Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This paper discusses two ways in which the geometry of a semantic map can be defined: on the basis of a set of cross-linguistic data or on the basis of a semantic analysis of the meanings involved. I will argue that under a purely "data-driven" approach certain important aspects of contiguity in semantic maps, like exceptions and family resemblance structure, remain unclear and that we can get more insight into these aspects when working from a semantically defined geometry. The two approaches can complement each other in the use of semantic maps.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Joost Zwarts (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: