Synchronic
and Diachronic Description
There are
two different ways of investigating a language. We can investigate a language
as it exists at a given point of time i.e. in the fifteenth century or in the
nineteenth or 20th century and then describe it. This approach is
called the synchronic approach.
The other
approach consists in studying the state of the language at different periods of
time and discover how it has evolved over time, what stages it has passed
through and what changes have taken place in its pronunciation, lexicon,
grammar and syntax with the passage of time. This approach is called the
diachronic or historical approach.
Saussure is
of the view that synchronic description of a language is more important than
the diachronic description. To prove his point he compares language to a game
of chess. He says that at a given point of time, we are concerned only with the
position of the pieces at that time. It is not important to know how the pieces
have reached there. Similarly, to use language for all practical purposes, what
is important for us to know is the current state of the language. Its
historical evolution is totally irrelevant.
The
synchronic approach also helps us to avoid the etymological fallacy. It is
sometimes assumed the meaning of the words is related to the original form from
which they have been derived. But it is not true. Words as well as the forms
derived from them often change their meaning as the language evolves.
Consequently, a word may come to have a meaning which is not at all related to
the root from which it has been derived. To be efficient users of the language,
we need only to know the meaning of the word at the current time only. We have nothing
to do with its history.
The game of
chess has a beginning and an end. It also has a goal which gives us the
direction in which the pieces have to move. But languages have no definite
beginning or end. Nor is there any directionality in language. What we are
concerned with is only the current state of a language to be able to use it
efficiently.
Another
argument I favour of the priority of synchronic description is that it is
independent of diachronic description. To describe the state of a language at a
given time, we do not need any knowledge of the stages through which it has
passed before reaching the current state. On the other hand, a diachronic
description requires a synchronic description of the language at several
different points of time before the point of time in question. We cannot
describe a language diachronically without reference to its earlier states. 
Comments
Post a Comment