Communicative Language Teaching and Translations across Genres
Andrew Chiu1; Da-hui Dong2; Ta-yang Lin3
Abstract
Communicative language teaching, a student-centered way of teaching how to use a
language in different types of settings, has received growing interests in translation studies.
It is of particular interest in teaching native Chinese speaking translation students to translate
from Chinese into English for they often lack of necessary knowledge of the
conventionalized usage in different English genres, which prevents them from producing
quality and natural translations conforming to genre conventions of the English speaking
community at the sentence and discourse levels.
This study aims to explore the effectiveness of communicative language teaching in
translator training. The subjects of this study consisted of 9 second year graduate translation
program students. The research material included 10 Chinese articles across three different
genres—academic papers, editorials, and business letters, and, as a benchmark, 20 authentic
English articles in each of the genres. In a Chinese into English translation course, the
subjects were firstly required to translate the articles into English, and then revised their
translations after being introduced to the genre conventions in class discussions in which a
communicative teaching approach was employed. T –tests were carried out to compare their
initial drafts with subsequent drafts. The study finds that communicative teaching helps
students learn the appropriate language usage of different English genres and thus improves
their translation quality.
Keywords: Chinese to English, communicative language teaching (CLT), genre, translation
1
Andrew Chiu teaches at the department of Translation and Interpretation Studies, Chang Jung Christian
University.
2
Da-hui Dong teaches at the department of Translation and Interpretation Studies, Chang Jung Christian
University.
3
Ta-Yang Lin is a graduate student at the department of Translation and Interpretation Studies, Chang Jung
Christian University.
1
Introduction
Today different language teaching methods abound in language classrooms for children
and adults alike. They range from the highly teacher-centered Grammar-Translation Method
to the highly student-centered Communicative Language Teaching. Up until not too distant
past, Taiwan has treated English as the Europeans had once regarded Latin, as a tool for
academic studies and not a communication tool. Students learned English only for the
purpose of reading the newest and most advanced knowledge in text written in English.
Grammar-translation method is “mainly a book-oriented method of working out and learning
the grammatical system of the language” (Stern, 1983, p. 454). The goal of this method is
grammatical competence, in which, foreign language learners study rigorously different
aspects of the grammar in detail and then apply the knowledge to translate sentences in and
from the language (Richards, 2006; Howatt cited in Richards & Rodgers, 2001). No attention
is given to the speaking aspect of the language as it was rarely used. However, in a fast
shrinking world made possible by the advances in technology, English has become a tool for
communication in travels and business. Hutchinson and Waters (1987) have likened English
to be the lingua franca of the modern age (p.6-7). People have started to learn English and
other foreign languages with the intention to communicate with others and realized that mere
grammatical competence is insufficient. Communicative competence is what learners pursue
to be “able to use the language for meaningful communication” (Richards, 2006).
Literature Review
For a long time, English has been treated solely as an academic subject rather than a
communicative tool by schools in Taiwan. This view has not changed much even today, to the
vexation of many academics, parents and students. Therefore, Grammar-Translation Method
is still practiced de rigueur in schools. From appearance, Grammar-Translation Method
seems to be the ideal language learning method for students in the translation and
interpretation department, at least in theory. Students memorize, study, and drill grammatical
rules and vocabulary and translate into sentences into the target language, and the translation
becomes more complex as the students become more advanced (Stern, 1983, p.455). When
Taiwanese students translate Chinese text into English, the style and the language of the
translation are always the same, regardless of the type of text. Thus, they do not appear to
have full communicative competence to know that different style of language, or register, and
different types of vocabulary are used at different situations by people with different
backgrounds. In ignoring this aspect of the language, translators merely “translate the words
rather than the meaning” (Duff, 1989, p. 20). Hence, their translated work would not be able
to convey all the nuance the writer has originally intended.
