Quick Summary
- 1Acclaimed author and academic Pérez-Reverte has publicly criticized the Spanish Royal Academy for adding new words to its dictionary.
- 2He argues that entries like 'groupie,' 'referenciar,' and 'risoterapia' prove the Academy has abandoned its normative function.
- 3The author contends the RAE is allowing itself to be led by uneducated 'YouTubers' and 'influencers' rather than maintaining linguistic standards.
- 4This conflict highlights a broader cultural debate about language evolution versus linguistic preservation in the digital age.
A Literary Firestorm
The respected Spanish author Pérez-Reverte has ignited a fierce debate about the future of the Spanish language. In a sharp critique aimed at the country's most prestigious linguistic institution, he has challenged the very foundation of its recent decisions.
The controversy centers on the Royal Academy's latest additions to the official Spanish dictionary. These new entries, which include modern terms from popular culture and digital life, have become the flashpoint in a battle over linguistic authority and tradition.
The Words in Question
The academic has specifically pointed to several new dictionary entries as evidence of what he perceives as a troubling shift in policy. Among the terms that have drawn his ire are groupie, referenciar, and risoterapia. These words represent the Academy's effort to document contemporary usage, but Pérez-Reverte sees this differently.
For the author, these additions are not merely updates but a fundamental abandonment of the Academy's traditional role. He argues that by incorporating such terms, the institution has:
- Renounced its normative function in Spanish-speaking culture
- Capitulated to fleeting digital trends
- Lowered its standards for dictionary inclusion
The inclusion of groupie (an English loanword), referenciar (a verb derived from the English 'reference'), and risoterapia (laughter therapy) represents, in his view, a surrender to linguistic informality.
"the Academy has renounced its normative function and allows itself to be led by 'youtubers' and 'influencers' who are illiterate"— Pérez-Reverte, Author and Academic
The Influencer Accusation
Pérez-Reverte's criticism extends beyond the words themselves to the perceived source of this linguistic shift. He contends that the Academy is no longer acting as a guardian of the language but as a follower of popular culture.
the Academy has renounced its normative function and allows itself to be led by 'youtubers' and 'influencers' who are illiterate
This accusation strikes at the heart of the controversy. The author suggests that the institution responsible for preserving the integrity of Spanish is instead taking cues from social media personalities who, in his assessment, lack proper linguistic education. This represents a profound shift from the Academy's historical role as the ultimate arbiter of Spanish language standards.
Tradition vs. Evolution
The conflict between Pérez-Reverte and the Royal Academy reflects a timeless tension in linguistics: should dictionaries document language as it is used, or should they preserve a standard form of the language? The Academy has traditionally walked a careful line between these roles, but recent digital-age additions have pushed this balance into public debate.
Modern lexicography generally favors descriptive approaches—documenting how people actually use language—over prescriptive ones—dictating how they should use it. However, Pérez-Reverte's critique suggests that some linguistic authorities believe the Academy has gone too far in embracing digital vernacular and internet culture, potentially at the expense of linguistic richness and historical continuity.
Cultural Implications
This controversy transcends mere word selection; it questions who holds authority over language in the 21st century. As social media accelerates linguistic change, traditional gatekeepers like the Academy face unprecedented pressure to adapt or risk irrelevance.
Pérez-Reverte's stance represents a defense of institutional linguistic authority against what he sees as the democratization of language standards through digital platforms. The debate raises fundamental questions: Should language evolve naturally through popular usage, or should it be carefully curated by established institutions? And in an era where YouTubers and influencers reach millions daily, who truly shapes how people speak and write?
Looking Ahead
The public disagreement between a celebrated author and the Royal Academy signals a broader cultural reckoning about language preservation in the digital age. Pérez-Reverte's criticism has given voice to concerns that linguistic standards are eroding under pressure from online culture.
Whether the Academy will respond to this critique or continue its current approach remains to be seen. What is certain is that the debate over which words belong in the dictionary—and who decides—has become more visible and contentious than ever, reflecting larger tensions between tradition and innovation in Spanish-speaking societies.
Frequently Asked Questions
Pérez-Reverte specifically criticized the inclusion of terms like 'groupie,' 'referenciar,' and 'risoterapia' in the Royal Academy's dictionary. He views these additions as evidence that the Academy has abandoned its normative role in favor of following digital trends.
He argues that by adding such terms, the Academy has renounced its traditional function as a linguistic authority and is instead allowing itself to be led by uneducated influencers and YouTubers. This represents, in his view, a surrender of institutional standards to popular culture.
The conflict highlights the fundamental tension between documenting language as it is actually used versus preserving traditional linguistic standards. It also raises questions about who should have authority over language in an era where social media personalities reach millions of people daily.
This controversy represents larger cultural anxieties about how digital platforms are reshaping traditional institutions. It reflects ongoing tensions between tradition and innovation, and questions whether language should evolve naturally or be carefully curated by established authorities.
