authentic language and authentic conversational texts

Authentic Language and Authentic Conversational Texts

Lana Rings University of Texas at Arlington

ABSTRACTAIthough there is a trend to advocate the use of authentic texts in the foreign language classroom, a consensus regarding the criteria determining textual authenticity has not been reached. In- stead, researchers often provide varying, sometimes conflicting definitions as to what comprise authentic materials.

This paper draws on research in discourse analysis in an attempt to determine text authenticity through text type authenticity and provide implications for classroom materiak. A text may be considered a

Support for the Use of Authentic Texts The trend in second language theory is to advocate

the use of authentic texts in the foreign-language classroom. Bragger (1, p. 85) states that “everything we do with the language must beauthentid’ Buchheit asserts that “the natural and authentic use of language ...[ is] as important as the amount of measurable skills development” in students (2, p. 70). Meyer (15, p. 344) remarks that “if authentic discourse that has not been sterilized (i.e. edited) is used, the text itself will usual- ly supply many references” to aid student comprehension. Additionally, Gilman and Moody (8, p. 333) recommend using “authentic materials in implemen- ting listening comprehension training at all levels!’ Dulay, Burt, and &hen (5, p. 15), Krashen (12, p. 70), and Swaffer (18, p. 17) advocate using language that is oriented towards conveying a communicative message rather than towards emphasizing particular forms. Furthermore, Guntermann (9, p. 101) professes that “ ‘real’ communication has ... become a major

Lana Rings (Ph.D., University of Southern California) is Assistant Professor of German and Coordinator of Basic German Language Instruction at the University of Texas at Arlington.

_ _ _ _ ~ ~

spoken or written verbal unit, and a text type may be described as aspecific type of spoken or written unit. Thus, for example, the text type “textbook conversation,’’ written by textbook authors for thepurposeof teaching specific structures, can probably not be defined as the text type “authentic conversation.” in which native speakers engage in speaking forpurposes other than to teach their language. In addition, a mnk- ing of types of conversational texts, from most to least authentic, provides a scale by which to judge the value of materials used in the classroom.

concern of the foreign language teaching profession!’ Finally, Cates and Swaffer (4, pp. 22-23) have maintained that “training students on simplified texts [texts which have been changed for the language learner] ... is an inefficient strategy for developing reading fluency? All these researchers seem to maintain that authentic texts must be used in the foreign language classroom.

Researchers also propose reasons that authentic materials are indispensable within the classroom. Byrnes (3, p. 319) asserts that “we must be aware of the functions that distinguish oral from written language? Johnson (11, p. 76) recognizes that the difference between spoken and written discourse must be taken into consideration when selecting teaching materials: “Dialogues..are most often written in textbooks to be read as if heard and to be spoken as if not written!’ He feels it is unreasonable, even impossible, to ask students to perform such mental acrobatics: “Expect- ing students to make the appropriate adjustments may be asking a great deal more than is possibIe“ (p. 76). Wilkins (20) has also noted some of the more specific structural considerations supporting the use of authentic spoken texts:

Fomign Language Annals, 19, No. 3 , 1986 203

204 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS

When [students] come into contact with native speakers of the language, they meet serious prob- lems in comprehension. They may be able to perform adequately themselves in speech, but they frequently cannot understand what native speakers say to them. The fact is that they are not accustomed to hearing the language as it is produced by native speakers for native speakers. [One should use] materials which have not been specially written or recorded for the foreign language learner, but which were originally di- rected at a native-speaking audience (20, p. 79).

Geddes (7, p. 79) notes that the student needs to learn to “understand spontaneous speech with all its ‘ums’ and ‘ers: its ungrammatical [sic] features, incomplete sentences and mid-utterance changes of direction!’ While one could argue that spoken casual conversation is not ungrammatical, as Geddes maintains, but rather composed of a grammar different from written planned discourse, her implication that spontaneous conversation is structurally different from formal prose is nevertheless well-taken. Conversely, James (10, p. 132) notes the rather unacceptable manner in which language laboratory tapes are produced: “Most com- mercial studio speakers use a very slow, precise cadence, with few interruptions, contradictions, or hesitations!’

