maket_N_verjin.qxp


Stereotypical Statements as Social-
Psycholinguistic Phenomenon

Anthropological issues have always been in thefocus of attention of philosophers and historians,
psychologists and sociologists, men of letters and arts critics
who have displayed breathless interest for human nature in
the course of all times. Linguists also couldn’t parry this
issue as humans think and live in language. Language is not
only a means of communication, but the tool of thoughts and
feelings. From this perspective Wilhelm von Humboldt
considers language “the basis of true and veritable linguistic
investigation” (Humboldt 1985: 377).

As far back as in the early 50s of the 20th century Emile
Benveniste, a French linguist, focused his attention on the

speaker’s ability of language acquisition in its application process. V.M.Shaklein at
present claims that, “language represents the language of the speaker, as the tool of his
actions, his practical attitude towards the outside world and the means of influence upon
people” (Shaklein 1999: 507). However, language is social in its nature, “… the origin
of language and its formation never belong to an individual, it’s a social phenomenon.
Linguistic ability is deep in everyone and is put into practice only as a means of
communication” (Humboldt 1985: 381).

Language functions in the social environment, and the social factors influence on
its function and development. “Language serves the society in all its spheres; it embodies
the reflection of public consciousness, reacts on the changes in all the spheres of social
life and, eventually, is created and formed by the same society. Moreover, in social life
people treat language and the same linguistic phenomena differently and, by giving
preference to one, they refuse the others” (Shveitser, Nikolskii 1978: 11).

Frequency is a social factor. The frequency of these or those constructions and
word-formations is a fact of  social preference. Namely, the frequent usage of ready-
made linguistic units in their constant combinations and constant meanings has led to the
formation of speech stereotype/standard or as for V.V.Krasnikh, to stereotype-
presentation (Krasnikh 1999: 270).

The concept “social stereotype” belongs to W.Lippmann. He states that “our world
is recreated and reverberated through a stereotype which “decides” what a person should
do. Thus, we don’t countervail the world as such, but the very world we have created by
the images of our minds” (Yazikovoe stroeniye; steriotipi soznaniya i tvorchestvo, 1988:
97). V.V.Krasnykh defines stereotype as “some invariant of behavior, invariant of
activity” (Krasnikh 1999: 266).

As for W.Lippmann, the outward features of a stereotype are stability, rigidity, the
mastering of “the socially sanctioned information” by an individual, the connection of

51

Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika

Liana Matevosyan 



the theoretical level of the public consciousness with ordinary/empirical level
(Yazikovoye soznanie: steriotipi i tvorchestvo 1988: 98). 

The speech behavior of the speaker is defined by “a complex situational-thematic
factor” (Lapteva 2003: 56). The situations and  aspects of human interaction in their
everyday life are often repeated and that is the reason why they are stereotyped. In their
turn, the reiteration and  stereotype nature of real-life situations have led to the formation
of complete stereotype utterances which are known in linguistics as sentence-formulae
(O.Jespersen), pattern phrases (L.P.Yakubinski), phraseological units (P.A.Lekant),
indivisible (V.Yu.Melikyan) or stereotypical statements (A.M. Peshkovski,
N.V.Cheremisina). 

On the other hand, the frequent use of the given “expressions” is determined by the
fact that  as complete phrases they compile   “the assortment of lexicographic  and
phraseological thinking” (Polivanov 1968: 59) or inherent vocabulary  of people to
express  certain ideas. They co-exist in the native speakers’ consciousness as  complete,
preliminary determined forms where  the speaker makes a choice depending on the tasks,
conditions and communicative situations. In other words, the stereotype-situation
predetermines the stereotype of behavior and the stereotype presentation, i.e. the speech
stereotype which is kept in “the human consciousness in the form of a  frame-structure”
(Krasnikh 1999: 270). Thus, the stereotype-situation “transport-ticket” gives rise to the
stereotype behavior: “asking the nearest passenger” to punch the ticket/pass the ticket,
etc… (Krasnikh 1999: 270).

Linguistic consciousness is multifoliated. V.V.Krasnikh distinguishes the following
layers in linguistic conscience: 1) myth and lyric 2) stereotypical 3) informational 4)
metaphoric. “The stereotypical layer is performed particularly by stereotype-
presentations both as images and situations connected with these images” (Krasnikh
2004: 121).

