1Several recent publications in linguistic historiography display an interest in tracing back the founders, roots and essence of dynamic linguistics. Thus Liudmila Lackova (2024) pays tribute in her paper entitled “The Prague School, Teleology and Language as a Dynamic System” to the fathers of the Prague Linguistic Circle, i.e. Roman Jakobson (1896–1982) and Vilém Mathesius (1882–1945). Iwan Wmffre’s book Dynamic Linguistics (2013) inspects the role of Jakobson and André Martinet (1908–1999) in establishing the theoretical underpinnings of this approach. In a similar manner, Stijn Verleyen (2013: 4, 18), Jean-Baptiste Coyos (2005: 198), Jan Radimský (2007: 10) and Colette Feuillard (2007: 25, 30) link the “dynamic” trend to Martinet’s person. So did Bert Peeters (1991), Anne-Marie Houdebine (1985) and other earlier authors. Already in the 1970s, Josef Vachek (1909–1996) had repeatedly discussed the idea of dynamic nature of language (Vachek 1976a: 24, 42, 48, 53, 64, 69, 74, 109–110; Vachek 1976b: 332–333), a discovery attributed by him to Mathesius (since 1911), from whom Prague structuralism would inherit it in the 1920s as one of its core methodological principles (Vachek 1970: 68, 71; Vachek 1976a: 23; cf. Němec 1987: 233). In all these instances dynamic linguistics or—more precisely—the dynamic essence of language is regarded not from the perspective of historical developments, but rather as an ever-present quality, and accordingly, it also includes the synchronic dimension.
- 1 E.g., Eugenio Coseriu, Bohuslav Havránek, Bohumil Trnka, Oldřich Leška and other followers of the (...)
2Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913) provided a theoretical foundation for 20th century linguistics by introducing a double perspective, either synchronic or diachronic, which he correlated with the basic duality of langue and parole. Saussure (1959 [1916]: 89) brought in a “radical distinction between diachrony and synchrony”, claiming that “speaking operates only on a language state, and the changes that intervene between states have no place in either state”. Already in the 1930s this dichotomy came to be criticized (in particular by the Prague school) and later more and more voices1 were raised against it. The postulates of the Prague Linguistic Circle summarized in the Theses Presented to the First Congress of Slavic Philologists in Prague in 1929 argued against Saussurian and generally speaking the Geneva school methodological view in regarding the language system; instead, they highlighted indispensable links between synchrony and diachrony:
The conception of language as a functional system also has to be considered in the study of past stages, whether in their reconstruction or in the study of their evolution. There is no insurmountable barrier between the synchronistic and diachronistic methods as is claimed by the Geneva school. […] On the other hand, neither can a synchronistic description absolutely exclude the notion of evolution, for such a synchronic moment reflects the disappearing, present, and coming stages. Stylistic elements perceived as archaisms as well as the distinction between productive and nonproductive forms are evidence of diachronic phenomena which cannot be eliminated from synchronistic linguistics (Steiner 1982 : 6).
3Josef Vachek, a Czech specialist in English and an ardent adherent to Prague structuralism, fostered the principles of dynamic approach in both synchronic and diachronic studies and resolutely insisted that a language should be treated not as a static but as an open dynamic system (Vachek 1976b: 333). Dealing with some instances of unstable, peripheral phenomena in a language system (like the phoneme ř in Czech or the phoneme h in English), he spoke about language’s constant tendency to change as regards this or that particular subsystem (cf. Vachek 1976a: 87–88, 179–194; Vachek 1983: 245–248). In keeping with this theoretical stance, the dynamic nature of a language comprises “both synchronic and diachronic forces operating in the system” (Vachek 1983: 250). Although the title of one of his contributions is Static and Dynamic Synchrony (1976), he conceptualized only the notion of dynamic system and did not discuss at all the expression dynamic synchrony (Vachek 1976b: 332). Yet Vachek (1983: 241) himself admitted that “the first member of the Prague group to realize the existence of the said dynamism was undoubtedly Roman Jakobson”, who appeared to be consistent in employing the Prague doctrine as a basis for his own linguistic views. Already in 1931 Jakobson argued in favour of recognizing the immanent dynamism of language:
- 2 Cf.: “[Es] bildet das Streben nach Gleichgewicht und das gleichzeitige Streben, es zu stören, unen (...)
[…] the striving for equilibrium and the simultaneous striving to disturb it are indispensable properties of the language as a whole.
The connection between statics and dynamics is one of the most fundamental dialectical antinomies that determine the idea of language. One cannot conceive of the dialectics of linguistic development without referring to this antinomy. Attempts to identify synchrony, statics and the field of application of teleology on the one hand, and diachrony, dynamics and the sphere of mechanical causality on the other hand illegitimately narrow the framework of synchrony, turn historical linguistics into an agglomeration of mismatched facts and create the superficial and harmful illusion of a gap between the problems of synchrony and diachrony.2
4It was crucial for him to underline that the dynamic essence of language can equally be found in synchrony, and in the lecture Zur Struktur des Phonems (1939) he drew attention to the intrinsic changeability of language:
- 3 Cf.: “Die Behauptung Saussure‘s, die Aufeinanderfolge der Sprachtatsachen in der Zeit wäre für die (...)
