MODERN EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Выпуск журнала №-28
Часть–3_Июнь –2025
48
DIACHRONIC CHANGES IN THE LEXICAL FIELD OF PHYTONYMS:
ENGLISH AND UZBEK COMPARISON
Nuraliyeva Zarina Panji kizi
Termez State Pedagogical Institute
1st course Master’s student
Abstract. This article explores the diachronic (historical) development of
phytonyms—plant names—in the English and Uzbek languages. By analyzing literary
texts, historical dictionaries, and ethnobotanical sources from different periods, the
study traces how plant names have evolved in form, meaning, and cultural relevance.
The findings reveal that both English and Uzbek phytonyms have undergone lexical
shifts due to sociocultural change, contact with other languages, and technological
progress. While English phytonyms have been influenced by Latin and French, Uzbek
plant names reflect Arabic, Persian, and Russian lexical borrowings. The article also
discusses the preservation and loss of certain archaic plant names in both traditions.
Keywords. Phytonyms, diachronic linguistics, lexical change, English, Uzbek,
language contact, historical semantics, plant names.
Аннотация. В данной статье рассматривается диахронное
(историческое) развитие фитонимов — названий растений — в английском и
узбекском языках. На основе анализа литературных источников, исторических
словарей и этноботанических данных прослеживаются изменения в форме,
значении и культурной значимости фитонимов. Результаты показывают, что
фитонимы
обоих
языков
подверглись
изменениям
под
влиянием
социокультурных факторов, языковых контактов и технологического
прогресса. В то время как английские фитонимы испытали влияние латинского
и французского языков, узбекские заимствовали элементы из арабского,
персидского и русского языков. Также обсуждаются случаи утраты или
сохранения архаичных названий растений.
MODERN EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Выпуск журнала №-28
Часть–3_Июнь –2025
49
Ключевые слова. Фитонимы, диахроническая лингвистика, лексические
изменения, английский язык, узбекский язык, языковые контакты,
историческая семантика, названия растений.
Phytonyms, or plant names, represent a rich area of linguistic and cultural
history. Their development over time reflects human interaction with the
environment, shifts in cultural beliefs, and the influence of language contact. This
article aims to analyze the diachronic evolution of plant names in English and Uzbek,
uncovering how these lexical items have changed in spelling, pronunciation, meaning,
and cultural function across different historical periods.
Literature Review. Linguists such as Ullmann (1962) and Crystal (2003) have
emphasized the role of historical linguistics in understanding semantic and lexical
changes. In the Uzbek context, Karimova (2016) has explored the influence of
Russian on modern Uzbek botanical terminology. Meanwhile, English phytonymic
changes have been documented in etymological dictionaries and historical corpora
like the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). Yet, comparative diachronic studies
between English and Uzbek in the domain of plant names remain scarce.
Methodology. The study uses comparative diachronic analysis by collecting
and categorizing phytonyms from:
Classical literary texts (e.g., Chaucer, Shakespeare; Alisher Navoi, Ogahiy)
Historical dictionaries (e.g., Johnson’s Dictionary, OED; “Devonu lug‘otit
turk”)
Ethnobotanical sources and folklore
Lexical changes are analyzed in terms of:
Phonological evolution
Semantic shift
Lexical borrowing
Obsolescence or neologism
Results and Discussion
English Phytonyms: From Old English to Modern Usage. Old English "hæsel"
(hazel) has remained stable, while "hæwen" (blue-colored flower) has disappeared.
MODERN EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Выпуск журнала №-28
Часть–3_Июнь –2025
50
Many plant names entered English via Latin/French, e.g.:
Rose (Latin rosa)
Lily (Old French lilie)
Daisy (Old English dægeseage – "day’s eye") underwent metaphorical
evolution.
The scientific naming system (binomial nomenclature) introduced in the 18th
century shifted popular terms toward Latinate forms.
Uzbek Phytonyms: Influence of Persian, Arabic, and Russian. Old Turkic
phytonyms like "boychechak" (snowdrop) and "qoqi" (reed) are still in use.
Persian and Arabic influence:
Atirgul (rose) from Persian attar + gul
Ismaloq (spinach) from Persian
Russian influence (especially in Soviet period):
Romas (chamomile) → romashka
Shirinbinafsha (sweet violet) gave way to fialka (Russian) in urban contexts.
Post-independence period saw a return to Turkic-origin words in botanical
education and literature.
Common Patterns and Differences. Feature English Uzbek
Latin influence Strong Minimal. Loanwords French, Latin, Greek Persian,
Arabic, Russian Folk etymology Common (e.g., “buttercup”) Present (e.g.,
“quyoshgul” = sunflower). Disappeared phytonyms Many lost in Middle English
More preserved in rural dialects
Conclusion
The lexical field of phytonyms in both English and Uzbek has undergone
significant diachronic changes, shaped by cultural shifts, foreign influences, and
linguistic reforms. While English exhibits a steady Latinization and scientific
standardization, Uzbek reflects multilingual layers of Persian, Arabic, and Russian,
especially in botanical terminology. Understanding these changes not only sheds light
on plant-related vocabulary but also reveals broader cultural and linguistic
transformations in the two societies.
MODERN EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Выпуск журнала №-28
Часть–3_Июнь –2025
51
REFERENCES
1. Ullmann, S. (1962). Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning.
2. Crystal, D. (2003). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language.
3. Johnson, S. (1755). A Dictionary of the English Language.
4. Oxford English Dictionary Online.
5. Karimova, D. (2016). O‘zbek tilida ruscha botanika terminlarining o‘zlashuvi.
Tashkent State University.
6. Navoi, A. (1490). Mahbub ul-Qulub.
7. “Devonu lug‘otit turk” by Mahmud Qashg‘ari (11th century).
8. Ogahiy, Muhammad Rizo (19th century). Tazkirayi Ogahiy.
