The second condition had to do with the working of national or ethnic or other identity within the community...

In modern nation-states, the symbolic value of what is felt to be the national language is a critical force working to try and direct language management. Schools are expected to teach the national language, citizens are expected to use it in public life. Counteracting this unifying force can be the identity values associated with languages used by ethnic or religious sub-groups within the nation, many of which might aim to have their language recognized alongside or instead of the national language. Once empowered, a former minority (whether numerical or in terms of influence) regularly asserts the primacy of its own language.
If we follow the analysis by Bobbitt (2002), it may well be that the concentration on national concerns in language policy is about to become outdated or reduced. Bobbitt, basing his analysis on the development of warfare, proposes a series of stages in the development of constitutional states. The Thirty Years’ war led to the development of the Kingly State, superseded by the beginning of the 18th-century by the Territorial State, in which the monarch became, the ‘first servant of the State.’ The French Revolution and Napoleon produce a move to the state-nation, transformed to the nation-state, in which the national identity which underlies so much of the language policy that we have been studying achieved its importance. There was conflict between democratic, fascist, and communist views of the nation-state, but all seemed to have agreed on the contribution that language choice had to make to national identity. With the defeat of fascism and, half a century later, the collapse of communism, history did not in fact end, but the nation-State was transformed into what Bobbitt labels the Market-State. One version, the Washington model, is no longer concerned about nationalism. A second, the Tokyo model, continues to nurture national identity and cultural exclusivity. A third, the Berlin model, attempts to maintain the welfare aspects of the nation-state, but now has to face up to the challenges of globalization and immigration. Bobbitt recognizes also the changes of the post-September 11 world, noting the threat of the virtual, non-territorial Market-State terrorist reality. Challengeable as Bobbitt’s model might be in its particulars, it raises intriguing questions about the changing relevance of national interests in language policy.
• 2161 •
The third force or condition had to do with changes that have taken place in the world in the last few decades as a result of globalization, and the consequent tidal wave of English that is moving into almost every sociolinguistic repertoire. Associated with it is the instrumental value of gaining access to an economically advantageous network by developing proficiency in the language of widest
communication. In the last few decades, this force has multiplied in effect and narrowed in language choice, so that currently most societies feeling the effects of globalization are also moving rapidly to acquire greater proficiency in the global language, English.
This has various effects on national language policies. In some, it becomes the target for language management aimed to fight its influence. In others, it becomes a natural goal for language acquisition planning and the potential replacement for less well-cultivated indigenous languages. Even when it does not affect language management, it affects language practices.
The fourth condition has to do with the gradually increasing recognition that language choice is an important component of human and civil rights. Slowly, there are signs of the weakening of national autonomy. The ratification of international covenants or the influence of supra- national organizations, respectful though they remain of national sovereignty and territorial limits, have led to a growing value for linguistic pluralism and an acceptance of the need to recognize the rights of individuals and groups to continue to use their own languages. As a result, more and more nations include in their constitution or in their laws and regulations affecting language provisions recognizing a limited set of rights for the speakers of languages other than the national language. The limitation is generally territorial: a language is recognized as deserving of rights when a significant proportion of the population living in a defined region speaks it. It may be demographic: rights are much more likely to be granted to indigenous groups than to immigrants, and even less likely to people marginalized as foreign workers.
There can be a functional limitation: states are more likely to accept responsibility for providing access to state services for speakers of other languages than they are to provide educational service in the language. At most, a state might permit a minority language community to provide its own education, provided usually that it teaches the national language alongside the minority one.