The article is devoted to a comparative-typological study of the manifestations of the grammatical meaning of noun numberin Modern Armenian and English. The aim of the study is to identify, through the analysis of linguistic data, the morphological, semantic, and functional features of the expression of grammatical meaning of number in the two languages, as well as their similarities and differences. Descriptive, analytical, contrastive, and typological methods wereapplied in the course of the research. In certain cases, a historical-comparative approach has been used to interpret the origin and development of the means expressing grammatical number. The study investigates the forms of expressing the grammatical meaning of number, the means of plural formation, as well as the characteristics of pluralia tantum, singularia tantum, and collective nouns.
The article examines the problem of evaluating apposition in Armenian syntax as a separate complement of a nominal sentence member. It analyzes the views of M. Abeghyan, G. Jahukyan, S. Abrahamyan, V. Arakelyan, G. Sevak, R. Ishkhanyan, and A. Khachatryan on the grammatical nature of apposition, its syntactic position, its relation to the head word, and its types. The study shows that apposition has not received a uniform interpretation in Armenian linguistic scholarship: not all linguists recognize it as an independent sentence member and as a distinct nominal complement, and there is no consensus regarding the identification of partial apposition and adverbial-specifying apposition. Particular attention is paid to A. Khachatryan’s view that apposition and its head word should be regarded as “appositional coordinate members”; the article argues against this interpretation. It is concluded that apposition should be treated as an independent sentence complement that explicates, specifies, and determines the meaning of its head word.
The article is devoted to a comparative linguocultural analysis of phraseological units formed with the help of the somatic words “head” and “heart” in Armenian and Arabic. The aim of the study is to identify the semantic groups of the mentioned somatic words, their metaphorical extensions, as well as their universal and national-cultural features.
The definitions of the basic concepts of “contact” linguistics (source language, borrower language, phonetic adaptation, semantic change, etc.), as a science studying borrowings in a language, have been developed. However, the question of determining the role and influence of the intermediary language in the process of borrowing remains unclear: whether to consider the source of borrowing as the language in which the prototype exists, or the language that had a significant impact on changing the general description of the phonetic structure and semantic content of the borrowed lexical unit. This paper examines lexical units of Arabic origin that entered the Armenian language through Russian. The purpose of the study is to identify the major changes that have occurred as a result of the borrowing process and assimilation of lexemes of Arabic origin in the Armenian language. The scientific novelty of this study is due to the almost unexplored indirectly borrowed lexemes of Arabic origin in the Armenian language. An attempt is made to comparatively analyze phonetic changes, as well as the semantic field of lexemes in the source language, intermediary language, and the borrower language. The results show that indirectly borrowed lexical units were influenced by the intermediary language.
Human communication is not limited solely to verbal language. The science that studies the gestures, facial expressions, and other non-linguistic means of expression that accompany communication is called kinesics. Gestures serve as components that either replace or complement speech; they are powerful means of expressing a person’s inner world, emotions, intentions, and attitudes. A gesture is a complete linguistic-speech sign that possesses its own meaning, structure, and communicative function. A gesture is a movement of the human body, particularly of the hands and head, used during dialogue to convey a specific meaning or piece of information. In linguistics and communication theory, the gesture is viewed as part of a semiotic (sign) system. It possesses a symbolic nature because it expresses meaning and communication, and it holds specific significance within a given culture. Like other nations, Armenians possess dozens of motion signs (gestures). Like other signs, a gesture consists of a form of expression (a specific body movement) and content (the meaning conveyed through that movement, such as a hand gesture or a head gesture). Gestures are diverse and can be classified according to various criteria: semantic, accompanying, emotional, cultural, and more.
Renowned Armenian linguist and educator Sergey Abrahamyan is one of those devoted individuals who always kept his native land in the center of attention. Born in the historic village of Tumi in the Hadrut region, the distinguished linguist remained deeply connected to Artsakh until the end of his life. This bond was reflected in his active participation in the Artsakh Movement, organization of various aid efforts, and significant support for the development of education and science in the young republic. Throughout his academic career, he also studied the dialect and folklore of Karabakh and played an important role in shaping and advancing Artsakh’s scientific and educational systems. The secondary school in his native village and the Department of Armenian Language and Teaching Methodology at Artsakh State University were both named after Sergey Abrahamyan.
The Grammatical Dialogue (Catechesis) is a well-known genre in the history of Armenian grammar. The manuscripts containing such works that are known to us are dated from the 14th to the 19th centuries. The shorter works of this genre, the so-called minor grammars, have rarely been the subject of study, and a comprehensive examination of them has not always been undertaken. The study of the dialogue titled “Grammar of the 8 Parts of Speech” by G. Jahukyan was limited to the description of a few parts of speech, taking into account selected features, which he examined in comparison with another catechesis.We have tried to describe the nature of this grammar and its underlying sources as thoroughly as possible, with the goal of expanding the understanding of this grammatical genre through a specific example of the dialogue. For the study, we have used manuscript MM 1916 as the basis, which, in addition to being complete, is also the earliest known example and has a clear script. The study has shown that the author of the dialogue, who is anonymous, drew on several sources, the main one being the grammar of Hovhannes Tsortsorets’i, while the works of Hovhannes Yerznkats’i, Yesayi Nchets’i, Vardan Arevelts’i, and Davit Zeytunts’i played a supporting role. Considering the abundance of sources, this grammar can be regarded as a compilation, and since it belongs to the catechesis genre, it is also a remarkable example of that genre. It is noticeable that the author conveyed information from the sources selectively, summarizing and processing it while at the same time presenting his comments in an accessible form. This simple style, as well as certain structural features, indicate that the dialogue served the function of a textbook.
The exoticisms associated with the semantic group "dwelling, settlement" have passed into Armenian from different languages, and there are also mediated borrowings among them. These are Arabic, Turkic, Iranian, Russian borrowings as a result of various relations and interactions. There is also a certain number of exoticisms from Western languages that have passed into Armenian through translated literature. Some of these words have undergone semantic changes. The article presents the frequency of usage of the discussed words according to Eastern Armenian National Corpus (EANC).
