Page 90 - DLIS103_LIBRARY_CLASSIFICATION_AND_CATALOGUING_THEORY

Unit 13: Subject Cataloguing

used by Minnie E. Sears, so that all see also and refer from references are listed with the headings Notes
to which they are related. Thus the list has become easier to use as an aid in subject cataloguing.
Moreover, its monthly and cumulated lists of changes and revisions represent a highly-developed
expert technique for acquainting using libraries promptly, and on a current basis, with modifications
made by L.C. Haykin has announced that the sixth edition will be a thoroughly revised and
pruned list calculated to eliminate a maximum number of obsolete terms and to correct
inconsistencies which have crept in through the years.
The Sears list, originally designed for use in small libraries, has enlarged its scope so that it now
comes nearer to meeting the requirements of medium-sized libraries. Though it lacks an effective
method for being kept up to date, completely new editions have been published with relative
frequency. Except for its use of less specific terminology and fewer subdivisions, the Sears list
resembles the L.C. compilation in conception and in major detail, so that shifting from the use of
one to the other is not a particularly burdensome change. Neither list is wholly satisfactory,
however-L.C. because it is too comprehensive, and Sears because it seems not to be comprehensive
enough. Jennette Hitchcock and Edith Scott have both spoken to this point; and Miss Scott, in
particular, has suggested the need to develop a new subject heading list less comprehensive than
L.C., but still more detailed than Sears, for use in college libraries. In spite of the criticisms of these
lists, both have come to be widely accepted as standard. Both have grown in size. Since 1944, for
example, nearly 14,000 new subject headings have been added to the L.C. compilation, while only
1,100 have been canceled and changed. Undoubtedly the alterations represent an attempt to keep
the L.C. subject list as specific and up to date as possible. An earlier study by the present writer
demonstrates that the changes in question also increase the specificity of L.C. subject headings.
This finding is in keeping with Margaret Egan's observation that one trend in subject analysis has
been a shift in emphasis from abstract to concrete and highly specific terminology. The question
that particularity looms large in most discussions of subject cataloguing, for while the principle of
specific entry has been widely accepted, the auxiliary problem of how specific is specific is still not
solved. Haykin has observed that the question is not one to which an absolute answer can be
given, since the need will vary from subject field to subject field and from library to library.
Apparently in some circles, however, there is feeling that we have allowed headings to develop
which are too distinctive for greatest utility. Focusing interest upon the principle of specific entry
has raised other questions about the form of subject headings represented in the general lists.
Haykin has pointed out that if this principle is accepted, headings must be direct as well as specific
in order to keep practices consistent. Not only do direct-specific headings imply a minimum of
inversion and subordination, but they also avoid the pitfalls of alphabetic classed subject headings
which found their way into the first edition of the L.C. subject heading list because, according to
J. C. M. Hanon, L.C. cataloguers assumed that such headings reflected the typical approach of
readers. There is no universal agreement on the need for direct and specific entry, however. Marie
L. Prevost has suggested that wide adoption of a form of heading putting the prominent noun first
would produce subject headings which could be explained more easily, and which would require
fewer and less complicated cross references. Though this approach would lead to a prevalence of
alpha-betico-classed headings, it is not clear whether the user would find them easier to handle.
The evidence from studies of use points to widespread failure to comprehend the principle of
specific entry, at the same time that it suggests preference on the part of users for it. While further
studies of the question are essential to understanding of the problem, it may be that no clear-cut
pattern can be identified, and that the makers of future lists can adopt an arbitrary but consistent
scheme of subject heading forms which users will be expected to master, even as they now have to
adapt their personal preferences to conventions in many human relationships.

Other questions regarding the form of subject entries have been raised from time to time and are
still under discussion. The perennial problem of deciding when to subordinate place to topic, and

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 85