The above researchers recognize, when discussing authentic texts, that one must differentiate between planned and unplanned discourse One could even ex- pand their descriptions of differences between conversation and more formal (written) discourse. In addition to the “urns:’ incomplete sentences, and redun- dancy which are found in unplanned spoken discourse, many other features are particular to this type of language; they include phonetic curtailment (ich hab), utterance producers (Du, has du ... ?; Mensch...), intent clarifiers (“flavoring particles”), distinguishing seman- tic uses (da in “Da haben wir Rxh gehabt:’ and “gell”) and syntactic constructions (“weil ich die Zensur gut gebrauchen kann fur das Gymnasium), and particular kinds of speech acts such as the use of j a as acknowledgement and conversation facilitator:

A. Apfelstreusel. B. Ja. A. Ja, oder Butterstreusel.

Furthermore, without control of the cultural knowledge specific to a text, one cannot produce such a text, and no observer can fully understand it, whether that person is a native speaker or a second language learner. Scholars, nevertheless, agree that authentic

texts provide a realistic depiction of language form and function.

Considering a Definition of Authenticity Current perceptions of authenticity

The issue of using authentic texts in the foreign language classroom has in recent years raised a larger issue, namely the definition of “authentic text” itself. In the literature on second language acquisition and learning, authenticity has been defined in such a number of ways as to render the notion completely opaque. For some people authentic texts are constructed texts made to seem “real!’

Authors should make sure that dialogues are constructed around an experience compatible with the age and interest of the students; the language, therefore, should not be pedantic or unreal (Mollica, 16, p. 162).

Others seem to indicate that texts spoken by native speakers for native speakers may be edited and changed for the language acquirer:

“Authentisch” meint [sic] hier nicht unbedingt dokumentarisch. Ein Text kann oder mu8 fur unterrichtliche Zwecke aufbereitet und didaktisiert werden (Kruger, 13, p. 25). (Here “authentic” does not necessarily mean documentary. A text can or must be prepared and made teachable for pedagogical purposes.)

Others maintain that content-oriented texts, rendered when necessary in a simple code, are required at the basic levels of language instruction: “When the focus is on the content of the communication, the language environment is natural” (Dulay et al., 5, p. 14).

The issue I-aises further considerations. Laschmann & Liischmann (14, p.41) note that a text is often considered authentic “wenn er von einem Muttersprachler stammt” (if it comes from a native speaker). Yet they would define the criteria of authenticity from a wider base Not only should the speaker or writer be a native speaker of the language, but the authenticity of the text produced is also dependent on his or her knowledge and perspective. Thus, a West German journalist writing about East Germany, with a West German perspective and knowledge of the facts of East Ger- man life, could not produce an authentic text, accord- ing to Laschmann & Uschmann; in this way they concentrate their definition of authenticity on the authenticity of the speaker in a particular situation.

Furthermore, Laschmann & Liischmann maintain that even if a text is produced by native speakers, “mistakes” can occur; native speakers can, for exam-

MAY 1986 205

ple, produce morphological order syntactic slips. In- deed, studies have been conducted on speech of native speakers of both English and German, showing that such “mis-speakings” as the following are not uncommon:

His secretary types up it. Did he knew who you were. I didn’t ate-. He always know whats to say.

Der Unterschied zwischen v p h u s und diagnostischen Schar fsinn erfordert-zwischen IIfrphus und Thberkulose erfordert diagnostischen Scharfsinn. (Nooteboom, 17, p. 92)

Weijenberg (19, p. 30) on the other hand maintains that an authentic text is determined by the authenticity of the situation in which the language is produced. He supports language as purely authentic when it is generated by a situation in which native speakers are conversing with native speakers for the purposes of ac- complishing a task requiring verbal communication. Naturally, native speakers would be the only acceptable speakers, and in such conversations, the speakers do not concentrate on the language formper se, but use it only as a means of reaching a goal. Any monitor- ing of form is the result of their consciousness of the situation and of other speakers, rather than of the purposes of tape recording or teaching language.

Language situtations may also be categorized ac- cording to degree of authenticity. Weijenberg (19) describes the view that conversations spontaneously produced by speakers are most authentic; conversations in which one participant is cognizant of extra- situational goals (as in the participant who knows that the speakers are being tape-recorded for teaching or purposes of linguistic research) is less authentic; and roleplay is least authentic of authentic conversations. (Stage acting is considered below.)

