Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T03:53:39.786Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The authenticity continuum: Towards a definition incorporating international voices

Why authenticity should be represented as a continuum in the EFL classroom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2014

Richard Pinner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The choice of what materials to use in the language classroom is perhaps one of the most fundamentally important and difficult decisions teachers and those responsible for choosing textbooks are faced with. Authenticity is often seen as a desirable component in the content we select and adapt for our language learners, and it has been shown that authentic materials are more motivating, even for low-level learners (Peacock, 1997). The term authentic is often used to describe materials which were not originally designed for the purpose of language learning, but that were designed to have some purpose within the target language culture, such as a newspaper or novel. An unfortunate consequence of this is that authenticity is still often defined in reference to the target language's ‘native speakers’ or L1 community, particularly in EFL contexts, or what Kachru (1985) would label the Outer Circle communities. In other words, where English is taught as a foreign language, both teachers and students often regard ‘native-speakers’ as being the ideal model and therefore an example of authenticity. For example, Tan (2005) criticises corpora investigations of learner English for holding the view that authentic language use is equivalent to ‘native-speaker’ usages. She goes on to criticise not only corpus research but also textbook publishers for still not taking into account ‘the inextricable link between language and culture’ (2005: 127). In the academic world, culturally embedded notions of authenticity relating to ‘native-speakers’ have been challenged for decades (Smith, 1976). And yet I would argue that in mainstream textbooks and in most EFL language classrooms the native speaker still retains a ‘privileged position’ (Clark & Paran, 2007: 407). As Widdowson (1996: 68) puts it:

Authenticity concerns the reality of native-speaker language use: in our case, the communication in English which is realized by an English-speaking community. But the language which is real for native speakers is not likely to be real for learners […] They belong to another community and do not have the necessary knowledge of the contextual conditions which would enable them to authenticate English in native-speaker terms. Their reality is quite different.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Today , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 22 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Braine, G. 2010. Non-native Speaker English Teachers: Research, Pedagogy, and Professional Growth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Clark, E. & Paran, A. 2007. ‘The employability of non-native-speaker teachers of EFL: a UK survey.’ System, 35(4), 407–430.Google Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. 2010. CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. & Ushioda, E. 2009. Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Gilmore, A. 2007. ‘Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning.’ Language Teaching, 40(2), 97–118.Google Scholar
Graddol, D. 1997. The Future of English?: a Guide to Forecasting the Popularity of the English Language in the 21st Century. London: British Council.Google Scholar
Graddol, D. 2003. ‘The decline of the native speaker.’ In Translation Today: Trends and Perspectives. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 152–167.Google Scholar
Hung, D. & Victor Chen, D.-T. 2007. ‘Context–process authenticity in learning: implications for identity enculturation and boundary crossing.’ Educational Technology, Research and Development, 55(2), 147–167.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B. 1985. ‘Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the outer circle.’ In Quirk, R., Widdowson, H. G. & Cantù, Y. (eds.), English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–30.Google Scholar
Matsuda, A. Y. A. 2003. ‘Incorporating World Englishes in teaching English as an international language.’ TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 719–729.Google Scholar
Morrow, K. 1977. ‘Authentic texts and ESP.’ In Holden, S. (ed.), English for Specific Purposes. London: Modern English Publications, pp. 13–17.Google Scholar
Moussu, L. & Llurda, E. 2008. ‘Non-native English-speaking English language teachers: history and research.’ Language Teaching, 41(3), 315–348.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. 2002. ‘Poststructuralist approaches to the study of social factors in second language learning and use.’ In Cook, V. (ed.), Portraits of the L2 User. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 277–302.Google Scholar
Peacock, M. 1997. ‘The effect of authentic materials on the motivation of EFL learners.’ ELT Journal, 51(2), 144–156.Google Scholar
Pinner, R. S. 2013a. ‘Authenticity and CLIL: examining authenticity from an international CLIL perspective.’ International CLIL Research Journal, 2(1), 44–54.Google Scholar
Pinner, R. S. 2013b. ‘Authenticity of Purpose: CLIL as a way to bring meaning and motivation into EFL contexts.’ Asian EFL Journal, 15(4), 138–159.Google Scholar
Reves, T. & Medgyes, P. 1994. ‘The non-native English speaking EFL/ESL teacher's self-image: an international survey.’ System, 22(3), 353–367.Google Scholar
Smith, L. E. 1976. ‘English as an international auxiliary language.’ RELC Journal, 7(2), 38–42.Google Scholar
Suzuki, A. 2011. ‘Introducing diversity of English into ELT: student teachers' responses.’ ELT Journal, 65(2), 145–153.Google Scholar
Tan, M. 2005. ‘Authentic language or language errors? Lessons from a learner corpus.’ ELT Journal, 59(2), 126–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomlinson, B. & Masuhara, H. 2010. Research for Materials Development in Language Learning: Evidence for Best Practice. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Ushioda, E. 2011. ‘Motivating learners to speak as themselves’. In Murray, G., Gao, X. & Lamb, T. E. (eds.), Identity, Motivation and Autonomy in Language Learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 11–25.Google Scholar
van Lier, L. 1996. Interaction in the Language Curriculum: Awareness, Autonomy and Authenticity. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. 1978. Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. 1990. Aspects of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. 1996. ‘Comment: authenticity and autonomy in ELT.’ ELT Journal, 50(1), 67–68.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar