It is undoubtedly in the specialized field of borderology that the use of the terms transfronterizo(a) and, to a lesser extent, transfrontera, becomes relevant. The following definitions serve as examples:

Trasfronterizo: “... is the result of the historical sedimentation of practices [...] Looked at from the border, it is proposed that the contiguity of the socioeconomic structures of the United States and Mexico generates cross-border activities consisting of everyday and occasional practices” (Ruiz, 1992, p. 105).

Cross-border relationships:

[...] everyday interpersonal relationships established by those who live near the border [...] Cross-border relations are shaped by the daily interaction of residents on both sides of the border through everyday practices such as the mass crossing of people or the shared use of space [...] the cross-border concept is based on the “process of living and surviving in the region”, creating strategies to make the border a resource. (Odgers Ortiz, 2006, p. 121)

Cross-border area: “territorial strip surrounding the demarcation line, to focus on cross-border social relations involving both sides of the national border and their respective inhabitants” (Linares, 2009, p. 51).

Cross-border scenarios:

The cities and settlements that make up these subsystems perform functions that transcend national borders, facilitate bilateral flows and dynamics and enable the construction of cross-border scenarios, supported by significant components such as integrated infrastructure [...] that promote interactions, mobility and daily exchanges. (Valero Martínez, 2009, pp. 7-15)

Cross-border cooperation: “the strategic alliance of neighboring actors and territories to strengthen regional integration processes” (Rhi-Sausi & Oddone, 2012, p. 240).

Transfronteras: “incorporate the other side, the beyond, change or relocation, as inseparable aspects” (Valenzuela Arce, 2014, p. 9).

Cross-border regions: “... multidimensional and multiscale space/time systems that encompass contiguous territories under different national jurisdictions” (Dilla Alfonso & Breton Winkler, 2018, p. 20).

Cross-border areas: “... relations or relationships ranging from family ties, the exchange of goods and political and integration associations, to shared ideas and worldviews on issues such as territory, which differ from the ideas and practices of the state” (Álvarez Fuentes, 2020, p. 84).

Cross-border agreements: “any regular negotiation process that occurs between cross-border actors and whose agency value lies in the adoption of agreements to manage regular exchange processes that shape these territories and the nature of the borderization processes that take place” (Dilla Alfonso & Contreras Vera, 2021, p. 4).

As noted, the cross-border dimension helps to identify and describe a wide range of phenomena involving actors and their spaces differentiated by a border in diverse historical contexts. To this end, the concepts of cross-border regions (Coletti, 2010; Dilla Alfonso, 2020; Dilla Alfonso & Breton Winkler, 2018), cross-border agreements (Dilla Alfonso & Contreras Vera, 2021), cross-border areas (Álvarez Fuentes, 2020; Linares, 2009), cross-border issues (Odgers Ortiz, 2006; Ruiz, 1992), cross-border scenarios (Valero Martínez, 2009), cross-border processes (Alegría, 1989), cross-border cooperation (Rhi-Sausi & Oddone, 2012), and cross-border transactions (Jessop, 2004) were used. Valenzuela Arce (2014) introduces transfronteras and Tapia Ladino (2017) introduces transfrontericidad.

A review of these proposals provides several conclusions. The most relevant is that there is no agreed or generic definition of cross-border. Each author attempts their own approach, in some cases revisiting previous ones. Generally, definitions are tailored to the specific context of observation. In the references analyzed, it is common to find proposals inspired by critical geography (for example, multiscale territory or everyday life space) or spatial analysis (flows, spatial dynamics, network or systemic analysis), although these scientific tendencies are not always explicitly recognized. In addition, it is common to specify the spatio-temporal scales considered, such as subsystems, everyday interaction, differences with respect to the national level or local and regional approaches.

Another key aspect of these definitions is the interactive nature of borders. Cross-border issues are viewed as the integration of networks of relationships or systems spanning two countries, highlighting their relational nature. This implies connections and links between actors, communities, areas or places on both sides of the border. Such interactions often take the form of institutional or actor networks that promote mobility and exchange between both sides. On the one hand, everyday interactions occur in short cycles and include family and neighborhood relationships and interpersonal encounters. On the other hand, the procedural nature of cross-border activities highlights their dynamic and constantly evolving nature, which is a result of ongoing interactions and negotiations.

An additional point to consider is the lack of an explicit distinction between frontera and transfrontera. In cross-border relations, it is not entirely clear what the function of the border is, nor where one ends and the other begins. The measurement and observation tools that allow the scope of cross-border relations to be established are rarely mentioned. Although Valenzuela Arce (2014) points out their importance, the author does not propose clear solutions to this limitation.

In many cases, the border is not described in detail and is often reduced to the international boundary, while cross-border refers to the relations between entities located on both sides of the boundary. In general, cross-border issues are conceived as a space for encounter, exchange and identity construction that goes “beyond the border”. Nevertheless, curiously, in the analysis of cross-border issues, power relations, differences in interests, conflicts and their descents into violence are often less explicit.

