***

Editor’s note: Covid-19 has exposed fractures in the social and linguistic fabric in many contexts internationally, as we have been documenting in our series of language aspects of the COVID-19 crisis since February. In our latest contribution, Martha Sif Karrebæk and Solvej Helleshøj Sørensen share a perspective from Denmark, where there have been obvious failures to communicate with linguistically diverse populations and, simultaneously, migrants have been scapegoated as disease carriers.

The special issue of Multilingua devoted to “Linguistic Diversity in a time of crisis”, which originally motivated the call for contributions to this series, has now been published and all the papers are available for free access.

***

Language ideological debates in Denmark

A Somali community worker hands out Covid-19 information pamphlets in Aarhus

In Denmark, as elsewhere, the COVID-pandemic has resulted in what is both an entirely new societal situation and an intensification of existing tensions and challenges, including issues associated with immigration.

The Prime Minister recently declared that all Danish citizens have received sufficient information about the virus: “The information is there and has been available for months, no one in Denmark can be in doubt about how to behave in relation to COVID-19.” The extent to which this statement is true is an open question. Rather than a description of an actual sociolinguistic fact, it must be understood as politically motivated.

Nobody knows how many residents have no or only a poor command of Danish. A 2018 report by the Ministry of Immigration and Integration estimated that between 7 and 30 percent of the 325,000 residents with non-Western backgrounds have difficulties reading and/or speaking Danish. Insufficient Danish skills are often regarded as intentional neglect and evidence of lack of willingness to “integrate” into society.

As language proficiency is widely seen as an individual issue, authorities rarely feel compelled to use any language other than Danish in official communications. Additionally, English is used in some official communications, but languages associated with (non-western) immigration are rare in public communication.

Outsourcing health communication to volunteers

As has been documented previously on Language on the Move, grassroots organisations and volunteers have played a large role in addressing the needs of linguistic minorities during the COVID-19 pandemic in many places. This is also the case in Denmark, where the state has been heavily reliant on non-governmental actors in disseminating Covid-19 related information across all communities.

We talked to the Head of Boligsocialnet, a collaboration between social housing associations and the association of Danish municipalities, Louise Buch Viftrup, who mentioned several reasons why civil society organisations (CSOs) take on the important informational tasks. For instance, they are quick to notice the needs in the community that they serve, they have employees on the ground to address them, and they can deliver at a higher speed than the authorities, who often operate with lengthy quality assurance procedures. Furthermore, community members tend to trust people that they already know which increases the rate of adherence to advice and guidelines.

Viftrup expressed satisfaction with the cooperation between the authorities and the CSOs in ensuring minority groups’ access to information regarding the pandemic.

Sådan ser informationspjecen fra Sundhedsstyrelsen ud på arabisk. (Foto: Sundhedsstyrelsen © sundhedsstyrelsen)

For example, the health authorities provided posters with pictograms and short texts describing the five key recommendations in fifteen different languages. These were displayed in social housing blocs with high concentrations of residents with immigrant backgrounds.

However, representatives of the residents quickly pointed out that these posters were insufficient in terms of information for non-Danish speaking groups. Volunteer networks within social housing blocs additionally use social media platforms such as Facebook and Whatsapp to disseminate live translations or summaries of government press conferences.

The volunteers also answered questions in minority languages in the connected Facebook-threads and on the phone. Further examples include a YouTuber known for his online Danish-classes for Arabic speakers who did a video with phrases related to the pandemic, and an interpreting agency offering free interpreting services.

On April 06, 2020, the Danish Refugee Council established a hotline in 25 different languages for questions regarding the pandemic. Both initiatives were taken in cooperation with different CSOs and received support from private foundations such as the Novo Nordisk Foundation, while national health authorities assisted with quality assurance. Eventually, the authorities additionally issued more detailed material in other languages to complement the original posters, but it was also suggested that the linguistic quality of this material was not always high.

