Introduction
AUTHENTICITY IN FL TEACHING
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ Every prospective FL teacher has, at
some time during his training, read, discussed, or written about the topic of
first- vs. second-language acquisition?. It is a recurrent concern, a chronic
compulsion. It is the most frequent question I am asked by teachers and school
administrators involved in language training. I suppose the question has the
fascination it does because of the painful contrast, painful to both teacher
and learner, between the seeming effortlessness, and inevitability, with which
a child learns the language of his parents and sub-culture, on the one hand,
and on the other, the evident difficulty, with almost hopeless befuddlement for
so many, of acquiring a second language in the classroom. The difference is
almost pathological in its intensity and ironic twist: the former can hardly
be prevented, the latter can hardly be brought about.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ The image of pathology is, I believe,
quite apt. Just as in the case of a child raised in an artificial environment,
cut off from ordinary human contact, except through indirect means (e.g.,
intercom system, closed-circuit T.V., mechanical dispensing of food, etc.), one
would indeed grow up as a pathological individual. The school is a special,
non-ordinary, artificial setting, and language learning in the classroom
remains a special, non-ordinary, artificial exercise. It lacks authenticity.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ If language use in the home and the
community were not functional for communicative purposes, it too, would lack
authenticity and it is doubtful that first-language learning would take place
for all but a few exceptionally motivated individuals, the artists, the poets,
the intellectually compulsive and gifted. The artificial learning of a natural
human language constitutes either a pathology or a highly specialized,
exceptional, non-ordinary activity. In either case, only a minute proportion of
the general population can be reasonably expected to succeed at it.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ The main question I?d like to raise in
this Introduction is whether it is possible to create authenticity in
second-language teaching in the classroom. It is this question that I raised
with Sandra Savignon when she first came to me to ask whether I would serve as
her doctoral-dissertation director at the University of Illinois. This book,
which represents the fruits of her painstaking efforts, goes a long way towards
answering that question in the affirmative.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ By ?authenticity in language teaching? I
do not mean anything esoteric or particularly complicated. I merely mean to
raise the rather straightforward question about any particular verbal
interchange that occurs in the classroom whether it is ?for real? or
?pretend?. Typical language teaching activities such as pattern practice, structured
dialogues, question-answer exchanges, repetitions and rehearsals, corrections,
tests, assignments, and the like are all ?pretend? language learning
activities. These occur minimally, if at all, in natural language acquisition
settings, first or second. A simulated dialogue is a simulation?a self-evident
truth whose implications language teachers often overlook. When the teacher
asks questions in the language class?What?s your name? What did Mr. Jones say?
What is the past tense of ?he says that?? etc.?it is understood by all
concerned that the purpose of the question is not to satisfy the teacher?s
need to obtain the requested information but rather to provide an
instructional opportunity for rehearsing certain language usage patterns. This
is surely obvious. What is usually missed about this point are the serious
implications of this fact for the language learning process. Let me elaborate.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ Let us consider, first, some psychological
implications. The consequences of a communication breakdown in a conversational
transaction that occurs in a naturalistic, real? setting and in an artificial
classroom setting are not commensurate; they are of an entirely different order
of magnitude for the individual participant. In one case, the very existence of
an individual as a social being is threatened; in the other case, no greater
catastrophe is at stake than a grade, if that much. Even in the (nowadays) rare
case where a student attaches great significance to his grades, he has
available adequate defense mechanisms for rationalizing failure in a
foreign-language course ??It?s boring?; ?The teacher is no good?; ?I have no
aptitude for languages?, etc.?without suffering the pain and anguish that
accompanies the realization of an inability to communicate with people in his
everyday life course. Similarly, the positive consequences of success in the
language course are not commensurate with the joy, the satisfaction, the
ecstasy that comes from real interpersonal encounters. In short, the extrinsic
motivation required to achieve the little victories of ersatz communication in
the foreign-language classroom pales in importance in comparison with the
dynamo of intrinsic motivation that hinges upon achieving the major victories
of ordinary conversational transactions in real life settings. The acquisition
of communicative competence in real life settings is no less a formidable
accomplishment because of its universality. If you remove the momentous
implications of the consequences of success and failure, its acquisition
becomes improbable. The labor involved becomes prohibitive.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ So much for the psychological
implications. But there is an additional, no less handicapping, consequence of
dismantling the authenticity of language training. The ability to use a
language for communicative purposes in ordinary conversational settings is not
visibly related to an individual?s smattering of knowledge about language as a
system knowledge that is the product of language œstudy.? I am not referring
merely to the obvious fact that œpractice? is necessary to achieve fluency and
automaticity in phonetic output (as well as in pattern recognition of others?
fluent speech). I have in mind the nature of this practice: is the practice of
speech in artificial settings or is it the practice of real conversational
transactions? Language use refers to what people do with words and utterances,
and what people do with utterances in a simulated setting is no what people do
with utterances in a real life setting. Language use is a normative concept.
