Transactional Analysis:
Problems in Cataloging Chinese Names

Jiajian Hu

Chinese names have long posed major complications in cataloging in North American libraries. Using the transactional analysis method, the study discussed in this article addressed some of the problems of cataloging Chinese names. Particular attention was paid to the problems of transliterating Chinese characters and establishing entries for personal names. The study proposed some suggestions, such as providing vernacular data to an authority file and establishing standards for international practice in romanizing Chinese names.

Introduction

During the past two decades, the availability and accessibility of information has grown exponentially. As a result, Marshall Mcluhan's "Global Village" becomes more of a reality with each passing day. Mainland China, with one-fifth of the world's population, has grown from a novice in the world arena into an international giant in information sharing and provision.

In 1930, East Asian collections in the United States had some 400,000 volumes; half a century later, these collections have grown to about 12,000,000 volumes distributed in 120 academic and about 80 public and special libraries.¹ The increasing availability of Chinese language materials and other materials of Chinese authorship in American libraries is posing major complications for cataloging, which leads to retrieval problems, as exemplified by Chinese personal names. These problems include: the intricate nature of the Chinese script along with the extensive use of the traditional and simplified Chinese characters; difficulty in determining if a surname is known; names against authority file; name containing a non-Chinese given name; and names romanized in different schemes.

Before 1957, there were no standardized rules for cataloging Chinese language materials in North American libraries. Each library established its own pattern of description and subject analysis. Prior to 1958, the Library of Congress (LC) segregated the treatment of Chinese and other East Asian language materials from that of Western language materials. In view of the need for standardization, the publication of the Preliminary Rules and Manual for Cataloging Chinese, Japanese and Korean Materials was issued in 1957. Many North American and Asian libraries with Chinese language collections adopted and began following the rules.

By February 1958, the Library of Congress began to catalog and classify Chinese and other East Asian language materials in the same manner as Western collections, assigning appropriate main and added entries, subject headings and classification numbers and printing cards similar in format to other LC printed cards.²

Since 1958, most newer East Asian libraries, as well as some older libraries, such as those at Yale University and the University of Washington, have adopted the Library of Congress classification and Library of Congress subject headings for subject access to their Chinese collections. This trend of conformity was consolidated with the publication of the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules(AACR)³ in 1967 and the revision of 1978 (AACR2).⁴

Even though much has been done in the past half century to provide greater access to Chinese language materials through romanization, application of standard cataloging rules(AACR2), and inputting Chinese characters in machine readable format for bibliographical records, numerous problems and difficulties still persist in cataloging Chinese language materials.

The earliest form of Chinese writing, which can be traced back to the Shang dynasty at about 18th

* Jiajian Hu, (jhu@chipublib.org), librarian II/Asian languages cataloger, Catalog Division, Chicago Public Library, Chicago, Illinois. The author wishes to acknowledge Dr. Marcia Lei Zeng and Dr. Lois Buttlar for support and encouragement in writing this paper.

Illinois Libraries, Fall 2000 251

century B.C., is called "Chia-Ku-Wen," or the Shell-and-Bone Script. The majority of these characters are found to be pictographs, followed by ideograms and phonograms. After the Han dynasty, three new styles, which involve variations in number, shape and position of strokes, were adopted. These three styles are still widely used by contemporary Chinese calligraphers. The regular style is adopted as the book script in publishing Chinese language materials in many Chinese communities like Taiwan, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia. However, in 1958, the mainland Chinese government advocated a simplified version of Chinese characters that usually requires fewer strokes to write a word. Currently, all Chinese publications from mainland China use the simplified characters. In order to catalog a Chinese publication, the cataloger must know both scripts, a task requiring a lengthy learning process.

In addition to the intricate nature of the Chinese characters, there is also the problem of transliteration or romanization. There are numerous romanization schemes used by different institutions to transliterate Chinese to English, e.g., Wade-Giles, Pinyin and Gwoyeu Romatzhy, etc.⁵ The most prevalent transliteration scheme, adopted by LC from near the beginning of the century and then by most of the Western world, is the Wade-Giles system. In 1958, however, the Pinyin scheme was adopted for publication by the mainland Chinese government. It is now the official romanization scheme used in mainland China.

