Running head: CATALOGING NON-ROMAN RESOURCES 1

Transcription

1 Running head: CATALOGING NON-ROMAN RESOURCES 1 Cataloging Non-Roman Resources and the Challenges of Romanization Diana DiPierro Dominican University

2 CATALOGING NON-ROMAN RESOURCES 2 Introduction The American Library Association s (ALA) Library Bill of Rights states, in part, that library resources are to be provided to all people in the service community of the library, and that all people have the right to use the library no matter their country of origin, age, etc. (American Library Association, 1996). Further, Cutter defines the objectives of the library catalog as the following: Enabling a person to find a book of which either the author, the title, the subject is known; Showing what the library has by a given author, on a given subject, in a given kind of literature; Assisting in the choice of a book as to its edition (bibliographically), as to its character (literary or topical) (Graham, 1990). If libraries are to cater to all in their community by providing a catalog that is useful in locating resources users want, how is Romanization in the catalog helpful? This paper will discuss this issue by first defining what Romanization is and explaining the differences between Roman and non-roman languages. Next, differences will be explained between cataloging Roman and non- Roman language resources and the challenges of cataloging the latter. Finally, background will be addressed on how Romanization was handled in the past and how it is currently handled. What is Romanization? In the broadest sense, transliteration is defined in the Online Dictionary for Library and Information Science as the rendering [of] the characters of one alphabet in characters representing the same sound (or sounds) in another alphabet (example Greek or Cyrillic into Roman) (Reitz, 2012). Specifically, Romanization, is defined in the second edition of the

3 CATALOGING NON-ROMAN RESOURCES 3 Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR2) as the conversion of names or text not written in the roman alphabet to roman-alphabet form (American Library Association, 2005, pp. Appendix D-7). Romanization is the term used in place of transliteration in AACR2 and will be used in this paper. Roman languages are those that use the Roman (or Latin) A-Z alphabet in the writing systems. The Roman alphabet is the most widely used writing system in the world and is the standard script of the English language and the language of most of Europe, for example French, Italian, and Spanish to name but a few (Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2013). Non- Roman languages are those that do not use the Roman alphabet in the writing systems, for example Greek, Russian, Cyrillic, Arabic, Hebrew, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. Romanization should not be confused with translation, which is the rendering from one language into another, more or less closely following the original (American Library Association, 2005, pp. Appendix D-8). Romanization transcribes that of the non-roman language, letter by letter, based on Romanization tables and systems, and will be demonstrated later. Differences in Cataloging: Roman versus non-roman Cataloging is the art of creating a record in a library database, representing the resource itself, in order for users to locate material they seek and for libraries to keep inventory control over their resources. Bair more eloquently states, catalogers are responsible for two powerful areas access and naming. They analyze content for aboutness, including explicit and implicit subject content, and translate this into a surrogate a representation of the information in the form of a database record. They thus create the access points or gates by which the information can be entered (Bair, 2005). AACR2 s rule 1.0E on resource description states, in the catalog record areas of title and statement of responsibility, edition, publication information, and series

4 CATALOGING NON-ROMAN RESOURCES 4 to give information transcribed from the item itself in the language and script (wherever practicable) in which it appears there. Give all elements in the other areas in the language and script of the cataloguing agency (American Library Association, 2005, pp. 1-8). For example, if an American library were cataloging a book in the vernacular (or native) French language, the cataloger would transcribe the aforementioned information in the French language script as it appears on the item. If the title is translated into English, that would be transcribed into the catalog record as a parallel title. All elements in the other areas, including the main access heading (personal or corporate author name or title of work), added entry headings (other contributors to the work), and subject headings would be transcribed in English as that is the language and script of an American library. Because the fictional French book used in this example is a Roman language, no Romanization is required for this catalog entry. The main difference in cataloging non-roman resources is that the main access heading and added entry headings (names and titles of works that library users search for) would be Romanized. For example, if an American library were cataloging one of Tchaikovsky s works in the vernacular Russian language, the cataloger would transcribe the title and statement of responsibility, edition, publication, and series information in the Russian language script as it appears on the item (if able to do so.) However, the main access heading (in this case Tchaikovsky s personal name) would be Romanized for the catalog. Tchaikovsky s last name in vernacular Russian is transcribed as. Using the American Library Association s and the Library of Congress s (LC) Romanization Table for Russia (included in the Appendix), the author Romanized Tchaikovsky s last name from Russian into Cha ĭkovski ĭ. This would be used as the Romanized form of the main access heading, and possibly Anglicized into

