maket_N_verjin.qxp


On Ways of Expressing 
Persuasion in Discourse 

To be human is to want change. There are, of course,a huge number of ways of making an influence on
people’s mind or behavior and changing their attitudes,
beliefs or behavior. But the most frequently used and the
most effective tool that people manipulate to achieve change
during their interaction is persuasion. 

Interest in developing some general principles of
persuasion is not new. In the fourth century BC Aristotle
concerned himself with the persuasive communication and
identified three kinds of persuasion: “Of the modes of
persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three
kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the

speaker; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind; the third on the
proof, provided by the words of the speech itself. […] persuasion may come to the
hearers when a speech stirs their emotions. Secondly, persuasion is affected through the
speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the
persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question” (Petty 1981:5).

The American social psychologist J.W. Zanden defines persuasion as “a deliberate
attempt on the part of one party to influence the attitudes or behavior of the other party, so as
to achieve some predetermined end” (Zanden 1977:11). In writing about persuasive speaking
T.S. Scheider states that it can be described to be that activity in which the speaker and the
listener are “conjoined” and in which the speaker consciously attempts to influence the
behaviour of the listener by “transmitting audible and visible symbolic cues” (Scheidel 1985). 

A careful and detailed investigation makes it possible to give a more or less complete
definition of the persuasive communication. Any conscious, deliberate and predetermined
attempt of an individual to make certain changes in the interlocutor’s cognition or
behaviour, i.e. to make the interlocutor adhere to his/her own point of view through the
transmission of some message can be considered to be a persuasive behaviour. Whenever
some changes are apparent in part of the recipient in favour of the message, the process of
persuading can be viewed as successful. What is important here is that how E.P. Bettinghaus
notes “success in persuasive communication must be based on a series of decisions, each
having its roots in the central question of what is best for mankind” (Bettinghaus 1980:7).

The aim of this paper is to bring together and analyze different theories on persuasive
communication taking into account the theory of speech acts and the theory of
conversational implicature. Our task is to attempt to discover first of all the basic features
of persuasive communication, the necessary conditions of its effectiveness. We shall try
to place emphasis on the different means and strategies that different people may choose
to use in order to achieve an effective end in persuasive communicative situations.

93

Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika

Siranoush Ghaltkhchyan



94

The in-depth investigation of various persuasive communicative situations comes to
prove that persuasion is not only a linguistic but also a psychological action. To approach
the problem it would be preferable to cast a brief glance at the psychological aspect of
persuasive communication that will consequently lead us to a better understanding of the
complex nature of persuasive communication. For a communicator to satisfy his/her
communicative needs and to be a success in a persuasive communication, s/he should
necessarily take into consideration and observe the psychological factors of persuasion. 

In any persuasive communicative situation a formula is always apparent that should
be necessarily observed in order to understand the process properly. That is ‘who says
what to whom and how’. These are accordingly four basic factors engaged in the process
of communication: the source (who says it), the message (what is said), the recipient (to
whom it is said), and the channel (medium or means of communication). The interrelation
among these factors may produce persuasion. When situations become more and more
complicated, these factors necessarily remain, though there may be circumstances with
more than one source, more than one receiver, many different messages and various
channels. Most of the time the process of persuasion takes place in the following way: the
persuasive context, i.e. the source and the message, question the receiver’s initial attitude,
recommend the adoption of a new attitude and provide ‘incentives’ for understanding,
yielding to and retaining the new rather than the initial attitude. 

Each of these factors is of great importance and all of them do play certain role in
affecting the effectiveness of a persuasive intent and can greatly account for persuasive
changes. In his meditations about persuasion Plato puts to the fore the importance of the
message factor in any persuasive communication. He regarded persuasion as the key to
power and the message as the key to persuasion. “What is there greater than the word
which persuades the judges in the court, or the senator in the council, or the citizen in
the assembly, or at any other meeting? – if you have the power of uttering this word, you
will have any person your slave. Even the money maker of whom you talk will be found
to gather treasures, not for himself, but for you, who are able to speak and to persuade
the multitude” (Petty 1981: 69).

