↓ Skip to main content

The bear in Eurasian plant names: motivations and models

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The bear in Eurasian plant names: motivations and models
Published in
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13002-016-0132-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valeria Kolosova, Ingvar Svanberg, Raivo Kalle, Lisa Strecker, Ayşe Mine Gençler Özkan, Andrea Pieroni, Kevin Cianfaglione, Zsolt Molnár, Nora Papp, Łukasz Łuczaj, Dessislava Dimitrova, Daiva Šeškauskaitė, Jonathan Roper, Avni Hajdari, Renata Sõukand

Abstract

Ethnolinguistic studies are important for understanding an ethnic group's ideas on the world, expressed in its language. Comparing corresponding aspects of such knowledge might help clarify problems of origin for certain concepts and words, e.g. whether they form common heritage, have an independent origin, are borrowings, or calques. The current study was conducted on the material in Slavonic, Baltic, Germanic, Romance, Finno-Ugrian, Turkic and Albanian languages. The bear was chosen as being a large, dangerous animal, important in traditional culture, whose name is widely reflected in folk plant names. The phytonyms for comparison were mostly obtained from dictionaries and other publications, and supplemented with data from databases, the co-authors' field data, and archival sources (dialect and folklore materials). More than 1200 phytonym use records (combinations of a local name and a meaning) for 364 plant and fungal taxa were recorded to help find out the reasoning behind bear-nomination in various languages, as well as differences and similarities between the patterns among them. Among the most common taxa with bear-related phytonyms were Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (L.) Spreng., Heracleum sphondylium L., Acanthus mollis L., and Allium ursinum L., with Latin loan translation contributing a high proportion of the phytonyms. Some plants have many and various bear-related phytonyms, while others have only one or two bear names. Features like form and/or surface generated the richest pool of names, while such features as colour seemed to provoke rather few associations with bears. The unevenness of bear phytonyms in the chosen languages was not related to the size of the language nor the present occurence of the Brown Bear in the region. However, this may, at least to certain extent, be related to the amount of the historical ethnolinguistic research done on the selected languages.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Student > Master 7 13%
Other 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 10 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 20%
Environmental Science 8 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Arts and Humanities 4 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Other 15 27%
Unknown 11 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 January 2024.
All research outputs
#5,559,430
of 22,883,326 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#191
of 736 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,764
of 310,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#9
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,883,326 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 736 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,446 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.