The paper by Weinreich, Labov, and Herzog presents an empirical foundation for a theory of language change. It argues that structural theories of language, while useful in synchronic studies, have created paradoxes in historical linguistics. The authors trace the origins of the structure-history antinomy to Neogrammarian theory, particularly the work of Hermann Paul, who isolated the individual's language as the legitimate object of study. They examine the paradoxes that arose in the Saussurean period, where homogeneity of language was assumed to be found in the idiolect. The authors also discuss the opportunities for explaining language change that emerged after World War II, and the limitations of viewing language states as determinants of their own further development. The paper argues that a theory of language change must account for the fact that language is not homogeneous but rather possesses orderly heterogeneity. It suggests that a model of language that accommodates variable usage and its social and stylistic determinants leads to more adequate descriptions of linguistic competence and naturally yields a theory of language change that bypasses the paradoxes of historical linguistics. The authors propose that language change is not a matter of simple prediction but rather involves complex interactions between individual and social factors. They argue that the generative model for the description of language as a homogeneous object is itself unrealistic and represents a backward step from structural theories capable of accommodating the facts of orderly heterogeneity. The paper also discusses the problem of constraints on immediately succeeding language states, which is subsumed under the broader theoretical question. The authors propose that the actuation of changes is the most fundamental question in the study of language change. They argue that the solution lies in breaking down the identification of structuredness with homogeneity. The authors suggest that native-like command of heterogeneous structures is not a matter of multidialectalism or "mere" performance, but is part of unilingual linguistic competence. They argue that the absence of structured heterogeneity in a language serving a complex community would be dysfunctional. The paper also discusses the problem of constraints on immediately succeeding language states, which is subsumed under the broader theoretical question. The authors propose that the actuation of changes is the most fundamental question in the study of language change. They argue that the solution lies in breaking down the identification of structuredness with homogeneity. The authors suggest that native-like command of heterogeneous structures is not a matter of multidialectalism or "mere" performance, but is part of unilingual linguistic competence. They argue that the absence of structured heterogeneity in a language serving a complex community would be dysfunctional.The paper by Weinreich, Labov, and Herzog presents an empirical foundation for a theory of language change. It argues that structural theories of language, while useful in synchronic studies, have created paradoxes in historical linguistics. The authors trace the origins of the structure-history antinomy to Neogrammarian theory, particularly the work of Hermann Paul, who isolated the individual's language as the legitimate object of study. They examine the paradoxes that arose in the Saussurean period, where homogeneity of language was assumed to be found in the idiolect. The authors also discuss the opportunities for explaining language change that emerged after World War II, and the limitations of viewing language states as determinants of their own further development. The paper argues that a theory of language change must account for the fact that language is not homogeneous but rather possesses orderly heterogeneity. It suggests that a model of language that accommodates variable usage and its social and stylistic determinants leads to more adequate descriptions of linguistic competence and naturally yields a theory of language change that bypasses the paradoxes of historical linguistics. The authors propose that language change is not a matter of simple prediction but rather involves complex interactions between individual and social factors. They argue that the generative model for the description of language as a homogeneous object is itself unrealistic and represents a backward step from structural theories capable of accommodating the facts of orderly heterogeneity. The paper also discusses the problem of constraints on immediately succeeding language states, which is subsumed under the broader theoretical question. The authors propose that the actuation of changes is the most fundamental question in the study of language change. They argue that the solution lies in breaking down the identification of structuredness with homogeneity. The authors suggest that native-like command of heterogeneous structures is not a matter of multidialectalism or "mere" performance, but is part of unilingual linguistic competence. They argue that the absence of structured heterogeneity in a language serving a complex community would be dysfunctional. The paper also discusses the problem of constraints on immediately succeeding language states, which is subsumed under the broader theoretical question. The authors propose that the actuation of changes is the most fundamental question in the study of language change. They argue that the solution lies in breaking down the identification of structuredness with homogeneity. The authors suggest that native-like command of heterogeneous structures is not a matter of multidialectalism or "mere" performance, but is part of unilingual linguistic competence. They argue that the absence of structured heterogeneity in a language serving a complex community would be dysfunctional.