Nevertheless, the most significant and the most decisive role in any persuasive
communicative situation belongs to the source factor, for, it is up to the sender of the
massage to determine how to organize his/her persuasive speech, how to construct the
structure and the stylistic design of the message to conduct persuasion. Moreover, along
with verbal communication the source may make use of the so-called extralinguistic
cues or paralinguistic means that include gestural and postural system, intonation, spatial
distance from the receiver, rate of speech, length and frequency of pauses, eye contact
and so on. Such non-verbal cues are generally very informative. They may add a new
dimension to the given verbal message and contribute greatly to the total purport of the
persuasive massage. In many persuasive communicative situations the effectiveness of a
persuasive attempt may be very much dependent even upon the source’s appearance,
social status, lifestyle, age, sex, relationship to the receiver, manner of dressing and
behaving, approaches to this or that phenomenon or to life in general.

The belief that the source of the message acquires great significance in any persuasive

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics



communication can be traced back to Aristotle who wrote that “persuasion is achieved by
the speaker’s personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him
credible. We believe a good man more fully and more readily than others. It is not true, as
some writers assume in their treatises on rhetoric, that the personal goodness revealed by the
speaker contributes nothing to his power of persuasion; on the contrary, his character may
always be called the most effective means of persuasion he possesses” (Roberts 1886: 7). 

So, one of the most straightforward findings of the investigations on persuasion is that
the higher a person’s evaluation of the communicator, i.e. source, the more likely is s/he to
yield to the persuasive communication. The two major elements in the target individual’s
evaluation of a communicator are the source’s credibility, i.e. certain perceptions about the
source held by the recipient and the source’s attractiveness to the recipient, i.e. the degree
to which the communicator is liked by the target individual. Hence, high-credibility
communicators are more effective in producing attitude change than low-credibility
communicators are and the better the communicator’s appearance, style of speaking,
gestural and postural system the more persuasive s/he may be (Bettinghaus1980).

Nevertheless, the recipient factor is not less important in the process of persuasion, for,
in many cases the failure or success in a specific persuasive communicative situation may
depend greatly on the receiver of the massage. J.W.Zanden notes in this connection that there
are two main kinds of people. Some people are gullible pushovers, while others stubbornly
stick to their guns (Zanden 1977). Attention should be focused on such factors as age, gender,
intelligence of the recipient. Zellner suggest the importance of self-esteem which is positively
related to intelligence. Self-esteem refers to the value, worth or regards one places on
himself/herself. It has been proved that people with low self-esteem are less confident and
less competent, view themselves as less capable than people with high self-esteem.
Consequently, an individual with low self-esteem is usually more persuasible, i.e. more easily
persuaded than an individual with high self-esteem. “What you think of yourself will much
depend upon the degree to which your actual successes coincide with the goals and
aspirations you have set for yourself” (Bettinghaus 1980:54). Skolnick and Keslin develop
the idea that addressees high in the “need for social approval”, i.e. the desire to be liked by
others, are often easier to influence than individuals lower in this need (Shaver 1977).

If we investigate the problem from the pragmalinguistic angle the massage factor
comes to the fore. It is a well-proved fact that most of the time sentences uttered are not
just “innocent statements”, that utterances in addition to the semantic meaning they convey
perform specific actions, i.e. the interlocutors do things with words in particular speech
situations either consciously or subconsciously (Austen 1969). Independent of syntactic
and semantic categories, utterances can be used to mean different things in different
contexts depending on how they relate to the context or speech event in which they are
uttered. Thus, it is likely that the sentences uttered have a finite set of functions, speech acts
that sometimes may even convey meaning opposite to the sentence meaning (Searle 1976).

J.L. Austen goes on stating that any linguistic string uttered or proposition, i.e. a
locutionary act may possess a specific intention or function, i.e. illocutionary act which
is intended on the part of the addresser to have an effect of some kind on the addressee,
i.e. perlocutionary effect (Austen 1969). It should be noted in this connection that the

95

Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika



communicator should know what to utter and how in the specific context to get the
wanted perlocutionary effect. In the P.H. Grice’s theory this implies to the conventional
implicature which can be defined as the literal truth condition of the utterance and
conversational implicature which provides some explicit account of how it is possible to
mean more than what is literally expressed by the conventional sense of the linguistic
expression uttered (Grice 1975). With this regard the notion of implicit and explicit
utterances is introduced. What is said is the literal, explicit meaning and what is meant
or implicated is the implicit meaning of an utterance, the second being solely dependent
upon a particular context and the general background knowledge of the interlocutors.

