Maket 2012 1-2:Layout 1.qxd Lexicalization Patterns of English and Armenian Verbs of Speech Activity Lilit Badalyan Yerevan State Linguistic University C ontemporary linguistic researches are characterized by attempts to reveal thenature of linguistic mechanisms that provide for the relations of man and extra- linguistic reality. Language is a means of the conceptualization of that reality and results in the creation of the linguistic picture of the world. It should be noted that the interpre- tive function of man’s consciousness plays an important role in the construction of the meaning of words. It takes place both in the creation of the mental concept reflecting objects and phenomena of the reality, and in their linguistic representation, in the con- struction, development and usage of the word meaning. Languages are thought to be comparable in conveying information, but they general- ly differ in the amount and type of information that can be expressed by lexical units. It is known that the more significant an object or concept is to a community, the greater is the tendency to lexicalize it, i.e. to coin greater number of lexical units to denote it. There can be identified semantic components which may or may not be lexicalized in particu- lar languages. The identification of the semantic components characterizing classes of words in a language and of the possible combinations of such components within word roots leads to the revelation of lexicalization patterns varying across languages. Typological classification of languages can be made on the basis of the above-mentioned patterns, i.e. according to “characteristic ways in which language […] packages seman- tic material into words” (Lehrer 1992:249). A trend has recently emerged towards addressing the issues of identifying seman- tic components lexicalized within verb roots and stating a connection between spe- cific components characterizing semantic classes of verbs and syntactic properties of the verbs themselves; there is a strong correlation between each combination of semantic components and the syntactic constructions allowed by the words display- ing them. One of the most widely discussed proposals concerning verb typologies is L.Talmy’s (1985) idea that languages fall into two types according to how they encode primary events in verbs (particularly motion verbs) and satellites. In the so-called satellite-framed languages like English, German and Russian motion verbs tend to incorporate “manner” to their core meaning (e.g., shuffle, tip-toe, crawl, etc.) and “path” is expressed by a vari- ety of other devices (satellites) such as particles (out), prepositions (into the room), verb affixes, etc, whereas in verb-framed languages like Modern Greek (Papafragou & Selimis 2002), Romance, Turkish and Japanese (Matsumoto 1996), Armenian (Badalyan 2011) 1 verbs tend to incorporate “path”, expressing “manner” with an additional comple- ment. The distinction is not meant to imply that the relevant languages lack certain kinds of verb altogether. For