Now, communicative language teaching is making its way into many classrooms. The
idea behind it is to teach students how to get their ideas across without regards on the
grammaticality (Canale & Swain, 1998, p. 10). Many people believe that the communicative
competence is concerned with how to use the language and not the grammar. However,
communicative teaching does not sacrifice the grammatical correctness over communication
skills. Hymes (2001) says that grammatical competence is only one of the many parts that
make up communicative competence (pp. 61). Canale and Swain (1998) believe that there is
2
“no reason to focus on all aspects of grammar before emphasis is put on communication”
(p.14-15). Therefore, communicative language teaching is a balanced method for students to
learn how to communicate in a foreign language. Simply put, it is to teach students “how to
use the language for a range of different purposes and functions”; “how to vary our use of
language according to the setting and the participants”, and “how to produce and understand
different types of texts” (Richards, 2006, p.3).
Bhatia (1997) says that “translation is not simply a matter of linguistic transference
alone, but a genuine act of communication in its own right” (pp.204). Campbell (1998)
believes that a major part of translation training is to teach students how to create different
genres or types of text that look natural and stylistically authentic in the second language. It is
easier for translators to translate into their first language because they possess the
communicative competence and the language rules that would allow them manipulate their
translation to fit the genre of the writing (Campbell, 1998). Nonetheless, to create authentic
and natural looking translations, the translator must have grammatical, social, and generic
knowledge of both source culture and target culture (Bhatia, 1997; Campbell, 1998). That is
also one of the biggest challenges facing translation students in Taiwan. As Hymes indicated,
grammatical competence is merely a part of communicative competence. Therefore, for a
translator to produce a natural and authentic looking text that expresses the original meaning
of the writer, simply attaining grammatical accuracy or grammatical features of the target text
is insufficient. When translating into their native language, translators use their knowledge of
that language so that the resulting text would appear “natural” (Campbell, 1998). Therefore, it
is equally important for translators to know the stylistic conventions of the target text in the
second language in order to produce a “natural” looking text in addition to the grammatical
features. For example, in translating a Chinese business letter into English, translators must
be aware of both Chinese and English business letter formats to produce an authentic looking
English text. English business letters usually close with “sincerely” or “sincerely yours”.
However, in Chinese often close with terms such as “suzi”(肅此) or “jingsong” (敬頌),
which would be very awkward to translate and look even more awkward appearing in an
English letter. Moreover, in translating into a second language, many participants in the study
have voiced concerns regarding choosing the appropriate diction for their translations for
texts of different fields and genres. They have also mentioned having concerns about writing
grammatically correct although awkward or unreadable sentences in the target language.
These concerns hark back to one of the motives of communicative language teaching to teach
students how to use the appropriate vocabulary correctly in a particular setting. In order to
know what kind of language and style to use in the translation, students would need to know
the rules of language involved, such as the genre, topic, and purpose (Canale & Swain, 1980).
“Genre”, according to Trosborg (1997), “is recognized as a system for accomplishing social
purpose by verbal means” (p. 10). Biber (1988) believes genres are defined on how the
writings are used.
Methods and Materials
Subjects
3
A total of 9 translators were recruited from our translation and interpretation program,
who are native Chinese-speaking graduate students with limited exposure to translation.
Source texts
This study aimed to explore the translation of three different genres. The source texts
consist of three academic texts, three business letters, and four press editorials. Table 1 shows
the number of words in each of the source text.
Table 1.1 Word count in each source text
Code of Source Text
Word Count
Academic paper source text 1
545
Academic paper source text 2
536
Academic paper source text 3
364
Business letter source text 1
231
Business letter source text 2
232
Business letter source text 3
96
Editorial source text 1
389
Editorial source text 2
353
Editorial source text 3
392
Editorial source text 4
358
These genres were selected because they are clearly defined with a distribution of
linguistic features established by Biber's (1998) multi-dimensional study of variation between
oral and written texts. In addition, they are regarded as having pedagogical value in
translation teaching
In order to be able to compare the student translations with the conventions of the three
genres, we collected 20 authentic English texts for each genre.
The implementation of Pre-test and post-test
In the pre-tests, subjects were given 50 minutes to translate each academic text, 50
minutes to translate all three business letters, and 60 minutes for each editorial. They were
allowed to use dictionary. However, they were not allowed to use the Internet because the use
of the Internet could introduce uncontrollable variables to the study. For example, the
subjects might find translated versions of the news story from some websites that offer online
translation services. The post-tests followed the same procedure. The subjects received the
pre-tests and post-tests with an interval of 10 weeks during which they received training on
communicative translation. All subjects completed their translation. To minimize the effect
of short memory and preparation, the tests were carried out without prior notice. The
implementation of the two sets of tests spanned more than 2 months. Therefore, it was
unlikely for the subjects to memorize the test items.