Hence, if persuasive communication is investigated from the pragmalinguistic
angle, we can surely state that persuasion can be described as a perlocutionary act, the
effect of some linguistic behaviour and we have to admit that there exist two basic ways
of making an influence and changing the interlocutor’s standpoint: explicit and implicit. 

Some communicators prefer to be straightforward while speaking and command
their wish explicitly, letting the recipient obviously realize their communicative intent.
To make the point clear let us firstly observe a set of interesting examples.

Come Fanny, these are fine times for you, but you must not be always
walking from one room to the other and doing the looking on, at your ease,
in this way,- I want you here.- I have been slaving myself till I can hardly
stand.” Fanny took the work very quietly without attempting any defense.
(J. Austen: 120)

What a piece of work here is about nothing,- I am quite ashamed of
you, Fanny, to make such a difficulty of obliging your cousin in a trifle of
this sort, -so kind as they are to you!- Take the part with a good grace, and
let us hear no more of the matter. (J. Austen: 170)

Fanny now that you are going into company without any of us; I do
beseech and entreat you not to be putting yourself forward, and talking
and giving your opinion as if you were one of your cousins - as if you were
dear Mrs. Rushworth or Julia. That will never do, believe me. Remember,
wherever you are, you must be the lowest and last, and as to coming away
at night, you are to stay just as long as Edmund chooses. Leave him to
settle that. (J. Austen: 158)

Stay, stay Fanny! What are you about? - Where are you going? - don’t
be in such a hurry. Depend upon it, it is not you that are wanted; depend
upon it, it is me, but you are so very eager to put yourself forwards. What
should Sir. Thomas want you from? It is me, Baddeley, you mean, I am
coming this moment. You mean me, Baddeley, I am sure, Sir Thomas wants
me, not Miss Price. (J. Austen: 84)

As we see, in these examples the act of persuasion may sound synonymous to such
directive acts as requesting, questioning, ordering, instructing, urging etc. We come to

96

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics



realize or presuppose that these are persuasive attempts when we take into account the
context of the speech acts, for, it is the nature of the speech event that determines the kind
of speech act of an utterance. Otherwise, these utterances can be regarded as infelicitous
or inappropriate. So, the communicators apply to the illocutionary force of requesting,
questioning, ordering to have the perlocutionary effect of persuasion. Though, actually,
the directives ‘beseech’, ‘entreat’ are used in one of the examples, they are uttered in such
a tone that it becomes apparent that they mean just the opposite. The emphatic use of
inverted word order in the sentence contributes greatly to the same stylistic effect.

The studies have shown that those communicators who resort constantly to explicit
persuasion are generally middle-class people with low level of intelligence and with low
level of consciousness, of dictatorial character and insolent manners, who overestimate
their ‘wisdom’ and ‘intelligence’ and are always convinced of their ‘truthfulness’. 

Not less important is also the recipient factor. Explicit persuasion is mostly exposed
upon addressees with low self-esteem, of humble and submissive nature and, what is
more important, of a lower social level. 

Nevertheless, explicit persuasion, as a rule, decreases the effectiveness of a
persuasive message to a great extent and reduces the chances to succeed in persuasion.
Hence, the source’s persuasive attempts in case of explicit persuasion almost always end
in failure. Fortunately enough, the instances of explicit persuasion expressed through
imperative sentences are not very frequently observed in discourse, for, in their form and
structure such speeches used in any persuasive communicative situation sound rather
rude, impolite and inadequate and may only hinder an effective communication. 

Communicators more frequently choose the implicit way of convincing, when an
attempt is made by the source to measure and alter the recipient’s initial attitude, belief
or behaviour, disguising his/her real intention, trying to persuade the other party in an
indirect way as if advising, encouraging, complimenting or just giving information. The
choice of the way of persuading is much conditioned by not only the addresser of the
message but also and mainly by the addressee of the massage, his/her age, gender and,
what is of utmost importance, of the self-esteem and intelligence of the receiver. It has
been proved that more intelligent addressees are more likely to be persuaded by complex
messages than less intelligent ones would. The more intelligent the addressee is, the
more difficult it is for the communicator to make him/her yield to the persuasive
massage because of his/her greater critical faculties (Bettinghaus 1980). Hence, it is
necessary to change the nature and style of the persuasive massage and resort to the
implicit way of persuading when one has to do with a receiver higher in self-esteem and
intelligence, since the explicit persuasion in this case is sure to fall flat. 

