Who decides what constitutes speaking well?

"But is this correct?" is one of the most common questions philologists hear. It's often accompanied by a cautious gesture, as if language were a treacherous terrain where one must move carefully to avoid "committing a barbarism." Behind this uncertainty lies a widespread idea: that there is someone, a kind of invisible authority, who knows exactly what "speaking correctly" means.

However, rules are not absolute truths. They don't arise from nothing, nor are they eternal. Standards are primarily a human convention, the product of agreements, debates, and historical processes. What seems "correct" to us today might have been considered incorrect a hundred years ago, and there are forms that current standards don't foresee but that may eventually be accepted. Language, as we know, changes, and standards adapt—sometimes more quickly, sometimes with resistance.

Languages that can currently be considered standardized have undergone a process of language planning, that is, a set of decisions that have made them functional within modern society. The Norwegian Einar Haugen summarized the process in four stages: first, it is necessary to choose which variety will serve as the basis; then, to establish its rules (orthography, grammar, vocabulary); next, to disseminate them; and finally, to expand them so that the language can be used in all areas. These phases are never neutral or natural: they involve cultural and political choices.

Codifying and 'purifying'

French, for example, quickly established a clear authority. The Académie française, founded in 1635, was created with the aim of codifying and 'purifying' the language, a task that served both cultural and political interests. Parisian French became the prestigious variety, and the rest were labeled as patoisThe norm, in this case, functioned as a tool for social unification and reaffirmation of the center of power.

English, on the other hand, does not have a central academy. There is no institution that establishes what is acceptable and what is not, although the norm still exists. It has been constructed through social prestige: universities, dictionaries, and the media have ended up establishing the reference models, such as the Received Pronunciation British or the General AmericanIn that case, the norm has not been imposed by decree, but by the market, for reasons of cultural and economic weight.

The case of Spanish is also very interesting. Despite having a historical central institution (the Royal Spanish Academy), over time academies have emerged in several Latin American countries, and a collaborative network has been established. This means that the norm is agreed upon among several centers, which reinforces the idea that there are many ways to "speak Spanish well." In this way, the model has become decentralized and better reflects the real diversity of the language.

A similar case is that of Portuguese, which has seen debates between Portugal and Brazil to harmonize its orthography. After decades of reforms, an agreement has been reached that allows for differences to be maintained but facilitates mutual understanding. Ultimately, these examples show that norms are practical agreements, not immutable truths.

Catalan has also been built through a process of balancing unity and diversity. When the Institut d'Estudis Catalans (IEC) approved the Spelling rules in 1913, and Pompeu Fabra published the Catalan grammar (1918) and the General dictionary (1932), the first phases of Haugen's model were completed: selection and codification. The objective was clear: to establish a common basis so that the language would be functional and modern.

Fabra and the IEC, however, did not only do technical work. Setting the standard was also a symbolic and political act: demonstrating that Catalan was capable of serving all cultural, educational, and administrative uses. And for much of the 20th century, the struggle for the language was twofold: defining a standard and, at the same time, guaranteeing spaces for its use. With democracy, the language normalization laws of the 1980s allowed this work to be consolidated, and Catalan gradually completed the steps toward achieving a shared standard throughout the linguistic domain.

Pluricentric model

However, this process has not been without controversy, and it has also shifted from a monocentric model (in which the IEC was the sole regulatory authority) to a pluricentric model (with more than one academy). This, among other issues, has sparked debates about which 'model' should represent us. Nevertheless, the IEC and the Valencian Language Academy (AVL) have ultimately opted for a cooperative solution: sharing a common foundation while remaining sensitive to geographical variation. In fact, the Grammar of the Catalan language The IEC's 2016 guideline is a good example of this sensitivity: it doesn't 'impose' a single way of speaking, but offers options depending on the context and recognizes variation as an asset.

Thus, the best possible answer to "is this correct?" is not 'yes' or 'no', but 'It depends. It depends on where, how, and why. And, in fact, perhaps the best approach is to reconsider the question. Instead of asking ourselves if a word or structure "is correct," we should ask ourselves if it is appropriate: appropriate to the situation, register, and listener. Speaking well is not about repeating what grammar dictates, but about knowing how to choose how to speak according to the time, the place, and who is listening.