Saussure’s claim that the succession of linguistic facts in time does not exist for the language community does not correspond to reality. We consider our own language sub specie durationis and can evaluate certain components as old-fashioned or, on the contrary, as modern and, depending on the purpose of the speech and the chosen style of speech, either prefer the existing lexical, grammatical and even phonological archaisms or, on the contrary, the corresponding innovations. Current language changes live in the linguistic consciousness of the language community. The starting point and the result of such a change can belong to two different stylistic layers of the same language state. Language dynamics can thus function as a component of linguistic synchrony and must therefore also be taken into account by synchronic linguistics.3
5This train of thought would later usher in the concept of dynamic synchrony, advanced by Jakobson, as some scholars believe, in 1961 (Peeters 1991: 178–179; cf. Wmffre 2013: 163). In a conference talk given in 1961 he emphasized: “An insight into the dynamic synchrony of language, involving the space-time coordinates, must replace the traditional pattern of arbitrary restricted static descriptions” (Jakobson 1961: 248). In parallel he remarked that “this synchronic approach to linguistic changes abolishes the customary identification of synchrony with statics and of dynamics with diachrony. The concept of dynamic synchrony calls for a strictly relational treatment of changes in the phonological system […]” (Jakobson 1962: 651). Still in 1959 Jakobson had already claimed that “synchrony is actually dynamic, static synchrony is an abstraction […]” (Wmffre 2013: 184).
6It should be noted, however, that in 1992 the Czech journal Slavia unearthed Jakobson’s lecture Synchronní a diachronní studium jazyka [= Synchronic and Diachronic Language Studies], first delivered in January 1957 in Prague. This text might be regarded as providing Jakobson’s very first use of the term (again with respect to Saussure’s dichotomy):
- 4 Cf.: “Rozpor mezi Saussurovým pojetím synchronie a diachronie je v podstatě založen na jednom nebe (...)
The contradiction between Saussure’s concept of synchrony and diachrony is essentially based on one dangerous identification. […]. This concerns the duality synchrony–diachrony on the one hand and the pair statics–dynamics on the other.
Sometimes the Cours de linguistique générale, while explaining the term “synchronic”, gives in brackets the supposedly synonymous word “static”, whereas diachrony is identified with dynamics. Both of these equations are erroneous. Both conceptual pairs are mutually independent. Synchrony is an interplay of linguistic phenomena coexisting at a given moment in a given linguistic community, while diachrony is the confrontation and comparison of various synchronies over a longer time period.4
7Advocating for the idea that language evolution is an uninterrupted process, the author comes to put together the two key words synchrony and dynamism. Synchrony, according to him,
- 5 Cf.: “Proto se nemá synchronie redukovat na statiku. Ona zahrnuje také časovou posloupnost. Má na (...)
should not be reduced to statics. It also includes temporal order. It also takes into account yesterday and tomorrow, in addition to today. […]
[…] Whether we are dealing with languages living or dead, we must first of all aim at a description of dynamic synchrony. We wish to capture the state of a given language at a given moment, taking into account the shifts and changes that are currently underway.5
- 6 Cf.: “Diachronické neboli historické bádání je důležitým závěrem z popisu jednotlivých stavů, je n (...)
8Thereupon he bridges both dimensions, saying that “diachronic or historical research is an important follow-up to the description of individual states, it is a superstructure over the records of various stages of dynamic synchrony: it is their comparative analysis.”6
9Martinet, the leader of the functionalist school in France, while being himself a proponent of the structural approach, never lost interest in language history. Since the early 1940s he was aware, on the one hand, that traditional methods in historical studies were no longer viable especially in dealing with phonology; on the other hand, he knew how attractive pure synchrony was for many linguists, making them neglect diachronic issues (Peeters 1991: 174–175). The only way out was to let these two dimensions melt together (Wmffre 2013: 99).
- 7 Cf.: “[…] la doctrine phonologique l’a aidé а trouver une terminologie précise pour des notions qu (...)
- 8 Cf.: “En théorie, la chose est simple: il y a synchronie tant que les usages rapprochés coexistent (...)
