25
Vol. 5, No. 11 – Special Issue (EJAR)
ISSN: 2181-2020
LPTIENP
International Scientific-Practice Conference on
“Linguistics and Pedagogical Technologies:
International Experience and National Practice”
Denau, November 20, 2025
in-academy.uz/index.php/ejar
LINGUISTIC AND LEXICOGRAPHIC FEATURES OF BOTANICAL
TERMS
Y.B.Bahriddinova
Doctoral student of Termez State University,
English language teacher of Surkhandarya Regional
Center for Pedagogical Excellence
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17626705
Abstract:
Botanical terminology is at the intersection of natural science and language: it
combines historical (Latin/Greek) continuity, descriptive morphology, and modern lexicographic
practice. This article examines linguistic properties of botanical terms (etymology, word-formation,
and semantic specificity).
Keywords:
botanical terminology, lexicography, nomenclature, English–Uzbek, terminology
standardization.
Botanical terms perform two main functions: (a) they identify and classify plant taxa (scientific
names), and (b) they label plant parts, life stages, ecological types and uses (vernacular and technical
terms). Their stability depends on historical conventions (chiefly Latin/Greek etymology) and
international rules (the International Code of Nomenclature) [4, 6]. Lexicographers and
terminologists must reconcile scientific precision with community usage and multilingual
equivalence.
Many high-frequency technical terms in botany derive from Classical Latin and Ancient Greek
(e.g., rosa, stoma, xylem), reflecting the historical development of Western biological science [5, 16.].
Vernacular names often reflect local culture, shape, taste, or use (e.g., English avocado ← Nahuatl;
Uzbek kunjut ← Tajik for sesame). The coexistence of classical technical terms and living
vernaculars produces a layered vocabulary with different functions: universal scientific reference vs.
local communicative value [1,5.]
Botanical terms appear via multiple morphological processes:
• Derivation / affixation: chlorophyll (Greek chloro- ‘green’ + -phyll ‘leaf’).
• Compounding/phrase formation: sunflower, water-plantain.
• Binomial combination: scientific names (binomials) combine a genus and species epithet
(Quercus robur). The binomial system provides formal stability for taxon identification [2].
Word-formation patterns also affect cross-language mapping: a single Latin name maps to
multiple vernacular names (one-to-many), while sometimes a single vernacular name maps to several
scientific species (many-to-one), producing potential ambiguity for translators and lexicographers
[1,8].
Scientific vocabulary strives for semantic univocity (one term → one concept) in taxonomy and
anatomy, but natural language terms are often polysemous (e.g., English leaf can be used in figurative
senses) and culture-bound [3,7]. Lexicographic entries thus need explicitly marked registers
(scientific vs. vernacular), scope notes and cross-references.
The International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (the “Code”) governs
formal plant names, priority, and typification; lexicographers must follow these rules when listing
accepted names and synonyms [5,4]. The Code is authoritative for scientific names but does not
regulate vernacular names, which remain language, and specific.
Best practice for botanical dictionary/terminology entries (monolingual and bilingual) includes:
(1) accepted scientific (Latin) name; (2) major synonyms; (3) common English name(s); (4)
local/vernacular name(s) (marked by language/region); (5) concise definition (morphological and/or
26
Vol. 5, No. 11 – Special Issue (EJAR)
ISSN: 2181-2020
LPTIENP
International Scientific-Practice Conference on
“Linguistics and Pedagogical Technologies:
International Experience and National Practice”
Denau, November 20, 2025
in-academy.uz/index.php/ejar
ecological); (6) taxonomic placement; and (7) illustrative material or usage examples when possible.
For bilingual dictionaries (English–Uzbek), include etymology notes and register markers so users
can distinguish scientific usage from folk usage.
There are some challenges in bilingual terminography (English ↔ Uzbek) such as:
- Non-equivalence: many Uzbek folk names have no exact English equivalent and vice versa;
- Multiple vernacular synonyms: a single taxon often has several Uzbek names across dialects;
- Borrowings and calques: modern Uzbek plant names may be calques or loans from Russian
or neighbouring languages (e.g., malina from Russian for raspberry);
- Need for cross-referencing: lexicographers should link each vernacular to a Latin taxon and
note alternate local names, region, and usage.
Moreover, there are some practical recommendations for compiling English–Uzbek botanical
lexica:
- Anchoring entries on the Latin name. Use the scientific name as the canonical key and include
all vernacular synonyms under it (this prevents ambiguous mapping);
- Recording provenance for vernacular names. Mark whether an Uzbek name is a loan (e.g., via
Russian), an Old Turkic form, or a recent calque — this aids historical linguistics and usability;
- Including register and usage notes. Specify if an English name is dialectal (e.g., bachelor’s
buttons) or horticultural vs. scientific;
- Adding images and diagnostic features for species that are important for education or
conservation; Flora volumes are good models because they combine descriptions, ranges and
synonymy;
- Making a digital, searchable database. A relational format (Latin name → English names →
Uzbek names → region → notes → image link) is optimal for research and teaching.
Botanical terminology demands careful balancing of scientific standardization (Latin binomials
and the Code) and the preservation and documentation of vernacular names (which reflect culture,
usage, and local biodiversity knowledge). For bilingual lexicography (English–Uzbek), anchoring
entries to Latin names, transparently recording vernacular provenance, and providing structured usage
notes are essential steps toward clear, usable terminological resources.
References:
1.
Bakhriddinova, Y. (2024). Lotin tilidagi botanik terminlarning ingliz va o‘zbek tillaridagi
xalqona sinonimlari: ularning etimologik va lingvistik xususiyatlari. O‘zbekistonda xorijiy tillar,
10(5), 106–122.
2.
International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT). (2018). International Code of
Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Shenzhen Code). International Association for Plant
Taxonomy.
https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php
. (Authoritative rules on botanical
nomenclature and formation of scientific names).
3.
Sennikov, A. N. (Ed.). (2017). Flora of Uzbekistan (Vol. 2). Navroʻz Publishers. xii + 200 pp.
(Volume includes taxonomic treatments and local synonymy; see Primulaceae, pp. 1–29).
4.
Evert, R. F., & Eichhorn, S. E. (2013). Raven. Biology of Plants (8th ed.). W. H. Freeman.
(Comprehensive undergraduate textbook with glossary and chapters on plant morphology and
taxonomy; helpful for linguistic description of botanical technical vocabulary; see glossary and
taxonomy chapters; pp. approx. total 900).
27
Vol. 5, No. 11 – Special Issue (EJAR)
ISSN: 2181-2020
LPTIENP
International Scientific-Practice Conference on
“Linguistics and Pedagogical Technologies:
International Experience and National Practice”
Denau, November 20, 2025
in-academy.uz/index.php/ejar
5.
Turland, N. J., et al. (Eds.). (2018). International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and
plants (Shenzhen Code) — Executive summary & online version. International Association for Plant
Taxonomy.
