Translation Competence as a Cognitive Catalyst for Multiliteracy – Research Findings and Their Implications for L2 Writing and Translation Instruction

  • Susanne Göpferich
Part of the New Frontiers in Translation Studies book series (NFTS)


Translating from the L1 into the L2 has been rejected in the foreign language instruction paradigms following the grammar translation method and has more or less been banned from L2 teaching (cf. Cook 2010; Liu 2009; Turnbull and Dailey-O’Cain 2009a, p. 3 ff). One of the reasons is the assumption that maximum exposure to the L2 is the best way to learn it and that the L1, if resorted to, interferes negatively with L2 development. This assumption may explain why the use of the L1 and translation had received little attention in L2 writing research until the 1980s (Rijlaarsdam 2002, p. ix; Liu 2009, p. 12), even though there is a lack of evidence that resorting to the L1 in L2 language production is harmful (Cook 2010, p. 99).


Competent Interpreters Content And Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Cognitive Relief Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) English Source Text 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Arndt, V. (1987). Six writers in search of texts: A protocol-based study of L1 and L2 writing. ELT Journal, 41(4), 257–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, C. (2003). Biliteracy and transliteracy in Wales: Language planning and the Welsh national curriculum. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational policy, research and practice in multilingual settings (pp. 71–90). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bayer-Hohenwarter, G. (2012). Translatorische kreativität: Definition-messung-entwicklung. Tübingen: Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Beaufort, A. (2007). College writing and beyond: A new framework for university writing instruction. Logan: Utah State University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Björkmann, B. (2013). English as an academic lingua franca: An investigation of form and communicative effectiveness. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonnet, A. (2015). Sachfachlicher kompetenzerwerb in naturwissenschaftlichen CLIL-kontexten. In B. Rüschoff, J. Sudhoff, & D. Wolff (Eds.), CLIL revisited. Eine kiritische Analyse zum gegenwärtigen Stand des bilingualen Sachfachunterrichts (pp. 165–182). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  8. Börner, W. (1989). Didaktik schriftlicher textproduktion in der fremdsprache. In G. Antos & H. P. Krings (Eds.), Textproduktion (pp. 348–376). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  9. Bosher, S., & Rowekamp, J. (1992). Language proficiency and academic success: The refugee/immigrant in higher education (Eric Document ED 353 914). Retrieved from
  10. Bräuer, G., & Schindler, K. (2013). Authentische Schreibaufgaben – ein Konzept. In G. Bräuer & K. Schindler (Eds.), Schreibarrangements für Schule, Hochschule und Beruf (pp. 12–63). Stuttgart: Fillibach bei Klett.Google Scholar
  11. Carson, J. E., & Kuehn, P. A. (1992). Evidence of transfer and loss in developing second language writers. Language Learning, 42(2), 157–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Casanave, C. P. (1998). Transitions: The balancing act of bilingual academics. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(2), 175–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Catford, J. C. (1965). A linguistic theory of translation: An essay in applied linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, A. D., & Brooks-Carson, A. (2001). Research on direct versus translated writing: Students’ strategies and their results. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 169–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cook, V. (2002). Background to the L2 user. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 1–31). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cook, V. (2008). Multi-competence: Black hole or wormhole for second language acquisition research. In Z. H. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 16–26). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  17. Cook, G. (2010). Translation in language teaching: An argument for reassessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Cumming, A. (1987). Writing expertise and second-language proficiency in ESL writing performance. PhD thesis. University of Toronto, Toronto.Google Scholar
  19. Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second-language proficiency. Language Learning, 39(1), 81–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cumming, A. (2001). Learning to write in a second language: Two decades of research. International Journal of English Studies, 1(2), 1–23.Google Scholar
  21. Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/Academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, (19), 121–129.Google Scholar
  22. Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3–49). Los Angeles: California State University, Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center.Google Scholar
  23. Cummins, J. (1996). Interdependence of first- and second-language proficiency in bilingual children. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 70–89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. DAAD. (2015). International Programmes in Germany 2015. Retrieved July 30, 2015, from
