About the Journal

The "Bulletin of Yerevan University. Philology"  publishes scientific articles and studies related to the problems of armenian studies, philology, linguistics and journalism. The journal accepts original articles and comprehensive studies not previously published. Specialists from YSU and other institutions of RA, as well as Diaspora and abroad, are published in “Banber”.

Current Issue

Vol. 17 No. 2(50) (2026)
View Vol. 17 No. 2(50) (2026)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46991/
Published: 2026-06-10

Full Issue

Literary Criticism

  • Literary Criticism

    On Some Fundamental Differences between Western Armenian and Eastern Armenian Metrics

    Ashkhen Jrbashyan
    View PDF
    Abstract

    The article examines a number of fundamental differences between Eastern Armenian and Western Armenian poetry, which became particularly evident in the mid-19th century. This was the period when the first steps were taken toward the artistic development of the spoken (New Armenian) language, and the phonetic, accentual, and pronunciation differences between the two branches of language were also clearly reflected in the forms of poetic speech. Syllabic verse, which was formed in the 10th-12th centuries, developed a number of principles that passed into the poetry of subsequent eras and were substantiated in the theoretical works of the Mkhitarists (Bagratuni, Hyurmuzian, Tiroyan, Khazikyan, and others). The main question that arose during that period was the meaning of stable stresses (constants) in the poetic line and their rhythm-forming function. The Mkhitarists considered it essential to emphasize articulation with stress, while Eastern Armenian poetry of the late 19th century had already abandoned this principle and attached greater importance to the equality of syllables and the syntactic independence of parts. These differences in the rhythmic structure of the two languages ​​did not go unnoticed and even have provided a pretext for unwarranted criticism by Western Armenians. One such example is A. Khazikyan's review (Bazmavep, 1899, No. 4), written on the occasion of a new collection of poems by Al. Tsaturyan. A comprehensive study of the two branches of Armenian poetry reveals that Western Armenian syllabic verse is, in a sense, an intermediate form, combining stress and syllabic principles. This is precisely why Western Armenian poetry is predominantly built on tetra- and trisyllabic parts, since the requirement for stable stress forces poets to use shorter parts, while Eastern Armenian poetry is more inclined to use pentasyllables.

     

    References

    Աբեղյան Մ. (1970)։ Երկեր, հ. Դ, Երևան, ՀՍՍՀ ԳԱ հրատ. (Abeġyan M. (1970): Erker, h. D, Erevan, HSSH GA hrat.):

    Ալիշան Ղ. (1858)։ Նուագք, Գ, Վենետիկ, Սբ. Ղազար (Alishan Ġ. (1858)։ Nuagq, G, Venetik, Sb. Gazar):

    Անթիմոսեան Ա. (1821)։ Քերականութիւն գաղղիական, Վենետիկ, Սբ . Ղազար (Antimosean A. (1821)։ Qerakanut‘yun gaggiakan, Venetik, Sb. Gazar):

    Ավետիսյան Յու. (2002)։ Արևմտահայ բանաստեղծության լեզուն, Երևան, ԵՊՀ հրատ. (Avetisyan Yu. (2002)։ Arevmtahay banastexgtut‘yan lezun, Erevan, EPH hrat.):

    Դուրյան Պ. (1971)։ Երկերի ժողովածու երկու հատորով, հ. 1, Երևան, ՀՍՍՀ ԳԱ հրատ. Duryan P. (1971): Erkeri zoġovacu erku hatorov, h. 1, Erevan, HSSH GA hrat.):

    Թիրեաքեան Յ. (1922)։ Հայկական տաղաչափութիւն, Նյու-Յորք (Tireaqean H. (1922): Hajkakan taġachaput‘yun, New-York):

    Թումանյան Հ. (1988)։ Երկերի լիակատար ժողովածու, հ. 1, Երևան, ՀՍՍՀ ԳԱ հարտ. (Tumanyan H. (1988): Erkeri liakatar zoġovacu, h. 1, Erevan, HSSH GA hrat.):

    Իսահակյան Ավ. (1973)։ Երկերի ժողովածու, հ. 1, Երևան, «Հայաստան» (Isahakyan Av. (1973): Erkeri zoġovacu, h. 1, Erevan, «Hayastan»):

    Իսահակյան Ավ. (1977)։ Երկերի ժողովածու, հ. 2, Երևան, «Հայաստան» (Isahakyan Av. (1977): Erkeri zoġovacu, h. 2, Erevan, «Hayastan»):

    Հիւրմիւզեան Եդ. (1839)։ Առձեռն բանաստեղծութիւն համառօտեալ, Վենետիկ, Սբ. Ղազար (H‘yurm‘yuzean Ed. (1839): Artsern banastegcut‘yun hamaroteal, Venetik, Sb. Gazar):

    Ղազիկեան Ա. (1899)։ Գրախօսական ակնարկներ, «Բազմավէպ», 1899, հ. 4 (Ġհazikyan A. (1899): Grakhosakan aknarkne r, «Bazmavep», 1899, h. 4):

    Մեծարենց Մ. (1981)։ Երկերի լիակատար ժողովածու, Եր., ՀՍՍՀ ԳԱ հրատ. (Mecarenc M. (1981): Erkeri liakatar zoġovacu, Erevan, HSSH GA hrat.):

    Ներսես Շնորհալի (1968)։ Յաղագս երկնի և զարդուց նորա, Հայելուկներ, Ողբ Եդեսիոյ, Երևան, «Հայաստան» (Nerses Shnorhali (1968): Yaġags erkni ev zarduc nora, Hanelukner, Vogb Edesioj, Erevan, «Hayastan»):

