hin.qxd


Global English and 
New Sociocultural Concepts 

in Armenia

This article aims at revealing and acknowledgingArmenian and English linguistic manifestations
of realias which have become salient as a result of the
new managerial practices whose language is becoming
English.

Along with almost all the former Soviet bloc
countries, Armenia underwent a collapse and adopted a
variant of “shock therapy”, trying to introduce a series of
major political and economic reforms as rapidly as
possible. The Armenian collapse had its specific features:
in 1991 the country became independent after the
earthquake (1988) and with the Karabakh movement.
Since that time the “Western countries” have begun
supporting Armenia and its developing policies.

Changes, taking place in post-soviet Armenia, have currently influenced the
sociolinguistic status of English, which, in its turn, has a direct impact on the objectives
and perspectives of sociolinguistic research. Innovations in restructuring and rescaling
of society told on local discourses which were once open to Russian  but became now
open mostly to English. 

The universally recognized status of English as an international language, though not
officially confirmed, doesn’t need  any proof, and its status as an adopted language of
management seems natural in the Armenian setting1. However, the “choice” of the
adopted form of government/management is beyond our competence. We are concerned
with the understanding and interpretation of the linguistic problems of interwoven
practices that arise in the result of English-Armenian interaction. The research is carried
out with special reference to the sociolinguistic status of English. 

In many respects our approach to analysis can be termed discourse-historical,
focusing on the centrality of the language, because meaning relies on representation
through language, and representation is different across cultures and historical periods.
We proceed from the hypothetical assumption that foreign language discourse
(acquisition and public discourse)2 in the Armenian setting can be divided  into four
stages.             

The first stage stretches from 1918 until about 1920, the end of the first Armenian
Republic, whose language of public discourse (official/non-official) was Armenian.

The second stage, from the pre-Stalinist period including the Stalinist Soviet
Armenia until 1953 (Stalin’s death), is marked by the establishment of Soviet practices

90

Armenian Folia Anglistika                                                                             Culture Studies

Nvard Yernjakyan



(ideological, economic and social order) created in Moscow in Russian. However, the
official language of public discourse remained Armenian, it being a state language.

The third stage, from 1953 until around the independence, is marked by a tremendous
expansion of Russian as a language of not only semi-official, professional and private
communication but also a necessary prestigious attribute for the intelligentsia, though in
fact Armenian remained the official language of public /managerial discourse.

The fourth stage following independence is, on the one hand, marked by the tendency
of excluding Russian from official/public discourses and the establishment of the
national language purism policy, and on the other, it was influenced by the processes of
‘coming global’ with the spread of ‘global English’ in Armenia. However, the Armenian
language continues to be a state language and the language of public discourse as well.

During the first three stages English, along with other foreign languages, functioned
mainly in educational and scientific spheres as well as translations and official contacts,
all being  controlled and censored by governing bodies, whereas in the present reality the
business or partnership contacts are not either limited or directly controlled, and are
available for all layers of society. Actually, the ‘limit’ today is dependent on language
competence, and the communication between the partners needs to be translated either
in writing (agreements, contracts, laws, etc.) or orally. International and
intergovernmental agreements can be considered a basis, a legal argumentation to
provide new management and, therefore, it is natural that a new managerial language3 is
implemented in the economic and social life of the republic. Such organizations as UN,
TASIS, USAID, World Bank, OXFAM, Peace Corpse office, etc., realizing different
projects in Armenia, play an important role in establishing new managerial structures
and working habits which provide the linguistic field with new concepts and terms.
Thus, knowing English harmonizes with definitions like ‘coming global’, with the
language of free market relations (as the new social-economic order in Armenia
nowadays is likely to be called).

Under the pressure of the restructuring and rescaling of public management not only
new words and concepts emerge and penetrate into Armenian but also new ways of
acting and interacting are introduced into life. These new elements stimulate the
occurrance of new linguistic transformations, which have different origins and habitat in
local and adopted cultures. Thus, the following words and word combinations such as
post-employment benefice, religious minoroties, community, community development,
grant, presentations, monitoring, householder, homeless, etc., though peculiar to the
official and public language, have found their equivalents in folk language as well:
instead of saying Family poverty benefice, or Real estate fees, or Homeless, people just
say Benefice, Renting fees, Bomjh4. 

However, we think that the level of secondary education and awareness of the legal
field cannot be considrerd the main reasons for the formation of people’s perceptions and
evaluations of the formal order and institutions. 

