1. Demographically smaller groups that are politically subordinated, economically underdeveloped, with somewhat negative self-representations and that are socially-mixed with other group/s with greater relative power or that are higher in numbers.

2. Smaller, politically-subordinated groups that are not or very scarcely mixed in their everyday social territory.

3. Smaller groups that are not or very scarcely mixed, with a certain level of political autonomy and official and public recognition of their language.

4. Small to medium-sized groups with a certain level of political autonomy and official and public recognition of their language but which have an intense, daily social coexistence with another group or other groups that also have official recognition.

5. Medium-sized, politically-independent groups.

6. Semi-large, politically-independent groups.

7. Large, politically-independent groups on a continental or supracontinental scale.

These ‘structural’ situations can also be found in diverse stages of development, characterised by the various levels of the population that uses and/or is competent in the language within the group itself, and by different representations of the value and usefulness of this code. Given the dynamic nature of the situations, different political action is required depending on the phase of each group, particularly in clear cases of language shift in movement. Intervention in a case where only a quarter of the population habitually uses the code will differ from that used in a situation whereby three quarters habitually use the language. Similarly, an attempt to change the linguistic behaviour of groups with positive representations about their language will, at least initially, require a different type of action than a situation of a group in which the majority have negative associations about their own language.

Ideally, we should have already arrived to a theoretical agreement about the most effective action for each type of situation. To leave behind the study of the discussion and theorisation of the values of diversity and to put these into practice, we would need to be able to make a clear decision about which policies are required in which type of situation at which stage of development and in which historical contexts. I believe that this is the important issue that will guide our research, creative activity and scientific talks over the coming years. We urgently need to fully understand the mechanisms of the processes and to construct models of action for each type of problem.

It is of the utmost importance that organisations such as UNESCO (or even the UN) increase their awareness of current linguistic diversity problems, particularly for the impact that their decisions could have on continental and, particularly, state public authorities. In fact, without a clear world policy (which includes the acceptance and dissemination of the appropriate ideological perspectives and the provision of necessary financial aid), it will be very difficult in the current state of affairs for the governments of many of the countries undergoing linguistic crises to see the need or opportunity to intervene. As their elite groups have been educated with European-style ideology, they tend to apply in their own countries schemes that history has proven to be wrong and that are now being revised in Europe. Moreover, due to a lack of resources for carrying out policies of asymmetrical bilingualization in a European language, these countries create a galloping language shift between the elites in favour of the foreign language (often that of the ex-coloniser). Moreover, they also impede the democratic participation of most of the population because it never reaches a competent level in the official language, and this causes an extremely high level of legal defencelessness.

Against this backdrop, it is not at all strange that parents that are able to, decide to abandon their own language and communicate with their children in the official language. Therefore, instead of promoting the codification of native languages, immediate literacy of populations and use of these codes by civil servants and state organisations (leaving the bi- or multilingualization of individuals for a later date), these governments reproduce an outdated nation-state view and, in doing so, perpetuate state-control by the leading classes, since a lack of knowledge of the official language prohibits the majority of the population access to the most important positions of government and the civil service. The mechanism is therefore perverse and can cause an image of rejection of one’s own code and an exaggerated evaluation of the official language in question. An inverse policy of official multilingualism would allow different linguistic groups to take part in democratic life and the dignification, usefulness and, hence, maintenance of their own codes, besides to the bilingualization or polyglottization of the population in the languages of intercommunication that are required. The ideological line presented is, however, prevalent for the time-being in most African states and Pacific territories and, albeit with significant differences, in certain areas of South America and in other parts of the world.

International organizations must inform these and other countries of the need and justice of basing their linguistic organisation on the perspective of complexity and subsidiarity, within the framework of a new type of ethics. This new type of ethics must be based on an ecological (17) vision of sociolinguistic situations in that they should not only focus on the official and standard level, but also on the series of factors that determine the situation and its evolution. Thus, we can search for a balancing, compensatory action that favours the proportionally-weaker linguistic groups. As complex thought postulates, each living being and each element must be inserted into its context, seen dynamically and in terms of its ecosystem, from the point of view of eco-self-causality and self-eco-organisation. (18) Rather than searching for equality, therefore, we will need to search for fairness, in order to guarantee a sociocultural ecosystem that favours the stability of linguistic diversity. Alongside the traditional conceptualization in terms of ‘rights’, compensatory functions will need to be introduced into cases that so require; this conceptualization is much wider and more appropriate for solving language contact problems, particularly where there is a great deal of asymmetry between groups.