Maket 2011-2:Layout 1.qxd


A Sociolinguistic Approach to the Problem of Anglicisms

in Armenian

Anahit Galstyan, Hayk Galstyan
Yerevan State University

Introduction

The methodological and theoretical foundations for researching attitudes were estab-
lished in the parent disciplines of sociology and psychology in the first half of the twen-
tieth century. Attitudes in general, and language attitudes in particular, are of consider-
able interest to social psychologists, sociologists and sociolinguists.

While reviewing studies in this field, we noticed that there is a great number of research-
es wherein the language attitudes of inhabitants from different bilingual settings within the
same country are examined as well as transnational studies involving the majority and
minority languages concerned in different bilingual areas (Ryan & Giles1982; Baker1988;
Edwards 1999; Garvett, Coupland & Williams 2003; Giles & Billings 2004; McKenzie
2010 and many others). However, attitudes towards English as a foreign language has been
researched in a few studies (e.g. Lasagabaster, Huguet 2007). Besides, the attitude of
Armenians towards the English language has not been examined yet.

Developing sociolinguistic theory has demonstrated that people’s attitudes and per-
ceptions towards language help to shape their usage, and these perceptions shape govern-
mental and educational policy and language planning (Stockwell 2002:61). Hence,we
aimed at carrying out a sociolinguistic as well as sociological study of purists’ and ordi-
nary native speakers’ attitudes towards lexical enrichment of Armenian. Intelligibility
and acceptability tests were made with young/old, town/country, educated/‘backward’
Armenian speakers from RA and from the USA, California (Los Angeles and Fresno).
Our research in the USA was possible thanks to ESSE bursary 2009. The informants were
mainly from Glendale and Hollywood (Los Angeles County), which are the cities where
most of Armenian-Americans live. Glendale is home to 53,860 Armenian-Americans,
making up 27.6% of the total population. As of 2009, one out of five members of
Glendale City Council was of Armenian descent – Ara J. Najarian. Former Armenian-
American mayors of Glendale were, Larry Zarian, Bob Yousefian, Rafi Manoukian, and
AraNajarian. Armenian families have lived in the city since the 1920s, but the surge in
immigration escalated in the 1970s. Armenian-Americans are well integrated into the city,
with many businesses, several Armenian schools, and ethnic/cultural organizations serv-
ing this ethnic group. The research was also carried out in Fresno County, a melting pot
of ethnic heritages and rich in cultural diversity. The population of Fresno County now
exceeds 786,000 and includes Basque, Asian, Indian, Armenian, Hispanic, Chinese,
Portuguese, and Japanese among its residents.

This visit enabled us to study the bilingual individual in a natural setting. In this con-
text, ‘minority language’ is understood as the language spoken by a socially – and usu-
ally numerically – subordinate group within the total population of a given society. As
stated in “Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics” (Mey 2009:44):

Armenian Folia AnglistikaArmenological Studies

165



Language choice is not a purely linguistic issue. In many countries of
the world, much of the social identification of individuals, as well as of
groups, is accomplished through language choice. By choosing one or
another of the two or more languages in one’s linguistic repertoire, a
speaker reveals and defines his or her social relationships with other peo-
ple. At a societal level, whole groups of people, and in fact, entire nations,
can be identified by the language and languages they use. Language,
together with culture, religion, and history, is a major component of
national identity.

In the USA we deal with a situation when a small weak language (in our case
Armenian) comes into contact with a large powerful language (English) used by the
majority or dominant group. The two languages in close contact can lead to interference
in all aspects of language, from the sound system to conversational rules. 

On the other hand, we have quite a different situation in the Republic of Armenia.
After proclaming Independence from the USSR in 1991, Armenians ceased to consider
Russian as lingua franca. Instead, English has become the main foreign language taught
in schools and is used for the communication with the world, acquisition of technology
and development at large.  In order to be able to judge the validity of certain attitudes and
evaluate the actual impact of English on Armenian both in the USA and RA, we have
drawn information in two different ways: by questionnaires and interviews. Interviews
provide a good deal of data, and are therefore invaluable in studying in depth the lan-
guage attitude of the subjects.  Interviews are much more flexible, but of course limited
because of the time they take to give and analyze.  

However, to obtain statistically analyzable data about attitudes and behaviors, a com-
mon technique is the questionnaire.The number of informants to those questionnaires in
the Republic of Armenia was 564. The collection of the data and their sociolinguistic
analysis took us a year (from 2010 to 2011). In the USA 320 people participated in our
research, the results of which were compared and contrasted with the findings of our
investigation in RA.  

It should be noted that the same questionnaire was used and the same methodology
was applied in each setting (in the USA and RA). By repeating the same question in dif-
ferent forms, we could get some idea of the reliability of the answers, and by careful
wording of questions, attention was focused on those features that were to be analyzed. 

One of the difficulties is that questionnaires are fixed in advance and so they might
leave out questions that seem interesting later on. To eschew these shortcomings, we car-
ried out a small-scale pilot study before the main survey. About 45 informants answered
the questionnaires, which enabled us to make amendments in them. 

The questionnaire utilized to gather the data can be divided into three main parts. The
first one deals with personal information, such as age, sex, origin, etc. In the second sec-
tion the participants are invited to answer questions concerning the use of Anglicisms in
their speech. The final section touches upon the problem of improvement of the current
situation and finding ways of struggle for the purity of our national language.

Armenian Folia Anglistika Armenological Studies

166



The Sociolinguistic Study

As Hudson (1980:21) states, “….some linguistic items, such as items of vocabulary,
are different from all other items with regard to the kind of person using them, or to the
circumstances in which they are used”. Thus we can assume that every individual in a
community is unique in his language. Opinions, attitudes, and self-awareness of individ-
uals and communities can affect linguistic usage. “Throughout history, people have
altered their own language or forced others to change their language because of their own
attitudes and beliefs” (Stockwell 2002:13).

This is the reason that we have tried to survey individual’s attitude towards the use of
Anglicisms in Armenian speech. The informants from RA and the USA have provided
crucial information about the linguistic and extralinguistic factors that have contributed
to the use and assimilation of Anglicisms in Armenian.

As mentioned above, the first part of the questionnaire (in Armenian) established the
social background of the participants:

Males – 31.6% USA / 14.4% RA
Females – 68.4% USA / 84.6 RA
Permanent residence – 98% were the citizens of the USA. However, only 8.8% of

them were born in the USA, whereas 77.5% were immigrants from the Republic of
Armenia, 13.7% from other countries, such as Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Syria. 2% of
informants were in the USA by educational projects or as temporary workers.

Why the number of the informants who were born in the USA is small can be
explained by several factors: first, the estrangement of most third-generation Armenians
(especially with roots in the Ottoman Empire and Mid-East), which is mainly the result
of intermarriages as well as cultural assimilation. Most of these third-generation immi-
grants live outside the organized community in an institutional vacuum. 

Second, the division of the Diaspora into two different groups: the older Diaspora
(immigrants from 1920s to 1950s) and the new wave from Armenia.The several waves
of Soviet emigration over the past 50 years have had a negative impact on the attitudes
of older Diaspora, who have mostly distanced themselves from immigrants with Soviet
lifestyle and mentality.

Rigorous analysis of the data collected in the current study has revealed that attitudes
towards the use of English words in Armenian speech are considerably more complex
than previously thought. 81.7% of Armenian-Americans think that the use of Anglicisms
distorts our national language, whereas 8.7% admit that this is one of the means of
enrichment of Armenian word stock; 3.8% believe that it is easier to understand the
speaker when an Anglicism is used rather  than it is translated or calqued; others perceive
it as xenomania. 

