Human society is unable to live and invent without communication and information exchange and without the necessary means to realize its aims. The last decades of the 20th century and especially the 21th century are considered to be the most dynamic phases in the development of society. The West and its culture, its free market economy, socio-political developments, and technological progress, have been reflected in diverse new notions, which have appeared in the vocabulary of languages.
The author argues that language as a basic means of human communication is an entity that has an interrelated system of words, word stock and grammatical structures. The author underlines the fact that language as a means of communication is prone to dying out unless it is enriched with new words that reflect the new developments of life and society. Indeed, what would happen to a language if it failed in transmitting the ideas of people to each other and stopped being a mean of conveying information and feelings from one person to another?
Finally, the author denotes two methods of word formation for the Armenian language: linear/morphemic, which for centuries has been a dominant tool for enriching and enlarging the Armenian vocabulary, and nonlinear/inner which is the result of a specific modification of meanings, morphological features and syntactic applications of the word. A third track of enriching Armenian has been borrowing words from other languages.
The paper focuses on the political serialized writings of one of the greatest Armenian humorists, Ler Gamsar. These series reflect the dire life of the Armenian nation in the first two decades of the 20th century.
They can be considered as chapters of Armenian history written by Ler Gamsar. The author notes that these series narrate well known stories from a different perspective and stresses that the author's piercing eyes have noticed and cold-bloodedly registered what other authors have missed due to either bias or lack of daring.
Gamsar's healthy criticisms basically touch upon the performance of Armenian national leaders, who held responsibility for the nation's destiny. The character of his series are normal people, party activists, mostly known through history books. In certain cases Gamsar personifies the foreign country and develops a dialogue that enables the reader to better understand and interpret the conditions and the situation of the time.
This paper is an endeavour to focus on different ideas and concepts and their relationship with sundry components of Armenian vocabulary which bear upon the individual and society, government and law, freedom and rights, liberty and responsibility and duties, and the communal existence and separate self of the individual in the conglomeration of society, it also discusses the time element in the forming of history and politics, the psychological, spiritual, cultural and intellectual make-up of the individual concerned with history and politics, of his collective and national memory, and of his identification with society and communal life.
In the presentation and discussion of the latter care has been taken to pinpoint not only the individual and the hero in the contept of time, society and history, but also an analysis is made of what is usually accepted as collective self and ego and their various ways of expression both natural and supranatural, of their relationship with varigated currents of thought and philosophy, metaphysics and the absolute, the abstract and the tangible, the First Cause and Causality, and Fate and fatality; moreover, stress is put upon the fact that man and his power of cognizance are of prime importance and present the foundations and bases of things of which society is composed, and history is nothing but the biography of man and the society, while historians are just biographers of man and his yesterday, of his national memory and identity, of his forward thrust towards the realization of his self, and of his individual, communal and distinctly national characteristics.
ABSTRACT Increasing world digitalization has provoked the emergence of new interaction modes. Emergence of computer programs that may produce texts modifies the enunciator concept itself. Algorithms, which are simple math instructions, now also seem to produce language. Therefore, we come up with the following questioning: What is the threshold between what we understand as our language, and the language of the machine? We argue there are three human language singularizing aspects (referentiality, corporeality, and enunciation sensibility), which may not be reproduced by machines. Our arguments are initially guided by the distinction between two opposing symbolic orders: human language, composed by a linguistic sign system; and machine language, consisting of order signs (numerical signs). We reason nowadays there is a clash and an entanglement between these two symbolisms.
