In linguistics, there are two different (although complementary) points of view that we can take as a reference when analyzing the elements of language: the synchronic and the diachronic. Synchrony defines the study of language at a given moment, without including the time factor, while diachrony corresponds to the study of linguistic facts through time, that is, in a historical progression. Both concepts were developed by the Swiss linguist and philosopher Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913), known as the father of «structural linguistics».
Synchronous approach
When speaking of synchrony, we must bear in mind that it is an abstraction, since it is based on the consideration of language as something stable, constant and static, as if it were a still photo. However, as is well known to all, the language in reality always has variants of different nature («it’s a living organism»).
Synchrony corresponds to the discipline of grammar, the description of a language system (i.e. phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, etc.) at a given time. When faced with learning a new language, our approach is developed from a synchronic point of view.
The diachronic approach
Diachrony, as a discipline that takes into account the time factor, corresponds to historical grammar or the history of the language, and therefore requires students to have a more advanced level of knowledge of the language in question.
Generally speaking, diachrony involves a comparison of synchronic language states taking into account their evolution over time, for example: State 1-Vulgar Latin > State 2-Early Romance > State 3-Medieval Castilian > State 4-Golden Age Castilian, etc.
Each state could then be the subject of an isolated synchronic study, but it is through their evolutionary comparison that the diachronic approach emerges. Often, the division between states is somewhat conventional, since linguistic change occurs gradually.
The problem of linguistic change
Diachrony or the history of language implies a linguistic change between two or more states; therefore, the question can be asked as to why languages change, i.e., what motivations lead languages to evolve over time. In this regard, a number of different theories have been put forward in the field of linguistics.
The substrate theory
When a language expands (as in the case of the spread of Latin, linked to the expansion of the Roman Empire), it is adopted by native speakers of other languages (for example, the indigenous population of the pre-Roman Iberian Peninsula). In this regard, the substrate theory is based on the fact that some changes are produced by the influence of the speakers’ previous native language.
The native language is the substrate, and the invading language is the superstratum. Thus, the substrate language may eventually modify the superstratum language, sometimes after a period of bilingualism on the part of the native speakers.
The internal tendency of languages
This theory argues that languages already show an internal tendency to change in a certain sense. This is the case, for example, of the evolution of Latin into Romance languages: Latin would show an internal tendency to abandon cases in favor of prepositions.
The main problem with this theory is that the number of phenomena that can be analyzed from this perspective is limited.
The tendency of generational change
This theory is based on a rather simple postulate: a speaker does not reproduce the learned language identically to their parents, but rather each speaker or group of speakers generates a language that is partially different from the previous one. Some of the changes produced are stabilized, expanded and eventually adopted.
The changes, originally imperceptible because they are very small, are perceptible in the comparison between two strata already sufficiently differentiated.
The notion of generation is, in any case, arbitrary. In itself, the theory does not explain the motivation for linguistic change, but describes one of the processes of expansion of change.
The tendency to minimum effort
It is based on the assumption that there is a tendency in languages to simplify more complex sequences in favor of simple sequences. For example: septem (Lat.) > siete (Cas.) → substitution of the consonantal group pt for t.
The problem arises when defining what is simple and what is complex, because while the sounds ja [x] or ce [θ] are simple, a priori, for a peninsular Spanish speaker, they are complex for an English speaker; similarly, the aspiration [h], which is simple for an English speaker, is complex for a Spanish speaker.
Analogy: a tendency to regularity
The speaker deduces the existence of an abstract general rule; for example, the preterite perfect simple in Spanish has the following forms for the 1st conjugation: root + -é, -aste, -ó, -amos, -asteis, -aron.
Therefore, it is possible for the speaker to apply the abstract general rule to new cases, originally outside the norm:
- ***andé instead of “anduve”
- ***amastes instead of “amaste”
Analogy is a major phenomenon in every language, but it is not a fixed rule.
The tendency towards economy of expression
There is a tendency to use the most economical expressions possible, the minimum and indispensable for understanding the message. For example, in the transition from Latin to Romance, the stressed syllables and those belonging to the root have been preserved: manducare (Lat.) > mandcare > manger (Fr.), maniare (It.).
As in previous cases, the trend is visible, but it does not explain the change in a general way (likewise, the notion of simple or economic is debatable).
In summary, we observe that most of these motivations do not explain why the change occurs, but rather describe the change itself, the way in which it occurs or the conditions under which it takes place.
The change, therefore, may be stylistic (expressiveness), cultural (new realities being designated), sociological (identification with specific social groups, fashions…) or purely grammatical (as in the case of analogy).
Carlos Sánchez Luis