In remembrance of Eugenio Coseriu, József Herman, Yakov Malkiel

Introduction

I discuss here some problems of Romance diachronic morphosyntax in the light of theoretical and methodological considerations on the relation between diachrony and synchrony, and the question of linguistic change.

I first attempt to demonstrate a thesis that is perhaps not obvious, and rather goes against the grain of contemporary thinking: Romance linguistics has rather more to offer general linguistics in its thinking on the synchrony–diachrony relationship and the problem of language change than contemporary general linguistics has to offer Romance linguistics. Our discipline not only possesses an extraordinary stock of data, but also has long had a rich array of methodological and theoretical tools, which make it a particularly ideal platform for tackling the intellectual problem of diachrony. Romance linguistics foresaw aspects of the modern debate, and in some respects offered solutions ahead of that debate. In particular I shall be concerned with the following issues:

(a) ‘Laws’: are there laws of transformation through time, besides laws of analogy? In other words, do diachronic structures exist, in addition to synchronic ones?

(b) The form–function relation: does this relation have the same properties in diachrony as in synchrony?

(c) Syntactic factors in morphosyntactic change: is their role active or inert?

Between general and Romance linguistics

Introduction

Are the power and potential of Romance diachronic linguistics obvious?