Therefore, the stereotypical layer along with myth and lyric, informational and
metaphoric layers is the component of the structure of linguistic or “linguistic-
cultural” (N.F. Ufimtseva) consciousness. 

Hence, L.P.Yakubinskiy mentioned that the mechanism of the establishment of
stereotypical statements is defined by the fact that the frequency of the identical speech
situations in communication results in the fact that  the communicative units typically
used for such situations are apprehended as  “attached” stable formulae. In his research
“On Dialogue Discourse” he writes, “Our routine life is full of recurrence and banality.
All in all a considerable part of our interaction with other people belongs to stereotyped
interrelations. However, no matter what kind of interrelation we have, it is always
accompanied by speech reciprocity, speech exchange and, correspondingly, the
stereotype interrelations change into the stereotype speech interrelations…” (Yakubinski
1923: 167). “Speaking in terms of the certain daily stereotypes contributes to the creation
of the complete stereotype expressions somehow attached to the given daily items and
the stereotype topics of communication” (Yakubinski 1923: 175).

Thought stereotype presumes social structure and is reflected in human behavior,
particularly, in discourse behavior. As a rule, the discourse behavior adequately recreates

52

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics



the world around us, particularly, a certain social structure with a certain type of
thinking.

The emergence of stereotypical statements is conditioned by language pragmatics, its
direction towards communication which is much in demand in  the required standard. The
role of  stereotypical statements is vital in the process of communication. In “About the
Nature of Human Communication” V.M. Sokovnin states, “ Evidently, the standardization
as the process of  stereotype establishment in the subject activity and human relations is one
of the general principles of the construction of the organized social systems” (Sokovnin
1974: 105). The same idea is emphasized by V.P.Levkovich, “In order to function as a
whole, as a complicated social system, society should establish such frames of human
behavior where it becomes uniform, stable and frequent” (Levkovich 1976: 212).

At present, stereotypical statements have been elucidated in terms of
psycholinguistics and have been substantiated in “stereo-linguistics”. The
Stereolinguistic approach is such a method to linguistic phenomena which is based on
the interlocutor’s perception of the utterance depending on the distance between the
latter and the speaker. According to the stereolinguistic approach, a human lives in four
concentric spheres. The founder of stereolinguistics, the French linguist J.Duren, refers
these spheres to cognition and names them cognitive sub worlds (Duren 2002: 275-276). 

The first sphere is the sphere of singular or actuality. The second sphere is the
sphere of privacy as well as non-actuality, the usual. This cognitive sub world is
characterized by the speaker’s habitual, routine behavior. The third sphere is the sphere
of universality. This huge sub world colossal in its size lays claim to universality.
J.Duren calls the fourth, zero sphere which is the nearest to the human body, a situational
sphere (Duren 2002: 275-276). J.Duren presents his “ideas” in the form of a diagram
with the Leonardo da Vinci’s famous picture in the centre (Duren 2002: 277):

Four spheres of cognition

0 the sphere of situation, infra-syntax

I  the sphere of singular, actuality
II  the sphere of privacy, non-actuality, the usual
III  the sphere of eternity, universality

However, J.Duren himself, taking into consideration the heuristic nature of his approach,
finds that “… due to it, the solution to different issues  in the sphere of human philogenesis,
ontogenesis, psychology and linguistics can be newly interpreted” (Duren, 2002: 277). 

53

Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika



Namely, indivisible stereotypical statements, such as Fat chance! - Åùå áû! You
bet! - Äåðæè êàðìàí øèðå! led Duren to the discovery of  the fourth, zero sphere, the
closest to the human body. “Time and space of the zero sphere are narrowed down
almost to a dot; the space is the place occupied by the given essence or the bearer of the
given feature, and its immediate proximity; the time is the given instant without any
conscious past or future. The human being who has just felt the button under his bare
feet, has rapped out and mouthed curses  gives an idea about the speech (and non-
speech) behavior within zero sphere” (Duren 2002: 275).

While emphasizing the zero sphere of cognition, J.Duren is guided by the position
of the French psychologist H. Wallon, who sets off  practical mind against the discourse
or speech mind (Wallon 1982: 264-265). H.Wallon provides the following example as an
illustration of the practical mind. The chimpanzee sees a hanging banana, cries out and
flings its arms. Then it suddenly drags the box, climbs on it and grasps the banana. But
if the banana and the box aren’t in the field of its vision  at a time, it does not make the
right decision. There are species who cannot find a way out at all. 