  25. Dafouz, E., Camacho, M., & Urquia, E. (2014). ‘Surely they can’t do as well’: A comparison of business students’ academic performance in English-medium and Spanish-as-first-language-medium programmes. Language and Education, 28(3), 223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Devine, J., Railey, K., & Boshoff, P. (1993). The implications of cognitive models in L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2(3), 203–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2013). English-medium instruction at universities: Global challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  28. Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5), 1–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Flowerdew, L. (2000). Using a genre-based framework to teach organizational structure in academic writing. ELT Journal, 54(4), 369–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Friedlander, A. (1990). Composing in English: Effects of a first language on writing in English as a second language. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 109–125). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fries, C. C. (1945). Teaching and learning English as a foreign language. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In M. Torrance & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production (pp. 139–164). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Gantefort, C., & Roth, H.-J. (2014). Schreiben unter den Bedingungen individueller Mehrsprachigkeit. In D. Knorr & U. Neumann (Eds.), Mehrsprachige Studierende schreiben. Schreibwerkstätten an deutschen Hochschulen (pp. 54–73). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  34. Gentil, G. (2005). Commitments to academic biliteracy: Case studies of francophone university writers. Written Communication, 22(4), 421–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gnutzmann, C., Jakisch, J., & Rabe, F. (2015). Englisch im Studium. Ergebnisse einer Interviewstudie mit Lehrenden. In A. Knapp & K. Aguado (Eds.), Fremdsprachen in Studium und Lehre–Chancen und Herausforderungen für den Wissenserwerb (pp. 17–45). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  36. Göbel, K., & Vieluf, S. (2014). The effects of language transfer as a resource in instruction. In P. Grommes & A. Hu (Eds.), Plurilingual education: Policies – Practices – Language development (pp. 181–195). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  37. Göpferich, S. (2009). Comprehensibility assessment using the Karlsruhe comprehensibility concept. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 11, 31–52.Google Scholar
  38. Göpferich, S. (2013). Translation competence: Explaining development and stagnation from a dynamic systems perspective. Target, 25(1), 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Göpferich, S. (2015a). Sich Fachliches erschreiben: Förderung literaler Kompetenzen als Förderung des Denkens im Fach. In Vortrag anlässlich des 5-jährigen Jubiläums des Zentrums für fremdsprachliche und berufsfeldorientierte Kompetenzen (ZfbK) der Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen. Gießen.Google Scholar
  40. Göpferich, S. (2015b). Text competence and academic multiliteracy: From text linguistics to literacy development. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  41. Göpferich, S., & Nelezen, B. (2012). Data documentation for the articl, Die Sprach (un) abhängigkeit von Textproduktionskompetenz: Translation als Werkzeug der Schreibprozessforschung und Schreibdidaktik. Retrieved August 17, 2014, from
  42. Göpferich, S., & Nelezen, B. (2014). The language-(in) dependence of writing skills: Translation as a tool in writing process research and writing instruction. MonTI, 1, 117–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hartmann, R. R. K., & Stork, F. C. (Eds.). (1972). Dictionary of language and linguistics. Amsterdam: Applied Science.Google Scholar
  45. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing process. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Hirose, K., & Sasaki, M. (1994). Explanatory variables for Japanese students’ expository writing in English: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(3), 203–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Holz-Mänttäri, J. (1984). Translatorisches handeln: Theorie und methode. In Suomalainen tiedeakatemia. Helsinki.Google Scholar
  48. House, J. (1977). A model for translation quality assessment. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  49. Jones, S., & Tetroe, J. (1987). Composing in a second language. In A. Matsuhashi (Ed.), Writing in real time: Modelling production processes (pp. 34–57). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  50. Kecskes, I., & Papp, T. (2000). Foreign language and mother tongue. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kim, E.-Y. (2011). Using translation exercises in the communicative EFL writing classroom. ELT Journal, 65(2), 154–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Klaasen, R. G. (2001). The international university curriculum. Challenges in English medium instruction. PhD thesis. Delft University of Technology, Delft.Google Scholar
  53. Knapp, A. (2014). Language choice and the construction of knowledge in higher education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 165–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Knapp, A., & Timmermann, S. (2012). UniComm Englisch – Ein Formulierungswörterbuch für die Lehrveranstaltungskommu-nikation. FLuL–Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen, 41(2), 42–59.Google Scholar
  55. Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (1992). Effects of first language on second language writing: Translation versus direct composition. Language Learning, 42(2), 183–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kohro, Y. (2009). A contrastive study between L1 and L2 compositions: Focusing on global text structure, composition quality, and variables in L2 writing. Dialogue, 8, 1–19.Google Scholar