5 CATALOGING NON-ROMAN RESOURCES 5 Tchaikovsky, which is LC s standard usage of his name (Library of Congress ; American Library Association, 2013). Why is Romanization Used? There are a few reasons why Romanization is used in library catalogs, but the main reason is Universal Bibliographic Control (UBC). UBC is obtained in national and international library catalogs by transcribing uniform records based on internationally accepted cataloging standards such as AACR2 and the newly developed, and recently implemented, Resource Description and Access (RDA). In so doing, international sharing of bibliographic data reduce(s) costs (and) encourage(s) greater cooperation worldwide in sharing and re-using data around the world (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, 2012). Romanization, historically, goes back many centuries to when Hebrew names in the Bible were Romanized. Wellisch states, Romanization of names was introduced into bibliographical practice in the 16 th century by Conrad Gessner, the Father of Bibliography, and the first to conceive the idea of UBC in his monumental work, the Bibliotheca Universalis (Wellisch, 1978, p. 6). The thinking was that when non-roman language resources were cataloged and incorporated with Roman language resources, the only way to achieve consistency and UBC was by Romanizing certain information into the A-Z alphabet since that is the most widely used alphabet system. Other reasons why Romanization is used is for the convenience of catalogers and library users. Prior to library catalogs becoming computerized databases in machine-readable form, libraries transcribed their catalogs onto cards. If catalogers had little knowledge in non-roman languages (let alone knowledge in Roman European languages), when it came to the creation of entry access points, they would not know how to file these foreign characters. Therefore, once

6 CATALOGING NON-ROMAN RESOURCES 6 LC started Romanization in its catalog, many local libraries across the country subscribed to receiving LC s catalog card copies. This achieved consistency and UBC in catalogs and filing systems and trimmed original cataloging costs when owning identical resources. As far as Romanized entry access points being useful to library users, one can argue that the only users that will be helped are people foreign to the non-roman language in question. Moreover, would they be seeking these resources to begin with, if they cannot be understood, unless by way of translation? Immigrants from, and students of, foreign countries that use the resources in their native vernacular already know how to read, or understand, the material and would not benefit from the Romanized record. Primarily, because the latter group would not understand the Romanization provided. Challenges Cataloging Non-Roman Resources There are many challenges that are faced when cataloging non-roman library resources. The challenges affect librarians and catalogers differently than library users. Challenges for Catalogers Multiple Romanization schemes. While ALA and LC have approved schemes for non- Roman languages, many different schemes exist and are in use internationally creating less of a degree of uniformity. For example, Anderson states Chinese language titles are Romanized strictly according to the Wade-Giles scheme, as modified by the Library of Congress, unless another form of Romanization is used in the work itself. Therefore, if a Chinese work contains a title with p in yin Romanization in addition to Chinese characters, then the title entry is made under the p in yin romanized form, as well as the Wade-Giles romanized form (Anderson,

7 CATALOGING NON-ROMAN RESOURCES , p. 108). This can be very confusing for the cataloger and library user alike. 1 Inconsistent scheme application. Regardless if one assumes that American libraries employ the ALA/LC approved Romanization schemes, local libraries may devise their own adaptations based on what administrators feel is useful for cataloging staff and community users. Romanized names in variant forms. Because not all libraries are consistent in their application of one, universal, Romanization scheme, variations will result in name and title access points. Wellisch suggests the use of international standards, such as the International Organization for Standardization s (ISO) Recommendations for transliteration. However, this can cause more problems than not. For example, he states, some of (ISO s) Recommendations for transliteration have been designed with the needs of philologists (people who study literature and languages) in mind rather than with an eye to practical bibliographic applications. Further, according to Recommendation ISO/R , Transliteration of Greek Characters into Latin Characters, the name of the great Greek poet which has been known to the Western world in its Romanized form for more than 2000 years as Homeros or Homerus is now to be rendered as Omeros, and would thus be filed in a catalogue under O, not H, where probably few library users would look for it (Wellisch, 1978, p. 8). Reversibility. Any Romanization performed in a cataloging record, if transcribed correctly, should be completely reversible back to the original script language. However, some non-roman language scripts have idiosyncrasies. For example, for languages written in scripts that do not indicate vowels at all (or only partially), Arabic and Hebrew, true reversibility is possible only for consonants but not for vowels, unless the latter appear in the original text which is very seldom the case. For logographically written languages Chinese, Japanese and 1 Update on the Chinese Romanization schemes see (Library of Congress ; American Library Association, 2013). The Pinyin (spell sound) Romanization scheme replaced the Wade-Giles scheme specified in earlier editions of the ALA-LC Romanization Tables.

