Authentic Materials

Authentic materials in language instruction

This paper discusses the value of using recordings of authentic factory-floor

interactions for instruction in intercultural communication for the workplace.

Debate surrounds the notion of ‘authenticity’ and the value of exposing

learners to authentic or natural language. The lack of ease around the issue is

captured in a recent article title, ‘Authentic materials, a wolf in sheep’s clothing’

(Day 2003). The debate is wide-ranging, encompassing areas such as:

the nature of authenticity (Widdowson 1978; Breen 1985); authenticity in

EAP/ESP contexts (MacDonald, Badger and White 2000); the role of corpora

of authentic language in materials design and curricula (Cook 1997; Carter

1998; Kennedy 2003), for example, the COBUILD project (Sinclair 1987);

the value of simplification and simplified materials for reading instruction

(Nation and Wang 1999); and classroom uses of authentic material (Burns,

Gollin and Joyce 1997; and detractors, Cook 1997; Day 2003).

Among those who argue the case for authentic materials, Burns, Gollin

48 Prospect Vol. 19, No. 1 April 2004

JONATHAN NEWTON

and Joyce (1997) claim that authentic spoken texts provide an important

link to interaction outside the classroom and prepare students for the unpredictability

of everyday communication. Carter (1998) uses corpus data to

show how frequently occurring features of authentic conversation – such as

three-part exchanges, vague language, ellipsis, hedging, widespread use of

discourse markers, and interruptions – are absent from scripted dialogues in

published ELT materials.

Arguing against authentic materials, Day (2003) claims that such materials

are too difficult for many typical language students and so have a damaging

effect on motivation and attitude. Cook (1997) challenges the need for

authenticity by suggesting that the classroom is a ‘play world in which people

can practice and prepare’ and not ‘a real world where behaviour...