Investigating the term from a philosophical perspective, Cooper (1983) claims that everyday use of the term ‘authenticity’ can be explained within two accounts: correspondence and genesis (p.8). Which account is adopted usually determines how we interpret and describe authenticity. For example, an authentic portrait may be authentic if it is ‘a portrait of the right person’ (the notion of correspondence) or if it is ‘a portrait by the right person’ (the notion of genesis). The field of philosophy and
its various branches tend to legitimate either the correspondence notion or the genesis notion to discuss ‘authenticity’ rather than encompassing both of the notions simultaneously (Cooper, 1983, p.8). Like different branches of philosophy, the fields of language teaching and applied linguistics also focus on only one account of authenticity, and this is often the correspondence account (see MacDonald et al., 2006).
In the present study, the genesis account of authenticity will be described in terms of the learners’ and teachers’ genuine contributions and productions (e.g. texts, tasks or
dialogues in general) in the classroom. Thus, it refers to the individual contributions of the participants to illustrate the mode of formation of the relationship between different dimensions of authenticity (see Chapter 3). The correspondence account, on the other hand, is often addressed through possible comparisons between the language samples used in the classroom and in the communicative contexts outside the classroom. Here, ‘the communicative context outside the classroom’ has been traditionally described as language use by (native) speakers of English from the inner circle (Kachru, 1992). Investigating the implementation of communicative language teaching in the Asia-Pacific region, Butler (2011) claims that ‘the concept of authenticity is ambiguously understood in many Asian EFL contexts’ (p.41), and she
challenges the correspondence account of authenticity by questioning whether the ‘authentic’ texts and tasks should reflect the use of language in the target language communities or learners’ daily lives and their own communicative purposes (p.42). I believe that her critique here can be broadened to other EFL contexts as well. In the present study, the correspondence account refers to the possible comparisons between language-use in the classroom and language-use in other ‘communicative
contexts’ outside the classroom that the participants may encounter in their daily lives. In addition to addressing a comparison with language-use in different communicative contexts, I believe that, the correspondence account should also involve the relationship between language samples and the pedagogical purposes in the classroom (see Chapter 9).
Revisiting the four ‘types’ of authenticity presented by Breen (1985a), and examining each of them in the light of the ‘correspondence’ and ‘genesis’ accounts of authenticity (Cooper, 1983), MacDonald et al. (2006) argue that while classroom authenticity is usually conceptualised as an example of the genesis account (i.e. classroom as the origin of texts); text authenticity, learner authenticity and the authenticity of language competence are usually conceptualised as examples of the correspondence account of authenticity in the literature (p.251). Challenging this ‘one-sided attachment’, the authors ask the following questions for each type of
authenticity (p.253):
a. text authenticity – whose texts? b. learner authenticity – whose meaning?
c. competence authenticity – whose competence? d. classroom authenticity – whence the text?
In their paper, MacDonald et al. (2006) also state that the term in ELT should encompass both correspondence and genesis accounts through ‘a more hybrid view of authenticity’ because ‘one-sided attachment’ of the concept in the field may cause ‘impoverishment and objectification of the experience of language learning’ (p.250).The present research aims to combine both correspondence and genesis
accounts of authenticity in ELT context. Moreover, this study also intends to cover different ‘types’ of authenticity (e.g. text, task) as the ‘aspects’ or ‘dimensions’ of the concept. I believe that the word ‘type’ draws somewhat artificial borders between these entities and their interactions with each other in terms of authenticity.
Indeed, as van Lier (1996) states, ‘the issue of authenticity is by no means as simple as some communicative methodologists may lead us to believe’ (p.144). According to the author, authenticity is the result of ‘authentication’, which can be described as the process of validation of classroom events and language by learners and teachers (p.133). Here, van Lier (1996) presents a number of authenticity types depending on the ‘conditions under which authentication can take place’ and he discusses both constraints and resources that influence the process of authentication in the language classroom. These types are listed as curricular (creator, finder, user), pragmatic (context, purpose, interaction) and personal (existential, intrinsic, autotelic) (ibid., p.136-145).
As presented above, beyond its reference as a quality of texts, the concept is ‘a matter of interpretation’ which may result in confusing and even conflicting descriptions (Gilmore, 2007b; Roberts & Cooke, 2009; Taylor, 1994; Trabelsi, 2014). In fact, since it does encompass more than its primary reference in ELT today (i.e. text authenticity), one can even claim that the concept of authenticity in ELT might not be ‘authentic’ anymore (MacDonald et al., 2000, p.254). However, this can be challenged easily especially if we acknowledge the multi-dimensional and dynamic nature of ‘authenticity’ in personal, professional and social levels. I would indeed argue that a term might not actually lose its ‘authenticity’ by expanding
beyond its original meaning, but it could ‘expand’ the conceptual (and sometimes practical) boundaries of its reference. This view also emphases the need for adopting ‘a more hybrid view of authenticity’ in the field of language teaching and learning (MacDonald et al. 2006, p.250).
In the light of current approaches and categorisations of authenticity, the different dimensions of authenticity will be discussed under three headings below, which represents three main dimensions of authenticity. It includes text, interaction (i.e. learner, task and teacher) and culture (i.e. small and large cultures). In fact, this presentation is somewhat consonant with the trajectory of the use of the term through ELT history.