"No se dice": The ANLE and U.S. Spanish

There are 22 Academies of the Spanish Language in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Spanish_Language_Academies). The youngest is the Academia Norteamericana de la Lengua Española, or ANLE, founded in 1973 (http://www.anle.us).

In 2010, the ANLE released a book titled Hablando bien se entiende la gente.  The lead co-editor was Gerardo Piña-Rosales, the director of the ANLE. In March 2014, my colleague Dr. Andrew Lynch (University of Miami) and I published a response to this book in Hispania: Lynch_Potowski_2014_Hispania.pdf.  In this article, we criticize this book both for its lack of sociolinguistic principles as well as its potentially negative effects on U.S. Spanish-speakers. 

The publication date of our article happened to coincide with the release of the ANLE's second volume, Hablando bien se entiende la gente 2.  At this time, I wrote two reviews on Amazon expressing my opinion of both of these books:

The two reviews were more or less the same, because the second volume appeared to me to be more of the same that had been published in the first volume. To be fair, however, the negative tone was softened in the second volume.

Several responses to my Amazon review quickly began appearing. Some agreed with my position, while others did not. A particularly vehement review appears below. The name of Gerardo Piña-Rosales (director of the ANLE) appears at the beginning of the review, but the name of professor Eduardo González Viaña appears at the end, suggesting that it was authored by the latter (curiously, it lists his affiliation as Oregon State University, when he was in fact affiliated with Western Oregon University). In any case, this review disappeared from the Amazon website two days after being published. What appears below is a screenshot of this review, plus one other review signed by Alister Ramírez Márquez that also was removed.


In September 2014, Piña-Rosales published in Hispania his response to the Lynch & Potowski article (97.3.pina-rosales.pdf). He accuses us of: lacking a sense of humor, suffering from paranoia, ignorance of U.S. history, being too politically correct, and lacking professional ethics.  He also declares our analysis "burdo y cerril" (crude, clumsy). 

I invite readers to consult these original texts and decide for themselves the merits of our sociolinguistic analysis, as well as the professional ethics exhibited in the Amazon reviews posted above as well as in the response published in Hispania.