Latin American Exoethonyms: Linguistic and Cognitive Features of Identification within Collective Social Imaginary

This article explores the phenomenon of Latin American exoethonyms, which constitute a distinct group of linguistic units, differing from both official ethnonyms and toponymic designations. The authors argue that exoethonyms — toponymic nicknames — represent a unique category of lexemes that conceptualize national and cultural meanings relevant to the formation of identity as a sense of national or ethnic belonging. It is noted that exoethonyms serve denotative, pragmatic, and identificatory functions within the discursive space. Special attention is given to the connotative meanings of exoethonyms, which, through the lens of the binary opposition “us vs. them,” reinforce certain stereotypes within the collective social imaginary and necessitate caution in usage due to their potentially offensive implications. This study contributes to the fields of Latin American studies, onomastics, and linguistic cultural studies, demonstrating how ethnonymic vocabulary participates in the creation and transmission of collective representations and in constructing a national-linguistic worldview. The work holds practical significance for intercultural communication, linguistic geography, and translation.

1. Akhmetova, M. V. (2015). “Incorrect” naming as an insult (on one aspect of the variation of Catholic names). Steps / Steps, 1 (1): 19—39. (In Russ.).

2. Akhmetova, M. V. (2017). “Marginal” Catholic names: from the occasional to the systematic. Questions of onomastics, 14 (1): 110—131. DOI: 10.15826/vopr_onom.2017.14.1.006. (In Russ.).

3. Alatorre, A. (1992). Historia de la palabra gachupín. E. Luna Traill (coord.), Scripta Philologica in honorem J. M. Lope Blanch, México, Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas UNAM, II: 275—303. (In Span.).

4. Alpatov, V. V. (2007). Conceptual foundations of the formation of English Christian place names. PhD Diss. Tambov. 197 p. (In Russ.).

5. Alpatov, V. V., Chukarkova, O. V., Michugina, S. V. (2024). Cognitive onomastics: some results and prospects. Questions of cognitive linguistics, 3: 42—58. (In Russ.).

6. Balandina, I. D., Yuzdova, L. P., Moskvitina, T. N. (2024). Cognitive aspects of toponymic world modeling (based on the material of toponyms of England). Cognitive studies of language, 2—2 (58): 663—666. (In Russ.).

7. Cela, C. J. (1988). Diccionario geográfico popular de España. Introducción a la Dictalogía Tópica, 1: 51—54. (In Span.).

8. Chávez Fajardo, S. (2019). Acerca del gentilicio: historiografía, remoquetes y estandarización. Literatura y lingüística, 39: 275–300. DOI: 10.29344/0717621x.39.2014. (In Span.).

9. Chesnokova, O. (2011). Toponimia latinoamericana: un enfoque semiótico. Forma y Función, 24 (2): 11—24. (In Span.).

10. Chesnokova, O. S. (2021). Spanish South American and Brazilian Demonyms: Morphosyntactic Structure and Axiological Values. RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 12 (3): 576—596.

11. Chesnokova, O. S., Radovich, M. (2020). Catholic names of the Pacific Alliance countries: morphological and semantic variation. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 24 (4): 1017—1048. DOI: 10.22363/2687-0088-2020-24-4-1017-1048. (In Russ.).

12. Gámez, J. D. (1975). Historia de Nicaragua. Managua: Fondo de promoción cultural del Banco de América. 836 p.

13. García Padrón, D. (2015). Gentilicios y lexicografía. Onomázein, 31: 81—98. (In Span.).

14. Ilyin, D. Y., Sidorova, E. G. (2015). Derivational possibilities of the toponymic system: formation and functioning of Catholic names. Bulletin of the Volgograd State University. Series 2: Linguistics, 3 (27): 7—14. (In Russ.).

15. Kordic Riquelme, R., Chávez Fajardo, S. (2017). Qué se entiende por gentilicio. Aproximaciones onomasiológicas, sintácticas y morfológicas. Prolegómenos. Boletín de Filología, 52 (1): 213—244. (In Span.).

16. Korneva, V. V. (2016). Toponymic research in a new scientific paradigm. Bulletin of Voronezh State University. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural communication, 1: 150—154. (In Russ.).

17. Kovlakas, E. F. (2021). On the issue of studying toponyms in the cognitive aspect. Modern studies of social problems, 13 (4): 326—354. DOI: 10.12731/2077-1770-2021-13-4-326-354. (In Russ.).

18. Lemus, J. E. (2019). El posible origen náhuatl del hipocorístico “guanaco” aplicado a los salvadoreños. ECA Estudios Centroamericanos, 74 (757): 283—304. DOI: 10.51378/eca.v74i757.3143. (In Span.).

19. Martynenko, I. A. (2020). On the expediency of introducing the term “cognitive toponymy”. Tomsk Journal of Linguistic and Anthropological Research, 3 (29): 142—150. DOI: 10.23951/2307-6119-2020-3-142-150. (In Russ.).

20. Martynenko, I. A. (2023). Spanish-language toponymy of the world as a geolinguistic system. Doct. Diss. Moscow. 428 p. (In Russ.).

21. Morera, M. (2015). El gentilicio en español: aspectos teóricos y prácticos. Madrid: Arco/Libros, S.L. 303 p. ISBN 978-84-7635-941-9. (In Span.).

22. Radovich, M. (2016). Linguoculturological analysis of toponyms and catholiconyms of the Bolivian national variant of the Spanish language. Bulletin of the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia. Series: Russian and foreign languages and methods of teaching them, 4: 133—140. (In Russ.).

23. Radovich, M. (2016). Toponyms, Catholic names and toponymic nicknames of Brazil: morphological and cultural aspects. Bulletin of the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia. Series: Theory of language. Semiotics. Semantics, 4: 56—64. (In Russ.).

24. Radovich, M. (2017). Toponymics of Southern Hispanoamerica and Brazil: Catholic names and metaphorics. PhD Diss. Moscow. 208 p. (In Russ.).

25. Shcherbak, A. S. (2007). The conceptual sphere of LANGUAGE as a mental basis for the formation of toponyms. Issues of cognitive linguistics, 3 (12): 40—45. (In Russ.).

26. Shcherbak, A. S. (2008). Cognitive foundations of regional onomastics. Author’s abstract of Doct. Diss. Tambov. 46 p. (In Russ.).

27. Shcherbakova, A. V. (2013). Collective nicknames as a form of evaluative categorization of ethnic groups. Cognitive studies of language, 14: 436—438. (In Russ.).

28. Tent, J. (2018). What’s in a Demonym? A Note on a New and Uplifting Ethnonym. Names. A Journal of Onomastics, 2 (66): 103—105. DOI: 10.1080/00277738.2017.1415543.

29. Urazmetova, A. V. (2014). Metaphor as a way to create secondary nominations (based on toponymic nicknames of the United States). Bulletin of Kostroma State University named after N. A. Nekrasov, 20 (5): 175—178. (In Russ.).

30. Urazmetova, A. V. (2014). Secondary nomination in toponymy (based on the nicknames of the US states). Ufa: Bashkir State University. 184 p. ISBN 978-5-7477-3644-3. (In Russ.).

31. Zhuravleva, N. Y. (2013). The word-formation and lexico-semantic potential of toponymic nominations in the Mexican national version of the Spanish language. Author’s abstract of PhD Diss. Moscow. 20 p. (In Russ.).