LINGUISTIC AND LEXICOGRAPHIC FEATURES OF BOTANICAL TERMS

Аннотация

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 Vol. 5, No. 11 – Special Issue (EJAR) 25 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 na