synchronic vs diachronic causes of language changes

[Yury L. Rodygin]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
 Let me (for my first including into discussion) return to    diachronic vs
 synchronic explanations of language tendencies. It
seems to me the real base of this discussion is the real
possibility to put 2 types of the question "Why?" about any
language (and not only language) phenomen. 1st "Why?" is close to
"How?", "How did this phenomen appear?" It's diachronic
explanation considering a chain of previous facts, resulting in
this phenomen. (And there is mighty tradition to be content with
only a chain of previous states of this part of language system,
without an explanation at all). 2nd "Why?" is close to
"For what?". "Why this phenomen is necessary in this system for
the  users?"  "Why  it's  alive in this system?" It's synchronic
explanation considering needs of speakers in expression of
concrete neutral or emotional information, in economy of time,
force, memory, etc. Both "Why?" have equivalent rights to
exist. Some phenomen appears because concrete need of
speakers is existing (in synchrony) and this phenomen has
exactly this form because such-and-such previous facts
had resulted in it (in diachrony).
The forms 'you guys, you kids, etc.' (look AMR's letter,
14 May) appeared both from previous losting of difference between
pl. and sg. and from the continuing need of speakers in this
difference (at least in some situations).
 The same reason, I think, is for the appearing the modern
Russian non-standart forms 'platjA, sredstvA etc.' "dresses,
means" (with stressed second  a). Standart forms of o-neutra
nouns with fixed stress ('plAtja etc.') in fact lost difference
with pl. because sg. and pl. here differ in endings [o]/[a]
and theese phonems, if unstressed, don't differ in most of
contemporary dialects.  27 Russian nouns o-neutra total
changed from 16 centure fixed stress to movable, some from
them in literare Russian. I see in this fact an interesting
example of language self-regulation under impact of mighty need
of speakers in the short (grammar) expression of number.
(This category is almost universal as you know.) But this
loss isn't noticeable because it isn't visible in writing.
Some of such tendencies in Russian accentuation from 16
centure to novadays are considering in both aspects "Why?" in
my recent paper "Grammaticalization of Russian accentuation:
why?", not publishing yet. If anybody interests, I can send
it.
       Ireena Lifshitc-Fufajeva
       postmaster at aveinfo-sci.nnov.ru
       Nizhnij Novgorod, Russia