LINGUIST List 5.1020

Wed 21 Sep 1994

Sum: Informant

Editor for this issue: <>

Directory

1. Anthea F Gupta, "Informant" -- summary

"Informant" -- summary (by Anthea Fraser GUPTA, National University of
Singapore)

> I just learnt that the use of the word "informant" may be considered
> offensive, at least in the US. I've been using it for years, but
> when publishing in Europe have never had it changed. Would be
> interested to hear how much agreement there is that the word
> "informant" is offensive.

I received responses from 27 people, plus 2 from individuals who I
contacted through e-mail. Another 2 people have posted answers
directly on LINGUIST.

In the table below, respondents are classified as US if (a) they posted
from US or (b) they posted from elsewhere, but identified themselves as
from the US (4 individuals fell into this category). Some "rest of the
world" informants may be US citizens too. In my summary I do not link
views with particular names -- hope this is OK.

Respondents fairly clearly fell into one of two answers:

(a) I know it can be seen as offensive (this does not imply you agree
it is offensive)
(b) I can't imagine why anyone would see it as offensive -- the word
has a long history in linguistics.

Breakdown by geographical affiliation is as follows:

 US Rest of the world
 Potentially offensive 16 4
 Not offensive 6* 3
*including two Americans resident outside US

Responses from the rest of the world are too few to make firm
conclusions, but it would seem that the term is more likely to be seen
as offensive in the US than elsewhere. I discovered that "informant"
might be offensive through the editing of _Language in Society_. One
respondent informed me that _Language_ also bans the term, which was
confirmed by Sarah Thomason. Some non American respondents felt that
the elimination of the word "informant" by editors was an attempt to
impose American culture. Some Americans who knew of the controversy
similarly referred to "over zealous editors" and asserted their right
to continue using the term. Into this category probably falls the
respondent who said, "The word "informant" is _not_ offensive in the
United States, except perhaps to a few people who made up some
recommendations for the LSA. I would continue to use it. It has a
clear, agreed-upon meaning in linguistics."

While some who knew that "informant" was "regarded as politically
incorrect/ideologically unsound in certain quarters", not everyone knew
why. Those who gave explanations mostly provided one of two reasons:

(1) Confusion with the term "informer" as in "police informer". Some
police forces are even using "informant" in this meaning.
(2) In some American Indian cultures it is considered a betrayal of
one's culture to give away information on it to outsiders.

I can understand the first of these arguments, but I find the second
rather difficult. Firstly, it seems to be a problem for those working
in particular cultures. In many cultures the opposite is the case --
telling outsiders about your culture is seen as valuable, even a duty.
Thus, the banning of the term because of the values of some American
cultures could legitimately be seen as American imperialism (on the
rest of the world). Secondly, surely it is the *act* of giving info.
to outsiders which is wrong, whether you are called an informant, a
speaker, a consultant, or whatever.

One respondent said that she would "be uneasy" calling people she
worked with on Navajo "informants" but would "be more likely to use the
term informant if I were working on English or Romance or Germanic and
had asked linguists for their judgements, since linguists know what
they are getting into when they are plundered for judgements". I
personally would have more problems with this two-tier usage than with
the idea that it's globally offensive.

Some respondents also objected to the implied power difference invoked
by "informant", where "An informant is generally the native speaker who
can be termed expert purely because of the chance native linguistic
knowledge, whereas the researcher is someone who is generally expected
to know more, to have the expertise to redefine the informant's naive
ability in a theoretically superior framework." Again, the problem
seems to me to be inherent in the *activity* rather than in the word.

Another question is who it might give offence to: one respondent wrote
"I work with Native American languages and so work with many
informants. I've been criticized by one colleague in particular, who
insists I use `consultant'. The speakers themselves have never
objected to being introduced as `informants'; but the worry is that the
word is too much like `informer' someone who cooperates with the police
by turning in his acquaintances. In any event, at least 2 journals who
do Native American linguistics will not stand for `informant', so one
must be careful." However, another respondent had experienced negative
reactions to the term (in the form of jokes about FBI informers) from
Native Americans.

Several people mentioned the lack of an alternative as comprehensive
and as short as "informant". Some admitted to resorting the
circumlocution. Alternative terms suggested include "(native)
speaker", "teacher". "helper" and (most commonly) "consultant".
However, some of my respondents have problems with "consultant" (so do
I). Many of us have acted as consultants for various organisations --
you are an adviser by virtue of special qualifications and you are
usually paid. This term may also give offence in some cultures. One
respondent suggested "collaborator" as an alternative -- this strikes
me as another word with some very negative associations indeed. The
same respondent also suggested "co-researchers". But doesn't this
imply your colleagues and graduate students?

The issue seems to be the legitimacy of using people's language
behaviour/knowledge as data for research. Why is this more of a
problem than physiologists using skeletal structure and musculature as
the basis for their study?

Thanks to:
P Tan, Robert Beard, Peggy Speas, Karl Teeter, Stauros Macrakis, Martha
Morgan, Ellen Contini-Morava, Stuart Robinson, Hal Schiffman, Michael A
Covington, Angela Terrill, Marcia Haag, Dan Alford, Hugo Baetens
Beardsmore, Ralf Grosserhode, Jerry Neufeld-Kaiser, Aaron Broadwell,
Mark Hansell, Eugene Shing Chan, Shelly Harrison, Guy Modica, Trey
Jones, Suzanne Sanabria, Laine Berman, Jeanne Mier, Sarah Thomason, Ed
Beach, Michael McIlrath, Daniel Radzinski