TAILORING AN EAP COURSE TO
DISCIPLINARY NEEDS:
THE UNIMAS
EFFORT
Peter F.
Cullip and Diana
Carol
Universiti
Malaysia Sarawak
ABSTRACT
In this paper we sketch our
response to the problem of matching the UNIMAS English for Academic Purposes
curriculum with the various subject needs of our students. We start by accepting
a functional view of language and the intimacy of language and context–in this
case the contexts of various disciplines. We argue that the academic language
needs of our students are closely related to the purposes of the disciplines
they are being inducted into. That is, different disciplines foreground
different types of language–in terms of genre, grammar and lexis. These
variations are noted, exemplified and explained. Finally, we outline the
genre-based pedagogical cycle that we have adopted to translate theoretical
insights into effective practice.
Introduction
The transition from school to
academia is a traumatic experience for many students – both socially and
academically. For the first time in their passage through formal education they
are required to engage, as apprentices, with the meanings of specialised
disciplines in ways for which few are prepared. For many, the processes of
reading and writing – and this, after all, is what specialised school learning
is all about–take on new meanings. Reading can
no longer serve as largely a process of decoding and memorisation and writing
becomes much more than copying or imitating. Students are now required to
construct new knowledge from and in text and critique this knowledge. In this
paper we wish to sketch some of the features of the English for Academic
Purposes course developed in the Centre for Language Studies at Universiti
Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS) which emerge from understanding of these new learning demands and the
role of language in this learning process. The course is taken for two hours per
week over a 16-week semester by all students.
We begin by considering the
theoretical principles which have guided our decisions about course content and
pedagogy. We then look at course content and exemplify our approach by
considering a sample genre. Finally, we consider pedagogy and outline the
teaching-learning cycle we have adopted.
Guiding Principles
The course took shape around a number of guiding
principles. These principles emerged from models of language and learning
developed and applied by Halliday & Hasan (1985), Halliday (1978), Martin
and Rothery (1980, 1981), Macken-Horarik (1996) and the work of Vygotsky (1962;
1978; 1979;1982-1984) and Bruner (1986). The core principles
are:
a. that language is
a system of resources for making meaning (Halliday, 1994: xvii)
;
b. that language and
learning are not only individual but essentially social Vygotsky, 1962: 94);
c. that speech and
writing have fundamentally different purposes, structures and grammars (Halliday,
1985);
d. that language purposes
and text types are socio-culturally determined and staged in relatively stable
ways to achieve these purposes (Martin, 1984);
e. that the
structures of language are the way they are because of the meanings they have
evolved to construct (Halliday, 1994: xx), and
f. that in order to
teach students explicitly how written language works, a metalanguage or language
for talking about language, is needed.
The first principle is the basis of our concern with
meaning in the construction of specialised knowledge. In fact Halliday and
Matthiessen (1999) suggest that we
talk not about knowledge or knowing, but about meaning (1999:1). Thus, we can
reconceptualise ‘learning knowledge’ as ‘learning meanings’ (Halliday, 1975).
And as meanings are constructed in language (mostly), language assumes a central
place in the whole process (Cullip, 1999).
The second principle informs our view that learning is
essentially a social, interactive process and that meanings are constructed,
reconstructed and deconstructed, challenged and changed, through negotiation
with ‘meaning experts’ (be they care-givers or teachers). The social nature of
learning and the type of scaffolding provided by the ‘expert’ are central to the
learning process. The expert models the task, controls the focus, the size and
complexity of the task appropriately, and ensures conditions for success
(Cullip, 2000a). In Bruner’s (1906)words:
“What the tutor did was what the child could not do. For the rest, she made things
such that the child could do with her
what he plainly could not do without
her.”
Principle
3 reminds us that specialised knowledge is built (not simply ‘transferred’) in
written language and that this language is very different from that used in
building the common-sense meanings of the home and community. Learning to
control this abstract written language means learning to control the meanings of
the discipline.
The
notion of ‘genre’, as developed by Martin (1992), referred to in principle 4, is
a powerful tool for examining the purposes of different disciplines and the
realisation of these purposes in words and grammar (lexicogrammar), as noted in
principle 5. Genre may be conceptualised as an evolved institutional text-type
that is staged towards a purpose.
