Seda K. Gasparyan (Doctor of Sciences in Philology)
Nare A. Shalunts, PhD
Author Archives: Admin
ON THE TRACES OF LEPSIUS’S PRO-ARMENIAN INITIATIVE – 2024-1
The secret reference book by Liparit Nazaryants and Khachatur Malumyan to the German Embassy in Constantinople
Summary
Ashot N. Hayruni
Doctor of Sciences in History
Lusine S. Sahakyan
Ph.D. in History
After the outbreak of the First World War, when the Ottoman State, allied with Germany, entered the war, the German-Armenian Society was very concerned about it, because the Turks, under cover of the war, could carry out new massacres of Armenians. Both for this reason and in order to ensure a friendly attitude towards the Armenians in the German Foreign Ministry, it was necessary for the organization to constantly possess the latest information about the events taking place in the Ottoman State. Johannes Lepsius, the president of the Society, under the pretext that the organization wishes to send its representative to Turkey in order to convince the Western Armenians that they must take the side of Turkey during the war, managed to get the support of the German government in this matter. Towards the end of 1914, Liparit Nazaryants, a board member of the Society, departed for Constantinople using a passport issued by the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with all associated expenses covered by the Ministry.
But Nazaryants’s real mission was something else. He established contact with the Central Committee of the ARF of Sofia, together with the Armenian intellectuals of Constantinople and other figures in the city, he sent information to Lepsius about the new systematic persecutions against Armenians, on the one hand, and, also informed Constantinople’s German Embassy, trying to induce them to intervene and stop the persecutions on the other hand. Nazaryants was also instructed by the German-Armenian Society to go to the Caucasus to inform the Eastern Armenians about the plight of the Western Armenians. The Russian consul in Sofia, considering him a German spy, did not permit him to go to the Caucasus.
On the other hand, the German Embassy in Constantinople, after some time considered Nazaryants a Russian spy, so they took his documents from him, after which, being deprived of freedom of movement, Nazaryants had to stay in Sofia for a long time. Before that, however, he had already communicated a large amount of information to Lepsius and the German-Armenian Society, which was of great importance for the development and success of Society’s further pro-Armenian activities. One of Nazaryants’s valuable reports addressed to the German Embassy in Constantinople is published with this article for the first time. The report is in German and an Armenian translation is provided.
REFERENCES
1․ Aydın M., “Savaşın Bitirdiği Doğu Açılımı Tahsin (Uzer) Bey’in Van Valiliği (1913-1914)”, Deutsch-türkische Begegnungen, Alman Türk Tesadüfleri, Berlin, 2013, s. 538 – 570 (In Turkish).
2․ Aufruf zur Begründung der “Deutsch-Armenischen Gesellschaft”, Der Christliche Orient, 1914, S. 102.
3․ Die Armenische Frage und der Genozid an den Armeniern. Dokumente aus dem politischen Archiv des deutschen Auswärtigen Amts, zusammengestellt und eingeleitet von Prof. Dr. Wardges Mikaelyan, Jerewan 2004, S. 123, 131, 133.
4. Yerusaġhemi hayots’ patriark’aran, Haykakan harts’i yev hayots’ ts’eġaspanut’yan arkhiv, Towp’ 1, T’ġht’apanak M 201, vaveragir Hmr ġ 389-ġ 399։ Žhamanak՝ [1914-1915] (In Armenian).
5. Feigel, Uwe, Das evangelische Deutschland und Armenien, Göttingen 1989, S. 210.
6. T’ēodik, Goggot’a Hay hogevorakanut’ean yev ir Hòtin aġhētali 1915 tariin, Niw Eork’, 1985 (In Armenian).
7. Lepsius, Johannes, Bericht über die Lage des Armenischen Volkes in der Türkei, Potsdam 1916.
8. Lēṙnean, Ṙ., Mets aġhēti nakhòrēin, «Hayrenik’», E tari, Boston, 1927, t’iv 4(52), ēǰ 33-37, 95 (In Armenian).
9. Leṙnean, Ṙ., Mets aġhēti nakhòrēin, «Hayrenik’», E tari, Boston, 1927, t’iv 5(53) (In Armenian).
10. Lēṙnēan, Ṙ., Mets aġhēti nakhòrēin, «Hayrenik’», E tari, Boston, 1927, t’iv 7(55), (In Armenian).
11. Lēṙnēan, Ṙ., Mets aġhēti òrerun, «Hayrenik’», Z tari, Boston, 1927, t’iv 2(62)(In Armenian).
12. Hayastani yev harakits’ šhrǰanneri teġhanunneri baṙaran, Yerevan, 1986 (In Armenian).
13. Haykakan harts’, hanragitaran, Yerevan, «Hakob Meġhapart», 1996 (In Armenian).
14. Hayruni Ašhot, Yohannes Lep’siusi aṙak’elut’yunë, Yerevan, 2002 (In Armenian).
15. Hayruni Ašhot, Im Einsatz für das bedrohte Volk der Armenier. Johannes Lepsius und seine Mission, Paderborn 2020, S.131․
16. Hayruni Ašhot, Johannes Lepsius´ armenische Verbindungen, in: „Johannes Lepsius – Eine deutsche Ausnahme; der Völkermord an den Armeniern, Humanitarismus und Menschenrechte“, Herausgegeben von Rolf Hosfeld, Wallstein Verlag, Göttingen 2013, S. 218-219.
