批判地名学作为人文地理学与文化研究的交叉领域，旨在揭示地名命名、更名与使用过程中隐含的权力关系、文化政治与身份认同问题。通过系统梳理中西方批判地名学的研究脉络，文章揭示了二者在理论框架、研究重点与实践路径方面的本质差异。研究发现，西方研究根植于殖民历史与自由主义城市语境，历经“权力批判—文化记忆—数字化”的演进脉络，强调通过社会运动解构地名权力的结构性不平等；中国本土化探索嵌入其独特的社会制度与文化背景，形成“制度嵌入性—文化根植性—价值导向性”的研究取向，并力求通过协同治理平衡发展与保护、市场与文化、多元与统一、数字与传统等矛盾。文章最后从理论基础、研究焦点、方法论创新与实践模式4个维度构建本土化研究框架，并立足该框架引出前沿议题，包括少数民族语地名在国家标准化要求下的存续机制、乡村空心化问题中乡土地名群落的存续机制、边缘群体在地名知识生产中的话语权保障机制、历史地名保护名录的动态评估与退出机制等。

As the spatial mnemonics of human civilization, place names transcend their basic function as geographical identifiers to embody historical narratives, cultural genes, and societal values. Within the contemporary context of globalization and urbanization, place names participate dynamically in socio-spatial construction, reflecting power dynamics and shaping the formation of identity. Since the 1980s, the emergence of critical toponymy influenced by neo-Marxist geography has challenged the traditional perception of place names as neutral signifiers, reconceptualizing them as spatial representations of power struggles. Despite the long tradition of toponymic study in China, modern critical inquiry gained momentum only in the early 21st century, primarily in response to urban toponymic chaos. However, this development is embedded in China’s unique institutional and cultural contexts, navigating between market-driven cultural development and state-led principles of historical preservation. In this study, the author systematically compared the research trajectories of Sino-Western critical toponymy and analyzed their divergent theoretical frameworks, research priorities, and practical pathways rooted in distinct historical experiences and sociocultural backgrounds. With its origins in post-colonial and liberal urban contexts, Western critical toponymy has evolved from a macro-level political critique to incorporating cultural memory and spatial justice, focusing on deconstructing power and amplifying marginalized voices. By contrast, Chinese scholarship has progressed from initial institutional reflection toward analyzing power–culture relationships and, more recently, to addressing cultural heritage preservation and cross-cultural dialogue, demonstrating a problem-solving orientation aimed at balancing development with tradition under state guidance. Building on this comparative analysis, a systematic and prospective localized research framework for China was constructed in this study. This framework integrates the spatial critique of neo-Marxist geography with traditional Chinese toponymic ethics, focusing on four core practical contradictions inherent to Chinese toponymic governance: development versus preservation, market forces versus cultural integrity, diversity versus standardization, and digital technology versus traditional continuity. It proposes methodological innovation through interdisciplinary approaches and context-adapted technologies and advocates for a practical governance model characterized by multi-stakeholder collaboration and digital empowerment. The primary contribution of this study lies in its systematic delineation of Sino-Western differences, moving beyond isolated theoretical discussions. The proposed framework not only facilitates theoretical innovation and practical application within China but also challenges Western theoretical hegemony by offering a non-Western perspective. It provides valuable insights for other developing countries seeking compatible paths for cultural continuity and modernization, thereby enriching the global discourse on critical toponymy.