It may probably be assumed that those who don’t have power, create unofficial
methods and procedures for the realization and defence of their interests in answer to
their estrangement from power. These methods and procedures have their own language5

91

Culture Studies Armenian Folia Anglistika



and  system of moral justification safeguarding their parallel coexistance with the
official language, procedures and publicly recognized morals. Coexistance of the official
language of management and the unofficial language of people’s social activity, vitally
fundamental strategies and concepts, created in the process of interaction with
authorities, change according to their own discretion6. 

The denotation of the concept of an ‘unofficial language of social activity’ is not
an end in itself but, as far as the phenomenon has to be somehow defined, we give
our preference to “folk language”, as a counterbalance to the “language of
authorities”7.

Unlike Russian, which had already been widely used in Armenia for about a hundred
years by the time of the Soviet power establishment, English as the language associated
with curent democratic processes in the country doesn’t have similar historical
background. English has been and remains the language of professionals and translators,
whose mediating mission is of special importance in the establishment of new
institutions. However, the new institutions created by international and local experts are
mainly for the citizens living in the present setting of Armenia. The mission of the adepts
of globalization consists not only in transmitting the English managerial discourse into
the Armenian reality, but also adapting it to the Armenian linguistic mentality. The
mission is not an easy one, especially in the sense that there is a great difference between
social and linguistic practices of generations. 

For example, the associations of the statement he sold his flat are completely
different for people of different generations, as the idea of private flats has been
introduced into Armenian life only recently. 

To fit the scope of the analysis within the confines of this article, we  concentrate on
the study of the metaphoric perception of home in both English and Armenian
linguocultural traditions. The word and image characteristics of home allow us to trace
three different connotations, in it: 1) of place, 2) of family, 3) of privacy. 

The connotation  of  place is peculiar to both linguistic traditions.  For example to
go home (ïáõÝ ·Ý³É), in which home is equalized to a proper name, like in the case  of
to go  to  town, i.e. a known place or one and the same place (in this respect it is relevant
to refer to the Roman tradition, in which Rome was called Urbs – town).

The associative connotations of family in many ways are more vividly expressed in
the Armenian culture. For example,  to destroy home (to do harm to a family) or to keep
the smoke alive (to beget a male child and provide prosperity to the family) in the
Armenian tradition refer rather to the family than the physical object (the house). 

The understanding of home as a physical object giving refuge to an individual at a
certain period of time and providing his privacy is characteristic of the British culture
and identity8. 

With reference to ‘coming global’ in Armenia, with home/house in mind, it should be
mentioned that apart from cultural symbolism, these notions have acquired social-
economic significance for people.

Thus, legal and social economic discourses are in vanguard as far as after
privatization public/managerial discourses as well as private communication became

92

Armenian Folia Anglistika                                                                             Culture Studies



abundant in such terms as “household”, “householder’s living status”, “condominium”,
“accommodation service fees”, “real estate fees”, etc. 

What is of special interest about housing in general and terms related is the object-
word-meaning correlation, on the one hand, and peoples’ perceptions and awareness of
legal field, on the other. Some observations of public, managerial and legal spheres of
community life have shown that by the inertia of the former Soviet social order regime,
when  people (urban population mainly) would feel owners, but in fact rented their
homes from the state, nowadays being actual owners, still keep saying go to jhek (the
Russian abbreviation for the governmental office in charge of domestic accommodation
service), to pay the renting fees, hardly distinguishing between condominiums, private
houses and private flats.

Another source of housing/domestic terms are the investigations coming out in the
information analytical bulletins, numerous reports made by UNDP missions on poverty
and the impact of macroeconomic policy, all targeting at highlighting the information
regarding the regions. 

Thus, our study of the public/managerial discourse in Armenia shows that the
tendences in the language development depend, to a great extent on the social, cultural
processes leading to globalization.  

References and Notes:

1. Çíàìåíñêàÿ Ò.Ë. ßçûêîâûå ãèáðèäû êàê ïðîäóêò ñòàíäàðòèçàöèè
àíãëèéñêîãî ÿçûêà â ñôåðå ïðîôåññèîíàëüíîãî è ìåæäóíàðîäíîãî
îáùåíèÿ.  // Âîïðîñû ôèëîëîãèè, 2003, ¹ 9, ñ.5-8. 

http://www.ebiblioteka.ru/sources/article.jsp?id=5846239
2. Yernjakyan N.V., Gulyan A.M., On Some Extralinguistic and Paralinguistic

Aspects of the Acquisition of English in Armenia // úï³ñ É»½áõÝ»ñÁ
μ³ñÓñ³·áõÛÝ ¹åñáóáõÙ: ºñ¨³Ý, 2002.

3. Fairclough N. Language in New Capitalism. // Discourse and Society. London,
SAGE Publications, 2002, v.13(2), p.163-166.

