The theory developed so far claims that language policy for any independent nation state will reveal the complex interplay of four interdependent but often conflicting factors: the actual sociolinguistic situation; a set of beliefs influenced by national or ethnic identity claims (with the number of Great Traditions critical); the recent pull of English as a global language; and the even more recent pressure for attention to the rights of linguistic minorities. This theoretical model needs to be tested against actual cases. We have already looked at two monolingual policies, and we continue.

The hypothesis for these policies, following Fishman (1971), is that nations which had a consensual single Great Tradition at the time of independence will tend to attempt to select the associated indigenous language as the national language. In the absence of an agreed Great Tradition, the tendency will be to continue with the metropolitan colonial language as national language.

POST-COLONIALISM 1 – MONOLINGUAL IN A LOCAL INDIGENOUS LANGUAGE

The transition from colonial status to independence provides an opportunity for a country to decide or reconsider its language policy. The proclamation of national monolingualism, on the principle of “one nation, one state, one language,” in a language other than that of the previous colonial power was (and remains) an obvious method of asserting real independence. A number of nations tried to do this.