17. Mets yeġheṙni aṙaǰin vaveragroġhë․ Šhawaršh Misak’ean, khmb․ Yervand P’ampowk’ean, Khačhik Papikean hratarakčakan himnadram, t’iv 9, Ant’ilias, 2017(In Armenian).
19. Mitteilungsblatt der Deutsch-Armenischen Gesellschaft, Dezember, 1939, S. 4.
18. Sahakyan, Lusine,Yerusaġhemi Hayots’ patriark’aranum pahvokh «Teġhekatu divani»` Haykakan harts’i yev Hayots’ ts’eġhaspanut’yan arkhivi patmut’yunë yev «Bovandakut’yunë», «Hayagitut’yan harts’er», 1 (25), Yerevan, 2022 (In Armenian).
19. Sahin, Mustafa, Hasan Tahsin Uzer’in Hayati, Idari ve Siyasi Faaliyetleri, Atatürk Arastirma Merkezi, Ankara, 2015, s, 3-10 (In Turkish).
SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO THE FIELD OF GENOCIDE STUDIES – 2024-1
Tessa Hofmann, Der Genozid an den indigenen Christen des Osmanischen Reiches: Armenier, Griechen, Syro-Aramäer/Assyrer/Chaldäer։ eine ausführliche Dokumentation mit drei Modulen von je neun Unterrichtseinheiten
Summary
Gerayer A. Koutcharian (Berlin, Germany)
Doctor of Natural Sciences
In Germany and beyond, the philologist and genocide scholar Tessa Hofmann is considered an expert on the genocide of the Ottoman Christians, which was also the first large-scale genocide of the 20 century. In my review of Tessa Hofmann’s most recent work “The Genocide of the Indigenous Christians of the Ottoman Empire” (2024), I emphasize that the book serves a dual purpose: it serves as a very comprehensive introductory reading on the course and methods of the Ottoman – Young Turk and Kemalist – genocide of over three million indigenous Christians (Armenians, Greek Orthodox Christians, Syro-Aramaeans, Assyrians and Chaldeans) in the Ottoman Empire and in northwest Iran, which was temporarily occupied by the Ottomans in 1914 and 1918. In the second part of her book, she presents three modules, each with nine teaching and learning units for school lessons on genocide.
Until now, there have been no such handouts in Germany, where the largest diaspora of Turks is located (with the exception of the federal states of Brandenburg and Saxony-Anhalt, where they are now out of print). A special feature of the book is also its inclusive approach, which includes all Christian victims and illustrates the interactions between the acts against Greek Orthodox, Armenian and Syro-Aramaic Christians. An extensive bibliography as well as contributions by Roy Knocke (Director of the Lepsius House in Potsdam) on Johannes Lepsius and two associations of members of Turkish descent on coming to terms with the past and the culture of remembrance round off this extremely remarkable book, which will hopefully find its way into German schools.
REFERENCES
Hofman T’., Qristoneay bnik joghovurdneri tseghaspanut’yune’ Osmanean kaysrut’ean mej: Hayer, yoyner, siriats’i-arameats’iner /asoriner/, qaghdeats’iner. Manramasn vaveragrut’yun- baghkatsatc 3 masits ev usutsman 9 miavorits’. Vaylersvist’-Meternikh, “Haze ev K’eohler” hrat., 2024 (in Armenian).
THE MEMOIRS OF A NATION-STATE FIGURE
“Memories of the past” / Z. Yeolian; Compilers: A. Azizyan, A. Simonyan; Yerevan, “Lusakn”, 2023, 612 pages.
Summary
Mher A. Harutyunyan
Ph.D. in History
The articles of Zakar Yolyan, one of the foremost figures of the Armenian National Liberation Struggle and ARF leader of the first quarter of the 20 century, mostly published in the press, formed the bases of a large book of memoirs of this socio-political and state figure, initiated by Aghasi Azizyan and Ashot Simonyan.
The relevance of the memoirs, summarized in a separate collection by Z. Yeolian, is due to the author’s desire to rethink the past, to draw lessons from history and to outline the sequence of correct steps respectively. As an active participant or witness of important political events of the time, Z. Yeolian provided reliable and as impartial as possible testimonies and memoirs. His knowledge came not only from his close ties with ARF leaders in Baku and Zangezur, but also from his frequent contacts with leaders of the Bolsheviks and other socio-political currents. Thanks to this and especially to the fruitful activity in Zangezur, which, in fact, is reflected in the work of Z. Yeolian in his voluminous memoirs, many events and names of heroes were saved from inevitable oblivion and have now become an inexhaustible source of inspiration and imitation for the present and future generations.
Z. Yeolian’s vivid and lively memoirs preserve the former industrial centre of the Caucasus – Baku, in the social, political and cultural life of which the role of the numerous Armenian populations was significant. The author’s unique testimonies are not only about the ARF, but also about other Armenian parties and foreign political movements, organizations and figures, as well as their connections, and represent important material for our historiography.
Remarkable archival materials extracted from the National Archives of Armenia and other sources, as well as valuable information about his personal life and family members significantly enriched the content of the book.
Thus, summing up, it can be stated that the reader is presented with a valuable book, which has scientific, historiographical and primary source value and is intended to contribute to the full study and rethinking of the history of the Armenian nation in the first quarter of the XX century.