To elucidate the point let’s examine the following speech event where one of the
heroines of the novel “Mansfield Park” after J.Austen, Mrs. Norris tries to persuade Sir
Thomas to take care of her poor sister’s daughter. The communicator’s speech here is
rather long, well-prepared and carefully elaborated with lots of transitions and
repetitions, since Sir Thomas is an intelligent and very respected man among the upper
class society and persuading him requires much strength and skills. The addresser makes
use of the so-called ‘sleeper effect’ method, i.e. she tends to produce attitude change in

97

Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika



a period of time in a brain-washing manner, prolonging her speech on purpose in order
to make persuasion clandestine (Shaver 1977).

My deer Sir Thomas, I perfectly understand you and do justice to the
generosity and delicacy of your notions, which indeed are quite of a piece with
your general conduct; and I entirely agree with you in the main as to the
propriety of doing everything one could by way of providing for a child one
had in a manner taken into once own hands. […] I thoroughly understand
you; you are everything that is generous and considerate, and I am sure we
shall never disagree with on this point. […] Whatever I can do, as you well
know, I am always ready enough to do for the good of those I love, and, though
I could never feel for this little girl the hundredth part of the regard I bear to
your own dear children, nor consider her, in any respect, so much my own, I
should hate myself if I were capable of neglecting her. […] Is not she a sister’s
child? And could I bare to see her want, while I had a bit of bread to give her?
My dear Sir Thomas, with all my faults I have a warm heart, and, poor as I
am, would rather deny myself the necessaries of life, than do an ungenerous
thing. [...] I am sure I should be the last person in the world to withhold my
mite upon such an occasion. Having no children of my own, who should I look
to in my litter matter I may ever have to bestow, but the children of my sister?
But you know I’m a woman of few words and professions. [...] Do not let us
be frightened from a good deed by a trifle. Give a girl an education and
introduce her properly into the world, and, ten to one but she has the means
of settling well, without farther expense to anybody. A niece of ours, Sir
Thomas, I may say, or, at least of yours, would not grow up in this
neighbourhood without many advantages. [...] So, if you are not against it I
will write to poor sister tomorrow, and make the proposal, and as soon as
matters are settled I will engage to get the child to Mansfield Park, you shall
have no trouble about it. My own trouble, you know, I never regard. I will send
Mary to London on purpose. (J. Austen: 5-6)

So, the heroine starts her persuasive speech applying to the illocutionary force of praising
and complimenting Sir Thomas on “his generosity and delicacy of his notions”, on having
“considerate and compassionate heart” always addressing him with the vocative “my dear
Sir Thomas”. So, initially it becomes difficult to presuppose that this is a persuasive attempt.
As she goes on with her persuasive communication she passes to the encouraging and then to
the advising method, speaking of her readiness and willingness to help those she loves as if
implying that she was never reluctant to be of help as far as Sir Thomas’s own children are
concerned. She desires to touch upon his heart declaring that she would never trouble him on
this problem unless she was rich enough and if her health was not in such a “miserable”
condition. Meanwhile, she threatens Sir Thomas that it would be a rather “disgraceful and
ungenerous thing” not helping his poor relative, knowing very well that Sir Thomas pays
much attention to the public opinion. Then she makes her persuasive speech more powerful

98

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics



using rhetorical questions such as “Is not she a sister’s child?”; “And could I bare to see her
want, while I had a bit of bread to give her?; “Having no children of my own, who should I
look to in my litter matter I may ever have to bestow, but the children of my sister?”.

She alters the style of her speech to an extent when she goes further and gives a
more decisive and compulsory colouring to her persuasive speech. This can be best
illustrated by the grammatical structures of the sentences that are similar to that of
imperative sentences. The persuasive intent of Mrs. Norris’s speech becomes apparent
not only on the syntactic level of the analysis but also on the semantic level. The specific
choice of this or that word in a given speech event makes it possible for the
perlocutionary effect to be more powerful. At the end of her speech the usage of the
vocative without any endearment pronounced with a firmer tone of voice and the
replacement of the pronoun ‘ours’ with the more emphatic ‘yours’ has the effect of
stressing Sir Thomas’s responsibility and obligations towards his poor relatives. In the
end, we should state that all her endeavours were not in vain. Mrs. Norris accomplished
her goal and managed to persuade Sir Thomas in adopting the little girl. 

