two approaches to language

(1)

National Research University

Higher School of Economics

TWO APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE TWO APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE

Subject: Theory of foreign language Subject: Theory of foreign language

Professor: Professor: Olga Dmitrievna Vishnyakova Olga Dmitrievna Vishnyakova

Author: Author: Ekaterina Matievskaya Ekaterina Matievskaya Moscow, 2018 Moscow, 2018

(2)

TABLE OF CONTENT TABLE OF CONTENT

1.

1. IntroductionIntroduction 2.

2. Two approaches to languageTwo approaches to language 3.

3. Difference between synchronic and diachronic approachesDifference between synchronic and diachronic approaches 4.

4. Synchrony and diachrony in terms of other fields of knowledgeSynchrony and diachrony in terms of other fields of knowledge 5.

5. ConclusionConclusion 6.

(3)

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

Language is a unique ab

Language is a unique ability of human beings that allow them to maintain verbalility of human beings that allow them to maintain verbal

and non-verbal communication with the whole

and non-verbal communication with the whole world. Without a language, there wouldworld. Without a language, there would

be no interaction at all.

Language is a system. A system is a set of interrelated and interdependent

elements. If any element is removed from the system, it will not be able to function or

its functioning will not be sufficiently effective. So, the speech consists

its functioning will not be sufficiently effective. So, the speech consists of four systemsof four systems

that form a common system of language.

Language needs to be analysed and researched, thus lexicology appeared.

Lexicology (gr.

Lexicology (gr. lexikoslexikos - referring to a word, - referring to a word, logoslogos - teaching) is a branch of the science - teaching) is a branch of the science

of a language that studies the vocabulary of a language, or vocabulary.

The vocabulary of the language is an internally organised set of lexical units,

interconnected, functioning and developing according to the laws inherent in the

Russian language.

In lexicology, 1) the word is s

In lexicology, 1) the word is studied as an individual language unit, its meaning;tudied as an individual language unit, its meaning;

2) the place of the word in the lexical system of the language; 3) the history of the

formation of modern vocabulary; 4) the relationship of the word to the active or passive

vocabulary; 5) the place of the word in the system of functional styles of the modern

Russian language (neutral, scientific, business

Russian language (neutral, scientific, business, etc.). Lexicology studies the vocabulary, etc.). Lexicology studies the vocabulary

of the language in its temporary development, since over time various changes occur

in the vocabulary of the language, as well as identify the reasons for these changes.

In this paper, main approaches to language will be discussed.

(4)

TWO APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE TWO APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE

In the XIX century, ancient languages and the search for the "parent language"

were considered to be a worthy object of linguistics as a science. The study of living

languages was provided to the school, sharply delimiting this area from science. The

successes of dialectology describing living dialects, learning the languages of peoples

living in colonial dependence, and the need for more serious teaching of native and

foreign languages have put forward new tasks for linguists: to create methods of

scientific description of this state of the language without regard to its origin and past.

Practice has caused a theoretical unders

Practice has caused a theoretical understanding. The largest scientists of the latetanding. The largest scientists of the late

XIX

XIX – – early XX century. - F. F. Fortunatov, I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay, F. de early XX century. - F. F. Fortunatov, I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay, F. de

Saussure and others - put forward the theoretical foundations of the scientific

description of a given language in a g

description of a given language in a given era. FF Fortunatov developed the principlesiven era. FF Fortunatov developed the principles

of descriptive grammar1, I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay divided linguistics into static

(descriptive) and dynamic (historical), distinguishing between phonetics and grammar

the phenomena of coexistence. But perhaps the most thoroughly examined this

question by F. de Saussure.

Its main thesis is that:

Its main thesis is that: “at“at any given moment, speech activity implies both an any given moment, speech activity implies both an

established system and evolution; at any moment, the language is b

established system and evolution; at any moment, the language is both a living activityoth a living activity

and a product of the

and a product of the past”. past”. Thus, two approaches to language were implemented: Thus, two approaches to language were implemented:

synchronic and diachronic.

The synchronic approach analyses the similarities and differences of languages The synchronic approach analyses the similarities and differences of languages at a given point of time by focusing on their structural features and characteristics and at a given point of time by focusing on their structural features and characteristics and by

by using using phonological, phonological, morphological and morphological and syntactic syntactic explanations including explanations including semanticsemantic and pragmatic aspects.

and pragmatic aspects.

The diachronic approach studies the development of language in time by paying The diachronic approach studies the development of language in time by paying attention to affinity between languages and historical transmutations of sounds and by attention to affinity between languages and historical transmutations of sounds and by striving for the reconstruction of principal languages. It produces descriptions how striving for the reconstruction of principal languages. It produces descriptions how languages are genealogically related.

