Authenticity in the Language Classroom *

MICHAEL P. BREEN
University of Lancaster

I would like to begin by providing a particular example of an authentic text. It is

a poem by the Czech writer and immunologist, Miroslav Holub. His theme is truth
or, more precisely, exactness. I intend the poem to serve two purposes: as an
example of" authentic language use and as an introduction to the main argument of
this paper. The title of the poem is 'Brief Thoughts on Exactness.'1
Fish
move exactly there and exactly then,

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Russian Archive on February 2, 2014

just as
birds have their inbuilt exact measure of time and place.
But mankind,
deprived of instinct, is aided
by scientific research, the essence of which
this story shows.
A certain soldier
had to fire a gun every evening exactly at six.
He did it like a soldier. When his exactness
was checked, he stated:
I follow
an absolutely precise chronometer in the shop-window
of the clockmaker downtown. Every day at seventeen
forty-five I set my watch by it and
proceed up the hill where the gun stands ready.
At seventeen fifty-nine exactly I reach the gun
and exactly at eighteen hours I fire.
It was found
that this method of firing was absolutely exact.
There was only the chronometer to be checked.
The clockmaker downtown was asked about its exactness.
Oh, said the clockmaker,
This instrument is one of the most exact. Imagine,
for years a gun has been fired here at six exactly.
And every day I look at the chronometer
and it always shows exactly six.
So much for exactness . . . .
At this point we might ask which is the authentic time! Is it the soldier's time, or
the clockmaker's? Or, indeed, neither? Holub's point seems to be that precision
in human affairs, even in Time, is a relative matter. In this paper, I wish to propose
that, when we are concerned with the teaching of a new language to our learners,
authenticity is a relative matter also. What is authentic is relative to our purposes
Applied Linguistics, VoL 6, No. 1
 MICHAEL BREEN 61

in the classroom and to the points of view of the different participants in that
classroom. In the daily life of the classroom, the teacher is continually concerned
with four types of authenticity. These may be summarized as follows:
1 Authenticity of the texts which we may use as input data for our learners.
2 Authenticity of the learners' own interpretations of such texts.
3 Authenticity of tasks conducive to language learning.
4 Authenticity of the actual social situation of the language classroom.
Putting each of these in other words, it may be seen that the teacher of language
is faced with four questions:
a. What is an authentic text?

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Russian Archive on February 2, 2014

b. For whom is it authentic?
c. For what authentic purpose?
d. In which particular social situation?
In much current debate on authenticity in language teaching, the main focus
of concern has been upon the first of these questions—the virtues of exposing
our learners to authentic examples of target language use. I wish to suggest that
this authenticity to the target language needs to be seen as only one of a number
of demands for authenticity which confront the teacher. It is reasonable to argue
that the teaching-learning process should be authentic to its particular objectives
and content—the language to be learned. However, the learners' own contribu-
tions, the activity of language learning, and the actual classroom situation are
also constituent elements within this process. The language lesson is an event
wherein all four elements—content, learner, learning, and classroom—each pro-
vide their own relative criteria concerning what might be authentic. Within the
lesson, a balance needs to be maintained—or a tension resolved—between dif-
ferent and sometimes contradictory criteria for authenticity.2
This paper is devoted to a consideration of some of the criteria which may
inform the teacher's answers to the four questions which—I have suggested—
confront him or her daily in the classroom. From this consideration, a number of
tentative proposals for language teaching pedagogy are deduced. Although the
authentic qualities of texts have received, perhaps, the most attention in recent
discussions of language teaching, I believe the question as to the authenticity of
a text is almost inseparable from the question: 'For whom might such a text be
authentic?'. Authentic communication could be regarded as the process of interaction
between, for example, the specific nature of a written text and the particular reader's
interpreting of the text—the latter being what he himself contributes to that text.3
For this reason, the specific nature of a text and the point of view and approach of
the person interpreting the text are very closely related issues.

