The article discusses the understanding of the textual and non-textual space in the concept of the Petersburg Text of Russian literature (V. N. Toporov), which in our view represents an original Russian (late) structuralist variation of the spatial turn in literary sciences. In comparison with the Western tendencies in spatial literary sciences, that emphasise non-textual space and try to move away from textualism, the concept of Petersburg supertext implies a particular form of non-textual space, open to reflection of its semiotic nature. Created by a literary spatial conceptualisation, this geographical/cultural/perceived space also assumes an awareness of its own transgressive nature, which in structural poetics was one of the key features of the literary textual space. Confronting this ideas with various contemporary Western and Russian spatial approaches in literary science, we then outline the problem of a broader conceptualisation of non-textual space as a cultural phenomenon, that, much like any text, can be thought of in two different modes of semiosis. We argue that that modern spatial literary studies should also try to make space for this different kind of space.Razprava je posvečena vprašanju razumevanja besedilnega in zunajbesedilnega prostora v konceptu peterburškega teksta ruske literature (V. N. Toporov), ki ga razumemo kot izvirno rusko (pozno)strukturalistično različico prostorskega obrata. V primerjavi s poudarjanjem zunajbesedilnega prostora ter odmikom od tekstualizma, ki je značilen za zahodno prostorsko literarno vedo, je zunajbesedilni prostor v konceptu peterburškega nadteksta ohranil zavest o svoji znakovnosti, iz literature pa je geografski/kulturni/opomenjeni prostor prevzel tudi zavedanje o svoji transgresivni naravi, kar je bila v strukturalni poetiki ena od ključnih značilnosti literarnega besedilnega prostora. V soočenju z nekaterimi sodobnimi zahodnimi in ruskimi prostorskimi pristopi v literarni vedi nato osvetljujemo problem širšega osmišljanja zunajbesedilnega prostora kot kulturnega fenomena, ki ga je – podobno kot tekst – mogoče osmišljati v dveh različnih sferah znakovnosti, ter izpostavljamo, da bi morala sodobna literarna veda odpirati tudi prostor za drugačen prostor
