The article covers language aspects that reveal how multilingual experts have progressively become acquainted with the intricate interdependency between synchrony and diachrony. It revisits the ideas of De Saussure and those of his critics. The writer attempts to expose divergent view of the experts with the aim of unveiling the meaning of synchrony and diachrony.
The writer portrays De Saussure’s critics as ignorant on the topic. He/she reveals Jakobsons’ argument that langue cannot be identical with statistics and that langue is immutable. The writer also reports the opinion of Theses and Jakobsons that langue cannot be changed unconsciously. The article, however, fails to provide evidence to support these ideas. This helps the writer to achieve his/her objective.
The article also covers Trnka’s argument that the distinction between synchrony and diachronic is insignificant. It provides facts that disapprove Trnka’s idea. The author asserts that it is almost impossible to trace and identify anyone else from the school of Prague.
Another critical school of thought is of the view that diachrony has a system and a structure. Theses says that De Saussure was wrong to claim that there is insurmountable barrier between langue and parole. This, according to Theses, is because there are mixed elements in the langue.
On the other hand, the article reveals the strong elements in De Saussure’s argument. It cites page 108 of De Saussure’s work that says langue is a heritage of the preceding time. He says that time guarantees the continuity of the langue. It is evident that De Saussure suggested that several conditions influence langue balance.
Moreover, he records that the effects of transformation are counter-balanced by analogy. In addition, acco0rding to the article, De Saussure says that there are phenomena phonetically connected with distinctive conditions. The writer therefore succeeds in dismissing the opinion of the critics.
Additionally, it records that De Saussure said langue change might occur subject to certain conditions. He does not refer to accidental or blind changes, as reported by critics. The article provides that De Saussure believes synchrony and diachrony are independent of each other, due to a different point of view.
Regarding consciousness of change, it is apparent that De Saussure stressed that literary language does not develop naturally. This points out at Jakobson’s lack of information.
The idea of state of langue according to De Saussure is that synchrony and diachrony has a state of langue and a phase of evolution. However, minimum changes may occur after some duration. The writer records some human weaknesses of De Saussure. For example, he records De Saussure’s admission that he did not know the causes of change in langue. The admission makes the article real and trustable. It depicts practical human weakness.
Evidently, the critics have no evidence to back their arguments up. This makes the article appropriate for supporting the ideas of de Saussure. The article is even more helpful because it provides the accurate position of De Saussure making comparison of the varied ideas easy.
Despite the writer’s success in supporting De Saussure, his/her article has weaknesses. First, the article says that De Saussure’s critics are completely ignorant. In deed, since, he/she agrees that further researcher is necessary, dismissing unconfirmed ideas is wrong. Next, the writer concludes by supporting De Saussure. The conclusion may make critics say that he /she is partisan.
Nevertheless, after reading the article, it is comprehensible that misconception is the leading cause of criticism of De Saussure’s work. The writer successfully portrays the critics as unable to identify traces and elements of the past that are found in language. He/she communicates that language is always developing, unraveled, fickle, and unbalanced in detail at the edges. In addition, the writer rightly advocates for further research to solve the differences in opinion.