Cross-border issues are often presented as the result of meetings and agreements, reflecting coexistence and consensus. This overlooks the conflict inherent in all social relationships, especially in border contexts. Furthermore, geographical proximity is presented as a factor that facilitates cross-border interactions. Nonetheless, it is worth questioning whether geographical proximity alone guarantees interaction, as Tapia Ladino (2017) suggests. In fact, many border cities plan their land use without integrating the other side of the border (Silva Sandes, 2020), suggesting that physical proximity does not always translate into effective coordination.

In all cases, the prefix trans- or tras- and the suffixes -izo/a/s or -dad are added to the root word frontera. This gives rise to the term transfronterizo/a/s, which functions as an adjective to describe other concepts, such as regions, agreements or transactions. The variant transfrontericidad refers to the cross-border essence inherent in events, phenomena, objects or subjects. Thus, transfronterizo(a) is used as an adjective, while transfrontera and transfrontericidad act as nouns: the former concrete and the latter abstract. In all these variants, the spatial dimension of the phenomena studied is always present. Nevertheless, as Tapia Ladino states, “it is necessary to measure in some way the magnitude of exchanges and how interaction is constituted” or, in other words, “it is necessary not to take the transfrontericidad nature for granted in a border region” (Tapia Ladino, 2017, p. 75).

This raises questions about the spatial and conceptual scope of the term transfronterizo, whether it is sufficient to describe the plurality of relationships that occur on both sides of borders and, finally, how it differs from the term fronterizo. To this end, it is interesting to explore the production of neologisms to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of this term, or rather, its capacity for meaning. This can be done by drawing on the variety of lexical resources offered by the Spanish language, only some of which have been collected by the Royal Spanish Academy.

Prefixes and compositional elements

In the field of border studies, the search for more sophisticated conceptual tools or those that shed light on aspects that are rarely problematized often leads to the creation of neologisms. In many cases, these arise from the incorporation of Anglicisms or their translation, as in the case of the term fronterización, derived from bordering, or from the insistence on differentiating between frontera as border and as frontier. Likewise, the transformation of the word frontera through the addition of prefixes, suffixes and compositional elements gives rise to neologisms that attain the status of concepts, such as transfronterizo.

Prefixes, suffixes and infixes function as pieces of a linguistic puzzle, since they have no complete meaning on their own; this meaning is only achieved when they are properly combined with a root, thus generating a new lexical unit. For their part, compositional elements enable the construction of compound words (Martín García, 2020).

In the case of transfronterizo, frontera is the independent element, that is, the root or lexeme of the word, which constitutes a minimal unit with lexical meaning. In contrast, the prefix trans- and the suffix -izo are dependent elements. In addition, it is possible to add a complementary element, such as multi-, which denotes plurality or multiplicity, allowing the word multitransfrontericidad to be constructed.

Prefixes in Spanish are usually classified into different types according to their function: negation (a-/an-, anti-, contra-, etcetera), temporal (ante-, pos-/post-, and pre-), intensification (archi-, extra-, hiper-, re-, among others), quantity and size (bi-/bis-, mini-, or mono-/mon-), and nominalization, which are linked to specific concepts such as zoo- animal: zoofilia, zoológico (fito-, biblio- , geo-, etcetera). Finally, there are locative prefixes, which indicate spatial, temporal or gradational relations. These are particularly relevant here, as they allow the concept of border─which is eminently spatial─to be expanded or modified by adding a morpheme that indicates a specific relatedness. These are ante-, cis-, entre-/inter-, infra-, pos-/post-, sub-/so-, trans-/tras-, ultra-, and vice-.

Is it possible to combine frontera with these prefixes? The most recognizable case is transfronterizo (see Figure 5). The prefix tras-/trans- means “on the other side of” or “across” (https://dle.rae.es/trans-). It is used with nouns derived from place names, for example, Atlántico, to indicate that something is heading toward the other side or is already there: trasatlántico (transatlantic). When combined with verbs, it describes the crossing of a boundary, as in traspasar (trespass). In contexts of great distance, this prefix could take on a meaning similar to that of ultra-, from Latin, meaning “beyond” or “on the other side of” (https://dle.rae.es/ultra-), as in ultramar (overseas), which would give rise to ultrafronterizo (ultra-cross-border).

Figure 5. Schematic representation of cross-border relations

Source: created by the author

The word transfronterizo implies a trajectory that bypasses and crosses a border, that is, it is the crossing to the other side, or it indicates that it is already there. Transformed into a verb, transfronterizar could express the action of moving something across the border (similar to overflowing), focusing on the final destination of something or someone. It is often used to refer to the interconnections between one side and the other, such as crossing the border to go shopping. In this logic, pos-/post- could be added, meaning “behind” or “after” (https://dle.rae.es/pos-), as in posbélico (post-war). Thus, posfronterizo would be everything that lies behind the border or the moment after crossing it. In an offensive border movement, posfronterizos are places where the occupation begins, such as checkpoints in the advance guard, but still unstable because hostilities have not ceased.