10His inquiry into the mechanisms of sound changes led him to an understanding of the dynamic nature of language phenomena, interpreted by him functionally. And again it was the Prague school and its Theses that echoed in Martinet’s views (Peeters 1991: 177; cf. Babiniotis 2009: 25): the Prague “phonological doctrine helped him find a precise terminology for notions he already had in mind.”7 Since the late 1940s he had—as Wmffre (2013: 98) indicates—“a latent understanding of the importance of dynamic factors in language description”. Martinet viewed the dynamism of a system in its potential changeability as reflected in the language varieties and repeatedly insisted on the dynamic character of synchrony (cf. Babiniotis 2009: 25, 27). By the end of the 1960s, Martinet’s conception was turning around the notion of dynamic synchrony, thus expressed terminologically in 1968 (Labrousse, Goldmann, Martinet et al. 1968: 41–43, 45, 57; Peeters 1991: 178; Wmffre 2013: 104) and deliberately elaborated upon in his later studies. In particular, in his book Fonction et dynamique des langues (1989) and in the paper La synchronie dynamique (1990), Martinet (1989: 7–64; 1990: 18–22) stresses the role of this notion in phonology and grammar. Looking at it from a functional point of view, he found a difference between dynamic synchrony and diachronic study: “In theory, the thing is simple: there is synchrony as long as the closely related practices coexist in the community surveyed. […] Now, when it comes to comparing materials gathered a few years or even a few decades ago, we can quite legitimately consider that the synchrony is not broken if all the oppositions in question continue to function […]” 8.
11The attempts to pin down the very first occurrence of the collocation dynamic synchrony encounter a number of challenges, as the range of the potential sources of all kind to be taken into account is hardly surveyable in its entirety for an individual scholar. Our glimpse into the current state of the art suggests that it was Vachek who came to place it right in the title of one of his scholarly publications in 1976. In Martinet, an influential proponent of this idea, a corresponding expression (synchronie dynamique) can be traced back to 1968. As for its allegedly earliest documented use by Jakobson in 1961, this date has to be shifted back to 1957, when this author employed the Czech term dynamická synchronie.
12George Y. Shevelov (1908–2002) is held to be the most eminent Ukrainian linguist of the 20th century, who produced numerous contributions to the history of the Slavonic languages, including The Problems in the Formation of Belorussian (1953), A Prehistory of Slavic. The Historical Phonology of Common Slavic (1964), Teasers and Appeasers (1971), A Historical Phonology of the Ukrainian Language (1979), In and Around Kiev (1994) among others. Born in Kharkiv, he completed a university course in Ukrainian Philology there. On graduation, he served as a lecturer in Ukrainian at higher educational institutions in Kharkiv. His post-graduate studies in 1936–1939 under Leonid Bulaxovs’kyj’s (1888–1961) supervision resulted in a PhD thesis on poetic language usage. Subsequently, his main interest shifted to syntax, on which he worked for some time especially in the 1940s (Šerex 1947), and to phonology (Shevelov 1964; Shevelov 1979), which became his central preoccupation from the 1950s, when he resided in Sweden (1950–1952) and especially in the United States (from 1952 on).
- 9 Cf.: “[…] розкрив мені абетку празької фонологічної школи, я не міг не піддатися чарові цього напр (...)
- 10 Cf.: “Мова має свою мету, визначувану всією її системою. Вона постійно прагне структурної рівноваг (...)
13In 1940 Shevelov got acquainted in Lviv with Vasyl’ Simovyč (1880–1944), a member of the Prague linguistic circle who had learned the tenets of structuralism and of phonological methodology from Nikolai Trubetzkoy (1890–1938) (Shevelov 1981: 35). Simovyč was the first to introduce the basic ideas of structuralism on the Ukrainian soil (ibid.: 55). It was him who “disclosed the essence of the Prague school of phonology” to the young linguist from Kharkiv, and the latter “could not help surrendering to the attraction of this trend.”9 Together with his own publications, which utilized the fundamentals of phonology, Simovyč circulated books and papers by chief structuralists among his colleagues. Having moved to Lviv in March 1943, Shevelov eagerly perused the works that Simovyč suggested or directly handed over to him. Simovyč helped Shevelov understand that “a language has its own purpose, determined by its entire system. It constantly strives for structural equilibrium, never achieving it.”10
- 11 In the years 1946–1953 Shevelov signed his books and papers with the pen-name Šerech/Šerex.
14In summer 1944 Shevelov had to leave Ukraine and settle for five years in Bavaria11. In 1949 he was granted a doctoral degree for his monograph on the origin of nominative clauses (Šerex 1947) by the Ukrainian Free University in Munich. He then continued his academic career in Sweden and in the United States. He actually spent the 1940s and early 1950s in quest of proper linguistic methodology for his future inquiries.
15Soon after having adopted the structural approach, Shevelov expressed his disagreement with Saussure. In a tone close to Jakobson’s, he spoke of an inadequacy that resulted from Saussure’s
- 12 Cf.: “[…] розриву СИСТЕМИ мови і її РОЗВИТКУ, її РУХУ. Для соссюріянців система мови — тільки стат (...)
setting apart the language SYSTEM and its DEVELOPMENT, its MOTION. For the Saussureans the language system is mere statics, so that each and every facet of a system is explained only through its function. On the contrary, a system is never being in a static equilibrium and there is always a twofold key to it: a functional and a dynamic one. This brings forth, in fact, a very complicated network of facts, but one only can give an adequate description of a language state by taking this network into account.12
- 13 Cf.: “[…] розрив синхронічного і діяхронічного (вживаючи сосюріянських термінів), звичайно аж ніяк (...)