4
Tagging Procedure
The translation and authentic texts were word-processed and then coded to identify
source text, translator's name, We used CLAW, a tagger developed by Lancaster University,
UK, to tag all the word-processed files with CLAW Tagset 7, which provides 148 linguistic
features. We then extracted the following stylistic features for each genre as discussed in the
above review of the literature (Table 2).
Academic
Business
Editorial
contraction
Date before letter
passives
first/second person
pronoun
End salutation with colon
Average word length
direct questions
Address recipient as Mr. or Split infinitives
Ms, not job title
Nominalization
Nominalization
passives
passives
Conjunct
Past participial clauses
Table 2: Stylistic features extracted from translations and authentic texts
The following stylistic features were standardized to 1000 word:
1. Conjunct
2. Contraction
3. direct questions
4. first/second person pronoun
5. Nominalization
6. Passives
7. Past participial clauses
8. Split infinitives
Data Analysis
After the stylistic features used in each translation were identified and counted, SPSS, a
statistical software package was used to analyse the stylistic features of each genre to
determine whether there are significant differences between the pre tests, post tests and the
authentic text. The statistical functions we used included:
 T test

ANOVA test
Hypotheses
This current study explores the effect of communicative translation teaching to graduate
students. It is aimed to test whether the teaching method introduced in this study could help
students improve their language style when they translate texts of different genres from
Chinese into English. The following hypotheses were proposed:
1. Hypothesis 1: The language style of subjects in three genres does not show
significant differences after they are exposed to a ten-week communicative translation
teaching.
5
2. Hypothesis 2: The language style of subjects in three genres before and after
exposed to communicative translation teaching do not show significant differences from
those of authentic English texts.
Results and Discussion
Test of Hypothesis 1
We used the "T test" to test the difference of the stylistic features of each genre between
pre and post tests. The results show whether they differ significantly after 10 weeks of
communicative translation teaching. Tables 3, 4, 5 show the results of the test for Academic
genre, Business letters, and editorials, respectively.
Table 3: Pre and Post Tests Differences of Academic Genre
Ind ependen t Samples Test
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
contraction
/1000 words
Nominalization
/1000 words
passives/1000
words
Conjunct/1000
words
Past Participial
Clauses/ 1000
words
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig.
(2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
52
.796
.10882
.41833
-.73061
.94825
.260
49.6
.796
.10882
.41833
-.73160
.94924
.439
52
.663
1.23855
2.82265
-4.4255
6.9026
.439
52.0
.663
1.23855
2.82265
-4.4256
6.9027
-.24
52
.815
-.57957
2.46154
-5.5190
4.3599
-.24
52.0
.815
-.57957
2.46154
-5.5190
4.3599
-.35
52
.731
-.46649
1.35071
-3.1769
2.2439
-.35
51.9
.731
-.46649
1.35071
-3.1770
2.2440
-.01
52
.989
-.00313
.22266
-.44992
.44367
-.01
52.0
.989
-.00313
.22266
-.44992
.44367
F
Sig.
t
.346
.559
.260
.000
.092
.197
.001
.998
.763
.659
.976
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
df
Table 4: Pre and Post Tests Differences of Business Letter Genre
6
Ind epe nden t Sa mple s Te st
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F
Date bef1re
letter
End salutation
with colon
Address
recipient as Mr.
or Ms, not job
title
nominalization/
1000 words
passives/1000
words
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig.
Equal variances
6.6
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
.000
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
.640
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
.899
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Equal variances
1.2
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
t
df
Sig.