1. WHAT IS AN AUTHENTIC TEXT AND FOR WHOM IS IT AUTHENTIC?

Recall the poem with which I began this paper. Why might it be an authentic text?
More particularly, why might it be the basis for genuine communication? There
may be many answers to this question, so perhaps it would help if we compared
the poem with something else. Here is another text:
Arthur did not enjoy the dance very much. All his friends seemed to enjoy
themselves a lot. Jennifer, especially, seemed to be enjoying herself all evening.
62 AUTHENTICITY IN THE LANGUAGE CLASSROOM
Arthur could not dance very well. What could he do? He was so shy that he
could not invite Jennifer to dance with him. He could not go to college because
he had not passed his exams. He could not buy smart clothes because he did
not earn much money at the store. He could not really ask Jennifer to go out
with him because she was going steady with Bruce.4
You may recognize at once the textual world which we have now entered. What
is being communicated by this text? How is the reader expected to approach
Arthur's dilemma? I suggest that the primary function of this piece of prose is to
illustrate and exemplify the workings of language. (Hence the varied recurrence of
'enjoyment', of the auxiliary 'could'—plus or minus negative—and the repeated
clauses of result). The author's priority is to use a message about Arthur in order to

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Russian Archive on February 2, 2014

highlight the means—to emphasize certain features of the code.
On the other hand, what were the primary communicative purposes of Miroslav
Holub's poem? To share an experience with us? To amuse us, perhaps, in order
to awaken in us a new way of perceiving things? The poet certainly wishes to
engage our thoughts and emotions. In short, the poet exploits the code in the most
effective way he can in order to share a particular meaning—perhaps almost the
reverse of the priorities of the language teaching materials writer who makes use
of Arthur. Then why might the poem be authentic and the exploits of Arthur
inauthentic? The poet uses language as a means to stimulate our interpretations of
his intended message. He has a genuine communicative purpose to achieve—with
our cooperation. The language teaching materials writer presents us with Arthur
for meta-communicative purposes. For such a writer, the modelling or didactic
exposition of the language is primary. Arthur exists mainly to carry lexical and
grammatical baggage.
However, does this particular distinction mean that we should deprive our
learners of the candid details of Arthur's mediocrity, motivated by the materials
writer's apparent preoccupation with the negative modal auxiliary? If we pre-
sented our learners with the poem of Miroslav Holub, how might they under-
take an interpretation of it? From their point of view, how might they approach
the text devoted to the soldier and the clockmaker? It seems very probable that
some learners may interpret the text of the poem as an illustration of, for example,
the various grammatical functions of the lexical item 'exact' (as in 'exactly at six',
'exact measure of time', or 'his exactness was checked' etc., etc.). Or, perhaps
a more insightful or 'advanced' member of the class may seek to discover the
rhetorical conventions of such a poem or how an argument might be convincingly
constructed in this kind of text. Regardless of whatever genuine communicative
purposes the writer may have had, the learner may perceive the text in meta-
communicative or meta-linguistic terms. Similarly, the fact that a text may have
been produced by a fluent user of the language for fluent listeners or speakers
pales into insignificance when such a text is approached by a non-fluent learner
of that language. The learner will re-define any text against his own priorities, pre-
cisely because he is a learner. A learner might certainly re-interpret Holub's poem
as a model of the workings of some aspects of the code, just as a learner might
actually become affectively engaged with Arthur's predicaments in a narrative pri-
marily crafted for pedagogic purposes. Indeed, if we are aware of the learners'
frames of reference, then considerations of a text's authenticity become a rela-
tively misty matter.
The more fluent users of the language will authentically respond to the poet's
 MICHAEL BREEN 63

communicative purposes precisely because they already share certain conventions

of communication with the poet—they share possible ways of using language to
express and interpret particular meanings with the poet. So, the more fluent reader
is likely to respond to Miroslav Holub's intentions—as expressed through the
text—in different ways from the language learner, because of the differences
between them in what they can themselves bring to the poem.s The learner will
actually recreate the poem in a way which is perfectly authentic to his knowledge
—or lack of knowledge—about the conventions of communication which the poet
uses. In a sense, a learner is farther away from such a poem than we are. He
approaches it from a relatively more distant point of entry. Therefore, when we ask
'What is the authentic text?', we need to relate our answer to the second question:
'For whom can this be authentic?'. More precisely, the teacher may need to con-