16A similar critical remark is found in his Munich doctoral thesis (published in 1947, this study was actually completed in 1941): “[…] one cannot for sure accept that a split between static and dynamic (speaking in Saussurean terms) is correct. The past affects today’s language, whereas a present state, apart of surpassing or counteracting the past, derives from it.”13
- 14 Cf.: “Für De Saussure bedeutet die Synchronie stets Statik und Gleichgewicht, obgleich er dies nir (...)
- 15 Cf.: “Eine gewisse Mechanisierung der Gegenüberstellung von Statik und Dynamik, von Synchronie und (...)
17Shevelov often focused on methodological issues in his book reviews of that time, where one comes across observations such as: “For Saussure, synchrony always means static and equilibrium, although he never formulates this clearly. According to him, synchrony is a cross-section of language development, and a cross-section always implies a stop of movement.”14 Shevelov noticed “a certain mechanization of the opposition between statics and dynamics, between synchrony and diachrony, which inevitably occurs when Saussure’s theses are applied automatically […]”15
- 16 Cf.: “Запроваджений свого часу Ф. де Соссюром поділ мовознавства на синхронне, що вивчає факти мов (...)
18He actually found fault less with Saussure’s views, than with the way his followers interpreted and implemented this bi-dimensional view of linguistics: “Saussure’s established division of linguistics into synchronic, which studies language facts of a certain period, and diachronic, which studies them in their development, is often applied mechanically and thoughtlessly”16. These words clearly hint that Shevelov did not totally reject Saussure’s theory (cf. Šerech 1952b: 408–410). Notably, he classified his own works, depending on the approach applied in them, as either synchronic (with focus on description of modern Ukrainian) or diachronic (dealing with language history). He would rather prefer synchronic and diachronic exposition of matters, both made in keeping with the dynamic nature of a language system.
- 17 Cf.: “Одначе, в протилежність Ф. де Соссюрові і багатьом його послідовникам, автор думає, що в сис (...)
19Simovyč was for him an authority who had provided a judicious adaptation of the dynamic approach both in his diachronic studies and—especially—in his descriptive reference grammar published in 1921 (Simovyč 1921). Shevelov praised this effort in writing that “Simovyč succeeded in avoiding the temptation to switches to a historical approach; to its great advantage, his grammar remained synchronic. […] and the synchrony is presented as dynamic and conflicting and, where the standard language was in flux, this is not concealed” (Shevelov 1981: 21). Inspired by his guru, he attempted to produce a more refined and better constructed reference book, fully in line with structural approach. Thus he based his Narys sučasnoji ukrajins’koji literaturnoji movy [= An Outline of Modern Standard Ukrainian] (1951) on structuralist methodology, citing in the preface the names of Simovyč, Saussure, Trubetzkoy, Mathesius, Jakobson, Louis Hjelmslev (1899–1965), André Vaillant (1890–1977), Albert Willem de Groot (1892–1963) and other representatives of this trend. Shevelov meant this book to be a description of contemporary Ukrainian, handling the language facts not according to their origin or evolution, but with a focus on their role in the language system; “yet, contrary to Saussure and his adherents, the author thinks that the system of modern language always involves assessment of certain language facts in their dynamics—either as obsolete or as new ones.”17
- 18 Cf.: “[…] норми літературної мови не є щось абсолютно нерухоме. Вони припускають коливання в певни (...)
20A standard language has a relatively stable set of basic rules to be learnt and applied, but it is also mutable in some aspects. In synchrony these alterations are reflected primarily by doublets or parallel forms (in morphology and syntax), as well as in the stylistic value of language units; the next thing is the intrusion of dialects and foreign elements and the way a standard language is adopting or rejecting them. Shevelov insisted that “language norms are not something absolutely motionless. In certain limits they allow fluctuations to provide stylistic flexibility.”18
- 19 Cf.: “Саме в реченні ми маємо змогу піднести поодиноке до категоріяльного, видове до родового, схо (...)
- 20 Cf.: “Система українського складного речення перебуває весь час у дальшому формуванні й кристаліза (...)
- 21 Cf.: “[…] загальну тенденцію розвитку української іменникової відміни, то це радше нахил зменшити (...)
- 22 Cf.: “[…] система українського дієприкметника перебуває в процесі перебудови на систему видових ді (...)
