Student heterogeneity in (foreign language) instruction is a problem and a major professional challenge in both theory and practice. This problem/ challenge will be discussed in the contribution as a paradox of pedagogical and didactic work from its beginnings onwards. This is followed by a reflection on the institutional and structural frameworks for differentiation as a conceptual option for appropriate treatment of student heterogeneity. The empirical part, stimulated by the students’ statements during a didactics seminar, presents the results of a qualitative analysis of statements by foreign language teachers about differentiation, possibilities of differentiation, dilemmas, and pitfalls. Finally, suggestions are presented through which differentiation could find its way from theory to practice.

According to Wilhelm von Humboldt, the founder of the philosophy of language, the formation of objects and concepts in our minds, as well as everything we receive from the outside, is achieved through language. Our understanding of the world is possible through the use of culture and language. That is, if there were no language, there would be no intelligence. Because of the culture and intelligence, we acquire through language, each person exists as a reflection of the prevailing worldview. Each stage of cultural development is connected and comprehended through language. Language is not a tool for describing the known, but a tool for discovering the unknown. The true power of language lies in its constructiveness.

This article is written on a relevant topic. It is a fairly original alloy for exact science, in which rigorous data, formulations, basic conclusions and generalisations are intertwined with interesting and even, to a certain extent, fascinating material. The article is complicated and enriched by a comparative analysis of phytonyms in two languages of different groups. With the apparent dominance of the former, the work is divided into several parts. The first one provides brief information about the terminology itself. The meaning of phytonyms is given according to world standardisation. The author clearly and distinctly clarifies that the phytonymic vocabulary in English and Azerbaijani has gone a long way in development and formation. Moreover, it is emphasised that when analysing phytonyms in the Azerbaijani language, it is necessary to pay closer attention to the etymology of specific words and expressions. In the second part, the colour scheme is differentiated. The third, which logically follows the second, shows its uniqueness in the two named languages. Finally, in the fourth part, various ways of using them are proposed for consideration and linguistic analysis. Having completed the theoretical part, the author proceeds to the practical implementation of the central theme, that is, he subjects the most famous English and Azerbaijani phytonyms in science to differentiation. It is based on individual nominations and so-called locatives. Again, as before, the article’s author focuses on comparing the desired vocabulary in two languages. When analysing the content of phytonyms, the author relies on their characterological features. These are form, time, age, quantity, and quality. Summarising these features, unifying them and bringing them into a single system is possible. As a result, phytonyms in two languages are presented as a fragment of the overall picture of the universe. Their purely biological nature does not obscure strict linguistic analysis. In our opinion, the evident success of the article’s author should be considered in the constantly cited comparisons of facts or phenomena of two perceived sides: biologists and linguists. In some cases (shown in the work), they partially coincide, but they may have completely different estimates. The latter is observed in the case of identification by linguists of purely distinctive features and signs. Individual characteristics follow from this. It is correctly noted that each specialist is looking for his own angle of view on the desired problem, but all conclusions and generalisations are reduced to linguistic analysis. In any case, the overall picture turns out to be clarified.