    Չոպանյան Ա. (1980)։ Նամականի, Երևան, «Սովետական գրող» (Chopanyan A. (1980): Namakani, Erevan, «Sovetakan groġ»):

    Չոպանյան Ա. (1988)։ Երկեր., Երևան, «Սովետական գրող» (Chopanyan A. (1988): Erker, Erevan, «Sovetakan grog»):

    Պապայան Ռ. (1973)։ Վանկային և շեշտային սկզբունքների հարաբերությունը հայ ոտանավորում, «Բանբեր Երևանի համալսարանի», 1973, թիվ 1 (Papayan R. (1973): Vankayin ev sheshtayin skzbunqneri haraberut‘yuny hay votanavorum, «Banber Erevan hamalsarani», 1973, 1):

    Ջրբաշյան Էդ. (1976)։ Պոետիկայի հարցեր, Երևան, «Հայաստան» (Jrbashyan Ed. (1976): Poetikaji hartser, Erevan, «Hayastan»):

    Սեւակ Ռ. (1997)։ Երկեր, Էջմիածին, Մայր աթոռ (Sevak R. (1997): Erker, Echmiacin, Mayr ator):

    Տերյան Վ. (1985)։ Բանաստեղծություններ. Լիակատար ժողովածու, Երևան, «Սովետական գրող» (Teryan V. (1985): Bananstegcut‘yunner. Liakatar zoġogvacu, Erevan, «Sovetakan groġ»):

    Տիրոյեան Աթ. (1912)։ Բանաստեղծական լեզուն և հայկական չափին գրաւած տեղը, «Բազմավէպ», 1912, թիվ 10-11 (Tiroeyan At. (1912): Banasteġcakan lezun ev hajkakan chapin gravac teġy, «Bazmavep», 1912, 10-12):

    Տիրոյեան Աթ. (1913)։ Արուեստ տաղաչափութեան, Վենետիկ, Սբ. Ղազար (Tiroeyan At. (1913): Aruest taġashaput‘yan, Venetik, Sb. Gհazar):

    Навасардян В. С. (1977)։ К Вопросам метрики восточноармянского стиха, «Բանբեր երևանի համալսարանի», 1977, 3 (Navasardyan V. (1977): K voprosam metriki vostochnoarmqnskogo stikha, «Banber Erevan hamalsarani», 1977, 3):

    Тынянов Ю. (1965)։ Проблемы стихотворного языка. Москва, «Советский писатель» (Tinyanov Yu. (1965): Problemi stikhotvornogo yazika, Moskva, «Sovetskij pisatel»):

    Томашевский Б. В. (1959)։ Стилистика и стихосложение, Ленинград (Tomashevskij B. V. (1959): Stilistika I stikhoslojenie, Leningrad):

    Томашевский Б. В. (2007)։ Избранные работы о стихе. Учебное пособие, СПб., Изд. СПбГУ (Tomashevskij B. V. (2007): Izbrannie raboti o stikhe. Uchebnoe posobie, SPb., Izd. SPbGY):

    Якобсон Р. (1923)։ О чешском стихе преимущественно в сопостовлении с русским, РСФСР, Гос. Изд. (Yakobson R. (1923): O chekhsom stikhe preimushchestvenno v sopostivlenii s pusskim, RSFSR, Gos. Izd.):

    Attridge Derek (1982)։The Rhythms of English Poetry, London-N.-Y., Routledge.

    Pilshchikov, Igor (2024)։ The Concepts of “Verse”, “Meter” and “Rhythm” in Russian Verse Theory // Studia Metrica et Poetica 11.1 (2024): 91–117.P. 100. https://doi.org/10.12697/SMP.2024.11.1.04

  • Literary Criticism

    The Mythopoetic Image of the World in the Poetry of Avetik Isahakyan

    Nvard Vardanyan
    View PDF
    Abstract

    The mythoportic image of the world has a unique manifestation in poetory. Being a secondary elaboration of the world through sign systems, it is mainly anchored on the initial mythological worldview, archaic structures and archetypes (Топоров 1992, 161). Poetic speech is metaphorical, and writers often unwittingly use the universal sign systems of folk thinking, creating new ones on their basis.

    Isahakyan's lyrics have repeatedly been the subject of analysis in the works of Armenian literary critics, the rich ideological and content layers that receive various artistic manifestations in poetic speech have been examined.

    Our starting point in this case is the discovery of the mythical notions at their origins through the examination of certain symbolic representations in Isaakyan's mythopoetic picture of the world: in certain expressions of man and the universe, space and time, sound and silence, their interpretation and reformulation in a unique poetic world of Isaakyan.

    References

    Referenses

    Իսահակյան Ավ. (2003), Երկերի լիակատար ժողովածու 14 հատորով, հ․ 1, Եր․, «Գիտություն» (Isahakyan Av. (2003), Erkeri liakatar joghovatsuʻ 14 hatorov, h. 1, Yer., 2003, Gitutʻyun).

    Իսահակյան Ավ․ (2011), Երկերի լիակատար ժողովածու 14 հատորով, հ․ 2, Եր․, «Գիտություն» (Isahakyan Av. (2011), Erkeri liakatar joghovatsuʻ 14 hatorov, h. 2, Yer., Gitutʻyun).

    Իսահակյան Ավ․ (2008), Երկերի լիակատար ժողովածու 14 հատորով, հ․ 4, Եր․, «Գիտություն» (Isahakyan Av. (2008), Erkeri liakatar joghovatsuʻ 14 hatorov, h. 4, Yer., Gitutʻyun).