(5)

It should be emphatically stressed that the distinction between the synchronic

and the diachronic study is merely a difference of approach

and the diachronic study is merely a difference of approach separating for the purposesseparating for the purposes

of investigation what in real language is inseparable. The two approaches should not

be contrasted, or set one against t

be contrasted, or set one against the other; in fact, they he other; in fact, they are intrinsically interconnectedare intrinsically interconnected

and interdependent: every linguistic structure and system actually exists in a state of

constant development so that the synchronic state of

constant development so that the synchronic state of a language system is a result of a language system is a result of aa

long process of linguistic evolution, of

long process of linguistic evolution, of its historical development.its historical development.

A good example illustrating both the distinction between the two approaches

A good example illustrating both the distinction between the two approaches andand

their interconnection is furnished by the words to beg and beggar.

their interconnection is furnished by the words to beg and beggar. Synchronically, theSynchronically, the

words to beg and beggar are related as a simple and a derived word, the noun beggar

being the derived mem

being the derived member of the pair, for the ber of the pair, for the derivative correlation between tderivative correlation between the two ishe two is

the same as in the case o

the same as in the case of to sing in singer, to teach in f to sing in singer, to teach in teacher, etc. When we approachteacher, etc. When we approach

the problem diachronically, however, we learn that the noun beggar

the problem diachronically, however, we learn that the noun beggar was borrowed fromwas borrowed from

Old French and only presumed to have been derived from a shorter word, namely the

verb to beg, as in the English language agent nouns are commonly derived from verbs

with the help of the agent suffix -er.

The theoretical understanding of the difference between synchrony and

diachrony (statics and dynamics) was initiated by V. Humbolt. He did not use the terms

"synchrony" and "diachrony", but this does not mean that h

"synchrony" and "diachrony", but this does not mean that he did not see the differencee did not see the difference

between these tw

between these two approaches to the o approaches to the language. In language. In his report "on his report "on the comparative studythe comparative study

of languages as applied to the different epochs of their development," he divides

comparative linguistics into two sections: the study of the organism by language and

the study of languages in the state of their development. According to V. Humbolt,

synchrony has less influence than diachrony.

The most common form of application of the synchronic approach to the study

of language is the study of the modern living language. I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay

worked under conditions in which the dead of the language in writing were used in

linguistics. But the primary form of the existence of a language is living or oral

language.

(6)

Unlike I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay, F. de Saussure defined synchronic rather

than diachronic as the main approach. The advantage of synchrony over diachronic F.

de Saussure saw first of

de Saussure saw first of all that it is the synchronic consideration of which the languageall that it is the synchronic consideration of which the language

system is available as such, whereas diachronic linguistics deals with changes that

occur not in the language, but in the speech of individual speakers.

So, after nearly a century of development of the concept of

synchronous-diachronic linguistics, it became quite obvious, how useful was the idea of strictly

diachronic linguistics, it became quite obvious, how useful was the idea of strictly

separating the two plans for considering a language and what serious consequences it

had for improving various methods of describing a language. At the same time, despite

the fact that synchronicity was originally contrasted with diachrony in

the fact that synchronicity was originally contrasted with diachrony in linguistics, bothlinguistics, both

processes

processes were were recognised recognised as as interdependent interdependent and and mutually mutually complementary: complementary: forfor

example, the fact that the diachronic process can be detected through the descriptions

of synchrony in the form of an ordered s

of synchrony in the form of an ordered system rules, the order of which corresponds toystem rules, the order of which corresponds to

the diachronic sequence of transformations. Note that the thesis of F. de Saussure still

remains relevant, according to which the synchronic aspect dominates the diachronic

one,

one, ““For the present language is the only reality for speakingFor the present language is the only reality for speaking people” people” [Saussure, 1933, [Saussure, 1933,

p. 57]. Thus, synchronic linguistics can

p. 57]. Thus, synchronic linguistics can be understood, in a cbe understood, in a certain sense, as a scertain sense, as a scienceience

of the status of a language; therefore, it is to some extent more static linguistics.

Diachronic linguistics in this sense c

(7)

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SYNCHRONIC AND DIACHRONIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SYNCHRONIC AND DIACHRONIC APPROACHES

APPROACHES

The distinction between synchronicity and diachrony arose in the process of

developing historical language learning. In the XIX century, linguistics as a science

was considered by ancient languages and the search for a "mother tongue" to be a

worthy object. The traditional comparative historical paradigm of linguistics of the

with the main goal to restore the language with the methods of internal and external

reconstruction of language data. The possibility of analysing linguistic facts

reconstruction of language data. The possibility of analysing linguistic facts of differentof different

degrees of limitation was provided by the comparative historical method. A theoretical

understanding of the difference between synchronicity and diachrony was laid by V.

