This article examines the stylistic realizations, commonalities, and distinctive features of noun plural formation in Literary Eastern Armenian, German, and Russian from both structural and semantic perspectives. All three languages display a morphemic principle of plural formation, using regular and irregular plural markers, which may also be accompanied by stem restructuring, phonological alternations, and stress shifts. While Literary Eastern Armenian is characterized by a relatively uniform pattern of plural formation and a more homogeneous declensional paradigm, German and Russian demonstrate a more diverse pluralization system in terms of both morphemic marking and declensional patterns. The analysis shows that in all three languages the plural category sometimes functions not only as an expression of quantity but also as a means of distinguishing homonyms and as an indicator of semantic and stylistic nuances, conveying emotional intensification and temporal indeterminacy. These observations suggest that the plural category should be interpreted not merely as a simple grammatical feature but as a multilayered morphological and semantic system that, when realized differently across the languages under study, can serve as a stylistic device and a means of expanding lexical meaning.
Category Archives: LINGUISTICS
DOI: 10.57192/18291864-2026.1-149
THE SEMANTIC DEVALUATION OF THE LINGUISTIC UNIT IN CONNECTED SPEECH: Phenomenology of Linguistic Absurdity
This study examines the transformation of the semantic status of the linguistic unit within connected speech. The analysis is conducted not only from a linguistic perspective but also within the frameworks of philosophy of language and phenomenology. The central premise of the article is that meaning is not a pre-given property of objective reality; rather, it emerges through the cognitive activity of the subject and is organized by means of language.
The analysis demonstrates that, in isolation, the word functions as a relatively autonomous nominative unit associated with discrete components of reality. However, within connected speech, this autonomy is disrupted: the meaning of the word loses its localized character and undergoes structural reconfiguration. It ceases to function as a self-sufficient bearer of meaning and becomes an element embedded within a system of relations.
Simultaneously, a redistribution of meaning takes place, whereby functional units that do not possess a clearly defined meaning in isolation assume a decisive role in the semantic organization of speech. This dual process results in an asymmetrical distribution of meaning and disrupts the presumed correspondence between meaning and its carriers.
In this article, the phenomenon is interpreted as linguistic absurdity in its strict sense, that is, as a rupture in the logical structure of meaning attribution. From a phenomenological perspective, it manifests as an experience in which meaning appears without stable localization, as a mobile and relationally distributed phenomenon.
It is argued that language cannot be regarded as a simple system of reflection of reality. Rather, it constitutes an autonomous constructive field in which meaning is formed not within individual units, but through the dynamic organization of relations between them.
LINGUISTIC STRATEGIES AND PERSUASIVE ARGUMENTATION IN “BLACK SWAN” TRIAL: a case study
The current article studies judicial discourse, specifically lawyers’ closing arguments regarding “Black Swan” (2024) murder trial which concerns a woman, Ashley Benefield, an ex-ballerina, who killed her husband, Douglas Benefield claiming the action to be self-defense. The discourse study at hand includes the prosecutor’s closing argument of Suzanne O’Donnell who represents the State and condemns the action of killing as murder which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense is represented by defense lawyer Neil Taylor, who tries to defend his client’s action as self-defense. This legal discourse is studied through qualitative analysis, implemented using the method of rhetorical-stylistic discourse analysis, and supplemented with the author’s quantitative observations of repetitions, direct speech, and rhetorical questions, which are manually counted and compared across each speech under study.
ON THE FORMATION OF THE IMPERATIVE IN THE DIALECT OF AṘTIAL
However, verbs from both the previous e- and i-conjugations form the imperative identically, taking the ending -ē in the singular and the ending -ec‘ēk‘ in the plural. As for the imperative singular ending -iәr (< -ir), it is not attested with simple verbs of the former i-conjugation (again, contrary to H. Ačaṙyan’s description); only suffixed verbs in the previous e- and i-conjugations, as well as verbs in the a-conjugation in general, exhibit the ending -iәr in the imperative singular in the dialect of Aṙtial.