From the above descriptions of authenticity, one can conclude that certain criteria are necessary to facilitate the creation of authentic texts. For a particular type of text, the speaker must be “authentic the situation must be authentic, and only then will the language content and structure be authentic for that text type Finally, “incorrect” but “authentic” language exists and must be considered when using authentic texts for pedagogical purposes.

This latter statement poses the question of what ap- proach one should take regarding “incorrect” structures or mistakes in such texts. Two different phenomena seem to be at issue: the characteristic of misspeaking by native speakers and the notion of

grammatically incorrect speech. The first, demon- strated earlier in the Fay and Nooteboom examples, is often “corrected” by speakers as they talk. However, for the purposes of language teaching, if it is “corrected” by the speaker, should the misspoken part of the utterance be deleted? If it is not, should the misspoken part be changed for the purposes of foreign language teaching? While it is a given that any change in an authentic text must be considered, in the purest sense, to lessen the authenticity of a text, the first question can only be answered in light of one’s methodology and the degree of “authenticity lessen- ing” one is willing to accept. TO answer both questions ideally, and simultaneously render the text suitable for learning purposes, one would assert that each text should be maintained in its original form, and a com- mentary provided to the learner, accounting for de- viances or multi-level interpretation possibilities of language or situation.

Secondly, the differences between spoken and written language should probably be reassessed descrip- tively instead of prescriptively. Especially in casual spoken language, what would be considered grammatical “mistakes” in written language are often a necessary part of the grammar of the spoken language. Consider, for example, Dann geben Sie mir so n Streuselapfel. NStmelapfeI is appropriate in spoken German, but would not be appropriate or acceptable in the written language. Since the grammar of spoken language is somewhat different from that of written language, the presence of a full form, such as einen Streuselapfeel, in a context in which it would normal- ly occur as n Streuselapfeel grants it an unusual mean- ing, interpretation, or function, among which could be emphasis, aloofness, and lack of familiarity with the use of language.

Liischmann & Liischmann’s solution for language teaching is a workable one and applicable to the phenomena discussed above. They do not advocate changing the speech patterns of the native speakers, but rather claim that language learners should be made aware of them (Uschmann & Liischmann, 14, p. 43). If these grammatical differences in unplanned and planned language are depicted in a descriptive manner, students should acquire a greater realistic understanding of the language. One would describe n Streuselapfeel by informing students that native speakers often use this form in casual speech (as English speakers use “gonna:’ for example) although they consider it wrong when writing or speaking more formally. One would not, however, assert prescriptively that n Streuselapfeel is ungrammatical German. Stu- dent awareness of language function and text structure


is better served by explaining an actual occumnce than by simulating an “ideal:’ non-existent one.

n x t type authenticity as criterion for authenticity From the discussion above, one must reach the con-

clusion that the issue is not one of authenticityperse, which is an elusive concept. Any text may be accord- ed authenticity by its very existence. Liischmann & Liischmann’s claim cited earlier, for example, that a text by a West German writer about East Germany cannot be as authentic as such a text by an East Ger- man is not viable if one recognizes that they are speaking about two different text types: a text about East Germany produced by a West German and a text about East Germany by an East German. What native speakers say is valid for themselves in a particular situation, even if the opinion, speech acts, or other aspects of the language are not representative of the native-speaking population. A problem arises only if one text type is confused with the other, Le., a West German’s representation of East Germany viewed as representative of East German perspectives. If, in the classroom, the context of situation, including the text producer’s background and bias, is presented to the language learner, then the text can be interpreted in proper perspective.

Similarly, one cannot question the apriori authenticity of a textbook conversation, since its existence makes it an authentic text of some kind. But one can question whether a textbook conversation is also another text type it may attempt to represent. One would, however, expect such texts to be quite different text types. If the goal, the situation, the relationship of the text producer and the text receiver affect the structure of a text, as they seem to, they will, among other things, be important in determining the similari- ty and difference of texts. If author-constructed textbook conversations, for instance, are compared with native speaker conversations, one would expect to find startling differences: The textbook text’s producer would be the author, the receiver the students; the conversation’s producers and receivers would be participants in the conversations. The goal of the authored conversation might be to demonstrate grammmatical structure or specific vocabulary items; the desire of the native speaker text would be to ac- complish a goal necessitating verbal communication. The complexity of differing text types should render it almost impossible to “create” a conversational text. Such creativity would require extensive understanding of how language works in society in addition to the ability to reproduce it even somewhat. The closest one could come would be a contemporary drama, in which

a creative author might succeed in rendering conversations seemingly authentic. In such a situation, the authenticity of a stage performance would depend not only on the skills of the actors and actresses, but also on the genius of the playwright for simulating life, i.e. the language that is spoken in everyday life in specific situations.

