I remember watching David Graddol presenting at the IATEFL conference in Glasgow last year about the future of world...

I remember watching David Graddol presenting at the IATEFL conference in Glasgow last year about the future of world language use. Japanese language usage is a bell curve, peaked and starting to decline with the population, as will Chinese in 20 years or so. Native speaker English will not increase much, as per the demographics in those countries, whereas english as a lingua franca is predicted to see big growth towards 2050, driven especially by increasing Indian and Asian demographics. Having said that, I understand why many publishers use native models, because of that ideal, which sells. Many of my students will encounter native speakers, but there is a much larger possibility of them working with non-native speakers in the future. Therefore, if I want to serve them, I should teach them how to negotiate meaning in those contexts. However, there are also tests, (like TOEIC in Japan), which at least uses more native accents than previously, although it's not representative of how ELF is used. This leads me to question whether needs are driving the market, (whether students are aware of this often future need), or the industry is feeding this ideal. I do agree that there should be a balance between the two, but students should be equipped to deal with the variety which they will encounter. Furthermore, as well as accommodating those differences, native like speakers, also often require cross-cultural (rather than saying it is language, but it kind of is), sensitivity training, in using less idiomatic language and being able to adapt their language to different situations. I wonder, people with publishing experience, whether there is pressure from publishers to make more native like models, (because it sells), rather than non-native models of negotiating meaning and accommodating those differences? (which I see there being more of a need for).