Grouping the answers and presenting them with the help of two variables: positive
and negative, we shall have the following picture: 82.7% of Armenian-Americans and
49.5% of the citizens of RA consider it to be a negative phenomenon, 17.3% from the
USA and 50.5% from RA believe it to be a positive one: 29.1% of RA participants think
that Anglicisms contribute to the enrichment of the vocabulary of the Armenian
language; 6.8% – do not find the use of Anglicisms blameworthy; 5.5% – have positive

Armenian Folia AnglistikaArmenological Studies

167



attitude, but they  are against the unnecessary application of Anglicisms in Armenian
speech. 

The outcomes revealed that the use of Anglicisms is not a problem among 23.1% of
Armenians in the USA and 27.9%of RA citizens, while the majority of Armenians both
in RA and abroad (68.2% USA / 77.3% RA) consider it to be a serious problem. 

The informants are also asked whether there are  elements or phenomena in their
environment that contribute (encourage, stimulate) to the use of Anglicisms. The answers
are as follows: 1. Yes – 23% USA / 84.8% RA

2. No – 46% USA / 9.1% RA
3. It is difficult to answer – 31% USA / 6.1% RA.

Informants were encouraged to give details and examples in addition to their “yes/no”
answers. Hence, Armenian-Americans claim that the English environment, the lack of
Armenian equivalents to English terms, or the lack of knowledge of the corresponding
Armenian words contribute to the use of Anglicisms. On the other hand, most of the
informants from RA believe that the main stimulating factor is xenomania; 36.4%
consider it to be the Internet and the development of Information Technologies; 12.1% –
theestablishment of the English language as the global lingua franca.

We have also inquired about the domains, where the Anglicisms are often used.44.5%
of US residents and 56.1% of RA citizens are sure that Armenian Mass Media (both in
the USA and in the Republic of Armenia) are flooded with Anglicisms. 8.1% of
Armenian-Americans use English words in clubs, 7.1% – at home, 1.6% – in Armenian
Educational Institutions, whereas 11.5% from RA use English words with friends and
relatives, 4.8% – in political parties, 2.9% – in Educational Institutions. 

With respect to the importance given to the struggle against the use of Anglicisms in
Armenian speech, the higher percentages refer to “very important” (70.3% USA / 57.3%
RA), followed by “partially important” (16.2% USA / 30.5% RA), and finally“not impor-
tant” (13.5% USA / 12.2% RA).

Armenian Folia Anglistika Armenological Studies

168



When analyzing the attitudes towards the purity of the national language, we
observed that the percentage of more favorable attitudes was high: 57.7% of Armenians
are sure that the struggle for the purity of Armenian is considered to be one of the main
ways of maintenance of their national identity; 11.5% of participants think that this
struggle will prevent the language from distortion and will contribute to the development
of people’s abilities to communicate in pure Armenian. Those who find this struggle as
“partially important”, mention that in certain situations the use of an English word
becomes preferable. Unfavorable attitudes are very low in percentage: a small number of
informants do not find it important to struggle for the purity of their national language
and express an opinion that it is natural for Armenian-Americans to use English words,
even to speak English instead of Armenian. They are sure that the citizens of RA should
struggle for the purity of the language instead of the Diaspora. The mere fact that
Armenian is still spoken by Armenian-Americans is considered to be a victory by some
informants: “It’s positive that you speak Armenian in the USA, it’s a victory!” says one
of the participants. 

Several people in the Republic of Armenia think that in this globalizing world lan-
guages must be interlaced, and it is useless to struggle for the purity of the national lan-
guage. 1.2% are convinced that people should struggle not against Anglicisms but against
argo terms. 

We found it striking that 87% of informants from the USA and 64.4% – from RA use
Anglicisms in their speech. They mostly belong to the age-group 21-35.

Frequently applied Anglicisms by Armenian-Americans are: bill, bye, channel, check
(anel), coffee, computer, date, excuse me, freeway, good, have a nice day, I love you,
impression, insurance, lunch, no, OK, please, see you, sorry, stop (anel), thank you, TV,
welcome, yes, all right, etc. 