    Իսահակյան Ավ․ (2020), Երկերի լիակատար ժողովածու 14 հատորով, հ․ 11, Եր․, «Գիտություն» (Isahakyan Av. (2020), Erkeri liakatar joghovatsuʻ 14 hatorov, h. 11, Yer., Gitutʻyun)

    Իսահակյան Ավ. (1977), Հիշատակարան, կազմող՝ Արամ Ինճիկյան, Եր. (Isahakyan Av. (1977), Hishatakan, Yer.).

    Իսահակյան Ավիկ (2000), Գիտական կենսագրություն, Գիրք առաջին (1895-1900), Եր․, «Գիտություն» (Isahakyan Avik (2000), Avetik Isahakyan. gitakan kensagrutʻyun, Girkʻ arajin (1895–1900), Gitutʻyun hrat., Yerevan).

    Հարությունյան Ս. (2000), Հայ առասպելաբանություն, Բեյրութ (Harutʻyunyan S. (2000), Hay araspetabanutʻyun, Beirut).

    Մնացականյան Ա․ (1956), Հայկական միջնադարյան ժողովրդական երգեր, Եր․, ՀԽՍՀ ԳԱ հրատ․ (Mnatsakanyan A. (1956), Haykakan mijnadaryan joghovrdakan yerger, Yerevan, HKhSR GA hrat.).

    Պետրոսյան Ա․ (2020), Մասիս/Արարատը՝ որպես Օլիմպոս և նրա առասպելները // Լրաբեր հասա-րա¬կական գիտությունների, № 2, էջ 158-178 (Petrosyan A. (2020), Masis/Araraty՝ vorpesʻ Olimpos yev nra araspetnery, Lraber hasarakakan gitutʻyunneri, № 2, ej 158–178).

    Վարդանյան Ն. (2023), Խոսքի պաշտամունքի և բանաստեղծի՝ որպես քուրմ-ծիսարարի առասպելական ընկալումների շուրջ // Բանահյուսություն և գրականություն / Միջազգային գիտաժողովի նյութեր, Գավառ, էջ 160-273 (Vardanyan N. (2023), Khoski pashtamunki yev banasteghtsi՝ vorpesʻ kʻurm-tsisarari araspetakan yntʻalumneri shurj // Banahusutʻyun yev grakanutʻyun. Mijazgayin gitajoghovi nyuter, Gavar, ej 160–273).

    Քալանթարյան Ժ. (2002), Անդրադարձներ, Եր., «Զանգակ-97» (Kalantʻaryan Zh. (2002), Andradardzner, Yer., «Zangak-97»).

    Топоров В.Н. (1992), Модель мира (мифопоэтическая) // Мифы народов мира, Энциклопедия, т. 2, Москва, Советская энциклопедия, сс. 161-164 (Toporov V. N. (1992), Modelʻ mira (mifopoeticheskaya) // Mify narodov mira, Entsiklopediya, t. 2, Moskva, Sovetskaya entsiklopediya, ss. 161–164).

  • Literary Criticism

    The Imagery of Longing and Withdrawal in Short Stories of Armen Daryan

    Նաիրա Բալայան
    View PDF
    Abstract

    The short stories of the Lebanese-Armenian writer and translator Armen Daryan that explore the phenomena of longing and estrangement occupy a distinctive place in his literary legacy. Examining the thematic and structural features of the stories, the article notes that the compositional parts and their interconnections in Daryan’s artistic system are created with a specific intention for character formation. The aim of the study is to identify the methods of depicting images of longing and symbols, as well as the mechanisms of withdrawal. The research addresses the following tasks: (a) to analyze the ethnocultural symbolism of longing; (b) to interpret the anthroponyms and the particularities of their use; (c) to examine the issue of withdrawal in the context of the relationships between elderly characters and their adult children. The methodological basis of the study includes analytical and comparative approaches. The symbolic layer of the stories is examined through ethnocultural and anthropological perspectives; the anthroponymic material is interpreted by means of linguopsychological onomastic analysis; and the formation of the characters’ longing is approached through the socio-psychological model of the “stranger complex.” The scientific novelty of the research lies in its interdisciplinary approach to the concepts of longing and withdrawal in Daryan’s prose, as well as in clarifying their role in shaping the author’s artistic system.

    References

    Akhtar, S. (1999). The Immigrant, the Exile, and the Experience of Nostalgia. Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 1(2), pp. 123–130.

    Balayan, N. (2024). Hishoghut'yun, town, havat. E'duard Poyatchyani «Hoghy'» jhoghovac'un, Grakanagitakan handes, 2 (29), e'j 179-200. DOI: 10.54503/1829-0116-2024.2-179

    Dallaqyan, K. (2000). «Nahanji grakanut'yun» haskacut'yan harci shurj. Lraber hasararakan gitut'yunneri, 2(2), e'j 3-15.

    Daryan, A. (1988). Mer hacy'. Yerevan: Sovetakan grogh.

    Daryan, A. (1964). Xarisxen her'u. Beyrut':Atlas.

    Demirtchyan, R'. (1994). Karoti ev nahanji t'eman sp'yur'qahay grakanut'yan mej. Lraber hasararakan gitout'yunneri, 1(1), e'j 85-90.

    Hrustaleva, N. (2019). Perezhivanie psihicheskoj travmy i pechali v usloviyah emigracii. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. 12(1), ss. 253–260.

    Kirpicheva, O. (2016) Sociokul'turnye antroponimicheskie stereotipy. Izvestiya Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo social'no-pedagogicheskogo universiteta. Filologicheskie nauki, 3, ss.127-130.

    Marut'yan, T'. (2019). Ceghaspanut'yan artacolumy' Simon Simonyani steghc'agorc'ut'yunnerum.Gitakan Arcax, 1(2), e'j 322-334.

