Introduction
The
term “Linguistics” refer to the scientific study of a particular language. The
various branches of linguistics are Phonetics, Phonology, Morphology, Syntax,
Discourse analysis, Semantics, Pragmatics, etc.
Synchrony
The term “Synchrony”
was first proposed by Saussure. He stated that language as a system of signs can be studied
as a complete system
at any given point in time.
The important part of language is how pieces move and the positions
of all pieces relative to one another. The shape of each piece is only important in that its potential can be recognized. A synchronic relationship is one where two similar things exist at the same time. Eg: Modern American English
and British English have a
synchronic relationship.
Diachrony
Diachrony is the change in the meaning
of words over time. Diachrony
is also named as historical linguistics. For example,
The word magic was meant as good in youth culture in the year 1980. It is thus the study of language
in terms of how it visibly
changes in usage. It is based on the dictionary meaning of
words. A diachronic relationship is where related
things exist separated
by time. Eg:12th century English and 21st
century English have a diachronic relationship.
Saussure criticized current linguistics as seeking to understand language changes but not the reason for its changes or what
underlying factors were really changing. He moved the study of language
from diachronic to synchronic relationships. In linguistics, the terms “synchrony” and “diachrony” refer to two different approaches in linguistic research with respect to the periods of time considered in the research
in question.
Synchronic Approach
The synchronic approach means studying
any aspect of language solely in one particular period, without taking into account
other periods of time in that language’s history. For example, studying the usage patterns of double negatives
in English in the early 21st century, without looking into the usage patterns of double negatives in English prior to the 21st century. Most fields
in linguistics typically employ
synchronic approaches as so that there will not be loss of focus
in their research.
Diachronic Approach
The
diachronic approach means studying
any aspect of language by comparing it between
two periods of time. It focusses on the change and evolution of a
language. As an example, studying the usage patterns of double negatives
in English in the 18th century and comparing
it to the patterns in the 19th, 20th, and early 21st centuries
to see how double
negatives in English
may or may not have changed.
By definition, historical linguistics typically employs diachronic approaches.
Synchronic Study Vs Diachronic Study
Synchrony is the study of a language in a given time; diachrony through time. Synchronic or descriptive linguistics studies a language at one period in time; it investigates the way people speak in a given speech community in a given point in time. Diachronic or historical (or temporal) linguistics studies the development of languages through time: for example, the way in which French and Italian have evolved from Latin, or Hindi from Sanskrit; it also investigate language changes. According to Saussure,“Synchronic linguistics will be considered with the logical and psychological relations that bind together co-existing terms and form a system in the collective mind of speakers.
Diachronic linguistics on the contrary, will study
relations that bind together successive terms not perceived by the collective
mind but substituted for each other without forming a system”. Synchronic
linguistics deals with systems, diachronic with units. These two approaches had
to be kept clearly apart and pursued separately. Saussure considered Synchronic
linguistics to be more important because it strikes us when we study the facts
of language is that their succession in time does not exist in so far as the
speaker is concerned. He is confronted with a state. That is why the linguist
who wishes to understand a state must discard all knowledge of everything that
produced it and ignore diachrony.
The difference between descriptive (synchronic) and
historical (diachronic) linguistics can be illustrated by the following diagram
of Ferdinand de Saussure, who was the first person to stress the necessity of
distinguishing between the two approaches. In the below diagram, axis AB is the
synchronic statis axis. It can be intersected at any point with XY, the moving,
diachronic axis.
Throughout
the nineteenth century linguistic research was very strongly historical in
character. One of the principal aims of the subject was to group languages into
families on the basis of their independent developments from a common source,
or to study language change. The description of particular languages was made
subsidiary to this general aim, and there was little interest in the study of
the language of a given community without reference to historical
considerations.
|
Saussure’s distinction between the
diachronic and synchronic investigation of the language is a distinction
between these two-opposing view-points nevertheless. Valid diachronic work
has to be based on good synchronic work, because no valid statements about
linguistic change can be made unless good descriptions of a language do
exist. Similarly, a synchronic statement
may reflect certain historical developments, for example, two vowels of reel
and real are described as being basically different because the historical
facts show different sources for the ee and the ea. |
x
A B
y
Saussure distinguishes between synchronic linguistics and diachronic linguistics. Synchronic linguistics is the study of language at a particular point in time. Diachronic linguistics is the study of the history or evolution of a language.
According to Saussure,
diachronic change originates in the social activity
of speech. Changes occur in individual patterns
of speaking before becoming more widely accepted
as a part of language.
Speaking is an activity involves oral and auditory
communication between
individuals. Language
is the set of rules by which individuals are able to understand each other.
Saussure says that nothing emerges
as written language without having been tested in spoken language.
Language is changed by the rearranging and reinterpreting of its units. A unit is a segment of the spoken chain
that corresponds to a particular concept. Saussure
explains that the units of language can have a synchronic or diachronic arrangement.
Saussure’s investigation of structural linguistics gives us a clear and concise presentation of the view that language
can be described in terms of structural units. He explains that this structural aspect means that language also represents a system of values.
Linguistic value can be viewed as a quality
of the signified, the signifier, or the
complete sign. The linguistic value of a word (a
signifier) comes from its property of standing for a concept (the signified). The value of the signified
comes from its relation to other concepts. The value of the complete
sign comes from the way in which it unites the signifier and the signified.
Thus, Saussure reveals that the meaning or signification of signs is established by their relation to each other. The relation
of signs to each other forms the structure of language. Synchronic reality is found in the structure of language at a given point in time.
Diachronic reality is found
in changes of language over a period of time. Saussure views language
as having an inner duality,
which is manifested by the interaction of the synchronic and diachronic, the syntagmatic and associative, the signifier and signified.
Conclusion
The distinction synchrony and diachrony refers to the difference in treating language
from different points of view. Though the historical character of a language
cannot be ignored,
its present form being the result of definite
historical processes, changes
and transformations, it is necessary for a complete
understanding of it to concentrate on the units of its structure at the present moment. Some scholars do not see the two approaches apart. They assert that it is a mistake to think of descriptive and historical linguistics as two separate compartments. However, on the whole the
two areas are kept apart,
and one is studied
to the exclusion of the other. Synchronic statements make no reference to the previous stages in the language. Linguistic studies in the nineteenth century were historical
in character; they originated as part of the general historical investigations into the origins
and development of cultures and communities, especially West Asia,
Egypt, etc. Such philological research viewed language
at different stages of its progress and attempted to understand relations
among different languages.
Language families were discovered, and genetic
affinities identified. Zhirmunsky considers that Diachronic linguistics was a great discovery of the 19th century Which developed so powerfully and fruitfully from the 1820s to the 1880s. This discovery
enabled linguists to explain modern languages
as a result of law-governed historical development. On a closer look one realizes
that without a good synchronic
(descriptive) work, valid historical (diachronic) postulations are not possible;
in other words,
a good historical linguist needs
to be thorough descriptive scholar
too.