instance, English has path verbs, such as enter, exit, ascend and descend, and verb-framed languages have manner verbs. But the most characteristic (i.e., Armenian Folia AnglistikaLinguistics 65 colloquial and frequent) way of describing motion in the two types of languages involves manner and path verbs respectively. Talmy’s typology of lexicalization patterns has received much attention in the domain of motion events in the literature (Slobin 1996, Matsumoto 1996); however, the validity of this typology in other domains of event types is not fully established.2 In our paper we will extend the analysis of Talmy’s typology to the domain of English and Armenian verbs of speech activity that encode the semantic component of “the man- ner of speaking”. In the current investigation 80 English and 60 Armenian verbs of speech activity have been analyzed alongside the data (2000 sentences) extracted from the British National Corpus () and the data (1500 sen- tences) – from Eastern Armenian National Corpus (). Various researches testify to the fact that verbs denote a whole situation with its var- ious participants and in the definitions of the verbs not only the action itself and the pos- sible participants are pointed out in the form of substantive semes, but also the relation- ship between them is revealed. As E. Paducheva states, “in its each usage the verb shows a situation with the participation of certain number of people; the qualities of participants and relations between them are to some extent reflected in the meaning of the verb” (Paducheva 1998:87). The seme structure of a verb may comprise several components (for instance, “sub- ject-tool-object-place-time”) which are united through one action. The study of the English verbs of speech activity discloses the following semantic components (semes): The agent of the action (the speaker) The object of the action (the content of speech) The addressee of the action The purpose of the action The manner of the action It should be noted that the enumerated semantic components may have various con- figurations in the meanings of different members of the group, for instance, the seme structure of a verb may lack the seme of “the manner of the action” or “the purpose of the action”, thus providing for the semantic differentiation of the verbs of speech activi- ty. As mentioned above, we have focused only on the verbs that conflate the semantic component of “manner” in their meaning. The study of the selected verbs in both languages shows that onomatopoeic words denoting sounds produced by animals and birds comprise the bulk of the groups under study. These verbs denote speech activity figuratively, through their secondary meanings. The examination of the data also reveals that English verbs encoding manner of speaking outnumber the corresponding Armenian verbs, especially if we take into con- sideration the fact that some Armenian verbs are included in the group with their redu- plicative variants, e.g. ·áé³É/·áé·áé³É, Íí³É/ÍíÍí³É, ×í³É/×í×í³É, Ýí³É/ÝíÝí³É. If we