Defining an Authentic Conversation: Conclusion One can then posit that different text types will be

comprised of different distinguishing structural and textual features, and similar text types will have similar features. Thus, information solicitation conversations and buying and selling conversations should have more in common than information solicitation texts and prepared speeches.

A ranking of authentic texts should show the following: A genuinely authentic conversational text would occur between native speakers of the target language, were there not tape recorders or researchers/ linguists/teachers present. Such conversations would range from the most intimate parleys, such as family feuds or personal conversations between lovers to the most public-heads of state conversing at summit talks. These genuinely authentic representations of the language are probably the most difficult to obtain for the purpose of teaching language; indeed, the less public the text type, the more difficult it is to obtain at all. All other representations of these text types could be designated as authentic.

Yet, one must also depict the degree to which a text is an inauthentic conversation. Less authentic than the “pure” conversation described above is one in which only one of the participants knows the situation is being monitored or tape-recorded. Still less authentic is simulated roleplay, in which native speakers are given a situation and asked to act it out in any way they wish while being recorded. These three levels correspond to the rankings of authenticity found in Weijenberg; and, on a ranked scale, they are the most authentic of unplanned conversations. Next on this authenticity scale would be, for example, roleplay in which speakers were assigned specific roles, personalities, and outcomes, in addition to situations. The next type on the scale would include edited versions of the above texts. Simply omitting portions of the native speaker texts would require the least tampering. Omitting chunks would leave the remaining portions more intact than omitting a large number of smaller sections or ut- terances. Changing the language in the texts, however, would render them even more inauthentic.

Last on the scale of conversational authenticity one would probably find conversations which have been

MAY 1986 207

written for the purposes of teaching specific structures or vocabulary, those written by native speakers somewhat less inauthentic than those written by non-native speakers (see Figure 1). Such textbook author- produced conversations would theoretically not resemble the authentic conversations described below.

Although it must be emphasized that all the texts described below are authentic texts of specific text types, only the top conversational text type is a completely authentic conversation. In the purest sense, all others are inauthentic conversations. Yet, it is important to place them on some scale of ranking, since, as noted above, it is not always feasible to obtain purely authentic texts, especially intimate conversations or arguments. The dictates of feasibility in recording and in use and goals in the classroom render some of the most authentic texts nearly impossible to obtain for the language learnerlacquirer. However, ideally, whatever is chosen for the classroom should be as high up the authenticity scale as possible, where text types 1-10 would be considered acceptable for use in the second language classroom, and text types 11-16, if used in the classroom, could not be considered as authentic representations of conversational exchange. Furthermore, it is imperative that students be aware of the kind of text they are ex- posed to. In this way, they will become aware of and know which type of language is most authentic to and, therefore, usable in, particular situations.

Authentic 1. conversation

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Inauthentic 16. conversation

The implications for the practical application of authentic texts in the fit-year classroom could be far- reaching. A theory of application could maintain that authentic materials can be used from the first week of the first semester. In such cases, a complete pedagogical apparatus must accompany the texts, which could include an audio or video rendering of the texts, transcriptions on the printed page, additional visual contexts (photographs, line drawings), and cultural background information, as well as text renderings for home study, in the students’ native language Furthermore, a set of pre- and post-text ac- tivities would facilitate student comprehension and eventual production. Finally, the teacher would play an integral role, providing the bridge of necessary caretaker talk between text, visual, and student.

Further studies must discuss applications in detail and provide case studies and research on the effects of the implementation of authentic texts in the first-year classroom. Their results should demonstrate not only the feasibility and practicality of using authentic texts in the classroom, but also the necessity to use them, if students are to gain a clearer understanding of what language is, what it does in society, and how they should use it to their optimal advantage in the target country.