    Petrosyan, A. (2019), Armyanskie etnonimy v svete dannyh etnogonicheskogo predaniya. Indoevropeyskoe yazikoznanie i klassicheskaya filologiya, XXIII, ss. 843-855. DOI:10.30842/ielcp230690152362

    Privalova, I. (2005). Interkul'tura i verbal'ny znak (lingvokognitivnye osnovy mezhkul'turnoy kommunikacii). Moskva: Gnozis.

    Rut, M. (2001). Antroponimy: razmyshleniya o semantike. Izvestiya Ural'skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 20, ss. 59-64.

    Sevan, G. (1997). Sp'yur'qahay grakanut'yan patmut'yan urvagc'er (1946-1985). Yerevan: GAA «Gitut'yun» hrat.

    Shahinyan, T. (2013). Hrach Zardaryan, E'jmiac'in։ KT'(Z), e'j 113-123.

    Sokolova, M. G. (2023) Realizaciya tradicionnyh obrazov sravneniya komparativnyh tropov s diminutivnymi dendronimami v russkoj poyezii XIX–XXI vekov. Izvestiya Saratovskogo universiteta. Seriya: Filologija. Zhurnalistika, 23(2), ss. 108–114. DOI: 10.18500/1817-7115-2023-23-2-108-114

    T'e'ole'olean, M. (1977). Dar my' grakanut'yun, ht. B. Boston: H.B.Y'. Miut'ean Aleq Manukean mshakut'. himnadrami hrat.

    Uryadova, A. (2019). Nostal'giya emigracii: emocii, pamyat', istoriya. Vestnik Yaroslavskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta: Seriya Gumanitarnye nauki, 2 (48), ss. 13-17.

    Yericanc, M. (1929). Nshmarner ev tpavorut'yunner. Yar'aj, 996 (E tari), e'j 2.

  • Literary Criticism

    The Concept of Time in the Novel ''Charlotte's Web'' by Elwyn Brooks White

    Natella Hovakimyan
    View PDF
    Abstract

    Nature is a prevalent theme in American literature, commonly associated with children's literature. One of its common features is the personification of animals, which allows for the re-creation of characters, situations and events reminiscent of the unreal world, yet grounded in elements of real life. Authors often infuse these narratives with fundamental philosophical ideas, interpreting them through storytelling. The created text often carries a most important characteristic feature of a fairy tale: wonder. E. B. White’s work is a unique combination of these features because it condenses their essential elements, and the last of the components has multiple, and even opposite forms of expression which makes the novel more interesting and unique, offering wide possibilities for interpretation.

    References

    • Gubar M., Species Trouble: The Abjection of Adolescence in E. B. White’s Stuart Little, The Lion and the Unicorn, Volume 27, Number 1, 2003, The Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 98-119.

    • Ratelle A., Ethics and Edibility in Charlotte’s Web, Johns Hopkins University Press, The Lion and the Unicorn, Volume 38, Number 3, September 2014, pp. 327-341.

    • Rushdy A., "The Miracle of the Web": Community, Desire, and Narrativity in Charlotte's Web, The Lion and the Unicorn, Volume 15, Number 2, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991, pp. 35-60.

    • White E. B., Charlotte’s Web, Harper and Row Publishers, New York, Evanstone, San Francisco, London, 1980.

    • White E. B., Death of a Pig, Essays of E. B. White, Harper Colophon Books, Harper & Row Publishers, New York, Hagerstown, San Fransisco, London, 1979, pp. 17-24.

    • White E. B., Natural History, Letters of E. B. White, New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, Harper Perennial, 2007, p. 89.

    • White E. B., Once More to the Lake, Essays of E. B. White, Harper Colophon Books, Harper & Row Publishers, New York, Hagerstown, San Fransisco, London, 1979, pp. 197-202.

    • White E. B., Stuart Little, New York, Harper & Row, 1973

    • White E. B., The Trumpet of the Swan, New York, Harper Collins Publishers, 2000.

    • Sims M., The Story of Charlotte’s Web: E. B. White’s Eccentric Life in Nature and the Birth of an American Classic, New York, Walker & Company, 2011.

    • Պո Է. Ա., ճոճանակն ու հորը, Անուրջներ և մղձավանջներ, Երևան, «Սովետական գրող» հրատարակչություն, 1983 [Poe E. A., Tchotchanakn u hore, Anurjner yev mghdzavanjner, Yerevan, Sovetakan grogh, 1983]:

    • Costello P., Toward a Phenomenology of Transition: E. B. White’s Charlotte’s Web and a Childs Process of Reading Herself into the Novel, 2016 // https://www.academia.edu/30219178/Toward_a_Phenomenology_of_Transition_E._B._White_s_Charlotte_s_Web_and_a_Child_s_Process_of_Reading_Herself_into_the_Novel (01.08.2024).

    • Schama C., How E.B. White Wove Charlotte’s Web, 2011 // https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/how-eb-white-wove-charlottes-web-180497405/ (05.08.2024).

    • Shih A., The Intellectual Scale of Children’s Fantasy: Telling Ideas in the Works of Lewis Carroll, J.M. Barrie, A.A. Milne, and E.B. White, University of California, Los Angeles, 2017 // https://escholarship.org/content/qt4mr2q296/qt4mr2q296.pdf (01.08.2024).

    • Wake L. O., E. B. White’s Environmental Web, University of Nebraska – Lincoln, 2007 // https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=englishdiss

    • White E. B., Freedom // HCC Learning Web (hccs.edu) (05.03.2020).

    • White E. B., To Ursula Nordstrom, North Brooklin // https://www.themarginalian.org/2013/10/15/e-b-white-on-charlottes-web/ (05.08.2024).

