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

discussion, e.g. in a question about English vs. neologisms, see how both cases are argued
with reference to maintenance. On the one hand, maintaining Danish through neologisms, on
the other maintaining the loanwords that are already adopted.
I’m in favour of us maintaining the Danish and trying to invent new words for it. Not that
I don’t use English words myself, unfortunately I use far too many [Inf2, 4.35].
I don’t think we need to invent words which seem completely out of place when others use
these [English] words [Inf25, 5.54].
In other words, the informants (or a majority of them at least) are strikingly unison in their
wish for maintenance of the current policy. Their disagreements are about what the current
policy looks like, or more likely, seeing as they all live in Denmark and thus have daily access
to the current policy, their different statements are different rhetorical foci on the issue. Some
informants (at this point of the discussion at least) construe themselves as linguistic ‘hawks’
in opposition to too much laissez faire-attitudes among other Danes; others construe themsel-
ves as linguistic ‘liberals’ in opposition to too much cultural fascism among other Danes.
Both positions, however, are argued from a stance that ‘what I argue is natural and normal –
maintenance - it is their stance which is a strange intrusion that needs qualification’. This is
not to say that each of the informants could not hold the opposite view at other times in the
interview. Many do, and several comment on it.
Inf.: I am a bit ambivalent because it isn’t an either-or. […] We can’t just isolate ourselves
in our own little society; we are a part of the big world. And seeing as we are
influenced from everywhere, it would seem unnatural if we cleanse it completely. It
would make it feel like Stalin times. I think we need to open up a little.
Int.: How does this relate to you saying earlier that too many English words are being
used?
Inf.: That’s exactly where I find myself in a dilemma, because I think I have changed my
mind before I have even finished all of the questions. Because if I maintain what I
said earlier, I can’t put my X there, that’s right. […] Perhaps I have just thought
about how many of the words we have; well, they have just become a natural part
[of the language]. I can still maintain that some of the things shouldn’t have so many
foreign words, but cleanse it completely is not an option either, and we shouldn’t
do it either. I actually think I am changing my mind as we go along, I feel that.
[Inf30, 47.00].
It could be unique to this one informant to ‘change his mind’. He is however not the only one
to make this sort of comment. What seems more likely is that the changing of minds is a con-
sequence of the interview setting, as a social and linguistic event. Its being a social event rai-
ses awareness about certain demands and constraints on how we present ourselves as ‘decent’
217