ON A PHONOLOGICAL PROBLEM OF OLD ARMENIAN(Phonetic-phonological relations of վ (v), ւ (ṷ), and ու (oṷ))
The issue of the phonological characteristics of the linguistic units represented by the letters վ (v), ւ (ṷ), and ու (oṷ) in Old Armenian has been a topic of scholarly discussion since the late 19th century, particularly in the works of H. Hübschmann. He argued that all three letters reflected the same phoneme (i.e., phone – V.P.), with a key difference. Hübschmann claimed that վ (v) was a simple fricative consonant, whereas ւ (ṷ) and ու (oṷ), had a dual function. Depending on their position they could function either as consonants [v] or as vowels [u]. From a phonological perspective, this means that the letters վ (v), ւ (ṷ), and ու (oṷ) were merely different positional variants – allophones – of the same phoneme. Most Armenian linguists who have explored this topic in one way or another have, conceptually, accepted Hübschmann’s paradigm (A. Meillet, N. Marr, H. Acharyan, S. Ghazaryan, E. Tumanyan, H. Muradyan) with slight variations. This is especially true in the case of ու (oṷ): all the scholars mentioned above considered Old Armenian ու (oṷ) to be a simple vowel [u] represented by two letters. Only H. Pedersen argued that Old Armenian ու (oṷ) was a diphthong. S. Ghazaryan, A. Abrahamyan, E. Tumanyan, and V. Hambardzumyan also supported this view. E. Aghayan was the first Armenian linguist who, in the 1960s, analyzed the phonemic system of Old Armenian from a phonological perspective drawing on N. Trubetzkoy’s principles of functional phonology, which is based on the concepts of distinctive features and binary oppositions. Nonetheless, even Aghayan supported Hübschmann’s concept on the phonological features of these sounds. Aghayan believed that the actual phoneme among the three was <Ու> (oṷ) – a sonorant, while ու (oṷ), վ (v), and ւ (ṷ) were its positional variants, i.e. sub-phonemes. Guided by the principles of functional phonology, we have demonstrated that: 1) վ (v) and ւ (ṷ) were integral members of the phonemic system of Old Armenian, despite some positional limitations. More specifically, a word could not begin with ւ (ṷ), and վ (v) could only appear at the end of a word if it followed the vowel ո (o) and the resulting sound was not the diphthongoid ու (oṷ) (compare: բով “a furnace for melting metal” vs. բու “owl”). Otherwise, in post-vocalic positions – both medial and final – ւ (ṷ) was the usual form, not վ (v): 2) ու (oṷ) represented not a simple vowel, but a diphthongic structure, more specifically a diphthongoid. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the semivowel ւ (ṷ), like the semivowel յ (i̭), only appeared as part of diphthongs and could alternate independently with both consonants and the semivowel յ (i̭), forming phonological oppositions (contrastive units), i.e., phonological oppositions. (Compare: բաւ “border, edge” ~ բան “speech, saying” ~ բառ “word”; գոյն” shade, color” ~ գուն-(ել) “to color” etc.). Moreover, phonological oppositions existed even between the vocalic components of the same diphthongoid (compare: նաւ “ship” ~ նու “bride”; չու “journey” ~ չեւ “not yet, still absent” etc.). This suggests that the connection between the vocalic and semivocalic elements of diphthongs was weak, and they could also function independently.
EVALUATIONITY IN CONTEMPORARY MASS COMMUNICATION CHANNELS
The article explores evaluativity within the domain of media language. At its core, evaluativity is an attitudinal-conceptual category that, in media texts, becomes a tool for expressing public opinion. It reflects the communicator’s subjective stance toward an event or individual and transforms into an ideological and persuasive impulse within the media. Especially in the digital environment — where content dissemination often relies on expressed attitudes — evaluativity becomes a key component of media language.
In linguistic studies, it is viewed as a system that includes the parameters of attitude, engagement, and graduation. In the Armenian academic field, the topic remains underexplored, although there are isolated studies related to the language of the press, public speech, and advertising. The article aims to provide a comprehensive account of the role of evaluativity in contemporary mass media, examining it on both linguistic levels (word, sentence) and in discourse and macro-contextual dimensions — such as author, audience, genre, media platform, and the
broader cultural-political context.
THE PERCEPTION OF THE CONCEPT OF SADNESS IN VAHAN TERIAN’S POETIC LANGUAGE
In the Linguistic Consciousness of the Contemporary Armenian-speaking Society
The article is devoted to the description of the linguistic and cultural specifics.
The emotional experiences impact all aspects of life and are considered to be one of the forms of reflection, cognition and assessment of objective reality. The Sadness refers to the basic emotions that nominates emotions and feelings.
The object of our research is the emotional concept of Sadness, its representation in the poems of V. Teryan and in linguistic consciousness of Armenian society. To analyze the concept of Sadness in the linguistic consciousness of society, we conducted an associative experiment, which involved studying the associations that arise in connection with the concept of the emotion of Sadness. More than 100 people took part in the associative experiment: they had to give associations for the word Sadness.