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Russian Archive on February 2, 2014

sider: 'What might be the various authentic approaches to and interpretations of
any text which my learners may adopt?'.
The first point can be expressed in another way. It has recently been argued
that we need to expose learners to authentic texts so that they may have immediate
and.direct contact with input data which reflect genuine communication in the target
language. However, perhaps a relative distinction can be made between texts which
represent rich examples of the target language in use, and those texts which may serve
as the means through which learners can gradually uncover the conventions which
underlie the use of the target language. This second kind of text may provide language
data which—by whatever devices—more explicitly display the systems of know-
ledge (the specific rules, meanings, and conventions of language behaviour) which
generate communication in the target language. The guiding criterion here is the
provision of any means which will enable the learner to eventually interpret texts in
ways which are likely to be shared with fluent users of the language.6
At this point the teacher is likely to suspect that it is being proposed that any
text is potentially authentic to the learner. Surely, we need some clearer criterion
for the selection and use of language data in the classroom? This question leads
me to my first pedagogic proposal. The proposal is based upon the crucial dis-
tinction between the actual activity of learning and the performance of what has
already been learned—between the means towards learning and the ends of learn-
ing. We should be willing to welcome into the classroom any text which will serve
the primary purpose of helping the learner to develop authentic interpretations.
That is, any text which engages the learner's effort to communicate with it,
thereby drawing out of the learner the use and discovery of those conventions of
communication which the text exploits. Perhaps the criteria to guide the teacher's
selection and use of texts (both written and spoken) reside initially, not in the
texts themselves, but in the learners. If such a view was taken, then the teacher
might be free of too much concern with the authenticity—or otherwise—of the
communication data brought into the classroom. It might be more revealing to
move from questions concerning the relative qualities of texts towards more peda-
gogic questions, such as: 'Can the learner's own prior knowledge, interest, and
curiosity be engaged by this text?' or 'How can such prior knowledge, interest,
and curiosity—about meaning, about structure, about how language might work,
or about language use—be activated by this text?'. Many of the answers, of course,
have to be provided by the learners. Thus, perhaps their participation in the
selection of texts at different points in the learning process is at least as justified
and ultimately as valuable as our own?
64 AUTHENTICITY IN THE LANGUAGE CLASSROOM

2. FOR WHAT AUTHENTIC PURPOSES?

So far, a distinction has been made between what kind of text might be authentic
and for whom it may be authentic. From this distinction, it was suggested that
the relative authenticity or inauthenticity of a text was a somewhat tenuous matter
from the learner's point of view. More important, perhaps, is the consideration of
how the learner—as learner—may go about interpreting any text in his or her
own particular way. The learner may 'authenticate', or give authenticity to a text
from his own state of knowledge and frame of reference. If we focus upon learner
interpretations of a text, then we may regard texts as potential means for the
learner towards authentic communication in the target language. This proposal
leads towards a consideration of how learners may work with or act upon language
data in the classroom. Thus, the focus shifts towards authenticity of tasks or learn-

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Russian Archive on February 2, 2014

ing behaviours required in relation to whatever data are offered.
In this section, three brief extracts will be considered with reference to the
following question: 'Is the reader being expected to respond in a way which would
achieve an authentic purpose?'. More simply, perhaps: 'Is the reader being expected
to undertake an authentic task?'. When applying the question to the extracts, we
could make a somewhat bold distinction between two types of task: between
(a) authentic communication task and (b) authentic languge learning task. Where,
on a continuum between these two types of task, would you place each of the
following extracts?:
1 Income Tax
Application by husband or wife for separate assessment
I hereby make application to adopt the special provisions for separate assessment
to income tax and I declare that the following particulars are true to the best
of my knowledge and belief.
Full name of husband
Full name of wife
Nature of trade, profession,
business, employment or vocation
of husband and/or wife and the
address or addresses where
carried on
Private address of husband and
wife (State each address if more
than one)
Date of marriage, if married
during year of assessment for which
application is first to take effect
Signature
Date
2 ExerciseS
Complete the following dialogue by finishing the dialogue the same way it begins:
Mrs Brown: I like an evening at home.
Mr Smith: So do I.
 MICHAEL BREEN 65

Mrs Brown: I don't like going out all the. time.

Mr Smith: Neither do I.
Mrs Brown: I like to go to the films occasionally.
Mr Smith:
Mrs Brown: I am not keen on westerns though.
Mr Smith:
Mrs Brown: I think I would enjoy a drink right now.
Mr Brown:
Mrs Smith: I don't want to stay up too late though.
Mr Brown:
etc, etc.

