The spatial conceptualization of locations in modern standard Russian and its dialects

This paper focuses on a subject yet unexplored in either cognitive sciences, dialectology or Russian linguistics, namely, the spatial conceptualization of locations in modern standard Russian and its dialects. It will specifically discuss the situation of (possible) contact between objects/subjects (trajectors) and locations (landmarks) when the configuration of the latter is explicitly expressed.

The research considers basic spatial locations such as house, street, village, room etc. and the prepositions "v" and "na" in their spatial meaning. These prepositions exist in standard Russian and its dialects and belong to the oldest in the prepositional system. In the standard language they have the following spatial meanings: "v" is used in combination with enclosed subspace; "na" is appropriate for areas with or without strictly drawn boundaries.

Difference between the container- and surface-conceptualization is the most problematic in this issue. Dialects conceptualize the space exactly in the opposite way the standard language does. Where standard Russian uses the container-conceptualization, dialects resort to the surface-conceptualization and vice versa. This phenomenon has a consistent and systematic character.

For example, in the dialect of Archangelsk one can find v Ukrajnu (-e), v zavot (-e), v ostrova (-ax), v ozero (-e), v rynok (-e), v ulicu (-e) while standard Russian sanctions here the preposition "na". In dialects of Archangelsk, Kursk and Jaroslawl such cases as na izbu (-e), na kino, na koridor (-e), na Germaniju (-i), na Sibir' (-i) are normal whereas "v izbu (-e)", "v kino", "v koridor (-e)", "v Germaniju (-i)", "v Sibir' (-i)" are the only possibility in standard Russian. This signifies that the standard language sanctions the
container-conceptualization where dialects prefer the surface-conceptualization.

In the traditional linguistics such variations are explained as a result of non-differentiated usage of these prepositions. Indeed, if one looks back at the historical usage of the prepositions "v" and "na" one finds many examples when they were used at random. The same location could be combined with different prepositions in various texts. Notwithstanding this fact, these prepositions had different combinatorial properties in non-spatial contexts, which points at the existence of distinct functional domains for each of them.

This paper will argue that the opposite spatial conceptualization in the standard language and its dialects has to do with the development of the Russian spatial conceptual system in general when the perception, the mental representation and the conceptualization of locations had undergone different stages of their evolvement: from seeing a location as whole to the gradual profiling of some facets of it and thus to the differentiation between enclosed space and areas. Russian dialects may reflect the previous stages of this
development. Moreover, the influence of conceptual systems of other languages has also to be taken into account (for example, in the Western dialects one can find traces of the conceptual system of Ukrainian, Polish etc.).