Linguistics

  • Linguistics

    Fabricating Reality and Manufacturing Enmity: Hate Speech and the Construction of War Discourse

    Dr. of Philology, Professor, PhD student
    View PDF
    Abstract

    The escalation from interpersonal clashes to systemic state violence is a reality skillfully constructed through language. In today's digital world, the line between free expression and deliberate verbal aggression or hate speech has become dangerously blurred, allowing political leaders and media outlets to fuel war-mongering discourse through multimodal means. Therefore, this article explores the complex mechanisms of hate speech and its ability to manipulate public opinion and fabricate consent for hostility. Using discourse analysis (including narrative analysis, critical discourse analysis, and multimodal analysis) as the primary methodology, the study identifies manifestations of hate speech that frame opponents as existential threats through systemic bias and manipulation. The findings suggest that linguistic brainwashing provides moral justification for aggression and emphasize that understanding the nature of provocative language is a vital societal defense. In an era where social media dictates the boundaries of truth, decoding military discourse is essential to countering polarization and preserving a shared objective reality.

    References

    ECRI (European Commission against Racism and Intolerance). (2015). ECRI General Policy Recommendation No. 15 on Combating Hate Speech. Council of Europe. https://www.coe.int/en/web/european-commission

    Gee, J. P. (2011). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203847886

    Güvengez, S., Özkan, Ş., Saç, E., Sert, G., Söyler, M., & Tekin, F. (2020). Hate speech and discriminatory discourse in media 2019 report. Istanbul: Hrant Dink Foundation Publications.

    Hanaachi, A. (2023). Spread of Hate Speech and Non-acceptance of the Other – From Social Factors to Political exploitation. International Military Council on Climate and Security (IMCTC). https://www.imctc.org/en/eLibrary/Articles/Pages/article20122023.aspx

    Hodges, A. (2015). War language. The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, 1-10. London: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi077

    Phillips, N. & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse Analysis: Investigating Processes of Social Construction. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412983921

    Shaw, S. E. and Bailey J. (2009). Discourse analysis: what is it and why is it relevant to family practice? Family Practice, 26, 413-419. doi:10.1093/fampra/cmp038

    Sources of Data

    Aliev, I. (2022, July 15). War was inevitable, Minsk group dead. Aliev’s speech on Hetk. https://hetq.am/en/article/145646

    Natiqqizi, U. (2022, October 18). Azerbaijan public TV enlists singing children to insult Macron. Eurasianet. https://eurasianet.org/azerbaijan-public-tv-enlists-singing-children-to-insult-macron

    Putin, V. (2025, June 20). Plenary session of the 28th St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. Speech and Q&A. St. Petersburg, Russia. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/77222

    Zelensky, V. (2022, April 14). An Interview to Clive Myrie on the BBC. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCSt1GDG-JI

    Zelensky, V. (2022, April 14). Blood money being paid for the Russian oil. BBC news article. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61107725

    Zelensky, V. (2022, April 14). Russian Oil is being paid for with blood money. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCSt1GDG-JI

  • Linguistics

    Discourse-Pragmatic Functions of Appositive Relative Clauses as Parenthetical Constructions

    Astghik Chubaryan, Marine Evoyan
    View PDF
    Abstract

    This paper examines the discourse functions of appositive relative clauses (ARCs) based on Chafe's (1976) information-packaging theory, which suggests that the information status of the main clause (MC) and that of the ARC differ significantly, inasmuch as the main clause conveys foreground content while ARCs provide background information, with the former playing a decisive role in the interpretation of the overall utterance. While ARCs have so far been thoroughly studied morphological and syntactic points of view, their semantic representation and pragmatic interpretation have received comparatively less attention. Based on Loock's (2010) classification, three main types of ARCs are identified: continuative appositive relative clauses (CARCs), relevance appositive relative clauses (RARCs), and subjectivity appositive relative clauses (SARCs). While RARCs and SARCs generally provide supporting details and background information, CARCs are unique in that they present events on the same informational level as the main clause, effectively placing both parts of the sentence in the foreground. This blurry demarcation line between main and subordinate clauses shows that ARCs are far more than supplementary details; they considerably contribute to the meaning of the utterance through establishing a number of semantic and chronological relations between clauses. These inter-clause connections including, but not limited to, causality, consequence, contrast, or concession shape the semantic weight of ARCs and reveal variability of their illocutionary force across contexts and interlocutors.

    References

    Arnold D. (2007). Non-Restrictive Relatives are not Orphans. Journal of Linguistics, 43, 2, 272– 309.

    Burton-Roberts N. (1999). Language, linear precedence and parentheticals. The Clause in English, 33–52. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Chafe W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. Subject and Topic, 25–55. New York: Academic Press.

    Cornilescu A. (1981). Non-restrictive Relative Clauses, an Essay in Semantic

    Description. Revue roumaine de linguistique, 26.1, 41–67.

    Cotte P. (1997). Grammaire linguistique. Paris: CNED Didier Erudition.

    Del Gobbo F. (2007). On the syntax and semantics of appositive relative clauses. Parentheticals,173–201. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Del Gobbo F. (2003). Appositives at the Interface. PhD dissertation, University of California, Irvine.

    Demirdache H.K. (1991). Resumptive chains in restrictive relatives, appositives and dislocation structures. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Depraetere I. (1996). Foregrounding in English Relative Clauses. Linguistics, 34, 699–731.

    Emonds J. (1979). Appositive Relatives Have No Properties. Linguistic Inquiry, 10.2, 241–243.

    Fabb N. (1990). The Difference between English Restrictive and Nonrestrictive Relative Clauses. Linguistics, 26, 57–78.

    Fowler H. W., Fowler F. G. (1949). The King’s English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Grice H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. Studies in Syntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts, 41– 58. New York: Academic Press.