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Russian Archive on February 2, 2014

3 Step One
Read the following text. Try to understand as much of the meaning as you
can. When you have a problem, draw a line under that part of the text which
you find difficult to understand. When you have done this, go on to Step Two.
Step Two
Work with one other person in your group. Both of you together go through the
text and try to understand as much of the meaning as you can. Draw a circle
round those parts of the text which you both find difficult to understand. When
you have done this, go on to Step Three, etc, etc.7
Which of the above extracts expected more an authentic communication task, and
which expected more an authentic learning task? (Of course, the first main point
made in the present paper may encourage us to preface our judgement with the
caution that much would depend on the particular reader's interpretation of the
extract!) It may be reasonable to deduce that the Income Tax form requires the
reader to use language as a means for conveying other information—it expects an
authentic communicative response or authentic language-using behaviour on the
part of the reader. The second extract requires the reader to complete a dialogue
script, using items already prescribed for him. The reader is asked to do something
which most people would never do in the 'real world'. (To regard the given data as
a 'dialogue' and to write down phrases which are supposed to be spoken—perhaps
by someone who suffers from echolalia—requires, at least, the willing suspension
of disbelief. Unless, perhaps, the reader's curiosity is engaged by the actual nature
of the relationship between Mrs Smith and Mr Brown!) The task hefe is to fill gaps
with a highly restricted range of language tokens. It is possible, however, that such
apparently inauthentic language-using behaviour might be authentic language learn-
ing behaviour.
The final extract is a set of instructions for language learners to discover the
meaning of a text and to identify the problems they have with it, and to share
those problems and possible solutions with other learners. This extract requires
the readers to undertake a task as learners and as communicators of meaning.
It gives the learner explicit guidance in his approach to a text and, in particular,
expects implicit discovery of what the learner does and does not yet know within
the text. It is intended as a problem-raising task wherein there can be no single
correct response. (This further distinguishes it from extracts (1) and (2), although
this is not to say that these extracts will not cause problems for the likely readers
in their efforts to give the expected response!) However, what is possibly most
66 AUTHENTICITY IN THE LANGUAGE CLASSROOM

significant about the final extract is that it may serve as both an authentic learning
task and it may generate authentic communication of meanings and problems
between learners during the task itself. In this sense, it lies midway between the
first extract—requiring an authentic communication task—and the second, which
might be an appropriate learning task but which hardly has immediate communica-
tive purpose and actually requires inauthentic language-using behaviour.8
From these, three examples, what might be concluded concerning the nature
of tasks which can be authentic to the purpose of learning a language? One peda-
gogic proposal would be that we might choose those kinds of tasks for the class-
room which are authentic to how people best undertake learning and, simul-
taneously, engage the learner in authentic communication. Simply, a task which
is conducive to both learning and communicating. In other words, an authentic

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Russian Archive on February 2, 2014

learning task in the language classroom will be one which requires the learners
to communicate ideas and meanings and to meta-communicate about the language
and about the problems and solutions in the learning of the language. In sum, tasks
can be chosen which involve the learners not only in authentic communication
with texts and with others in the classroom, but also about learning and for the
purpose of learning.

3. WHAT IS AUTHENTIC TO THE SOCIAL SITUATION OF THE CLASSROOM?

So far, possible answers have been considered in relation to three questions: What
is an authentic text? For whom is it authentic? And, for what authentic purpose?
With regard to his last question, it has been suggested that tasks in the classroom
should generate authentic language learning behaviour which would involve com-
munication and meta-communication during and about the learning. In this final
section, a fourth type of authenticity will be discussed. This fourth type of authen-
ticity permeates most people's experience of the teaching-learning process, and it is
closely interrelated with the other types of authenticity so far considered. The
challenge which we face here is how to be authentic to the actual social situation
which we enter when we walk in through the classroom door.9
By way of illustration, we can consider two different classrooms. In the first
classroom, six of the students are seated in a semi-circle at the front. The rest of the
class are seated in their usual places. From the group of six, the teacher tells two of
the students to stand in particular places facing each other within the semi-circle.
Each holds a sheet of paper. The teacher tells one of the two to start. Hesitantly,
and in a somewhat self-conscious manner—occasionally pausing to glance at the
paper in his hands—one of the students proceeds to describe the classroom as if it
was a luxury apartment. The other student—less hesitantly and with surprising
aggression—punctuates the 'estate agent's' remarks with critical comments about
the state of the curtains, the noise from the plumbing, and the spacial constraints
of the kitchen. The remaining four students in the semi-circle are urgently scanning
their sheets of paper, meanwhile, waiting their turns to undertake a similar render-
ing of the nervous estate agent versus the insatiable client. The rest of the class
is watching the fun and apparently—from the reactions of the teacher—laughing
in the wrong places.
The second classroom resembles—at first glance—the main office of a busy
national newspaper just prior to a printing deadline. Students are moving about
or gathering here and there in small clusters around available desk space. Standing
or sitting, they lean over what seem to be rather poorly handwritten sheets. The
 MICHAEL BREEN 67

