Articulo_2_EN_Doxa_29

The RAE believes that a “politically correct” dictionary is inadmissible (Laopinioncoruna.es, 22-XII-13).

Villanueva: “The RAE will never make a politically correct Dictionary (larazon.es, 23-I-15).

Darío Villanueva: “The dictionary will never be politically correct, because neither is language” (vozpopuli.com, 23-IV-17).

The second argument is that the RAE has no power, as argued by the academic Javier Marías in the following column:

Andanadas contra el diccionario (Reprimands against the dictionary) The Spanish Royal Academy receives requests to suppress definitions or terms in its ‘Dictionary’, but lacks the authority to prohibit anything (elpais.com, 11-VI-17).

It is agreed that in the articles in which academics (or other persons of recognized linguistic authority) gave their opinion in a personal capacity, discursive strategies distanced themselves from the rational to influence the emotional, so that the rhetorical resources used were practically the same: the use of the ad hominem argument, dysphemisms, irony (“The DLE would be very complete and very useful if all the fussy demands were taken heed of”), hyperbole and use of apocalyptic language (supported, frequently, in the fallacy of the domino or slippery slope effect):

[…] the truth is that the current inquisitors wish for expunged versions of the Dictionary. Imagine if they were obeyed: some would want it without any obscenities and swearing, others without sacrileges or irreverences, others without male chauvinism and “sexisms”, others of terms such as “lame” or “crippled”. Others of “fat” and “short”, not to mention “dwarf” and “giant”. Others of “blind”, “deaf” and “lame”. Very complete and useful the DLE was going to be if all these fussy demands were heeded (elpais.com, 11-VI-17).

5. Conclusions

Since the early 80s, the Academy has been receiving pressure from various groups which denounce the appearance of certain words or definitions in the academic dictionary that they consider pejorative. Much of the criticism that the academic dictionary has received has to do with definitions considered sexist. Although from time to time the press reported some demand of this kind, in recent years the news in this regard has increased considerably, and, above all, the debate generated around them; This is due to the fact that online versions facilitate dictionary queries, but, above all, the phenomenon of social networks, which makes controversies become viral, a fact that makes them newsworthy.

Traditionally, the demands made to the academic dictionary had come from groups (associations, political parties, etc.) who alerted through the communication media the definitions they felt to be discriminatory, so it has been with the definitions of feminine (‘weak or feeble’) and jueza (‘female judge’) (‘judge’s wife’); However, in 2017, the two denouncements with the greatest impact (the weaker sex, ‘women in general’, and public woman, ‘prostitute’) were private, carried out through the social networks and anonymously, whose demands became viral; In 2018, added to the controversy on the networks, were the campaigns carried out by secondary schools that denounced the definitions of easy and mop that disparagingly referred to women.

The news of these demands (referred facts) sparked a debate in the press (commented facts) in which a clear ideological opposition between the Academy and feminism was shown. Both groups, through argumentation and lexicon, adopted a fundamentally emotional attitude with which they tried to provoke an empathetic response in the reader, through which to achieve an ideological agreement.