    Haegeman L. (1991). Parenthetical Adverbials: the radical orphanage approach. Aspects of Modern linguistics, 232– 254. Tokyo: Kaitakushi.

    Heringa H. (2011). Appositional Constructions. Groningen: LOT: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.

    Hopper P., Thompson S. A. (1980). Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56, 251– 299.

    Huddleston R., Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP.

    Jackendoff R. (1977). X-bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Khalifa J. C. (1999). A Propos des relatives appositives. Syntaxe, sémantique, pragmatique. Anglophonia, 6, 7–29.

    Labov W. (1972). The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Lee-Goldman R.(2012). Supplemental relative clauses: internal and external syntax. Journal of Linguistics 48(3), 573–608.

    Loetscher A. (1973). On the Role of Nonrestrictive Relative Clauses in Discourse. Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society (April 13–15), 356–368.

    Loock R. (2010). Appositive relative clauses in English: discourse functions and competing structures. John Benjamins Publishing.

    McCawley J. D. (1988). The Syntactic Phenomena of English, Volume 2, Chapter 13. Chicago: CUP.

    Potts C. (2005). The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: OUP.

    Safir K. (1986). Relative clauses in a theory of binding and levels. Linguistic Inquiry 17(4), 663–89.

    Sells P. (1984). Syntax and Semantics of Resumptive Pronouns. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Sperber D., Wilson D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Thompson S. A. (1987). Subordination and Narrative Event Structure. Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, 435– 454. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Vries M. de. (2006).The syntax of appositive relativization: on specifying coordination, false free relatives, and promotion. Linguistic Inquiry 37(2), 229–70.

    Vries M. de. (2012). Parenthetical main clauses – or not? On appositives and quasi-relatives. Main Clause Phenomena: New Horizons, 177–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Linguistics

    Neologisms in Khachatur Abovyan’s Travel Writings

    Narineh Dilbaryan, Mane Aghajanyan
    View PDF
    Abstract

    Khachatur Abovyan, bearing the honorary epithet “Great Enlightener,” entered literature not only with works written in Ashkharhabar and the Kanaker dialect, but also in Old Armenian (Grabar). A notable part of his Old Armenian (Grabar) heritage consists of two key works belonging to the genre of travel writing, the first of which describes the history of the ascent to the sacred mountain Masis by the expedition led by Friedrich Parrot, while the second comprises travel notes addressed to his students from Tiflis to Armenia together with Privy Councillor Senator Baron Gan and his wife-from Shulaveri to Lori, Alexandropol, Ani, then to Sardarapat, Armavir, and Ejmiatsin. In these relatively small literary works containing highly important topographical and demographic information, Abovyan employs more than one hundred newly created words by the author, a considerable part of which are neologisms, that is, designations of new concepts—sciences, offices, and realities of state and social life, most of which have become commonly used in modern Eastern Armenian; he introduces into circulation the forgotten native Armenian forms of toponyms renamed by foreign conquerors and provides their etymological explanation. The examined newly created words were formed in accordance with the word-formation and semantic regularities of Grabar. By employing the great potential of word formation in Old Armenian, the writer proves that an important bulwark of preserving linguistic identity is not only the grammatical system but above all the vocabulary, which is capable of reflecting all the changes of the time.

    References

    Աբովյան Խ․, Ուղեգրություններ, Խ.Աբովյանի տուն-թանգարան, Երևան, Մռավ պրինտ, 2025, 263 էջ: [Abovyan Kh․, Ughegrut’yunner, Kh.Abovyani tun-t’angaran, Yerevan, Mrav print, 2025]․

    Աբովյան Խ․, Երկերի լիակատար ժողովածու, 7-րդ հատոր, Հայկական ՍՍՌ հրատարակչություն, Երևան, 1956, 523 էջ: [1956 Abovyan KH․, Yerkeri liakatar zhoghovatsu, 7-rd hator, Haykakan SSR hratarakch’ut’yun, Yerevan, 1956]․

    Աղայան Էդուարդ, Արդի հայերենի բացատրական բառարան, «Հայաստան» հրատ․, հ, 1, 2, Երեւան, 1976, 929 էջ, 1615 էջ։ [Aghayan Eduard, Ardi hayereni bats’atrakan barraran, «Hayastan» hrat․, h, 1, 2, Yerevan, 1976].

    Հայոց լեզվի բարբառային բառարան, Հր․Աճառյանի անվան լեզվի ինստիտուտ, ՀՀ ԳԱԱ, Եր․, 2001, էջ 2770։ [Hayots’ lezvi barbarrayin barraran, Hr․Acharryani anvan lezvi institut, HH GAA, Yer. 2001].

    Հայր Մկրտիչ Աւգերեան եւ Հայր Գրիգոր Ճէլալեան, Առձեռն բառարան հայկազնեան լեզուի, Սուրբ Ղազար, Վենետիկ, 1865, էջ 856։ [Hayr Mkrtich’ Awgerean yev Hayr Grigor Chelalean 1865, Arrdzerrn barraran haykaznean lezui, Surb Ghazar, Venetik].

    Հայր Գաբրիէլ Աւետիքեան, Հայր Խաչատուր Սիւրմէլեան, Հայր Մկրտիչ Աւգերեան, Նոր բառգիրք հայկազեան լեզուի, Երեւան, Երևանի համալսարանի հրատարակչություն, h. 1, 2, 1979, 1981, էջ 1139, 1067։ [Hayr Gabriel Awyetik’ean, Hayr Khach’atur Siwrmelean, Hayr Mkrtich’ Awgerean, Nor barrgirk’ haykazean lezui, Yerevan, Yerevani hamalsarani hratarakch’ut’yun, h. 1, 2, 1979, 1981].