REFERENCES
1. Azizean A., Arkhivayin vaveragrer Jemal P’ashayi spanut’ean masin, “Vem”, T’ (ZHE) tari, t’iv 3 (59), 2017 (In Armenian).
2. «Ants’eali yusher»/Z. Yeolean; Kazmoghner, A. Azizean, A. Simonean; Ar’ajabani heghinak, A.Simonean, grakhos, A. Yakobean, Yer., “Lusakn”, 2023 (In Armenian).
3. Arts’akhi yev Zangezuri hay azgabnakut’yan zinvats ink’napashtpanut’yan patmut’yunits’ (1918- 1920 t’t’.). Vaveragrer yev hushagrut’yunner / Kazm., M. A. Harut’yunyan, “Kachar” taregirk’, Girk’ 15(179-190), Shushi, «Kachar» gitakan kentroni hrat., 2021 (In Armenian).
4. Gyulkhandanean A., Yeghap’okhakan demk’er, “Hay’renik’” amsagir, Boston, 1936, N 6 (In Armenian).
5. Zohrabyan Ed., Yolyanner. Vaveragrakan vipak: Khmb., A.M. Aristakesyan, Yer., «Sovetakan grogh», 1988 (In Armenian).
6. HAA, F.47, ts’.2, g.365, t’.267 (In Armenian).
7 .HAA f.105, ts’.1, g.2805, t’.97 (In Armenian).
8. HAA, F.198,ts’.1, g.39,t’.30 (In Armenian).
9. HAA, f. 252, ts’. 2, g. 34 (In Armenian).
10. Hakhverdyan S., Gorisi amp’op’ patmut’yun, Yer, “Zangak-97”, 2005. (In Armenian)
11. Hushamatyan ankakhut’yan. Hayastani hanrapetut’yan 1918-1921 t’t’. petakan gortich’nerĕ, kazmets’ Mayk’l Babayanĕ, Yer., 2019 (In Armenian).
12.”Vani razmakan gortsoghut’yunnerĕ (1915 t’. april-mayis)” t’argm., A. Ashkhatuni, “Alik” orat’ert’ (T’ehran) 2 Yunis 1954 t’., N 120. (https://tert.nla.am/archive/NLA%20TERT/Aliq%20Tehran/1954/1954%28120%29.pdf) (mutk’, 26.12.2023), 3 Yunis 1954 t’., N 121, ej 2 (https://tert.nla.am/archive/NLA%20TERT/Aliq%20Tehran/1954/1954%28121%29.pdf) (mutk’, 26.12.2023), 6 Yunis 1954 t’., N 122, ej 1-2 (https://tert.nla.am/archive/NLA%20TERT/Aliq%20Tehran/1954/1954%28122%29.pdf) (mutk’, 26.12.2023):
13. Vardanyan S., Tohmanunner: Gorisi taratsashrjan: Khmb., V.V. Zadayan, Yer., “Arants’ hrat.”, 2015 (In Armenian).
14. P’ampuk’ean Ye., H Y Dashnakts’ut’ean tcatskanunnerĕ bararan. andznanunner, teghanunner, t’uanshanayin tsatskagrer, Yer., “Lusakn”, 2023 (In Armenian).
15. Staryy i novyy Goris/Staryy i novyy Goris/ Sen Oganisyan; [per. na russkom T. Barsegyan; Per. po-angliyski S. Avetisyan; gl. red. S. Oganesyan; Foto: P. Pogosyan i dr.], Yer., “Naapet”, 2018 (In Russian).
KOREAN TWO EDUCATION SYSTEMS On the path to forming national identity – 2024-1
Summary
Anna J. Tomeyan
Despite sharing a cultural heritage and history, political and ideological differences between the two parts of the same nation on the Korean Peninsula have led to the creation of unique identities.
The article emphasizes the important role of education in creation of a single identity and the reunification of Korea. Because we can consider understanding the characteristics of national identity and the role of education as the key to the reunification of the Korean nation. Education servs as a primary means of transmitting cultural values and shaping national identity. In the Korean context, the education systems reflect the two states’ unique historical experiences, political ideologies, and cultural heritage.
South Korea’s education systems emphasize the development of national identity, equality, and responsibility. The South Korean education system began to develop from 1945 and faced challenges in the early stages but later developed it a modern education system with equal educational opportunities. Despite stress and competition, South Korean education aims to produce democratic, creative and integrated into the global community citizens.
North Korean identity is intertwined to state ideology, particularly the principles of Juche. Like all spheres of life, the education system is also strictly controlled by the state. North Korean education emphasizes self-reliance and loyalty to leaders. Political ideologies, the closed society play a central role in shaping collective identity. At the same time, it preserves cultural identity through strict controlled language and appearance.
The differences in educational goals and principles contribute to the divergence in beliefs and values between the two Koreas. South Korea’s emphasized democracy, innovation, and academic progress are in contrast with North Korea’s controlled education system, which is focused on loyalty to the state. These differences in education systems can have a significant impact on the Korean reunification on process, which will require overcoming political and ideological obstacles and creating a common identity.
REFERENCES
1. 2023nyeon juyoeommu chujingyehoek. Gyoyukgaehyeok, Daehanminguk jaedoyagui sijak; Gyoyukbu, 2023 (In Korean).
2. Chunhyangjeon (Gojeonsoseol), Seoul, Yupeipeo, 2015 (In Korean).
3. Dangun, Uri minjogui sijo, http://contents.history.go.kr/mobile/kc/view.do?levelId=kc_n100800&code=kc_age_10 (In Korean).
