Is that really how you’d say that?
A Comparison of the Treatment of the Subject of Aboriginal Literacy in Canada in the Canadian Literacy Thesaurus and
Library of Congress Subject Headings
Kelly Sirett
ISI 5121 Subject Analysis of Information
Wednesday March 17, 2013
Professor Pam Armstrong
Sirett_5121 Page 2 of 14
ABSTRACT
Subject classification and analysis is what allows for that serendipitous moment of
finding an excellent book one shelf lower than the one you were looking for. Indexing
languages not only ensure consistency in the treatment of subject analysis, but also address the
treatment of synonyms and homonyms, create links between terms by indicating relationships,
and provide clarity through the use of scope notes and definitions. Through a comparison of
the treatment of the subject of Aboriginal peoples and literacy in Canada (Aboriginal literacy in
Canada) in the Library of Congress Subject Headings and the Canadian Literacy Thesaurus, this
essay seeks to evaluate the not only the strengths and weaknesses of these indexing languages,
but also illustrate the problematic treatment of the subject.
Sirett_5121 Page 3 of 14
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Overview of Library of Congress Subject Headings ........................................................................ 4
Overview of Canadian Literacy Thesaurus ...................................................................................... 5
Comparison ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Organizing Structure .................................................................................................................... 6
Entry Vocabulary .......................................................................................................................... 7
Preferred Terms ............................................................................................................................ 8
Hierarchical and Associative Relationships .................................................................................. 9
Granularity ................................................................................................................................. 10
Clarity ......................................................................................................................................... 10
Consistency ................................................................................................................................. 11
Currency ...................................................................................................................................... 12
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 12
Reference List ................................................................................................................................ 14
Sirett_5121 Page 4 of 14
INTRODUCTION
The use of subject analysis to classify resources according to subjects is certainly one of
the greatest accomplishments in field of librarianship. Subject classification provides
information seekers with a quick and effective way to find resources that would have otherwise
been hidden behind the titles of the work and the names of the author or publisher. Subject
classification is what allows for that serendipitous moment of finding an excellent book one
shelf lower than the one you were looking for, from a query performed in the library catalogue.
The development of indexing languages to ensure consistency in the treatment of
subject analysis has advanced this field even further. However, it is important to note that each
indexing language functions differently. In order to understand how indexing languages
function, I will compare the coverage and treatment of one subject area, specifically examining
the organizing structure, entry vocabulary, preferred terms, hierarchical and associative
relationships, granularity, clarity, consistency, and currency of two indexing languages—the
Canadian Literacy Thesaurus (CLT) and the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH).
Throughout this comparison, I will assess the strengths and shortcomings of these two indexing
languages in terms of their treatment of the subject area. Finally, in conclusion, I will offer
recommendations for how these systems could ameliorate any deficiencies, by harnessing their
own strengths and the opportunities possible in a collaborative, web environment.
OVERVIEW OF LIBRARY OF CONGRESS SUBJECT HEADINGS
The LCSH thesaurus has been extensively adopted by libraries internationally and has
served libraries and their patrons for well over the past century; making it “the most widely
Sirett_5121 Page 5 of 14
used indexing vocabulary in the world” (Chan, 2005, p. 416). The strengths of LCSH lie not only
in its widespread international adoption, its well-documented history and its support from the
Library of Congress, but also in its highly-established controlled vocabulary that covers all
subject areas, an emphasis on the user and usage, homograph and synonym control, and links
between terms (Chan, 2001; Chan, 2005). Even as we move to a digital environment, it is clear
to see that the strengths and value of LCSH are transferable to a new information retrieval
setting.
OVERVIEW OF CANADIAN LITERACY THESAURUS
The CLT, now in its third edition, is “a bilingual list of standardized vocabulary in the area
of adult literacy” (Canadian Literacy Thesaurus, n.d.-a). First published in 1992 by the Canadian
Literacy Thesaurus Coalition and in consultation with the national literacy community, the CLT
now contains 2097 terms in English and 2201 terms in French and is published exclusively online
(Canadian Literacy Thesaurus, n.d.-b). The CLT was created to provide information about topics
and terminology relating to the field of literacy in Canada and to offer a regional representation
of the country’s current practices and topics. Finally, the CLT aims to describe literacy both in
the context of its application and as a field of knowledge; “the areas covered include: literacy
assessment, literacy instruction and tutoring, literacy programming, literacy research, literacy
theory, and educational technology (Canadian Literacy Thesaurus, n.d.-b).
