Authenticity of Communication in the Language Classroom
Adriana Pčolinská, Slovakia
Dr. Adriana Pčolinská, PhD. studied English language and literature at the Faculty of Education, Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovakia. After graduation, she has continued with her academically oriented activities and research in the field of foreign language teaching and the theory of communication. She lectures on foreign language methodology, pragmatics and discourse analysis. As part of her scientific research and professional studies, she also participated in the exchange programme at the Montclair State University in New Jersey, where she was asked to give a sequence of lectures concerning training of foreign language teachers on the basis of the communicative methodology. She is also an author of several scientific studies, articles, university course-books and a monograph, all predominantly aimed at foreign language teaching/learning. E-mail: adriana.pcolinska@gmail.com
Menu
Introduction
How to make use of theoretical knowledge in the language classroom?
What should a teacher know about communicative competence?
Expectations of language learners
Teacher talk
Input modifications
Classroom has its own reality
Conclusion
References
The article analyses the notion ´authenticity´, taking into consideration fundamental principles of the communicative approach whose theoretical background is in a full compliance with the conditions necessary for the implementation of an authentic communication in the context of a language classroom. Our aim is to prove that the modification of the oral input that students receive is not always necessarily at the expense of its authenticity.
When analysing the communication within the language classroom with respect to its level of authenticity, it is important to pay at least marginal attention to the question of methodology being selected in the process of teaching. At the same time, it is worth defining the very concept ´communicative competence´ in terms of the communicative methodology. As we shall see later, this approach has very elaborated view of the authenticity and its implementation in the language classroom.
The most salient feature of the communicative approach is the fact that it takes into consideration the nature of the process of communication. In this connection we must acknowledge the importance of the functional-structural linguistics. The Prague school is said to have laid the foundations of Communicative language teaching. When evaluating this theoretical approach to language teaching a number of interesting facts appear. Prominent among them is the effort to capture all essential aspects of the process of communication not only from the point of view of the listener but also from the point of view of the speaker. As a result, our attention is quite logically directed towards the process of encoding the message. At this point, we may speak about two particular aspects: functional onomatology and functional syntax. In other words, “... first, the functional onomatology, concerned with the activity of naming the selected elements of the extra-lingual reality, and second, the functional syntax, which is concerned with organizing such elements into larger wholes, sentences and utterances.” (Vachek 1975: 16)
What is of particular importance is the fact that the already mentioned model of communication has several pedagogical implications. Namely, the learner is required to be active in the process of acquiring the target language in order to select an appropriate lexical item from a great number of possible and existing language forms (means) together with an adequate implementation of the grammatical rules. However, the effort of students must be primarily directed towards the situational context as it determines not only the selection of adequate language forms but at the same time influences the relevant interpretation - inference - (in terms of pragmatics) of the encoded message.
So far, we have been interested in the accuracy of the oral performance. However, everyday life forces us to be fluent as well. This means that the focus of students´ attention should be shifted from the language forms to language functions or better to say, to the process of negotiating the message. As Littlewood explains, when it comes to communicative language teaching, “... the discussion is directed mainly towards a teacher whose learners need to acquire a general communicative ability, which will enable them to cope with everyday situations.” (1981: ix)
When dealing with the most fundamental aspects related to the communicative approach, it is important to mention communicative competence which is connected with Hymes (1972). However, we will not detail all existing models of communicative competence proposed by various experts (see e.g. Savignon 1983; Widdowson 2003; Repka 2003).
In this connection it is Savignon who makes her own contribution which we consider to be highly informative and relevant to our study. She speaks about the following features of the communicative competence present in the process of communication:
“1. Communicative competence is a dynamic rather than a static concept. It depends on the negotiation of meaning between two or more persons who share to some degree the same symbolic system. In this sense, then, communicative competence can be said to be an interpersonal rather than an intrapersonal trait.
2. Communicative competence applies to both written and spoken language, as well as to many other symbolic systems.
3. Communicative competence is context specific. Communication takes place in an infinite variety of situations, and success in a particular role depends on one´s understanding of the context and on prior experience of a similar kind. It requires making appropriate choices of register and style in terms of situation and other participants.
