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

Conclusion on chapter I
Grammatical typology and descriptive practice have benefited from their interplay. On the one hand, linguistic typology has mostly concentrated on problems that are often present in grammars. On the other hand, compared to earlier descriptions, the accumulated typological experience has clearly improved the overall level and quality of present grammatical descriptions of lesser-known languages. This is largely attributable to the "rules" for identifying different phenomena in new languages that have been expressly or implicitly stated in typological research, a collection of typological surveys created especially for these reasons. In turn, these descriptions offer a stronger factual foundation for fresh typological generalizations. We can only hope that in the near future, where preliminary steps have already been taken in the form of elicitation guidelines developed at the Max Planck Institute in Nijmegen and by the aqua-motion project in Moscow, lexical-typological research and descriptive practice will interact in a similar profitable way. [13, 91].
Given the multiple methodological issues and our overall lack of understanding of lexicon-rooted phenomena, it is likely that a substantial portion of lexical-typological study will have to be limited to a small number of languages in the near future. Although some typologists may be disappointed, it is unquestionably preferable to have high-quality research on a small number of languages rather than subpar studies on a large number of languages. There is also a wealth of evidence that even closely related languages can have considerable variances in how words are organized, which has important ramifications for sample choices in lexical typology. The study of the vocabulary across languages raises several challenging challenges. The best course of action at the present appears to be to investigate other options. Let's hope Linguistic Typology will be a trustworthy journey partner in these investigations. It is appropriate to define lexical typology as the cross-linguistic and typological branch of lexicology, which Cruse himself defined. Lexical typology can include phenomena that are not of primary interest for semantic typology and can raise questions that can be answered from different angles or within approaches that integrate several perspectives, goals, and methods, similar to how lexicology in general is not limited to lexical semantics and is not completely opposed to either phonetics/phonology, morphology, or syntax. One of these includes constraints on feasible and impossible, well-formed and ill-formed words that are universal vs language-specific, as well as distinct criteria for recognizing words and relationships between them.
Our survey is far from thorough, and the references supplied are selected because we are primarily interested in studies within the previous 10 years and do not want to cover the whole subject. biased in favor of our own endeavors and pursuits. The many hundreds of languages that have available thorough and systematic representations of the domain have a long history of classifying the resulting systems into a small number of groups. Such classifications frequently concentrate mostly on the minor elements of the kinship systems: For instance, the 1967 research by Nerlove and Romney—possibly the most cross-linguistically systematic—focuses on the terminology for siblings—i.e., offspring of the same biological parents—in 245 different languages. These are based on eight logical KIN categories that are based on the three factors of relative age, ego sex, and relative sex. Examples include if there are four or more siblings, whether brothers and sisters have separate words, and whether all siblings have the same term. The intrinsic generalization prediction of a semantic map asserts that if two non-adjacent nodes, a and c, are linked to a linguistic phrase, it will also be related to the node that links them, b. Since implicational generalizations are a common typological tool, the contiguity/connectedness requirement that governs the semantic mapping approach is comparable to them, albeit also less successful than them. Early examples of graphical representations of implicational lexico-typological generalizations are presented in Viberg's seminal paper on perception verbs in over fifty languages from 1984. According to Viberg, one of the most obvious features of the lexicalization patterns of the verbs of perception is a sizable amount of polysemy with reference to the sense modalities.