teacher, moving around the edges of the groups and occasionally talking to indivi-
dual students, tells us that the activity is 'homework'. The students—working
within five or six groups—have been asked to read the teacher's comments on two
pieces of handwritten homework multi-copied from the work of a previous year's
group. Working in pairs initially, the students had to assess the usefulness and
appropriateness of the teacher's feedback on the two original pieces of homework.
Now working within their groups, the students are agreeing on their answers to
two questions which are written up on the blackboard: 'What comments from the
teacher would have been most helpful to the people who wrote the homework? '
and 'What kind of homework would you recommend as the most useful and helpful
to you? '. The groups are about to present their conclusions to the whole class—

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Russian Archive on February 2, 2014

using a written summary of main points on large sheets of paper and through
a spoken presentation, jointly compiled, and given by a chosen representative.
Hence the apparent chaos and urgent chatter.10
What distinguishes these two language classrooms one from the other? Which
seems to be the more authentic classroom situation? The final point I wish to
make in this paper is as follows: the essential contribution of the classroom is
that it is an almost unique social context where people meet for the explicit
purpose of learning something—from others for themselves. Learning is the main
psychological and social function of a classroom. In some senses, what is learned
in a classroom—the subject matter which is worked upon—can be seen as quite
independent of the social or interpersonal reality which the classroom itself pro-
vides. In a language classroom, the subject matter is communication. In this way,
perhaps a language classroom is doubly unique! Its content is the learning of how
to communicate in a new language, and—as with all other classrooms—it is essen-
tially a social environment wherein people come to communicate for and about
new knowledge. Therefore, perhaps the most socially appropriate and authentic
role of the classroom situation is to provide the opportunity for public and inter-
personal sharing of the content of language learning, the sharing of problems
within such content, and the revealing of the most effective means and strategies
to overcome such problems.
Perhaps one of the main distinctions between the two classrooms just described
is that the scond classroom explicitly exploits the actual social potential of the
learning group, while the first classroom translates this potential into something
quite different. Here the lesson requires that the learners take on a persona other
than themselves—for whatever motive but nevertheless inauthentic to their every-
day experience. This lesson also requires a belief in an imagined world within the
real world of the classroom. It may be over-critical to suggest that such lessons
are rather like the person who put picture postcards on the outside of his goldfish
bowl to give the fish the impression that they were going places. However, the
central issue is: given the actual social potential of a classroom, the contrivance of
'other worlds' within it may not only be inauthentic but also quite unnecessary.
The day-to-day procedures, the learning tasks, types of data and materials to be
selected and worked on, the actual needs, interests, and preferred ways of working
of all the people gathered in the classroom certainly provide sufficient authentic
potential for communication. Indeed, such diversity might suggest that communica-
tion is essential. The recognition of the authentic social potential of the classroom
lies behind the third—and final—pedagogic proposal of this paper. The authen-
ticity of the classroom is that it is a rather special social event and environment
68 AUTHENTICITY IN THE LANGUAGE CLASSROOM

wherein people share a primary communicative purpose: learning. The language

classroom can exploit this social potential by expecting and encouraging learners
to share their own learning processes and experiences. Perhaps one of the main
authentic activities within a language classroom is communication about how best
to learn to communicate.11

4. SUMMARY
I wish to review the main points offered in this paper by restating three pedagogic
proposals. These proposals were deduced from the claim that the language teacher
is daily confronted by four requirements for authenticity. These four demands
for authenticity are in continual interrelationship with one another during any
language lesson. Also, it is possible that there is tension or contradiction between

