From Greek, dia- through, across and Chronos, time.
Dealing with phenomena (e.g., the spelling of words or grammar rules) according to their changes over a period of time; more roughly, the equivalent of historical or temporal.
Ferdinand de Saussure clearly distinguished the diachronic from the synchronic study of language. Diachronic inquiry pursues the development or evolution of language, while synchronic inquiry tests language as a system, a network of relationships that exist in the present. Saussure reacted against the neo-grammarians of his day, the linguists who were content with the only historical or diachronic approach they thought was valid.
It is debatable whether an extreme approach does not provoke the opposite extreme, a closure in the history of language is replaced by a systematic denial of this historical significance in the effort to understand the language. To be consistent, Saussure was forced to make another clear distinction. Language (langue) should not be confused with speech or discourse (parole).
According to Saussure, language is a self-sustaining whole (1916 [1966], 9) and therefore an object of synchronic study. Thus, not only Saussure’s symbolic model is dyadic (because two units are opposed – one acoustic image and its corresponding concept, for example, the sound “dog” and the idea that this sound evokes in the mind), his orientation toward linguistics and others. sign fields are based on several dichotomies.
The two just mentioned: diachronic/synchronic and language/speech, are at the center of Saussure’s project.
