Authenticity in English Language Teaching - An analysis of academic discourse

Cover

Imprint

Preface

Contents

1 Introduction

1.1 Problem statement

1.2 Current state of research

1.3 Outline

2 Authenticity in EFL – a systematic overview

2.1 A comparison of three categorizations: Breen (1985), Decke-Cornill (2004), Gilmore (2007)

2.2 Text

2.2.1 The issue of authenticity versus genuineness

2.2.2 Definitions and underlying criteria of authentic text

2.2.2.1 Provenance

2.2.2.2 Inherent textual qualities

2.2.2.3 Aspects of post-production

2.2.2.4 Use of the text (appropriate response)

2.2.2.5 Uncommon criteria

2.2.2.6 Summary of the defining criteria

2.2.3 Authentic text genres

2.2.4 Final remarks on textual authenticity

2.3 Text reception

2.4 Individual behavior

2.5 Task

2.6 Social situation

2.7 Assessment

2.8 Culture

3 A conceptual taxonomy

3.1 Textual authenticity

3.2 Authenticity of text reception

3.3 Real-world authenticity

3.4 Classroom authenticity

3.5 Authenticity of individual behavior

3.6 Cultural authenticity

3.7 Elaborations on the conceptual taxonomy

4 Methodology

4.1 Discourse analysis as theory and method

4.2 The academic discourse

4.2.1 Authorial stance

4.2.2 Exclusiveness and author status

4.3 The EFL discourse

4.3.1 Authorial style

4.3.2 Citations

4.3.3 The relations between adequacy, style, stance, author status, and citation

4.4 The academic EFL discourse on authenticity

4.4.1 Demarcation – preliminary thoughts

4.4.2 Demarcation – mode, field, and tenor

4.4.3 Demarcation – explicit negotiation of terminology

4.4.4 Adjacent discourses

4.5 Compiling a document selection of authenticity in EFL

4.5.1 From demarcation to sampling – practical examples of explicit negotiation

4.5.2 The academic EFL discourse on authenticity – a document selection

4.5.3 Bibliometric analysis of the documents – productivity analysis and citation analysis

4.5.4 Text classification within the document selection

4.5.5 Temporal demarcation

4.5.5.1 An analysis of TESOL Quarterly

4.5.5.1.1 Casual use of authentic/authenticity before Widdowson (1976)

4.5.5.1.2 Focus on Stevick

4.5.5.1.3 Notable absence of the term

4.5.5.1.4 Summary – early use of the term

4.5.5.2 Authenticity and CLT

4.5.5.3 Concluding remarks on temporal demarcation

5 Chronological analysis of the academic EFL discourse on authenticity

5.1 On my role as an analyst

5.2 Chronological analysis by decade

5.2.1 1971–79 – the early years

5.2.1.1 Detailed analysis

5.2.1.2 Conclusion

5.2.2 The 1980s – decade of textual authenticity

5.2.2.1 Detailed analysis

5.2.2.2 Conclusion

5.2.3 The 1990s – broad adoption of Widdowson’s concept

5.2.3.1 Detailed analysis

5.2.3.2 Conclusion

5.2.4 The 2000s – persistent diversity

5.2.4.1 Detailed analysis

5.2.4.2 Conclusion

5.2.5 The 2010s – a new trend?

5.2.5.1 Detailed analysis

5.2.5.2 Conclusion

5.3 Summary of the chronological analysis

5.3.1 Bibliometrics informing discourse analysis: Productivity and citation

5.3.2 Findings of citation analysis

5.3.2.1 Amplification

5.3.2.2 EFL dictionaries

5.3.2.3 The German discourse

5.3.2.4 Electronic literature research

5.3.2.5 An egalitarian discourse?

5.3.3 Conceptual summary of the chronological analysis

6 The history of authenticity in EFL and beyond

6.1 The history of authenticity as a term outside of EFL

6.2 The history of textual authenticity as an EFL concept

6.2.1 Before 1600

6.2.2 17th century

6.2.3 18th century

6.2.3.1 Grammar books

6.2.3.2 Chrestomathies

6.2.4 1800–1881

6.2.5 1882 until the emergence of authentic/authenticity as a term (approx. 1970)

6.3 Summary

7 Six concepts of authenticity

Bibliography