Finally,
in order to talk about how specialised language works, a metalanguage is needed.
While traditional and formal grammatical categories are unable to cope with our
focus on meaning, Halliday’s functional grammar (1994) provides the means for
talking about much of our exploration of texts.
Thus,
we moulded the course around the following pillars: the first relates to how we
conceive of language (informs our orientation to curriculum), and the second to
how we conceive of learning (informs our orientation to
pedagogy):
1. Different disciplines have
different purposes and employ different genres (or text-types) to achieve these
purposes; these genres are characterized by different types of language
functions, structures and words. We want to make explicit to students what these
purposes and genres are, and how the meanings of the discipline are coded in the
lexicogrammar. Without this knowledge, students can hardly be expected to
successfully cope with the academic reading and writing expected of
them.
2. Learning is a social, interactive
linguistic activity involving modelling, joint negotiation of meanings and
instructional scaffolding. We want
to provide fairly structured, sequential teaching/learning activities which
incorporate these learning processes (Cullip, 1999; Hunt, 1994). Without this
type of expert guidance, students are either left dangling their feet above the
water, never to get wet, or are thrown off the deep end, often to
drown.
In
summary then, the course aims to introduce students to the genres characteristic
of their particular discipline and to scaffold their understanding of the types of meanings built in these
genres and how these meanings are coded in the lexicogrammar.
Science and Social Science: Purposes, Genres,
Grammar
An examination of the specialist
written texts of both the sciences and social sciences (and also the
humanities–but this is a negligible area at UNIMAS) will differences in purpose
(e.g. see Cope et al., 1993; Halliday
& Martin, 1993; Martin, 1989, 1991; Unsworth, 1993; Wignell, 1991; Wignell,
et al., 1987) The job of Science is
to classify, describe and explain. The job of Social Science is to classify,
describe, argue and discuss. The language resources foregrounded too are
different. Science is built on technicality – the scientific naming of
phenomena, including sequences of activities which are distilled into a
technical thing. For example, in geography, the technical thing ‘evaporation’
simultaneously encodes the medium (water), the processes
(heating/separating/moving) and the result (water vapour). It distils into one
word, meanings which would otherwise have to be coded across a series of
clauses. Without technicality, the work of scientists would be impossible.
Social Science attempts to go one
step further by generalising the world into abstract things, and then coding
these things and their relationships as technical terms. For example, the
common-sense abstraction ‘surroundings’ becomes the technical term ‘environment’
in the Social Sciences, thus enabling it to contrast, as ‘environmental’, with
‘economic’, ‘political’, ‘health’, ‘technological’ and so
on.
The course we have developed runs in two parallel
streams, one oriented towards the Physical Sciences and the other towards the
Social Sciences. Each aims to explicitly highlight, in a broad way, the genres,
functions and language features characteristic of each group of disciplines. In
the Physical Science stream, students are introduced to the information report,
explanation and argument genres; while the Social Science stream focuses on the
information report, argument and discussion genres. In the Physical Science
stream we have included the argument genre as the doorway to applied concerns
where the Physical Sciences are increasingly questioning their own claims to
truth and address political, socio-economic, moral and ethical concerns. To do
this requires moving beyond claims of ‘fact’ to reasoned argument for a
particular application of knowledge in the form of
technology.
To bring matters a little closer to the ground, we would
like to very briefly look at a particular genre, the information report, and
some of its associated language functions and structures. The information report
is common to the discourses of the Physical and Social Sciences. Reports give
accounts of phenomena as they are. Starting with common-sense (non-scientific)
understanding, they function to build up non-common-sense (scientific)
perspectives on reality through the setting up of technical terms (through
definitions), the development of relations between these terms (through
taxonomies), and the description of salient aspects of the phenomena under
study. The prototypical generic structure of this genre is shown in Figure 1.
Note that the ‘introductions’ and ‘conclusions’ so favoured by students are not
functional in this genre.Table 1 shows a short information report with these
stages labeled.
(General statement/ Major definition/ Classification
Cue)
Classification
Description / (Minor Definitions)
Description / (Minor Definitions)
Description / (Minor Definitions)
[Note: Stages in brackets are optional.]