compile the selected verbs into subgroups based on their common semes, namely the semantic component of the type of manner, we see that in one of the groups the num- ber of English and Armenian verbs nearly coincide: these are the verbs that denote the action of “complaining in an annoying way”, such as to whine, to wail, to rant, to grum- Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics 66 ble, to mutter, to snivel in English and ·³Ý·³ïí»É, ÷ÝÃ÷ÝóÉ, ÙñÙÝç³É, ÙéÃÙéóÉ, ÃÝ·ÃÝ·³É, ïÝù³É in Armenian (about 20 units in both languages), while in many groups the Armenian verbs yield to the English ones in number, e.g. there are more verbs in English to denote the action of “talking about silly, unimportant things” or “speaking quickly or incoherently” (about 20 units) than in Armenian (about 8 units): to twitter, to prattle, to drivel, to prate, to gabble, to burble and μÉμɳÉ, ÍÉíɳÉ, ùã÷ã³É, ß³ï³Ëáë»É, ß³Õ³Ïñ³ï»É, ¹³ï³ñϳμ³Ý»É, ½³é³Ýó»É. As we have already mentioned, the combination of the semantic components may determine the syntactic peculiarities of verbs. The analysis of the selected sentences reveals that the English and Armenian verbs of speech activity display both similar and different syntactic properties. Both English and Armenian verbs, particularly those that express the meaning under study figuratively, in most cases are used to introduce direct speech, either without any modifiers or with adverbial modifiers of cause or manner expressed by a noun, a noun phrase or an adverb. E.g. “Life isn’t necessarily fair, Miss Levington,” he rapped. “It’s on now,” he crowed triumphantly. “I loved him,” moaned Gwendolen defiantly. - ÀÝÏ»ñáçë ѳݹÇå»óÇ, - ÝáñÇó ÷ÝÃ÷Ýóó гÙμáÝ: - Ü»ÕÝ ÁÝϳñ, ѳ°, íñ³ »ë ï³ÉÇë, - ѳÕóϳÝáñ»Ý ýßß³ó ²ñÕáõÃÁ: - Ø»ñ å³ßïáÝÁ ·ñáÕÇ ÍáóÁ, — Ñáõ½ÙáõÝùÇó ϳϳ½»ó ²ñ³ÙÁ: However, the analysis of the extracted sentences shows that the given verbs can dis- play the syntactic properties of other verbs of speech activity, i.e. they appear in the syn- tactic structures typical of the dominants of the lexico-semantic group of verbs of speech activity, namely to say, to tell, to speak and to talk, as well as some other members of the group, such as to complain, to shout, to call that stand out with general meaning and can serve as identifiers for subgroups within the given lexico-semantic group. It should be noted here that if in Armenian we have only two dominants ³ë»É and Ëáë»É, in English we can point out four dominant members that display subtle differences in meaning and usage that provide more syntactical patterns for the verbs under study. In other words, the semantic components of the addressee of the action, object of the action and the purpose of the action that exist in the meanings of the selected verbs either as actual or potential semes find surface expressions, i.e. are expressed by verb arguments in sentences. E.g. ³ë»É ÇÝã-áñ μ³Ý ØÇÝ㨠í»ñç³å»ë ÙÇ Ï»ñå, μ³é»ñÝ Çñ³ñ ˳éÝ»Éáí, μÉμɳó »Õμáñ å³ïíÇñ³ÍÁ: to say sth. His eyes darted from her to Nicolo and he babbled an apology, half in Italian, half