4. Jeong Changu oe 12in, Godeunghakgyo, Inmunhakjeong gamseonggua do deokjeong sangsangnyeok, Seoul, (ju)Miraeen, 2019, https://ebook.mirae-n.com/@kb2115/cover (In Korean).
5. Jeong Changu oe 12in, Junghakgyo, Dodeong 2, Seoul, (ju)Miraeen, 2020, https://ebook.mirae-n.com/@kb2062/cover (In Korean).
6. Juchesasanggua bukangyeongje, https://blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogId=gounikorea&logNo=220934245575 (In Korean).
7. Kim G. N., Respublika Korea, Almaty’, Dajk-Prjess, 2010 (In Russian).
8. Pak X. S., Tolstokulakov I. A., Transformatsya sistemě obrazovanya Rjespubliki Korjeja i KNDR v posljevojennyj period, Rossija i ATR, 2005, №4, str. 73-77 (In Russian).
9. Son Yeongchan oe 4in, Goedeunghakgyo, Sahoe Munhwa, Seoul, (ju)Miraeen, 2020, https://ebook.mirae-n.com/@kb2102/cover (In Korean).
10. Tolstokulakov I. A., Ocherk istorii koreyskoy kul’turě, Vladivastok, Izdatel’stvo Dal’nevostochnego universiteta, 2002 (In Russian).
11. Yun Jongjin, Gim Jeongil deungjang ihuui ‘jengchisa sanggyoyang’ jeongchaegui byeonhua bunseok; ‘Tongiljeongchaegyeongu 13guon 2ho, 2004, 191~212 jjok (In Korean).
THE PROBLEM OF THE RELATIONSHIP AUTHOR – WORK – READER In the context of the theory of intertextuality – 2024-1
Summary
Hripsime A. Zakaryan
Candidate of Sciences in Philology
Intertextuality, which implies a text within a text, a means of expressing the author’s individual style, is also perceived as a form of author-reader communication, divided into authorial intertextuality and readerly intertextuality, of which the reading medium implies in its own textual space, openly or in an encrypted way, inspirations of other author’s texts, its separate sections, ideas with a conscious or unconscious impulse. The level of textual communication is considered as an “internal dialogue” between the author and the reader within the scope of the work. When addressing the issue of intertextuality, it is also necessary to emphasize the factor of the reader, which plays a key role in the process of highlighting the author’s individual style. The work of fiction, being a reflection of the cognitive and emotional world of the author, is appropriated in the consciousness of the reader by certain means: linguistic, extra- linguistic, cultural, etc. In the creative process, the writer in one way or another takes into account the peculiarities of the specific era, tries to look at the phenomena from the point of view of the typical generalizations of the time. The artistic text is a system woven with meaningful codes that materialize the author’s ideological and aesthetic, worldview foundations, which actively influence the formation of the ideological and aesthetic co-structure of the artistic text, becoming orienting ways of realizing the literary problem. In the process of perceiving a literary text, the reader’s perceptions, approaches and psychology are affected by many factors: historical, political, psychological, etc., which create different, often conflicting and contradictory points of view among different readers. A fictional text, having its own inner objective life, is nevertheless subject to the reader’s rational or irrational discretion. The effective reading of the text depends on the combination of the reader’s knowledge and the author’s intentions, the realities proposed by him.
In the context of the theory of intertextuality, R. The ideological uniqueness of Barthes’ concept of “death of the author”, the features of formation and manifestation, the problem of the relationship between the theory of “intertextuality” and the theory of “death of the author”. Various literary approaches to the phenomenon of authorial and reading intertextuality are considered. Various examples of intertextual connections, existing views on the mechanisms of text interaction are given.
In the article, an attempt was also made to analyze the modern artistic experience with the logic of the aesthetic transitions brought by postmodernism in artistic thinking.
The article aims to consider intertextuality as a means of forming the author- work-reader connection.
The methodological basis of this article is M. Bakhtini, Yu. Kristeva, U. Eko, I. V. Arnoldi, M. The studies dedicated to the problem of the intertextuality theory, the author-reader relationship by Riffater and others. In the article, the methods of classification and coordination, observation were used.
REFERENCES
1. Assmann A. Cultural Memory Studies. An International and Interdisciplinary Handbook (ed. by A. Erll, A. Nünning), Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2008.
2. Avetisyan Z., Grakan steghtsagortsut‘yan hogebanut‘yun, Yer., YePH hrat., 2011 (In Armenian).
3. Arnol‘d I., Semantika. Stilistika. Intertekstual‘nost‘, (nauch. red. P.Ye. Bukharkin), M., izd. “FLINTA”, 2019, (In Russian).
4. Bart R., Izbranniye raboty: Semiotika. Poetika. M., izd. “Progress”, 1989 (In Russian).
5. Bakhtin M. M., Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva. M., izd. “Iskusstvo”, 1979 (In Russian).
6. Ēdoyan H., Sharzhum depi havasarakshṛut‘yun, Yer., “S. Khach‘ents‘, P‘rint‘info”, 2009 (In Armenian).
7. Eko U., Rolʻ chitatelya. Issledovaniya po semiotike teksta [per. s angl. i ital.: S. Serebr’yanogo]. SPb., Simpozium, 2007 (In Russian).
