Does existence of a language authority influence opinions about descriptivism/prescriptivism?
Does existence of a language authority influence opinions about descriptivism/prescriptivism?
I was thinking of this because in my country there's an institute which determines correct language and therefore many people speak or write their native language incorrectly. Whereas in English there's no central authority which would write the rules.
So when I look at linguistics videos on Youtube and hear descriptivism being the popular opinion, I'm wondering whether it's because that's just how most linguists are or it's the influence of anglophone mindset where nothing is written in stone and they would rather investigate and describe whatever phenomena occurs in the language naturally.
Linguistics is a descriptive science. There's no such thing as "prescriptivist linguistics".
Rather, there are prescriptive grammarians. These are typically not linguists, but rather professional writers or literature scholars who have strong opinions about "correct grammar" in their language, and instruct other people about it.
We have prescriptive grammarians in English too, like Lynne Truss (author of Eats, Shoots, and Leaves) or the famous Strunk & White. However, we typically don't give them government jobs doing their hobby; we just let them do it privately.
I Spanish, the Real academia de la lengua is often used incorrectly by people as a prescriptive reference but what they really do is gather the common usages and incorporate them into the language. It's like a descriptive record of language.
German has a standard dictionary, the Duden, which fulfils the same role and is frequently (mis)used the same way. People don't like ambiguity.