Exploring Internal Duality: Synchrony and Diachrony in the History of Linguistics

Introduction

Linguistics has historically grappled with internal duality between synchrony and diachrony. These approaches offer distinct perspectives for understanding language, either as a specific state at a given moment or as an evolutionary process over time. This article explores the relationship between these two dimensions and how their coexistence has enriched our understanding of language.

Synchrony and Diachrony: Two Faces of Linguistics

Synchrony focuses on studying a specific state of language at a given moment, disregarding its temporal evolution. In contrast, diachrony examines language's evolution and changes over time, adopting a historical perspective. Ferdinand de Saussure criticized the inclination of his era towards diachrony, advocating for a balance with the synchronic perspective.

The Legacy of Traditional Grammar

Before modern linguistic studies, traditional grammar embraced a synchronic approach, describing the state of a language at a specific moment. Although critiqued for its normative nature and limitations, traditional grammar provided a more robust foundation compared to 19th and early 20th-century trends.

“The grammar of Port Royal, for instance, attempts to describe the state of the French language under Louis XIV and to set out the relevant system of values. For this purpose, it has no need to make reference to the French of the Middle Ages; it keeps strictly to the horizontal axis (Axis of simultaneity) and never departs from it.” [CGL] [118]

Saussure's Proposal

Saussure advocated for the coexistence of synchronic and diachronic perspectives in language study. He argued that after periods focused on diachrony, linguistics would return to the static focus of traditional grammar, but with renewed methods. This historical approach would contribute to a deeper understanding of language states.

“Having paid too much attention to history, linguistics will go back now to the static viewpoint of traditional grammar, but in a new spirit and with different methods.” [CGL] [119]

Illustrative Examples

The difference between synchronic and diachronic approaches is illustrated with linguistic examples, such as the evolution of plurals in ancient German dialects:

“In Old High German, the plural of gast (‘guest’) was originally gasti, the plural of hant (‘hand’) was hanti, and so on. Subsequently, this -i produced an umlaut; that is to say, it had an effect upon the vowel of the preceding syllable, changing a into e. So gasti became gesti, and hanti became henti. Then this -i weakened, giving geste, etc. Today as a result we have Gast with a plural Gäste, Hand with a plural Hände, and so on for a whole class of words.”  [CGL] [120]

These examples showcase how diachronic changes affect word forms over time, revealing the complexity of linguistic evolution.

The Nature of Diachronic Changes

Diachronic changes do not seek to signify a value with another sign; rather, they are events with inherent reasons. They impact individual elements within the linguistic system and do not aim to change the system as a whole. In other words, diachronic changes do not consciously seek to uniformly transform an entire language. While they may have systemic consequences over time, they originate from gradual and specific adjustments. These changes are not mere replacements without apparent reason; instead, they are events with inherent foundations that gradually and specifically affect individual elements within the linguistic system throughout its historical evolution. Diachrony, inspired by historical linguistics, is essential for understanding linguistic phenomena that cannot be addressed solely from a synchronic perspective.

Consciousness and Unconsciousness in Language

Language speakers are aware of the synchronic state but are often unaware of diachrony and how terms relate to historical predecessors. While synchrony focuses on contemporary relationships between terms, diachrony addresses historical evolution, revealing how words and linguistic structures have changed over time.

Diachronic and synchronic linguistics differ in their limits and objectives. Synchrony focuses on the set of facts within a language, including dialects, while diachrony rejects specialization and considers terms that do not necessarily belong to the same language. The antinomy between evolutionary and static facts creates an incompatibility between notions related to both approaches.

Conclusions

The duality between synchrony and diachrony has been a central theme in the history of linguistics. The coexistence of these perspectives enriches our understanding of language, allowing for a more comprehensive analysis of linguistic phenomena. By balancing the historical perspective with the study of the current state of language, linguists can gain a more precise insight into linguistic complexity. Diachrony and synchrony, though opposed in their methods, complement each other, underscoring the need to consider both dimensions for a complete understanding of language.

 Related post:

Synchronic and Diachronic Linguistics: Geometrical Clarity and Botanical Insight

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2023/12/blog-post_28.html

Bibliography

Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, with Albert Riedlinger. Libraire Payot.

Saussure, Ferdinand de. "Course in General Linguistics." Translated and annotated by Roy Harris. With a new introduction by Roy Harris. Bloomsbury, 2013.