Finally, confusing Chinese personal name systems add to other problems in cataloging Chinese literature. In the old days, a Chinese scholar often had several names; as an infant, he received from his parents a "milk name." A boy who went to school would receive a "school name" from his tutor. As he become an adult, he might assume an "official name" and one or more "courtesy names." If he was a man of letters or an artist, he would sometimes sign his production with his "pen names." Normally, the Chinese put their surnames in front of their given names. The first names are always carefully chosen in traditional families by the use of a list for the first part of the given name, which is often used to distinguish one generation from another. The second part of the given name identifies a particular child or person. In recent times, with the transliteration of Chinese characters into the Western alphabet, the practice has grown of hyphenating the two given names to avoid confusion among non-Chinese. My own preference would be the use of the hyphen between the two given names with the first letter of the second given name in the lower case(e.g. name Hu Wei-jian). Such practice would conform to the AACR2 rules.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study was to explore and examine the problems in cataloging Chinese personal names. The research addressed some of the problems and also proposed some suggestions for solving the problems. Particular attention was paid of transliterating Chinese characters and establishing entries for personal names, for example, providing vernaclar data to authority file, establishing standards for international practice in romanizing Chinese names, etc.

Limitations of the Study

A perfect solution to many problems in entering Chinese language materials in American libraries will require combined efforts of many experts and will be a big project. This study was limited specifically to Chinese personal names as author entries in cataloging practice in American libraries. Therefore, findings were not present for all Chinese entries, such as title entries, corporate names and subject headings. Two hundred Chinese authors' names were selected as data samples from the National Union Catalog of 1982 edition (volume 1-21).

Definition of Terms

The factor causing different romanized forms of Chinese names is multiplicity of dialects spoken by the Chinese in different regions. As the same Chinese family name can be romanized in different ways based on the dominant dialects spoken in different regions, this article only examined personal names of Chinese in Mandarin (Putong Hua), which is widely and officially used in China, as entries in American libraries.

Literature Review

Those acquainted with Chinese customs and literature know how confusing Chinese personal names can sometimes be. Lee-Hsia Hsu Ting⁶ presented in detail the special features of Chinese language and writing, the complexity of Chinese personal names, and the problems in cataloging Chinese materials. For instance, Tseng Kuo-fan is also known as Tseng Tisheng, Tseng Pai-han, and Tseng Wen-cheng kung. In cataloging Chinese books, it is of great importance to establish a uniform heading for a Chinese author of the old days. Ting also reviewed different methods of romanizing Chinese characters.

252 Illinois Libraries, Fall 2000

Not every educated Chinese person (especially in his younger days) knows about the Wade-Giles system. Consequently, each romanizes his name according to the way it is pronounced in his dialect or entered in the dictionary used. The Dictionary of Chinese Students in Colleges and Universities in the United States, 1958-59, shows that Chinese students with the same surname in Chinese spell it differently in English.

In his doctoral dissertation, James D. Anderson⁷ compared four fundamental methods of arranging Chinese-language author title catalogs in terms of the amount of information required to locate entries. The results of this study reinforce the current trend toward the strictly alphabetical arrangement of Chinese language library catalogs on the basis of romanized entries.

The Wade-Giles and Pinyin are two major schemes for transliteration or romanizition of Chinese into English. William E. Studwell, Rui Wang and Hong Wu⁸ examined the two schemes. The conclusion is that both methods are about equally effective. However, since most of the rest of the world is now using Pinyin, LC should, for practical reasons, switch to Pinyin.

By the early 1970s, the Library of Congress had developed its first online system. As a result, the issue of choosing a form for entering Chinese bibliographic records into the new online system became a matter of some urgency at that time. LC had two options: It might continue to use the Wade-Giles system, a scheme developed by Westerners and used by LC for many years, or it could shift to Pinyin, a system utilized in the People's Republic of China. LC, however, chose not to go along with the trend.

Now, nearly 30 years later, in the 1990s, the matter had been examined again. Is the effort to change to Pinyin worth making and the cost worth bearing? Which system is better? There has been some previous literature dealing with the controversy. The most notable is a 1990 essay by Hanyu Tao and Charles Cole.⁹ To some extent, it is a sequel to the Tao-Cole article. However, this essay largely offers some new perspectives on the issue.

After analyzing the structure of both Wade-Giles and Pinyin, Suping Lu¹⁰ evaluated the performance and function of two systems in libraries and discussed their advantages and disadvantages. In 1957, LC initially intended to use Wade-Giles without much modification to romanize Chinese materials, though the numerical tonal marks were dropped. After several years of cataloging practice, however, it was evident that the system was problematic and needed revision. The Library of Congress was dissatisfied with Wade-Giles for the following reasons. First, it had phonetically redundant syllables. Second, it failed to render the Chinese national standard pronunciation. Finally, it wasn't able to show the semantic distinctions between multiple readings of single characters.