(2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
.013 -1.425
52
.160
-.185
.130
-.446
.076
-1.425
51.2
.160
-.185
.130
-.446
.076
.000
52
1.000
.000
.099
-.198
.198
.000
52.0
1.000
.000
.099
-.198
.198
-.398
52
.692
-.037
.093
-.224
.150
-.398
51.2
.692
-.037
.093
-.224
.150
-.523
52
.603
-2.96059
5.66332
-14.32
8.40369
-.523
40.5
.604
-2.96059
5.66332
-14.40
8.48074
-.224
52
.824
-.92078
4.11227
-9.173
7.33110
-.224
48.5
.824
-.92078
4.11227
-9.187
7.34514
1.00
.427
.347
.285
Table 5: Pre and Post Tests Differences of Editorial Genre
Ind ependen t Samples Test
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F
Passives/1000
words
Average
WordLength
split
infinitives/100
0 words
Equal variances
.005
assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Equal variances
.000
assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
Equal variances
.000
assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
Sig.
(2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
70
.978
-.03905
1.44137
-2.914
2.83567
.0
70.0
.978
-.03905
1.44137
-2.914
2.83568
1.00 .000
70
1.000
.000
.039
-.078
.078
.000
70.0
1.000
.000
.039
-.078
.078
.995 .003
70
.998
.00054
.17344
-.3454
.34646
.003
70.0
.998
.00054
.17344
-.3454
.34646
Sig.
t
.946
.0
df
Error! Reference source not found.Tables 3, 4, and 5 show that there is no significant
difference in the stylistic features between the pre and post tests (all p values are greater than
0.01), and Hypothesis 1 is supported. This result indicates that the subjects have made no
significant stylistic improvement in their translation across three genres after 10 weeks of
communicative translation teaching.
7
Test of Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 2 was aimed to test whether the translation style of the subject differ
significantly from genre conventions. We carried out three ANOVA tests using the stylistic
features of each genre as dependent variables and “category” as the factor.
For translation of academic papers, the result (Table 6) shows that significant
differences (with p values less than 0.05) exit between pre tests, post tests and the authentic
English academic papers in the following features:
1. First and second person pronouns;
2. Direct questions; and
3. Nominalization.
8
Table 6: Stylistic differences between pre, post tests and authentic English academic papers
Mu ltip le Co mpa riso ns
LSD
Mean
(J)
Difference
Category
(I-J)
post
.10882
authentic
-.10363
post
pre
-.10882
authentic
-.21245
authentic
pre
.10363
post
.21245
1st/2nd
pre
post
.00000
person/1000
authentic
-2.18616*
words
post
pre
.00000
authentic
-2.18616*
authentic
pre
2.18616*
post
2.18616*
Direct
pre
post
.00000
question/10
authentic
-.29987*
00 words
post
pre
.00000
authentic
-.29987*
authentic
pre
.29987*
post
.29987*
Nominalizati
pre
post
1.23855
on /1000
authentic
9.50977*
words
post
pre
-1.23855
authentic
8.27122*
authentic
pre
-9.50977*
post
-8.27122*
passives/10
pre
post
-.57957
00 words
authentic
-4.39354
post
pre
.57957
authentic
-3.81397
authentic
pre
4.39354
post
3.81397
Conjunct/10
pre
post
-.46649
00 words
authentic
-.13532
post
pre
.46649
authentic
.33117
authentic
pre
.13532
post
-.33117
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
Dependent
Variable
contraction
/1000 words
(I)
Category
pre
Std.
Error
.46888
.50826
.46888
.50826
.50826
.50826
.70761
.76703
.70761
.76703
.76703
.76703
.13017
.14110
.13017
.14110
.14110
.14110
3.2330
3.5045
3.2330
3.5045
3.5045
3.5045
2.5246
2.7366
2.5246
2.7366
2.7366
2.7366
1.2614
1.3673
1.2614
1.3673
1.3673
1.3673
Sig.