COMPARISON
I have chosen to evaluate the treatment of the subject of Aboriginal peoples and literacy
in Canada, Aboriginal literacy in Canada, between the two indexing languages. This choice is
Sirett_5121 Page 6 of 14
based in part because of my passion for literacy and interest in how classification systems and
thesauri represent Aboriginal peoples, but also in response to a study administered and
published in 2011 by Deborah Lee, Indigenous Studies Portal Librarian and Team Leader at the
Murray Library at the University of Saskatchewan. Lee’s study, in part, sought to collect,
evaluate and examine individual’s outlooks on the “inaccuracy or inappropriateness of Library of
Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) to describe Aboriginal-related materials in a Canadian
context” (Lee, 2011, p. 2). Although, syntax in LCSH is hardly a new debate in the world of
Canadian subject classification, the results of Lee’s study certainly offer new insights on this
problem and the shortcomings of traditional subject classification more broadly—all of which
can offer information professionals further comprehension on how to best support and meet
the user’s needs.
Organizing Structure
LCSH is structured first by the main heading, which represents what the contents of the
resource or the form it takes; there are four general main heading categories: topical, form,
genre, and names (Chan, 2005). Main headings can then be subdivided, which narrows the
scope of the subject; subdivisions can be applied in four ways: topical, geographic,
chronological, and form (Chan, 2005). Furthermore, subdivisions may then be subdivided, but it
is worth mentioning that the order of the subdivisions greatly affects the meaning of the
heading. It is also important to note that, although this structure allows for more precise
applications of subject headings, it can be very difficult for users to fully comprehend the
subtleties of the structure, which can lead to problems in its application.
Sirett_5121 Page 7 of 14
Unlike LCSH, the CLT is structured only by main headings and does not allow for
subdivisions. According its website, CLT does not cover “proper names such as geographic
names, names of specific organizations, ethnic groups, etc.” as its emphasis is focussed on terms
related to literacy in Canada (Canadian Literacy Thesaurus, n.d.-b).
Given the distinction between the structures of these two indexing languages, the
treatment of the subject of Aboriginal literacy in Canada was certainly represented differently.
In CLT, there is a heading for Aboriginal literacy, which is defined as “literacy programs designed
for and offered to aboriginal peoples” (Canadian Literacy Thesaurus, n.d.-c). Although it is not
possible to narrow this topic more specifically, this heading offers a substantive treatment of
the subject. In LCSH, looking for a term related to aboriginal literacy requires a different
process. First, because this indexing language is broader in its scope, I began by finding a
subject heading that relates to literacy (Literacy), then added a subdivision to represent
aboriginal peoples. When I browsed for the heading for Aboriginal peoples, I found a note to
use Indigenous peoples, where I then found a subdivision for Indigenous peoples—Canada, and
a note that the narrower term for this subject is Indians of North America—Canada. This
subdivision would then be added to main subject heading of Literacy.
Entry Vocabulary
When LCSH was first created, its main purpose was to classify the Library of Congress
collection; later, it developed into an indexing language used the world over to help classify the
resources found within other library collections (Chan, 2005). At that time, library collections
were accessed through manual catalogues, where the entry point was of great importance.
Although it was possible to associate relationships between subjects by listing them in the
Sirett_5121 Page 8 of 14
description, libraries were limited by the physical space of cards and card catalogues. With the
advancements of technology and the move to a digital format, libraries are no longer limited by
physical space, can link more easily between subjects, and can show relationships between
terms—all of which make determining the optimal entry point less critical.
Although both LCSH and CLT allow users to search for terms using keywords, they display
the terms in alphabetical order according to the first word in the term. This gives a significant
amount of importance to the entry point, which is the first letter of the first term of the subject.
To demonstrate this, I will refer to the term Aboriginal literacy, which exists in the CLT. When I
begin by searching Aboriginal, the term Aboriginal literacy appears fourth on the list of results.
However, if I search for the term literacy, Aboriginal literacy does not appear in the results.
Browsing the LSCH thesaurus (using LCSH terms) produces a similar result. It is possible,
however, to access these terms using the second word in the phrase in the case of the CLT—if
users choose to search by keyword, rather than search by alphabetical search. To me,
focussing on the first word entry point represents a shortcoming—retaining a functionality that
represents its previous physical limitations and does little to harness the ability of a digital
environment or simplify the user’s experience.