Since its first official promulgation in 1958, the Pinyin scheme has remained unchanged. It has succeeded in maintaining clarity, consistency and unified standard. Even though the media has dropped tonal marks and the umlaut, after 40 years' practice, Pinyin has proved to be a scientifically well-structured and reliable romanization scheme, which faithfully and exactly presents the Chinese phonemes and syllables. It is an accurate rendition of the standard Chinese pronunciation based on the Beijing dialect. The success of Pinyin is chiefly due to its well-designed structure. In comparison with Wade-Giles, the structural superiority of Pinyin is evident. It eliminates such symbols as the hyphen, breve and circumflex, and reduces the use of the umlaut and apostrophe to a minimum. Getting rid of these diacritics and symbols saves time, ensures better quality in printing, and offers an easier and more convenient way of learning the Chinese language.

About the advantages of Pinyin romanization system, Suping Lu also pointed out:

Pinyin's popularity rests on its status as the internationally acknowledged official standard for romanizing Chinese Language. Pinyin's popularity also shows itself in Chinese language teaching in an international arena. Pinyin's superiority for use in online retrieval systems accounts for a great deal of its popularity in library use.

The shift from Wade-Giles to Pinyin is doubtlessly a wise decision. Initially, it might be costly, and painstaking to the conversion, but it is beneficial in the long run.

Over 70 percent of participants preferred Pinyin to Wade-Giles. A higher familiarity with Pinyin was also revealed by the Pinyin vs. Wade-Giles tests. Joann S. Young¹¹ reported a study on library users' familiarity with and preference for the Pinyin and Wade-Gile systems. The results indicated the majority scored better in the Pinyin test and preferred Pinyin to Wade-Giles. Research findings support the Library of Congress proposal for a Pinyin switch.

In 1995, the Library of Congress reconsidered

Illinois Libraries, Fall 2000 253

switching the Chinese romanization system from Wade-Giles to Pinyin in cataloging Chinese language materials. Karen Smith-Yoshimura,¹² who is a program officer and CJK specialist of the Research Libraries Group Inc., replied to the Library of Congress Discussion Paper that discussed adopting the use of Pinyin. Karen Smith-Yoshimura stated:

Pinyin is the ISO standard for the transliteration of Chinese. In international arenas, the United States nonconformance to the ISO standard undermines our stated commitment to international standards. Pinyin is demonstrably superior to Wade-Giles for online retrieval, since Pinyin distinguishes by use of different letters rather than relying on diacritics and modifiers that are usually ignored by retrieval systems. "We are on the threshold of a new age of information exchange - between nations, between non-bibliographic workstation applications and bibliographic databases, and between utilities. The costs and efforts involved in switching to Pinyin are indeed daunting: there is no quick and cheap solution. But we believe that the transition to Pinyin is inevitable."¹³

Finally, the Library of Congress announced its decision to switch from the Wade-Giles romanization system to the Pinyin system in 1997. The new romanization guidelines will be announced soon and convert in this year.

Chinese people who are educated in Western countries use their surname last. There are many Chinese people who have non-Chinese given names. Joseph C. Lin made a comparison between AACR1 and AACR2, finding that each takes a different approach in dealing with Chinese names containing a non-Chinese given name. He mentioned that if one reviews the past cataloging code (other than AACR1), one could easily find that there are no hard-and-fast rules concerned with Chinese names containing a non-Chinese given name. Thus, there appears a need for a better delineated rule to eliminate anomalies like the one above. First, however, one must examine the various similarities between AACR1 and AACR2.

Names transliterated from non-standard Chinese, according to free-form transliteration schemes, can be very difficult to identify for the purposes of bibliographic control. Scott Edward Harrison¹⁴ discussed the nature of non-standard Chinese names in English and suggested cross-reference as a solution for non-standard Chinese names.

How do we distinguish and catalog Chinese personal names? Qianli Hu¹⁵ provided the easiest methods to distinguish and catalog Chinese personal names for American libraries, especially to those who know nothing about Chinese personal names. He briefly introduced how Chinese names are formed and examined different formats of Chinese personal names in the different countries and areas. Hu indicated that catalogers should remember almost all publications from mainland China put authors' last names first. For publications from Taiwan, Hong Kong or Singapore, try to be familiar with their formats and determine authors' last names first. Also, Qianli Hu made some suggestions and comments on Chinese personal names for AACR2.

Recently, James Anderson discussed Chinese in all its aspects, especially in view of AACR2.¹⁶ Both Ting and Anderson mentioned the romanization systems and the problems encountered in transliterating Chinese characters. Ting also observed that "more and more books are being written by Chinese authors in English and other Western languages," and concluded that "as a result, the problem of romanizing their names has grown more serious."¹⁷

Methodology

The transactional analysis (TA) method was conducted in this research to examine the problems in cataloging Chinese personal names in an online environment. As TA method is "the scientific study of the behavior of individuals or groups of individuals in the process of communication with other individuals or groups,"¹⁸ this new method was chosen as most useful and economical for the target population of this study. The population is Chinese personal authors' names listed in National Union Catalog. Two hundred Chinese authors' names were selected as data samples from volume 1 to volume 21 of the National Union Catalog, 1982. Based on analyzing the 200 Chinese authors' names, the data evaluation focused on exploring the problems in transliterating Chinese characters into Roman letters as well as the problems in processing Roman letters into online form when different systems of romanization are used. The study techniques had four distinguishing scopes according to Chinese personal names features.

