Authenticity, autonomy and the issue of ‘native speaker’ in ELT

Although his contribution to describing authenticity as an interactional process rather than a property of a text cannot be overlooked, Widdowson states that this interaction (i.e. authentication) occurs between conventions of native speakers as text producers and language learners’ interpretations of these norms and the original purposes of the texts (1983, 1990, 1996). As learners are not familiar with the norms of native speakers and cannot acquire discourse of native speakers completely, Widdowson (1990) claims that ‘authenticity of language in the classroom is bound to be, to some extent, an illusion’ (p.44). Ironically, today this claim seems illusory itself.

Widdowson (1979, 1994, 1996) claims that ‘authenticity’ is strongly dependent on

the authority of the native speaker, and in order to teach ‘real’ English, which is the main goal of CLT, how native-speakers of English produce and use the language in real communicative settings is required to be presented gradually in the language

classroom. Widdowson (1994) also gives examples of ‘real’ magazine articles, ‘real’ advertisements, horoscopes and so on to support his claim that the process of presenting ‘naturally occurring language’ as genuine texts to promote authentic interaction in the classroom imposes the authority of native-speakers and/or norms of ‘standard’ English (p.386). However, he rather overlooks the fact that it is questionable whether these examples are in fact produced by ‘native-speakers’ and in ‘standard English’ at all. In fact, as Widdowson points out later (2003), the issue of who a native speaker is has been an ongoing debate in the field, especially as teaching English as an international language has been discussed recently with all its aspects.

MacDonald et al. (2006) also observe that in a traditional sense, authentic texts are often described as products of ‘native speakers’ of English in ‘hegemonic cultures’ such as British and North American cultures. For the ownership of English language and the concept of being a native speaker of English are highly debatable and hypothetical, the authors claim that insisting on trying to establish such a correspondence between pedagogic texts and texts produced by native speakers in hegemonic cultures can ultimately lead to ‘a poverty of language’ (ibid., p.254). In fact, Badger and MacDonald (2010) underline that authentic texts are produced by both native speakers and non-native speakers (p.579). In practice, this would mean that language input in the classroom should include materials produced not only by ‘native speakers’ of English but also by non-native speakers who use English as an international language (see Feng and Byram, 2002).

When authenticity is described within native speaker norms of language use, it can usually ‘privilege the native-speaker teachers of the language’ (Widdowson, 1994, p.387) and put non-native speaker teachers in an unfavourable position in teaching native speaker culture and conventions (Alptekin, 2002, p.62). Although they may not be very familiar with the target culture and its discourse patterns, non-native speaker teachers can feel obliged to introduce native-speakership as an ‘authentic’ model or norm. This may cause two undesirable situations: first, showing a tendency to restrict the English language teaching process with one dominant target culture, which is usually British or North American, language teachers may hinder learners’

intercultural communicative competence (Alptekin, 2002, p.62). Second, learner authenticity might be considered as an inherent contradiction with learner autonomy.

According to Widdowson (1994), ‘authenticity’ which reflects the text producers’ identity does not give learners the opportunity to ‘make the language their own’ and to explain their identity through the language autonomously (p.387). He also claims that using authentic input can hinder the development of learners’ language proficiency as learners cannot ‘take possession of the language’ and cannot use it for their own benefits by reflecting their own ideas and identity (p.384). Moreover, he claims that learners cannot develop authenticity and autonomy together through engaging merely with the ‘real’ language (ibid., p.386). In this sense, he points out that authenticity of language use and autonomy of language learning cannot exist simultaneously by their nature (Widdowson, 1994, 1996).

However, Duda and Tyne (2010) point out that ‘authenticity’ in materials is about the conditions in which they are produced as well as in which they are used (or

‘(re)constructed’). In order to facilitate learners’ authentication of the texts and foster their autonomy, learners can be encouraged to ‘develop their own exercises and activities’ in the classroom. Here, the authors list different levels of autonomy as (1) autonomy of language, (2) autonomy of learning and (3) autonomy of choice (p.104). These levels, indeed, can be also considered significant in the process of authentication in the language learning process.

Approaching the notion of authenticity from a philosophical point of view and explaining the term after Nietzsche (1965), Cooper (1983) states that the main goal of education is to make learners ‘creative individuals who take responsibility for their lives, beliefs and values’, thus being authentic (p. 1-25). Cooper (1983) claims that if one wants to achieve this goal, s/he needs to start with understanding how classrooms, thus the educational system, are structured since the classroom in its current position is ‘at the root of inauthentic life’ (p.6). According to the author,

presupposing that individual authenticity can be promoted in the classroom merely through learner-centred or ‘discovery method’ instruction may be a superficial idea despite the fact that this proposal seems very sensible in current trends in education (p.5). In fact, to what extent formal process of education can and should promote authentic beliefs and values is still questionable (p.5).

Cooper (1983) also states that the term ‘autonomy’ rather than ‘authenticity’ is often preferred within educational contexts (p.20). For instance, both Dearden (1972) and Peters (1977) use the concept of autonomy to discuss developing individual goals, responsibilities, values and behaviours (as cited in Cooper, 1983, p.20). Although these two notions (i.e. autonomy and authenticity) may sound similar in philosophy,

Cooper (1983) underlines that educational scholars tend to conceptualise the term authenticity within somewhat extreme and relatively complex frameworks (p.21), which may go as far as denying the existing norms of the society for the sake of achieving individual authenticity. Hence, the term ‘autonomy’, which focuses on developing ‘criticism’ in one’s intellectual thinking so that s/he can make his/her own choices ‘on the basis of reasons’, is regarded as more accessible and intelligible (p.21). Likewise, in ELT, it is possible to see that Holec’s (1981) definition of ‘learner autonomy’ as ‘the ability to take charge of one’s own learning’ is still used as a common reference point.

In a broader sense, as for autonomy, the basic criterion for living authentically is also being able to develop self-awareness of the reasons for our beliefs and purposes and to take the responsibility for our own actions (p.18). In this existentialist view, the process of developing such awareness often results in finding and becoming one’s real self (p.8), and promoting individual authenticity. Likewise, van Lier (1996) describes authenticity from an existentialist perspective and states that ‘authenticity’ refers to processes of self-determination and self-actualisation. Therefore, it is closely related to autonomy, and authenticity without autonomy is ‘a contradiction in terms’ (p.134).

It might be argued that authenticity is the natural result of awareness and autonomy, and at the same time that authenticity leads to increased awareness and autonomy. In other words, if you ‘know what you are doing’ and if you are ‘responsible for your own actions’, then you are ‘being authentic’. (p.133)

Discussing the concepts of autonomy and authenticity together, Holliday (2005) states that both concepts can indeed appear in the same social context (p.85). In post- method era of ELT, authenticity and autonomy become two interwoven concepts as

‘to be authentic, activities, interactions and texts need to communicate with the same social world within which students are already autonomous in their own terms’ (Holliday, 2005, p.104). That is, by autonomously establishing ways of making their own sense of what happens in the classroom, learners are capable of grading the learning process as authentic or inauthentic. This view of interconnectedness between authenticity and autonomy is embraced in the present study.