Figure
1: Generic structure of the information report
Major definition
Classification cue
Computers
A computer is a machine that
manipulates data according to a predetermined sequence of commands to produce a
desired result. Computers are classified into a number of
categories.
Description
1
The
most familiar computer is the fast-developing microcomputer. It has a
single-chip processor and all the main parts of the processor are in the one
device. This allows for greater reliability, smaller size and lower power
consumption. The integrated circuit is connected to the memory and so allows the
processor to work with a limited amount of information at high speed, using
disks to hold other information. The best known are the PC, originated by IBM,
and the Macintosh, originated by Apple.
Description
2
Minicomputers are the next
size up, often used to control networked sets of microcomputers. They are
intermediate in capacity between a microcomputer and a mainframe.
Description 3
Mainframe
computers are used to deal with vast amounts of information, such as house
valuations for local taxation.
Description
4
Supercomputers are used where
both speed and the amount of information are important, as in weather
forecasting. However, the speed of even a supercomputer is limited by the heat
that it generates internally, and by the time taken for the signal to travel
within it.
(Guinness concise encyclopedia,
1993:212
Information reports function to classify (X is a type of Y) or decompose (Z is made up of a, b & c) and describe reality as it is–and these functions are realised through predictable choices from the lexicogrammar.
In order to classify, attributive relational clauses or
existential clauses are typically chosen. Existential clauses (There are …)
often function to cue a classification, e.g.:
There are
many different
protein molecules: …
(cue to) subclasses
class
(Curtis in Reynolds, 1992:
312-313)
Attributive relational clauses put things in classes,
e.g.:
Snakes are reptiles (cold-blooded creatures)
subclass
class
(Derewianka, 1991:
54)
Possessive relational clauses are used to decompose,
e.g.:
The sensory division
has
two sets of neurons
phenomenon
parts
The nervous system in the human organism comprises two main divisions:
phenomenon
(cue to) parts
(adapted from Campbell, Mitchell &
Reece, 1994: 555)
To build up technical terms – that is, to define – a
number of grammatical resources (underlined) can be used, including the
following:
elaboration – parentheses
snakes are reptiles (cold-blooded
creatures)
(Derewianka, 1991:
54)
elaboration – addition of a
nominal group
In a word-writing or logographic writing system, the written
…
(Fromkin & Rodman, 1998:
499)
elaboration - embedded clauses
To write these syllables the Japanese have two
syllabaries, each containing forty-six characters, called
kana.
(Fromkin & Rodman, 1998:
501)
identifying – identifying relational
clauses
A keyboard is,
at its simplest, a bank of switches whose individual states can be detected by
the computer system.
(Cook & White, 1985:
69)
identifying - naming processes
The loss of water vapour from the plant body is known as
transpiration.
(Curtis in Reynolds, 1992:
418)
Such extra marks are called
diacritics.
(Fromkin & Rodman, 1998: 504)
Descriptions are typically built through attributive
relational clauses (processes in italics) and, particularly in relation to the
behaviour of moving phenomena or metaphorical movement, material clauses
(processes underlined), e.g.:
The atoms or molecules of gases are widely spaced …
(Zimmerman, 1989:
4)
However, liquids have a definite volume.
(Zimmerman, 1989:
4)
The male of the species builds a small
tunnel-like nest of weeds in the breeding grounds in spring.
(adapted from Roberts, 1986:
352)
Animals cannot use these materials directly for two reasons.
(Campbell, Mitchell & Reece, 1994:
413)
From here the molecules travel in the blood to other blood
cells.
(Campbell, Mitchell & Reece, 1994:
413)
Within the motor division, neurons of the so-called
somatic nervous system carry signals to skeletal muscles …
(adapted from Campbell, Mitchell &
Reece, 1994: 555)
All processes are in the simple present tense, which
codes the factual status of the propositions. Student accuracy problems with
this tense are well-known. We believe that problems with the third-person
singular ‘s’ ending are the result of fossilisation (Selinker & Lamendella,
1978). The solution that we have found to be fairly effective is to teach the
rule (again!) and explicit proof-reading strategies.
