Derivational Features Of Plant Names In Uzbek, Turkish, And Russian Languages

Authors

  • Sattorova Shahnoza Karshi State University, basic doctoral student in 10.00.06 — Comparative Literature, Contrastive Linguistics, and Translation Studies, Uzbekistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37547/philological-crjps-07-01-18

Keywords:

Phytonyms, word formation, derivation, suffixation, compounding

Abstract

Plant names (phytonyms) constitute a culturally dense and structurally diverse layer of the lexicon, where nomination strategies reflect both everyday experience with flora and the morphological resources of a language. This article explores how derivation participates in creating and expanding plant-name inventories in Uzbek, Turkish, and Russian. Building on a comparative-typological perspective, the study focuses on productive word-formation mechanisms that are especially visible in phytonyms: suffixation, compounding, multiword naming patterns, and hybrid formations where borrowed stems combine with native derivational formatives. The analysis demonstrates that Uzbek and Turkish, as agglutinative Turkic languages, tend to privilege transparent concatenation and regular suffixal models, while Russian, as a fusional Slavic language, shows high diversity of suffixal types and a strong role of evaluative and collective derivation. Across all three languages, semantic motivation (color, form, habitat, use) interacts with derivational formants, shaping stable naming templates that support lexicography, translation, and professional communication. The findings highlight the need to treat phytonyms not as isolated lexical items but as outcomes of patterned derivational choices constrained by typology and strengthened by cultural salience.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ҳожиев А. Ўзбек тили сўз ясалиши тизими: қўлланма. – Тошкент: “O‘qituvchi” НМИУ, 2007. – 168 б.

Раҳматуллаев Ш. Ҳозирги адабий ўзбек тили: дарслик. – Тошкент: “Universitet”, 2006. – 476 б.

Göksel A., Kerslake C. Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. – London; New York: Routledge, 2005. – 580 p.

Kornfilt J. Turkish. – London: Routledge, 1997. – 608 p.

Lewis G. Turkish Grammar. 2nd ed. – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. – 300 p.

Alkayış M. F. Türkiye Türkçesinde Bitki Adları. – İstanbul: Hiper Yayın, 2019. – 432 s.

Земская Е. А. Современный русский язык. Словообразование: учеб. пособие. – 5-е изд. – М.: Флинта; Наука, 2008. – 323 с.

Тихонов А. Н. Словообразовательный словарь русского языка: в 2 т. Т. 1. – М.: Русский язык, 1985. – 854 с.

Виноградов В. В. Русский язык: грамматическое учение о слове. – 2-е изд. – М.: Высшая школа, 1972. – 613 с.

Копоть Л. В. Фитонимы, подвергшиеся универбации: диахронный аспект // Вестник Адыгейского государственного университета. Серия 2: Филология и искусствоведение. – 2014. – № 2 (140). – С. 54–58.

Ягумова Н. Ш. Фитонимическое пространство в языковой картине мира: словообразовательный и мотивационный аспекты (на материале английского и адыгейского языков): дис. … канд. филол. наук. – Майкоп, 2008. – 213 с.

Gökçe H. Alkayış, M. Fatih (2019). Türkiye Türkçesinde Bitki Adları… // Anatolian Journal of Botany. – 2020. – Vol. 4, No. 2. – P. 121–123.

Downloads

Published

2026-01-31

How to Cite

Sattorova Shahnoza. (2026). Derivational Features Of Plant Names In Uzbek, Turkish, And Russian Languages. Current Research Journal of Philological Sciences, 7(01), 87–91. https://doi.org/10.37547/philological-crjps-07-01-18