In linguistics, a
synchronic analysis is one that views linguistic phenomena only at a given time, usually the present, but a synchronic analysis of a historical language form is also possible. It may be distinguished from diachronic, which regards a phenomenon in terms of developments through time. Diachronic analysis is the main concern of historical linguistics. However, most other branches of linguistics are concerned with some form of synchronic analysis. The study of language change offers a valuable insight into the state of linguistic representation, and because all synchronic forms are the result of historically evolving diachronic changes, the ability to explain linguistic constructions necessitates a focus on diachronic processes. Initially, all of modern linguistics was historical in orientation. Even the study of modern dialects involved looking at their origins.
Ferdinand de Saussure's distinction between
synchronic and diachronic linguistics is fundamental to the present day organization of the discipline. Primacy is accorded to synchronic linguistics, and
diachronic linguistics is defined as the study of successive synchronic stages. Saussure's clear demarcation, however, has had both defenders and critics. In practice, a purely-synchronic linguistics is not possible for any period before the invention of the
gramophone, as written records always lag behind speech in reflecting linguistic developments. Written records are difficult to date accurately before the development of the modern
title page. Often, dating must rely on contextual historical evidence such as inscriptions, or modern technology, such as
carbon dating, can be used to ascertain dates of varying accuracy. Also, the work of
sociolinguists on linguistic variation has shown synchronic states are not uniform: the speech habits of older and younger speakers differ in ways that point to language change. Synchronic variation is linguistic change in progress. Synchronic and diachronic approaches can reach quite different conclusions. For example, a
Germanic strong verb (e.g. English
sing ↔
sang ↔
sung) is
irregular when it is viewed synchronically: the
native speaker's brain processes them as learned forms, but the derived forms of regular verbs are processed quite differently, by the application of productive rules (for example, adding
-ed to the basic form of a verb as in
walk →
walked). That is an insight of
psycholinguistics, which is relevant also for
language didactics, both of which are synchronic disciplines. However, a diachronic analysis shows that the strong verb is the remnant of a fully regular system of internal vowel changes, in this case the
Indo-European ablaut; historical linguistics seldom uses the category "
irregular verb". The principal tools of research in diachronic linguistics are the
comparative method and the method of
internal reconstruction. Less-standard techniques, such as
mass lexical comparison, are used by some linguists to overcome the limitations of the comparative method, but most linguists regard them as unreliable. The findings of historical linguistics are often used as a basis for hypotheses about the groupings and movements of peoples, particularly in the prehistoric period. In practice, however, it is often unclear how to integrate the linguistic evidence with the
archaeological or
genetic evidence. For example, there are numerous theories concerning the homeland and early movements of the
Proto-Indo-Europeans, each with its own interpretation of the archaeological record. == Comparative linguistics ==