8. Eco U. Interpretation and history, Interpretation and overinter-pretation; ed. S. Collini, Cambridge University Press, 1992b.
9. Eliot T. S. The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism. London: Methuen & CO. LTD., 1934.
10. Eliot T. S. Selected prose of T. S. Eliot. A Harvest book. New York; London, 1975.
11. Emmot C. Narrative Comprehension: A Discourse Perspective. Oxford, “Clarendon Press”, 1997.
12. Fateyeva N. A.,Intertekstual’nost’ i yeyo funktsii v khudozhestvennom diskurse. Izv. RAN. Ser.lit. i yaz., M., 1997, t. 56. № 5 (In Russian).
13. Fedorov A. A., Kontseptsiya literaturnogo tvorchestva Umberto Eko i voploshcheniye modeli pisatelya “Umberto Eko – M-avtor”, “Rossiyskiy gumanitarnyy zhurnal”, 2016, t. 5. №6 (In Russian).
14. Genette G., Palimpsestes, La Littérature au second degré, Paris, Seuil, 1982, 467 p. (In French)
15. Jauß H.-R. “Literaturgeschichte als Provokation”, Suhrkamp Verlag: Frankfurt am Main, 1970 (In German).
16. Khalizev V. Ye., Teoriya literatury, M., Izd. “Vyssh. shkola”, 2000 (In Russian).
17. Khal’bvaks M., Kollektivnaya i istoricheskaya pamyatʻ. Neprikosnovennyy zapas, 200, № 2–3 (In Russian).
18. Khalʻbvaks M., Sotsial’nyye ramki pamyati, M., izd. “Novoye izdatelʻstvo”, 2007 (In Russian).
19. Kristeva Ju., Izbrannyye trudy: razrusheniye poetiki (per. s frants.), M., izd. “Rossiyskaya politicheskaya entsiklopediya” (ROSSPEN), 2004 (In Russian).
20. Kukharenko V. A., Interpretatsiya teksta. (uchebnoye posobiye.-2-ye izd., pererab.), M., Prosveshcheniye,1988 (In Russian).
21. Kolesnikov S. A., Vzglyani na dom svoy, avtor!., Chelovek, 2017. № 4 (In Russian).
22. Lachmann R., Pamyatʻ i literatura. Intertekstualʻnostʻ v russkoy literature XIX-XX vekov/ Per. s nem. A.I. Zherebin. – SPb: ID “Petropolis”, 2011 (In Russian).
23. Lurija A. R., Osnovnyye problemy neyrolingvistiki. M.: Izd-vo Mosk. un-ta, 1975 (In Russian).
24. Lukin V. A., Roli avtora i “effekt obraza avtora” na fone tipologii tekstov, Voprosy psikholingvistiki”, 2015, 3 (25) (In Russian).
25. Lotman YU. M., Izbrannyye statʻi, Tallinn, 1992, t.1. (In Russian).
26. Lotman YU. M., Uspenskiy B.A. O semioticheskom mekhanizme kul’tury. Trudy poznakovym sistemam. Tartu, 1971. Vyp. 5 (In Russian).
27. Madoyan G. G., Heghinaki mtadrutʻyuně vorpes tekʻstabanakan kʻnnutʻyan arrarka, b. g. tʻ. gitakan astichani hayts‘man atenakhosut’yan seghmagir, Yer., 2015 (In Armenian).
28. Piégay-Gros N. Introduction à l’intertextualité. Paris: Nathan, 2002 (In French).
29. Riffater M. La trace de l’intertexte, “La Pensee”, 1980. № 215, october (In French).
30. Simyan T., Gegharvestakan tek‘sti ěntʻerts‘umě yev nra dzhvarut‘yuně (hogebanakan tesankyun), Grakanagitakan handes, 2007 A-B (In Armenian).
31. Smirnov I. P., Porozhdeniye Interteksta. Elementy intertekstualʻnogo analiza s primerami iz tvorchestva B. L. Pasternaka. SPb. Izd. SPbGU, 1995 (In Russian).
32. Suprun A. Ye., Tekstovyye reministsentsii kak yazykovoye yavleniye, Voprosy yazykoznaniya. M., 1995, №6 (In Russian).
33. Speshilova Ye. I. Bessmertiye avtora, Chelovek.RU № 11, 2016 (In Russian).
34. Sopina A. L., Kognitivnyye osnovaniya intertekstualʻnosti. Vestnik NGU. Seriya: Lingvistika i mezhkulʻturnaya kommunikatsiya. 2018, 16 (2) (In Russian).
35. Tomashevskiy B., Teoriya literatury. Poetika. 5-ye izd, M.-L.: GIZ, 1930 (In Russian).
36. Turisheva O. N., Artasahmanyan grakanagitut‘yan tesut‘yuně yev met‘odabanut‘yuně. Usumnakan dzerrnark/ Rrus. t‘argm. A. Jrbashyani, Yer., YePH hrat., 2017 (In Armenian).
37. Vinogradov V. V., O teorii khudozhestvennoy rechi: Ucheb. posobiye dlya filol. spets. un- tov i ped. in-tov, M., “Vysshaya shkola”, 1971 (In Russian).
