OBJECTIVATION OF WAYS OF WORLDLY SPACE STRUCTURING IN THE SELKUP AND RUSSIAN LANGUAGES
DOI: 10.23951/1609-624X-2017-3-47-50
Each ethnos has its own ideas of the world and the system of worldly space structuring that allows orienting in space. The idea of the three-part structure of the world including the Upper, Middle and Lower Worlds is common for many nations as well as the idea of existence of vertical and horizontal projections of the universe. In mythology the Upper World is connected with the highest gods. It is located over people. The Middle World is the place inhabited by people and animals. The Lower World is associated with the world of evil spirits and the dead. It is located under the ground or water. Ethnographic and linguistic material demonstrates coexistence of vertical and horizontal world projections in the Selkup worldview and presence of only the vertical world projection in the Russian one. The Middle World being according to the ancient beliefs the world for people and animals is the most significantly objectivized both in the Selkup and the Russian languages. The analysis of linguistic and ethnographic material allowed revealing essential differences in the Selkup and Russian ways of worldly space structuring. The circular type of space structuring is typical for the Russian ethnos as the representative of the farming culture. There is the house and householding buildings on the fenced territory in the center of the Russian worldly space, the next concentric circle includes the settlement, the second concentric circle consists of the fields and pastures having an important economic value, the third concentric circle includes forest grounds, the fourth is represented by the distant spaces. People feel the most familiar with the next and the second concentric circles and less familiar with the third and fourth concentric circles. The representatives of the Selkup ethnos orient in surrounding space relying on focal points by specification of their arrangement relative to each other. The focal points are a river, a forest and a house.
Keywords: space, Selkup, Russian, mental map, focal point, comparison
References:
1. Polyakova N. V. Obyektivatsiya reki v yazykovoy kartine mira sel’kupskogo etnosa [Objectivization of river in the linguistic world-view of the Selkup ethnos]. Tomskiy zhurnal lingvisticheskih i antropologicheskikh issledovaniy – Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology, 2014, vol. 2 (4), pp. 29–33 (in Russian).
2. Golovnev A. V. Model’ v kul’turologii [A model in cultural studies]. Model’ v kul’turologii Sibiri i Severa. Sb. nauchnykh trudov [A model in cultural studies of Siberia and the North. Proceedings]. Ekaterinburg, Ural branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences Publ., 1992. Pp. 142–169 (in Russian).
3. Biche-ool V. K. Kul’tura nganasan: istoriko-kul’turologicheskiy analiz. Avtoref. dis. kand. kul’turologii [Nganasan culture: historical and culturological analysis. Abstract diss. cand. cult. sci.]. Chelyabinsk, 2009. 25 p. (in Russian).
4. Pushkareva E. T. Kartina mira v fol’klore i traditsionnykh predstavleniyakh nentsev: sistemno-fenomenologicheskiy analiz. Avtoref. dis. dokt. ist. nauk [Worldview in the folklore and traditional understanding of Nenets: system and phenomenological analysis. Abstract diss. doc. hist. sci.]. Moscow, 2003. 47 p. (in Russian).
5. Polyakova N. V. “Osobye mesta” v kartine mira sel’kupskogo etnosa [“Sacred places” in the worldview of the Selkups]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta – TSPU Bulletin, 2012, vol. 10 (125), pp. 85–88 (in Russian).
6. Polyakova N. V. Obyektivatsiya predstavleniy o «Nizhnem mire» v sel’kupskom yazyke v sopostavlenii s russkim [Obyectification of understanding of “Lower world” in the Selkup language in comparison with the Russian language]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta – TSPU Bulletin, 2015, vol. 4 (157), pp. 56–61 (in Russian).
7. Kuznetsova A. I., Helimskiy E. A., Grushkina E. V. Ocherki po sel’kupskomu yazyku. Tazovskiy dialekt [Essays about the Selkup language. Tazovsky dialect]. Moscow, MSU Publ., 1980. Vol. 1. 408 р. (in Russian).
8. Shargorodskiy L. T. Pogrebal’nyy obryad tazovskikh sel’kupov [A funeral ceremony of the Taz Selkups]. Model’ v kul’turologii Sibiri i Severa. Sb. nauchnyh trudov [A model in cultural studies of Siberia and the North. Proceedings]. Ekaterinburg, Ural branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences Publ., 1992. Pp. 110–118 (in Russian).
9. Bykonya V. V. Narechiye [Adverb]. Morfologiya sel’kupskogo yazyka. Yuzhnye dialekty [Morphology of the Selkup language. Southern dialects]. Tomsk, 1995. Part II. Pp. 154–179 (in Russian).
10. Pelih G. I. Sel’kupskaya mifologiya [Selkup mythology]. Tomsk, Izd-vo nauchno-tekhnicheskoy literatury Publ., 1998. 80 р. (in Russian).
( 350.89 kB ) 
( 343.78 kB )
Issue: 3, 2017
Series of issue: Issue 3
Rubric: COMPARATIVE STUDIES
Pages: 47 — 50
Downloads: 1287