in English. ³ë»É ÇÝã-áñ μ³Ý ÇÝã-áñ Ù»ÏÇ Ñ³ëó»ÇÝ Armenian Folia AnglistikaLinguistics 67 ²ÝÙÇï-³ÝÙÇï ݽáíùÝ»ñ ÷ÝÃ÷ÝóÉáí ÏÛ³ÝùÇ, Ç٠ѳëó»ÇÝ, »ë ù³ÛÉáõÙ ¿Ç, ³ÝÓñ¨Ç ó³ÝóÇ Ù»ç ³Õáï í³éíáÕ É³åï»ñÝ»ñÇÝ Ý³Û»Éáí: to say sth. about sth./smb. All of a sudden, she whined something about me not knowing what I had done and she broke down into tears. ³ë»É, áñ/û…, ²ÛÝáõÑ»ï¨ å³é³íÁ ïñïÝç³ó, û í»ñÙ³ÏÇ »ñ»ëÝ»ñÁ ùñùñí»É »Ý áõ Ïïáñ»Õ»Ý ãϳ: to say that…, Within five minutes Steve hollered that his ice hammer had broken. to say sth. to smb. He crowed to me: ‘The Queen won’t allow any negotiations between Andrew and Fergie and their lawyers to go on without me being present.’ “If she’d been herself,” Maisie wailed to Robert, “she’d have looked”. ³ë»É ÇÝã-áñ É»½íáí Êáç³Ý Ùï³ï³ñ ݳÛí³Íùáí ³ëïÕ³·ÇñùÁ ûñÃ»ó ¨ ÇÝã-áñ ùñÃÙÝç³ó »μñ³Û»ñ»Ý, ³å³ ³í»É³óñ»ó ѳۻñ»Ý: to say sth. in a language “Maldita, she is dead,” gabbled Umberto in Spanish. ÆÝùÝ Çñ»Ý ³ë»É §ê³, ÑÇñ³íÇ, ëáëϳÉÇ ¿¦, - ÇÝùÝ Çñ»Ý ÙñÙÝç³ó ³ñ¹»Ý »ñÏñáñ¹ ³Ý·³Ù: To say to oneself “You can be a success,” he chanted to himself, “your mind is a chis- el, your will is a hammer, and life is a rock.” Ëáë»É ÇÝã-áñ É»½íáí лïá Ë»Ýóó³Í å³ï»å³ï ¿ñ Ë÷íáõÙ, ·ñÏáõÙ-ѳÙμáõñáõÙ ¿ñ ÇÝÓ, ÑáÉÇ å»ë åïïíáõÙ, Çï³É»ñ»Ý ·áé·áéáõÙ, ÝáñÇó ÇÝÓ ·ñÏáõÙ ...: to speak (in) a language I saw people springing up from the ground and letting down ropes out of the sky, boarding red buses, jabbering in English. A militia spokesman rambled on in Arabic about the need for resist- ance, the nobility of the struggle against isolationism and the potentialities of the revolution. Êáë»É ÇÝùÝ Çñ»Ý öáùñÇÏÁ ÙdzÛÝ ÙÇ ³Ý·³Ù ³ñÃݳó³í, μÉμɳó ÇÝùÝ Çñ»Ý áõ ÝáñÇó ³ãù»ñÁ ÷³Ï»ó…: to speak to oneself Ashen-faced, she was gibbering quietly to herself, her petrol-sodden hair plastered to her head and her dripping gown showing her legs almost to the crotch. to speak to smb. Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics 68 And while they were up there in the wide, blue yonder, they jabbered non-stop to each other over the radio. Ëáë»É/·áé³É ÇÝã-áñ Ù»ÏÇ íñ³ - ²ÛÝå»ë ³ñ³ ÃáÕ ß³ñÅíÇ-Ç-Ç-Ç°... - íÝ·³ó ݳ Ñáñ íñ³: - àõñ»ÙÝ ¿É ÇÝãá±õ »ù ïñïÝçáõÙ Ó»ñ »Õμáñ íñ³: to shout (sth.) at smb. “All right, out!” he boomed at the others. “The Smiths are here!” she squawked at him. He snarled the words at her. Ëáë»É ÇÝã-áñ μ³ÝÇ Ù³ëÇÝ/ÇÝã-áñ μ³ÝÇó ºÃ» μÅÇßÏÁ ïñïÝçáõÙ ¿ ó³Íñ ³ß˳ï³í³ñÓÇó, í»ñ¨áõÙ Ýñ³Ý ³ãùáí »Ý ³ÝáõÙ, û ɳí μÅßÏÇÝ, ÙǨÝáõÛÝ ¿, ù³Õó³Í ã»Ý ÃáÕÝÇ: Ëáë»É ÇÝã-áñ Ù»ÏÇ Ñ»ï ÇÝã-áñ μ³ÝÇ Ù³ëÇÝ ØÇ »ñÏáõ ³Ý·³Ù ïÇÏÇÝ èáõÃÇ å»ë åå½»ó, Ó»éùÇ ÷³Ã»ÃÁ ¹ñ»ó ·á·ÇÝ, ·³í³ÃÁ ïÝïÕ»ó, ïÏïϳóñ»ó ×ÏáõÛÃÇ »ÕáõÝ·áí, í³×³éáÕÇ Ñ»ï ß³Õ³Ïñ³ï»ó: to speak/to talk on/away (to smb.) (about sth.) Adams is always harping on about her. He jabbered away to his friends, and Ellie assumed he was explaining that item number one was a drink. Here we would like to focus on the use of particles and prepositions, the so-called satellites such as out, on, away, back placed after the verbs. It should be noted that English has a well-developed system of satellites that enable to express direction