  57. Krapels, A. R. (1990). An overview of second language writing process research. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 37–56). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lamsfuß-Schenk, S. (2015). Sachfachlicher Kompetenzerwerb in gesellschaftlichen CLIL-Kontexten. In B. Rüschoff, J. Sudhoff, & D. Wolff (Eds.), CLIL revisited. Eine kiritische Analyse zum gegenwärtigen Stand des bilingualen Sachfachunterrichts (pp. 151–164). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  59. Lange, U. (2012). Strategien für das wissenschaftliche Schreiben in mehrsprachigen Umgebungen. Eine didaktische Analyse. In D. Knorr & A. Verhein-Jarren (Eds.), Schreiben unter Bedingungen von Mehrsprachigkeit (pp. 139–155). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  60. Lasagabaster, D. (2015). Multilingualism at tertiary level: Achievements and challenges. In A. Knapp & K. Aguado (Eds.), Fremdsprachen in Studium und Lehre: Chancen und Herausforderungen für den Wis-senserwerb (Foreign languages in higher education: Opportunities and challenges for the acquisition of knowledge) (pp. 47–68). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  61. Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language writing in English. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  62. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  63. Levi-Keren, M. (2008). Factors explaining biases in mathematic tests among immigrant students in Israel. PhD thesis in Hebrew. Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.Google Scholar
  64. Liu, Y. (2009). Translation in second language writing: Exploration of cognitive process of translation. Saarbrücken: VDM Publishing.Google Scholar
  65. Logan-Terry, A., & Wright, L. (2010). Making thinking visible: An analysis of English language learners’ interactions with access-based science assessment items. AccELLerate!, 2(4), 11–14.Google Scholar
  66. Macaro, E. (2014). Reframing task performance: The relationship between tasks, strategic behaviour, and linguistic knowledge in writing. In H. Byrnes & R. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 53–77). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  67. Manchón, R., Roca de Larios, J., & Murphy, L. (2000). An approximation to the study of backtracking in L2 writing. Learning and Instruction, 10(1), 13–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mandelblit, N. (1995). The cognitive view of metaphor and its implications for translation theory. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszcyk & M. Thelen (Eds.), Translation and meaning (pp. 483–495). Maastricht: Hoogeschool Maastricht.Google Scholar
  69. Martin-Jones, M., & Jones, K. (2000). Multilingual literacies: Comparative perspectives on research and practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  70. Muchisky, D., & Tangren, N. (1999). Immigrant student performance in an academic intensive English program. In L. Harklau, K. Losey, & M. Siegal (Eds.), Generation 1.5 meets college composition (pp. 211–234). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  71. Nord, C. (1993). Einführung in das funktionale Übersetzen: am Beispiel von Titeln und Überschriften. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
  72. Ortega, L., & Carson, J. (2010). Multicompetence, social context, and L2 writing research praxis. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Practicing theory in second language writing (pp. 48–71). West Lafayette: Parlor Press.Google Scholar
  73. Perani, D., Dehaene, S., Grassi, F., Cohen, L., Cappa, S. F., Dupoux, E., … Mehler, J. (1996). Brain processing of native and foreign languages. Neuroreport, 7(15–17), 2439–2444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1988). Teaching for transfer. Educational Leadership, 46(1), 22–32.Google Scholar
  75. Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (n.d.). The science and art of transfer. Retrieved August 17, 2014. from
  76. Piske, T. (2015). Zum Erwerb der CLIL-Fremdsprache. In B. Rüschoff, J. Sudhoff, & D. Wolff (Eds.), CLIL Revisited: Eine kritische Analyse zum gegenwärtigen Stand des bilingualen Sachfachunterrichts (pp. 101–125). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  77. Pohl, T. (2007). Studien zur Ontogenese wissenschaftlichen Schreibens. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Qi, D. S. (1998). An inquiry into language-switching in second language composing processes. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(3), 413–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 277–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Ransdell, S., & Barbier, M.-L. (2002). New directions for research in L2 writing. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Reiss, K., & Vermeer, H. J. (1984). Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rijlaarsdam, G. (2002). Preface. In S. Ransdell & M.-L. Barbier (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. ix–ix). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  83. Roca De Larios, J., Murphy, L., & Manchón, R. M. (1999). The use of restructuring strategies in EFL writing: A study of Spanish learners of English as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 13–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Roca De Larios, J., Murphy, L., & Marin, J. (2002). A critical examination of L2 writing process research. In S. Ransdell & M.-L. Barbier (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 11–47). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Roca De Larios, J., Manchón, R. M., & Murphy, L. (2006). Generating text in native and foreign language writing: A temporal analysis of problemsolving formulation processes. The Modern Language Journal, 90(1), 100–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rüschoff, B., Sudhoff, J., & Wolff, D. (Eds.). (2015). CLIL Revisited: Eine kritische Analyse zum gegenwärtigen Stand des bilingualen Sachfachunterrichts. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  87. Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward an empirical model of EFL writing processes: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 259–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sasaki, M. (2002). Building an empirically-based model of EFL learners’ writing processes. In S. Ransdell & M.-L. Barbier (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 49–80). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sasaki, M. (2004). A multiple-data analysis of the 3.5-year development of EFL student writers. Language Learning, 54(3), 525–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Sasaki, M., & Hirose, K. (1996). Explanatory variables for EFL students’ expository writing. Language Learning, 46(1), 137–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Schoonen, R., Gelderen, A. v., Glopper, K. d., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., & Stevenson, M. (2003). First language and second language writing: The role of linguistic knowledge, speed of processing, and metacognitive knowledge. Language Learning, 53(1), 165–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Shi, L. (2003). Writing in two cultures: Chinese professors return from the West. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(3), 369–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Shohamy, E. (2013). A critical perspective on the use of English as a medium of instruction at universities. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), English-medium instruction at universities: Global challenges (pp. 196–210). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  95. Silva, T. (1992). L1 vs L2 writing: ESL graduate students’ perceptions. TESL Canada Journal, 10(1), 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Smit, U. (2015). CLIL und der tertiäre Sektor. In B. Rüschoff, J. Sudhoff, & D. Wolff (Eds.), CLIL Revisited: Eine kritische Analyse zum gegenwärtigen Stand des bilingualen Sachfachunterrichts (pp. 75–98). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  97. Steinhoff, T. (2007). Wissenschaftliche Textkompetenz: Sprachgebrauch und Schreibentwicklung in wissenschaftlichen Texten von Studenten und Experten. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Tang, R. (2012). Two sides of the same coin: Challenges and opportunities for scholars from EFL backgrounds. In R. Tang (Ed.), Academic writing in a second or foreign language: Issues and challenges facing ESL/EFL academic writers in higher education contexts (pp. 204–232). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  99. Turnbull, M., & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (2009a). Concluding Reflections: Moving Forward. In M. Turnbull & J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  100. Turnbull, M., & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (2009b). Introduction. In M. Turnbull & J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  101. Uzawa, K. (1994). Translation, L1 Writing, and L2 Writing of Japanese ESL Learners. Journal of the Canadian Association of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 119–134.Google Scholar
  102. Uzawa, K. (1996). Second language learners’ processes of L1 writing, L2 writing, and translation from L1 into L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(3), 271–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Uzawa, K., & Cumming, A. (1989). Writing strategies in Japanese as a foreign language: Lowering or keeping up the standards. Canadian Modern Language Review, 46(1), 178–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. van der Walt, C. (2013). Multilingual higher education: Beyond English medium orientations. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Vermeer, H. J. (1978). Ein Rahmen für eine allgemeine Translationstheorie. Lebende Sprachen, 3, 99–102.Google Scholar
  106. Wächter, B., & Maiworm, F. (Eds.). (2014). English-taught programmes in European higher education. The stay of play. Bonn: Lemmens Medien.Google Scholar
  107. Wang, W., & Wen, Q. (2002). L1 use in the L2 composing process: An exploratory study of 16 Chinese EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(3), 225–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Whalen, K., & Menard, N. (1995). L1 and L2 writers’ strategic and linguistic knowledge: A model of multiple-level discourse processing. Language Learning, 45(3), 381–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Williams, C. (1994). Arfarniad o ddulliau dysgu ac addysgu yng nghyd-destun addysg uwchradd ddwyieithog. PhD thesis. University of Wales, Bangor.Google Scholar
  110. Wolff, D., & Sudhoff, J. (2015). Zur Definition des Bilingualen Lehrens und Lernens. In B. Rüschoff, J. Sudhoff, & D. Wolff (Eds.), CLIL Revisited: Eine kritische Analyse zum gegenwärtigen Stand des bilingualen Sachfachunterrichts (pp. 9–39). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  111. Woodall, B. R. (2002). Language-switching: Using the first language while writing in a second language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(1), 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susanne Göpferich
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of English and Centre for Competence Development (ZfbK)Justus Liebig UniversityGiessenGermany

Personalised recommendations