Nevertheless, not all connections involving borders necessarily refer to what happens on or across the other side, to the inevitable crossing. It is essential to recall the concept of frontero, an adjective meaning ‘placed or positioned in front’, with the border being part of a larger entity. Therefore, it is necessary to put cis before trans. The prefix cis- means “from this side or this part” (https://dle.rae.es/cis-), as in cisandino (on this side of the Andes). From this prefix, the word cisfronterizas can be constructed to identify the interactions that occur on this side of the border (see Figure 6). It can be linked to the prefix pre-, which indicates local or temporal anteriority (https://dle.rae.es/pre-), as in prehistoria (prehistory). Prefronteriza, for example, would be the last city on a journey before reaching the border, while, conversely, posfronteriza would be the first city reached after crossing it.

The cisfrontera (cisborder) refers to the boundary that can be reached from the interior, functioning as the maximum range or limit that was not crossed. In a nation-state, it would describe the areas or strips adjacent to the border where specific policies, such as sanitary barriers, are implemented. Bilateral relations are both transfronterizas and cisfronterizas, as the border is observed, acted upon, and crossed (or not) from two centers of power, one on each side.

Figure 6. Schematic representation of cisfronterizas relations

Source: created by the author

Movements to, from, or across the border are usually linked in some way. If the aim is to analyze this interconnection, the following prefixes could be useful: de- (https://dle.rae.es/de-), indicating origin or provenance─so that defronterizo would describe what comes from the border once the boundary is crossed─and ad- (https://dle.rae.es/ad-), which denotes direction, tendency or proximity─where adfronterizo would refer to movements toward the border.

For example, some goods leave a seaport and travel inland to a Mediterranean border town, from where they are distributed to neighboring territories. The route to that city from that and other points can be described as centrípeta (centripetal): movement toward the border, which acts as a concentrator, that is, adfronteriza; and from there as centrífuga (centrifugal): movement from the border, which acts as a distributor, that is, defronteriza. In this way, these border cities serve as commercial hubs, concentrating and distributing goods to and from multiple destinations (see Figure 7).

Figure 7. Schematic representation of adfronterizas and defronterizas relations

Source: created by the author

The prefix con- (or its variants com- and co-) denotes union or aggregation (https://dle.rae.es/con-), as in confluir (to converge). Thus, the word cofrontera refers to the union of previously separate entities, allowing spatial continuity where there was previously discontinuity. For example, two territories in conflict can, through agreements, form a confederal entity, where the border loses its original function of disjunction. This prefix is also present in the term colindancia (adjacency), which implies the proximity between territories, although this does not always guarantee communication or circulation. Here, the prefix dis- (https://dle.rae.es/dis-), which denotes separation or distinction, basic functions of the border, could be employed, so that certain practices may be disfronterizas (leading to disunity) and others cofronterizas (promoting union).

Cooperation activates contiguity by promoting joint actions, such as the creation of associations, binational corporations or integration committees. Thus, joint security work between forces deployed on both sides of the border could be considered cofronterizo, where collaboration transforms proximity into potential for coordination and convergence (see Figure 8). Nonetheless, more than convergence, separation is at the heart of the border. To this end, it can be argued that the border generates dislocations or separations, from which cross-border relations arise, which can blur it to the point of making it disappear.

Figure 8. Schematic representation of continuity, contiguity and confluence relations

Source: created by the author

The prefix entre- means intermediate situation, position, characteristic or degree, as in entreabrir (to open slightly); it also expresses reciprocal action, as in entrecruzar (to intertwine) (https://dle.rae.es/entre-). Likewise, inter- means “between” or “in the middle”, as in intercostal, or “among several”, as in interministerial (interdepartmental) (https://dle.rae.es/inter-). Applied to the border area, the words interfronterizo and entrefronteras emerge, which can refer to an area between two borders (see Figure 9a). This happens in migrations to the global North, where migrants first cross the border of a pre-border country, ante-fronterizo─for example, from Guatemala to Mexico for Central American migrants─and then a second border, that of Mexico and the United States. In this trajectory, the entire Mexican territory becomes entrefronterizo (inter-cross-border).

Figure 9. Schematic representation of a) entrefronterizas (left) and b) intrafronterizas (right) relations

Source: created by the author

By virtue of the prefix intra-, which means “within” or “inside” (https://dle.rae.es/intra-), as in intramuros (within the walls), the word intrafronterizo arises, which refers to what happens within the border. If it is accepted that the border is not reduced to a line, but is understood as an area, relationships are formed within it. The word intrafrontera could refer to the internal divisions of the border, as a space with interstices. In border complexes, for example, public buildings are located alongside others with restricted access, micro-borders within the border. Some borders are even configured as traffic routes (see Figure 9b), especially in the case of binational rivers or in areas called “dry borders”, where the boundary coincides with a street.