ON SOME ISSUES OF DIPHTHONG FORMATION
Linguistics has suggested considerably different approaches with regard to diphthongs all of which can be summed up as follows: 1) A diphthong is the pronunciation of two vowels in one syllable (V1+V2) (N. Trubetzkoy, G. Trager, K. Pike, H. Gleason, A. Reformatsky, etc.) The following is yet another version of this definition – a diphthong is the pronunciation of syllabic sounds within a single syllable with only one component being syllabic (E. Aghayan). 2) A diphthong is the pronunciation of two vowels or a vowel and a semi-vowel (ṷ, i̭) in one syllable. In this case, it is not important whether the sonorant has the syllabic function of or not. (D. Jones, H. Acharyan, G. Ghapantsyan, etc.). 3) A diphthong is the combination of only a vowel and a (semi-vowel) sonorant (V+S / S+V) in one syllable (L. Bloomfield). Some distinguish between true and false diphthongs considering the combination of two vowels with equivalent components to belong to the first group, i.e., with no syllabic sound (L. Shcherba, J.Vahek, R. Budagov, etc.), unlike the three other types in which one of the diphthong components is syllabic (a nucleus of a diphthong). While these approaches regard a diphthong a minimum functional unit – a phoneme, another approach views a two-phoneme (= two-vowel) formation acting as one phonetic whole a diphthong. The components of a two-phoneme diphthong can be divided by a morphemic seam or can relate to adjacent syllables.
The key descriptions of diphthongs provide grounds for a broader understanding of the unit. Hence, a diphthong is the pronunciation of two vowels or a vowel and a syllabic sonorant as a phonetic whole, which phonemically can be equivalent to a complex phoneme uttered in the same syllable or to two phonemes divided by a morphemic seam and (or) two phonemes distributed between adjacent syllables. Based on this interpretation, diphthongs can be stable and non-stable: the former include two-vowel combinations uttered in the same syllable. The latter contain two-phoneme formations uttered in adjacent syllables and/or divided by a morphemic seam. According to the fullness of the sound, there are non-equivalent (with a syllabic component) and equivalent (without a syllabic component) diphthongs.
Following the given interpretation of the formation of diphthongs, the combination of a vowel and a non-syllabic (semi-vowel) sonorant in a single syllable is a diphthongoid rather than a diphthong.
KEROPE PATKANYAN AND THE INDO-EUROPEAN CHARACTER OF ARMENIAN ISSUES AND THEORY OF ARMENIAN DIALECTS – 2024-3
Vazgen G. Hambardzumyan
Doctor of Philological Sciences
Keywords – Russian oriental studies, Armenian studies, Armenology, Armenian historians, literary monuments, Urartian studies, humanitarian science, scientific consultant, originator of foundations.
Summary
In the second half of the previous century, the Armenian culture experienced significant development in the environment of the Russian Empire, the role of the St. Petersburg academic institution was particularly significant, where Kerope Patkanyan carried out his extensive scientific activities (1833-1889). His contribution to the progress of Armenian philology and linguistics is great. He represented various fields of Armenology and Armenian studies, the best researcher and spreader of relevant knowledge both in Russia and Europe. Patkanyan is an internationally recognized Armenologist.
The years of his scientific activity were the 1860s to the 1880s, a short period, and the famous scientist left a rich legacy, became a tireless organizer of science, mentored students who later gained great recognition in various fields of humanitarian science in general, and became a concerned and serious advisor about the Armenian language of many European armenologists in their scientific activities.
Patkanyan’s works are quite impressive in terms of their nature, volume and coverage of fields. He left literary-artistic and bibliographic works, scientific publications of historiographical and translational works, wrote concise and fundamental works on the Armenian language and Armenian dialects, has a theory with a wide coverage of the material on issues of historical and comparative study of Armenian, his works on Armenian philology, ethnography (studies of sources), lexicography, but also general oriental studies, and urartian studies.
Patkanyan’s linguistic heritage has been addressed to some extent, but not with a theoretically sound assessment. He is rightfully the predictor of the foundations of the theory of Armenian dialects and the classification of dialects “with various features” using the internal means of the language (phonetic system, vocabulary and grammatical structure). Such a classification of Armenian dialects is the contribution of a famous linguist to Armenian dialectology. His scientific legacy is a great contribution to the development of modern Armenian studies.
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).