.817
.839
.817
.677
.839
.677
1.000
.006
1.000
.006
.006
.006
1.000
.037
1.000
.037
.037
.037
.703
.008
.703
.021
.008
.021
.819
.113
.819
.168
.113
.168
.713
.921
.713
.809
.921
.809
95% Confidence
Interval
Upper
Lower
Boun
Bound
d
-.8261 1.0438
-1.1171
.9098
-1.0438
.8261
-1.2259
.8010
-.9098 1.1171
-.8010 1.2259
-1.4109 1.4109
-3.7156 -.6567
-1.4109 1.4109
-3.7156 -.6567
.6567 3.7156
.6567 3.7156
-.2596
.2596
-.5812 -.0185
-.2596
.2596
-.5812 -.0185
.0185
.5812
.0185
.5812
-5.2079 7.6850
2.5220
16.50
-7.6850 5.2079
1.2834
15.26
-16.50
-2.52
-15.26
-1.28
-5.6135 4.4544
-9.8502 1.0632
-4.4544 5.6135
-9.2707 1.6427
-1.0632 9.8502
-1.6427 9.2707
-2.9816 2.0486
-2.8616 2.5910
-2.0486 2.9816
-2.3951 3.0574
-2.5910 2.8616
-3.0574 2.3951
For translation of business letters, the result (Table 7) shows that significant differences
(with p values less than 0.05) exist between pre tests, post tests and the authentic English
business letters in the following features:
1. Date before letter;
2. Address recipient as Mr. or Ms, not job title; and
3. Passives.
9
Table 7: Stylistic differences between pre, post tests and authentic English business letters
Mu ltip le Co mpa riso ns
LSD
Mean
Dependent
(I)
(J)
Difference
Variable
category
category
(I-J)
Date
pre
post
-.185
before
authentic
-.741*
letter
post
pre
.185
authentic
-.556*
authentic
pre
.741*
post
.556*
End
pre
post
.000
salutation
authentic
-.098
with colon
post
pre
.000
authentic
-.098
authentic
pre
.098
post
.098
Address
pre
post
-.037
recipient as
authentic
-.539*
Mr. or Ms,
post
pre
.037
not job title
authentic
-.502*
authentic
pre
.539*
post
.502*
nominaliza
pre
post
-2.96059
tion/1000
authentic
5.92541
words
post
pre
2.96059
authentic
8.88599
authentic
pre
-5.92541
post
-8.88599
passives/1
pre
post
-.92078
000 words
authentic
15.98431*
post
pre
.92078
authentic
16.90509*
authentic
pre
-15.98431*
post
-16.90509*
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
Std.
Error
.111
.121
.111
.121
.121
.121
.090
.098
.090
.098
.098
.098
.105
.114
.105
.114
.114
.114
5.556
6.022
5.556
6.022
6.022
6.022
3.739
4.053
3.739
4.053
4.053
4.053
Sig.
.100
.000
.100
.000
.000
.000
1.000
.318
1.000
.318
.318
.318
.726
.000
.726
.000
.000
.000
.596
.328
.596
.144
.328
.144
.806
.000
.806
.000
.000
.000
95% Confidence
Interval
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
-.41
.04
-.98
-.50
-.04
.41
-.80
-.32
.50
.98
.32
.80
-.18
.18
-.29
.10
-.18
.18
-.29
.10
-.10
.29
-.10
.29
-.25
.17
-.77
-.31
-.17
.25
-.73
-.27
.31
.77
.27
.73
-14.04
8.1171
-6.0826 17.9334
-8.1171 14.0383
-3.1220 20.8940
-17.93
6.0826
-20.89
3.1220
-8.3760
6.5345
7.9030 24.0656
-6.5345
8.3760
8.8238 24.9864
-24.07
-7.9030
-24.99
-8.8238
For translation of editorials, the result (Table 8) shows that no significant differences
(with p values less than 0.05) exist between pre tests, post tests and the authentic English
editorials.
10
Table 8: Stylistic differences between pre, post tests and authentic English editorials
Mu ltip le C omp ariso ns
LSD
95% Confidence
Interval
Dependent
Variable
Passives/1000
words
(I)
category
pre
post
authentic
Average
WordLength
pre
post
authentic
split
infinitives/1000
words
pre
post
authentic
(J)
category
post
authentic
pre
authentic
pre
post
post
authentic
pre
authentic
pre
post
post
authentic
pre
authentic
pre
post
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
-.03905
-3.45449
.03905
-3.41544
3.45449
3.41544
.000
-.028
.000
-.028
.028
.028
.00054
.12291
-.00054
.12237
-.12291
-.12237
Std.
