Language in Context: The Role of Time and Space in Synchronic and Diachronic Linguistics

Introduction

From a synchronic point of view, language users are unaware of the evolution of their language over time. They engage with language as it is presented to them in its current state. Conversely, a diachronic point of view considers the historical development and changes in language:

The first thing which strikes one on studying linguistic facts is that the language user is unaware of their succession in time (diachronic point of view): he is dealing with a state (synhronic point of view). [CGL] [117]

What is said about time also applies to space. Members of a particular linguistic community are often unaware of the nuances present in another linguistic community that exists simultaneously in a different geographical region, even if both communities speak variants of the same language. For instance, French spoken in Canada is viewed by its speakers as an independent system compared to French spoken in France or Geneva.

In French, the word 'gomme' provides an example of how French-Canadians and speakers from Europe use the same word to refer to different things, which can potentially create confusion if they are not considered within their respective language systems. In Quebec, 'gomme' typically means 'chewing gum,' whereas in France, 'gomme' usually refers to an 'eraser.' This discrepancy proves that words should be understood within their own linguistic system, emphasizing that there is no universal meaning across time and space:

So the value of any given word is determined by what other words there are in that particular area of the vocabulary. That is true even of a word like soleil (‘sun’). No word has a value that can be identified independently of what else there is in its vicinity. [CGL] [160-161]

 Language Through Time and Space: Synchronic vs. Diachronic Perspectives 

The fundamental distinction between the synchronic and diachronic perspectives in linguistics is crucial. The synchronic perspective focuses on language at a specific point in time and space, examining how language users understand and use it in the present in their respective geographically situated communities. In contrast, the diachronic perspective looks at the evolution and historical changes of language over time and space, with these two aspects intricately intertwined in the science of language.

When studying linguistic facts, it becomes evident that language users are typically unaware of the historical progression of their language. They interact with language as it exists in the present, without considering its past changes. This is the synchronic point of view, which focuses on the language state at a given moment. From the diachronic perspective, linguists consider the language's historical development and how it has changed over time. However, to describe linguistic facts or establish norms, they must take a stance relative to a specific state of the language:

One (the linguist) cannot describe it (language) or establish its norms of usage except by taking up a position in relation to a given state. [CGL] [117]

The distinction between synchronic and diachronic perspectives is absolute. They are fundamentally different and cannot be mixed or conflated:

The contrast between the two points of view – synchronic and diachronic – is absolute and admits no compromise. [CGL] [119]

The synchronic perspective is centered on the viewpoint of language users. To understand the reality of linguistic facts, it is essential to know how they exist for these users. This perspective does not encompass everything that exists simultaneously but focuses on facts related to a specific language, considering necessary divisions like dialects and sub-dialects:

The object of synchronic study does not comprise everything which is simultaneous, but only the set of facts corresponding to any particular language. In this, it will take into account where necessary a division into dialects and sub-dialects. [CGL] [128-129]

So, a panchronic (universal or timeless) perspective is not feasible when dealing with specific linguistic facts. Panchronic views do not engage with the particularities of language structure:

Take the French word chose (‘thing’). From a diachronic point of view, it is to be distinguished from Latin causa, from which it is derived. From a synchronic point of view, it is to be distinguished from all the words it might be associated with in modern French. [CGL] [130-135]

This example from the Cours shows that the synchronic study focuses on its current usage and associations, while diachronic study traces its historical development.

Conclusion

Each community's understanding of a word is rooted in its present state, which aligns with the synchronic point of view. This is their only reality; there is no parallel one. These communities are unaware of the historical evolution (diachronic view) or the different meanings a particular term might have in other regions (space perspective), as illustrated by the example of 'gomme' in Quebec and France, or words like 'biscuit' and  'pants' in British and American English.

Thus, the synchronic study looks at how language users in a specific community understand words like "gomme" today, within their own linguistic system, emphasizing that words should be understood within their own context and not universally across time and space.

In a given language, all the words which express neighbouring ideas help define one another’s meaning. [CGL] [160-161]

This supports Saussure's argument that the synchronic and diachronic perspectives are distinct and highlights the practical application of these concepts in understanding language use in different communities.

With the points previously discussed in mind, here is a challenge: imagine a planet located in a distant galaxy, Twin Earth, nearly indistinguishable from our own in every aspect—its environment, inhabitants, and language, which is also called "English." The critical difference between Earth and Twin Earth is that instead of water (H2O), Twin Earth has a liquid that appears identical to water but is chemically different, being composed of XYZ. The inhabitants of Twin Earth call this liquid composed of XYZ "water" just as Earthlings call H2O "water."

The core question raised here is: does the word "water" mean the same thing to an Earthling and their Twin Earth counterpart? This intriguing thought experiment will be the focus of our next article.

Related Articles:

A Critical Analysis of Putnam's Thought Experiment: Twin Earth from a Saussurean Perspective

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2024/07/blog-post_17.html

Synchronic and Diachronic Linguistics: Geometrical Clarity and Botanical Insight

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

Balancing Act: Saussure's Call for a Combined Linguistic Approach

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2023/11/blog-post.html

Cite this page: "Return to Saussure." http://www.derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com

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.