Key Facts
- ✓ Arturo Pérez-Reverte published a critical column in EL MUNDO challenging the Real Academia Española's recent linguistic decisions.
- ✓ Several academics responded publicly to reject the author's claim that the institution is allowing the language to become vulgar.
- ✓ The linguists clarified that their role is to describe language as it is used, not to prohibit or punish speakers for their usage.
- ✓ This public disagreement raises fundamental questions about who has the authority to define and shape the Spanish language.
- ✓ The debate centers on whether the RAE should act as a strict guardian of tradition or as a reflection of its diverse speakers.
A Literary Clash
A public debate has ignited between one of Spain's most celebrated novelists and the guardians of its language. The controversy began when Arturo Pérez-Reverte published a strongly worded opinion piece in the newspaper EL MUNDO, targeting the Real Academia Española (RAE) and its recent decisions.
The acclaimed author did not mince words, arguing that the institution has become too accommodating to outside influences. At the heart of his critique is the fear that the Spanish language is being diluted, allowing what he describes as an increasingly vulgar register to gain legitimacy. His column has since sparked a significant conversation about linguistic authority and the true nature of language evolution.
The Accusation
In his column, Pérez-Reverte laid out a clear and direct accusation against the RAE. He contends that the institution, which has historically been viewed as the ultimate arbiter of the Spanish language, is no longer holding its ground. Instead, he argues, it is actively choosing to pliegue a presiones externas, or yield to external pressures.
This perceived capitulation, in his view, has led to a dangerous erosion of standards. He fears that by accepting these changes, the RAE is permitting a degradation of the language. The core of his argument rests on a traditionalist view of language, where purity and high standards must be defended against the forces of change.
Our labor is not to prohibit nor to scold, that is a very old-fashioned view.
"Our labor is not to prohibit nor to scold, that is a very old-fashioned view."
— Academics, Real Academia Española
The Academic Rebuttal
In response to this public challenge, several academics have stepped forward to offer a different perspective on the RAE's mission. They firmly reject the notion that the institution is a gatekeeper designed to restrict language use. Their defense centers on a modern, more inclusive understanding of their work.
The linguists clarify that their function is fundamentally different from what Pérez-Reverte suggests. They see their role as one of documentation and guidance, not prohibition. This response signals a significant philosophical divide:
- The RAE's purpose is to observe, not command
- Language is a living, democratic entity
- Communication belongs to all its speakers
- Writers do not have exclusive ownership
By framing their work this way, the academics position the RAE as a service to the entire Spanish-speaking community, rather than a council of elite literary figures.
Who Owns Spanish?
The disagreement between the novelist and the linguists reveals a deeper, more fundamental question: Who owns the Spanish language? Pérez-Reverte's argument implies that ownership and stewardship belong to a select group of literary custodians who are responsible for maintaining its integrity and elegance.
Conversely, the academics present a more democratic vision. They assert that the language is not the exclusive property of writers. Instead, it is a collective tool, shaped and defined by the millions of people who use it every day for every conceivable purpose. This perspective sees the RAE's role as reflecting the language as it is actually spoken and written, in all its diverse forms, rather than dictating how it should be.
A Modern Institution
The academics' defense paints a picture of a Real Academia Española that is adapting to its time. By explicitly stating that their labor is not about prohibition, they are drawing a line between the institution's historical image and its contemporary function. The phrase una visión muy antigua (a very old-fashioned view) directly addresses the criticism that they are failing in their duties.
Ultimately, this is a debate about the very nature of language itself. Is it a static artifact to be preserved under glass, or a dynamic, evolving system that belongs to its users? The linguists' response firmly lands on the side of evolution and user ownership. Their stance suggests that for the Spanish language to remain vibrant and relevant, its official institution must be a mirror to its speakers, not a judge of them.
Key Takeaways
The exchange between Arturo Pérez-Reverte and the linguists highlights a pivotal moment for the Spanish language. It is a clash between traditional preservationism and modern descriptive linguistics. The core of the issue is not just about specific words, but about the fundamental purpose of a national language academy.
As this conversation continues, it forces a re-evaluation of the RAE's place in the 21st century. The academics have made their position clear: they are servants of the language and its speakers, not its masters. This debate will likely shape how the institution approaches its work for years to come, balancing its prestigious history with the demands of a changing world.