21The language’s instability, especially in its stylistic varieties, is best seen in vocabulary, presumably the most dynamic field. Thus Shevelov started his book with a chapter discussing shifts and changes in the word stock. Next comes a chapter on syntax and stylistic constructions, another one on morphology and the final one dealing with language sounds and phonemes. The book’s reviewers found this order decidedly “unorthodox” and “illogical” and either simply disapproved of it (Matthews 1952: 271; Čaplenko 1952: 4) or treated it as authorial idiosyncrasy (Rudnycky 1952: 26). Yet it was apparently dictated by the strength of dynamic potential inherent in sundry language subsystems—from the most to the least palpable. Putting the syntactic subsystem in second place after vocabulary, as far as the visibility of current changes is concerned, Shevelov admits in particular: “It is the clause that allows us to elevate what is single to a category, a species to a genus, it allows us to comprehend phenomena in motion”19; or else: “The system of the Ukrainian complex sentence is constantly being in the process of ongoing formation and crystallization, i.e. in dynamics.”20 To treat the points/facts of instability, he uses expressions like, in the first place, tendency (in the sense of developmental tendencies), as well as propensity (of a system or subsystem) and vacillation. Surprisingly, such designations are most often found in the chapters on morphology and stress patterns (Šerex 1951: 167–349). The author highlights not only tangible shifts, but—more importantly—ways of remodelling morphologic subsystems from within. He asserts, for example, that noun cases in Ukrainian demonstrate a predisposition to unify Dative and Locative or to bring Genitive and Accusative closer. So, in this “general tendency in the development of the Ukrainian noun’s case system” he sees a “propensity to reduce the number of cases.”21 In a similar way he treats the system of participles as finding itself “in the process of remodelling into a totally aspectual type”22 while getting rid of tense and voice categories.
22Remarks of this kind are scattered throughout the book and together they do exhibit the standard language system in motion, including the stylistic varieties and the directions of potential future changes. Shevelov usually evaded such criteria as speakers’ habits, speech shifts or statistical data, focusing on language systems as such (cf. Shevelov 1971: 321). Yet he did not put aside the speakers’ role entirely and at times saw himself obliged to evaluate some local or extra-systemic deviations capable of affecting the standard (cf. Shevelov 1957b: 117–18; Shevelov 1983: 600–601).
- 23 Cf.: “[…] liegt in dem veränderten, eben dynamisierten Verstehen der Synchronie. […] handelt das B (...)
- 24 Cf.: “[…] im allgemeinen wird im ganzen Buch sehr taktvoll dieses komplizierte Verstehen der „dyna (...)
23That was the way the structural approach was being put into practice to reflect dynamic synchrony. The term itself had not yet been coined. Shevelov was then mulling it over. His Outline was released by the end of 1951—and immediately afterwards Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie published in its review section a contribution by Shevelov that discussed Viktor Vinogradov’s (1895–1969) book on modern Russian. The author’s structuralist methodology was in a sharp contrast to the routine Soviet linguistics of that time. Shevelov welcomed Vinogradov’s endeavour and his critical perception of Saussure’s principles. One of the author’s achievements, in his opinion, “lies in the changed, dynamic understanding of synchrony. […] Vinogradov’s book is not only about the system of the modern Russian language, but also about the tendencies and directions of its development as a whole and in individual components.”23 In his concluding remark about the study’s methodological side, the reviewer describes this approach as dynamic synchrony: “[…] generally speaking, the book, taken as a whole, carries through in a very tactful manner this vision of «dynamic synchrony» consistently underpinning Vinogradov’s work.” 24
24In the academic years 1952–1954 Shevelov lectured in the East Slavonic languages at Harvard University. Concurrently he was engaged in the research project Description and Analysis of Contemporary Standard Russian, supervised by Jakobson (Ševel’ov 2021: 444, 448). He was investigating Russian compounds: though his chapter did not appear in print (ibid.: 449), this research, most likely, prompted his insight into the structure of word roots in Modern Russian. The key issue concerned once more the ways of tackling a problem to which tenable answers were absent. This time Shevelov opposes Trubetzkoy whose approach
was traditional and lacked dynamics. The Russian language, insofar as roots were analyzed by him, was for him a pile of dead objects; for us at present it rather is a bundle of variously directed forces. This is not to reproach Trubetzkoy: in the twenties and the thirties the most important problem was to delimit synchrony from diachrony and to establish synchronical analysis as a legitimate part of linguistics. Nowadays, the main problem a scholar faces is to grasp synchrony as dynamics. This has become possible on the basis of the achievements of Trubetzkoy and his generation (Shevelov 1957b: 108).
25Having investigated the Russian root structure with the help of an advanced synchronic methodology accounting for language dynamics, Shevelov came to more satisfactory results: Modern Russian displays a propensity to preserve the monosyllabicity of roots as a systemic language pattern. Apart from the tendencies, his focus was on conflicts and deviations within the morphologic system, as it was there he discovered “[…] the gist of the morphological status of Modern Russian, considered synchronically. For synchrony is development, and not the eternal peace of a linguistic cemetery. The structure of the Russian root from the viewpoint of dynamic synchrony has never been studied” (ibid.: 122).
