Journal of East Asian Libraries Volume 1979 Number 60 Article 9 10-1-1979 What's New in Technical Processing Thomas H. Lee Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jeal BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Lee, Thomas H. (1979) "What's New in Technical Processing," Journal of East Asian Libraries: Vol. 1979 : No. 60, Article 9. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jeal/vol1979/iss60/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the All Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of East Asian Libraries by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact scholarsarchive@byu.edu, ellen_amatangelo@byu.edu.
WHAT'S NEW IN TECHNICAL PROCESSING 1 ALA Asian and African Committee meetings at Midwinter of 1980 The ALA RTSD CCS Committee on Cataloging: Asian and African Materials has scheduled two meetings during the 1980 Midwinter Conference in Chicago: Monday, January 21, 1980: 2-4pm. Tuesday, January 22, 1980: 11:30am-12:30pm. The meetings will be held at the Palmer House in Chicago (room numbers have not yet been assigned, but will be posted at the Conference and in the Conference Program.) In addition to more general issues in cataloging Asian and African materials, the Committee will discuss again the problem of Chinese romanization: Wade-Giles vs. pinyin and the romanization table for the Indian language, Santali, and will try to reach final decisions on both. 2. Follow-ups to CEAL/STP's survey on pinyin After the publication of the Results of o Survey on Pinyin vs Wade-Giles as the Standard Romanization System for Chinese in North American Libraries, a report prepared by Thomas H. Lee, Chairperson of the CEAL Subcommittee on Technical Processing (CEAL/STP), in the last issue of the Bulletin, more responses to the survey have been received and the total of returned questionnaires has now increased from 233 to 264: 120 (about 45 percent) for Wade-Giles, 56 (about 21 percent) for more studies or using both systems, and 88 (about 34 percent) for pinyin. The 31 additional returns came from the American Museum of Natural History (1), University of California, Berkeley (ll). Center for Chinese Studies of UC Berkeley (1), Harvard University (1), University of Hawaii (7), University of Iowa (4), Ohio State University (1), University of Oregon (4), and the University of San Francisco (1). The 264 respondents now comprise 193 faculty members and 71 librarians from 62 institutions. It should be pointed out that the reason for the low figure of responses from librarians is that most of the libraries contacted returned only one completed questionnaire to represent the views of the whole library and that the final statistics of the survey were based on the number of individual rather than institutional responses. On the other hand, the high figure of faculty responses reflects not only the profound interest in the survey from this group, but also the excellent job the academic libraries did in reaching out to their faculty members in an effort to help CEAL/STP to conduct the survey. The procedures for conducting the survey were as follows: CEAL/STP sent out -31 -
questionnaires only to institutions with Chinese collections; it then asked the institutions (most of which were academic libraries) to make copies of the questionnaire and distributed them to faculty members on their respective campuses. While the rate of response for all individual questionnaires sent out was difficult to calculate, because not all of them were sent out directly by CEAL/STP, the response rate for institutions contacted by CEAL/STP was over 80 percent (65 out of the 80 or so institutions contacted replied, including the three which preferred to withhold comments on the survey, due to the limited amount of Chinese materials acquired by their libraries or to the lack of sufficient information about the subject being surveyed). 3. Comment on LC's suggested application of pinyin After careful examination of the question of pinyin, CEAL has decided to advise the Library of Congress to defer its decision to adopt pinyin until a later date (see CEAL Chairperson Hideo Kaneko's letter to Joseph Howard of the Processing Services of the Library of Congress in this issue). The reasons for CEAL to favor the go-slow approach toward adopting pinyin are numerous. One of them is the imperfection of the present pinyin system, especially in the area of word division, CEAL/STP has learned that LC, in an effort to jump over the hurdles of the problem of word division and to work out a quick solution to the word division problem of pinyin, is suggesting that pinyin be applied in the following manner: a) romanize each character in publication titles and corporate headings separately and singly. b) allow combined romanization for characters in personal and geographic names only. c) ignore tonal marks. In the belief that LC's proposed application of^pinyin would be impractical and in contradiction to the common practice followed by the Chinese, especially in the romanization of common terms which appear in publication titles and corporate headings, CEAL/STP has prepared the following comment: LC's interpretation and proposed application of pinyin differ from those of the Chinese By now it is generally recognized that word division is a major problem in the interpretation and application of the pinyin system. Although the general pattern of pinyin word division (i.e., emphasizing the use of compounds, such as compound nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc., rather than single-syllable romanization) is obvious, inconsistencies still abound, and precise, detailed rules need to be developed. This is one of the reasons why American libraries are advised to wait until the pinyin system is perfected and then consider adopting it. However, the Library of Congress, in an effort to push for an immediate adoption of pinyin. - 32 -
