Synchronic linguistics and diachronic linguistics
In the nineteenth century, the major concern of linguistics was with investigating the historical development of particular languages. Language scholars made attempts to find out the details of the evolution of particular languages through time with view to grouping languages into different language families and formulating general hypotheses about language change. This aspect of the study of language is called historical linguistics, to which Ferdinand de Saussure gave the term 'diachronic linguistics'.
Diachronic linguistics studies the historical development of particular languages or language in general. It takes language as continually changing phenomenon and traces its historical path. It records changes that have taken place between successive points in time. To study the change from Old English to Middle English, or the change from the Nepali language spoken at the time of Bhanu bhakta to Modern Nepali, is to work with diachronic linguistics.
'Synchronic linguistics' (Saussure's term), on the other hand, studies a language as it is at some particular point in time. It considers "language as a living whole existing as a 'state' at a particular point in time" (Crystal 1971:159). For his synchronic study of a language, the linguist isolates a certain state existing at a certain point in time among the various successive states of the language along its historical path and sets out to present a detailed account of that language state. He might, for example, decide to study the present-day Rana family in Nepal. In order to study it, the linguist collect samples within the given period, describe them and establish the facts of the language system, without regard to any historical considerations which might have influenced the state of the language up to that time. Once the particular state of language has been isolated for a synchronic study, the time factor becomes irrelevant: whatever changes might be taking place in the language data while being collected, the linguist considers them trivial and does not give them any place in his description.
Diachronic linguistics, studies the evolution of a language over time, examining how it has changed and developed throughout history.
As Saussure, synchronic interpretation is more important than diachronic because it does not just state the state of lg but describes the development of language. But the similarity in both is inter-related to each other. They are reciprocal to each other.
Synchronic meaning/interpretation
· Descriptive in nature
· Interprets lg at a point of time
· Studies system of language
· Collective mind
· Through the time
· Takes some innovations in the field of study at given time
· Horizontal study of language/grammar
· Examples; Chomsky’s grammar, Bloomfieldian linguistics etc.
Diachronic meaning/interpretation
· Historical in nature
· Interprets lg in a period of time
· Studies units of language
· Result of successive mind
· Throughout the time
· Takes account of long-term progress or changes in the field
· Vertical study of grammar /language
· Grammar from De Saussure to Halliday
Grammar can be studied in terms of two dimensions. David Crystal (2004) – Synchronic and diachronic perspectives are two temporal dimensions of studying grammar/lg. On which the synchronic interpretation describes grammatical change or development at a certain point of time. In contrast, diachronic interpretation describes grammatical change/development for a period of time.
Similarly, these two perspectives focus on description and historical achievement of grammatical study. Synchronic interpretation is descriptive grammar and diachronic is historical linguistics or it can also be said comparative philology (comparing two or more than two languages)
