key concepts in elt

Authenticity

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/68/4/457/2924668 by Sam Whiteley, Sam Whiteley on 29 April 2019

Judith Buendgens-Kosten

‘Authenticity’ is a frequently invoked and, at the same time, keenly

debated notion in ELT which became an issue when the advent of
Communicative Language Teaching in the 1970s brought with it a
new focus on ‘realism’ in language learning materials and activities.
More recently, the development of large corpora of ‘naturally
occurring’ English and the way the internet has provided easy access
to varied language material and options for telecollaboration and
micropublishing, coupled with an increasing emphasis on autonomy
in language learning, have further fuelled interest in this notion (see
Mishan 2005; Gilmore 2007).
In its widest sense, ‘authenticity’ is related to notions of ‘realness’
or ‘trueness to origin’. As a technical term in the field of ELT,
authenticity has been used to characterize texts (both written and
spoken), learning material, tasks, cultural artefacts, multimedia
products, forms of assessment, and even types of teacher and
audience. Unsurprisingly, a variety of definitions co-exist, and
Gilmore (2007) outlines a total of eight different meanings or uses
for the term ‘authentic’ in ELT professional discourse. For the sake of
clarity here, however, the focus will be on two major aspects, namely
text and task authenticity.
In language-teaching contexts, the notion of ‘authenticity’ was mainly
applied at first to texts (spoken or written), characterizing a quality
of the language used in them (‘authentic Scottish accent’, ‘authentic
representation of the language’, and so on) or the provenance of the
texts themselves (‘authentic’ texts having not been originally designed
for learners: newspaper articles, recorded station announcements, and
so on). In the late 1970s, however, Widdowson introduced a distinction
between authenticity as it applies to texts viewed in isolation (which he
called ‘genuineness’), and texts in their pedagogical context, including
learners’ responses to them, thereby extending the focus of the term to
include classroom activities:

Genuineness is characteristic of the [text] passage itself and is an

absolute quality. Authenticity is a characteristic of the relationship

ELT Journal Volume 68/4 October 2014; doi:10.1093/elt/ccu034  457

© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
Advance Access publication June 24, 2014
 between the passage and the reader and it has to do with appropriate
response. (Widdowson 1978: 80)
According to this distinction, a text is genuine if it is a ‘genuine
instance of discourse, designed to meet a communicative purpose,
directed at people playing their roles in a normal social context’
(ibid.: 89) as opposed to ‘a contrivance for teaching language’ (ibid.).
Authenticity is present if a text is used in ways that ‘correspond to
[...] normal communicative activities’ (ibid.: 80). Genuineness is not

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/68/4/457/2924668 by Sam Whiteley, Sam Whiteley on 29 April 2019

irrelevant, but ‘making genuineness correspond with authenticity’ is
referred to as a ‘desired aim’ (Widdowson 1979: 169).
This distinction between features of a text and features of its use by
learners has been very influential, even though the use of ‘authenticity’
for both cases has remained common practice in ELT discourse, and texts
written by a native speaker, or for native speakers, or for non-language-
learning purposes tend to continue to be referred to as ‘authentic’ rather
than ‘genuine’. Even where a distinction similar to Widdowson’s is upheld,
the term ‘authenticity’ may be applied to both sides of the distinction, for
example in Edelhoff’s (1985) authenticity of production versus authenticity of
situation, or Lee’s (1995) text authenticity versus learner authenticity.
Depending partly on the definition employed, different types of claim
have been made about the relationship between authenticity and
language learning. Let us first look at some of the assumed advantages
of using genuine texts and authentic activities in language teaching,
then at some of the doubts that have been raised.
With regard to the advantages of genuine texts, it is often assumed that
they provide better linguistic models than non-genuine texts. Textbooks
may include language that is grammatically correct but which differs
from non-textbook (i.e. genuine) language use (Gilmore 2004).
Concerning authentic learning activities, the opportunities they provide
for ‘engagement’, ‘meaningfulness’, and ‘authentication by learners’ are
often cited as beneficial. The basic idea here is that learners should be
able to do something with language that goes beyond the manipulation
of forms, for example responding to a piece of poetry or using language
to organize an activity (Breen 1985: 64).
On the other hand, Breen (ibid.: 68) has pointed out that the classroom
constitutes a specific social setting with its own rules and its own
‘authenticity of the classroom as a classroom’ (italics in the original),
while material that is ‘real’ for native speakers may not always be ‘real’
for learners, or vice versa. Cook (2000), for example, stresses that
‘language play’ activities often associated with a focus on form (for
example involving repetition or rote learning) ‘can take on personal and
social significance, and both draw attention to the language, and be
“interesting and relevant”’ (ibid.: 172, italics in the original).
Demands for authenticity may take on a political dimension, too.
Discussions of authenticity often emphasize the role of the native
speaker as the source of authentic material, disregarding the important
(and, one may argue, authentic) forms and functions of English as
lingua franca (Alptekin 2002; Tan 2005; Gilmore 2007). Associating

458 Judith Buendgens-Kosten

 authenticity exclusively with native-speaker English can also have
a negative effect on perceptions of non-native-speaker teachers (cf.
Phillipson’s (1992) native speaker fallacy).
In this age of globalization and computer-mediated communication,
authenticity remains an important, though critically debated,
notion. Its adaptability to different contexts—from textbook design
to telecollaboration—and to different aspects of language learning
contributes to occasional confusion in its use as a technical term. Still,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/68/4/457/2924668 by Sam Whiteley, Sam Whiteley on 29 April 2019

the notion remains an attractive and powerful one, as is attested by
its continuing frequent use (even if sometimes only in passing and
without clear definition) in contemporary ELT professional discourse
(Buendgens-Kosten 2013).

References Mishan, F. 2005. Designing Authenticity into

Alptekin, C. 2002. ‘Towards intercultural Language Learning Materials. Bristol: Intellect
communicative competence in ELT’. ELT Journal Books.
56/1: 57–64. Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford:
Breen, M. P. 1985. ‘Authenticity in the language Oxford University Press.
classroom’. Applied Linguistics 6/1: 60–70. Tan, M. 2005. ‘Authentic language or language
Buendgens-Kosten, J. 2013. ‘Authenticity in CALL: errors? Lessons from a learner corpus’. ELT
three domains of “realness”’. ReCALL 25/2: 272–85. Journal 59/2: 126–34.
Cook, G. 2000. Language Play, Language Learning. Widdowson, H. G. 1978. Teaching Language
Oxford: Oxford University Press. as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University
Edelhoff, C. 1985. ‘Authentizität im Press.
Fremsprachenunterricht’ [‘Authenticity in Widdowson, H. G. 1979. Explorations in
foreign language learning’] in C. Edelhoff Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University
(ed.). Authentische Texte im Deutschunterricht: Press.
Einführung und Unterrichtsmodelle [Authentic Texts
in German Lessons: Introduction and Teaching
Models]. München: Max Hueber Verlag. The author
Gilmore, A. 2004. ‘A comparison of textbook and Judith Buendgens-Kosten is a postdoctoral
authentic interactions’. ELT Journal 58/4: 363–74. researcher at Goethe University, Frankfurt. In her
Gilmore, A. 2007. ‘Authentic materials and research on computer-assisted language learning,
authenticity in foreign language learning’. she combines her expertise from her doctorate
Language Teaching 40/2: 97–118. in English linguistics (RWTH Aachen) and her
Lee, W. Y. 1995. ‘Authenticity revisited: text MA in online and distance education (Open
authenticity and learner authenticity’. ELT Journal University).
49/4: 323–8. Email: buendgens-kosten@em.uni-frankfurt.de

Authenticity 459