These dynamics of complexity made Ruiz believe that in any particular context the nature of language planning efforts are influenced by the basic orientations toward language and its role in society influence. He proposed certain orientations towards language planning and defined them as a 'complex of dispositions toward language and its role – which are related to language attitudes in that they constitute the framework in which attitudes are formed' (Ruiz, 1984: 16). Orientations are largely at the subconscious level but could be inferred from existing policies and practices. .
The three language planning orientations are:.
i. Language as a problem: When language planners view language diversity as a problem, they adopt the assimilation model. In status planning their goal would be to eradicate minority languages and corpus planning activities would be characterised by the development of the national language only and neglect of minority languages. Under the influence of this orientation, acquisition planning activities would involve teaching and developing materials in the national language only.
ii. Language as a resource: When linguistic diversity is viewed as a resource, policy statements in status planning would be geared towards the development, preservation and use of as many languages as possible. More languages would be given functions within the life of the nation, for instance use in media and other social domains. Corpus planners would then develop written forms of as many languages as possible. Acquisition planning process would produce teaching materials to facilitate learning of these various languages.
iii. Language as a right: When planners or policy makers view language as a right, their status planning activities would include the recognition of minority languages and give overt permission to speakers of those languages to use them. In corpus planning, efforts would be made to develop and standardise minority languages to facilitate acquisition planning.