German english teacher and specialist Hans-Cristoph Pocha, currently mentoring teachers from Gagarin Cluster (which includes teachers from Ddmashen and Tsovagyugh)
The present paper deals with a relevant topic in a very academic, analytical way. It is based on an organized, scholarly and systematic approach.
Another important strength of the paper is its highly analytical, abstract style and the topical vocabulary, which is highly appropriate to the linguistic analysis.
In the introduction the author reveals the modus operandi, the aims and objectives of the paper. The introduction also contains a justification for the topic and makes the intended approach transparent. A first definition of the term ‘metaphor’ is offered.
In Chapter One the crucial role of metaphors in ‘publicistic’ texts is pointed out. The deduction is logical and stringent. Again, the concept of ‘metaphor’ is defined and its complex nature is explained.
The author widens her approach by outlining various characteristic features of ‘publicistic’ texts on different levels.
In Chapter Two attention is drawn to genre conventions and strategies. The pragmatics of language are emphasized by referring to cultural factors that influence the use of metaphors. In my opinion, this is another strong point in this paper.
Quotes from scholarly analyses underline the focus on metaphors.
This is followed by a list of metaphors taken from political speeches across different eras, cultures etc. and another list of examples from different fields of public discourse. Short explanations of the given metaphors are added.
As a conclusion to this chapter the impact of metaphors on readers is outlined. Here the author impressively manages to display the complexity of the concept of metaphors.
In Chapter Three the author focuses on the translation of metaphors from English into Armenian and vice versa thereby widening the scope of the paper and opening up a completely new field of analysis. As I don’t speak Armenian I find it difficult to justly assess the findings here.
The Conclusion sums up the findings of the study paper both with reference to metaphors in general and to their translation in particular.
Although I do not have a set of reference concerning the context in which the given study paper was written (curriculum, preparation, assistance by teachers etc.), I would like to say that I am impressed with the analytical and systematic approach reflected in the paper and the abstract language used.
Disregarding the school background I would like to make the following additional critical remarks from an academic, linguistic point of view. I thereby do not want to minimize the author’s achievement, but widen the perspective and show possible improvements.
- The term ‘publicistic’ (I think it should be ‘publicist’) text itself is not clearly defined. It covers a wide field of different text types and text forms. Some of the texts mentioned in the paper are oral texts (political speeches), some are written. Journalistic texts range from reports, reportages to comments, op eds etc. Obviously, the use of metaphors in these different text forms varies significantly. And the effect they have in political speeches varies from the effect written texts have.
This definitely should be taken into account. - The concept of ‘metaphor’ lies at the centre of the paper. The definition of the term should therefore be comprehensive and exhausting. Here the concept of ‘semantic similarities’ is essential. Either in the definitions or in the explanations to the examples I would have expected the constructive principles of metaphors to be demonstrated.
- As mentioned above I find it difficult to justly assess the chapter on translations. The widening of the scope of analyses definitely shows the author’s enthusiasm. But it definitely opens up a new field. Some of the translations presented are literal translations.
Anyway, translations are linguistic mediations. Can one expect the effect of a translated metaphor to be the same as that of the original?
Does the paper really prove that translations reflect the cultural background of the target language? - Towards the end the author tends to repeat certain findings. These redundancies should be critically revised when editing the paper.
Some of these points are no doubt a result of the wide scope the study paper is covering. I personally have made the experience that a narrowing of the scope of investigation (e.g. The use of metaphors in (American) political speeches’) makes it easier for the author to cover the topic comprehensively and exhaustively.
All remarks were taken into account and have been improved.
Լիլիթ Հարությունյան 