Although the human conscious vocabulary possesses stereotype expressions as
complete sentences, they come to the surface of the memory only in  certain situations
(the situation carries out the function of  the box in H.Wallon’s example). Some people
do not recall them at all, since the capacity of the operative memory of the human isn’t
large and varies in different people. Stereotypical statements are arbitrary reactions
on the external stimulus, which is a situation. The situation here has a conditional
reflex function. Thus, linguistic consciousness is multilevel and the reflex-driven
stereotype level is considered to be one of its structural supports.

The evolution of language and thinking has taken place in close correlation. The
study of language and thinking correlation is still in the centre of linguistic research.
Though the  Sapir-Worf’s hypothesis for the study of this issue was subjected to  harsh
criticism, it introduced a new research paradigm in  scientific practice,  “the analysis of
the cognitive processes through the contrast of the languages representing cardinally
different cultures” (Yazik i Soznaniye: Paradoksalnaya Ratsialnost, 1993: 163)
“continues to alarm human mind” (Mechkovskaya 2000: 65). 

One of the essential peculiarities of human character is the self-acting behavior in
certain situations, i.e. without preliminary consideration and often against objective
logic. However, the automation in human actions is not only and so much the corollary
of the biological stipulation as the result of the social ascendancy over the individual.The
biological factor here embodies “the reduced socialized form” (Pedagogika Visshei
shkoli 1972: 121). The stereotype of thought and speech behavior is apparently
conditioned by the fear of people to stay in “isolation”. 

The main difficulty of any teaching, including language teaching , is to develop and
evolve  the right skill to remember the claimable rule.

Despite the specific nature of certain languages, linguistics defines them using
principally the same model. The similarity of such models is not commissioned only by
reasoning and deduction, but with the specific material of different languages.

Wilhelm von Humboldt considers that “the principle aim of comparative linguistics

54

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics



is the thorough and circumstantial research of different methods through which different
nations solve the universal task of the creation of language” (Humboldt 1985: 47). He
also states that “not only the elements of the language, but the languages themselves
often obey the rules of general analogy” (Humboldt 1985: 348).

In our opinion, the spoken standard is one of such analogies. The comparison of
languages “by analogy with all conceivable rules” (Humboldt, 1985: 346) will help to
comprehend and reveal the mechanism of the language and  thinking interaction in the
process of speech activity. 

It is important and expedient to reveal and describe routine and emotional life
situations and, consequently, speech situations in mass communication, since each life
situation is guided by the formation of speech and the availability of the list of the
communicative units serving for the given situations practically to help the teacher in
foreign language teaching..

As an example we will provide the comparison of the following greeting expressions
in the Russian, Armenian, English and Japanese languages. The first three languages are
in full conformity: some greeting expressions cover broad situations (Russian:
Çäðàâñòâóé (-òå) [zdrastvui (-te)], Ïðèâåò [privet]; Armenian: ´³ñ¨ (Ó»½) [barev
(dzez)], àÕçáõÛÝ [voghjuin]; English: How do you do! Hello!)  and temporary situations
(Russian: Äîáðîå óòðî [dobroe utro], Äîáðûé äåíü [dobriy den], Äîáðûé âå÷åð
[dobriy vecher]; Armenian: ´³ñÇ ÉáõÛë [bari luis], ´³ñÇ ûñ [bari or], ´³ñÇ »ñ»Ïá
[bari yereko]; English: Good morning, Good day, Good evening). According to
A.A.Akishina and K.Kamogova (Akishina, Kamogova 1974: 9-24) Japanese greetings
are namely distinguished by situational fraction relating to the situations of the speakers’
location, for example the greeting expressions while entering and exiting the building are
different. 

Greetings in the Russian, Armenian and English languages are differentiated
according to diverse styles: formal, neutral and informal. Greetings in Japanese differ
due to the level of politeness (informal familiar and respectful).