is trying to solve the word division problem by making its own rules, which, it must be pointed out, are different from and contrary to the common practices of the Chinese people in using the pinyin system and may have costly consequences. What LC suggests is to romanize each Chinese character in publication titles and corporate headings as a separate word (compounds, or combined words, are allowed only in personal and geographic names). The two special features of the pinyin system are the use of compounds and tone marks as an effective means of reducing the number of homophones. In its proposed application of pinyin, LC is ignoring both these features. Ever since the 1950's, when using pinyin for providing added pinyin titles to its publications, making dictionary entries in pinyin alphabet, compiling language teaching textbooks, or romanizing corporate names, China has applied pinyin spellings in combined multi-syllable terms according to the parts of speech rather than in single-syllable romanizations. Perhaps the best demonstration of the Chinese way of using pinyin is the pinyin edition of the modem Chinese novel, Huanlede hai (The Joyful Sea) by Hao Ran (see samples below). LC's decision to romanize Chinese characters syllable by syllable is thus in sharp contrast to the way pinyin romanization is used in the People's Republic of China. This is bound to cause more confusion, rather than solve the word division problem, as LC has claimed. Furthermore, as a result of China's practice of giving added pinyin titles to its publications, especially scientific and technological journals, American libraries have, during the past decade or so, added a considerable number of pinyin title entries to their cataloging records (a page from LC's recent publication, Chinese Periodicals in the Library of Congress, shows the scope and form of such pinyin titles already existing in American libraries. See samples below). A switch to syllable-by-syllable romanization, as LC proposes, will not only nullify these entries, but also present conflicting problems to future pinyin titles established by China. The same situation would exist for corporate headings. To name only one example, the Chinese Language Reform Committee is romanized by the Chinese as Zhongguo wenzi gaige weiyuanhui (this pinyin heading has been included in AACR II under Rule 24.1A as an example for romanization), not as Zhong guo wen zi gai ge wei yuan hui, as the proposed LC rule would render it. Title entries and corporate headings incorrectly set up will have to be changed to the more acceptable form later at great cost. LC is apparently proposing to follow the British Library, which advocates singlesyllable romanization for Chinese characters, except for personal and geographic names. One should bear in mind that the practice of the British Library is free from challenge only within that library. It cannot even be said to be representative of what continental European libraries are doing in this regard, because the Bibliotheque Nationale in France and the AFNOR (Association Francaise de Normalisation), for example, are working out different rules (based on the Chinese practice) for "la liaison en mots" according to rhe pinyin system. Perhaps a word of explanation about the pinyin practice of the National Library of - 33 -
Peking is also in order here. N LP is adding pinyin on top of each character in a title on its title main entry catalog cards. Because the pinyin spelling is added to eoch individual character, it appears as single and separate, even when personal and geographic names are involved (capitalizations for surnames and compounds for forenames and proper nouns, for example, are totally ignored). The pinyin spellings thus used are for a special purpose, as added-on phonetic symbols for individual characters to indicate pronunciation. And for this reason, they present a unique situation, and a departure from the normal practice. Therefore, they should not be regarded as modek for pinyin romanization in general. It would seem that the best course for the Library of Congress to take now is to undertake a thorough study of the pinyin word division problem and to sit down with the Chinese experts (especially members of the Chinese Language Reform Committee in Peking) in order to work out satisfactory and consistent rules to solve this problem, and not simply to follow the British Library's steps or attempt to make its own oversimplified rules which would only add to the complications of the problem. Samples of pinyin romanization Jiuanlede (K if t m 3~(ai Hao Ran nir? Hu&nlide hii. huanl^de hii. huanlide hfii d&odi zai Zii mfngjingde 1 LQshC»nk6u, hiishl zki xifcllde B*ib& Win? HANYU FANGYIN ZIHUI WENZI GAIGE CHUBANSHE * * SC $ ffi JK St - 34 -