Another major resource for describing is the nominal
group, which, because of its elasticity, proves to be a powerful textual
tool. Students are shown how the
nominal group is used to pack many meanings into a single clause, especially
through nominalisations (in bold) and embedding (in double square brackets),
e.g.:
… a partnership of fungus and algae
[[living together [[to help each other]]]].
(Heffernan & Learmonth in Martin, 1990:01)
the
observation [[that during times [[when
the most rapid transpiration is
taking place]] <<– which is, of course, when the flow of water up the stem must be
the greatest - >> xylem
pressures are characteristically negative (less than atmospheric pressure)]].
(Curtis in Reynolds, 1992:
419)
Nominalisation is characteristic of writing in general
and scientific writing in particular. Science, as we have seen, turns our world
of happenings into a world of things – which it then proceeds to group, pull
apart and explain. Thus the nominalisations in the above extracts code what are
actually processes in our common-sense world. Students tend to have some
difficulty with nominalisations (and other forms of grammatical metaphor – see
Halliday & Martin, 1993; Cullip, 2000b) in reading and writing science. In
our course we spend considerable time teaching students to ‘pack’ meanings into,
and ‘unpack’, nominalised phrases and clauses.
Other language features of reports worthy of note are
the lack of intermediate modality (i.e. no ‘may …’, ‘perhaps’ or ‘definitely’),
absence of personal voice (no ‘I‘ or ‘we’), the use of language for comparing
(e.g. comparative conjunctives, and adjectival comparatives and superlatives)
and the constant Theme pattern (superordinate class or subclasses as clause
Themes) (Bloor & Bloor, 1995: 90).
In addition to the grammar characteristic of particular
genres, the course highlights general academic vocabulary that is not indexical
of any particular discipline. Thus, items such as the following are examined in
context and put into new contexts:
dimension
characteristic
indicate
constituent
aspect of
implicate
function
specific
initiate
Reports are often embedded in other genres, especially
explanations (and vice-versa) and quite complex macro-genres can result (Martin,
1994). After exploring prototypical examples of specific genres, students are
given exposure to these more realistic texts.
So far we have sketched the ‘what’ or curricula
orientation of the course. Now we wish to outline ‘how’ we try to guide, or
scaffold, students through the process of working with the language of
science.
The Teaching-Learning Cycle
In mastering
a particular genre, the teaching-learning process under the genre-based approach
is seen as a cycle (New South Wales, 1990). Underlying this cycle is the
assumption that before students can be expected to produce a text (in that
genre), they need to understand the structure and language features of the genre
(Hammond, et al, 1992). Students’
command of a genre develops as they move through a number of cycles.
Unfortunately, the brevity of our course does not allow for more than one pass
through the cycle for any particular genre.
There are three main phases in this teaching-learning
cycle and movement through the cycle is made in a clockwise direction (Figure
2). In Phase One (modelling), texts
from the chosen genre are introduced. These texts are taken as ‘models’ of the
genre. This phase is essentially a ‘reading’ one that sees the teacher taking
the role of the expert. It begins with the deconstruction of a model text –
which involves looking at the purpose of the genre (and specifically the text
referred to), how text is organised in this genre (i.e. its generic structure),
and the language features typical of this genre.
In our course, the authentic texts chosen are of
different lengths and levels of difficulty, and cover the different fields that
reflect the academic programmes of our students. Thus, in one semester, when the
course is offered to students from the Cognitive Science, Engineering,
Information Technology, Medical, and Resource Science & Technology
faculties, the texts chosen have a physical science bias; while in another
semester, the texts chosen are social science-flavoured for students from the
Counselling, Creative Arts, Economics, Human Resource Development, Social
Science and TESL programmes.
In addition, in this course, we look into three other
reading-related areas: vocabulary study, reference, and three-level
comprehension skill development.
The purpose of Phase Two (joint-construction of a new
text) is for the teacher and students to jointly negotiate and write a text.
Having deconstructed model texts in the previous phase, students should now have
a clear picture of the text they aim to produce.
Although the teacher still has an important part to
play, the students take on a more active role in this phase, which consists of
two stages. In the first stage, students prepare for the writing of the text
through activities such as gathering information, reading up on materials in the
field and making notes. This is basically a field-building activity where
students obtain and organise information to form the ‘content’ of the written
text to be produced.