First, it analyzed the Chinese name to determine if a surname is known. One of the difficulties in dealing with romanized Chinese names is identifying the author's surname. Some Chinese authors prefer the traditional order of their names, i.e., the last name first.

254 Illinois Libraries, Fall 2000

Others use the reverse form, i.e., the surname last.

Second, it examined what the percentage was of the names against the authority file. Third, it discussed how to deal with a name containing a non-Chinese given name. Fourth, it analyzed Chinese names romanized in different schemes.

Analysis of each Chinese name will be conducted to answer the four types of questions presented in Figure one.

The concept of TA was originally developed by Dr. Eric Berne, a California psychiatrist. In 1973, Charles Albano¹⁹ specifically used TA principles and theories to the job situation. James H. Morrison²⁰ has found TA to be the simplest tool for management. Later, W. Bernard Lukenbill conducted TA theory to library environment. "An understanding of TA principles can help the reference librarian spot communication problems as they arise between clients and other staff members and to neutralize the problems and select a suitable solution strategy."²¹

Figure one: CODING SHEETS

1. Analyze Chinese name to determine if surname is known.

_ can not determine surname.
_ can not determine given name.

2. Analyze if the name is against authority file.

_ used one name.
__used two names.
_ used more than two names.

3. Does the name contain a non-Chinese given name?

_ contain a non-Chinese given name.
_ contain a non-Chinese given name and Chinese given name.

4. Has author's name been romanized in different schemes?

_ Guoyew Romatzhy.
_ Wade-Giles.
_ Pinyin.

Analysis of Data

Taking into account these four fundamental difficulties of mastering the Chinese language mentioned above, I will discuss establishing personal authorship as the main or added entries in cataloging Chinese personal names.

7. Difficulty to determine if surname is known.

According to the DATA TABLE (See Table one), of the 200 Chinese names selected from the National Union Catalog (1982), there were 55(27.5%) names whose last names can't be determined and 30(15%) names whose first names can't be determined. One of the most significant differences between Western and Chinese names is the order of the last and first names. Generally speaking, the Chinese surname precedes a given name of one or two character(s). To avoid confusion, AACR2 Rule 22.4B2 requires that if the element of a person's name is a surname, a comma be placed after the surname to distinguish it from given names on the title page. Some Chinese authors prefer the traditional order of their names, i.e., the last name first. Others who are educated in the Western countries, some in the United States, use the reverse form, i.e., the surname last. However, when no comma is used, it becomes difficult for the cataloger to seek a correct access point for the catalog. A useful example is the case of Chang Hu.²² Because Chang and Hu are popular Chinese surnames, it becomes difficult if not impossible, to distinguish between the last and the first names. Similar examples occur in NUC: Chang Chen,²³ Hu Hua²⁴, etc. From the above examples it is evident that if LC's name authority file is not consulted, the choice of name entries can be a puzzle to catalogers and library users alike.

Sometimes a Chinese author may have a two-character compound surname but a single given name. When this occurs, the author's surname may be hyphenated; and if it is published in Chinese order of surname first, e.g., Ssu-ma Yu, the hyphenated surname may be misunderstood as a two character given name. In a more extreme case, a Chinese author may have a hyphenated two character surname followed by a hyphenated two-character given name, e.g., Tung-fang Ling-tzu. This may cause catalogers to spend a tremendous amount of time to distinguish and verify the last and first names if they are not familiar with the Chinese compound surnames.

2. Names against authority file. Once the main and added entries for a work have been determined, the cataloger must choose the names and forms of these entries. As mentioned before, a problem related mostly to order materials, especially to works written before the Republican period China, is the choice of name

Illinois Libraries, Fall 2000 255

Type of problems	Number of names	Percentage
Difficulty to determine if surname is known. 1. can't determine surname. 2. can't determine given name.	55 30	27.5 15.0
Names against authority file. 1. used one name. 2. used two names. 3. used more than two names.	8 12 5	4.0 6.0 2.5
Name containing a non-Chinese given name. 1. contain non-Chinese given names. 2. Non-Chinese given name + Chinese given name.	31 33	15.5 16.5
Names romanized in different scheme. 1. Guoyew Romatzhy. 2. Wade-Giles. 3. Pinyin.	7 11 8	3.5 5.5 4.0
Total	200	100.0

when the author is known by or has used several names. The various names of a typical author of pre-Republican China could include a "milk name," "school name," "courtesy name," "literary name," "studio name," "official name," "pen name," "posthumous name" and "temple name."

