Hør dog hvad de siger - Note-to-Self: Trials & Errors

However, when we have a closer look at the accompanying talk of just one or two informants,
an alternative and much less radical interpretation is evident:
I agree because I think English is a good language… better than German anyway, and
also a bit easier to learn. And it is also what I use the most in my everyday life, for example
here in the sales department. With Swedes I always speak English because I’m
from Jutland, and I don’t understand Swedish very well. And I think it is the best language
actually, German I am not very keen on, it sounds a little weird. [Inf41, 3.05].
It seems most likely that what the informant is discussing is which language to adopt, in this
case English or German, not the grand question of having a world language. Furthermore,
nothing indicates that she thinks of English as a substitute for Danish, rather the term ‘mother
tongue’ seems to be reinterpreted in a sense very close to what we might in linguistic termino-
logy call a ‘language of wider communication’. There is nothing in this ‘very agreeing’ in-
formant’s speech that supports the suggestion of Danes’ willingness to give up on their cur-
rent mother tongue. On the contrary, one could speculate if the ‘misinterpretation’ of mother
tongue as language of wider communication could not itself be seen as a sign of support for
Danish. According to Grice’ co-operation principle (Grice 1975 [2001]), we always interpret
our co-interactants’ contributions to be meaningful and relevant to the conversational context.
In casu, the informant interprets the interviewer’s question (not to be) blatantly utopian. The
idea of Danes adopting English instead of Danish is indeed utopian, as anyone would tell us.
It is thus not unlikely that the informant (subconsciously) rejects the ‘correct but utopian’ in-
terpretation of the question in favour of the ‘incorrect but pragmatically appropriate’, viz. one
of ‘language of wider communication’.
The ‘misinterpretation’ is very common in the qualitative interview, see e.g. also:
I’d like to keep our culture by maintaining for example the language, and then it must
be kept Danish. But on an international level, travelling and business and the like, I
think it would be good to open our borders. And then it would be an advantage if English
could be mother tongue for all. [Inf42, 2.18]
The 'misinterpretation' is however far from universal as the large amount of ‘disagreeing’
answers also suggests. The straightforward solution, to suggest that all negative responses
rest on interpretations of ‘mother tongue’ as indeed ‘mother tongue’, and all positive as in-
terpretations as ‘language of wider communication’ is equally wrong. See e.g. this infor-
mant who is positive, but, I argue from this excerpt and from the interview in general, also
maintains the ‘real’ interpretation of ‘mother tongue’.
200