Books on Amazon:
Semantic Mapping/Semantic Maps/Linguistics/Gärdenfors: in linguistics, semantic mappings have recently become popular. See Haspelmath (1997, 2003) (1) (2), Croft (2001) (3), Zwarts (2010a) (4), Sanso (2010) (5). They represent a "set" of meanings whereby neighborhood signals related meaning. Above all, it is about grammatical expressions (i.e. closed classes of expressions), but can also be applied to open classes of words.
Haspelmath (1997) (1) thus shows how an indefinite pronoun such as e.g. the meaning "someone" covers in different languages different meanings and grammatical functions.
Thesis: the meaning elements must be organized,...
...in a way that the regions corresponding to the meaning of an expression must be connected, and that for each language. (See, Croft, 2001, p. 96) (3).
Zwarts: (Zwarts 2010a) (4) distinguishes two approaches of semantic mappings:
a) Matrix-driven semantic maps: here the semantic map is derived from a lexical matrix.
GärdenforsVsSemantic Mappings: it is rarely explained how the components of the semantic map are actually identified. This is usually left to the intuition of the linguist.
b) Space-driven semantic maps: assume that for a particular domain a single universal conceptual space defines the semantic structure for all languages. E.g. color space. (See Berlin and Kay, 1969) (6).
Gärdenfors: my approach is similar to that of semantic mappings: the dimensions of the semantic universe should be identified and related to relevant communicative functions. Meaning should be separated from form.
Typological theories/Croft/Gärdenfors: (Croft 2001, p. 96) (3): thesis: most grammatical domains provide universals that map form and function to each other and can be represented as a coherent semantic map.
Semantic Mapping/Gärdenfors: does not exist between sentences and the propositions expressed by them. Reason: sentence meanings are strongly context-dependent.
(1) Haspelmath, M. (1997). Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2) Haspelmath, M. (2003). The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language (Vol. 2, pp. 211–242).
(3) Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(4) Zwarts, J. (2010a). Forceful Prepositions. In V. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.) Language, cognition and space: The state of the art and new directions (pp. 193-214). London.
(5) Sanso, A. (2010). How conceptual are semantics maps? Linguistic Discovery, 8, 288–309.
(6) Berlin, B., & Kay, P. (1969). Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution.
The Geometry of Meaning Cambridge 2014