38. Vulf V. Obyknovennyy chitatelʻ. V. Vulf, N. I. Reyngol’d, A. N. Gorbunov. M., “Nauka”, 2012, 720 s. (In Russian).
39. Jakobson R. O Strukturalizm “za” i “protiv”, M., “Progress”, 1975 (In Russian).
THE DREAMS OF THE HEROES OF RAFFI’S “THE CRAZY” AND AV. ISAHAKYAN’S “USTA KARO” NOVELS: PARALLELS – 2024-1
Summary
Ani V. Ghazaryan
Candidate of Sciences in Philology
The phenomena and events in a dream present themselves to the writer with unexpected solutions, and since the reality of impressions is a kind of merging point, they are subjected to the requirement of artistic abstraction. That is when the striving to achieve the perfect takes place; the unstoppable and unexpected flight of imagination, and the aesthetic ideal-image of the writer is formed, which is beyond the reality.
From this point of view, the goals of Raffi and Isahakyan completely coincide: through dreams they reveal the inner life, feelings, emotions and sensations, secret desires, fears and anxieties of the characters they create. Clearly realizing that a dream is also an expression of a person’s subconscious desires and fears, they, along with representing real life, try to predict the future events and happenings through the characters’ dreams.
Structurally, Vardan’s and Karo’s dreams are made up of a premise, because the conditions and maturing processes that contribute to the appearance of the vision, the dream itself and its description are described in advance. The dreams of the protagonists have a local significance, because they are aimed at the interpretation of the future of the country, which fully contributes to the disclosure of their mental world. They were witnesses of the life-changing periods for Armenia, and Raffi and Isahakyan consciously made them their ideological heroes.
REFERENCES
20. Avetis’yan Z., E. dari hay patmagrutyan tipabanutyuně, Yer., 2013. (in Armenian)
21. Bazmavep, 1848, tiv 6. (in Armenian)
22. Devrik’yan V., Hayots’ mijnadari azatagrakan legendě (mas yerkrord, azatagrakan legend tesilnere), Vem, 2011-1. (in Armenian)
23. Tamamyan N., Tesilě vorpes grakan-gegharvestakan mtatsoghutyan drsevorum, Echmiatcin, 2005, ZH.-ZHA.
24. Ter-Davtyan Q., XI-XV dareri hay varqagrutyune, Yer., 1980. (in Armenian)
25. Isahakyan A., Barev varpet, Yer., 2008. (in Armenian)
26. Isahakyan A., Avetik’ Isahakyani gitakan kensagrutyuně, hat. 1, Yer., 2000(in Armenian).
27. Isahakyan Av., Yerkeri liakatar zhoghovatcu, hat. 7, Yer., 2016. (in Armenian)
28. Isahakyan Av., Yerkeri liakatar zhoghovatcu, hat. 12, Yer., 2021. (in Armenian)
29. Hayots’ grakanutyan patmutyun, hat. 3, Yer., 2015. (in Armenian)
30. Movses Khorenatsi’, Hayots’ patmut’yun, Ashkharhabare, targmanutyune, neratsut’yune yev tsanotagrut’yunnere akademikos St. Malkhasyantci, Yer., 1968. (in Armenian)
31. Hovhannisyan A., Drvagner hay azatagrakan mtqi patmutian, Girk’ a’ragin, Yer., 1957. (in Armenian)
32. Madoyan A., Nerses Metci tesile mijnadaryan hay poeziayum, Patmabanasirakan handese, 1969, N 4. (in Armenian)
33. Raffi, Yerkeri zhoxovatsu, hat. 9, Yer., 1962.(in Armenian)
34. Sarinyan S., Raffi. Gaghaparneri yev kerparneri hamakarge, Yer., 2010.(in Armenian)
35. Sarinyan S., Hay vepi patmutyun, Yer., 2005. (in Armenian)
36. Syurmelyan L.-Z., Ardzaki tekhnika. Chap yev khentutyun, Yer., 2008.(in Armenian)
37. Qristonya Hayastan hanragitaran, Yer, 2002. (in Armenian)
38. Freid Z., Tolkovanie snovideniee, M., 2011.(in Russian)
PRINTID COLOPHONS AND COLOPHON-TYPE UNITS In the Armenian early printed books – 2024-1
Summary
Marine P. Sargsyan
The early printed books were created in the imitation of manuscripts. So, they also have colophons, which are considered their birth certificates. While in the manuscripts it is easy to differentiate the colophons, in early printed books the picture is different. The early printed books, in addition to the printed colophons, also have a number of passages entitled “Preface”, “To the Reader”, “Notice…”, “Word to the Reader”, “The Reason and the Prelude of My Book”, “Epilogue…”, etc. Some of them contain data typical of colophons, such as the date of printing, the name of the publisher, sometimes the name of the customer or the patron. They may contain information on the complex proofreading process and other data related to the publication. They gain even more importance, when an early printed book lacks a colophon. However, not all units having such a title can be considered colophon-type. Sometimes these passages are not written by the publisher or a person connected with printing, but by the author or the translator (who do not have anything to do with printing), where we get information on why the book was written, what its content is or how and why it was translated, etc. We overlooked such colophons and chose only those that contain information about the printing of the book.
In this article, we tried to show the connection between the colophons and the colophon-type units, as well as the right to consider them as colophons.
REFERANCES
1. Ayvazean A., Nakhijevan, Patkerazard bnashkharhik hanragitak, Yer., Yushardzan, Gitut’yun, 1995, ēj 250, (HH Karavarut’yann arĕnt’er hushardzanneri pahpanut’yan varch’ut’yun). (in Armenian).