    Հովսեփյան Լ․Ս․, Գրաբարի բառակազմությունը, Եր․, Հայկական ՍՍՌ ԳԱ հրատարակչություն, 1987, 374 էջ։ [Hovsep’yan L․S․, Grabari barakazmut’yuny, Yer․, Haykakan SSR GA hratarakch’ut’yun, 1987].

    Մալխասեանց Ստեփան, Հայերէն բացատրական բառարան, Եր․, Հայկական ՍՍՌ հրատարակչություն, 1944, հ․ 1, 608 էջ։ [Malkhaseants’ Step’an, Hayeren bats’atrakan barraran, Yer․, Haykakan SSR 1944, h․ 1].

    Ջահուկյան Գևորգ, Հայերենի ստուգաբանական բառարան, Եր․, «Ասողիկ», հրատարակչություն, 2010, 819 էջ։ [Jahukyan Gevorg, Hayereni stugabanakan barraran, Yer․, «Asoghik» hratarakch’ut’yun, 2010].

  • Linguistics

    The Phenomenology of Verbal Negation: The Nomination of Non-Being in Language

    Siranush Hovhannisyan
    View PDF
    Abstract

    This paper reinterprets the traditional understanding of verbal negation by approaching it not as a logical denial, but as a nominative function of linguistic units. It is argued that in natural languages verbal negation is not confined to the framework of bivalent logic; rather, it functions as a multi-layered, pragmatic, and meaning-generating mechanism capable of expressing not only absence but also a range of semantic domains.

    The paper proposes that negative units do not eliminate or reject reality, but instead name its absence, thereby rendering “non-being” cognitively accessible and communicable.

    From a phenomenological perspective, it is demonstrated that “non-being” cannot be reduced to mere absence, but constitutes a specific structure of experience given in consciousness. Thus, language does not annihilate reality; rather, it organizes and names all its possible states, including absence.

    References
  • Linguistics

    Expression of Refutation in Scientific Discourse: A Cross-Linguistic Syntactic Study in English, Russian and Armenian

    Ruzanna Karapetyan
    View PDF
    Abstract

    The article examines the syntactic means by which refutation is expressed in scientific discourse, based on the material from English, Russian, and Armenian professional literature. The relevance of the study is that, despite considerable scholarly attention to lexical and pragmatic devices of academic polemics, the syntactic organization of refutation has so far remained insufficiently explored, particularly from a cross-linguistic perspective, especially with regard to Armenian scientific discourse.

    The aim of the study is to identify and comparatively analyze stable syntactic patterns through which refutation and counter-argumentation are structured in scientific texts. This is a theoretical,  analytical research, grounded by a discourse-functional approach to syntax as well as by the principles of argumentation theory. The empirical material consists of fragments from open-access written academic texts drawn from various disciplines and selected for qualitative analysis.

    The findings demonstrate that refutation in scientific discourse is predominantly realized through structurally organized syntactic mechanisms, including concessive and contrastive subordinate constructions, subordinate structures with limiting semantics, syntactic distancing, and forms of negation carrying modal-evaluative meaning. Both universal tendencies common to all three languages and stable language-specific differences are identified, reflecting distinctive national traditions of scientific argumentation.

    The results confirm the view that syntax constitutes one of the key instruments in the realization of scientific refutation and plays an important role in ensuring argumentative rigor and discursive cooperativity in academic texts

    References

    1. Hyland (1998): hedging, epistemic commitment, and politeness/facework

    2. Hyland, Ken. 1998. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 2. Halliday & Martin (1993): scientific discourse technology + grammatical metaphor

    3. Halliday, M.A.K. & J.R. Martin (eds.). 1993. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: Falmer. 3. Swales (1990): discourse community + genre conventions (research writing as social action)

    4. Swales, John M. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 4. Toulmin (1958): Rebuttal as an integral component of claims/ Toulmin, Stephen. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 5. van Eemeren et al. 2014: disagreement as structured critical discussion/

    5. van Eemeren, Frans H., Bart Garssen, Erik Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij, & Jean H.M. Wagemans. 2014. Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Springer. 6. Halliday Systemic Functional Linguistics: grammar as meaning-making/

    6. Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold.

    7. Бондарко, А. В. (ред.). 1991. Функциональная грамматика: Введение. Ленинград: Наука.

    8. Աբեղյան, Մանուկ. 1975. Հայոց լեզվի տեսություն. Երևան: Հայկական ՍՍՀ Գիտությունների ակադեմիայի հրատարակչություն.

  • Linguistics

    Observations on Some Exoticisms of the Semantic Group "Form of Address - Rank - Title" of Borrowed Iranian languages

    Silva Papikyan
    View PDF
    Abstract

    Little attention has been paid to the study of specific borrowings in Armenian linguistics. They are also called foreign words, loanwords, or exoticisms.  Exoticisms are usually used when referring to phenomena (realia) characteristic of a particular people, relating to its history, geography, and customs. They are found mainly in translated literature, the press, or in works dedicated to that nation - historical works, textbooks, etc. These borrowings can be classified according to various characteristics – origin, semantic groups, frequency, time, etc.

    Among the exoticisms that have penetrated the Armenian language, a significant number are words from the semantic group "form of address - rank - title" borrowed from various languages ​​- Russian, Turkish, Iranian, Arabic and European. The article examines for the first time the borrowed words of the semantic group "form of address - rank - title" that passed from Iranian languages into Armenian and have a certain frequency of use.

     

    References

    Aghayan Ed., Ardi hayereni bacʿatrakan bararan,«Hayastan» hrat.,Yer.,1976

    (in Armenian).

    Aghayan Ed., Yndhanur ev haykakan baragitutʿun, Yerevani hamalsarani hrat., Yer., 1984 ( in Armenian).