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Russian Archive on February 2, 2014

the different criteria which guide what may or may not be authentic. The four
types of authenticity within language teaching are as follows:
1 Authenticity of the texts which we may use as input data for our learners.
2 Authenticity of the learner's own interpretations of such texts.
3 Authenticity of the tasks conducive to language learning.
4 Authenticity of the actual social situation of the language classroom.
The first pedagogic proposal was that authentic texts for language learning
are any sources of data which will serve as a means to help the learner to develop
an authentic interpretation. That is, any text which can help the learner to discover
those conventions of communication in the target language which will enable him
or her to gradually come to interpret meaning within the text—or within any
other texts—in ways which are likely to be shared with fluent users of the lan-
guage. If texts can be regarded as the means for learning—which is how the learner
is likely to regard them—, then their inherent authenticity becomes a relative
matter.
Secondly, we can consider authenticity of the actual tasks undertaken by
the learner of a language. That perhaps the most authentic language learning
tasks are those which require the learner to undertake communication and meta-
communication. The assumption here is that genuine communication during learn-
ing and meta-communication about learning and about the language are likely to
help the learner to learn.
Finally, the language teacher and the language learner are immersed in the
potential authenticity of the classroom as a classroom. The proposal here is that
the authentic role of the language classroom is the provision of those conditions
in which the participants can publicly share the problems, achievements and
overall process of learning a language together as a socially motivated and socially
sustained activity.
But what of the tensions between what is authentic, for whom, for what pur-
poses, in which particular situation? If, in any classroom, criteria and judgements
of authenticity are indeed relative to different texts, to different learners and
different purposes, then the third proposal assumes even more significance. Perhaps
all other questions of authenticity in language teaching may be resolved if the
potential of the classroom is fully exploited. Language learning involves a working
towards a range of appropriate interpretations and judgements—even of the same
text. It also involves the gradual recognition of different problems and difficulties,
and the discovery of alternative ways of solving those problems. If such variations
 MICHAEL BREEN 69
and differences could be made available to the teacher and the learners—at particu-
lar moments during the teaching-learning process—, then actual choices concern-
ing which text might be more authentic to which learner, and which task might best
achieve particular learning purposes.would be made clearer and better informed.
This implies that different interpretations, different problems, and alternative
solutions need to be made public and shared within the classroom. The day-to-day
challenge of making the most of the classroom offers probably the best resolution of
any questions concerning what text is authentic, for whom, and for what purposes.
Perhaps we should seek ways of bringing to the surface all of the potential resources
of the social world in which we work? Like Holub's soldier and clockmaker, our own
certainties may represent only one of many possible alternative points of view:

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Russian Archive on February 2, 2014

So much for exactness.
And the fish move in the waters and the heavens are filled
with the murmur of wings, while
The chronometers tick and the guns thunder.
(Received December 1983)

NOTES
* This paper was presented in the inaugural session of the Canadian Association of Applied
Linguistics Colloquium at Chicoutimi in May 1982. It was originally published in the proceedings
of the Colloquium in the Bulletin of the CAAL, 4/2, Autumn 1982.
1 This poem comes from the anthology Notes of a Clay Pigeon by Miroslav Holub (1977).
I am grateful to the author and publishers, Martin Seeker & Warburg Ltd, for permission to use
the poem in this paper.
2 I have chosen not to discuss the possible defimtions of the words 'authentic' and 'authen-
ticity', because helpful discussions have been offered on these already by—for example—
Coste (1970) and Begin (1982).
31 Throughout this paper I use the word 'communication' to refer to communication
through any medium—spoken or written.
4 This text is slightly adapted from a widely used language teaching textbook.
5 Widdowson (1978) has highlighted this important distinction between a text and the
reader's response to the text m the following way: 'Genuineness is a characteristic of the
passage itselt and is an absolute quality. Authenticity is a characteristic of the relationship
between the passage and the reader and it has to do with appropriate response.'
6 Widdowson (1976) has also proposed that texts which serve as a more explicit means
for learning could be devised and that this may involve the filtering out' of less accessible
conventions of communication which may be manifest in particular authentic texts. However,
it seems to me that one of the stronger arguments put forward by people supporting the use
of authentic texts is that 'pedagogic' or contrived texts are likely to distort the target lan-
guage data and, thereby, deprive the learner of two things: first, direct access to the actual con-
ventions of target language use and, second, the opportunity to apply his own prior knowledge
of the real conventions of communication which underlie his own mother tongue. My own
mam point would imply that learners—because they are learners—are themselves likely to
'filter out' what is inaccessible and, indeed, to distort any particular text in order to make it
serve them in the development of new knowledge. An interesting conclusion from this would
be that it may be quite unnecessary to adapt texts in any way or to devise 'pedagogic' texts
at all!
7 In case the reader is wondering, all of these extracts are genuine—in Widdowson's sense!
I think the origins of the first may be obvious, while the second is a slight adaptation from
a popular language textbook. The third is the initial part of an activity which has been used
with many groups of language learners.
70 AUTHENTICITY IN THE LANGUAGE CLASSROOM