RA citizens often use the following English words: OK, Hi, love, sorry, nice, of
course, party, design, bank, fast food, good, maybe, online, of my god, super, hot-dog,
bye, player, save, gentleman, office, mail, relax, message, file, credits, and many others. 

To improve the current situation, the informants suggest:
1. perfecting the methods and means of teaching Armenian – 28.1%  USA / 31.7%  RA,
2. encouraging the use of Armenian in different spheres of life – 15.8%  USA / 28.7%  RA,
3. establishing a special institution for the struggle against the use of Anglicisms –

11.8%  USA / 6.5%  RA,
4. creating conditions for the faultlessness of Armenian speech – 19.2%  USA / 24.8%  RA,
5. lessening tolerance of Armenian speakers for the use of Anglicisms – 4.3%  RA,
6. leaving the question unsettled – 3.9%  RA.

According to the analyzed data 44.2 % of informants from the USA and 22.8% –
from RA claim that it will be immposible to do away with Anglicisms; that the use of
the latters can be partially restricted (31.7% USA/42.3% RA); 15.4% of the US resi-
dents think that the number of Anglicisms in Armenian speech can be reduced, and
only 1% USA residents and 1.9% RA citizens are sure that we can stop using
Anglicims.

The outcomes revealed that the restriction of the use of Anglicisms in RA is mainly

Armenian Folia AnglistikaArmenological Studies

169



conditioned by the work of the following institutions: Language Inspectorate (24.6%);
Educational Institutions (16.2% – schools, 9.6% – Higher Educational Institutions); Mass
Media (18%); Ministry of Education of RA (7.8%). Only 7.2% of RA citizens have
mentioned the role of the family in the reduction of the number of Anglicisms in
Armenian speech.

On the other hand, the Diaspora think that the struggle against the application of
Anglicisms should be carried out in Armenian schools (23.6%); in churches (10.2%) and
in families (10.2%).  

Conclusion

Contrasting our findings in the USA with the results of our survey in the RA we have
come to the conclusion that Armenian-Americans are more interested in the purity of
their national language than the informants living in RA. 

We have also noticed some differences of attitudes between those informants who
were born in the USA and the immigrants. Thus 4.3% of our compatriots born in the USA
have “positive” attitude towards the use of Anglicisms in Armenian speech; 60.9% –
believe it to be a “negative” phenomenon; 34.8% – are indifferent to this problem. 

Among Armenian-Americans who immigrated from Armenia, 22.4% have a
“positive” attitude to this problem, 51.3% – “negative”, 26.3% – “neutral”. My inter-
views with this group of people have revealed that they are more concerned about the
mastery of the English language than the purity of Armenian. 

To sum up we can say that this sociolinguistic investigation gave us an opportunity to
find out the ability of speakers of the Republic of Armenia as well as Armenian Diaspora
to stand up to the pressure of more powerful language – English. 

References:

1. Baker, C. (1988) Key Issues in Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters.

2. Baker, C. (1992) Attitudes and Language. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
3. Edwards, J. (1999) Refining Our Understanding of Language Attitudes. // Journal of

Language and Social Psychology. N 18 (pp.101-110).
4. Garvett, P.; Coupland, N. & Williams, A. (2003) Investigating Language Attitudes:

Social Meanings of Dialect, Ethnicity and Performance. Cardiff: University of Wales
Press. 

5. Giles, H. & Billings, A. (2004)Assessing Language Attitudes: Speaker Evaluation
Studies. // Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp.187–209). / Ed. by A. Davies & C.
Elder Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

6. Hudson, R.A. (1980) Sociolinguistics. Cambridge University Press.
7. Lasagabaster, D.; Huguet, Á. (2007) Multilingualism in European Bilingual

Contexts: Language Use and Attitudes. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 
8. McKenzie, R.M. (2010) The Social Psychology of English as a Global Language:

Armenian Folia Anglistika Armenological Studies

170



Attitudes, Awareness and Identity in the Japanese Context. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.

