One official language or more?

Many countries have only one official language, others have two, three, four, even more. Which is preferable?

as many as possible, to represent that county's linguistic makeup. In the USA, 15% speak Spanish(as a first, second, and third language), but neither English nor Spanish nor any language are official. In Finland, a mere 5% speak Swedish, but it is an official language nationwide alongside Finnish 95% of the population who speak that language. One country away in Lativa, one third of the population speak Russian, but it has no official status. It would make sense for a country to have as many official language as necessary, to accomodate linguistic minorities in their territories.

South Africa has 11 official languages: Afrikaans, English, Zulu, Xhosa, Swati, Ndebele, Southern Sotho, Northern Sotho, Tsonga, Tswana, and Venda. In this regard it is second only to India in number

The country also recognises eight non-official languages: Fanagalo, Lobedu, Northern Ndebele, Phuthi, South African Sign Language, Khoe, Nama and San. These non-official languages may be used in certain official uses in limited areas where it has been determined that these languages are prevalent.

-out of wikipedia South Africa languages-
if you want to read more go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa#Languages


Our diversity is the thing that makes South Africa so unique -
Most of us are really proud of our heritage and the languages that form part of that - Therefore I have absolutely no problem with the number of official languages we have.

in France, many people speak Bretton, Basque, Oxitan and/or Corsican (Korsu) but have no linguistic rights whatsoever

One of the best language policies I have seen is that of Spain (in the post-Franco era, of course). I mean the fact that non-Castilian languages like Catalan, Basque and Galego are co-official in areas where they are spoken by a majority, usually on the whole territory of a province. Another such country is Switzerland, where majority languages in an area are given preferred status (e.g. if it happens to be French, you can send your children to French-speaking schools only in the given area, although the majority language of the country is German). Although it would not be reasonable to expect from a country to give its minority languages equal status with the official majority language, but minority languages should definitely be co-official in areas where they are spoken by a local majority (as should be the case with Occitan, Corsican or Alsatian in France, for example). The same could apply to Hungarian in Romania and Slovakia and to Russian in the Baltic countries - but we seem to be a little far from that.

There are no linguistic rights for Flemish in Wallonia and Waloon people in Flanders, although Belgium is trilingual official (Dutch, French and German are official languages). Only in Brussels there are linguistic rights to Dutch speakers (20%of Brussels' population). But, in the suburbs of Brussels (that are in Flanders), French-speakers do not have (m)any linguistic rights.

I think Latvia will make Russian as its second official language in a time to come. It's just that they need time to get rid of their feeling of being threatened with extiction as an nation and identifying the Russian language with the Soviet past. The reality is that Russian is and will stay as a de-facto second official language in Latvia (and in some cases as the first in places like Daugavpils etc.). And of course they have to pay back the Russians what they have done to them during the decades of Soviet occupation :))) Hopefully this will not have to last another 30 years. I think generations change ought to do the trick...

Easterner,

it's good for Spain where the minorities live compactly and therefore their languages can be co-official with the majority language ONLY in those areas. While in Latvia the Russians are scattered throughout the country so this scheme is not suitable. It's either of the two: Latvian remains the only official language trhoughout the country (even in areas where Russians make up 90%) or Russian is co-official with Latvian throughout the Latvian territory (even in areas where Latvians make up the absolute majority and don't speak Russian). A bit tricky...

In Lithuania, on the other hand, it is different. We have Russians too but they are in the minority everywhere except Visaginas, the nuclear power plant satelite town, which was built and consequently populated by the Russians in the Soviet era. In all other places Lithuanians are in the majority except the areas around capital Vilnius where Poles are in a majority. But there are no plans of making Polish co-official with Lithuanian in those territories either. Or maybe should there be? This is where the Spanish model could be applied after all...

Brena,

You forgot to mention some french speak at 1st italian as well

Spain is not so idyllic

Guardian´s article

Will Spain eventually cease to exist, at least in its present form?

It sounds an overly dramatic question, but it is one increasingly put forward by rightwing critics as the prime minister, José Luis Rodríiguez Zapatero's Socialists look for ways to keep Spain's more independent-minded regions happy.
As Mr Zapatero's minority government prepares to give way to some, but by no means all, of these petitions, Spain's traditionally centralist right - and some sections of the left - are fuming.
At a debate on the state of the nation last week, opposition leader Mariano Rajoy, of the conservative People's party, accused Mr Zapatero of "betraying the dead" by offering to negotiate with Eta.
Mr Zapatero, who sometimes offers his allegiance to Catalonia-based Barcelona football club as proof that he is no Madrid centralist, retorted by calling Mr Rajoy a "prophet of the apocalypse".
Mr Zapatero's own party is split. Pasqual Maragall, the socialist regional premier in Catalonia, is now asking for the sort of financing deal enjoyed by Germany's lander and may also want Catalonia formally recognised as "a nation".
The Socialist leader of Extremadura, Juan Carlos Rodríguez Ibarra, has told the relatively wealthy Catalans to "shove the cash wherever it fits" if they think their taxes are unfairly funding his poorer region on the western side of Spain.
Opinion polls show that around a third of Basques might vote to split from Spain if there was a referendum. Another third favour federalism.
But centrists - on both the right and the left - worry that awarding the Basques the right to self-determination would be the start of a slow disintegration of Spain as first one bit, and then another, falls away.
The Spanish constitution currently calls on the armed forces to "defend Spain's territorial integrity".
Spain, with its 20th century history of civil war and dictatorship, is acutely aware of the dangers of splitting into what were once called "the Two Spains".
Some commentators now fret that the divided Spain of yesteryear - though, this time, in a peaceful form - is returning.

What is an "official" language? Does that just mean that government documents and street signs are in that language? Or does it mean people are persecuted if they speak in a non-official language?

Official language is one that enjoys official status acording to the country's constitution. It usually means that government business is conducted in that language, signs, television if it's state controlled, etc will be in that language. Schools and universities will also use that language. In short, that language will be in a much stronger position that other languages spoken in the country.

Sometimes, having more than one official language can cause problems.

Just look at Quebec in Canada, or Wallonia and Flanders in Belgium.

OR, look at India with its twenty or so official languages...

Or my brain