Two other prefixes to consider are in- (along with its variants im- and en-), which means “inside” or “within” (https://dle.rae.es/in-), and ex- (along with its variant e-), which indicates origin, exteriority or something that is “outside” or “beyond” in relation to space or time (https://dle.rae.es/ex-). On the other hand, extra- means “outside” (https://dle.rae.es/extra-). In- is associated with terms such as inmigración (immigration), importación (importation), or endógeno (endogenous), which imply movements or conditions related to the interior of a territory. In contrast, ex- is linked to terms such as emigración (emigration), exportación (export) or exógeno (exogenous), that is, everything related to the outside of the territory. The focus here is not on the border itself, but on the inside or outside of the territory and its possible inter-relations (see Figure 10).

Figure 10. Schematic representation of internal and external relations

Source: created by the author

To conclude this section, it is necessary to mention the compositional element circun- (and its variant circum-), which means “around”, as in circumpolar (https://dle.rae.es/circun-). This prefix is related to the term circuir, which means to surround or encircle something or someone. In the border context, circunfronterizos movements can include various types of mobility that describe coming and going from or to the border, and which can surround it (see Figure 11). For example, trashumancia (transhumance) is a type of mobility that circles the border. These actions reflect a constant flow around the border, despite attempts by those who establish it to prevent it.

Figure 11. Schematic representation of circunfronterizas relations

Source: created by the author

Border relations or transfronteridades

The RAE coined the term transfronterizo(a), giving it the meaning “1. adj. Operating across borders. Cross-border trade” (https://dle.rae.es/transfronterizo). Cisfronterizo, confronterizo, intrafronterizo and the other words discussed in the previous section are not present in the dictionary, nor are they used in studies on borders. But the meaning given to transfronterizo far exceeds the mere reference to something that operates across borders.

As presented at the beginning, the range of meanings of the words transfrontera and transfronterizo aims to describe and interpret, centrally, spatial connections generated by the presence of the border. The different locative prefixes and the proposed words describe the relations that arise, are activated and are singularized by the formation of the border, by its presence and the alterations it causes in certain trajectories and by the political, economic and cultural centrality it comes to acquire.

Spatial connections are usually expressed through the language of geometry and spatial analysis, which are encoded between points, lines and polygons or networks and systems that model the actions and inactions that link (in practical or analytical terms) places, routes and regions. This gives rise to concepts that describe different spatial connections, such as adjacency and separation, aggregation or union and disaggregation or disunion, association and dissociation, coincidence and dissent, complementarity and incompatibility or antagonism, connectivity and dysconnectivity, exposure and concealment, inclusion and exclusion, orientation or direction, proximity and distance, symmetry and asymmetry, balance and imbalance, cooperation and conflict and distancing and rapprochement, etcetera.

Based on this vocabulary, transfronterizo is defined as “contiguous territories under different national jurisdictions” (Dilla Alfonso & Breton Winkler, 2018), “geographical contiguity of regions with structural differences” (Ruiz Juárez & Martínez Velasco, 2015, p. 152), “functions that transcend national boundaries, facilitating bilateral flows and dynamics” (Valero Martínez, 2009, pp. 7-15), or “the relation between a border city in one country and a contiguous foreign counterpart” (Alegría, 1989). It is also described as “the contiguity of socioeconomic structures” (Ruiz, 1992), “strategic alliance between contiguous actors and territories” (Rhi-Sausi & Oddone, 2012, p. 240) or “territorial area that includes two or more border zones that face a border boundary” (Coletti, 2010, p. 164).

Based on this repertoire, it could be suggested that the transfrontera does not circumscribe a single type of spatial connection but rather seeks to highlight the diverse connections that emerge because of, with and despite the border. The transfrontera is a theoretical-methodological device for cutting out multidimensional and multiscalar relations, since spatial phenomena are constructed, expressed, and can be studied from different scales and dimensions of social evolution. This introduces another compositional element: multi-, which means “many” (https://dle.rae.es/multi-), as in multinacional (multinational). From this derives the word multitransfronterizo, given that all the relations used as examples in the previous section occur simultaneously, in superposition and contradiction, achieving stability or translating into conflict. Observing one or the other is ultimately an analytical exercise that involves isolating significant units, that is, defining certain scales while omitting others, a characteristic of the scientific approach to social spatiality (Benedetti, 2020).

It would also seem that it is not possible to understand transfronterizo and rebuild transfrontera without first, or at the same time, seeking to understand fronterizo and frontera.

From frontera arises transfrontericidad or transfronterizo, that is, the transfronterizamiento of human experience (Tapia Ladino, 2017), of social practices, of everyday life between two territories, of the evolution of cultures, of political intrigues and of economic formations. If there is transfronterizamiento, then there is also fronterizamiento. The suffix -miento─which takes the forms -amiento and -imiento, as in debilitamiento (weakening) or atrevimiento (boldness) ─in deverbal nouns, such as frontera, gives an idea of action and effect (https://dle.rae.es/-miento). In this lexical construction, fronterizamiento (borderization) is an action that results in the breakdown of identity or the fracturing of spatial sameness; from the here and now emerges the other, otherness, difference. It is these differences that drive most of the spatial connections (which are therefore also social connections) that interest borderology. In this relacionamiento (interaction), transfronterizamiento occurs, the transfrontera is organized, relations are woven on this side of the border, on that side, between here and there, on the border and within it, across the border, from and to the border, above and below it, or around it. So, what is a frontera?