4. Bomjh is a transformed Soviet reality survival, a Russian abbreviation, naming
somebody who had no definite place to live and was liable to be sued by Soviet
law for tramping. Currently it has acquired a new connotation denoting n
officially extreme  form of poverty not to be punished legally. 

5. In other words when those who have no power make sure that authorities either
ignore them or pretend not to be ignoring, there arises no necessity of using the
official language. In such cases we rather  deal with a creation of one’s own
language than unawareness. We think that the following  example of political
folklore not only expresses the negative evaluation of the first Armenian
president’s policies but also shows the lack of a dialogue between the authorities
and people. In the first stages of his presidency L.Ter-Petrossian’s knoweledge of
languages was estimated positively but in a later period, when people’s

93

Culture Studies Armenian Folia Anglistika



frustration culminated as a result of his destructive policies, a folk joke went
round as if Levon, being an expert in dead languages (not understandable to
people), was driving the country to death. 

6. Graham Phil. Hypercapitalism: Language, New Media and Social Perceptions of
Value // Discourse and Society. London, SAGE Publications, 2002, v.13(2). 

7. Our aim here is not to give a definition of the concept. We only define a bare
outline of the phenomenon under consideration. It seems to us  definitions won’t
make things clearer. On definitions see: Âåæáèöêà A. Ñåìàíòè÷åñêèå
ïðèìèòèâû. // Cåìèîòèêà. Ïîä.ðåä. Ñòåïàíîâà Þ.Ñ. Ìîñêâà,
Ðàäóãà, 1983, ñ. 227–230.

8. In terms of British house metaphor it is interesting to mention that a comparative
survey of Ch.Dickens’ “Bleak House”, “Hard Times” (the 19th century reality)
and Rosamund Pilcher’s “Winter Solstice” (a modern bestseller) reveals no great
difference between both traditional exterior/interior descriptions and
psychological perceptions.  
Actually the prestigious detached British houses can well contribute to this
understanding of ‘home’ not only in architectural design but also isolation in
terms of being impartial, indifferent.
As Tony Blair said, “globalization is a fact, the alternative is isolation, and the
issue is not how to stop globalization but to use the power of the community to
combine it with justice”. Interestingly, isolation as an alternative is quoted by a
representative of a culture where the cherished detached houses are likely to be
providing individual’s economic independence and privacy. 
Condemning the nationalist movement leaders for propagating national isolation,
Michael Gorbachev - a representative of Soviet culture, remarked, “We cannot
isolate ourselves in our national flats”.

¶Éáμ³É ³Ý·É»ñ»ÝÇ ¹ñë¨áñáõÙÝ»ñÁ
ѳÛÏ³Ï³Ý Ýáñ ÇñáÕáõÃÛ³Ý Ù»ç

г۳ëï³ÝáõÙ  ï»ÕÇ  áõÝ»óáÕ  ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý, ïÝï»ë³Ï³Ý  ¨ ëáódzɳ-
Ï³Ý ÷á÷áËáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÝ Çñ»Ýó ³ÝÙÇç³Ï³Ý ³½¹»óáõÃÛáõÝÝ áõÝ»Ý  ÇÝãå»ë
É»½í³Ï³Ý ÇñáÕáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ, ³ÛÝå»ë ¿É É»½í³μ³Ý³Ï³Ý áõëáõÙݳëÇñáõÃÛáõÝ-
Ý»ñÇ íñ³: Ðá¹í³ÍáõÙ ¹Çï³ñÏíáõÙ ¿ å³ßïáÝ³Ï³Ý Ñ³Ýñ³ÛÇÝ Ï³é³í³ñ-
Ù³Ý É»½íáõÙ Ï»Ýó³Õ³í³ñáÕ ³Ý·É»ñ»Ý μ³é»ñÇ áõ μ³é³Ï³å³ÏóáõÃÛáõÝÝ»-
ñÇ å³ßïáݳå»ë ÁݹáõÝí³Í ¨ ÅáÕáíñ¹³Ï³Ý  ѳٳñÅ»ùÝ»ñÝ Çμñ¨ ·Éáμ³É
³Ý·É»ñ»ÝÇ ³½¹»óáõÃÛáõÝ, áñÁ ÑÇÙݳϳÝáõÙ ÙÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ  ϳ½Ù³Ï»ñåáõ-
ÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ  μ³½Ù³μáí³Ý¹³Ï  ·áñÍáõÝ»áõÃÛ³Ý  ³ñ¹ÛáõÝùÝ ¿:

94

Armenian Folia Anglistika                                                                             Culture Studies