From translating materials to communication strategies

As pointed out by Viftrup, the challenge consists not only in creating informative content in different languages, but also ensuring that it actually reaches its target groups. Here, local efforts as those cited, have played a crucial role as “role models” spread information to specific communities. And, there was a huge need for information, as Lise Dyhr, Senior Researcher in Family Medicine, University of Copenhagen, and Morten Sodemann, Clinical Professor at Odense University Hospital’s Migrant Health Clinic discovered.

Some of their patients were frightened by the empty streets, an initial lack of basic necessities in the super-markets, and the regular appearance of a line-up of authorities (PM and health officials) on television. Others experienced gaps between home country and diaspora news and the information they received from Danish sources. This led to distrust of the Danish media. Some did not dare to go out at all, and when the educational sector gradually re-opened, they did not see how it suddenly would be safe again to send their children to school, in particular as many work places were still closed.

Some professional interpreters saw their tasks expanding. Some of our research participants, interpreters employed by a hospital, were asked to make phone calls to screen non-Danish speaking patients scheduled for other appointments for COVID-19 symptoms using a questionnaire. Some interpreters felt overwhelmed by the new responsibilities, others experienced it as an easy transition into new aspects of their work. But these interpreters had the impression that the patients were overall well-informed about the pandemic, and they believed this to be due to efficient social networks and the internet.

Minorities are more vulnerable to infection

At the same time, as we have seen in many other countries, minority citizens have been and are still over-represented in the statistics of those infected with COVID-19. By May 07, those with a migration background accounted for 18% of infected citizens although they only constitute 9% of the total population. In the week of August 03 to August 09, 70% of the 756 individuals testing positive for COVID-19 had ethnic minority backgrounds.

The factors leading to increased vulnerability include a high percentage working in particularly exposed sectors (e.g., public transportation, service and health care sectors) and large families sharing small living spaces, as well as existing underlying health conditions in this demographic.

Scapegoating

Despite these obvious reasons, the statistical over-representation – and, not least, its public announcement – has led to hostility expressed by ethnic Danes.

As an example, after recent clusters of COVID-19 cases among non-ethnic Danes in the city of Aarhus, politicians were quick to address this, among them Pia Kjærsgaard, Member of Parliament for the Danish People’s Party, a national-conservative party. She called for “a close down of the ghettoes” and accused immigrants of not taking the pandemic seriously enough.

At the same time, members of the Somali community have reported an increase in harassment and discrimination. For example, a kindergarten asked for a negative COVID-19 test for the children of a Somali family, and a public transport company reporting received requests to take Somali drivers of their shifts.

Experiences such as these problematize the publication of data concerning the ethnic backgrounds of infected individuals. On the one hand, this data can expose community specific vulnerabilities such as the ones documented by the DIHR report and allow for targeted measures adapted to the needs of specific community. On the other hand, rather than addressing the underlying issues such as housing, working conditions, and access to information, specific immigrant groups are scapegoated as disease-carriers.

Pushing back on social media

There has been some resistance and efforts to reframe the debate on social media. At the initiative of the Danish-Somali advocacy group “Mediegruppen” (the Media group) the hashtags #SomalisSayNo (#Somalieresigerfra) and #NoToPublicShaming (#Nejtiludskamning) started trending. Members of “the Blue Stars”, a group of young Danes with Somali backgrounds who fight prejudices against Somalis, decried the public shaming of the community as a whole on television and expressed fears over possible future consequences.

#SomaliereSigerFra#NejTilUdskamning#dkpol
Vore demokratiske samfund bygger på pressefrihed, men denne frihed indebærer ansvarlighed. Vi vil derfor opfordre samtlige myndigheder, politikere og medier til at kæmpe for…https://t.co/YppTGiGSD8 pic.twitter.com/D32OD8W2Rw

— Mediegruppen (@mgfsdk) August 8, 2020

Furthermore, the Aarhus Somali taskforce wrote an open letter to the prime minister where they questioned the PMs statement that information had been available to all (cited in the beginning of this piece). After reviewing the Somali translations of the guidelines issued by the authorities, they found them to be mostly unintelligible, perhaps the result of a google translate effort.

Covid-19 as an opportunity to rethink linguistic diversity and social justice in Denmark?

The issue of reaching non-Danish speaking groups is not uniquely related to the Covid-19 pandemic; nor is the fact of preexisting anti-immigrant sentiments among segments of the population and their political representatives. The crisis has undeniably heightened the need for communication strategies across languages and communities and exposed its relevance to everybody, but in principle the issue is not new. Maybe the crisis will ultimately constitute an opportunity to reconsider the intersection of linguistic diversity and social justice in Danish society.

Language challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic

Visit here for the full Language on the Move coverage of language aspects of the COVID-19 crisis. The special issue of Multilingua of 12 peer-reviewed research papers about “Linguistic diversity in a time of crisis” is available here.

Building the Danish boar fence (Image credit: NDR)

Fences are popular these days: not only in the US with its border-wall-to-Mexico saga but also in Denmark, which recently started to build a fence to ‘secure’ is border to Germany. The official reason for the Danish fence is to keep out wild boars who might be crossing into Denmark from Germany. Its efficiency is highly contested … Although not directly related to issues of language, there are striking parallels between the swine fence and what I, a linguistic ethnographer with 15 years of experience in the area of multilingualism and linguistic diversity, have witnessed, researched and documented in Danish schools.

With the notable exception of English, Denmark is a country strongly beholden to the norm of monolingualism. That is, there is a wide-spread understanding that the normative situation is such that everybody speaks one language. In our case, this language is Danish. Monolingualism may seem paradoxical in Denmark, a country with only 5.7 million inhabitants, which is located in close proximity to countries such as Sweden, Norway, Germany and Poland, and which depends on international trade and exchange. As a result, Denmark is home to people from a wide variety of backgrounds, and in terms of human mobility, efficient fences are even more of an illusion than a realistic substitute for policy. Yet, for the political establishment such insights seem hard to reach and to integrate with an increasingly strong focus on the idea of the nation.

The norm of monolingualism affects many citizens with a linguistic repertoire which includes resources associated with multiple languages. Despite this diversity, the monolingual norm is produced and reproduced in various ways and in many societal domains, but particularly in education. Accordingly, it is not uncommon to witness statements such as the following: “In Denmark we speak Danish. You have the right to learn all the languages you want, but it needs to take place in your spare time.” (Inger Støjberg, now Minister for Children, Gender Equality, Integration and Social affairs; the statement was made in 2012, when she was a member of the opposition). In the quote, “Danish” is used in three different meanings: as the first language of the majority population; as the official language of Denmark; and as the most important language taught in schools. The point argued for was that the state had no responsibility towards minority children’s mother tongue education.

In fact, there is only one educational setting where so-called immigrant languages are legitimate: Mother Tongue (MT) education. MT education is located within the regular school system but outside compulsory education  (for details on MT education in Denmark, see Salö et al. 2018). In my team’s research with MT classrooms in and around Copenhagen we found that MT education is still filtered through the lens of Danish monolingualism as MT education is almost exclusively viewed with regard to its effects on Danish.

The official aim of MT education is to ensure students’ linguistic competences in the language regarded as their mother tongue, and their cultural and societal competences with respect to what is formulated as their “country of origin”. Furthermore, MT education is supposed to foster metalinguistic development, enable general participation in school and society in the “host country,” i.e., Denmark, and encourage a global perspective on language and culture (Ministry of Education 2009: 3).

In terms of public opinion (as articulated in letters to the editor, editorials, interviews with politicians, and even academics), there is a general consensus to focus on MT education in terms of its effect on Danish. This aligns with the quote above. As everyone holds that in Denmark we speak Danish, the teaching of those other languages that are associated with immigrants needs to be justified with reference to Danish. This understanding of MT education is widely shared among both supporters and opponents.