Frontera or transfrontera?

Although the lexical repertoire should be expanded to avoid reducing the diversity of spatial connections associated with the border to a single concept (since, if everything is transfronterizo, ultimately nothing is), it is essential to acknowledge that this is the category that has ultimately become established. So, how can frontera and transfrontera be differentiated? The first certainty is that the morpheme trans- (like cis-, entre-, extra-, etcetera) cannot be understood without a clear idea of the lexeme, which is the independent part of the word that has its own meaning: frontera.

Frontera (border) is part of the constellation of geographical concepts encompassed by borderology, that is, those that enable the spatial dimension of the field of observation to be addressed. To consider the border in its inherently spatial condition, one approach to the concept of space developed by Milton Santos is useful, structured around four key words: form, function, process and structure.

Form is the visible aspect of something. It also refers to the orderly arrangement of objects, a pattern. Taken in isolation, it provides a mere description of phenomena or some of their aspects at a given moment.

Secondly, the function “suggests a task or activity that is expected of a form, person, institution or thing”. Thirdly, the structure implies “the interrelation of all parts of a whole; the mode of organization or construction”. Finally, the process is associated with “a continuous action that develops toward any result, involving concepts of time (continuity and change)” (Santos, 1985, pp. 50-51).

To update this proposal, it is suggested here that the border refers to artifacts and devices (forms), practices and connections (function), multiple scales (structure) and processes.

Borders are artifacts designed to serve a specific purpose, such as walls for defense, signs indicating entry restrictions or bridges that facilitate exchange. In effect, the border is expressed through spatial forms, whether through geophysical units used as material support, marks that indicate its presence or iconography that allows it to be remembered. These artifacts have a specific scope, a sphere of influence in which they manifest themselves both materially and symbolically.

For example, the Berlin Wall not only divided a city and served to inflict violence on those who lived in its vicinity, but also functioned as a global border, dividing the world into two ideological blocs; its reach transcended the local and came to involve the entire planet. Thus, form constitutes the perceptible dimension of the border and its empirical verification, but the border is much more than that.

To answer the question of what a border is, it is useful to consider that the forms mentioned fulfill certain functions. When listing examples of borders, it was inevitable to link form with function: defense, prohibition or promotion. The border has two essential functions: configuration and differentiation. In territorial construction, the artifacts that establish borders facilitate the configuration or cohesion of geographical areas, such as national territories. The second function is separation, differentiation or disjunction from other similar entities. Thus, otherness emerges. Configuration and differentiation usually occur simultaneously.

The border area, which can also be called transfrontera, is an inevitable consequence of frontera. The border system redefines previous relations and promotes new ones, now trans-, cis-, circun-... fronterizas.

Analyzing fronteras and transfronteras as networks of connections invites reflection on the practices (or courses of action) and the subjects that carry them out. Through countless practices, such as partitioning, circulation, selection, fragmentation and differentiation, society constructs space, provokes conflicts, establishes fronteras and configures transfronteras over time. As Santos (1996) points out, space can be thought of as an inseparable, interdependent, and contradictory set of objects and actions. Practices are repeated and standardized actions, customary and regulated, learned and taught and situated in a specific space and time.

They also express the multiple strategies deployed by social actors in their quest for the material and symbolic production and reproduction of space (Lefebvre, 1974). It is worth remembering that scientific knowledge is also a practice that participates in the emergence of borders as a social device.

Different spatial practices are present at borders, although some are specific and allow for their sustainability over time. Raffestin (1986) identifies four: a) translation, as it is the result of an intention of will and power; b) regulation, by delimiting an area where normative autonomy prevails; c) differentiation, by establishing an inside and an outside; and d) relationship, since the territories and the human groups that inhabit them can establish contacts with other neighbors, whether in relations of opposition, exchange or collaboration. These spatial connections shape cross-border spaces whose extent is not fixed, stable or predetermined. This is where the methodological effort to identify and delimit them comes into play: regionalizing the cross-border and establishing the scope of a phenomenon on both sides, as well as its various possible impacts.

Thirdly, borders are part of more complex structures. These social practices do not occur randomly across or at the border. Social structures put pressure on these spatial practices. Structure implies the interrelation of all parts of a whole. A multiplicity of scales involved in the production of fronteras and transfronteras can be recognized, which is constantly being updated.

Rather than thinking of territory and borders as unique, clearly defined entities, it is useful to consider the concept of multiterritoriality (Haesbaert, 2004) and, by extension, multiborderity. It is necessary to reconstruct the network of territorialities and borderities that organize society over time. The scale of nation-state territoriality/borderity coexists and conflicts with others, such as the territoriality/borderity of extractive capital, which finds customs controls to be obstacles to the circulation of consumer goods. The scale of the long process of interstate delimitation coexists with the scales of interpersonal ties and with other extensive scales, such as sociolinguistic ones. These other territorialities define their own borders, have their own scope or delimitation and alter, transform and activate the borderity under study. Recognizing the multiplicity of events that occur, intersect and overlap in a given place is essential to understanding social complexity. Multidimensionality, multiscalarity and, above all, multiterritoriality are crucial categories for understanding the plurality of social relations at the border.