In the second stage, the teacher and students jointly
construct the written text in class. This is a group activity which takes place
in two steps. It begins with a plan, where teacher and students decide, for
example, the appropriate sequence of the ‘points’ to be presented based on their
understanding of the field and the genre under focus. Using these notes,
students contribute their suggestions (i.e. words, phrases, clauses, sentences)
to the text and the teacher writes these on the board. The teacher helps to
shape their text by giving comments, asking questions and, importantly, offering
choices, focusing on the stages of the generic structure and associated language
features - so that gradually the text becomes an approximation of the genre
concerned.
Joint construction can also be carried out in smaller
groups or pairs so that students have more collaborative practice in gaining
control over the genre.
In the course at UNIMAS, because of time constraints,
out of the three genres studied per semester, for the two genres, the first
stage mentioned above is omitted. Students are instead provided with notes or
diagrams to convert into written texts. For the third genre, students go through
both stages, and are scaffolded into the third phase by reading and gathering
information in the field (from texts provided), joint construction of the text
with the teacher, and joint construction in pairs with
peers.
In addition, we have sessions which specifically focus
on other aspects of academic writing – nominalisation, quoting and paraphrasing
ideas, the mechanics of citation and referencing, and proof-reading and
editing.
Having been guided through mastery of the genre,
students move into a more independent role in Phase Three (independent
construction of text). This phase provides students with the opportunity to
produce a written text on their own.
Scaffolding occurs at both the macro and micro levels of
the cycle. The whole cycle can be seen as moving from dependence to independence
through the crucial joint construction stage; while at the micro level, the
joint construction of text affords the opportunity for instructors to shunt
students between ‘common-sense’ oral language and technical written language,
employing a meaning-focused metalanguage to facilitate the
process.
Conclusion
The English for Academic Purposes course conducted at
UNIMAS is built around principles derived from coherent theories of language and
learning. It aims to cater for the broad differences in the language needs of
students from the physical and social sciences. By recognising that meanings are
actually built in and not through language, we are able to focus
on the language resources used to build the specialist meanings of these
disciplines. We keep no secrets:
students are taken on a joint exploration of the way in which these demanding
texts are constructed. The teaching-learning cycle moves the apprentices forward
by dismantling supporting pedagogical scaffolds as their knowledge and skills
develop. The results have been satisfying with many students emerging with a new
confidence in themselves as writers (of academic English) and new understandings
of written text.
As we learn more about how knowledge is constructed in
text, we continue to fine-tune the course. It is our hope that others looking
for a firm linguistic anchor for the development of an EAP course may learn from
our experience.
References
Bloor, T. & Bloor, M.
1995. The Functional Analysis of English:
A Hallidayan Approach.
London: Arnold.
Bruner, J. 1986. Actual Worlds, Possible Minds.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Campbell, N. A., Mitchell, L.
G. & Reece, J. B. 1994. Biology:
Concepts and Connections.
Redwood
City, CA:Benjamin/Cummings Publishing.
Computers. 1993. In Guinness Concise Encyclopedia. Enfield,
Middlesex: Guinness Publishing.
Cook, B. M. & White, N.
H. 1985. Computer Peripherals
(3rd edn). London: Edward
Arnold.
Cope, B., Kalantzis, M. &
Wignell, P. 1993. The Language of Social Studies: Using
Texts of Society and
Culture in the Primary School. In G. Williams (ed). Literacy in
Society.
London: Longman.
Cullip, P. F. 1999.
Scaffolding literacy learning: Vygotsky in the Classroom. The English Teacher, xxviii:
1-11.
Cullip, P.
F. 2000a. Challenging Commonsense Perceptions of Language and Learning.
Paper presented
at the Borneo Language Learning
Conference, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah
September 2000.
Cullip, P. F. 2000b. Text
Technology: the powertool of
grammatical metaphor. The
RELC
Journal, 31( 2): 76-104.
Derewianka, B. 1991. Exploring How Texts Work. Newtown, New
South Wales: Primary
English Teaching
Association.
Fromkin, V. & Rodman, R.