Each nation according to its national and cultural peculiarities has its world outlook,
attitudes towards life being based on “the language frame” (Yazik i Soznaniye:
Paradoksalnaya Ratsialnost 1993: 163). R.B.Sabatkoyev states, “Caucasian nations have
strictly regulated forms of addressing, greeting, parting, expressing condolences used to
express the benevolence, respect and sympathy towards people. Some of them, to a
certain, extent differ from the corresponding Russian speech formulae” (Sabatkov 1999:
472). N.B.Mechkovskaya mentions, that “The category of politeness contains seven
levels in Korean: 1) deferential, 2) respectful, 3) the form of politeness characteristic of
female speech, 4) polite, 5) personal, 6) familiar, 7) protective. 

Each form of politeness has its own set of grammatical, word-building and lexical
markers. There are also grammatical and lexical synonyms which mainly differ by
various levels of politeness” (Mechkovskaya 2000: 60-61). 

According to Worf’s terminology these two “linguo-cultural types” belong to the
European and Eastern standard. .Sepir and B.Worf assert, that “language is not only the
product of society, but also the means of thought and mentality formation”

55

Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika



(Mitrophanova 1999: 345). “If the impact of the culture on language is quite evident and
diverse, then the issue about the reverse impact of the language on culture is still open”
(Mechkovskaya 2000: 61). As a solution to this issue, modern linguistics attempts to
avoid one-sided determinism giving preference to the interdependent one and trying to
find correlations between the structures of language and culture. 

Stereotypical statements are combined in the groups based on thematic unification and
similar situations, the so-called thematic-situational groups. Separate thematic-situational
groups are combined in larger groups, as “Urban stereotypes”, “Speech etiquette”, “Keeping
contact”, “Expressing different emotions” constituting the essence of the lively speech of
the Russian language. The last group is perhaps the most interesting and less examined.

“Evaluation and emotionality are usually emphasized when defining a stereotype”
(Pishalnikova, Sorokin 1993: 96). 

Notes:

1.  The concept is suggested by B.M. Gasparov. He distinguishes between Eastern and
Western European standards. R. Kipling’s famous words “Oh, East is East, and
West is West, and never the twain shall meet” immediately come to mind.

References:

1. Akishina, A.A.; Kamogova, K. (1974) Sravnitelniy analiz russkogo i yaponskogo
rechevogo etiketa // Lingvostranovedcheskiy aspekt prepodavaniya russkogo
yazika inostrantsam, Moskva: Izd. Moskovskogo univ.

2.   Benevenist, E. (1974) Obshchaya lingvistika. Moskva: Progress. 
3. Cheremisina, N.B. (1982) Statsionarnie predolzheniye kak kollolvialniy fenomen //

Teoriya i praktika opisaniya razgavornoy rechi. Gorkiy. 
4. Duren, J. (2002) O Stereolingvistike // Kommunitativno-smislovie parametri

grammatiki i teksta.  Moskva: Editorial URSS. 
5. Formanovskaya, N.I. (1979) Funktsionalniye i kategorialniye sushchnosti

ustoichivikh  formul obshcheniya. Diss. ... dokt. filolog. nauk. Moskva.
6. Gasparov, B.M. (1977) Vvedenie v sotsiogramatiku // Problemi yazikovoi sistemi i

yeyo funktsionirovaniya. (Uchyonie zapiski tartuskogo gos. univ. Trudi po russkoi
i slovyanskoi filologii. Seriya lingvisticheskaya.  Vol. 29, Tartu: Izd.Tartuskogo
gos. univ. Vip. 425.

7.  Humboldt, V. fon (1985) Yazik i filosofiya kulturi. Moskva: Progress.
8.  Jespersen, O. (1958) Filosofiya Grammatiki / Pod red. B.A. Ilyina. Moskva: Izd.

inostr.  literaturi.
9. Krasnikh, V.V. (1999) Stereotipi: neobkhodimaya realnost ili mnimaya

neobkhodimost // Materiali IX Kongressa  MAPRIAL. Bratislava, 1999: dokladi i
soobsheniya rossiyskikh uchyonikh. Moskva.

56

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics



10. Krasnikh, V.V. (2004) Sovremennaya nauchnaya paradigma: lingvokognitivniy
podkhod // Russkiy yazik: istoricheskie sudbi i sovremennost (II mezhdunarodniy
kongress isledovateley russkogo yazika), (Moskva, filologicheskiy fakultet, MGU,
18 - 21 Marta, 2004). Moskva: Izd. Moskovskogo univ.

