Denmark’s Language Board Launches Study on English Influence in Danish

Denmark is launching a concerted effort to stem the tide of “Danglish”—the pervasive blending of English and Danish—as the nation’s linguistic authorities seek to protect the native tongue from being overshadowed by the global lingua franca.

Dansk Sprognævn, the national language board, has initiated a nationwide campaign designed to study how Danes use English loanwords and to identify which common English phrases can be effectively replaced by Danish alternatives. The move comes amid a growing cultural debate over whether the increasing reliance on English in business, education, and social media is enriching the Danish language or eroding its foundations.

The campaign, titled Kan vi godt på dansk? (roughly translated as “Can we say it in Danish?”), represents a first-of-its-kind initiative for the board. By inviting the public to report English words and phrases they find intrusive or unnecessary, the board hopes to gauge the public’s tolerance for linguistic borrowing and provide a standardized set of Danish substitutes to help “future-proof” the language.

This linguistic push is not merely academic; it is increasingly intersecting with national identity and political strategy. As English becomes the default language for many professional sectors in Copenhagen and Aarhus, some policymakers are arguing that the Danish state must grab a more interventionist approach to ensure the native language remains the primary vehicle for public life and governance.

“Can We Say It in Danish?”: The National Campaign

The core of the Kan vi godt på dansk? initiative is a public appeal for citizens to submit English loanwords that they believe should be eliminated or replaced. The board is specifically looking for terms that have permeated daily speech—particularly among younger generations—where a perfectly viable Danish equivalent already exists.

Thomas Hestbæk Andersen, the director of Dansk Sprognævn, has emphasized that the goal is to understand the emotional and social impact of these loanwords. In statements provided to the Ritzau newswire, Andersen noted that the board intends to “take the temperature of Danes’ perception of English influence on Danish” and specifically identify words that “annoy” the population.

The campaign is scheduled to run until the end of the year, after which the board intends to compile a comprehensive list of Danish alternatives. This list is intended to serve as a guide for speakers, writers, and institutions, encouraging a return to native terminology in contexts where English has become the default.

The phenomenon of “Danglish” is often most visible in the digital and corporate spheres. Phrases like “download vores app” (download our app) or the use of English adjectives such as “cringe” and “totally wild” have become commonplace in Danish conversation. For native speakers, these shifts can be subtle, but for those learning the language or for linguistic purists, the mixing of the two tongues can create a jarring experience that complicates the clarity of communication.

A Political Movement for Linguistic Protection

While Dansk Sprognævn focuses on the linguistic and social aspects of the issue, the debate has migrated into the halls of the Folketing (the Danish Parliament). Political parties, most notably the Conservative Party (Konservative) and the Danish People’s Party, have begun advocating for more stringent protections for the Danish language.

The Conservative Party has gone as far as introducing a parliamentary proposal that suggests legislative changes to protect Danish from being eroded. Their proposal focuses on several key pillars of linguistic governance:

• Prioritization in Public Institutions: A requirement for Danish authorities and public institutions to prioritize the use of Danish over English in official capacities.
• Stricter Dictionary Standards: The implementation of a national language policy that takes a more critical approach to the inclusion of new loanwords in official dictionaries.
• Active “Danishization”: The creation of a dedicated language council tasked with inventing “Danishizations”—native equivalents—for new expressions entering the language from abroad.

Proponents of these measures argue that English is gaining an unsustainable foothold in education, business, and the media, which risks weakening Danish as the primary language of the country. Some political figures have pointed to the examples of Sweden and Norway, where laws have been adopted to legally establish the national language as the official tongue to guard against foreign influence.

The Role of the Language Board vs. Legislative Mandates

There is a distinct difference between the approach of the language board and the goals of the political parties. Dansk Sprognævn traditionally operates as a descriptive body—observing how language evolves and providing guidance. The Kan vi godt på dansk? campaign is a hybrid approach; while it seeks data on usage, it also encourages a conscious shift back to native terms.

In contrast, the legislative proposals from the Conservative Party are prescriptive. They seek to move from “encouraging” the use of Danish to “requiring” it in official settings. This tension reflects a broader global struggle: the balance between the pragmatic utility of English as a global tool and the desire to preserve cultural heritage through linguistic purity.

The Global Tug-of-War: Language and Identity

Denmark’s struggle is not unique. Many European nations have faced similar pressures as English becomes the dominant language of the internet, science, and international trade. The French Académie Française has long fought a similar battle, attempting to limit the use of “Anglicisms” in official French discourse.

The rise of “Danglish” is often seen as a symptom of Denmark’s high level of English proficiency. Danes consistently rank among the top non-native English speakers globally, a factor that makes the integration of English words into daily speech seamless and, for some, unconscious. Yet, this proficiency creates a paradox: the easier it is to switch to English, the more the native language is perceived to be at risk.

For many, the concern is not about the words themselves, but about what those words represent. The shift toward English is often linked to the “internationalization” of Danish cities. In Copenhagen, for example, it is increasingly common for service staff in shops and cafes to speak English exclusively, even to Danish customers. This shift in the “linguistic landscape” of the city is a primary driver for those calling for legal protections for the native language.

Who is Affected by the “Danglish” Shift?

The impact of this linguistic shift is felt differently across various demographics:

• Youth: For younger Danes, mixing English and Danish is often a mark of modernity and global connectivity. They are the primary drivers of the “Danglish” trend, often adopting terms from social media and gaming culture.
• Language Learners: For those learning Danish as a second language, the prevalence of English loanwords can be confusing. It becomes demanding to discern which words are standard Danish and which are temporary borrowings.
• Public Sector Workers: If the proposed laws are passed, government employees would face new mandates to ensure that all public-facing communication is prioritized in Danish, potentially requiring a shift in how international departments operate.
• The Business Community: Many Danish companies use English as their corporate language to attract international talent. Legislative pressure to “Danishize” business communication could create friction in global recruitment and operations.

What Happens Next?

The immediate focus remains on the data collection phase of the Kan vi godt på dansk? campaign. As the public submits their “annoying” loanwords, the language board will initiate the process of categorizing these terms and searching for—or creating—native alternatives. The final results and the subsequent list of replacements are expected to be released after the campaign concludes at the end of the year.

Simultaneously, the parliamentary proposal from the Conservative Party will move through the legislative process. Whether the Danish government decides to adopt a legal mandate for the language, similar to the models in Norway and Sweden, will likely depend on how much public support the language board’s campaign generates.

If the campaign reveals a widespread public desire to reclaim the native tongue, it could provide the political momentum needed to pass stricter language laws. Conversely, if the public views the campaign as an outdated attempt to fight an inevitable global trend, the push for legislation may stall.

As Denmark navigates this linguistic crossroads, the outcome will serve as a case study for other tiny nations grappling with the overwhelming influence of global English. The question is no longer just about which words are used, but about who controls the evolution of a national identity in a digital, borderless world.

World Today Journal will continue to monitor the progress of the Dansk Sprognævn campaign and any subsequent legislative actions in the Folketing. We invite our readers to share their thoughts: Should nations legally protect their languages, or is linguistic evolution an inevitable part of a globalized society? Let us know in the comments below.