標記に関連する話題は，本ブログでも多くの記事で取り上げてきた（本記事末尾のリンク先を参照）．この問題に関連して Joseph の論文を読み，再考してみた．示唆に富む3箇所を引用しよう．

[W]hile it might be said that there is always an historical explanation for some particular state of affairs in a language, it is equally true that relying solely on historical explanation means ultimately that an historical explanation is no explanation . . .; if everything is to be explained in that way, then there is no differentiation possible among various synchronic states even though some conceivable synchronic states never actually occur. Moreover, universal grammar, to the extent that it can be given meaningful content, is in a sense achronic, for it is valid at particular points in time for any given synchronic stage but also valid through time in the passage from one synchronic state to another. Thus in addition to the diachronic perspective, a synchronic perspective is needed as well, for that enables one to say that a given configuration of facts exists because it gives a reason for the existence of a pattern --- a generalization over a range of data --- in a given system at a given point in time. (124--25)

[A] synchronic account should aim for economy and typically, for example, avoids positing the same rule or constraint at two different points in a grammar or derivation (though the validity of the usual interpretations of "economical" in this context is far from a foregone conclusion . . ., while a diachronic account, being interested in determining what actually happened over some time interval, should aim for the truth, even if it is messy and even if it might entail positing the operation of, for instance, the same sound change at two different adjacent time periods, perhaps 50 or 100 years apart. (126)

[T]he constraints imposed by universal grammar at any synchronic stage will necessarily then be the same constraints that govern the passage from one state to another, i.e. diachrony. Diachronic principles or generalizations do not exist, then, outside of the synchronic processes of grammar formation at synchronic stage after synchronic stage. (127)

　いずれの引用においても示唆されていることは，通時的説明と共時的説明とは反対向きになる場合すらあるものの，相補うことによって，最も納得のいく説明が可能となるという点だ．性格は異なるが同じゴールを目指している2人とでもいおうか．共通のゴールに到達するのに手を携えるのもよし，性格の異なりを楽しむのもよし．どちらかの説明に偏ることが最大の問題なのだと思う．

　・ 「#866. 話者の意識に通時的な次元はあるか？」 ([2011-09-10-1])
　・ 「#1025. 共時態と通時態の関係」 ([2012-02-16-1])
　・ 「#1040. 通時的変化と共時的変異」 ([2012-03-02-1])
　・ 「#1076. ソシュールが共時態を通時態に優先させた3つの理由」 ([2012-04-07-1])
　・ 「#1260. 共時態と通時態の接点を巡る論争」 ([2012-10-08-1])
　・ 「#1426. 通時的変化と共時的変異 (2)」 ([2013-03-23-1])
　・ 「#2159. 共時態と通時態を結びつける diffusion」 ([2015-03-26-1])
　・ 「#2197. ソシュールの共時態と通時態の認識論」 ([2015-05-03-1])
　・ 「#2295. 言語変化研究は言語の状態の力学である」 ([2015-08-09-1])
　・ 「#2555. ソシュールによる言語の共時態と通時態」 ([2016-04-25-1])
　・ 「#2563. 通時言語学，共時言語学という用語を巡って」 ([2016-05-03-1])
　・ 「#2662. ソシュールによる言語の共時態と通時態 (2)」 ([2016-08-10-1])．

　・ Joseph, B. D. "Diachronic Explanation: Putting Speakers Back into the Picture." Explanation in Historical Linguistics. Ed. G. W. Davis and G. K. Iverson. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1992. 123--44.

[ ツイート | 固定リンク | 印刷用ページ ]