Humboldt. Starting from the 1910s, in both Russian and foreign science, a new trend

began

began to to be be traced, traced, namely, namely, a a turn turn towards towards the the consideration consideration of of language language as as a a directdirect

data (its synchronous component).

It is known that synchrony assumes consideration of a language (or some other

system of signs) from the point of view of relations between its constituent parts in one

period

period of of time. time. The The study study of of language language in in synchrony synchrony reached reached a a high high level level in in ancientancient

Indian, Late Antique and New European (starting from the 18th century) grammars,

but

but a a theoretical understanding theoretical understanding of of synchrony synchrony as as a a consequence consequence of of the the fact fact that that everyevery

element of the language has significance due to its systemic relation with other

linguistic elements, it was given only at the beginning

linguistic elements, it was given only at the beginning of the XX century. However, itof the XX century. However, it

was F. de Saussure who proposed to consider synchronicity as a static aspect of

language, precluding any intervention of time, and diachrony as the actual evolution of

language in time. Highlighting the primacy of synchrony over diachrony, F. de

Saussure made a revolution in the sciences of language. His main thesis was that:

Saussure made a revolution in the sciences of language. His main thesis was that: ““atat

any given moment speech activity implies both an established system and evolution;

at any moment, the language is both a living activity and a product of the past

at any moment, the language is both a living activity and a product of the past””

[Saussure, 1933, p. 34]. From here originates the idea of synchrony and diachronic.

(8)

Synchrony in a language is traditionally understood as the state of a language

system or its individual elements at a certain moment in

system or its individual elements at a certain moment in the development of a language.the development of a language.

In linguistic literature, it is defined, for example, as "the state of a language at a given

moment as a finished system of interconnected and interdependent elements: lexical,

grammatical and phonetic, which have value or

grammatical and phonetic, which have value or significance, regardless of their osignificance, regardless of their origin,rigin,

but only because o

but only because of correlations inside the f correlations inside the whole - the system". At whole - the system". At the same time, thethe same time, the

concept of the moment in the process of language development in different sources is

explained differently. Some linguists understand the moment, the instant, the

mathematical point in time, or "the axis of simultaneity relating to the relationship

between existing

between existing things, from things, from which any which any time intervention is time intervention is excluded," while excluded," while othersothers

mean a known interval time, a certain er

mean a known interval time, a certain era, "some historical period," "historical stage ina, "some historical period," "historical stage in

the development of language". With this explanation of the synchronous state of the

language, the fundamental difference between synchronicity and diachrony is lost,

since changes in the language system concerning its various units are possible and

inevitably occur in any epoch, in any historical period, at any historical stage of

linguistic development.

(9)

SYNCHRONY AND DIACHRONY IN TERMS OF OTHER FIELDS OF SYNCHRONY AND DIACHRONY IN TERMS OF OTHER FIELDS OF KNOWLEDGE

KNOWLEDGE

Recently, some linguists have made certain clarifications in the traditional

understanding of language synchrony. The synchronous state of a

understanding of language synchrony. The synchronous state of a language is defined,language is defined,

for example, as "a piece of objective reality, a slice chosen from the general flow of

language meaning history development on the basis of a number of certain signs, in

particular,

particular, according according to to the the absence absence of of changes", changes", or or as as "such "such a a length, length, such" such" statestate

"[Language], which is characterised by the absence of changes or can be described

outside of changes". In more detail, the question of the synchrony of the language is

considered in other papers.

The concepts of synchrony and diachrony (and the corresponding terms) are

used not only in relation to

used not only in relation to the language, to the language system, bthe language, to the language system, but also to the scienceut also to the science

of language, linguistics, to different sections of linguistics. For example, synchronous

(otherwise descriptive) and diachronic (or historical) phonetics, synchronous and

diachronic lexicology, synchronous and diachronic word formation, synchronous and

diachronic grammar, as well as synchronous and diachronic linguistics as a whole (as

mentioned in the introduction.

When explaining the concepts of synchrony and diachronic, there are sometimes

objections to the polysemous use of the terms "synchrony" and "diachrony" in relation

to the language and in relation to its study, it is proposed to differentiate the

corresponding phenomena terminologically in the language and teaching about it.

Some linguists consider it appropriate to use these terms only in relation to the

Some linguists consider it appropriate to use these terms only in relation to the “real“real

forms of

forms of existence”existence” of a language, forms of the temporal existence of linguistic of a language, forms of the temporal existence of linguistic

phenomena, and

phenomena, and in relation to in relation to their research their research they recommend using they recommend using other terms, suchother terms, such

as

as “synchronous“synchronous analysis”,analysis”, “diachronic“diachronic analysis”.analysis”. Other scholars, on the contrary, the Other scholars, on the contrary, the

terms "synchrony" and "diachrony" suggest using research approaches to designate

well-known to the language science, aspects of the study, and to refer to certain states

of the language - other terms, such as "functioning" and "development". At the same

(10)

time, the terms in question in modern linguistics are often used in different meanings

—

(11)

CONCLUSION CONCLUSION

Summarising the above, following points could be emphasised:

Due to the fact that studies of a language in its synchronous state are easier to

implement in practice, their use manifested itself at the earliest stages of describing a

language as a system; the theoretical understanding of

language as a system; the theoretical understanding of synchronic was given much latersynchronic was given much later

- only starting from the 20th century.