26There was one more book in which Shevelov came upon dynamic synchrony, as far as its methodology is concerned. He wrote two reviews of Horace Lunt’s (1918–2010) Old Church Slavonic Grammar (1955) and particularly stressed the author’s manner of representing the structure of a dead, no longer spoken language, with all its systemic changes belonging to the past:
Lunt’s book is essentially synchronic in its approach, though “dynamically synchronic”. Synchronic descriptions of modern languages are indisputably useful. But one may question whether this is true for OCS? Moreover, is such a study possible in OCS? We are dealing with an artificial, patch-work language, devoid of internally conditioned evolution (Shevelov 1956a: 342).
27And once more: “Lunt’s approach is basically synchronically descriptive, not comparative or historical. […] The book is significant also as an attempt at bridging the gap between a traditional, quite static synchronical description and what could be called a kind of dynamic synchrony.” (Shevelov 1956b: 569). This standpoint is legitimate, because Old Church Slavonic was not the same system all the way throughout the territories of its diffusion; however, it does not appear entirely sufficient:
When changes which occurred within OCS itself are shown one would like to know the reasons for them, which lie within the scope of a “dynamic synchronic” description covering a rather long epoch. […] But even when speaking of “tendencies”, the author usually abstains from any explanations with very few exceptions […] (Shevelov 1956a: 341).
28Moreover, a purely synchronic method of delineating earlier language periods, even be it dynamic, is foredoomed to inadequacy, unless it lets in a diachronic component.
Under this condition a rigid synchronic description would never actually be adequate to the facts, and thus, a compromise cannot be avoided. What the appropriate proportion between synchronic and non-synchronic should be then becomes a very ticklish issue. […] and it is scarcely possible to keep the same proportion between synchronic and non-synchronic in different parts of the book (ibid.: 338).
29An alternative had been offered, instead, by André Vaillant’s Manuel du vieux slave (1948) which met, in Shevelov’s view, the demands of a study with a balanced combination of synchrony and diachrony, with various processes shown in their dynamics (Šerex 1950: 298).
30After the publication of his synchronically conceived Outline of Modern Standard Ukrainian, Shevelov searched for the proper methodology to use in his diachronic and phonological research. The earlier attempts in Slavonic studies, e.g. by Trubetzkoy, Jakobson, Antoine Meillet (1866–1936), Nicolaas van Wijk (1880–1941), Josef Miloslav Kořínek (1899–1945), aimed at representing language history in a structuralist way failed to satisfy him: for all their merits, they were, to his mind, either atomistic or speculative (cf. Shevelov 1964: 5, 16–17; Shevelov 1971: 323).
- 25 Cf.: “Diese Theorie über das etymologische Phonem, die in mancher Hinsicht der Entwicklung der str (...)
31Useful clues came from his research in the field of linguistic historiography in the early 1950s. In his essays about several Ukrainian linguists Shevelov carefully looked into both their methodology and their understanding of a language system. He paid special attention to the late 19th–century dialectologist and language historian Kost’ Myxalčuk (1840–1914), who had implemented a phonological approach along functional lines of reasoning: his “theory of the etymological phoneme […] in some respects heralded the development of structural linguistics, but at the same time refused to accept the gap between synchrony and diachrony.”25 In Shevelov’s view, Myxal’čuk deserved to be named a “precursor of the later phonemic approach” (Shevelov 1979: 43). Quite notably, this Ukrainian dialectologist had no knowledge whatsoever of Saussure’s Course—he died in 1914, two years before its publication. He developed his theoretic ideas simultaneously with Saussure and, according to Shevelov, in a far more consistent manner (Ševel’ov 1994: 12). Instead of opposing the two methodologies (synchronic and diachronic) to each other, Myxal’čuk combined the synchronic dimension with the historical one. Shevelov claimed that this approach—a compromise between a focus on system and a focus on development—was exactly what modern linguistics required (Šerex 1952: 34).
32Similar motifs and views were found in Oleksander Potebnia (1935–1891), the leading Ukrainian linguist of the 19th century. His ideas had appealed to Shevelov in his student years (cf. Ševel’ov 2017: 345–6). Shevelov’s interest in syntax and comparative linguistics was influenced to a great extent by the works of Potebnia who had discovered traces of earlier language stages in the modern phase (ibid.: 400–401). Shevelov pointed to “certain approximation in Potebnia’s ideas to more recent theories of structuralism”, indicating that he had “consistently followed the theory which affirmed that changes in every language and in each dialect are individual and conditioned from within” (Shevelov 1956c: 1124). Bridging synchrony and diachrony was one more feature of Potebnia’s methodology that Shevelov approved of (ibid.: 1125).
33Apart from his Ukrainian compatriots, Shevelov set great store by other Slavicists able to picture a language system in motion and development while revealing the mainsprings of changes. This applies to some extent to Van Wijk’s publications on phonology, as well as to the Belorussian linguist of Ukrainian origin Petro Buzuk’s (1891–1938), Meillet’s and Vaillant’s studies on Slavic languages (cf. Shevelov 1964: 16–17). In sum, he maintained that a purely structural approach in describing language history was inefficient: “[…] the new methods of structural linguistics did not find any adequate adaptation in the studies of Common Slavic historical phonology and the best books are still those written with the old approach: they are broadest in scope with regard to the facts used, and the most reliable and down to earth” (ibid.: 17). Disregarding the language facts obtainable with older methods, the structural approach on the American soil appeared limited in its scope—it was rather a challenge to use it in the study of an extinct language like Common Slavic.