Error
1.488
1.761
1.488
1.761
1.761
1.761
.035
.041
.035
.041
.041
.041
.15382
.18200
.15382
.18200
.18200
.18200
Sig.
.979
.053
.979
.056
.053
.056
1.00
.502
1.00
.502
.502
.502
.997
.501
.997
.503
.501
.503
Lower
Bound
-2.996
-6.953
-2.918
-6.914
-.0439
-.0829
-.07
-.11
-.07
-.11
-.05
-.05
-.3051
-.2387
-.3062
-.2393
-.4845
-.4840
Upper
Bound
2.9176
.0439
2.9957
.0829
6.9529
6.9138
.07
.05
.07
.05
.11
.11
.3062
.4845
.3051
.4840
.2387
.2393
The test of Hypothesis 2 shows that the subjects differ in a number of stylistic features from
authentic English texts when translating academic papers and business letters into English;
there appears no significant difference when they translate editorials. Therefore, Hypothesis 2
is rejected for translation of academic papers and business letters but supported for translation
of editorials. This indicates that exposure to communicative translation teaching makes little
difference in students’ command of English styles for different genres. That significant
differences exist between the authentic texts and students’ texts may be contributed to the fact
that the students are still unfamiliar with the appropriate styles and formats. Scardamalia and
Bereiter (1986) said that writers must “automatize” the grammar and mechanics of writing in
order to produce good writing and novice writers “are handicapped by having to devote
attention to writing mechanics” (p. 787). The participants, unfamiliar with the styles and
formats, must also struggle with translating the text. They have not enough time to internalize
the knowledge that native English speakers have to manipulate the texts to look stylistically
authentic. Given the results of the analysis from the other two genres, it is surprising to see
that there is no significant difference between the texts in the editorial genre. This may be
because fewer dependent criteria were chosen for the comparison. Perhaps, the chosen
criteria also happen to be the ones the participants are familiar with. As outlined above, such
findings may result from a relatively small number of stylistic features investigated in this
study, and therefore, we call for future research to include more stylistic features.
Conclusion
11
The results of the study seem to indicate that communicative language teaching have not
shown effectiveness in translation pedagogy. However, this does not mean that
communicative language teaching should be discounted completely. Participants have
expressed that communicative language teaching has helped them become aware of the
different stylistic conventions and formats of the texts they translate. It has made them feel
more at ease in translating texts of different genres. Perhaps the duration of the study is not
long enough for the students to “internalize” the different grammatical and stylistic features
of different genres to produce authentic texts. Further studies of longer duration can be
conducted to investigate the long term effectiveness.
12
References
Bhatia, V. (1997). “Translating Legal Genres” in Trosborg (ed.) Text Typology and
Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 203-214.
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Campbell, S. (1998). Translation into the Second Language. New York: Longman.
Canale M. and M. Swain (1980). “Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second
language teaching and testing”, Applied Linguistics 1 (1), pp. 1-47.
Duff, A. (1989) Translation. New York: Oxford University Press.
“Editorial Style Guide” (2007). Retrieved February 2, 2010 from San Diego State University
website: http://bfa.sdsu.edu/editorial/index.htm.
“Editorial Style Guide” (n.d.). Retrieved February 2, 2010 from University Publications,
University of South Carolina website: http://www.sc.edu/webpresence/editorial_guide/
Hutchinson, T. and A. Waters (1987). English for Specific Purposes. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Hymes, D. (2001). “On Communicative Competence” in Duranti (ed.) Linguistic
Anthropology. Oxford: Blackwell Publisher. pp. 53-73.
“Writing the Basic Business Letter” (2010) Retrieved February 1, 2010 from Purdue Online
Writing Lab, Purdue University website: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/653/01/.
Richards, J. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Richards, J. and T. Rodgers (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. 2nd ed.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1986). Research on Written Composition. In M.C. Wittrock
(Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Stern, H. (1983).Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. New York: Oxford
University Press.
13
Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Trosborg, A. (1997). “Text typology: Register, Genre and Text Type” in Trosborg (ed.) Text
Typology and Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3-23.
14