The document discusses the challenges faced by multilingual libraries, including acquiring and cataloging literature in unfamiliar languages, and organizing collections under a singular classification system. Key issues include the need for original scripts in records, the efficacy of transliteration, and the balance between professional translators and library staff for translating information. The recommendations suggest that eliminating transliteration may benefit both cataloguers and users, simplifying searches and reducing confusion.

1. Multilingual Libraries: Realities
and Challenges
David Hirsch
Charles E. Young Research Library
UCLA

2. Challenges
a) Acquire literature in languages that you don’t know
b) Cataloguing and classifying literature in languages you don’t
know
c) Organize a multilingual collection using one classification
system
d) Including original script in records.. How much info in
original script?
e) In addition to or instead of Romanization?
f) other problems.. What is a language and what is a “dialect”
Assyrian, Syriac, East Syrian? Should
Serbian/Bosnian/Croatian all be on the same shelf or look
upon them as three different collections? What about
Sorani/Kurmanci Kurdish?

3. Information in the library
How do we work with shelf signs and other information?
How much information do you need in other languages?
On the shelf signs we try to include information in the
same language as the collection and of course in the right
script. The name of the language but also “fiction”, the
main subject headings, books for adult, for children …
Translation of library rules, opening hours, information
about the collections, fees, how to use the free wifi …
Who should do the translation? Professional translators
or library staff?

4. SOME EXAMPLES OF
MULTILINGUAL LIBRARIES

5. The Multilingual Library in Oslo, Norway

6. National Library of Israel-Arabic Site

7. International Library in Sweden

9. Foreign Language Staff at the
International Library in Stockholm
• http://interbib.se/sv/om-oss/vi-som-jobbar-
pa-ib
• Area specialists dealing with over 20
languages.
• Not all are represented on the webpage.

10. Queens Public Library in Queens New York
Has interfaces in Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, French, Spanish
and English

11. Brooklyn Public Library International Languages

12. Los Angeles Public Library

13. Major languages in the Los Angeles Public Library Collection

14. UCLA Research Library-no foreign language interface
but EXTREMELY rich foreign language holdings

15. There are a total of ten Area and International
studies librarians, six in the Collection Reference
and Instructional Service (CRIS) (specializing in
Middle Eastern Studies, South Asian Studies,
Central Asian Studies, Latin American Studies, Slavic
and Eastern European Studies, African Studies and
four in the East Asian Library (EAL) working with
Chinese, Japanese and Korean materials.
UCLA Library holds materials in 471 languages from
around the world.
Foreign language staffing

16. ROMANIZATION/TRANSLITERATION

17. Cutter’s Principles of a Library Catalog
• To enable a person to find a book of which either the author,
the title, the subject is known
• To show what the library has by a given author, on a given
subject, in a given literature
• To assist in the choice of a book

18. Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules 2
• AACR2 1.0E1 suggested
to include the language and script where
practicable (AACR2, 2002)

19. RDA (AACR3) :
Recommends:
• catalogue in the languages and scripts of the
source
• and designates transliteration as an alternative for
when original scripts cannot be used
• or in addition to the original script
(RDA, 1.4, 2010-5)

20. The Program for Cooperative
Cataloguing (PCC)
• The Program for Cooperative Cataloguing (PCC)
Guidelines recommends including the non-Latin
script as ‘strictly optional’ (PCC Guidelines, 2010).
• The PCC guidelines further recommend those
cataloguers who choose to include the original
script to
“consider the future use, international
implications of their records, and to include as
much of the non-Latin script data as
necessary to facilitate the identification and
location” (PCC).

21. Study on the need for transliteration in
today’s global cataloging environment
• By Waseem Farooq of
Aga Khan University with
campuses in Pakistan and
the UK

22. Purpose of study
The purpose of the study was to:
• Gauge the trends of cataloguing in non-Latin scripts
• Identify the reasons why original scripts are not being
included or why transliteration has not been discarded
• To identify issues, apprehensions for one option or the
other.

23. Variations in transliterations
The word ‫بحث‬ can be transliterated in the
following ways according to ALA-LOC:
Arabic: Persian: Urdu:
baḥth baḥs̲ baḥas̲

24. Comparison of transliteration schemes
Searching for “‫,”معجم‬ one would need to be
aware of the following variations :
• ALA-LOC = “Muʻjam”
• Bibliotheque Nationale de France = “Muʿdjam”
• Deutschen Nationalbibliothek =“Muʿǧam”

25. Summary of respondents by mailing
lists
Source Respondents
MELCom Int. 1
MidEastCat 8
MELCom UK 5
MELA 9
AuteursArabes 5
IFLA 1
Email 2
Colleague 1
No response 1
Total 33

26. Distribution of transliteration schemes
88%
13%
ALA-LOC ISO

27. End users
• 58% of the respondents indicated that they were aware that
their end users were not comfortable using transliteration
schemes
• “Most of them are unfamiliar with the LC classification
scheme.”
• “No transliteration scheme is really intuitive and logical,
neither for the native speakers nor for non-native speakers.”

28. Further confusion
One respondent added:
After training on the use of LC transliteration
scheme, the users are further confused after
seeing various other transliteration schemes
that are being used by various scholarly journals
and encyclopedias such as Encyclopaedia of
Islam.

29. Most respondents used both scripts
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Both original script and
transliteration
Only original script
Only transliteration

30. Should transliteration be discarded?

31. Is Transliteration/Romanization helpful?
Who benefits from transliteration/romanization?
• Researchers
– Native researchers
– Non-native researchers
• Non-Area Studies Librarians
• Cataloguers

32. Aga Khan University Library’s decision
The major reasons were:
• Transliteration/Romanization was confusing for users,
rather than facilitating searches. For example: According to
ALA table ‘‫‫‬‫ر‬‫‫الہو‬’ is transliterated as ‘Lāhaur ’. But the users
go for ‘Lahore’ as a search term.
• Transliteration is much more time consuming for
cataloguers, as they need to apply special characters.
• A virtual keyboard is provided on the OPAC for the
convenience of users.

33. Aga Khan University Library OPAC

34. Aga Khan University Library OPAC

35. Other catalogues that use original
scripts
• Arab Union Catalogue
• National Library of Israel
– Due to inconsistent pronunciations
– Use original scripts for Hebrew, Arabic, Cyrillic
works

36. If one did discard transliteration…
• Cataloguers can transcribe the details on the title page as it is
displayed, without worrying about which transliteration
scheme to use
• So if the title is in Arabic, Persian, or Urdu, there will be no
confusion about transliteration schemes
• Cataloguing time would be reduced
• Researchers could search without worrying about which
transliteration scheme to use

37. To Conclude
• The future of transliteration in catalogues should
be reconsidered
• Future developments should work on improving
any issues that result in original script cataloguing
• Discarding transliteration will be of more benefit
to both cataloguers and users