Structuralism, especially in America, with its stress on synchrony, believed that it rejected the historicism of the Neogrammarians. It did not care for reconstruction; it discarded any terms smacking of history. The anatomy of language, not its genealogy, was its concern […] (Shevelov 1971: 321).
Writings in that genre are attractive for many (not excluding myself years ago), particularly for younger scholars who by mere combinations of some generally known facts easily make “revolutions” […] (ibid.: 323).
34Instead, the researchers who utilized the traditional methods of the previous epoch, refreshed by the structural approach, achieve much more convincing and clear-cut results.
35Shevelov’s monumental books A Prehistory of Slavic (1964; ProS) and A Historical Phonology of the Ukrainian Language (1979; HPhUL) embody this synthetic methodology. “The time has come for summing up the attainments of Slavic comparative studies, for synthesizing what has been done, and for outlining a new approach” (Shevelov 1964: X)—such was the feeling he had at the time. The key subject in both instances is a complex system of protodialects which finally compose a language system. Dealing with their phonological inventory the author takes into account data from morphology and onomastics, then adds etymologic procedures in order to explain the causes of irregularities within the system and the direction of its development. In ProS Shevelov wrote that he “did not want to give merely one more comparative course based on phonetic correspondences alone without considering the dynamics of linguistic developments”; his intention was instead “to attempt a coherent and systematic history of Common Slavic from its formation to its ultimate dissolution into separate Slavic languages” (ibid.: V).
36As the language system continued to be in his focus, Shevelov draws attention to tendencies, to the inner striving for balance and to factors which caused inconsistencies. The researcher had to keep in mind one basic thing:
[…] the history of Common Slavic and early Slavic was shaped primarily, in its phonological aspect, by trends leading to a thoroughly balanced system and by inability to attain such a perfect system. The language was constantly a system in the making, never a system made, not even during periods of decelerated development (ibid.: 629).
- 26 There are over 200 instances of the term trend/tendency in each of the two books (cf. Shevelov 196 (...)
- 27 The concept of evolutional tendencies is present in the Prague Theses (cf. Steiner 1982: 7, 11, 14 (...)
37Thus he explains the shifts in this dynamic system keeping an eye on trends and tendencies—nearly the same way he did in his synchronic studies. The balance of a system together with its vacillations was one more criterion to pay heed to. A multitude of such indications in ProS and HPhUL26 determine carefully not only the accomplished changes, but also the possible ones. The notion of tendency in language evolution is pivotal for this approach27, and Shevelov advances his own tentative definition of it: “On the linguistic level, a tendency is understood … merely as a sequence of developments resulting in a particular effect (without fully achieving it from the point of view of the language as a whole), i.e., the term is used without any teleological implications” (ibid.: 627; cf. Shevelov 1983: 587). His definition of tendency in HPhUL initially coincides with the one in ProS, with an additional reference to the “psychological level of a speaker” reflected in “carrying of a linguistic habit” (Shevelov 1979: 748). Later on he would suggest an emended formulation: “a language tendency is a law which has been operating in a language through a substantially long time without coming to logically thinkable limits in its materialization” (Shevelov 1983: 601). Thus, a tendency to him is something on the move taking place within the system. “Were the trend brought to completion […], one would speak of a historical language law” (ibid.) and this also means, actually, a changed balance of elements in the system. But until the completion is there, the tendency indicates the direction in which the system is being reshaped.
38Some ten years ago I discussed the notion of phoneme in Shevelov’s perception, claiming that he had had more appreciation for diachrony and pleaded for its integration with synchrony, unlike Jakobson who had “insisted on the notion of dynamic synchrony” (Karunyk 2016: 168). It sounds and seems quite credible that Shevelov might have followed Jakobson in his criticism of Saussure. His viewpoint concerning the present state of language and his accent on archaic and novel elements in the language system as reflection of its dynamism echoes again with Jakobson’s. It was, of course, a direct influence of Prague structuralism. If we take a closer look at their relationship and venture to reconstruct the chronology of the appearance of the term dynamic synchrony in both instances, we seem to be bound to discover some kind of link.
- 28 Cf.: “А людина він справді цікава, лінґвіст справжній […]. Живий, темпераментний. Учора зустрілися (...)
39Shevelov and Jakobson got acquainted in August 1952 in Harvard (Mass.). Shevelov’s excitement after his first conversation with Jakobson is reflected in a letter to one of his friends: “And as a person he is really interesting, an ingenious linguist […]. Lively, passionate. We met yesterday and talked until 2 a.m. […]”28. For the next two years Shevelov worked at the Slavic department headed by Jakobson. Since 1951 they had communicated via letters. As of 1950, Jakobson and Trubetzkoy were for Shevelov two world-class authors whose analyses of the complicated problems of the sound system tempted Shevelov into the realm of historical phonology.