The rationale for MT education according to the Danish Ministry of Education

Yet, such effects of positive transfer were never in focus in the classrooms we followed, nor were they part of regular assessment. In fact, MT classes are entirely marginalized. They are ‘fenced’ in relation to general education, and have no relation to whatever else goes on in schools. None of the mainstream teachers or school authorities seem interested in MT education classes. This makes it completely mysterious how the “effect on Danish” should ever come about. To us, there seemed to be more obvious ways to evaluate the relevance of such educational initiatives. For instance, in terms of the classes’ effects on the students’ Arabic, Persian, Polish, or Turkish competences.

Another point is that MT classrooms include participants from a range of backgrounds, a range of relations to the supposed country of origin, and to the language taught. Consequently, one cannot expect consensus about what constitutes ‘good’ or ‘bad’ language, or more or less ‘appropriate’ language (Karrebæk & Ghandchi, 2015).

In the Persian MT classrooms we followed, for example, children came from families who were political, religious, or other types of refugees, who were supporters of the current Iranian government, or who had no explicit political stance and had moved to Denmark for job opportunities or family reasons. In recognition of this diversity, the teacher aimed to create an “ideology free” space. This would enable all students to meet, regardless of their backgrounds. Yet, one way of doing this was to exclude anything that could be associated with the current Iranian government, and even with Arabic language and culture. The use of Arabic loanwords often caused controversy in the classroom. This approach made sourcing educational materials difficult because the teacher refused to use any materials that included pictures of women in hijab. Such images, he felt, would compromise his “ideology free” classroom. On the other hand, the traumas of refugee children went unrecognized. They largely remained unspoken and if they were articulated, they were ignored and suppressed. This created awkward situations and made it difficult for some children to find themselves reflected in the classes.

In the Turkish MT classroom, the diversity among the participants created other difficulties. In this class, the most striking difference concerned the teacher. He was of Kurdish origin and his Turkish language included features that revealed this background. In general, there are strong negative associations with Kurdish-Turkish, and we saw children, and a few parents, voice this in more or less direct ways (Karrebæk & Nergiz, 2019). The teacher, however, had few options to find another job, and we doubt that anybody had thought about how an internal Turkish conflict would play out in a Copenhagen MT classroom, and how this could or should have been handled by the employing authorities.

My work with linguistic diversity in education has shown how immigrants are evaluated and valorized in relation to their Danish competences; how languages other than Danish are, by and large, ignored, devalued and suppressed by the authorities; and how children growing up in this linguistically narrow-minded atmosphere struggle to integrate their mother tongues into an attractive public identity. This is not to say that these outcomes are planned or even desired by Danish authorities. Rather, they result from a severely limited imagination when it comes to multilingualism and cultural diversity. The discursive means to imagine cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity differently are currently lacking. After all, “in Denmark we speak Danish”. These beliefs and attitudes create a difficult work climate for MT teachers as they have to stay in fenced-in areas in a national setting very unfavorable to the use of immigrant languages. They curtail a good educational climate and obstruct any constructive engagement with MT education.

Nobody really seems to care what goes on in MT education because it is understood as being of little relevance and value – to society at large and ultimately to the children themselves. MT classes were fenced off from the children’s regular schooling experiences. Arguably, this neglect even paved the way for  “importing” conflicts from elsewhere.

In short, the orientation to standard Danish and monolingualism leads to marginalization of some children, alienation of others, poor learning conditions, and lots of missed learning opportunities, a linguistically poor society, and a society haunted by globalization and a world which it tries to keep out with a fence.

References:

Karrebæk, M.S. & Ö. Nergiz (2019). Language ideologies, the soft g, and parody in the Turkish mother tongue classroom. Multilingua https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2018-0086

Karrebæk, M.S. & N. Ghandchi (2015). ‘Pure’ Farsi and political sensitivities: Language and ideologies in Farsi complementary language classrooms in Denmark. Journal of Sociolinguistics 19(1): 62-90.

Sahlö, L., C. Hedman, N. Ganuza & M.S. Karrebæk (2018). Mother tongue instruction in Sweden and Denmark: Language policy, cross-field effects, and linguistic exchange rates. Language Policy 17(4), 591-616