2. Bakhchinyan H. G., Haykakan dzeragreri yishatakarannerĕ, Yer., 1980. (in Armenian). 3․H. S. Chemchemyan, Mkhit’ar abbahor hratarakch’akan arak’elut’yunĕ, Venetik, S. Ghazar,
1980. (in Armenian).
4․ Galēmk’earean h. Grigoris v., Kensagrut’yun Sargis ark’ep.i Sarafean yev zhamanakin hay kat’oghikeank’, Vienna, Mkhit’arean tparan, 1908 (Azgayin matenadaran TSE.). (in Armenian).
5․ Hay girk’ĕ 1512-1800 t’vakannerin, hay hnatip grk’i matenagitut’yun, [kazmetsin] Oskanyan N. A., Korkotyan K’., A., Savalyan A., M., Yer., 1988. (in Armenian).
6․ Hayerēn dzeragreri yishatakarannerĕ. YE-ZHB. dd., ashkh. Mat’evosyan A. A., Yer., 1988. (in Armenian).
7․ Harut’yunyan Kh. A., Hayerēn dzeragreri yishatakarannerĕ, Yer., 2019. (in Armenian) 8․ Khach’ikyan L. S., “ZHĒ. dari hayerēn dzeragreri yishatakaranneri arajin hatorĕ”,
Ashkhatut’yunner, h. A., Yer., 1995, (in Armenian).
9․ Mat’ewosyan A. A., Hayerēn dzeragreri yishatakarannerĕ hay mshakuyt’i usumnasirut’yan skzbnaghbyurner, Yer., 1998. (in Armenian).
10․ Sargsyan M. P., Hayeren hnatip grk’eri hishatakaranneri bnagreri mshakman harts’er, “Ējmiatsin”, 2017, ZHA, (in Armenian).
QUESTIONS OF MORPHOLOGY (zero as a numeral, the words “մերոնք” and “ձերոնք” as pronouns) – 2024-1
Summary
Yuri S. Avetisyan
Doctor of Sciences in Philology
The theory of the Armenian language has provided answers to many controversial questions of modern Armenian grammar. Of course, there are still disagreements on many issues, which will eventually be discussed, answers will be given, new disagreements will arise, and so on. This is a normal development of a language theory. And at all levels of the language, there are issues that have not received much attention or have not been discussed enough. This may also be because they had no systemic significance or there was simply no reason to make them the subject of special discussion. At the morphological level, we have identified two of them: firstly, zero as a number, and secondly, the verbal-partial affiliation of the words “մերոնք” and “ձերոնք”. 1. Zero is an integer and a digit in mathematics, as well as 1, 10, 12, 100. Taken separately, it does not express any quantities (Latin: nullus “nothing”). Increases or decreases a given number by placing it to the right or left of any digit. This is probably why the zero alone, as a rule, was not considered a number in grammar. Another reason is probably that it was applied in mathematics relatively recently, thanks to the efforts of Leonard Euler, a German mathematician of the 18 century. Zero names the number of
th
the object (its absence) just like five, twenty, one hundred. Not naming or showing the number also means a certain quantitative characteristic of the subject, for example, “He scored zero votes in the election.”, “It’s zero degrees outside.” One of the semantic features of the numerical part of speech is also that the words considered numerals are mostly unambiguous in their lexical meaning. Ambiguity and metaphorical use are not inherent in numerals. Few numerals are endowed with such characteristics. Zero is one of the multi–valued numbers, and also has a figurative meaning: one of the four meanings of this word is figurative, it means nothing, triviality, insignificance, as, for example, in this sentence: “All this did not matter at all for the good of the country.” 2. The words “մերոնք” and “ձերոնք” (as well as իմոնք, քոնոնք, նրանցոնք) how pronouns with the corresponding semantic and grammatical characteristics (act as a substitute for a name in speech, have a common, undifferentiated meaning, indicate an object in a temporal-spatial-facial relation, etc.) relate to a noun and can indeed be considered as pronouns of a noun with a collective meaning.
REFERENCES
1. Abrahamyan S., Paṛnasyan N., Ōhanyan H., Zhamanakakitsʻ hayotsʻ lezu, hat. 2, Yer., 1974 (In Armenian).
2. Achaṛyan H., Liakatar kʻerakanutʻyun, hat. 1, Yer., 1952 (In Armenian).
3. Aghayan Ē., Ardi hayereni batsʻatrakan baṛaran, Yer., 1976 (In Armenian)
4. Aghayan Ē., Zhamanakakitsʻ hayereni holovumě yev khonarhumě, Yer., 1967 (In Armenian).
5. Asatryan M., Zhamanakakitsʻ hayotsʻ lezu. dzevabanutʻyun, Yer., 2004 (In Armenian).
6. Harutʻyunyan H., Atsakan anun, deranun, Yer., 1976 (In Armenian).
7. Khlghatʻyan F., Meronkʻ yev dzeronkʻ baṛeri masin, “Hayotsʻ lezun yev grakanutʻyuně dprotsʻum”, Yer., 1968, N 1-2 (In Armenian).
8. Khlghatʻyan F., Zhamanakakitsʻ hayotsʻ lezu, hat. G, Yer., 2007 (In Armenian).
9. Margaryan A., Hayotsʻ lezvi kʻerakanutʻyun. dzevabanutʻyun, Yer., 2004 (In Armenian).
10. Nersisyan V., Grakan arevelahayereni meronkʻ // dzeronkʻ baṛeri khoskʻimasayin arzhekʻi hartsʻě, “Lezu yev lezvabanutʻyun”, Yer., 2018, N 1 (18) (In Armenian).