Table One: DATA TABLE

The following table lists the results for each question as reported in this study. The table is arranged in the order that the question appeared on the coding sheet.

As TABLE ONE shows, 25(12.5%) of 200 names selected from NUC are against authority file. Regarding the choice of names, AACR2 Rule 22.1 requires one to choose "the name by which he or she is commonly known." When a person has more than one names, rule 22.2A requires one to "choose the name by which the person is clearly most commonly known, if there is one." An examination of NUC reveals that the established heading for the famous Chinese poet of the Sung Dynasty, Ch'ing Kuan, does not conform to the above rules. It is well known among the Chinese that Ch'ing Kuan is more commonly known and revered by the use of his literary name than one of his pseudonyms, Ch'ing Shao-yu. If using AACR2 Rule 22.2C2, one should establish a person's dominant pseudonym as the main entry.

A similar dilemma occurs in the choice of name for Ou-yang Hsiu, who is more commonly known among the Chinese as Ou-yang Yung-shu. LC now accepts the better-known Mark Twain as the main entry for Samuel Langhorne Clemens, the famous American author who wrote under the Twain pseudonym after 1863.²⁵ However, it does not apply the same rule to the Chinese scholars, such as the case of Ch'ing Shao-yu and Ou-yang Yung-shu. It seems that NUC's choices are based on the fact that the name is clearly most commonly known by Westerners instead of being the majority preference of the Chinese. Even though LC's name authority file has solved some difficult name authority problems for Eastern authors, more needs to be done for non-Western authors.

3. Names containing a non-Chinese given name. There are quite a number of Chinese people with non-Chinese given names. Rule 59 in AACRl was clearly codified using a completely different philosophy. It requires catalogers to establish the heading of a Chinese name under the surname, followed by a comma and non-Chinese given name, if there is one, preceding the Chinese given name(s), without exception. In other words, the order of the given names must be rearranged if the Chinese given name(s) is found preceding the non-Chinese given name on the title page or in reference sources. Also, rule 59 provides examples of possible cross-reference to increase accessibility. This is useful for both those who create the file and those who use it.

The title page of a thesis entitled An evaluation of the quality of Chinese-language records in the OCLC OLUC database and a study of a rule-based data validation system for online Chinese cataloging is shown in NUC. A main entry for the author Lei Zeng, who

256 Illinois Libraries, Fall 2000

also was one of the editors named Marcia Lei Zengin the article "Serving Multicultural Population in the 21st Century" The example above shows that the Chinese name containing a non-Chinese given name is now difficult to identify. Similar confusing examples occur in NUC: Hu S. David, Hsiu-Wen Fancis Chang and Loh philip Fook Seng, etc.

4. Names romanized in different schemes. Table One shows seven (3.5%) names used Guoyew Romatzhy scheme, 11 (5.5%) names used Wade-Giles and eight (4%) names used Pinyin scheme. The practical result of the rules for choosing the form of personal author names is that authors with identical Chinese surnames will be scattered under various romanized forms of these names. For example, Chinese persons with the surname Chang have been known to romanize their surname in the following ways: Zhang, Cheung, Chong, Chung, Djang, Jeong, Jung, Tchang and Tsang.²⁶ This diversity is in large part due to attempts by Chinese authors to reflect the pronunciation of their names in their own dialects and cataloger romanized Chinese names in different schemes.

The multiplicity of dialects spoken by the Chinese in different regions caused different romanized forms of names. Prior to 1949, the government of the Republic of China established a national spoken language called "Kuo-yu," later known as Mandarin, based on the dialect spoken in Peking. Since then. Mandarin has become the most popular spoken dialect in mainland China and Taiwan. However, Cantonese and Fukienese are two popular dialects in the southern part of China. People from these southern regions were the first to emigrate to Southeast Asia and North American. Eventually, these overseas Chinese transliterated their Chinese names in English according to the sound of their individual dialect. The same Chinese family name can be romanized in different ways based on the dominant dialects spoken in different regions, for instance, Mandarin in China and Taiwan, Cantonese in Hong Kong, Fukienese in Malaysia and Singapore, catalogers experience difficult in distinguishing who's who in Chinese. This could easily lead to the possibility that several different authors are represented by one romanized name. This kind of ambiguity is chiefly caused by the multiplicity of dialects spoken in various Chinese communities.

