To understand the pair of accounts in regard to that pairs concerns for the activity of naming, one must have an at least subconscious sense of what language NATURALLY IS and is NOT: human conversation is NOT primarily about 'nothing in particular'. Much less is it primarily about the specifically academic, 'intellectual' forms of 'deep inquiry', aka the ancient Greek 'Thinker Class'-Ruling Class. Adam was directly faced with a NATURAL world. He was NOT faced with a context-less experience of the 'insides of his own mind'.
The pair of accounts do NOT suggest that the task of naming the animals was a formal instruction (ex: 'Adam', saith God,' Please do name these animals, thank you'. Much LESS do the accounts suggest that the task was a formal COMMAND (ex: 'Adam, saith God,'I command you to name these animals!')
There is no hint of either of these 'possibilities' in all of the Bible.
In fact, the central text in question, Genesis 2:19b, naturally suggests only one, and very particular, way in which Adam even knew what it was the God wanted him to do in relation to the animals. That way is that Adam and God had been naming-conversing with one another all along.
If we wish to think that the text was intended to inform us that God outright told Adam to name (the animals), or even that God commanded Adam to name them, yet the text is utterly contrary to any suggestion that God did so.
For, the text on the whole matter is very short and very specific: it says ONLY that God wanted 'to see what Adam would name them'. A human being NORMALLY has both language capacity and language initiative. A human infant is NOT the prototypical human. A human adult is.
So, more importantly, if Adam was made in God's image in terms of capacity and inclination to have 'dominion over' things, then Adam would have been quite naturally inclined to initiate his own speaking naming, just as God had done.
So, even more importantly, Adam's initiative to speak and name would have best been provoked, inspired, and motivated, by God initiating natural informal conversation with Adam. This does not mean the record that we have specifically of God speaking to Adam (Genesis 2:16-17) is the first time God spoke to Adam. That record is simply of the one and only NON-NORMAL condition of which the reader is to be concerned.
For, the entire Bible PRESUPPOSES all NORMAL conditions, such as, for example, human's natural and rightful ability and inclination for coversational language (especially in the human biologically native sonic form called vocalization, but also implying all forms of language, such as gestural, 'sign' language).
In gesture, there is a certain universally normal core set of gestures that are understood regardless of differing vocal languages. A native Chinese-only person understands that set just as a native English-only person understands it.
Human vocality also has a universal normal set. But this set is much more subtle, and far more context-sensitive than is the human gestural set. Its greater subtlety and sensitivity means it is far more adaptive and malleable than is the gestural set. This also means that one's even being aware of the natural existence of the vocal set requires far more attentiveness, focus, and other such perceptual and cognitive factors.
For, the general, day-to-day concerns are, in a sense, so 'loud' that our sense of the human vocal set is all-but-unheard by anyone. Those general, day-to-day concerns are like an overwhelming amount and loudness of cacophony.
And the human vocal set is like a small whisper of coherence.
Fortunately, the whole human bodily sense of gestural nativity is, normally, very, very 'loud', but coherent. This serves to preserve some basic sense of the very idea of a rich world of native sets of the various modes of language.
The idea if native sets of modes of language is contrary to the 'Ideally Merely Rational Blank Slates' which were the Overlords in Arthur C. Clarke's science fiction novel, Childhood's End. In the minds of those who have ever liked to feel that those Overlords were the ideal of objectivity and rationality, the idea of developing a language from 'conversational scratch' is imagined to be from a CONTEXT-FREE kind of scratch. But Adam was NOT faced with a featureless world of 'endless blank whiteness'.
A person's capacity to sense even one factor of the human native vocal set requires either or both a lot of 'silence' of general concerns or a lot of focus on the sense that there exists a NATURAL maximal relation between the human vocal-audio set and the basics of the natural, life-affirming environment. For, human conversation is not primarily about 'nothing in particular', much less primarily about the specifically academic, 'intellectual' forms of 'deep inquiry', aka the ancient Greek 'Thinker Class'-Ruling Class.
Genesis 1 and 2 are NOT for the benefit mainly of a 'theological' version of such academic-ism.