1. ALWAYS LOOK ON THE BRIGHT SIDE ! BEING A NONNATIVE Péter Medgyes

3. Native English-Speaking Teachers ↓ NESTs Nonnative English-Speaking Teachers ↓ Non-NESTs

4. Aims compare NESTs and non-NESTs pinpoint differences focus on non-NESTs touch upon our disadvantages dwell longer on our advantages

5. Hypotheses: Set 1 NESTs & non-NESTs differ in terms of their language proficiency.

10. Hypotheses: Set 1 NESTs & non-NESTs differ in terms of their language proficiency. NESTs & non-NESTs differ in terms of their teaching behaviour.

13. Hypotheses: Set 1 NESTs & non-NESTs differ in terms of their language proficiency. NESTs & non-NESTs differ in terms of their teaching behaviour. The discrepancy in language proficiency accounts for most of the differences found in their teaching behaviour.

14. Hypotheses: Set 1 NESTs & non-NESTs differ in terms of their language proficiency. NESTs & non-NESTs differ in terms of their teaching behaviour. The discrepancy in language proficiency accounts for most of the differences found in their teaching behaviour. NESTs & non-NESTs can be equally good teachers – on their own terms.

15. Who would you employ? Only a NEST. Preferably a NEST. Makes no difference. Can’t tell.

17. Hypotheses: Set 2 Non-NESTs can: provide a better learner model.

18. Hypotheses: Set 2 Non-NESTs can: provide a better learner model. teach learning strategies more effectively.

19. Hypotheses: Set 2 Non-NESTs can: provide a better learner model. teach learning strategies more effectively. supply more information about English.

20. Enough My car is big enough. There are more than enough cars on the roads of Budapest. My volkswagen isn’t a big enough car for our family. There are more than enough big cars on the roads of Budapest. This should be explanation enough why the mayor of Budapest considers introducing a toll in the city centre.

21. Hypotheses: Set 2 Non-NESTs can: provide a better learner model. teach learning strategies more effectively. supply more information about English. anticipate & prevent language difficulties more effectively.

22. Hypotheses: Set 2 Non-NESTs can: provide a better learner model. teach learning strategies more effectively. supply more information about English. anticipate & prevent language difficulties more effectively. show more empathy to students’ needs & problems.

24. Hypotheses: Set 2 Non-NESTs can: provide a better learner model. teach learning strategies more effectively. supply more information about English. anticipate & prevent language difficulties more effectively. show more empathy to students’ needs & problems. benefit from the students’ mother tongue.

26. Critique Linguists

28. Critique Linguists P. C. activists

30. Critique Linguists P. C. activists Teacher educators

31. Critique Linguists P. C. activists Teacher educators Advocacy groups

33. On the credit side Publications Non-NEST researchers Confidence boost

35. What would you tell your new non-NEST to do? Pretend to be a native speaker of English. Reveal your nonnative identity. Do as you please.

36. When NESTs reigned supreme Inferiority complex

38. When NESTs reigned supreme Inferiority complex The Centre ↔ The Periphery

39. When NESTs reigned supreme Inferiority complex The Centre ↔ The Periphery BANA ↔ TESEP

43. Hurray! 97 percent of the ELT profession consists of non-NESTs.

44. Conclusion

45. Action plan 1.Teacher supply 2.English as a lingua franca (ELF) 3.Young learners 4.Content & language integrated learning (CLIL) 5.Information & communication technology (ICT) 6.In-school + out-of-school 7.Language improvement for non-NESTs 8.NEST job applicants 9.Collaboration between NESTs & non-NESTs

46. References Braine, G. (Ed.) (1999). Non-native educators in English language teaching. Mahwah, New Jersey/London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Braine, G. (2010). Nonnative speaker English teachers: research, pedagogy, and professional growth. New York/London: Routledge. Graddol, D. (2006). English next. London: The British Council. Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: implications for international communication and English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mahboob, A., Uhrig, K., Newman, K. L. & Hartford, B. S. (2004). Children of a lesser English: status of nonnative English as a second language teachers in the United States. In L. D. Kamhi-Stein (Ed.) Learning and teaching from experience: perspectives on nonnative English-speaking professionals (pp. 100-120). The University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor. Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or non-native: who’s worth more? English Language Teaching Journal, 46, 340-349. Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native teacher. Houndsmills: Macmillan; (1999) 2 nd edition. Ismaning: Max Hueber Verlag. Paikeday, T. M. (1985). The native speaker is dead! Toronto: Paikeday Publishing Inc. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Popper, K. (1968). Conjectures and refutations. New York: Harper & Row. Povey, J. (1977). The role of English in Africa. English Teaching Forum, 15(3), 27-29. Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sowden, C. (2012). ELF on a mushroom: the overnight growth in English as a lingua franca. English Language Teaching Journal, 66, 89- 96. Widdowson, H. G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly 29, 377-389.