The concepts forming the heading of this page do not form a triple. Instead, synchrony contrasts with diachrony, while history is something apart.1
Synchrony and diachrony are two opposite perspectives on certain phenomena; here, we concentrate on linguistic phenomena. In the diagram, the vertical axis is the time axis.
Synchrony is the relation of a linguistic phenomenon to phenomena existing in the language system at the same time. It relates to a stage of the language. With respect to language evolution, it implies a static view of the language.
Diachrony is the relation of a linguistic phenomenon to such phenomena that correspond to it at a preceding or following stage of the language. It relates to language change. With respect to language evolution, it implies a dynamic view of the language.
Both concepts are subject to frequent misunderstandings:
- There are no synchronic or diachronic phenomena. Neither are there, consequently, any phenomena exclusively amenable to a synchronic or to a diachronic description or explanation.
- Neither of the two perspectives has priority over the other; they complement each other.
- It is not the case that a linguistic description has to be either purely synchronic or purely diachronic. On the contrary, since the two perspectives complement each other, a linguistic phenomenon can be captured completely only by combining both perspectives. What is required is only that the two perspectives be kept methodologically separate.
- Synchrony is not a view of the language in its contemporary state. There are synchronic descriptions of ancient language stages.
- Likewise, diachrony is not necessarily related to the past.2 An investigation prognosticating the future development of a language is a diachronic investigation, as well.
- Diachrony is not the same as history:
- Historical examination of a linguistic phenomenon presupposes that it be documented. A diachronic examination only requires a temporal dynamism. From this it follows that prehistorical linguistic phenomena – including importantly reconstructed ones – are amenable to a diachronic perspective, but by definition not to a historical perspective.
- Just like synchrony, diachrony is a systematic perspective, which views an object in a certain respect. In linguistics, this is generally the language system or parts of it.3 By contrast, language history is not confined to the history of the language system, but also encompasses the so-called external history of the language.
- A historical examination relates a phenomenon to its social, cultural, political etc. context, trying in this way to understand it as historically conditioned and, where applicable, as unique. A diachronic examination does nothing of this. Instead, it seeks a dynamism which is intrinsic to the language system and which the phenomenon in question is subject to. There are diachronic laws, but there are no historical laws.4
1 With the exception of the second bullet point, the concepts are here defined as introduced in Saussure 1916; they are clarified as in Coseriu 1958.
2 Analogous considerations apply to the historical. Esp. the word historical implies, in informal use, ‘related to earlier periods’. A historical phenomenon, however, is one bound to time and culture, as opposed to a natural phenomenon. Such phenomena exist always, today as well as tomorrow.
3 On account of the distinct relations constituting the definitions of synchrony and diachrony, the language system is usually conceived as a system only in synchronic perspective. This, however, is merely conditioned by the fact that it is very costly to conceive and describe the diachrony of entire language systems. Again, very few synchronic studies indeed encompass an entire language system.
4 Confusing diachrony and history happens quite often in linguistics, but practically never outside it. This is evidently a consequence of the fact that linguistics – as opposed to all other disciplines interested in history – searches for generalizations and that many linguists are actually more interested in these than in historical facts. When a philologist or historical linguist says history, they usually mean ‘history’. When a general linguist or typologist says history, they usually mean ‘diachrony’.
References
Coseriu, Eugenio 1958, Sincronía, diacronía e historia. El problema del cambio lingüístico. Montevideo: Universidad de la República de Uruguay, Faculdad de Humanidades y Ciencias.
Saussure, Ferdinand de 1916, Cours de linguistique générale, publié par Charles Bally et Albert Séchehaye avec la collaboration de Albert Riedlinger. Paris: Payot.