Exploring complex lexemes cross-linguistically

Concept-naming is one of the most fundamental activities performed by speakers, who need either ready-made labels to talk about entities or devices to build new labels. What are the strategies employed by languages for naming complex concepts? How do they differ cross-linguistically, and what are the limits of their variation? Are there strategies that are more widespread than others, or even universal? These are questions for lexical typology and/or word-formation typology, but what we know about the typology of complex concept naming is very limited compared to what we know about domains like word order or inflectional morphology. The article addresses some of the reasons behind this state-of-affairs and suggests that a ‘unified’ typological approach to complex lexemes should be adopted. It also clarifies that, for such a unified approach to be successful, two conditions should be met: (i) a supporting theoretical background, such as Construction Grammar, which is well-equipped to deal with cross-linguistic explorations and overcomes the traditional subdivision into levels of analysis; and (ii) clear definitions for cross-linguistic comparison. The ‘complex lexeme’ comparative concept is proposed and discussed, serving as a general background for more specific comparative concepts such as ‘binominal lexeme’, which is the topic of the volume.