JIANHUAZI ZONGBIAO Chlnege periodicals in the Library of Congrerg. (Pinyin titles are those underlined) Yung-an Warning ton 1978 Zhongguo ertong. Set Chung-kuo crh t'ung. (Yung-an kung ssu) Shanghai. 1-118, May 1939- Mar. 1949. P 282.3) Library has: 1945: 75. 77 79 Yung shrug (Yung shrng hsun k*an she) Nanking. 1-7, Oct.-Dec. 1945. (P 282.2) Library has: 1945: 6-7 Yung-ting ho (Yung-ting ho kuan t'ing shui ku kung ch'eng ch'u) Zhongguo fangzhi. See Chung-kuo fang chih. Zhongguo gongrcn. Srr Chung-kuo kung jen. Zhongguo gongy*, Srr Chung-kuo kung yrh. Zhongguo jingji wenti. Set Chung-kuo ching rhi won IT Zhongguo jinrong. Set Chung-kuo chin jung. Zhongguo kexue jishu daxur xurhao. See C.hung-kuo k'o hsiich chi shu ta hsiich hsiirh pan. Zhongguo nongbao. Set Chung-kuo nung pao. 4. Reactions to pinyin from libraries in other parts of the world During the past months, CEAL/STP has tried to contact major libraries in the world with East Asian collections, for the purpose of learning of their practices with regard to Chinese romanization and their attitudes toward the new spelling system of pinyin. The responses CEAL/STP has received so far are summarized as follows: (1) From Europe (a) France Bibliotheque Nationale: Currently using the EFEO (Ecole Francaise d'extreme-orient) system and the Chinese (number of strokes, etc.) method in arranging Chinese materials. No plan to switch to pinyin yet, but is actively involved in the study and perfecting of the pinyin system. - 35 -
(b) Holland Sinologisch Instituut, Leiden: Using Wade-Giles now. No plan to switch to pinyin. (c) England Bodleian Library, Oxford: Using Wade-Giles now. "All our existing catalogue records follow the earlier [i.e. Wade- Giles] system. It would simply not be worth the time and trouble involved'to convert to the newer system, and we certainly do not wish to find ourselves in the position of having two separate catalogue sequences, one following the Wade-Giles system, the other adopting the conventions of pinyin. We have, therefore, no plans to abandon Wade- Giles and switch to pinyin. We consider that Wade-Giles is a well tried system, familiar to most scholar? in the English speaking world and believe that it is perfectly adequate for our needs." Oriental Institute Library, Oxford: User modified Wade-Giles. No plan to switch to pinyin. "If China were to publish a substantial amount of material in transliteration alone, one might have to reconsider; although, so far as can be ascertained, it is still official policy that characters should be replaced eventually by transliteration, this reform seems less imminent now than it did a few years ago." University of Durham Library, Durham: "We currently use the Wade- Giles system...1 do not feel that we can devote scarce resources to making the switch to pinyin at the present stage until it is quite clear whether or not the British Library and the Library of Congress are going to adopt it. " Edinburgh University Library, Scotland: "Our position is that we are quite ready for the conversion from Wade- Giles to pinyin (now used for teaching) as soon as our resources permit." British Library: From this year on, all the five departments of the British Library, namely, the Dept. of Oriental Manuscripts & Printed Books, Science Reference Library, Lending Division, Dept. of Printed Books, and the Bibliographic Services Division (which produces the British National Bibliography and the General Catalogue) will be accepting pinyin as the authoritative standard for the transliteration of Chinese, for all current work. No plans for retrospective conversion. All cards made in the Dept. of Oriental Manuscripts & Printed Books up to 1965 will remain in Wade- Gilesj so will all headings in the General Catalogue up to 1975. - 36 -
From Asia (a) China National Library of Peking: Uses pinyin in arranging catalogues for Chinese books (except the stitch-bound classics). Shanghai Library: "We are now arranging our readers' catalogues by the number of strokes of the Chinese characters. We have not used Hanyu pinyin to organize our Chinese books." (b) Japan National Diet Library: Pinyin not used. No plan to adopt it either. The Japanese reading of Chinese names and titles in the National Diet Library is done in conformity with the rule, made effective April 1, 1977, which reads: The reading of a Chinese title shall be done in Roman letters based on the Japanese way of reading each character as it appears in the title. Chinese personal names shall be transcribed based on the Japanese way of pronouncing each character. (c) Hongkong University of Hong Kong Library: Uses Wade-Giles for Chinese materials on Hongkong. No intention to switch to pinyin. Chinese University of Hong Kong Library: Uses Wade- Giles for all Chinese materials. Will follow LC as to which system to use in the future. (d) Singapore University of Singapore Library: Uses Wade-Giles and has no plans to switch to pinyin. Nanyang University Library: Does not use any romanization system for organizing its Chinese collection. Arrangement of its Chinese catalog is based on the number of strokes of the characters. (Thomas H. Lee) - 37 -