There are rules for conversational transactions and these rules are given by
the interpersonal practices of a speech community. One may learn about these
rules in the classroom to some extent one may attempt to simulate some of the
conditions that occur in the speech community, but it is evident that both
because of a lack of systematic knowledge about conversational events and
because of the difficulty of reproducing real life settings, the efficiency of
such training must, for the moment, remain quite low. Thus, the problem
remains, that of providing the relevant kind of practice for conversational
transactions in the classroom.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ Dr. Savignon?s work, as reported in this
volume, is worthy of attention because it attempts to come to grips with both
sorts of considerations that I mentioned, the psychological implications of
the artificiality of the language classroom and the nature of the practice
afforded the language learner. It would be naive to suppose that the classes
she conducted in an elementary French course at the University of Illinois,
some of which I personally attended were indeed reproductions of real life
settings. Perhaps such a possibility is excluded by the inherent limitations of
teaching French within the four walls of a building in a small Midwestern
university town. But there are features to the approach she has taken which
nevertheless contain elements of reality, which are genuine and authentic, no
simulations. It is these elements, rather than the specific communication
exercises she describes, that should be identified and saved for further
explorations in language teaching. Let me identify some of these, as I have
observed them during those sessions in which I was a participant.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ In addition to the students, all of
whom were beginners, there were present in the classroom four fluent speakers
of French: Professor Savignon, myself, and two (sometimes three) advanced
students of French who had had some residency in France in connection with
their language training program at Illinois. We participated in unrehearsed
French conversational transactions. The social interactional context, though a
classroom, was no more artificial, no less authentic than what it would have
been had we met in the waiting room of the American Express Office in Paris, or
the hotel lobby down the block, or, even, the terrace of the restaurant across
the street. The physical environment was different, the clatter of conversations
of the Parisians and the tourists were absent, the ?policeman? was a fake, but
what did remain retained some authentic elements of real conversations: the
rapid-fire interchange of normal speech, the necessity to get some information
across, the psychological components of real conversations?the hesitancies,
the topic based on real, not made-up experiences of the speakers, the necessity
to keep the conversation going, the absence of the intrusive disruptions of
corrections, the risk-taking involved in saying something for which one is
accountable, the unpredictability of the identity of the next speaker in the
conversational stream, the unexpected humor, the flatteries, the compliments,
the sex appeal, the embarrassments and the blushing, the one-upmanship, the
realities of the personal and the interpersonal encounter. There was no
pretense that what was going on was anything but what it was: a group of young
Americans (myself excluded!) conversing with each other, some in French
exclusively, some in half French and three-quarters English. In my overenthusiastic
moments, I felt that if only we had had more time, even modestly so, four, five
hours a week instead of one, the desired outcome would have been as inevitable
as the child?s learning a language at home, not unpainfully, yet gloriously. As
it was, with one hour a week over a short semester, the results were yet
surprising, so encouraging, so promising, as the reader can judge for himself
on the basis of the results of the carefully administered communicative
competence tests described in the report.
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ
ÀÀÀÀÀÀÀ There is nothing in the approach
outlined in this work that is so esoteric or specialized or difficult that any
competent foreign-language teacher could not adopt some c all of its features and
amplify upon according to his own style. The difficulties that are likely to
arise are psychological in nature rather than instructional, as ordinarily
understood. Though the teaching profession pays lip service to the importance
of the personal interaction between]
pupil and professor, in practice, the daily vicissitudes c classroom
management, instructional technology and pro gram sequencing, not to mention
the latest as yet in estimable consequences of the requirements of objective
?accountability?, effectively counteract the best intention of good will for
many a dedicated teacher, and help tip the balance, in a decisive way, in favor
of impersonality, o non-authenticity, of transactions based on role-prescribe
patterns of behavior in the classroom. Perhaps one way the teacher can develop
counter pressures to being buried under the weight of Para-instructional
activities and requirements is to insist on the validity and desirability o
goal-oriented criterion measures based on practical communicative performance
rather than on theoretical (an in my view, impractical) considerations of a
linguistic sort as typified by the ?standard? language tests or class room
examinations based on similar principles. A major difficulty in this respect is
the general unavailability of ?public? tests of communicative performance. I
say ?public? because, as a matter of fact, communicative performance tests do
exist, although they are more usual in the TESOL field than in FL education. In
my view, the language testing field represents today the most reactionary wing
in F] education. Under the guise of claims to objectivity a comparability, it
exercises a shackling influence upon the teacher, the student, and school
administrative personnel concerned with preparation for college entrance
requirements. This is an inadmissible price to pay for the convenience of
selection procedures. It is self-defeating and destructive. It must be fought
with a vigorous conscientiousness. The communicative competence tests outlined
in this work appear adequate from a purely practical point of view. No special
expertise is required in their preparation, administration, or evaluation. They
have a face validity that is immeasurably more relevant than the commercially
available standardized tests. Good will and good common sense will yet prevail.
They must, for the sake of the future of FL education. This book is a step in
that direction.
LEON A. JAMES
University of Hawaii
Honolulu, January 1972.