Preferred Terms
Preferred terms exist in both languages and in both are represented through the
identification of equivalent terms, with either a Use (U) note or a Use For note (UF). This was
demonstrated in LCSH when I browsed for the heading for Aboriginal peoples, I found a note to
use Indigenous peoples. Additionally, in CLT non-preferred terms appear italicized to denote
that they are not the preferred term; these are called non-descriptors. In CLT, Aboriginal
Sirett_5121 Page 9 of 14
literacy is preferred over the term Native literacy; this is identified on the list of results found
when I browsed for the term Native literacy, and is also noted through the use and use for
relationship identifiers within each heading.
Hierarchical and Associative Relationships
Both LSCH and CLT note hierarchical and associative relationships, which helps create a
link between similar terms. Hierarchical relationships are identified by linking to broader terms
(BT) & narrower terms (NT), while associative are identified by linking to related term (RT). The
hierarchical and associative relationship functions in both indexing languages were quite limited
as it related to my subject. In CLT, the record for Aboriginal literacy offered on a single broader
term (Literacy) and no narrower terms. This is not surprising given the scope of and size of the
CLT.
In the case of LCSH, the distinction between a number of hierarchical and associative
relationships led me from the term Aboriginal peoples to the term of Indians of North America—
Canada. Although these relationships were noted there were a limited number of definitions to
identify the distinction between these terms; I will discuss this problem further in my discussion
on clarity below. Additionally, only a single narrower term was provided for Indians of North
America—Canada: Cree Indians. Causing further confusion, the term Cree Indians was also
linked to the broader term of Algonquian Indians; although there was no relationship between
Algonquian Indians and Indians of North America—Canada.
The CLT exists in both French and English; however the terms from each of the languages
are exist on their own, separate from one another. The CLT explains that “the English and
French term banks were built independently of one another, to ensure that no language would
Sirett_5121 Page 10 of 14
become the dominant language of the Thesaurus” (Canadian Literacy Thesaurus, n.d.-b). The
CLT does, however, associate the relationship between term and its French or English
equivalent, where it exists. For users this provides yet another reference point to relationships
between terms, while also representing the bilingual setting and structure of the CLT.
Granularity
Granularity refers to the level of detail provided in the indexing language. As mentioned
earlier, LCSH was originally created to provide subject classification for the Library of Congress
collection. Similarly, the CLT was developed and is updated based on the resources related
literacy practice in Canada. In both cases, the granularity of the indexing language is
determined by the diversity of its resources. Since LCSH is the largest indexing language in the
world, it is not surprising to find a greater level of granularity.
On the contrary, the smaller scope of and size of the CLT predicate a more limited level
of granularity. This limited granularity could limit the potential ability to apply the most precise
subject analysis of particular resources. For example, a resource that relates to both a specific
element of literacy in Aboriginal peoples, perhaps computer literacy, would require two subject
headings, Aboriginal literacy and computer literacy, rather than creating a term that
incorporates both terms and indicates greater specificity, such as Aboriginal computer literacy.
Finally, it is also worth mentioning that the structure of LCSH allows for a greater level of
granularity, due to the application of subdivisions.
Clarity
In both LCSH and CLT, clarity is established through the designation of the relationships
outlined above, through the use of scope notes, or by providing definitions of terms. Scope
Sirett_5121 Page 11 of 14
notes provide further clarification on how to apply a term, while definitions specify the meaning
of the term in reference to the thesaurus (Canadian Literacy Thesaurus, n.d.-b). In my
experience with the terms outlined above, the CLT provided clarity on the terms through the
use of definitions; however, there were very few instances where definitions or scope notes
were provided in LCSH. For example, it was not clear to me why Indians of North America—
Canada is a narrower term for Indigenous peoples—Canada, as neither of these terms
contained definitions or scope notes. It is clear that the treatment of terms relating to
Aboriginal peoples in not only Canada, but in North America in LCSH carries a significant amount
of controversy and I would argue that the vagueness of the difference between these LCSH
terms does little to help resolve this problem.