or dura- tion of the action thus making the speech laconic. Here are some other examples. E.g. He sat his guest down in a cubbyhole office, mixed instant coffee with the help of a whistling electric kettle, and rambled into a monologue of his thoughts on Michael Holly. He hemmed and hawed and rambled through a number of subjects before making a sideways approach to what he really seemed to need…. …he was spluttering over the tale, to whoever would listen…. He roared down the passage, “Louisa, LOUISA…” As Armenian lacks the equivalents of such satellites, it needs to switch to descriptive means to express the same meaning. E.g. ØdzÛÝ îÇ·ñ³ÝÇÏÝ ¿, áñ μÉμÉáõÙ ¿ ß³ñáõݳÏ, áõ ѳÛñÁ ãÇ μ³ñϳÝáõÙ Ýñ³ íñ³: ²íïáÙ»ù»Ý³ÛáõÙ ³ÝÁݹѳï ß³Õ³Ïñ³ïáõÙ ¿ñ: - г ÙïÙïáõÙ ¿ñ, ÇëÏ í³ñáñ¹Á ѳ ß³ï³ËáëáõÙ ¾ñ: Þ³Ùå³ÛÝÇ ³é³çÇÝ ßßÇÝ Ñ³çáñ¹»ó »ñÏñáñ¹Á, »ññáñ¹Á ¨ ÙÇÝ㨠³Ý·³Ù ãáññáñ¹Á ºí¹áùëÇ³Ý ³Ý¹³¹ñáõÙ ¹³ï³ñϳμ³ÝáõÙ ¿ñ: Armenian Folia AnglistikaLinguistics 69 Üñ³Ýù ³Ýí»ñç ÝíÝíáõÙ ¿ÇÝ, ³ñóáõÝùÝ»ñ ó÷áõÙ, ѳÛÑáÛáõÙ ³Ù»ÝùÇÝ ¨ ³Ù»Ý ÇÝã: Other patterns that the Armenian verbs under study lack are: to speak out (sth) “But my daddy babbled out the truth.” He rasped out the words and stood with his hands on his hips to glare down at her. to answer back So when Jane asked him for a loan, he snapped back: “I think my first duty is to look after myself!” “Are you, darling?” his mother trilled back. to ask for I hollered for fortified wines and drank quarts of tongue-frazzling black coffee. Although we shall be grumbling for water, shan’t we? to tell/to say/ ask to do Below, in the kitchen, William whined to go out, a gentle, quivering, undemanding sound that meant, nevertheless, a fairly urgent need. to call/ask for smb. to do She roared for the carriage to be brought round. Kaas leant forward and dragged Adam to his feet as he yelled for the guards to come in and help him. to express smth. …Victoria crowed her delight. At the table the young man murmured his pleasure at something Father Reynard had pointed out, shook the priest’s hand and quickly left. At night she emerged, wandering the corridors of the upper floor, a lighted candle in her hand, wailing her grief. As can be seen from the examples, the English verbs under study are more likely to be used in the syntactic structures proper to verbs of speech activity than the Armenian ones. Besides, the English verbs appear in the given structures irrespective of the fact whether they express speech activity directly, i.e. are nuclear members of the group or they express the given meaning figuratively, i.e. they are peripheral members. In Armenian it is mainly the nuclear members of the group that display such syntactic properties, and even their occurrence in the above mentioned positions is rather limited. This can be accounted for by the fact that in the meanings of the English verbs the semantic compo- nent of the speech act is a nuclear one, while the semantic component of the manner of speaking is a peripheral one. Whereas in the meanings of most Armenian verbs under study the manner of speaking or the