The gap between authentic language and textbook language

Empirical studies which have investigated textbook language readily confirm that textbook language is inadequate in developing learners’ overall communicative competence. Authors such as Holmes (1988), Tannen, (1989), Altman, (1990), McCarthy (1991), and Wajnryb (1996) have found that a majority of textbooks that claim to focus on developing learners’ communicative competence lack adequate models for practicing spoken language. To support the view that textbook language does not provide adequate spoken language, Holmes (1988) provides evidence on the relative frequencies of lexical items expressing doubts or certainty in written and spoken corpora from a survey of ESL textbooks. She reports that more common modal lexical items are often under-represented in comparison to modal verbs so that this kind of condition can potentially have serious consequences for learners because the pragmatic function these modal lexical items play in the language is important. Moreover, McCarthy and Carter (1995) present the results on distinctions between spoken and written grammar found in CANCODE (Cambridge and Nottingham Corpus of Discourse in English), a spoken corpus of around five million words collected between 1995 and 2000. They illustrate how standard grammar fails to account for pervasive features in spoken discourse such as ellipsis or ‘slots’ at the beginnings and ends of clauses for speaker orientation and stress importance of an interactive interpretation on verb-form choices in real data (Gilmore, 2007b, pp. 99-100).

Basturkmen (2001) demonstrates how learners are often misled by descriptions of questioning found in ELT materials and argues for authentic texts to be used with higher-level learners to give more realistic models. Commenting on the agreement/disagreement speech acts, Pearson (1986) also notes that agreement/disagreement speech acts are frequently given equal emphasis in language textbooks, perhaps presenting a misleading picture for learners since native speakers are more likely to agree with each other than disagree and frequently employ face-saving strategies when they do disagree. Powell’s (1992) analysis of spontaneous conversation from the London-Lund corpus finds high frequencies of evaluative, vague, intense or expressive language in informal contexts. This meets the interactional and affective needs of speakers in informal contexts and contrasts sharply with the ‘safe, clean, harmonious, benevolent, undisturbed world presented to learners in textbooks (Wajnryb, 1996).

An extract taken from a commercial textbook where learners find textbook language.

D: Here’s your medicines. The doctor has given you two sets of anti-biotic. Ah..take them before meals three times a day. Drink plenty of water. <r> Also…also try not to drive after taking them. They would make you  drowsy. This is first packing is for your headache (mispronounces). Make sure you take all (    ) the medicines until there is no left.

(D: is a pharmacist who gives instructions of how to use medications to a patient)

The above is a part of transcription of students' conversation. Compare the transcription with the extract taken from a commercially produced English textbook meant for teaching oral English.

Williams (1988) compared the language used for meetings in authentic business interactions with the language taught for meetings in 30 business English textbooks. She found almost no correspondence between the two, with only 5.2% of the 135 exponents presented in the classroom materials actually occurring in genuine meetings. She criticizes material writers for relying on introspection rather than empirical research when selecting which exponents to present in the classroom. Bardovi-Harlig, Hartford, Mahan-Taylor, Morgan and Reynolds (1991) surveyed conversational closings in 20 ESL textbooks and found that, despite claims of naturalness or authenticity, the models presented were often only partially complete, with the pre-closing or closing moves missing. They criticize the lack of pragmatic information available to learners in textbook materials. Furthermore, Boxer and Pickering (1995) assess the presentation of complaint speech acts in seven EFL textbooks, finding that all deal with direct complaints rather than indirect complaints. (in direct complaints, the addressee is seen as being responsible for the perceived offence whereas in indirect complaints they are not). This is despite the fact that, in normal conversation, indirect complaints are much more common and play an important affective and discoursal role. Indirect complaints give an addressee the opportunity to show rapport by commiserating with the speaker’s complaint and open up the subject of ‘what’s wrong with X’ to further topical development. The authors also criticize the lack of contextualization in the textbooks examined, without which it is impossible for learners to know in what situations, and with whom, the target language is appropriate.

For students to learn how to manage conversation effectively in the target language, they need to have realistic models of proficient users (Brown & Yule, 1983). To develop conversational management in the learners, Eggins and Slade (1997) argue that the best model is the casual conversation but this is largely ignored in textbooks because casual conversation is thought to be unstructured. Language teaching materials tend to concentrate on monologues or dialogues in which turn-taking is structured and predictable, with some kind of transactional goal. However, more interactional, non-goal oriented language, used to develop relationships, is much less common and it is hardly surprising, therefore, we find that learners experience more difficulties with carefully chosen and structured language.

Concerning the accuracy of spoken genres represented in textbooks, there have been some arguments. Yule (1995, p. 185) reported that there ‘continues to be a considerable mismatch between what tends to be presented to learners as classroom experiences of the target language and the actual use of that language as discourse. Scotton and Bernsten (1988) compared how people give directions in natural conversations with textbook dialogues and found that authentic interactions were much more different and complicated than the three-step model presented in the textbooks (request for directions – direction-giving – thanks). This was evident even in my study where students were required to give directions. When my students were giving directions, they typically used other elements such as an opening sequence which could be a filler, a pause, a repetition of the question, an interjection or a comment such as “Can I walk?”, a pre-closing where the direction-giver provides a kind of an evaluative comment such as “This is a one way, use the way on the other side of the hospital”. Given this kind of complicated generic structure in the natural discourse, Scotton and Bernsten (1988) suggest that learners be given authentic interactions in the classroom with awareness-raising tasks to highlight the discourse structure involved in giving directions.

Wong (2002) examined model telephone dialogues in eight ESL textbooks and assessed their faithfulness to the correct way of sequencing identified by the conversational analyst, Emanuel Schegloff (1993), in American English. The opening of a telephone conversation is typically composed of four parts: (a) a summons-answer sequence, where the telephone rings and the receiver answers, typically with a ‘Hello’, which provides the caller with a voice sample for recognition purposes; (b) an identification-recognition sequence, where the caller identifies him/herself with a voice sample such as ‘Hi’ or by name, depending on the relationship with the receiver; (c) a greeting sequence; an adjacency pair, often ‘Hi’ or ‘Hello’, and (d) a how-are- you (hay) sequence, where the caller normally produces the first ‘How are you?’ inquiry (to which the receiver can reply with a neutral response, such as ‘Fine’, that closes down the topic, or a plus/minus response, such as ‘Great’ or ‘Terrible’, that invites further topical moves), followed by a second ‘How are you?’ from the receiver. However, Wong found that none of the textbook telephone dialogues she examined contained all four canonical sequences and concludes that telephone openings were not designed in a more authentic fashion by textbook writers. This is usually the pattern, even though in real life, humans are much more complex and unpredictable.

Given the findings from various studies described above concerning the gap between textbook language and authentic language, what can be concluded is that the lack of realistic models in course books means that learners are unlikely to experience the typical patterning of spoken discourse and as a result learners will not be able to use the target language properly for communicative purposes once they leave the sheltered confines of the classroom.

In sum, the main advantages of using authentic materials are as follows (Philips & Shettlesworth, 1978; Clarke, 1989):

• They relate closely to learners ' needs.
• They support a more creative approach to teaching.

Even though the merits of using authentic materials in classroom instruction has been highly favored and empirically proven, the argument against the use of authentic materials in EFL classroom situation seems to be quite tense especially in terms of reading and listening. It is to this topic, I next turn to discuss.