It is a methodological predisposition to approach geographical problems from multiple angles, with varying degrees of generalization, which are linked in diverse, contradictory and even chaotic ways. By reconstructing different overlapping relationship networks, each with its own logic and driven by agencies with diverse and conflicting interests, the understanding of any event is enriched. Thus, scale becomes a basic methodological tool for addressing the differences between fronterizo and transfronterizo.

Finally, borders are not artifacts placed definitively at the margins of a territory: they change and move, along with the practices, connections and scales that subjects construct. For this reason, the term fronterización (borderization) has been proposed, reflecting the intrinsically procedural nature of borders, to which the term transfronterización should be added. The process by which fronteras and transfronteras emerge as part of the spatial system and become established in social action and the social imagination can be referred to as institutionalization (Paasi, 1986). The institutionalization of state borders is based on the location of artifacts on the peripheries of the territory, but also on the production of imaginaries from the center of territorial power (the capitals). Like space, borders are immersed in social processes; they are structures that are continually reconstructed through material and symbolic practices, whether by those who erect them, inhabit them, resist them or transgress them.

Borders are often materialized through durable artifacts that transcend the events that gave rise to them. One example is the walls of colonial cities, designed to defend their inhabitants from external threats. Many of these walls have survived and today divide historic heritage sites─highly valued for tourism─from the peripheral areas where the local population resides, creating a new border. Objects and practices are not linearly located in time and space; processes involve continuities, changes and contradictions in the social structure, and are marked by the constant redefinition of scales.

Finally, it is worth revisiting Sack’s (1986) now classic proposal for defining territory. To do so, it is necessary first to consider the concept of territoriality, understood as a strategy employed by individuals or groups to affect, influence or control people, phenomena and their relationships by delimiting and controlling a geographical area; that area can be referred to as a territory. What the author calls delimitation can be redefined as fronterización. Borderization, which is an essential aspect of territorialization, is a strategy, that is, a plan or course of action guided by interests, wills or desires, aimed at achieving a specific position within a field of relations. Through the placement of certain artifacts (walls, boundaries, signs), the implementation of basic practices for the cohesion and configuration of a spatially differentiated human group, power is exercised to influence or control people, phenomena and relationships in specific geographical areas, called territories (which have their borders and capitals).

By rearranging these ideas, fronteridad (borderity) can be understood as an individual or group strategy derived from the interest and desire to control a geographical area, give it unity, separate or differentiate it from others, and then promote or not promote certain relationships through the arrangement of numerous artifacts. Borders (like territories) do not have a fixed genetic makeup, although it is possible to identify (at least in each particular context) the system of practices that, in an almost axiomatic way, constitute the social conditions of possibility for their emergence. The place where these artifacts and relationships are concentrated can be referred to as a border. With a locus on the border and based on the dyad (or possibly triad) of territories that promote it, various networks of relationships emerge and are redefined, conventionally referred to as transfronterizas, but which could also be classified as cisfronterizas, adfronterizas, defronterizas and circunfronterizas, with multiple and changing scales of execution. Therefore, based on a border, it is restrictive to speak of the transfrontera as a single, defined and stable space; therefore, it is more appropriate to speak of transfronterizaciones.

Conclusions

The analysis presented in this study examines the conceptual and lexical complexity of the term transfronterizo (cross-border), drawing on a review of various approaches. Through a detailed review of lexical resources, prefixes, suffixes and compositional elements, an expansion of the terminological repertoire is proposed to describe the multiple spatial connections and social relationships that emerge around borders and that have been simplified through the use of a single expression, transfrontera.

Borders are social constructs that evolve in tandem with the practices, relations and scales that define them. The concept of fronterización (borderization) captures this procedural nature, highlighting that borders and the spaces that are redefined by their presence are continuously constructed and reconstructed through material and symbolic practices, the localization and relocation of new artifacts, the implementation of multiple practices and the interaction of various scales.

As highlighted in this article, the term transfronterizo has gained relevance in border studies, although its use is not without ambiguity. In its strict terminological definition, it refers to what happens on the other side of the border. Nevertheless, it often seeks to encompass a broader range of spatial connections that emerge because of, with and despite the border, while omitting others. These connections include everyday interactions, mobility, economic exchanges, cooperation and conflicts, among others.

To address the plurality of connections associated with borders, the creation of neologisms is proposed by combining prefixes and suffixes with the root word frontera (border). Terms such as cisfronterizo (connections on this side of the border), adfronterizo (movements toward the border), defronterizo (movements from the border), circunfronterizo (movements surrounding the border), and intrafronterizo (relationships within the border) allow for a more precise description of the various spatial and social developments that are of interest when analyzing the border as a locus.

Borders and cross-border relations are multidimensional and multiscale phenomena. They cannot be understood from a single perspective but require an approach that considers the interaction of multiple scales (local, national, global) and dimensions (economic, political, cultural). Multiterritoriality and multifrontierism are key concepts for understanding the complexity of spatial connections, not only in the context of nation states, but also of other social entities.