4. There is a theoretical difference between competence and performance. Competence is defined as a presumed underlying ability, and performance as the overt manifestation of that ability. Competence is what one knows. Performance is what one does. Only performance is observable, however, and it is only through performance that competence can be developed, maintained, and evaluated.
5. Communicative competence is relative, not absolute, and depends on the cooperation of all the participants involved. It makes sense, then, to speak of degrees of communicative competence.” (1983: 8-9)
Beyond doubt, we know a lot about the nature of language and we have already clearly specified the criteria that need to be fulfilled once we want to become competent users of a given language. However, the question is: How shall we behave communicatively? What kind of language modification is permitted so that is not at the expense of its authenticity? Both language learners and teachers bring to the classroom certain norms and expectations concerning appropriate teacher and learner roles and the learning – teaching practices they believe to be conducive to language learning. To prevent frustrations and failure or misunderstanding between teachers´ and learners´ expectations, teachers need to consider to what extent the underlying principles of their chosen methodology will correspond to the set of assumptions that learners bring to the classroom.
Communication involves enabling someone else to understand what we want to tell them, what is our message. In face-to-face conversations there are also social roles that must be fulfilled. Listeners and speakers can, however, reach an agreement only through interaction – which means that their roles are inter-changable. Listening also involves a considerable amount of talking and vice-versa.
Another fact is that we live in English speaking environment and English is taught as foreign, not second language. That means that our students probably do not use English outside the classroom. At least, most of them do not use it actively. They can watch films and listen to music but they hardly ever talk. This means the only place where they will speak actively is the English classroom. Still there is a lot that can be done in order to improve oral skills of our learners. Knowing grammar is very important, but our students forget all the rules if they do not use them in everyday communication. It would be far more effective if most of them would speak with mistakes, especially in the practice stage of language learning, then not to speak at all, or only to a highly limited degree.
“Teachers vary in their attitudes to ´teacher talk´. Some of them accept that it is useful source of language input for all language levels, except from the more advanced ones. Others regard it as an important part of the early stages of learning, but believe it should be abandoned as soon as possible” (Lynch 1996: 7). There are at least three main reasons that make teacher talk worth studying and improving. The reasons are as follows:
- people have recognized the vital link between comprehension and the progress made in the language classroom.
- studies of classroom language have shown that certain aspects of teacher talk, such as the way we ask questions, influence the way learners use language.
- it is not easy for learners to understand what the teacher is currently trying to focus their attention on.
Due to its importance it is inevitable to make sure that the teacher talk fulfils certain criteria. First of all it should be simplified, but not unnatural. It needs to exhibit a certain level of redundancy (words like let me see, in fact, well, etc.) and words, together with structures, should be repeated at regular intervals. Speaker is also required to break the text into ´short paragraphs´ that enable students to interrupt, comment on them or ask questions. All new items that are presented need to be supported by additional examples. Teacher is expected to ask for feedback, both verbally and non-verbally. In connection with the body language, it is strongly recommended to maintain an eye-contact with as many members of the class as it is possible. The reasons for eye-contact are numerous. For instance to put an emphasis on something being explained, to stimulate interaction among students, to check understanding, etc. (see Halušková 2008).
According to Craig Chaudron, the input modifications in classroom settings are only occasionally ungrammatical (1998). The most common input modifications in teacher talk are related to vocabulary (avoidance of idioms, use of more common vocabulary), grammar (shorter utterances, increased use of resent tense, less complex utterances), pronunciation (slower speech, careful articulation, more frequent use of standard forms, greater stress differentiation, longer and more frequent pauses, wider pitch range), non-verbal (increased use of gestures and facial expressions) (Lynch 1996: 41).
In the light of the above presented data, concerning the language input within the classroom environment, it needs to be said that the teacher has to take into account the level of his/her students and modify his/her talk accordingly.
To begin with, let us raise the following questions related to authenticity: Can language classrooms promote the authentic use of target language? or Are learners capable of extrapolating from the classroom situation and thus recognizing the communicative value of activities they are involved in?