9. Mey, J.L. (2009) Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Elsevier Ltd, UK.
10. Ryan, E.B. & Giles, H. (Eds.) (1982) Attitudes Towards Language Variation: Social

and Applied Contexts. London: Edward Arnold.
11. Stockwell, P. (2002) Sociolinguistics: A Resource Book for Students. Routledge.

гÝñ³É»½í³μ³Ý³Ï³Ý Ùáï»óáõ٠ѳۻñ»ÝáõÙ ³Ý·É³μ³ÝáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ
ÏÇñ³éáõÃÛ³Ý ËݹñÇÝ

гÝñ³É»½í³μ³ Ý³Ï³Ý Ñ»ï³½áïáõÃÛáõÝ ¿ ϳï³ñí»É ²ØÜ-áõÙ ¨ г۳ëï³-
ÝÇ Ð³Ýñ³å»ïáõÃÛáõÝáõÙ ³åñáÕ Ù»ñ ѳÛñ»Ý³ÏÇóÝ»ñÇ ßñç³ÝáõÙ, áñÇ Ýå³ï³ÏÝ
¿ñ å³ñ½»É ѳ۳Ëáë ѳÝñáõÃÛ³Ý í»ñ³μ»ñÙáõÝùÁ ѳۻñ»Ý ·ñ³íáñ ¨ μ³ Ý³íáñ
ËáëùáõÙ ³Ý·É»ñ»Ý μ³ é»ñÇ ¨ ³ñï³Ñ³ÛïáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ÏÇñ³éÙ³Ý ËݹñÇÝ: àëáõÙ-
ݳëÇñáõÃÛáõÝÁ ϳï³ñí»É ¿ »ñÏáõ Ù»Ãá¹áí` ËáñÇÝ Ñ³ñó³½ñáõÛóÇ ¨ ³ÝÏ»ï³ÛÇÝ
ѳñóÙ³Ý ÙÇçáóáí: гñóÙ³ÝÁ Ù³ëݳÏó»É »Ý ²ØÜ-áõÙ ³åñáÕ Ù»ñ ѳÛñ»Ý³ÏÇó-
Ý»ñÇó 320-Á, г۳ëï³ÝÇ Ð³Ýñ³å»ïáõÃÛ³Ý ù³Õ³ù³óÇÝ»ñÇó` 564-Á: 

ä³ï³ë˳ÝÝ»ñÇ Ñ³Ù³¹ñáõÙÝ Áëï ÍÝݹ³í³ÛñÇ ¨ ³Ý·É³μ³ ÝáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ÏÇ-
ñ³éÙ³Ý Ñ³Ý¹»å í»ñ³μ»ñÙáõÝùÇ ³ñï³óáÉáõÙ »Ý Ñ»ï¨Û³É å³ïÏ»ñÁ. ûï³ñ »ñÏ-
ñáõÙ ÍÝí³Í Ù»ñ ѳÛñ»Ý³ÏÇóÝ»ñÝ ³ é³í»É ѳÏí³Í »Ý å³Ûù³ñ»Éáõ É»½ íÇ ³ ݳճñ-
ïáõÃÛ³Ý Ñ³Ù³ñ, ù³Ý г۳ëï³ÝÇ Ð³Ýñ³å»ïáõÃÛ³Ý ù³Õ³ù³óÇÝ»ñÝ áõ ²ØÜ
Ý»ñ·³ÕÃ³Í Ñ³Û»ñÁ: ì»ñçÇÝÝ»ñÇë ³ í»ÉÇ ß³ï Ñáõ½áõÙ ¿ ³Ý·É»ñ»ÝÇÝ ïÇñ³å»ï»Éáõ
ËݹÇñÁ, ù³Ý ѳ۳å³Ñå³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý ¨ ѳۻñ»ÝÇ ³ ݳճñïáõÃÛ³Ý Ñ³ñóÁ:

Armenian Folia AnglistikaArmenological Studies

171