The romanization scheme chosen by most libraries for converting Chinese language entries into alphabetic letter is the Wade-Giles romanization. This system was developed in the 1850s by Sir Thomas Francis Wade, a British military and diplomatic officer who spent much of his career in China. His system was later modified by Herbert Allen Giles, who used it in his landmark Chinese-English dictionary²⁷ and it has since been commonly called the Wade-Giles system. Perhaps because of its relatively early development, it has received broad acceptance in the English- and German-speaking areas of the world to a far greater extent than any other system.

The form of the Wade-Giles romanization now used by the Library of Congress and other North American-East Asian libraries has been modified since publication of the Giles' dictionary, mainly because of changing pronunciation patterns in the Peking dialect upon which it is based. Pronunciation of characters, of course, is crucial because romanization is based entirely on the pronunciation rather than the shape of the characters.

Other prominent romanization schemes, such as the national romanization or Gwoyeu Romatzyh and Yale romanization make, little or no use of diacritical marks. On the other hand, Chinese on mainland China employ Pinyin exclusively as the official romanization system. Since the 1970s, Western newspapers and journals began using the Pinyin system, e.g.. New York Times in 1979, and readers began to see "Mao Zedong" and "Deng Xiaoping"²⁸ rather than Mao Tse-tung²⁹ and Teng Hsiao-ping.³⁰ The British Library began using Pinyin for bibliographic control of its Chinese collection. Other institutions, including most European libraries and all U.S. federal agencies, except the Library of Congress, followed suit.³¹ Because of this widespread trend, the LC announced its decision to tentatively adopt the Pinyin system for cataloging of Chinese publications on June 29, 1979.³² The decision was immediately dropped a year later after opposition from major university libraries in the U.S.³³ These institutions were reluctant to make the effort and bear the financial cost for such an endeavor, especially because they were not sure that Pinyin was a superior system. AACR2 Rules 22.1 A and 22.1B suggest that the basis of the name heading be determined by the most commonly known name from the chief sources of information. It is known that for more than four decades, mainland China has printed the Pinyin form of an author's name in publications. In this case, catalogers following AACR2 Rule 22.3 strictly should adopt the Pinyin form of name as the main heading, but following the established practice obviates that choice.

Illinois Libraries, Fall 2000 257

Based on my experience, I prefer Pinyin to Wade-Giles. One strong advocate for Pinyin is that by using diacritical marks, Wade-Giles has less machine-readable units than Pinyin and, therefore, has less access points. For instance, Pinyin romanization use the consonant pairs "B" and "P," "Ch" and "J," "D" and "T," and "G" and "K" to represent sounds that approximate the sounds they represent in English. The Wade-Giles romanization uses identical letters for each of these consonant pairs, adding an aspirate mark to one of each pair to distinguish them : "P" and "P'," "Ch"' and "Ch," "T" and "T'," and "K" and "K'." Similarly, manner, Wade-Giles uses the letter combinations "Ts" and "Ts"' where Pinyin uses "Zi" and "Ci." The Peking dialect, on which all these romanization systems are based, has only 407 distinct syllables. Of these 407 syllables, Wade-Giles distinguishes 109 by means of diacritical marks. If these marks are ignored for filing purposes, as American Library Association and Library of Congress filing rules recommend, the number of distinct syllables provided by Wade-Giles is reduced more than 25 percent, to less than 300. Because diacritical marks are ignored in online processing, Wade-Giles has 25 percent less access points than that by Pinyin.

I believe that the main reasons why the Library of Congress finally made the decision to switch from Wade-Giles to Pinyin is that the Pinyin system is now generally recognized as the standard throughout the world. Most users of American libraries today are familiar with Pinyin. The use of Pinyin by libraries also will facilitate the exchange of data with foreign libraries. Because one-fifth of the world's population have used Pinyin, we should use Pinyin.

SOLUTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

A perfect solution to the many problems in entering Chinese names in American libraries will require the combined efforts of many experts. Such problems are certainly not negligible, because many of them also exist in the entry of names in other languages, such as Japanese and Korean, which do not use a Latin alphabet. I hope that more studies of this nature may finally bring about a solution satisfactory to all concerned. In conclusion:

1. Standardize romanized last and first names. If authors would reach a consensusin using only one romanization scheme and in presenting the order of their last and first names, readers and catalogers would be well served.

2. Provide vernacular data to authority file for giving more access points to Chinese name. Authority control is a series of intellectual decision-making processes aimed at "maintaining consistency in headings in a bibliographic file through reference to an authority file"³⁴ With the availability of the bibliographic utilities, such as OCLC, RLIN and WIN, vernacular data in Chinese bibliographic records and resources can now be shared. Unfortunately, LC's name authority file used by OCLC's participating member libraries does not provide the vernacular data to Chinese names. It is difficult to identify who's who in the authority file because Chinese is not a Roman alphabet language. There are four tones in each transliterated Roman form. Each tone also represents many Chinese characters. Therefore, name authority file should provide vernacular data.

