Can you give me some exampleso of diachronic and synchronic approaches of english teaching? Because I've been looking up them in many places, but I...

Diachronic (according to Merriam Webster)
means:

of,
relating to, or dealing with phenomena (as of language or culture) as they occur or
change over a period of
time.

Synchronic (also
according to Merriam Webster) means:

readability="5">

concerned with events existing in a limited time
period and ignoring historical
antecedents.

While the two
may seem, on the surface, very similar, there is one distinct difference: historical
consideration.

What this means is, synchronic looks at a
specific event in regards to the event alone. Nothing that has led up to the event, or
following the event, is taken into consideration. Diachronic, on the other hand, looks
at the entire picture: everything that has relation to why something changes over time.

For example, language can bee looked at either
diachronically or synchronically. If looked at diachronically, one would consider the
races of people, the nationalities, the education level, and the use of slang when
determining the phenomena regarding how language changed in the South over time.

If one were to look at language synchronically, they would
only look at one period of time, which they were interested in, and why the language
exists as it does based solely off of the time period
alone.

Basically, in simple terms, diachronic uses all
resources to examine something, whereas synchronic looks at a very limited aspect of the
information based upon a singular ideal.

As for teaching
examples, if teaching diachronically, the students would learn about the period, the
characteristics of the period, the history of the period, the influences of the period,
and so on. If teaching synchronically, the work would simply be examined as a text
alone; no consideration would be given to the period, the history, or any other events
which surrounded the author and time period which the writing took place.