11.  Lapteva, O.A. (2003) Russkiy razgavorniy sintaksis. Izd.. 2, stereotipnoye. Moskva:
Editorial URSS. 

12. Lekant, P.A. (1974) Sintaksis prostogo predlozheniya v sovremennom russkom
yazike. Moskva: Vishaya Shkola. 

13. Levkovich, V.P. (1976) Obichai i ritual kak sposobi sotsianalnoy reguliatsii povedeniya
// Psikhologicheskiye problemi sotsialnoy reguliatsii povedeniya. Moskva: Nauka.

14. Matevosyan, L. B. (1992) Statsionarnoye predlozheniye v sovremennom russkom
yazike. Yerevan: Izd. Yerevanskogo univ. 

15. Matevosyan, L.B. (2005) Statsionarnoye predlozhenie: ot standartnogo k
originalnomu. Moskva-Yerevan: Institut yazikoznaniya RAN, Izd. Yerevanskogo univ. 

16. Matevosyan, L.B. (2007) Yazikovoe soznanie: stereotipniy plast. Moskva-Yerevan:
Institut yazikoznaniya RAN, Avrorskoe izdanie. 

17.  Mechkovskaya, N.B. (2000) Sotsialnaya lingvistika. Moskva: Aspekt Press.
18. Melikyan, V.Yu. (2002) Aktualnie voprosi sintaksisa russkogo yazika: Teoriya

nechlenimogo predlozheniya. Rostov na Donu: Izd. Rostovskogo gos. ped. univ. 
19. Minskiy, M. (1978) Struktura dlya predstavleniya znaniy // Psikhologiya

mashinnogo zreniya. Moskva.
20. Mitrofanova, O.D. (1999) Lingvodidakticheskiye uroki i prognozi kontsa XX veka //

Materiali IX kongressa MAPRIAL. Bratislava, 1999: dokladi i soobshcheniya
rossiyskikh uchyonikh. Moskva.

21. (1972) Pedogogika vishey shkoli. / Otv. red. Yu. Kabanskiy. Rostov-na-Donu: Izd.
rostovskogo univ.

22. Peshkovskiy, A.M. (1956) Russkiy sintaksis v nauchnom osveshchenii. Izd. 7.
Moskva: Uchpedgiz. 

23. Pishalnikova, V.A., Sorokin Yu. A. (1993) Vvedeniye v psikhopoetiku. Barnaul: Izd.
altaiskogo univ. 

24. Polivanov, E.D. (1968) Statyi po obshchemu yazikoznaniyu. Izbrannie raboti.
Moskva: Nauka.

25. Sabatkoev, R.B. (1999) Rechevoy etiket kak vazhnoye sredstvo vospriyatiya kulturi
obshcheniya // Materiali IX kongressa MAPRIAL. Bratislava, 1999: dokladi i
soobsheniya  rossiyskikh uchyonikh. Moskva.

26. Shaklein, V.M. (1999) Lingvokulturnoye soderzhaniye slova i predlozheniya //
Materiali IX kongressa MAPRIAL. Bratislava, 1999: dokladi i soobshcheniya
rossiyskikh uchyonikh. Moskva.

27. Shveitser, A.D.; Nikolskiy L.B. (1978) Vvedenie v sotsiolingvistiku. Moskva:
Vishaya shkola. 

28. Sokovnin, V.M. (1974) O prirode chelovecheskogo obshcheniya (Opit filosovskogo
analiza). Frunze: Mektep. 

29. Ufimtseva, N.V. (1993) Chelovek i ego soznaniye: Problema Formirovaniya //

57

Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika



Yazik i soznanie: paradoksalnaya ratsionalnost. Moskva:  Institut yazikoznaniya
RAN. 

30. Wallon, H. (1982) La vie mentale. Paris: Editions sociales, collection Essentiel.
31. Yakubinskiy, L.P. (1923) O dialogicheskoy rechi // Russkaya rech. Trudi

foneticheskogo instituta prakticheskogo izucheniya yazikov (Sbornik statey). / Pod
red. L.V. Sherbi. Peterburg. Vip. 1. 

32. (1993) Yazik i soznanie: paradoksalnaya ratsionalnost. Moskva: Institut
yazikoznaniya RAN.