8 On authenticity of tasks see Candhn and Edelhoff (1982). One of the interesting points
they make is that learners should work with the target language in ways they would authen-
tically work with their own mother tongue outside the classroom. My own small caveat to this
would be the learners' own definitions of the situation—how would they relatively perceive
working upon and through the two languages at different stages in their development?
9 Leon Jakobivits addresses this issue in the Bulletin of the CAAL (Spring, 1982). He
proposes 'culture-simulation' in the classroom to develop 'community integration* among
the participants and resources available there. In what follows, I imply that the classroom
is itself a particular culture and, therefore, remain unsure of the need for, or the nature
of, appropriate 'simulation'.
10 Again, both are genuine examples. The first description is of a language class for students
of different nationalities attending a University in the United States. The lesson was being
video-taped as an example of the use of role play for trainee teachers. The teacher in the class

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Russian Archive on February 2, 2014

was well expenenced and apparently pleased with this lesson. The senior staff who made the
video believed that it provided a very good example of role play for language teaching. The
second description is of a class given in the Institute for English Language Education at the
University of Lancaster for pre-university technical students from the Middle East—students
who, it is claimed, are notoriously bad at working in groups! The particular activity 'home-
work' was devised by Peter Buckley while working for the Institute. He now works for the
British Council in Greece.
11 When we consider the language classroom, there are three roles of communication within
it—and perhaps we need different terms for each of them! Communication is itself the subject
matter or content which is worked upon in the classroom. Second, authentic communication
can take place between the participants, and between any participant and any text (written
or spoken), in the classroom—genuine ideas and meanings will be interpreted and expressed.
One aspect of this communicating within the classroom will be metacommunication—that is
communication about the system of communication itself and communication about learning
this system. Although this is part of all communication in the classroom, it may be helpful to
distinguish it from the other roles of communication which may exist there. So, there is com-
munication as content, and communicating as the process in the classroom—part of which
will involve meta-communicating. On the 'content' and 'process' distinction in language teaching
see Breenera/. (1979,1980).

REFERENCES
Begin, G. 1982. 'Documents authentiques: reflexion essai de definition.' Bulletin
deL'ACLA, Spring 1982, 4/1: 53-63.
Breen, M. P., C. Candlin, and A. Waters. 1979. 'Communicative materials design:
some basic principles.' RELC Journal 10/2.
Breen, M. P. and C. N. Candlin. 1980. 'The essentials of a communicative cur-
riculum in language teaching.' Applied Linguistics 111: 89-112.
Candlin, C. N. and C. Edelhoff. 1982. Challenges: Teacher's Guide. London:
Longman.
Coste, D. 1970. 'Textes et documents authentiques au niveau 2.' Le Francois dans
le Monde, No. 73.
Holub, M. 1977. Notes of a Clay Pigeon. London: Martin Seeker & Warburg.
Jakobovits, L. A. 1981. 'Authentic language teaching through culture-simulation
in the classroom.' Bulletin of the CAAL 4/1: 9-30.
Widdowson, H. G. 1976. 'The Authenticity of Language Data.' Paper presented
at the TESOL Convention, New York, March 1976. Reprinted in H. G.
Widdowson: Explorations in Applied Linguistics (Oxford University Press,
1979).
Widdowson, H. G. 1978. Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: OUP.