Abstract: The subject of the research is the search for the optimal method of analyzing deep structures using frame semantics. The study of semantic roles, similarities and differences in the approaches of both C. Fillmore and B. Levin – M. R. Hovav make it possible to analyze the structure of a sentence in more detail and accurately, identify deep cases and determine semantic relations between words. The study of these aspects is key to understanding language constructs and their interpretation. The study of various approaches makes it possible to identify both common features and unique features, which is key for a complete understanding of language constructions. An interest in text analysis in the field of artificial intelligence, machine learning and computational linguistics, and an understanding of the semantic relationships between words will help create more accurate and efficient text processing algorithms. One of the research methods is the semantic analysis of sentences based on corpus data. This method includes the study of various linguistic constructions in the context of their use in real texts, which allows us to identify common patterns and rules for the use of these linguistic units in different situations. The scientific novelty of the study lies in the fact that the authors have determined the similarity of the approaches on how to understand the surface and deep structures of language of Ch. Fillmore and B. Levin and M. Rappaport. Their work, despite differences in methodology and terminology, together allow for in-depth investigation of the relationship between the meanings of verbs and the structure of arguments. As a result of the study, the natural relationships between deep cases and semantic roles in sentences of various types are revealed, and key points that need to be taken into account when analyzing deep structures for a more accurate definition of the semantic roles of arguments are highlighted: frame semantics and thematic grids.
Disagreements and alternative points of view contribute to the constant development and improvement of linguistic theories. Such debates eventually lead to a deeper understanding of the implementation of the arguments and open up opportunities for further research in this area. Both C. Fillmore and B. Levin and M. Rappaport have made significant contributions to understanding the surface and deep structures of language, although their approaches and terminology may differ.

Abstract: The subject of this research is the typological characteristics of declension system in the Russian and Armenian languages and their diachronic changes. The author compares the modern Armenian and Grabar (classical Armenian) language, as well as Old East Slavic and modern Russian language. The goal of this article is to determine typological peculiarities of grammatical case systems of the Russian and Armenian languages in their current state, taking into account the vectors of evolutionary development of these systems in the history of the two languages. Research methodology leans on the traditional concepts of morphological typology and systemic analysis of language types proposed by G. P. Melnikov. It is established that unlike the Russian language, the Armenian declension system contains certain agglutinative and analytical features. Emphasis is placed on the detailed analysis of these phenomena and explanation of their consistent nature. The acquired results are valuable for typological description of the Russian and Armenian languages, as well as for teaching these languages to non-native speakers. The presented materials broaden scientific representations on multifacetedness of development of fusional declension on the example of two quite different languages within the same language family.