It was also emphasized that it is necessary to clearly differentiate between fronterizo (border) and transfronterizo (cross-border), which requires an epistemic effort. The choice of words in border studies is not merely a linguistic exercise but has theoretical and methodological implications. The lack of consensus on the definition of terms such as transfronterizo and the absence of terminological standardization in the field of borderology sometimes hinders scientific communication and the comparison of studies. It is therefore essential to reflect on the use of terms and to move toward agreed and contextualized definitions to achieve greater communicability of the conceptual proposals of borderology.

References

Alegría, T. (1989, July-December). La ciudad y los procesos trasfronterizos entre México y Estados Unidos. Frontera Norte, 1(2), 53-90. https://fronteranorte.colef.mx/index.php/fronteranorte/article/view/1654

Álvarez Fuentes, G. (2020, September-October). Las relaciones transfronterizas indígenas y la (in)utilidad de las fronteras. Nueva Sociedad, (289), 81-94. https://nuso.org/articulo/las-relaciones-transfronterizas-indigenas-y-la-utilidad-de-las-fronteras/

Barité Roqueta, M. G. (2001). La definición de conceptos y su impacto sobre la representación del conocimiento con fines documentales. In A. I. Extremeño Placer (Coord.), La representación y organización del conocimiento: metodologías, modelos y aplicaciones: actas del V Congreso Isko-España (pp. 1-14). Universidad de Alcalá. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=1455806

Barrios Fernández, L. A. & De la Cruz Capote, B. M. (2006). Reflexiones sobre la formación de conceptos. Varona, (43), 30-33.

Beade, I. P. (2011). Concepto, palabra y límite: un análisis de las observaciones kantianas referidas al uso e interpretación de términos filosóficos. Estudios de Filosofía, (44), 76-97. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ef.12636

Benedetti, A. (2020). Fronteras y escalas: definiciones y relaciones. In A. Hernández Hernández (Coord.), Puentes que unen y muros que separan: fronterización, securitización y procesos de cambio en las fronteras de México y Brasil (pp. 45-62). El Colegio de la Frontera Norte / Fundação Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul.

Benedetti, A. (Dir.). (2023). Palabras clave para el estudio de las fronteras (2nd. expanded ed.). Teseo Press. https://www.teseopress.com/palabrasclavefronteras

Criado, E. M. (2008). El concepto de campo como herramienta metodológica. REIS. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, (123), 11-33. https://doi.org/10.5477/cis/reis.123.11

Coletti, R. (2010). Cooperación transfronteriza y trayectorias de desarrollo: aprendizajes de la experiencia europea. Si Somos Americanos, Revista de Estudios Transfronterizos, 10(1), 161-180. https://doi.org/10.61303/07190948.v10i1.32

Cordero, R. (2019). ¿Qué es un concepto? Theodor W. Adorno y la crítica como “método”. Diferencia(s): Revista de Teoría Social Contemporánea, 1(8), 40-50. https://www.revista.diferencias.com.ar/index.php/diferencias/article/view/178

Díaz de Astarloa, B. (2024). Comercio electrónico transfronterizo en América Latina y el Caribe: análisis a partir de las visitas a plataformas en línea de comercio entre empresas y consumidores. Cepal / Focalae. https://www.cepal.org/es/publicaciones/80759-comercio-electronico-transfronterizo-america-latina-caribe-analisis-partir

Dilla Alfonso, H. (2020, September-October). Las fronteras, los muros y sus agujeros. Nueva Sociedad, (289), 37-48. https://nuso.org/articulo/las-fronteras-los-muros-y-sus-agujeros/

Dilla Alfonso, H. & Breton Winkler, I. (2018). Las regiones transfronterizas en América Latina. Polis, Revista Latinoamericana, (51). https://journals.openedition.org/polis/16089

Dilla Alfonso, H. & Contreras Vera, C. (2021). Fronterización y concertaciones transfronterizas en América Latina. Estudios Fronterizos, 22, Article e069. https://doi.org/10.21670/ref.2106069

Haesbaert, R. (2004). O mito da desterritorialização. Do “fim dos territórios” à multiterritorialidade. Bertrand Brasil.

Jessop, B. (2004). La economía política de la escala y la construcción de las regiones transfronterizas. Revista EURE, 30(89), 25-41. https://www.eure.cl/index.php/eure/article/view/1254

Junta de Extremadura. (2025, January 8). La Junta lanza el programa “Haz negocios en Portugal” para empresas interesadas en el mercado transfronterizo. https://www.juntaex.es/w/programa-haz-negocio-en-portugal-pymes-y-autonomos-ayudas-transfronterizas

Lefebvre, H. (1974). La production de l’espace. Anthropos.