11. Sevak G., Zhamanakakitsʻ hayotsʻ lezvi dasěntʻatsʻ, Yer., 2009 (In Armenian).
DIPTHONGOIDS WITH NON-DIPHTHONGAL ORIGIN IN OLD ARMENIAN (Diachronic and achronic aspects) – 2024-1
Only one of the dipthongoinds that has undergone y diachronic and achronic examination in the current article – ւո (ṷo), has so far been distinguished in Armenian Studies as a diphthong (a diachronic aspect). The others – ւա (ṷa), ւե (ṷe), ւէ (ṷē), ւի (ṷi), յա (i̭ a), յե (i̭ e), յի (i̭ i), յո (i̭ o), have been identified and investigated as diphthongs for the first time.
Considering the linguistic ambiance where each diphthong expresses itself, i.e. the word or the morpheme within which the given diphthong functions, as well as the native or borrowed nature of the given unit and its simple or compound structure, an attempt has been made to reveal the prototype of the given diphthong and the approximate time of its formation.
Further examination reveals that seven of the diphthongs ւա (ṷa), ւե (ṷe), ւո (ṷo), յա (i̭ a), յե (i̭ e), յի (i̭ i), յո (i̭ o) have their IE prototypes, i.e. derive from the IE base-language, hence, are native Armenian structures.
However, their prototypes are not diphthongs as expected. Rather, they are combinations of vowels, sonorants and consonants whose regular phonetic changes have resulted in the formation of diphthongs in Armenian.
Two other diphthongs – ւէ (ṷē)-ն and ւի (ṷi) have developed under the strong influence of Iranian borrowings since they are encountered only among Iranian borrowings and are the result of phonetic changes typical of shifts from Iranian languages into Armenian. The diphthongs deriving from the IE base-language, most probably, were developed in the stage of Proto Armenian, when Armenian started to develop as a separate and independent language following the break-away from the IE language. The diphthongs encountered among Iranian borrowings could develop not earlier than in the middle of the first millennium BC, since, according to historical records, mass and direct interaction of the Armenian ethnic people with the ancient Iranian peoples started at that time.
REFERENCES
1. Abrahamyan A., Grabari dzeṙ’nark, Yer.,1976 (In Armenian).
2. Ačaṙ’yan H., Hayeren armatakan baṙaran, Yer., hat. I-IV, 1971-1979 (In Armenian).
3. Aṙ’akʻelyan V., Grabari kʻerakanutʻyun, Yer., 2010 (In Armenian).
4. Gamkrelidze T., Ivanov Vyach., Indoevropeyskiy yazyk i indoevropeytsy, Tbilisi, t. II, 1984 (In Russian).
5. Dzhahukyan G., Hayeren stugabanakan baṙaran, Yer., 2010 (In Armenian).
6. Dzhahukyan G., Hayocʻ lezvi patmutʻyun: nakhagrayin zhamanakashrdzhan, Yer., 1987 (In Armenian).
7. Krasukhin K., Vvedenie v indoevropeyskoe yazěkoznanie, М., 2004 (In Russian).
8. Hyubshman H., Hayereni kʻerakanutʻyun, Yer., 2003 (In Armenian).
9. Meillet A., Esquisse d’un grammaire comparée de l’arménien classique, Vienne, 1936 (In French).
10. Meye A., Vvedenie v sṙavnitel’noe izuchenie v indoevropeyskikh yazěkov, M.-L., 1938 (In Russian).
11. Pedersen H., Hayerēn yev dracʻi lezunerě, Vienna, 1907 (In Armenian).
12. Petrosyan V., Hin hayereni ւ (ṷ) dzaynordi hamazhamanakya yev tarazhamanakya bnutʻagrery // BEH. Banasirutʻyun, 2017, N 3, ēdzh 11-22 (In Armenian).
13. Petrosyan V., Proiskhozhdenie v drevnearmyanskom yazyke sonornogo zvuka յ(y) i yego phonematicheskaya znachimost’ (istoricheskiy aspekt) // European journal of Humanities and Sosial Scienes, 2017, N 5, с. 24-29 (In Russian).
14. Petrosyan V., H.-e. kokordayinneri tesutʻyuně yev hin hayereni khul shp’akan Հ (H)-ի hnchabanakan bnut’agrerě (apazhamanakya yev tarazhamanakya hayecʻaketer), Hayagitutyan harcer, 2022, 1, ēdzh 189-208 (In Armenian).
15. Petrosyan V., Hin hayereni erkbarbaṙayin yev eṙabarbaṙayin kazmutʻyunneri harcʻi shurdzh (hamazhamanakya hayecʻakerp) // BEH. Banasirutʻyun, 2023, N 1, ēdzh 57-67 (In Armenian).
16. Savchenko A., Sravnitelnaya grammatika indoevropeyskih yzěkov, М., 1974 (In Russian).
17. Selischev A., Staroslavyanskiy yazěk, ch. I, M., 1951 (In Russian).
18. Semeren’i O., Vvedenie v sravnitel’noe yazěkoznanie, М., 1980 (In Russian).
19. Tumanyan Ē., Drevnearmyanskiy yazěk, М., 1971 (In Russian).