English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This paper addresses the cognitive models that frame our understanding of what is traditionally called “metaphoric polysemy”, a well-established principle at work when it comes to naming the animals around us. In particular, taking the Roman nomenclature of aquatic animals as a case study, polysemy is redefined according to some basic cognitive principles of ethnobiological classification such as analogical similarity, biological essentialism and the role of simultaneous metaphoric and metonymic associations to the perceptual/cultural constraints targeted on the biological referent for naming it – the result is at least two kinds of metaphoric polysemy, to be called “external” (or  exo-polysemy ) and “internal” (or  endo-polysemy ), respectively. The idea is that the naming patterns that emerge from the ethnozoological nomenclature under examination may not only provide a better understanding of an ancient people’s zooanthropology but a paradigm for analysing descriptive ethnobiological naming in general.

Polysemy Revisited: Metaphor and Descriptiveness in Folk Animal Naming