Typical existential-spatial syntactic structures and their semantics in the Khanty and Nenets languages

In the following article, we classify the typical existential-spatial syntactic structures in two Khanty dialects (Kazym and Surgut) and two Nenets dialects (Forest and Tundra). We distinguish two classes of elementary simple sentences corresponding to one proposition: static, or existential-locative, denoting an un-changing state of an object in space, and dynamic, denoting transition from one point to another. Each of these classes contains causative variants denoting causa-tion of location (who keeps what and where) and causation of movement, or transition (who moves what and where), which are represented by non-elementary simple sentences. Khanty and Nenets, as well as their dialects, differ by how they represent spatial relations: in Khanty, analytical means (postpositions and preverbs) prevail, whereas in Nenets, synthetic means (case markers) are more common. Existential-spatial relations are expressed by the following means: adverbs, postpositions, case markers, preverbs (the latter are unique for Ugric languages). Kazym dialect of the Khanty language has a reduced case system, in which two cases are contrasted, namely locative-instrumental and dative-directional, express-ing static and dynamic spatial relations. In the Surgut dialect, there are two com-peting directional cases, as well as locative and ablative. In Nenets, there is a case system where each spatial case denotes a certain type of spatial relations: place, di-rection, starting point, and route. Correspondingly, in Kazym dialect, one mostly finds analytical means of expression of spatial relations; postpositions and preverbs are more frequent than in other Khanty and Nenets dialects analyzed in our work. component structure and leads to clearing of an internal form at his expansion, and sometimes serves as attempt of national and etymological decoding of an image. The semantic redundancy, a pleonasm inherent in some turns with components distributors. In some cases the specifying component can provoke semantic shifts of phraseological units or promote representation of other mental installations. The practical value of comparison of dialect and all-Russian constructive options (except conclusions about structural-semantic and figurative and pragmatical properties of phraseological units) consists in a possibility of specification of historical and etymological versions and clearings of a phraseological image.