Ludmila Kemiac, Eanes Torres Pereira· Bakhtiniana: Revista de Estu...· 0 citations
The thesis I want to pursue is that society is produced by discourse. Far from merely mirroring what already seems to exist, discourse, I propose, is a central agency in the verbal construction and institution of social structures which we make and in which we then live. For this, I first discuss the relation between our imaginary and society, attempting to describe society as a ‘habitat’ artificially made by us and at the same time paradoxically defining and determining us as cultural beings. I then try to embed this in the sociological and philosophical discussion on constructivism, establishing what we call ‘society’ and/or ‘culture’ and/or ‘reality’ as the result of semantic processes of verbalization which we then optimistically tend to ‘reify’ into existing ‘facts’. That this is possible seems to lie anthropologically in the human faculty of cognitively understanding, and creating, arbitrary signs, which finds its first expression in the exteriorizing discovery of the self in the mirror and then serves as the main matrix of infinitely building and modifying, but also of continuously maintaining and stabilizing, our ‘world’. The emerging world-like ‘semiosphere’ is thus fabricated out of words/lexemes, texts – and, I argue, first and foremost discourses, understood as semantic ‘systems of thinking and arguing’ that, through incessant dialogic translation and re-translation, negotiatingly build a specific universe of discourse that we have made and in which we (more or less) feel at home. This is briefly demonstrated with regard to the workings of political discourse in action in order to (metonymically) illustrate that the social world is of our own making, and that it is, above all, text-generated discourses that are its main media. A last point complementarily, if not supplementarily, discusses the ‘aesthetic’ as the free and open site of what could be called an ‘adiscursive’ or ‘metadiscursive’ play, and display, of discourses in action, which is the site of ‘literature’.
"Politics" had always a special meaning for the Armenian Diaspora. Organized in the 1920s, Armenian communities all over the world defined their collective existence as "temporary," hoping for an eventual return to their homeland sometime in the future. Though supporting or rejecting the Soviet regime in Armenia polarized Armenians all over the world, the importance of the homeland for national survival has rarely been questioned. Based on the modern understanding of national identity, which was socially constructed during the 19th century Awakening period, Armenian communities evolved in the context of ghetto-like structures to resist "alienation" and maintain the crucial elements of national identity: language, faith, historical memory, family, social links, etc. Within this idealized structure, participation in the political process of host-countries with organized Armenian communities were rejected. It was not perceived important for national survival. Furthermore, political integration was understood as dangerous.
The same was true for the Armenian community in Argentina. Yet, during the presidency of General Juan Domingo Peron (1946-1955 and 1973-1974), a group of Armenians, all active in community organizations, saw an opportunity in the gestures that the government made towards immigrants to propose a change in the way Armenians conceived their Diaspora presence. By participating in the Peronist Movement and trying to convince their fellow Armenians about the benefits of their initiative for the future of the community, they anticipated a renewal of self-awareness and identity. Their viewpoint inevitably came on the agenda of the Armenian Diaspora with the independence of Armenia and the improbability of "return." The Armenian Peronists failed in their endeavor, but their case is paradigmatic of how Diaspora was formed and conceived its place, role and future for almost seven decades in the 20th century.
Based on this case study the article conceptualizes the self-awareness of the Armenian Diaspora with respect to politics and political integration. This retrospective look at the understanding of Armenian national identity during the Cold War years aims at lunching a much-needed debate about the renewal of the meaning of Diaspora in the global era.
Խաչիկ Տէր Ղուկասեան· Haigazian Armenological Revi...· 0 citations
Following the collapse of the USSR, cooperation in the humanitarian sphere be-came one of the most important components of bilateral interstate relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Russian Federation. This was no coincidence, as centuries-old traditions of interwoven historical, cultural, spiritual, and material values of the Armenian and Russian peoples formed a solid foundation for the development of humanitarian ties between the Republic of Armenia (RA) and the Russian Federation (RF) at the beginning of the 21st century. From the 1990s through 2010, a significant legal and contractual framework was established to serve as the basis for interaction between the two countries in the humanitarian domain. Moreover, this framework was continually updated to reflect contemporary require-ments and the spirit of bilateral relations. During the period under study, humanitarian coop-eration expanded through strategic interstate formats between Armenia and Russia, covering culture, education, science, and the media sector. This arose not only from the mutual desire of both peoples to engage with each other’s spiritual and cultural values, but also from the national interests of both states, as the development of humanitarian ties contributed to dee-pening mutual understanding and trust – one of the vital foundations for strengthening their strategic partnership.
Ռուբեն Լ. Ազիզբեկյան· Herald of Social Sciences· 0 citations