This paper, authored by Uriel Weinreich, William Labov, and Marvin I. Herzog, aims to address the paradoxes in historical linguistics that arise from the structuralist approach. Weinreich, who passed away in 1967, was a key contributor to the paper, which he prepared with the help of his co-authors. The paper discusses the origins of the structure-history antinomy in Neogrammarian theory, particularly focusing on Hermann Paul's isolation of the individual's language as the primary object of study. It traces the evolution of this paradox from Saussure's foundational work to the post-World War II period, highlighting the challenges of explaining language change within a structural framework. The authors argue that a more realistic model of language should accommodate the heterogeneity of language use and its social and stylistic determinants. They propose that native-like command of heterogeneous structures is an integral part of unilingual linguistic competence, and that the absence of structured heterogeneity would be dysfunctional in a complex community. The paper also addresses the limitations of generative grammar in capturing the complexities of language change and suggests that a theory of language change must account for the manner in which a community's linguistic structure evolves over time. The authors emphasize the importance of empirical foundations for a theory of language change, including the need to understand the constraints, transition, embedding, and evaluation of changes. They propose that a comprehensive theory should explain how changes occur, why they happen in certain languages at specific times, and how they are influenced by social and extralinguistic factors. The paper concludes by sketching out the broader theoretical inquiry into linguistic evolution, focusing on the description and explanation of linguistic change over the past few millennia.This paper, authored by Uriel Weinreich, William Labov, and Marvin I. Herzog, aims to address the paradoxes in historical linguistics that arise from the structuralist approach. Weinreich, who passed away in 1967, was a key contributor to the paper, which he prepared with the help of his co-authors. The paper discusses the origins of the structure-history antinomy in Neogrammarian theory, particularly focusing on Hermann Paul's isolation of the individual's language as the primary object of study. It traces the evolution of this paradox from Saussure's foundational work to the post-World War II period, highlighting the challenges of explaining language change within a structural framework. The authors argue that a more realistic model of language should accommodate the heterogeneity of language use and its social and stylistic determinants. They propose that native-like command of heterogeneous structures is an integral part of unilingual linguistic competence, and that the absence of structured heterogeneity would be dysfunctional in a complex community. The paper also addresses the limitations of generative grammar in capturing the complexities of language change and suggests that a theory of language change must account for the manner in which a community's linguistic structure evolves over time. The authors emphasize the importance of empirical foundations for a theory of language change, including the need to understand the constraints, transition, embedding, and evaluation of changes. They propose that a comprehensive theory should explain how changes occur, why they happen in certain languages at specific times, and how they are influenced by social and extralinguistic factors. The paper concludes by sketching out the broader theoretical inquiry into linguistic evolution, focusing on the description and explanation of linguistic change over the past few millennia.