    Acharyan H., Hayeren armatakan bararan, Yerevani hamalsarani hrat., 3, Yer., 1977( in Armenian).

    Egishe,Vardani ev hayocʿ paterazmi masin, «Hayastan» hrat., Yer,1971( in Armenian).

    Egishei vasn Vardanay ev hayoc ʿ paterazmin, Yer.. HSSR GA hrat., 1957 ( in Armenian).

    Movses Khorenaci, Yerevani hamalsarani hrat., Yer.,1981 ( in Armenian).

    Haykakan sovetakan hanragitaran, HSSR pethrat., 2, 1976, 7, 1981( in Armenian).

    Hayoc lezvi barbarayin bararan, «Gituťyun» hrat., 3, Yer., 2004 ( in Armenian).

    Hayrapetyan A., Otar bareri bararan, Heghinakayin hrat., Yer., 2011( in Armenian).

    Malkhaseanc S., Hayeren bacatrakan bararan, HSSR pethrat., Yer., 1944-1945

    (in Armenian).

    Margaryan A., Zhamanakakic hayocʿ lezu, Yerevani hamalsarani hrat., Yer.,1993

    (in Armenian).

    Nizami Gyanjievi, Leyli yv Mejnun, Yer., 1947( in Armenian).

    Papikyan S., Ditarkumner hatkakan pʿokharutʿyun termini masin, Barbaragitutyan ardi khndirner (hanrapetakan gitazhoghov), Yer., 2025, ej 89-95 ( in Armenian)..

    Petrosyan H., Hayerenagitakan bararan, «Hayastan» hrat., Yer., 1987( in Armenian).

    Khlghatyan F., Zhamanakakic hayocʿ lezu, «Zangak-97» hrat.,Yer., 2009 ( in Armenian).

    Khlghatyan F.,Vochabanakan terminneri bararan-teghekatu, Yer.,1976( in Armenian).

    Abaev V.I, O principach etimologicheskogo slovarya. Voprosi yazikoznaniya, 1952, N 5., str.56-69( in Russian).

    Adoncʿ N., Armenia v epokhu Yustiniana: Politicheskoe sostoyanie na osnsove nakhararskogo stroya. Sankt-Peterburg, tipografiya Impertorskoy Akademii nauk, 1908

    ( in Russian).

    Arevak arevelahayereni korpus. http://www.eanc.net/EANC/search/?interface_language=am

Journalism

  • Journalism

    Semiotic Multilayering in the Armenian Digital Environment: Language, Image, and Public Communication

    Astghik Avetisyan
    View PDF
    Abstract

    This article analyzes the semiotic landscape of digital media in Armenia as an independent object of research. Armenian digital media is considered a key environment for identity construction, the digital assimilation of collective societal trauma, and interaction with global media flows in the context of a transitional society.

    The study focuses on communicative and content practices emerging on digital platforms, which synthesize traditional pictorial codes (Armenian script, khachkar motifs, historical figures) with the linguistic and visual forms of digital culture (memes, success stories, short video clips).

    The analysis demonstrates that the semiotic system of Armenian digital media is characterized by politicized multimodality, the combinatory use of historical indices, and the rapid development of locally grounded communicative practices.

    The study is methodologically based on the principles of semiotics and digital humanities research. The data corpus includes qualitative analyses of widely circulated social media content, online media projects, and materials of governmental digital communication.

    References

    Ա¬վե¬տիս¬յան Ա․Շ․, ¬Նոր մե¬դիա և ¬հա¬ղոր¬դակ¬ցութ¬յուն, ԵՊՀ հրատ․, Եր¬ևան, 2024 թ․, https://doi.org/10.46991/YSUPH/9785808426597 Avetisyan, A. Š. 2024. Nor media ev hałordakcutʿyun. EPH hrat., Erevan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46991/YSUPH/9785808426597

    Հարությունյան Ժ․, Թվային հասարակության տեսական հիմքերը և զարգացումը չորրորդ արդյունաբերական հեղափոխության համատեքստում, Գիտական Արցախ, № 4(15), 2022, DOI: 10.52063/25792652-2022.4.15-104 Harutʿyunyan, Ž. 2022. Tʿvayin hasarakutʿyan tesakan himkʿery ev zargačʿumy čʿorrord ardyunaberakan hełašrjapʿoxutʿyan ha-matekstum. Gitakan Arcʿax, No. 4(15). DOI: 10.52063/25792652-2022.4.15-104

    Avetisyan A. Sh. New media and art: processes of interaction, Journal for Armenian Studies, Vol. 1 No. 68 (2025), https://doi.org/10.24234/journalforarmenianstudies.v1i68.159

    Avetisyan, A. Sh., The Impact of New Media In The Context Of The Transformation Of The Network Economy, Journal Economics, Finance and Accounting, https://doi.org/10.59503/29538009-2024.1.13-5

    Peirce C. S., The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings, Indiana University Press,1998.

    Jenkins, H., Ito M., & Boyd D., Participatory Culture in a Networked Era. Polity Press., 2015, jenkins-ito-boyd-ch1.pdf

    Couldry N., Hepp A., The Mediated Construction of Reality, Polity Press, 2017

    Shifman L., Memes in Digital Culture, Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press, 2014.

    Barthes, R. (1977). Image–Music–Text.

    Chandler, D. (2017). Semiotics: The Basics.

    Hall, S. (1997). Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices.

    Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design.

    Jewitt, C. (2014). The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis.

    Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture.

    Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective Publics.

    Castells, M. (2012). Networks of Outrage and Hope.

    Androutsopoulos, J. (2014). Mediatization and Sociolinguistic Change.

    Wodak, R. (2015). The Politics of Fear.

View All Issues