Linares, M. D. (2009, July-December). Un puente en la zona transfronteriza: representaciones sociales, identidades y conflicto. El caso Posadas-Encarnación. Estudios Fronterizos, 10(20), 47-77. https://doi.org/10.21670/ref.2009.20.a02

Marinkovich, J. (2008). Palabra y término: ¿Diferenciación o complementación? Revista Signos, 41(67), 119-126. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342008000200002

Martín García, J. (2020). La periferia izquierda de la palabra: prefijos y elementos compositivos. Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica, 68(2), 523-549. https://doi.org/10.24201/nrfh.v68i2.3649

Nweihed, K. G. (1990). Frontera y límite en su marco mundial: Una aproximación a la “fronterología”. Equinoccio.

Odgers Ortiz, O. (2006, January-June). Cambio religioso en la frontera norte: aportes al estudio de la migración y las relaciones transfronterizas como factores de cambio. Frontera Norte, 18(35), 111-134. https://doi.org/10.17428/rfn.v18i35.1039

Ortiz, R. (2004). Taquigrafiando lo social. Siglo XXI.

Paasi, A. (1986). The institutionalization of regions: a theoretical framework for understanding the emergence of regions and the constitution of regional identity. Fennia, 164(1), 105-146. https://fennia.journal.fi/article/view/9052

Porcaro, T. (2017). Perspectivas teóricas en el estudio de las fronteras estatales desde la geografía. In S. Braticevic, C. Tommei & A. Rascovan (Comps.), Bordes, límites, frentes e interfaces. Algunos aportes sobre la cuestión de las fronteras (pp. 83-102). El Colegio de la Frontera Norte. https://www.academia.edu/37618880/Perspectivas_te%C3%B3ricas_en_el_estudio_de_las_fronteras_estatales_desde_la_geograf%C3%ADa_Porcaro_2017

Raffestin, C. (1986). Eléments pour une théorie de la frontière. Diogène, 34(134), 3-21. https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:4348

Real Academia Española. (1732). Diccionario de autoridades (1726-1739) (volume III). https://apps2.rae.es/DA.html

Real Academia Española. (1780). Diccionario de la lengua castellana, reducido a un tomo para su más fácil uso. Joaquín Ibarra. https://www.cervantesvirtual.com/obra-visor/diccionario-de-la-lengua-castellana--4/html/01c69276-82b2-11df-acc7-002185ce6064_426.html

Real Academia Española. (2001). Diccionario de la lengua española. Espasa-Calpes.

Retos y oportunidades en el transporte terrestre transfronterizo. (2024, August 25). Movant Connection-Infobae. https://www.infobae.com/movant/2024/08/25/retos-y-oportunidades-en-el-transporte-terrestre-transfronterizo/

Rhi-Sausi, J. L. & Oddone, N. (2012). Cooperación transfronteriza e integración: oportunidades para el desarrollo del Perú. Tendencias: Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Administrativas, 13(1), 239-264. https://revistas.udenar.edu.co/index.php/rtend/article/view/524

Ruiz Juárez, C. E. & Martínez Velasco, G. (2015, January-June). Comercio informal transfronterizo México-Guatemala desde una perspectiva de frontera permisiva. Estudios Fronterizos, 16(31), 149-174. https://doi.org/10.21670/ref.2015.31.a06

Ruiz, O. (1992, January-June). Visitando la matria: los cruces trasfronterizos de la población estadounidense de origen mexicano. Frontera Norte, 4(7), 103-130. https://fronteranorte.colef.mx/index.php/fronteranorte/article/view/1594

Sack, R. D. (1986). Human territoriality. Its theory and history (Cambridge Studies in Historical Geography). Cambridge University Press.

Santos, M. (1985). Espaço e método. Nobel.

Santos, M. (1996). A natureza do espaço. Hucitec

Silva Sandes, E. (2020). El espacio fronterizo argentino-uruguayo. De la cohesión socioeconómica a la desarticulación regional (1650-1990). Boletín Geográfico, 42(2), 13-32. https://revele.uncoma.edu.ar/index.php/geografia/article/view/3033/59897

Tapia Ladino, M. (2017, September-December). Las fronteras, la movilidad y lo transfronterizo: reflexiones para un debate. Estudios Fronterizos, 18(37), 61-80. https://doi.org/10.21670/ref.2017.37.a04

Valenzuela Arce, J. M. (Coord.). (2014). Transfronteras: fronteras del mundo y procesos culturales. El Colegio de la Frontera Norte. https://colef.repositorioinstitucional.mx/jspui/bitstream/1014/594/1/141212_Transfronteras_INT_LECTURA.pdf

Valero Martínez, M. (2009, January-June). Redes urbanas transfronterizas: dos escenarios venezolanos. Aldea Mundo, 14(27), 7-15. http://erevistas.saber.ula.ve/index.php/aldeamundo/article/view/8688

Alejandro Benedetti
Argentine. Doctorate in geography from the Universidad de Buenos Aires. Senior researcher at the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, working at the Universidad de Buenos Aires. Director of Grupo de Estudios sobre Fronteras y Regiones (Gefre). Research lines: border studies. Recent publication: Benedetti, A. (Dir.). (2023). Palabras clave para el estudio de las fronteras. Teseo Press. https://www.teseopress.com/palabrasclavefronteras