So, this long and carefully elaborated persuasive speech asserts the idea that there
may be more than one speech act in the very same speech event, one interwoven inside
the other and each of which is acceptable with respect to the previous one. This is done
on purpose to reach an effective end in the persuasive communicative situation. These
instances allow us to state that implicit ways of expressing the illocutionary force of the
persuasive massage depend on the speaker’s wish to sound more polite and avoid
negative answers in reply to his persuasive massage on the one hand, and avoid
communicative conflicts in case of refusal on the other hand.

To sum up, we can deduce that persuasion may be viewed as a strategy of human
interaction which requires linguistic choices to be made on a wide range of language-
internal levels (phonetic, morphological, syntactic, lexical, semantic), as well as language-
external levels, such as paralinguistic means of interaction (gestures, facial expressions, etc.)
and also the illocutionary force of indirect speech acts. So, the variable range of options is
extremely wide and depends on the awareness of the processes the interlocutor is involved
in. Hence, persuasive communication which employs the strategy of persuasion depends
largely on language adaptability in which the speaker makes linguistic choices from a
variable range of options in such a way as to satisfy his/her communicative need.

References:

1. Austen, J. (1992) Mansfield Park London, Penguin Popular Classics.
2. Austin, J.L. (1962) How to Do Things with Words. London: Oxford university Press.
3. Bettinghaus, P. E. (1979) Persuasive Communication. 3-rd edition. New York.
4. Brown, P.; Levinson, C. S. (1995) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage

Cambridge University Press.
5. Byrne, D. (1981) Social Psychology: Understanding Human Interaction, 3-rd edition.

New York.
6. Grice, H. P. (1975) Logic and Conversation // Syntax and Semantics. / Ed by Cole P.

and Morgan J.L. New York: Academic Press. Vol. 3.

99

Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika



7. Jule, G. (1996) Pragmatics. / Ed. By Widdowson H.G. London: Oxford University Press.
8. Larson, C.U. (1988) Persuasion: Reception and Responsibility. 4-th edition.

Belmond: Wardsworth Publishing Company.
9. Leech, N. G.; Short, H.M. (1981) Style in Fiction. United States of America, New

York: Longman Inc.
10. Levinson, C. S. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Osgood, E. Ch.; Sebeok, A. T. (1965) Psycholinguistics: A Survey of Theory and

Research Problem with Psycholinguistics. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University
Press.

12. Petty, E. R.; Cacioppo, T. J. (1981) Attitude and Persuasion; Classic and
Contemporary Approaches. United States of America.

13. Searle, J.R. Speech Acts: (1969) An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. London:
Cambridge University Press.

14. Scheidel, T. (1985) Persuasive Speaking, London.
15. Shaver, G. K. (1977) Principles of Social Psychology. Cambridge.
16. Vreschueren, J. (1999) Understanding Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University

Press.
17. Zanden, J. W. (1977) Social Psychology. New York.

гÙá½Ù³Ý ËáëáÕ³Ï³Ý ³ÏïÇ ³ñï³Ñ³ÛïáõÃÛáõÝÁ ËáëáõÛÃáõÙ

гÙá½áõÙ ¿ ѳٳñíáõÙ É»½í³Ï³Ý ѳÕáñ¹³ÏóÙ³Ý ÁÝóóùáõ٠ϳï³ñ-
í³Í Ûáõñ³ù³ÝãÛáõñ ϳÝ˳Ùï³Íí³Í ÷áñÓ, áñÝ áõÕÕí³Í ¿ ËáëùÇ ÙÇçáóáí
³½¹»Éáõ Ëáë³ÏóÇ ÙïùÇ Ï³Ù í³ñù³·ÍÇ íñ³ ¨ áñáß³ÏÇ ÷á÷áËáõÃÛ³Ý »Ý-
óñÏ»Éáõ Ëáë³ÏóÇ ï»ë³Ï»ïÁ ϳ٠ѳÙá½ÙáõÝùÁ£ ²ÛÝ ÙÇïáõÙ áõÝÇ Ýñ³Ý
ÙÕ»Éáõ áñáß³ÏÇ ·áñÍáÕáõÃÛ³Ý:

êáõÛÝ Ñá¹í³ÍáõÙ ÷áñÓ ¿ ³ñíáõÙ áõëáõÙݳëÇñ»É ѳÙá½Ù³Ý ËáëáճϳÝ
³ÏïÁ áñå»ë Ñá·»µ³Ý³Ï³Ý ï»ëáõÃÛ³Ý ¨ É»½í³·áñͳµ³Ý³Ï³Ý ùÝÝáõÃÛ³Ý
³é³ñϳ, áñÇ Ýå³ï³ÏÝ ¿ í»ñ Ñ³Ý»É Ñ³Ùá½Ù³Ý ËáëáÕ³Ï³Ý ³ÏïÇ ³é³ÝÓݳ-
ѳïÏáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ ¨ µ³ó³Ñ³Ûï»É ³ÛÝ ³ÝÑñ³Å»ßï ¨ µ³í³ñ³ñ å³ÛÙ³ÝÝ»ñÁ,
áñáÝù ³é³í»É ³ñ¹Ûáõݳí»ï Ϲ³ñÓÝ»Ý ËáëáÕ³Ï³Ý ³ÏïÁ: øÝÝáõÃÛ³Ý »Ý ³éÝ-
íáõ٠ݳ¨ ѳÕáñ¹³ÏóÙ³Ý ÑÇÙÝ³Ï³Ý µ³Õ³¹ñÇãÝ»ñÁ ¨ ¹ñ³Ýó ¹»ñÁ ѳÙá½Ù³Ý
ËáëáÕ³Ï³Ý ³ÏïÁ ÏÇñ³é»Éáõ ÁÝóóùáõÙ: Ðá¹í³Íáõ٠ϳñ¨áñíáõÙ »Ý É»½í³-
Ï³Ý ¨ ³ñï³É»½í³Ï³Ý ³ÛÝ ÙÇçáóÝ»ñÁ, áñáÝù ³é³í»É³å»ë ѳÙá½Çã »Ý ¹³ñÓ-
ÝáõÙ ËáëùÁ: ²Û¹ ÙÇçáóÝ»ñÇ ÁÝïñáõÃÛáõÝÁ ÑÇÙݳϳÝáõÙ å³Ûٳݳíáñí³Í ¿ Ëá-
ëáÕÇ ¨ ÉëáÕÇ ·Çï³Ïó³Ï³Ý ٳϳñ¹³Ïáí ¨ µ³ñáÛ³Ï³Ý Ñ³ïϳÝÇßÝ»ñáí: Êá-
ëáÕ³Ï³Ý ³Ïï»ñÇ ï»ëáõÃÛ³Ý ¨ ·áñͳµ³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý ï»ë³ÝÏÛáõÝÇó áõëáõÙݳëÇ-
ñ»ÉÇë ѳÙá½Ù³Ý ËáëáÕ³Ï³Ý ³ÏïÁ ¹ÇïíáõÙ ¿ áñå»ë å»ñÉáÏáõïÇí ³Ïï (ÏáÝÏ-
ñ»ï ËáëáÕ³Ï³Ý í³ñùÇ ³ñ¹ÛáõÝù): ²ÛÝ Ï³ñ»ÉÇ ¿ Çñ³Ï³Ý³óÝ»É »ñÏáõ ï³ñµ»ñ
»Õ³Ý³Ïáí` Ý»ñ³Ï³, »ñµ ËáëáÕÁ ÷áñÓáõÙ ¿ ³ñ¹ÛáõÝùÇ Ñ³ëÝ»É` ùáÕ³ñÏ»Éáí Çñ
µáõÝ Ýå³ï³ÏÁ, ¨ ³ñï³Ï³, »ñµ ËáëáÕÁ ãÇ Ã³ùóÝáõÙ Çñ Ýå³ï³ÏÁ ¨ ÃáõÛÉ ¿
ï³ÉÇë, áñ ÉëáÕÁ å³ñ½áñáß ·Çï³ÏóÇ Ñ³Ùá½Ù³Ý ËáëáÕ³Ï³Ý ³ÏïÁ, áñÝ ³Ûë
¹»åùáõÙ Çñ³Ï³Ý³óíáõÙ ¿ áõÕÕáñ¹»Éáí, Ññ³Ù³Û»Éáí ϳ٠ëïÇå»Éáí:

100

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics