What Would Be An Example Of A Synchronic Linguistical Study

Synchronic linguistic means describing a language the way it is, without thinking about how it got there historically. A good example has to do with the the -s plural in English. This ending is actually pronounced like an [s] in some words, like cats, but like a [z] in other words, like dogs. (Say the words out loud to yourself and you will see this is correct.) If you analyze at which words have each ending, you’ll see that the [s] ending comes after sounds that you pronounce without vibrating your voicebox, like /t/, /k/, and /p/. The [z] ending comes after sounds that have vibration (“voicing”), like /d/, /g/, /b/, and vowels. This makes perfect sense because [s] is voiceless and [z] is voiced, so you can state a simple rule like “words ending in vowels and voiced consonants have the voiced form of the plural ending, and words ending in voiceless consonants have the voiceless form.” You have now uncovered a rule of Modern English phonology.

"Traditional linguistics" is a vague term. Are you referring to theories, models, methodologies, fieldwork, research topics?When I was studying linguistics 25 years ago, the old school of linguistics was American structuralism (e.g., Kenneth Pike, Robert Longacre), which had been largely displaced by generative/transformational (Noam Chomsky). Now a quarter century later, I don't even know what the popular frameworks are, but at this point both structuralism and generative grammar are traditional. I myself focused on structuralist models (primarily Ilah Fleming's stratificational linguistics) and found them much more practical for the type of fieldwork I planned to do (development of a writing system for a previously unwritten language, literacy, text analysis, translation).

"Linguistic determinism" claims that language + its structures limit and determine human knowledge and thought implying that people of different languages have different thought processes differing in categorization, memory, and perception of the surrounding them world (see e.g. Sapir "Language and Environment" from 1912 but also Boas and Wilhelm von Humboldt). A form of linguistic determinism is "linguistic relativity" (Sapir–Whorf hypothesis; discussed in Kay&Kempton 1984). The known example of this is the claim that it is easier for people to recognise and remember shades of colours for which they have a specific name in their own language (a claim discredited later by Berlin&Kay 1969).

People who speak different language perceive and think about quite different from one another

In linguistics, the terms ‘synchrony’ and ‘diachrony’ refer to two different approaches in linguistic research, with respect to the periods of time considered in the research in question.The synchronic approach means studying any aspect of language solely in one particular period of time (typically the present), without taking into account other periods of time in that language’s history. For example, studying the usage patterns of double negatives in English (e.g. I ain’t got no money) in the early 21st century, without looking into the usage patterns of double negatives in English prior to the 21st century. Most fields in linguistics typically employ synchronic approaches as to not lose focus in their research.The diachronic approach means studying any aspect of language by comparing it between two (or more) periods of time, effectively focusing on the change and evolution of whatever it is you’re looking at. As an example, studying the usage patterns of double negatives in English in the 18th century and comparing it to the patterns in the 19th, 20th, and early 21st centuries to see how double negatives in English may or may not have changed. By definition, historical linguistics typically employs diachronic approaches.

‘Underspecification’ (sense-generality) in semantics refers to the fact that the meanings of some linguistic expressions are not complete without the context. To take an example of one word, ‘red,’ its meaning in a phrase such as “red book” is similar to many other usages. However, the meaning of ‘red’ in phrases such as “red wine” (very dark), “red hair” (coppery), “red soil,” or “red skin” are very different.The problem of semantic underspecification is, of course, widespread. The term ‘underspecification’ has even been applied at the sentence level to such issues as quantifier scope ambiguities (See example below). Although, technically speaking, this is a misappropriation of the term; we are better off calling them what they are: namely, semantic ambiguities (See here - https://tu-dresden.de/die_tu_dre... - for further discussion).An example of quantifier scope ambiguity:‘Every man loves a woman.’Possible interpretation #1: For any X such that X is a man, there exists a Y such that Y is a woman and X loves Y.Possible interpretation #2: There exists a Y such that Y is a woman and for any X such that X is a man, X loves Y.(In simple terms: On interpretation #1, there could be more than one woman, since for every man, there is a woman that he loves. On interpretation #2, there is only one woman, and every man loves her.)

In linguistics, diachronic approach is when you compare modern language with its previous stages of development. In some cases diachronic linguists also compare different modern cognate languages, because they have a common ancestor and comparison is the way to reconstruct this ancestor (e.g. when we don’t have written texts).studying at zamir public school…

The defining difference between diachronic and synchronic linguistics study has to do with time. First of all, all linguistic study prior to Saussure was diachronic. The word diachronic does a pretty good job of describing itself. Dia- is a Greek prefix used on loanwords that means "through, between, across, by, of, akin to." The root word chronic entered English as a loanword from the Latin, which was taken from the Greek chronus, meaning time. So diachronic linguistics is the study of language across, through or between time.