8 CATALOGING NON-ROMAN RESOURCES 8 Korean no reversibility is possible at all, since any rendering of Chinese characters can only be done phonemically, that is by trying to approximate the sound of a character when pronounced in a particular Chinese dialect, in a certain Japanese reading, or in Korean, as the case may be (Wellisch, 1978, p. 10). Alphabetization. Many different Romanization tables are used in cataloging non- Roman language resources in the same library bibliographic system. When this occurs, the same word can be Romanized into different spellings creating misfiling errors in the catalog. For example, some Slavic languages such as Russian and Serbian use the Cyrillic alphabet system. In the Library of Congress catalog, the Cyrillic word stem цe н тpa л is Romanized tsentral when it appears in a Russian title, but central when it is part of a Serbian title, so that the very same word, identically written, is filed under T and under C (Wellisch, 1978, p. 12). Challenges for Library Users In cataloging non-roman resources, the Romanization of access points creates challenges for library users, particularly users native to the non-roman script. Immigrants to the United States may not know how to read or speak English, let alone have the ability to understand the Romanized headings. While Romanization tables assist librarians, no keys or tables are provided to users in order to reverse the Romanized headings in order to decipher what they are seeking. As a result, an unintentional blockade has been created in the bibliographic catalog preventing the user from obtaining the resources they seek. Another challenge to non-native users is meaningless access points. Some Romanized access points are easier to decipher than others are. The author s former example of the Romanized main author heading for Tchaikovsky (Cha ĭkovski ĭ) may be useful as it is recognizable, even in its transliterated form, because of Tchaikovsky s popularity. However, in

9 CATALOGING NON-ROMAN RESOURCES 9 Romanizing a script such as Chinese which is represented in a logographic form, the catalog access points become completely useless because the Romanization is irreversible and not understandable to a Chinese native unless cross-referenced to the original script. The Handling of Romanization: Past and Present Romanization of access points has been the standard for centuries when cataloging non- Roman script resources. The tide has been turning, however, as to whether Romanization continues to be necessary and useful. Spalding, a former Assistant Cataloging Director at the LC, initially supported Romanization but later changed his opinion on the topic. In Romanization Reexamined, he discussed many of the challenges he witnessed in continuing to Romanize access points. He further suggested not integrating non-roman script resources into the Roman script based catalog, but rather to create a separate bibliographic catalog specifically for the non-roman script resources, of which the only institutions that could implement this feat would be large research libraries that are used to an abundance of these materials (Spalding, 1977). His article met with criticism and supporters. Copley, a librarian at the London British Library, wrote a letter to the editor of the Library Resources & Technical Services journal disagreeing with Spalding s view. He stated, a library such as the British Library s Science Reference Library has vast holdings of such [non-roman] material that in no way form separate collections. He went on to state that the material is heavily and successfully used by readers who do not know the languages concerned, gaining access to what they need through the English summaries, diagrams, graphs, etc., and even by commissioning translations (Copley & Partington, 1977). Whereas Partington, a librarian at Harvard University, supported Spalding s view stating, a tendency at Harvard has been to have separate catalogues for materials in non- Roman scripts. He went on to state that he agrees with Spalding on the necessity to avoid the

10 CATALOGING NON-ROMAN RESOURCES 10 problems that arise from the effort to force all of a library s holdings into one catalogue by means of standardized transliteration systems (Copley & Partington, 1977). As library catalogs moved from the card catalog system to a computerized or MAchine Readable Catalog (MARC) system, it became easier to create records for non-roman script resources. Romanization of access points still occurs, but it remains to be seen how long it will stay in practice. Agenbroad suggests the expansion of the MARC character repertoire to include the characters for the alphabets of about twenty-two languages in the ALA/LC Romanization tables which have Unicode code assignments. Unicode assigns codes to text characters for virtually all languages. The addition of about 2,300 characters will permit abandonment of the temporary practice of Romanized only cataloging. A draft proposal to this effect exists and it has been endorsed by the Association of College & Research Libraries Board of Directors, its Asian, African, and Middle Eastern Section (AAMES) and ALA s Office of Literacy and Outreach Services Advisory Committee, but it is languishing in limbo because some consider it premature (Agenbroad, 2006, p. 27). MARC records do allow for inputting of non-roman script languages, and some fields in the record can be used for cross-referencing to the original vernacular script as seen in a sample MARC record from the LC s website below. It details a Russian resource in Cyrillic script in an English language-cataloging agency. Meaning, according to AACR2 s rule, the title statement (field 245), edition (field 250), and publication information (field 260) have all been transcribed in the original Cyrillic script from the resource. The main author access point (field 100) has been Romanized. The rest of the information fields are transcribed in the cataloging language of

11 CATALOGING NON-ROMAN RESOURCES 11 the institution, which is English. Finally, the MARC 880 fields are representing what would be the original Cyrillic script cross-referenced. (Library of Congress, 2008) Conclusion Romanization in cataloging records has been in existence for centuries. Whether it remains in existence is unclear. Seikel states that the adoption of new cataloging standards (RDA) leaves the door open as to how much Romanization will be occurring. RDA advises transliteration only when transcription in the language of the work is not possible. The terms non-roman and Romanize have been removed from RDA, and that transliteration has become the alternative rather than the preferred method for recording the title of a resource (Seikel, 2009). As the United States becomes more multicultural by the day, this decision is probably in the best interest of the user, who remains the primary importance and target of a library bibliographic catalog.

12 CATALOGING NON-ROMAN RESOURCES 12 Appendix

13 CATALOGING NON-ROMAN RESOURCES 13 (Library of Congress ; American Library Association, 2013)

14 CATALOGING NON-ROMAN RESOURCES 14 Works Cited Agenbroad, J. E. (2006). Romanization Is Not Enough. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 42(2), doi: /j104v42n02_03 American Library Association. (1996, January 23). Library Bill of Rights. Retrieved April 22, 2013, from ALA American Library Association Web site: American Library Association. (2005). Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (2nd ed.). Chicago: American Library Association. Anderson, J. (1980). Cataloging and Classification of Chinese Language Library Materials. In M. M. Aman (Ed.), Cataloging and Classification of Non-Western Material: Concerns, Issues and Practices (pp ). Phoenix: Oryx Press. Bair, S. A. (2005). Toward a Code of Ethics for Cataloging. Technical Services Quarterly, 23(1), Copley, E. J., & Partington, D. H. (1977). In The Mail. Library Resources & Technical Services, 21(3), Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.. (2013). Latin alphabet. Retrieved April 22, 2013, from Encyclopædia Britannica Web site: Graham, P. S. (1990). Quality in Cataloging: Making Distinctions. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 16(4), International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. (2012, December). IFLA Professional Statement on Universal Bibliographic Control. Retrieved April 22, 2013, from IFLA Web site: ment%20on%20ubc.pdf Library of Congress ; American Library Association. (2013, January 8). ALA-LC Romanization Tables. Retrieved April 22, 2013, from The Library of Congress Web site: Library of Congress. (2008, February 28). Appendix D - Multiscript Records. Retrieved April 23, 2013, from MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data: Reitz, J. M. (2012, February 27). ODLIS: Online Dictionary for Library and Information Science. Retrieved April 22, 2013, from ABC - CLIO: Seikel, M. (2009). No More Romanizing: The Attempt to Be Less Anglocentric in RDA. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 47(8), doi: /

15 CATALOGING NON-ROMAN RESOURCES 15 Spalding, C. S. (1977). Romanization Reexamined. Library Resources & Technical Services, 21(1), Wellisch, H. H. (1978). Script Conversion and Bibliographic Control of Documents in Dissimilar Scripts: Problems and Alternatives. International Library Review, 10, 3-22.