Actually, the distinction between synchrony and diachrony as such arose in the

process

process of of historical historical study study of of the the language, language, in in particular, particular, in in connection connection with with thethe

development in the 19th century, comparative historical method. At the same time,

from the very beginning of the study of the historical ways of the development of

languages, the antithesis between synchronous and diachronic approaches in linguistics

has been outlined. Thus, synchronicity was originally contrasted with diachronic,

although both of these linguistic states were recognised as interdependent and

complementary processes.

After almost a century of development of the concept of synchronous-diachronic

linguistics, it became obvious how useful was an idea of delimitation of two plans for

the consideration of language, since it is precisely the

the consideration of language, since it is precisely the distinction between the states ofdistinction between the states of

synchrony and diachrony that allows not only to focus mainly on the constant

properties of the language system, but also on the

properties of the language system, but also on the processes of its evolution.processes of its evolution.

Also, in modern linguistics, the thesis that it is the diachronic approach that

already helps to understand how this or that linguistic system has been developed has

become firmly established.

become firmly established. And although the And although the simultaneous consideration of simultaneous consideration of languagelanguage

is still preceded by a diachronic one, both approaches undoubtedly complement and

enrich each other.

According to modern scientific trends, the diachronic aspect of linguistics is

viewed not as a history of individual sounds and forms, but primarily as a history of

the development of systemic relations, when the main historical processes in the

language are interpreted from the point of view o

(12)

are determined by the desire to the alignment and unification of its constituent units.

Thus, language is studied and understood as

Thus, language is studied and understood as a system that exists not only in the present,a system that exists not only in the present,

but also in the past, which allows us to consider s

but also in the past, which allows us to consider synchrony and diachrony as differynchrony and diachrony as differentent

measurement systems.

However, it cannot be said that there are no contradictions left in this question

and it can be considered completely resolved. Some linguists still continue to believe

that these measurement systems are radically different from each other in their attitude

to the time factor.

Summing up the general results, we

Summing up the general results, we note that at the modern stage note that at the modern stage of developmentof development

of linguistics, the distinction between synchrony and diachrony is

of linguistics, the distinction between synchrony and diachrony is recognised as one orecognised as one off

the most important aspects when learning a language. Firstly, it allows focusing

the most important aspects when learning a language. Firstly, it allows focusing mainlymainly

on the constant properties of the language system, and secondly, on its evolution. But

at the same time, it is important not to forget that synchrony and diachrony are

inseparably linked with each other, since the state of a language at any moment of its

existence is just one of the episodes of the development of a language.

(13)

REFERENCE REFERENCE 1. 1. КубряковаКубрякова E. E. С.С. ОО понятияхпонятиях синхрониисинхронииии диахрониидиахронии, 1968., 1968. №№ 3. 3. С.С. 121. 121. 2. 2. ШубинШубин ЭЭ.. П.П. ОО синхрониисинхронии ии диахрониидиахронии языкаязыка, 1969., 1969. Т.Т. 64, 64, выпвып. 1,. 1, ч.ч. 1. 1. С.С. 10. 10. 3. 3. НемченкоНемченко В.В. Н.Н. ОО диахрониидиахронии ии синхрониисинхронии вв словообразованиисловообразовании 4. 4. ГвишианиГвишиани Н.Б.Н.Б. СовременныйСовременный английскийанглийский языкязык ЛексикологияЛексикология, Modern, Modern

English Lexicology. Vocabulary in Use,

English Lexicology. Vocabulary in Use, М.:М.: ИздИзд--вово МГУ,МГУ, 2000. - 221 2000. - 221 с.с.

5.

5. David Crystal. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, 2018, 3rdDavid Crystal. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, 2018, 3rd

edition, University of Wales, Bangor

6.

6. СоссюрСоссюр ФФ.. де.де. КурсКурс общейобщей лингвистикилингвистики (рус.(рус. пер.).пер.). М.,М., 1933, 1933, с.с. 34. 34.

7.

7. WеWеlls R. De Saussurells R. De Saussure’s’s system of linguistics. - In: Readings in linguistics, ed. by system of linguistics. - In: Readings in linguistics, ed. by

M. Joos. Washington, 1957, p. 5