‘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 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 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 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, 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).