33. (1988) Yazikovoye soznanie: stereotipi i tvorchestvo. Moskva: Institut
yazikoznaniya RAN. 

γñÍñ³ïÇå ݳ˳¹³ëáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ 
áñå»ë ѳÝñ³- ¨ Ñ᷻ɻ½í³µ³Ý³Ï³Ý ý»ÝáÙ»Ý

ä³ïñ³ëïÇ, ³Ý÷á÷áË Ý³Ë³¹³ëáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ó³ÝÏÁ Ù³ñ¹áõ É»½í³·Ç-
ï³ÏóáõÃÛ³Ý ß»ñï»ñÇó Ù»ÏÝ ¿, ¨ ËáëáÕÁ, ѳÕáñ¹³ÏóÙ³Ý Çñ³íÇ׳ÏÇó »É-
Ý»Éáí, ѳٳå³ï³ëË³Ý ÁÝïñáõÃÛáõÝ ¿ ϳï³ñáõÙ áõÝ»ó³Í µ³é³å³ß³-
ñÇó: ²ÛÉ Ï»ñå ³ë³Í, Ù³ñ¹áõ ·Çï³ÏóáõÃÛ³Ý µ³Õ³¹ñÇãÝ»ñÇó Ù»ÏÁ ϳñÍñ³-
ïÇå Ëáëù³ÛÇÝ í³ñù³·ÇÍÝ ¿, áñÁ å³Ûٳݳíáñí³Í ¿ ϳñÍñ³ïÇå Çñ³íÇ-
׳Ïáí: úñÇݳÏ` ѳݹÇå»ÉÇë (§Ñ³Ý¹ÇåáõÙ¦ ϳñÍñ³ïÇå Çñ³íÇ׳Ï) Ù³ñ-
¹ÇÏ Çñ³ñ áÕçáõÝáõÙ »Ý (í³ñù³·ÍÇ Ï³ñÍñ³ïÇå)  Ñ»ï¨Û³É ³ñï³Ñ³ÛïáõÃ-
ÛáõÝÝ»ñáí` ´³ñ¨°, àÕçáõ°ÛÝ ¨ ³ÛÉÝ (ËáëùÇ Ï³ñÍñ³ïÇå):

È»½í³·Çï³ÏóáõÃÛáõÝÁ µ³½Ù³ß»ñï ¿, ¨ Ýñ³ ϳéáõóí³Íù³ÛÇÝ Ñ»Ý³-
ëÛáõÝ»ñÇó Ù»ÏÁ é»ýÉ»ùëÇí µÝáõÛà áõÝ»óáÕ Ï³ñÍñ³ïÇå ß»ñïÝ ¿: »¨ ϳñÍ-
ñ³ïÇå ³ñï³Ñ³ÛïáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ áñå»ë å³ïñ³ëïÇ Ý³Ë³¹³ëáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñ
³éϳ »Ý Ù³ñ¹áõ µ³é³å³ß³ñáõÙ, ë³Ï³ÛÝ ÑÇßáÕáõÃÛ³Ý ËáñùáõÙ Ç Ñ³Ûï »Ý
·³ÉÇë ÏáÝÏñ»ï Çñ³íÇ׳ÏÝ»ñáõÙ, ÇëÏ áñáß Ù³ñ¹Ï³Ýó ·Çï³ÏóáõÃÛ³Ý Ù»ç
ã»Ý ¿É ³ñÃݳÝáõÙ  í»ñçÇÝÝ»ñÇë µ³ó³Ï³ÛáõÃÛ³Ý å³ï׳éáí:  

γñÍñ³ïÇå ³ñï³Ñ³ÛïáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ áõëáõÙݳëÇñáõÃÛáõÝÁ, Ýñ³Ýó ϳ-
éáõóí³Íù³ÛÇÝ ¹³ë³Ï³ñ·áõÙÁ, µ³ßËáõÙÁª Áëï ѳÕáñ¹³Ïó³Ï³Ý Çñ³íÇ-
׳ÏÝ»ñÇ áõ ûٳݻñÇ, ³ñ¹Ç³Ï³Ý ¿ É»½íÇ Ã»° ï»ëáõÃÛ³Ý, ¨  û° ¹³ë³í³Ý¹-
Ù³Ý ï»ë³ÝÏÛáõÝÝ»ñÇó: 

58

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics