Two centre-right parties in Denmark—the Danish People’s Party (Dansk Folkeparti) and the Conservatives (Det Konservative Folkeparti)—have put forward proposals for a Danish language law aimed at limiting the influx of foreign terms, especially English, in public communication.
The proposals, debated recently in the Folketing (Danish Parliament), would require that public institutions use Danish names when operating in Danish. This includes avoiding English job titles, department names or mixed-language signage, a trend that some politicians argue is eroding linguistic clarity and identity.
Airfryers and baby lifts spark debate
One argument used to illustrate the need for regulation is the growing use of English loanwords in everyday Danish, particularly for consumer products. Should Danes call an “airfryer” a luftfritøse or a “babylift” a spædbarnskurv? Critics of the current trend argue that without intervention, Danish risks becoming diluted and overly reliant on Anglicisms.
Supporters of the law see this as a symbolic and cultural defence of the Danish language. However, linguists are more sceptical.
Linguists: Danish is not in danger
According to Tobias Mosbæk Søborg, a linguist at the University of Copenhagen, the Danish language is far from endangered. “Danish is one of the strongest minority languages in the world,” he said, noting that it is spoken across all sectors of society and remains the mother tongue of most children in Denmark.
Former director of the Danish Language Council (Dansk Sprognævn), Sabine Kirchmeier, agrees that fears about English taking over are often exaggerated. The influence of English has been visible since the post-war period and is largely a result of the cultural dominance of the United States, she explained.
Language and national identity
While Denmark may not face the same risks as smaller, endangered languages, Kirchmeier notes that language policy often gains traction in times of perceived external threat. “It’s a bit like military spending: we invest more in defending what we feel is under pressure,” she said.
In this sense, proposals for language protection may reflect broader anxieties about cultural sovereignty and globalisation, especially following geopolitical events like Donald Trump’s 2019 remark about buying Greenland.
Danification inspired by Norway?
The Conservatives have proposed a Language Council tasked with “danifying” foreign expressions that gain popularity. The model draws inspiration from Norway, where the Norwegian Language Council (Språkrådet) actively promotes Norwegian alternatives to English expressions.
Examples of successful adaptations include words like “føkkboy” or “kødder du”, popularised through the TV series Skam. But Danish efforts to replicate such changes have met mixed results. One rare success cited by Kirchmeier is the adoption of “vejvrede” for “road rage”.
Still, most attempts at inventing new Danish terms for established English ones have been met with mockery or indifference. “Why call an airfryer a luftfritøse or a baby carrier a spædbarnskurv?” Kirchmeier asked rhetorically, highlighting the resistance of speakers to forced changes.
Everyday Danish shaped by media and habits
According to linguist Henrik Gottlieb, speakers are unlikely to adopt terms coined by a government body. Once an English word becomes commonplace through media and daily use, it is difficult to reverse the trend.
This underscores a broader linguistic reality: language is a living and mobile phenomenon. Attempts to preserve or alter it through artificial measures rarely succeed unless they align with real shifts in how people speak. A language changes when its speakers change their habits—not because of legislative decrees, but through social interaction, cultural exposure, and evolving norms.
Nevertheless, the debate touches on deeper questions of identity, belonging, and the role of language in modern societies. Whether or not a law is passed, it reflects a growing concern over how to maintain linguistic integrity in a globalised world.