Answers to these questions are: ´yes´. However, we feel an urge to be more specific in connection with this issue as there are a few highly stimulating aspects to consider, enabling us to view the whole phenomenon from a new perspective. Our point of departure is a belief that the classroom creates its own authenticity and the classroom language is a real use of language. By ´real´ we mean that the language is very real to the learner and thus authentic. Again, we would like to stress that authenticity is really a matter of interpretation. As Stevenson (1985) points out "When one claims that this is real, another will quickly ask "to whom, in whose eyes, where, when, with what intent, at what level of proficiency, perceived level of proficiency, and so on?" It´s more or less affair, dependent upon this and that (...).” (p.43)
To illustrate this statement with a more practical example imagine the following situation. Children studying English at a pre-intermediate level are given the homework for their summer holidays to read one book in English written by a native speaker. So the children go to the libraries, choose something that appeals to them and start reading. Undoubtedly, they are reading an authentic material that is probably relevant to their interest (as it has been their choice). However, being able to understand every fourth word would definitely distract their attention from the story itself. What is more, their effort to rely on the context to guess the meaning of unfamiliar words probably would not work in this case. What does this example say then? For instance, Morrow (1977) says that an authentic text is a real text produced for a real audience. Does it mean, then, that these students are not real? or Are the books chosen by them and written by native speakers of English examples of artificial texts? Students, however, were directly asked to choose an original version written for native speakers of English. That is to say the one that is not abridged.
As we can see if we do not take the premise that authenticity is clearly a relative matter and different aspects of it can be present in different degrees, then we can not move any further. This example also supports the fact that the classroom has its own reality and naturalness. We should rather acknowledge the fact that pedagogy is a way of short-circuiting the slow process of natural discovery and can create the necessary arrangements for learning to happen more easily and more efficiently than it does in natural surroundings. We should put more trust to our learners and take into account the fact that they can recognize a certain degree of artificiality of the classroom, but at the same time they can appreciate the communicative value which is not automatically inherent in the language itself. Similarly, when children are acquiring their mother tongue, they receive an input from their parents known as ´mother talk´. The most conspicuous feature of this input is its simplification at all levels. Does this mean that children are exposed to an artificial language, or could this mean that they are not real acquirers and the whole process of acquisition is artificial? But then one might ask: Why does everyone admire the ease with which children are able to pick up their mother tongue? and Why do we exert so much energy on investigating the conditions under which the acquisition occurs and subsequently on trying to create at least similar conditions to the best of our knowledge? Of course, this issue is much more complicated and there are a large number of questions still open. However, when it comes to the already mentioned input that children receive, nobody doubts its value and facilitating effects. This issue has been studied extensively by Krashen (1985), for instance, the main proponent of the Natural Approach. We believe that his five hypotheses are well known among all those who work in the field of language teaching. For us, at this point of our analysis, of particular interest is the hypothesis known as the ´comprehensible input´ and its formula i + 1. To put it simply, the input that students and children receive should be slightly above their current level of proficiency. If the input would be i + 4, for instance, students would be demotivated to listen to it and would soon ´switch off´. It would be too difficult and, as a result, incomprehensible to them. On the other hand, if the input would be just i, students would feel demotivated again as they would not see any opportunity for their further progress.
All things considered, the above mentioned examples emphasize the necessity to respond to the communicative and cognitive needs of our learners, regardless of the fact whether they are children mastering their first language or adults learning some second or foreign language. What is more, examples in this study support the argument that authenticity is a relative notion. The evidence for this assumption comes from the fact that with a change of proficiency level we can witness a change in the nature of the input the learner requires for successful mastery of target language.
Chaudron, C. 1998. Second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Halušková, A. 2008. Interpersonal communication and its pragmatic aspects. Bratislava: Lingos.
Hymes, D. 1972. On communicative competence. In: Pride, J.B. – Holmes, J. (eds.). ´Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings.´ Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Littlewood, W. 1981. Communicative Language Teaching – An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lynch, T.1996. Communication in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Repka, R. 2003. An Introdution to English Language Didactics. Fundamental Concepts. Bratislava: Lingos.
Stevenson, D.K. 1985. Authenticity, validity, and a tea party. Language Testing 2, 41-47.
Savignon, S.J. 1983. Communicative competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company inc..
Vachek, J. 1975. Linguistic Characterology of Modern English. Bratislava: Comenius University.
Widdowson, H.G. 2003. Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Please check the Building Positive Group Dynamics course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the From Teaching to Training course at Pilgrims website.
|