sound made by the speaker is more important, i.e. a nuclear component and the speech act with its content and addressee are of secondary Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics 70 importance. The given statement can further be proved by numerous examples of sen- tences where the peripheral members of the Armenian verbs of speech activity tend to function as adverbial modifiers for the predicate expressed by nuclear members, such as ³ë»É, Ëáë»É, å³ï³ë˳ݻÉ, ѳñóÝ»É, Ññ³Ù³Û»É, Ëݹñ»É, ϳÝã»É, ³ñï³Ñ³Ûï»É (about 80 examples out of 1500). E.g. лïá ëÏë»ó ·áé·áé³Éáí ϳÝã»É ì³ãáÛÇÝ. (…shouted out to…) - лé³ó»ù, - ÷ë÷ë³Éáí å³ï³ë˳ݻóÇ Ýñ³Ý: (…whispered back to …) лÝó »Ï»Õ»óáõÙ ¿É ÷ë÷ë³Éáí Çñ³ñ ѳÛïÝáõÙ ¿ÇÝ, áñ μ³Ýï³ñÏÛ³ÉÝ»ñÇÝ ³ÝËݳ Í»ÍáõÙ »Ý, Ëáßï³Ý·áõÙ, å³Ñ³Ýçáõ٠ѳÝÓÝ»É Ã³ùóñ³Í ½»Ýù»ñÁ: (…whispered to each other…) àõïáõÙ ¿ÇÝ, ùã÷ã³Éáí ½ñáõóáõÙ, ˻չíáõÙ ÍÇͳÕÇó: (…chattered on) ¶Ý³Ýù ùá ë»ÝÛ³ÏÁ, û ã¿ ÈÛáÉÛ³ÛÇÝ Ï³ñÃݳóÝ»Ýù, ÝáõÛÝå»ë, - ßßÝç³Éáí å³ï³ë˳ݻó ݳ: (…whispered back…) - ¾¹ ³ë³ ¿°, - ïÝù³Éáí ³ñÓ³·³Ýù»ó ÙÇ áõñÇßÁ: (…groaned out …) Whereas in English we have found only 6 examples out of 2000. “I’ll kill him,” repeated Bigwig, spluttering through his fouled whiskers and clotted fur. “It was her,” said Rose, gibbering with fear. “That,” I said, whispering, “can be our secret.” Thus, we can conclude that the differences in the usage of the English and Armenian verbs of speech activity come to prove the results of our previous analysis of motion verbs,3 i.e. Armenian may be ranged among verb-framed languages while English is a typical satellite-framed language. Notes: 1. In the article The Cognitive Aspect of Lexicalization in English and Armenian (Badalyan 2011) we presented the results of the comparative analysis of sixty-five English and twenty-five Armenian motion verbs that led us to assume that Armenian may be ranged among verb-framed languages. 2. In the article How to Say Things with Words: Ways of Saying in English and Spanish, Rojo A. and Valenzuela J. (2001) made an attempt to apply Slobin’s analysis of English and Spanish manner verbs to verbs of saying in English and Spanish and the way Spanish translators deal with them. They concluded that in contrast with Slobin’s statement that verb-framed languages have a lower number of manner verbs than satellite-framed languages, their examples suggested that the difference between Armenian Folia AnglistikaLinguistics 71 English and Spanish manner verbs of saying is not very big. In the description of motion events, translators tended to omit information when going from English into Spanish, while their study showed that when dealing with verbs of saying, Spanish translators tended to add information, using more specific verbs. 3. See Note 1. References: 1. Badalyan, L. (2011) The Cognitive Aspect of Lexicalization in English and Armenian. // Higher Linguistic Education from the Perspective of Reforms: New Approaches, Prospects, and Challenges. Bucharest: UNESCO-CEPES. 