Chapter I. Lexical typology is the systematic study of cross-linguistic variations

Conclusion on chapter II

It could be concluded that the systematic investigation of cross-linguistic variance in words and vocabularies is known as lexical typology. However, opinions on the precise meaning of this relatively new phrase vary. Lexical typology is concerned with the "typical manner in which language packages semantic data into words," according to Lehrer's frequently cited definition. Our primary focus will be lexical typology in this understanding. Aside from a few classic works, lexical typology was formerly both scarce and insignificant in comparison to cross-linguistic study on grammar and phonetics/phonology.

In conclusion over the past two decades, there has been an increase in interest in lexical-typological issues, as evidenced by the quantity and variety of pertinent studies and publications that have resulted from them, as well as by a number of publications that offer a variety of definitions of lexical typology, situate it within a larger research area, and provide overviews of the field.
It is possible to approach the central question of lexical typology, which is how languages communicate meanings through words, from a variety of angles. Starting with meanings or concepts, we can inquire about how these are expressed in various linguistic contexts, including, for example, how semantic domains are distributed among lexical items across languages.


CONCLUSION
Lexical typology has been the subject of systematic study, albeit only on a small number of language samples. These samples are frequently more than enough to disprove certain hypotheses about a phenomenon's universality and reveal key patterns in its cross-linguistic variation, but they are rarely large enough to draw firm conclusions about the interactions between the various causes of it or to make a clear distinction between universal determinants and those resulting from historical relationships among the languages. Therefore, it is necessary to broaden the scope of systematic lexical typology study to include more linguistic phenomena and more languages. Most lexicon-typological research have mainly ignored sign languages, in particular.
Focusing more on historical processes, particularly on cross-domain semantic shifts, that is, on the creation and operation of metaphoric and metonymical word-senses, is a crucial problem facing lexical typology. Although Cognitive Linguistics highlights the universality of many cognitive metaphors, there has been very little study on consistent semantic shifts across languages. The presence of cross-linguistically repeating patterns is, nevertheless, amply demonstrated here. In addition to the development of cognitive verbs mentioned in 7.2., some examples include the investigation into the origins of body-part terms, Urban's (2012) extensive investigation into the motivational patterns underlying numerous varieties of referring expressions, and Reznikova et al. (2012) investigation into the metaphorical origins of pain expressions. The traditional structuralist method is intrinsically static, psycholinguistic tests lack the equipment to capture lexical metaphors, and the NSM school is less interested in the typology of shifts from physical domains due to its interest in abstract domains and culture-specific notions. Semantic shifts, however, deserve special consideration even for domain-categorization studies since they offer more hints for comprehending the structure of their parent domain. The source of a semantic shift may also point out a word-sense, though this does not always hold true. Just as a word with multiple antonyms is typically a sign of polysemy, with antonyms corresponding to distinct word-senses that can be represented by separate lexemes in some other language, so too may the source of a semantic shift point out a word-sense.
To sum up the syntactic and morphosyntactic characteristics of words are a related topic. Collocation, valency, case marking, and other patterns of argument realization, as well as various morphological traits like countability of nouns or verbal aspectual classes, can all be justified by semantics, as is well known in lexicology and lexicography. There is a long-standing distinction between lexical typology, which has largely been limited to domain-categorization by lexical means without further considering their grammatical behavior, and grammatical typology, which focuses on the grammatical behavior of words and on morphosyntactic patterns as encoding meanings. Fortunately, recent advancements in crosslinguistic research on domain categorization show a desire to balance lexical and grammatical interests and to have a conversation with linguistic grammatical theory.
For instance, the interface between syntax and lexical semantics, or the degree and manner in which the argument structure qualities of a verb are foreseeable from its meaning, has been one of the key difficulties in the project on cutting and breaking events. Construction As a suitable framework for lexico-typological research, like as that on predicates, grammar is growing in favour. Schemas that are inspired by construction grammar are capable of addressing language phenomena at many levels (lexicon and grammar), as well as their interaction. It takes a lot more time and effort to analyze lexical items in-depth and take into consideration polysemy and formal features than it does to simply list the key words in a field. Lexical typology must seek out strategies that would automate the gathering and initial analysis in order to make it workable.
In conclusion machine translation, in particular, has made major strides in word-sense disambiguation, context identification and categorization, parallel text alignment, and other related tasks. A lexico-typological study that uses computer methods would reduce some of the manual labor required, and a study that uses more statistics in particular would give more weight to typological generalizations. Although there are now only a few number of languages with corpora that are large enough and sufficiently representative to be fully useful to lexical typology, as corpus linguistics develops and more corpora in more languages become available,