3. Establish international union catalog database.

Based on NUC, LC could serve as a coordinator for other Asian countries and areas like China, Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan and Hong Kong. With the rapid technological advances in computers and telecommunication networks, a transinternational effort may become feasible to work toward a universal catalog.

With the increasing availability of Chinese language materials in North American libraries, the growing influence of the Pinyin romanization system, and the growing number of Chinese students in North America, there arises the need to revise the contemporary cataloging practice. It is time for LC and librarians to give more serious thought and take subsequent actions to establish standards in cataloging Chinese language materials so that improved retrieval service could be available in the near future.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, North American Text (Chicago: American Library Association, 1967).

Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, North American Text (Chicago: American Library Association, 1978).

Arlene G. Taylor, "Authority Files in Online Catalogs: An Investigation of their Value," Cataloging and Classification Quarterly 4, no. 3 (Spring 1984): 1-17.

Committee on East Asian Libraries Bulletin, 90, p.56-62.

Charles Albano, Transactional Analysis on the Job. AMACOM, New York, 1974.

258 Illinois Libraries, Fall 2000

David Y. Hu, "OCLC and Its CJK Software, "Journal of Educational Media & Library Science 23, no.1 (Autumn 1985): 63-75.

Hanyu Tao and Charles Cole. "Wade-Gile or Hanyu Pinyin: Practical Issue in the Transliteration of Chinese Title and Proper Names," Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 12, no.2 (1990): 105-124.

Herbert Allen Giles, A Chinese-English Dictionary, 2d ed. rev. and enl. (Shanghai: Kelly and Walsh. 1912).

Hu, Problems of Cataloging Chinese Books.

James Anderson, "Cataloging and Classification of Chinese Language Library Material," Cataloging and Classification of Non-Western Material: Concerns, Issues, and Practice Edited by Mohammed M. Aman (Phoenix, Ariz.: Oryx Press, 1980): 93-129.

James D. Anderson, "The Arrangement of Chinese Language Author Title Catalogs," Library Quarterly 44, no.1 (April, 1992): 42-59.

James D. Anderson, "A Comparative Study of Methods of Arranging Chinese Language Author-Title Catalogs in Large American Chinese Language Collections" (D.L.S. diss., Columbia University, School of Library Service, 1972), pp. 133-34.

James H. Morrison, Practice Transactional Analysis in Management by Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. 1977.

Joann S. Young, "Chinese Romanization Change: A Study on User Preference", Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, Vol. 15(2) 1992, P. 15-29.

L. Wieger, Chinese Characters: Their Origin, Etymology, history, Classification and Signification. A Thorough Study from Chinese Documents (New York: Paragon Book Report & Dover. Pub., 1965.)

Lee-Hsia Hsu Ting, "Problems of Cataloging Chinese Author Title Entries in American Libraries," Library Quarterly 36, no.1 (Jan., 1966): 1-13.

"Library Considering Pinyin Romanization," Library of Congress Information Bulletin 38 (June 1979): 239-240.

Marry Piggot, A Topography of Cataloging: Showing the Most Important Landmarks, Communications and Perilous Places (London: Library Association, 1988), p.11.

National Union Catalog, 1982 Patrick H Kellough, "Name Authority Work and Problem solving: The Value of the LC Name Authority File," Technicalities 8, no 6 (June 1988): 3-5.

Qianli Hu, "How to Distinguish and Catalog Chinese Personal Names", Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, Vol. 19(1) 1994. P.29-47.

Ray Prytherch, Harrod's Librarian's Glossary, 7th ed., (Gower Publishing Company 1990)

Scott Edward Harrison, "Chinese Names IN English", Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, Vol. 15(2) 1992, P.3-14.

Shuk-fong Lau and Vicky Wang, "Chinese Personal Names and Titles: Problems in Cataloging and Retrieval", Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 13, no. 2 (1991): 45-65.

Suping Lu, "A Study on the Chinese Romanization Standard in Libraries", Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, Vol.21(1) 1995, P.81-95.

The Annual Report of the Library of Congress for the Fiscal Year Ending. June 30, 1958 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Library of Congress, 1959): 4-5.

W. Bernard Lukenbill, "The OK Reference Department -Using Transactional Analysis in Evaluation Organizational Climates." RQ 15, no. 1 (Summer, 1976): 317-322.

Warrent Tsuncishi, "Current status of East Asian collection in the North America." Journal of library and information science 13, no.2 (1987): 199-209.

William E. Studwell, Hong WU and Rui Wang, "A Tale of Two Decades: The Controversy over the Choice of A Chinese Language Romanization System in American Cataloging Practice," Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 18, no.l (1993): 117-124.