1998. An Introduction to Language
(6th edn). Fort Worth,
TX:
Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1975. Learning How to
Mean: Explorations in
the Development of
Language. London: Edward
Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of
Language and Meaning. London:
Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. Spoken and Written Language. Geelong,
Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar
(2nd edn). London:
Routledge.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R.
1985. Language, Context and Text: A
Social Semiotic
Perspective.
Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press (Language and Learning
Series).
Halliday, M.A.K. &
Martin, J. R. 1993. Writing Science:
Literacy and Discursive Power.
London: Falmer.
Halliday, M.A.K. &
Matthiessen, C. 1999. Construing
Experience through Meaning: A
Language-based Approach to Cognition. London:
Cassell.
Hammond, J., Burns, A.,
Joyce, H., Brosnan, D. & Gerot, L. 1992. English for Social Purposes: A Handbook for
Teachers of Adult Literacy. Sydney: National Centre for English Language
Teaching and Research (NCELTR), Macquarie University.
Hunt, I. 1994. Successful
Joint Construction. Primary English
Newsletter 96. Newtown, New South Wales: Primary English Teaching
Association.
Macken-Horarik, M. 1996.
Literacy and Learning across the Curriculum: Towards a Model of Register for
Secondary School Teachers. In G. Williams (ed). Literacy in Society London:
Longman.
Martin, J. R. 1984. Language,
Register and Genre. In Children Writing:
Reader. Geelong,
Victoria: Deakin
University Press.
Martin, J. R. 1989.
Technicality and Abstraction: Language for the Creation of Specialised Texts. In
Writing in Schools: Reader. Geelong,
Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Martin, J. R. 1990. Literacy
in Science: Learning to Handle Text as Technology. In F. Christie (ed). Literacy for a Changing World. Hawthorn,
Victoria: The Australian Council for Educational Research.
Martin, J. R. 1991.
Nominalisation in Science and Humanities: Distilling Knowledge and
Scaffolding
Text. In E. Ventola (ed). Recent Systemic
and Other Functional Views on
Language.Berlin de Gruyter
Martin, J.R. 1992. English Text: System and Structure.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Martin, J. R. 1994.
Macro-genres: The ecology of the page. Network, 21:29-52.
Martin, J.R. & Rothery,
J. 1980. Writing Project Report No. 1
(Working Papers in Linguistics
No. 1). Sydney: Department of
Linguistics, University of Sydney.
Martin, J.R. & Rothery,
J. 1981. Writing Project Report No. 2
(Working Papers in Linguistics
No. 2). Sydney: Department of
Linguistics, University of Sydney.
New South Wales Department of
Education. 1990. Book 1: An Introduction
to Genre-based
Writing. Annandale, New South Wales:
Common Ground.
Reynolds, M.C. 1992. Reading for Understanding. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing.
Roberts, M. B. V. 1986. Biology: A Functional Approach
(4th edn/ELBS edn).
Walton-on-
Thames: English Language Book
Society/Nelson.
Selinker, L. &
Lamendella, J. 1978. Two perspectives on
Fossilisation in Interlanguage.
Interlanguage Studies
Bulletin, 3:
143-91.
Unsworth, L. 1993. Choosing
and Using Information Books in Junior Primary Science. In G.
Williams (ed). Literacy in Society. London:
Longman.
Vygotsky, L.S. 1962. Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher
Psychological Processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
.
Vygotsky, L.S. 1979.
Consciousness as a Problem in the Psychology of Behaviour. Soviet
Psychology, 17
(4): 3-35.
Vygotsky L.S. 1982-1984. Collected Works, 2 vols., vol. 2.
Moscow: Moscow Progress
Publishers.
Wignell, P. 1991. ‘Doing’ and
‘Making’ Social Science: The Role of Main Ideas in the Social
Literacy Social Science Materials. In
Genre Approaches to Literacy: Theories and
Practices. Papers
from the 1991 LERN Conference, University of Technology, Sydney.
Wignell, P., Eggins, S. &
Martin, J. 1987. The Discourse of Geography: Ordering and
Explaining the Experiential World. In
Working Papers in Linguistics 5. Sydney:
Department of Linguistics, University of Sydney.
Zimmerman, F. 1989. English for Science. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
