Far from being a trivial matter or a pilgrim debate between specialists, the question of the use of endonyms and exonyms refers to a fundamental question of life in society: on what aspects do we construct the notions of collective identity and who do we include when we speak of “us”.
Fodechinchos in Galicia, papards in Cantabria, the goths in the Canary Islands, guiris in Spain. The language is rich in nouns to designate the foreigner, often with a comic, critical or derogatory connotation.
In linguistics, we call them exonyms to the terms that a community of speakers uses to name another group that it considers foreign or alien. The opposite of exonym is endonymthat is, the term used by a human group to designate itself, its language or the territory it inhabits. Germany, Germany or Niemcy are respectively exonyms in Spanish, English or Polish of what the Germans call Deutschland, which is its endonym. Ceylon and Sri Lanka, Burma and Myanmar: many of the doublets found in world toponymy are in reality the product of the confrontation between the local denomination and the foreign denomination, that is, between an endonym and an exonym.
Most of the names by which we know cities, countries or localities are exonyms in origin. The word “Apache” meant “enemy”, a name by which the Zuñi called their neighbors and borrowed by the Spanish colonizers. Some of the terms used to describe the foreigner refer precisely to his inability to speak his own language. The term “Berber” is the Arabic adaptation of the Greek word “barbarian”, a name that the Greeks called anyone who did not speak their language. In Basque, there is a word, “erdaldun”, to designate someone who does not speak Basque and which is opposed to “euskaldun”, someone who speaks Basque.
Endonyms, on the other hand, are terms that refer to a place or group and were invented within the community itself. That is, it is the name that members of a group use to refer to themselves. Many endonyms simply mean “the people” or even “the good men,” as opposed to those who are not part of the community. The native alternative that the Apache called themselves is “Diné,” which simply means “the people.” The Berber endonym version is “astonishing,” literally “the free men.”
Something similar happens with languages: endonyms for calling one’s own language (i.e. autoglottonyms) tend to simply mean “the language”: Quechua and Mapuche are autoglottonyms that mean in each of these languages the “language of men.” “Guaraní” is “the speech of the earth.” And in Nahuatl, the word “Náhuatl” itself means “pleasant sound.” This tendency to consider one’s own language the right one and to attribute moral qualities superior to those of others is also echoed in the Spanish term “algarabía,” which was originally used to refer to the Arabic language and which we use today to refer to headless screams. The language that we consider universal by default is always our own, and that of others appears to us as unintelligible chatter.
There is some controversy between those who argue that the exonyms we use to refer to peoples, languages, or countries should be gradually replaced by local endonyms and those who advocate maintaining the use of traditional exonyms. Those who oppose the use of exonyms argue that exonyms are generally of colonial or pejorative origin and do not respect the names people have given themselves. Those who advocate maintaining traditional exonyms respond that local names are often unfamiliar compared to their exonym counterparts (which are generally well-established and rooted) and that the original spelling or pronunciation of endonyms may be foreign and problematic for non-indigenous users. Thus, the exonym “Eskimo” (originally “raw meat eater”) has fallen into disuse in some regions in relation to the endonym “Inuit” (“men”), or the exonym “Lapland” in relation to “Sami”.
The controversy over whether the endonym or exonym should be used to officially designate a place constantly resurfaces in public conversations. We have recently seen how, in some media, the capital of Ukraine has switched from writing “kyiv” to preferring the form “Kiev” to give priority to the Ukrainian endonym over the Russian name. And from time to time the debate over the proper writing and pronunciation of places with double names such as Girona/Girona or Sanxenxo/Sangenjo resurfaces, a debate that is also reflected in the removal of road signs that indicate localities with indigenous names. (Xixón, Llion).
Far from being a trivial matter or a pilgrim debate between specialists, the question of the use of endonyms and exonyms refers to a fundamental question of life in society: on what aspects do we construct the notions of collective identity and who do we include when we speak of “us”.
