ABSTRACT
Traditionally, linguists have not been much given to speculating about the future. e two dimensions of linguistic enquiry which dened linguistics in the 20th century, the Saussurean axes of synchrony and diachrony, envisaged the object of the study of language as either its structure at a particular moment in time (synchrony) or the changes which have taken place over time (diachrony). ere came to be a high premium set on the scientic nature of linguistic enquiry, demanding that linguistics was an observational science with a rigorous empirical basis, which at its strongest even rejected the possibility of any diachronic study which was not based on directly observable data.1 ese strict demarcations have now been eroded to a certain extent because of the growing realisation that language is not a monolithic or stable structure but is subject to extensive variation even on the part of a single native speaker; and, as suggested in Chapter 6, the study of synchronic variation is inseparable from that of diachronic evolution. But linguistic forecasting is still not on many linguists’ agendas. Nevertheless, in this chapter, I will suggest some ways in which forecasting might take place and what the limitations on such forecasting might be. I think this is important, because while descriptive linguists may be coy about predicting the future, there is no shortage of predictions emanating from prescriptivists, who tend to view future language change pessimistically, as some kind of threat to the established order.