Notes

1 Warrent Tsuncishi. "Current Status of East Asian Collections in the North America". Journal of Library and Information Science 13, no.2 (1987): 199-209.

2 The Annual Report of the Library of Congress for the Fiscal Year Ending. June 30. 1958 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Library of Congress, 1959), 4-5.

3 Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, North American text (Chicago: American Library Association, 1967).

4 Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd ed. (Chicago: American Library Association, 1978).

Illinois Libraries, Fall 2000 259

5 L. Wieger, Chinese Characters: Their Origin, Etymology, History, Classification and Signification. A Thorough Study from Chinese Documents (New York: paragon Book Reprint & Dover Pub., 1965).

6 Lee-Hsia Hsu Ting, " Problems of Cataloging Chinese Author and Title Entries in American Libraries," Library Quarterly 36, no. 1, (Jan. 1966): 1-13.

7 James D. Anderson, "The Arrangement of Chinese-Language Author-Title Catalogs", Library Quarterly. 44. no.l. (April, 1972): 42-59.

8 William E. Studwell, Rui Wang, Hong Wu, "A Tale of Two Decades: The Controversy over the Choice of a Chinese Language Romanization System in American Cataloging Practice." Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 18, no. 1. (1993): 117-125.

9 Hanyu Tao and Charles Cole, "Wade-Gile or Hanyu Pinyin: Practical Issues in the Transliteration of Chinese Title and Proper Names," Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 72,no.2 (1990): 105-124.

10 Suping Lu, "A study on the Chinese Romanization Standard in Libraries", Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, Vol.21(l) 1995, p.81-96.

11 "Chinese Romanization Change: A Study on User Preference", Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, Vol. 15(2) 1992, p. 15-29.

12 "RLG Response to LC's Discussion Paper on Pinyin", Committee on East Asian Library Bulletin 90, pp.56-62.

13 CEAL Bulletin 90, pp.41

14 "Chinese Names in English", Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, Vol. 15(2) 1992, p.3 14.

15 Qianli Hu, "How to Distinguish and Catalog Chinese Personal Names," Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, Vol. 19(1) 1994, p.29-60.

16 James Anderson, "Cataloging and Classification of Chinese Language Library Materials," in Cataloging and Classification of Non-Western Material: Concerns, Issues and Practice edited by Mohammed M. Aman (phoenix, Ariz.: Oryx Press, 1980): 93-129.

17 Lee-Hsia Hsu Ting, "Problems of Cataloging Chinese Author and Title Entries in American Libraries", Library Quarterly 36, no.l (Jan., 1966): 1-3.

18 Ray Prytherch, Harrod's Librarian's Glossary, 7th ed., Gower Publishing Company, 1990.

19 Charles Albano, Transactional Analysis on the job. AMACOM, New York, 1974.

20 James H. Morrison, Practice Transactional Analysis in management by Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. 1977.

21 W. Bernard Lukenbill, "The OK Reference Department-Using Transactional Analysis in Evaluation Organizational Climates." RQ 15, no.4 (Summer, 1976): 317-322.

22 National Union Catalog. 1982, v 3, p.305.

23 National Union Catalog. 1982, v 3, p.297.

24 National Union Catalog. 1982, v 9, p.382.

25 Patrick H. Kellough, "Name Authority Work and Problem Solving: The Value of the LC Name Authority File," Technicalities 8, no.6 (June 1988): 3-5.

26 Lee-hsia Hsu Ting, "Problems of Entry on Chinese Names and Titles in American Libraries" (M.L.S. thesis, University of Texas, 1964), p.20. This thesis was summarized in "Problems of Cataloging Chinese Author and Title Entries in American Libraries," Library Quarterly 36 (January 1966): 1-13.

27 Herbert Allen Giles, A Chinese-English Dictionary, 2d. rev. and enl. (Shanghai: Kelly and Walsh. 1912).

28 "Times Revise Style of Chinese Spelling," New York Times, Sunday, 4 March 1979, p.10:1.

29 National Union Catalog, 1982, v.14, p.540-541.

30 National Union Catalog, 1982, v.19, p.574.

31 Library of Congress, Collection services. "Pinyin: Possible Approaches for Cataloging and Automation," Committee on East Asian Libraries Bulletin 90: 56-62 (June 1990): 1.

32 Library of Congress Information Bulletin no.28 (June 29, 1979): 239-240. and no.39 (May 2, 1980): 140.

33 "Controversy Arises on Chinese Spelling," New York Times, Sunday, 30 Sept. 1979, p.5:1.

34 Arlene G. Taylor, "Authority Files in Online Catalogs: An Investigation of Their Value," Cataloging and Classification Quarterly 4, no 3 (Spring 1984) : 1-17.

260 Illinois Libraries, Fall 2000