Parallel Language Elements (1.7.7)

3 August 2015

Parallel Language Elements (1.7.7)


Submitted by Bill Leonard, Canadian Committee on Cataloguing Representative

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Parallel Language Elements (1.7.7)

  1. Tina Shrader says:

    I think this codifies common sense practice, and clarifies the instruction as intended.

  2. Elizabeth Shoemaker says:

    I agree with Tina’s comment.

  3. Kathy Glennan says:

    This proposal raises some interesting questions for me about what it means to “transcribe” something, and the purpose for doing so.

    In the examples CCC provided, I think it’s pretty clear what we want for *access* (at least for the titles), but it’s less obvious about what is needed for representation. RDA, 1st paragraph says: “The data describing a resource should reflect the resource’s representation of itself.” (The remainder of that instruction includes 2 paragraphs about preferred names and titles, and one paragraph about variant titles, so I think that’s all about access.)

    I should note two things:
    1) The AACR2 equivalent rule (1.1B5) was about “a letter or word” [i.e., not plural in either case], and it only applied to titles.
    2) The original draft of RDA Part I lacked this instruction entirely, although ALA and ACOC lobbied for its reinstatement (and that obviously occurred).

    The proposal seems to me to be backwards-looking, especially in the context of 6JSC/BL rep/1 (2014) and 6JSC/BL rep/2 (2015) about moving toward more literal transcription of publication, distribution and manufacture statements. [Note: I haven’t read BL rep/2 in any detail yet, so apologies if I’ve leapt to a conclusion.]

    What would it mean if in the long run an image of a title page would suffice for “transcription”? Is it still worthwhile to create an exception for transcription such as what’s in 1.7.7 (either currently or with the proposed revision)?

  4. Robert Bratton says:

    This proposal seeks to expand an existing instruction about the challenges of transcribing when publishers get “creative.” The proposal makes sense to me.

    If you attempted to literally transcribe the title proper of the second example, you’d end up with gibberish: “5code ans du Travail” or “Ans 5code du Travail.” I don’t see how gibberish like that helps users.

    We are a long way off from relying on images of the resource itself to replace transcription.

  5. Robert L. Maxwell says:

    The 50 ans = code du travail example is not an example of a letter, numeral, or word intended to be read more than once. It is an example of a symbol intended to be read as two *different* symbols (the letter C and the numeral 0). The proposed revision does not take account of this situation, even though it is apparently one of the reasons for the revision proposal.

    • John Myers says:

      I concur with Bob’s observation. And as Larisa mentions below, this 50 ans example is likewise not a case of parallel entry in a different language. It is merely an example of the publisher being creative with typography and layout. I seem to recall a rule somewhere else (in AACR2?) that dealt with this — the example was something like a three word title, with all three words starting with the same letter, but there was only one instance of the initial letter on the title page — large, like an illustrated initial in an illuminated manuscript, with the rest of the word remnants stacked beside it.

  6. Kathy Glennan says:

    If this proposal moves forward, additional examples will be needed in RDA to show the application of the revised 1.7.7 beyond just titles. I offer the following example, transcribed literally here (this is typical of scores published by Henle):

    Johannes Brahms
    Klavierkonzert Nr. 2
    B-dur Opus 83

    Piano Concerto no. 2 in B♭ major
    op. 83 * Piano Reduction

    Herausgegeben von / Edited by
    Johannes Behr

    Klavierauszug von / Piano reduction by
    Johannes Umbreit

    Fingersatz von / Fingering by
    Lars Vogt

    G. Henle Verlag

    [Henle logo]

    • Kathy Glennan says:

      It is unclear to me how RDA (either as is or with the proposed revision) meshes with ISBD — specifically the following: When it is not possible to give an appropriate statement of responsibility after each title or other title information, the statements of responsibility, if given, are given together following the last parallel title or parallel other title information.
      Printing at Gregynog : aspects of a great private press = Argraffu yng Ngregynog : agweddau ar wasg breifat fawr / Michael Hutchins ; translated by David Jenkins = y cyfieithiad gan David Jenkins
      8 capriccios : hegedüre, második hegedii kiséretével = für Violine, mit Begleitung der zweiten Violine / Henryk Wieniawski ; átnézte és ujjrenddel allátta = revidiert und mit Fingersatz versehen von Jenö Hubay

      (Yes, I realize that this situation might be addressed by the Alternative at RDA 1.7.1, but I find it interesting that ISBD doesn’t call for repeating the 1st name in the statement of responsibility in either of these examples.)

