value, historical contact, symbolic meaning,
and social organization.
The analysis presented in this article underscores the
importance of considering both scientific and folk
perspectives in plant nomenclature. While the
standardization of botanical names is indispensable for
global scientific communication, local naming
traditions hold critical information about ecological
adaptation, medicinal properties, and cultural
practices. The coexistence and interaction of scientific
and vernacular nomenclatures reflect broader
dynamics of power, authority, and cultural negotiation.
The findings also highlight the creative capacity of
language in responding to ecological change and
cultural contact. The processes of borrowing, calquing,
and hybridization in plant naming exemplify linguistic
flexibility and innovation. However, they also bring
challenges in terms of semantic precision and cross-
cultural intelligibility, especially in translation and
education.
From a methodological standpoint, the integration of
linguistic, ethnobotanical, and anthropological data
provides a holistic perspective on plant name studies.
Fieldwork and community engagement are crucial for
capturing the living dynamics of plant nomenclature
and avoiding the erasure of marginalized knowledge
systems. The digitalization of botanical and linguistic
corpora offers new opportunities for comparative
research, although it also raises questions about data
ownership and ethical documentation.
The preservation and revitalization of vernacular plant
names have significant implications for language
maintenance, cultural identity, and environmental
stewardship. In many regions, the erosion of traditional
knowledge due to urbanization, language shift, and
ecological degradation threatens the continuity of
plant name systems. Efforts to document and integrate
this knowledge into formal education, conservation,
and public health can foster both linguistic diversity and
sustainable development.
Looking forward, the study of plant names offers fertile
ground for interdisciplinary collaboration. Advances in
computational linguistics, geospatial analysis, and
citizen science open new avenues for large-scale
mapping and analysis of plant nomenclature. At the
same time, respect for local epistemologies and
participatory research models remain essential for
equitable knowledge production.
Plant names occupy a pivotal position at the nexus of
language, culture, and environment. The study of
phytonymy in world linguistics reveals the intricate
ways in which linguistic communities name, classify,
and attribute meaning to the plant world. Through
comparative analysis, this article has highlighted
patterns of naming, processes of borrowing and
hybridization, and the cultural symbolism embedded in
plant nomenclature. The coexistence of scientific and
vernacular naming systems underscores the value of
integrating local knowledge with global standards.
Preserving and studying plant names is not merely an
academic pursuit but a necessary endeavor for
sustaining
biocultural
diversity
and
fostering
intercultural understanding. As linguistic and ecological
systems face unprecedented pressures, documenting
and revitalizing plant nomenclature contributes to the
resilience of both natural and cultural heritage. Future
research should continue to bridge disciplinary
boundaries, prioritize community involvement, and
leverage technological innovations to support the
dynamic field of plant name studies in world linguistics.
REFERENCES
Berlin, B. Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of
Categorization of Plants and Animals in Traditional
Societies. Princeton University Press, 1992.
Brown, C.H. Lexical Acculturation in Native American
Languages. Oxford University Press, 1999.
Hunn, E. A Zapotec Natural History: Trees, Herbs, and
Flowers, Birds, Beasts, and Bugs in the Life of San Juan
Gbëë. University of Arizona Press, 2008.
Martin, G.J. Ethnobotany: A Methods Manual.
Earthscan Publications Ltd, 2004.
Stepp, J.R., Wyndham, F.S., Zarger, R.K. Ethnobiology
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
65
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
and Biocultural Diversity: Proceedings of the Seventh
International Congress of Ethnobiology. University of
Georgia Press, 2002.
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi,
and plants (Shenzhen Code). Regnum Vegetabile, Vol.
159, Koeltz Botanical Books, 2018.
Tokarev, S.A. Myths of Peoples of the World: An
Encyclopedia. Moscow: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1988.
Turner, N.J., Deur, D., Lepofsky, D. "Plant Management
Systems of British Columbia First Peoples," Botany, Vol.
91, No. 3, 2013, pp. 185
–
200.
Wierzbicka, A. Semantics, Culture, and Cognition:
Universal Human Concepts in Culture-specific
Configurations. Oxford University Press, 1992.
Zohary, D., Hopf, M. Domestication of Plants in the Old
World. 3rd Edition. Oxford University Press, 2000.