Figure 1 Authenticity ranking for text type “unplanned conversation”

Native speakers’ spontaneous conversations produced for their own purposes (no knowledge of being monitored) Conversations in which one participant is aware of being monitored or recorded Simulated roleplay by native speakers Plays written by a genius in language use and enacted by good actors/actresses Excerpted portions of 1 Excerpted portions of 2 Excerpted portions of 3 Reenacted portions of 1 Reenacted portions of 2 Reenacted portions of 3 1, altered 2, altered 3, altered Plays whose dialogue does not correspond to actual dialogue Conversations composed for textbooks and acted out by native speakers Composed conversations printed in textbooks


1.

2.

3.

4.

5 .

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

REFERENCES Bragger, Jeannette D. “Materials Development for the Proficiency-oriented Classroom:’ 79-116 in Charles J. James, ed., Foreign Language Proficiency in the Classroom and Beyond. ACTFL Foreign Language Education Series. Lincolnwood, IL: National TBctbook Company, 1985. Buchheit, R. “Language Fieldwork A Pedagogical Tool for German Conversation and Composition Courses!’ Die Unterrichtspmxis 18 (1985): 64-72. Bynres, Heidi. “The Role of Listening Comprehension: A Theoretical Base!’ Foreign Language Annals 17

Cates, G. Truett and Janet Swaffer. Reading a Second Language. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1979. Dulay, Heidi, Marina Burt and Stephen Krashen. Language fio. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982. Fay, D. “Ttansformational Errors” in A. Fromkin, ed., Errors in LingukticPerformance:r$ormancc Slips of the Tongue, Ear. Pen, andHand. New York: Academic Press, 1982. Geddes, M. “Listening” in Keith Johnson and Keith Morrow, eds., Communication in the Classroom. Essac, England Longman Group h d , 1982. Gilman, R.A. and L.M. Moody. “What Practitioners Say about Listening: Research Implications for the Classroom!’ Foreign Language Annals 17 (1984):

Guntermann, Gail. “Learning Outcomes in the Language Classroom:’ 97-128 in June K. Phillips, ed., Action for the 30s A Rditical, Professional, and Public Program for Foreign Language Education. Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company, 1981. James, Charles J. “Are You Listening? The Practical Components of Listening Comprehension!’ Foreign Language Annuls 17 (1984): 129-133. Johnson, Carl H. “Choosing Materials That Do the Job:’ 67-92 in June K. Phillips, ed., Building on Experience-Building for Success. Skokie, I L Na- tional Textbook Company, 1979. Krashen, Stephen. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1982. Kriiger, M. “Ubungsablaufe im kommunikativen Fremdsprachenunterricht” in G. Neuner, M. Kruger, and U. Grewer, Ubungstypologie zum kommunikativen Deutschunterricht. Berlin: Langenscheidt, 1985. Loschmann, M. and M. Liischmann. “Authentisches im Fremdsprachenunterricht:’ Deutsch als Fremdpmche Zeitschrgt zur Theorie und Praxis des Deutschunter- richts fur Auslander 1 (1985): 41-47.

(1984): 317-330.

331-334.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Meyer, Renee. “Listen My Children, and You Shall Hear..!’ Foreign Language Annals 17 (1984): 343-44. Mollica, Anthony S. “Print and Non-Print Materials: Adapting for Classroom Us$’ 157-98 in June K. Phillips, ed., Building on Experience-Building for Success. Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company, 1979. Nooteboom, S. “Speaking and Unspeaking: Detection and Correction of Phonological and Lexical Errors in Spontaneous Speech” in A. Fromkin, ed., Errors in Linguistic Performance: Slips of the Tongue, Ear, Pen, and Hand. New York: Academic Press, 1980. Swaffer, Janet K. “Reading Authentic Texts in a Foreign Language: A Cognitive Model!’ TheModern Language Journal 69 (1985): 15-33. Weijenberg, J. Authentiziit gesprochener Sprache in Lehrwerken f u r Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag, 1980. Wilkins, D.A. Notional Syllabuses: A Taxonomy and its Relevance to Foreign Language Curriculum Development. Oxford Oxford University Press, 1979.

Please mention Foreign Language Annals when writing to advertisers

authentic language and authentic conversational texts

Documents