      • John Myers says:

        I’m not certain the proposal intends to deal with this situation, or that it intends to deal with this situation in the manner that Kathy implies. It does not seem necessary to interpret that the publisher in these cases intended for the name(s) to be repeated, so as to construct completely parallel statements of Title and Statement of responsibility. (Who knows what goes on in the minds of publishers? The Shadow knows!) On the other hand, this may be the outcome if carried to its logical conclusion (and may already be the outcome of the rule as written, but for our blind spot of following ISBD practice and the blinders imposed by the example).

    • Tracey L. Snyder says:

      I said essentially this to Kathy: It seems to me that although the proposed clarification would help and the CCC proposed example is useful, we still need more varied examples to address the SORs in parallel languages (where the person’s name should probably be recorded as part of both SORs, for the sake of each SOR transcription being a standalone element, even if the person’s name just appears once). This would be a change from past practice, so, just because the proposed revised wording would open this up more to phrases than before doesn’t mean people will easily make that leap by reading it. I like Kathy’s supplied example. We see this all the time on scores.

      • Kathy Glennan says:

        Speaking as a music cataloger, this broadening will cause troubles in determining whether or not an OCLC record is a match to the score I have in hand.

        Today’s example, transcribed in order (without diacritics):


        for piano

        fur Klavier

        Op. 9/b

        [publisher info. follows]

        Applying the CCC proposal in this case, I guess I would record “op. 9/b” twice, since it is intended to be read more than once. However, it is sometimes subtleties such as these that I have relied upon *for decades* to help determine if I have a new manifestation or not.

  7. Matthew Haugen says:

    RBMS commenters have overall supported this proposal, even in light of rare-materials concerns about representation and access.

    Perhaps the instruction can include something like: “Make a note explaining the repeated letters, numerals, or words if considered important for identification or access (see 2.17)”

    We note that such typographical innovations occur outside the context of parallel language elements/statements, too, as in the example at this link, in which the word “Chez” is intended to be read twice.

    • Larisa Walsh says:

      I think the proposal makes sense. I have one comment: Since this situation can also occur in titles in the same language, and not just in parallel languages, the title for the proposal needs to be changed to reflect that. Also examples to illustrate that would be good.
      Example for 50 ans code du travail is a good one, but I agree with Robert Maxwell that it is not a good fit for this particular instruction.

  8. John Myers says:

    I don’t have any objections to the proposal, on its face. But I share the concerns expressed above (and on which I have made further comments).

  9. Peter Fletcher says:

    regarding Bob’s comment, the 50 ans/Code example is an example of a numeral/word /letter meant to be read twice, but in different ways. So, I think it fits the general rule. Perhaps the rule needs to be reworded: something like “meant to be read more than once or meant to be interpreted in more than one way”, or something like that. Also, this rule is not necessarily only about parallel language statements. CCC has given this proposal the subject “parallel language elements”, but the rule is titled “Letters or Words Intended to Be Read More Than Once”. obviously “parallel language elements” comes up frequently with Canadian publication.

  10. Elizabeth O'Keefe says:

    The suggested revisions to the rules made sense, as did Matthew Haugen’s suggestion, “Perhaps the instruction can include something like: ‘Make a note explaining the repeated letters, numerals, or words if considered important for identification or access (see 2.17)'”

  11. Mary Anne Dyer says:

    I agree the title of this proposal should be changed to reflect all situations, and not just parallel languages, as mentioned by Larisa and others.

    I also like Matthew’s idea above, of including an instruction to “Make a note explaining the repeated letters, numerals, or words if considered important for identification or access (see 2.17)”

  12. Lori Robare says:

    From Kevin Randall:

    As someone who was quite vocal in supporting the reinstatement of the current guideline (vs. having no provision at all), I am in strong favor of this proposal. In regard to images vs. textual transcription as bibliographic surrogates, these function in very different ways and neither can fully replace the other. We will always have need to deal with transcription of bibliographic data.

Leave a Reply