2. Fillmore, C. and Atkins, B.T.S. (1992) Towards a Frame-Based Lexicon: the seman- tics of RISK and its neighbours. // Frames, Fields and Contrasts: new essays in semantics and lexical organization. / Ed. by E. Kittay & A. Lehrer. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 3. Lehrer, A. (1992) A Theory of Vocabulary Structure: Retrospectives and Prospectives. // Thirty years of linguistic evolution. Studies in honour of René Dirvén on the occa- sion of his sixtieth birthday. / Ed. by Pütz, Manfred. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 4. Matsumoto, Yo (1996) Typologies of Lexicalization Patterns and Event Integration: Clarifications and Reformulations. // Empirical and Theoretical Investigations into language: A Festschrift for Masaru Kajito. / Ed. by Shuji Chiba et al.. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. 5. Paducheva, E.V. (1998) Communicativnie videlenie na urovne synaksisa i semantiki. // Semiotika i informatika. Vol. 36. М.: MGU. 6. Papafragou, A. and Selimis, S. (2002) Lexical and Structural Cues for Acquiring Motion Verbs Cross-Linguistically. University of Delaware and University of Athens. 7. Rojo, A. and Valenzuela, J. (2001) How to Say Things with Words: Ways of Saying in English and Spanish. // Translators’ Journal. Vol. 46, N 3. 8. Saeed, J (2003) Semantics. London: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 9. Slobin, D. (1997) Mind, Code and Text. // Essays on Language Function and Language Type. / Ed. by J. Bybee, J. Haiman and S.A. Thompson. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10. Talmy, L. (1985) Lexicalization Patterns. // Language Typology and Synchrohic Description. / Ed. by Th. Shopen. Cambridge: CUP. 11. Talmy, L. (1991) Path to Realization: a Typology of Event Conflation. // Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics 72 ²ë³ó³Ï³Ý μ³Û»ñÇ μ³é³ÛݳóÙ³Ý Ï³Õ³å³ñÝ»ñÝ ³Ý·É»ñ»ÝáõÙ ¨ ѳۻñ»ÝáõÙ Ðá¹í³ÍáõÙ áõëáõÙݳëÇñí»É ¿ ³Ý·É»ñ»ÝÇ ¨ ѳۻñ»ÝÇ ³ ë³ó³Ï³Ý μ³ Û»ñÇ μ³- é³ÛݳóÙ³Ý Ï³Õ³å³ñÝ»ñÇ ¨ ß³ñ³ÑÛáõë³Ï³Ý ³é³ÝÓݳѳïÏáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ÙÇç¨ Ï³åÁ` ÑÇÙÝí»Éáí È.³ÉÙÇÇ ÙÇçÉ»½í³Ï³Ý ïÇå³μ³ ÝáõÃÛ³Ý íñ³, Áëï áñÇ ³- é³ÝÓݳóíáõÙ »Ý »ñÏáõ ïÇåÇ É»½áõÝ»ñ` ³Ûëå»ë Ïáãí³Í “satellite-framed” É»½áõ- Ý»ñ, áñï»Õ ß³ñÅÙ³Ý μ³Û»ñÇ ÇÙ³ëïáõÙ μ³é³ÛݳóíáõÙ ¿ ·áñÍáÕáõÃÛ³Ý Ó¨Ç Ç- Ù³ëï³ÛÇÝ μ³Õ³¹ñÇãÁ, ÇëÏ ·áñÍáÕáõÃÛ³Ý áõÕÕáõÃÛáõÝÁ ݳ˳¹³ ëáõÃÛáõÝáõÙ ³ñ- ï³Ñ³ÛïíáõÙ ¿ ³ÛÉ ÙÇçáóÝ»ñáí, ¨ “verb-framed” É»½áõÝ»ñ, áñï»Õ μ³ÛÇÙ³ëïáõÙ ³éϳ ¿ ·áñÍáÕáõÃÛ³Ý áõÕÕáõÃÛ³Ý μ³Õ³¹ñÇãÁ: öáñÓ ¿ ³ñí»É ³ÉÙÇÇ ï»ëáõÃÛáõ- ÝÁ ÏÇñ³é»É ³Ý·É»ñ»ÝÇ ¨ ѳۻñ»ÝÇ ³ ë³ó³Ï³Ý μ³ Û»ñÇ ÇÙ³ëï³ÛÇÝ ËÙμÇ íñ³` ÁÝïñ»Éáí ³Ý·É»ñ»ÝÇ 80 ¨ ѳۻñ»ÝÇ 60 μ³Û»ñ, áñáÝó ÇÙ³ëïáõÙ ³éϳ ¿ ·áñÍá- ÕáõÃÛ³Ý Ó¨Ç ÇÙ³ëï³ÛÇÝ μ³Õ³¹ñÇãÁ: ²í»ÉÇ Ñëï³Ï å³ïÏ»ñ ëï³Ý³Éáõ ѳٳñ áõëáõÙݳëÇñí»É »Ý ݳ¨ ´ñÇï³Ý³Ï³Ý ³½·³ ÛÇÝ ÏáñåáõëÇó ÁÝïñí³Í Ùáï 2000 ¨ ²ñ¨»É³Ñ³Û»ñ»Ý ³½·³ ÛÇÝ ÏáñåáõëÇó` 1500 ݳ˳¹³ ëáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñ, ù³ÝÇ áñ μ³ - Û»ñÇ ß³ñ³ÑÛáõë³Ï³Ý Ñݳñ³íáñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ ٻͳå»ë å³Ûٳݳíáñí³Í »Ý μ³ - ÛÇÙ³ëïÇ ÇÙ³ëï³ÛÇÝ μ³Õ³¹ñÇãÝ»ñÇ ï³ñμ»ñ ϳå³ÏóáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñáí: Armenian Folia AnglistikaLinguistics 73