- 29 Cf.: “Не знавши його [Якобсона], я вважав себе за його учня, його писання були для мене зразком то (...)
Without knowing him [Jakobson], I considered myself his disciple, his writings were for me a paragon of what modern linguistics, a modern understanding of literature and, in particular, poetry, should be like. He—and Trubetzkoy—were for me the embodiment of the two schools with which I wanted to identify myself as a scholar—the Russian formalists and the Prague linguistic circle.29
40Shevelov adopted some Prague postulates like bringing together synchrony and diachrony or bringing into focus the development tendencies—another salient point in the Prague Theses of 1929 (cf. Steiner 1982: 7). In Shevelov’s early phonological writings Jakobson and Trubetzkoy were among the most quoted authorities (cf. Šerech 1950: 399, 403–5, 408, 410, 414–8; Šerech 1953: v, 7–8, 15, 28, 70; Shevelov 1957b: 406–411).
41Very soon he worked out his own method and reassessed the achievements of his older colleagues. He also contested some of their inconsistent ideas, when he felt the need for it. Jakobson’s devotees labelled Shevelov’s stance a “more daring and more personal approach” (Lightner 1966: 683) and accused him of “ignoring” “virtually all the theoretical work that has been published to date, even the work of major investigators in the field” (ibid.: 682) represented—as implied—first and foremost by the leading American Slavicist Jakobson. This was a reaction to Shevelov’s A Prehistory of Slavic, a work that contains plentiful references to theoretical and practical writings on Slavic linguistics, including Jakobson’s, though the latter was not cited very amply (cf. Shevelov 1964: 16, 421, 504, 581, 630).
- 30 The last of Shevelov’s papers submitted to Word contains plenty of quotations and references to Ma (...)
42Jakobson himself had expressed dissatisfaction with the manuscript of Shevelov’s earler study Problems in Formation of Belorussian for the same reason: the scarcity of references to his own publications (Ševel’ov 2021: 441; cf. Šerech 1953: vi, 8, 16, 27–28, 30–31, 35, 40, 55). Unwilling to comply with Jakobson’s suggestions, Shevelov then passed over his work to Martinet (Ševel’ov 2021: 443), at that time the editor-in-chief of the journal Word (1947–1966) and chair in General linguistics at Columbia University in New York (Wmffre 2013: 91). Not only did the book appear in the journal’s monograph series the same year, 1953, but a long-lasting partnership between two age-mates was established: Shevelov, Professor at Columbia University from 1954, regularly supplied Word with his papers and reviews (1952–1957, 1963–196930); after Martinet’s return to Paris in 1955 their correspondence lasted over thirteen years; in addition, Shevelov (1957a) had the honour of contributing to Martinet’s festschrift.
43The triangle of personal contacts is herewith completed. All the three adhered to the structural approach in the footsteps of the Prague circle linking together synchrony and diachrony. All the three rejected staticity and recognized the dynamic nature of a language system. All the three shared the principle of dynamic synchrony: Shevelov coined the term in 1952, Jakobson employed it in 1957 (during a talk) and then in 1961 (in print), the earliest known example of its use by Martinet is dated 1968. This chronology testifies to Shevelov’s priority in this respect. However, there are no tangible proofs that Shevelov could have influenced either or both of Jakobson and Martinet. Quite possibly, each of them formulated the notion of dynamic synchrony independently, since all the three stood on similar theoretical positions.
44There are also some divergences. Shevelov treated dynamic synchrony as an approach having to do with a language system and its internal development, regardless of the functional side, as reflected in speech utterances within the respective communities. Jakobson spoke of both aspects and sometimes mixed them up. Martinet applied the term dynamic synchrony in keeping with the functionalist line and concentrated on speech habits and usage varieties identifiable within a community at different time points. The Czech linguist Vít Boček (2022: 9) admits “the affinity that Shevelovʼs work [ProS] has to structuralism, but the link is very weak” and some theoretical remarks do not “sound very structuralistic”. It is true that Jakobson was more consistent in implementing the Prague circle’s methodology, while Martinet and Shevelov capitalized on its attainments selectively. Having borrowed a lot from this trend, Martinet developed a theory of his own. Shevelov never cherished the ambition of being a stalwart partisan of Prague structuralism and did not hesitate to point to some shortcomings in the works of his predecessors, however prominent they might have been. In his view, language system is never stable and constantly striving for an internal balance. The key element in his studies is the recognition of tendency as the pointer that suggests the way a language system is due to change or at least the direction of eventual changes. Shevelov had sufficient discernment to select and synthesize the most valid theoretical models for establishing his own methodological rationale. This helped him frame the concept of dynamic synchrony slightly ahead of his contemporaries.