Consistency
Consistency—in both form and structure—is another factor that helps determine the
efficacy of an indexing language. Chan claims that “at the Library of Congress, wherever
feasible, attempts are to maintain consistency in form and structure among analogous headings
through the use of recurring patterns” (Chan, 2005, p. 33). However, the attempt at
consistency in direct conflict with earlier claims by Cutter and Haykin, that general use in subject
headings should take precedence over consistency (Chan, 2005). Cutter refers to this as “the
convenience of the public”, while Haykin’s principle was called “the reader as a focus” (Chan,
2005). Generally speaking, both concepts refer to the notion that a subject heading should be
assigned so that it is most useful to the individual seeking the information seeker, not the
individual performing the subject analysis. Other than the inconsistencies outlined above
regarding a lack of relationship identifiers, scope notes, and definitions, both LCSH and CLT
Sirett_5121 Page 12 of 14
appeared to be consistent in structure and form. Again, given the smaller scope and size of the
CLT, I would imagine that it is likely to be more consistent than LCSH.
Currency
Currency, in the sense of an indexing language, refers to the reflection of how current
and up to date the terms in the language are. Although LCSH now exists as an indexing
language used in libraries internationally, it is essentially providing subject analysis for materials
for the national library of the United States and is often “criticized for showing a strong
American bias” (Chan, 2005). This bias has been diminished in part as other libraries and
individuals are able to contribute more to the development and maintenance of subject
headings.
However, in the treatment of terms relating to Aboriginal peoples, LCSH lacks significant
amount of currency. This bias is not merely American-centric, but often the out-dated terms
mirror the terminology of colonialism. In contrast, the terms found in the LTC appear to offer
not only a more appropriate reflection of their current usage, but also one that is more
representative of how the terms are embodied within the resources.
CONCLUSION
In addition to the assessment provided throughout this discussion and the indexing
language comparison above, I would like to conclude this discussing by providing a small
analysis of the treatment of Aboriginal-related subjects as it relates to this discussion. Please
note, this subject on its own requires considerable further research and warrants a discussion
much larger than the one presented in this discussion.
Sirett_5121 Page 13 of 14
Research has indicated that it is problematic to apply a “one-size-fits all”, as evidenced in
the heading Indians of North America, approach to the classification of terms relating to
Aboriginal peoples (Lee, 2011). Numerous recommendations have been made to resolve the
problem associated with a “one-size-fits all” model. One of these recommendations includes the
creation of a localized thesauri, an institution or organization specific thesauri, which reflects
the appropriate usage and breadth of detail needed to complete subject analysis of the
materials (Lee, 2011). One such example is the “B.C. First Nations Names Authority” (Lee,
2011). I would argue that this thesaurus, like many thesauri or indexing languages, provides an
excellent framework for subject classification, but also lacks the flexibility required to fully meet
the needs of the user or reflect the most current usage.
As previously mentioned, Cutter and Haykin both claimed that meeting the needs of the
user was of the utmost importance in subject analysis and classification. Many have since
criticized this view, noting that it might have actually been possible to better meet the needs of
the user group during that time as there were fewer users in general and less diversity between
these users (Chan, 2005). I agree that this statement is likely true as well. However, what is
being overlooked through this argument is that, with the development of a collaborative web
environment, we are actually more capable of meeting user’s needs—diverse and numerous as
they are—now more than ever before. In accordance with a number of projects and systems
that already exist, I would recommend that we continue to place the needs of the user at the
forefront of subject analysis, but rather than focussing strictly on the developing and maintain
indexing languages, focus also on the enhancing and creating tools that encourage users to
contribute and collaborate.
Sirett_5121 Page 14 of 14
REFERENCE LIST
Canadian Literacy Thesaurus, (n.d-a). Home page. Retrieved April 16, 2013, from http://www.thesaurusalpha.org/homeenglish.htm
Canadian Literacy Thesaurus, (n.d-b). About the thesaurus. Retrieved April 16, 2013, from
http://www.thesaurusalpha.org/about.htm
Canadian Literacy Thesaurus, (n.d-c). Aboriginal literacy. Retrieved April 16, 2013, from http://www.thesaurusalpha.org/mtw.exe?linkType=term&w=46&k=default&s=5&t=2&n=1&l=60
Chan, L. M. (2001) Exploiting LCSH, LCC, and DDC to retrieve networked resources: Issues and challenges. In Proceedings of the bicentennial conference on bibliographic control for the new millennium (pp. 159-178). Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress. Retrieved April 16, 2013, from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/chan_paper.html
Chan, L.M. (2005). Library of Congress subject headings: Principles and application. (4th ed.).
Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Lee, D. (2011). Indigenous Knowledge Organization: A Study of Concepts, Terminology,
Structure and (Mostly) Indigenous Voices. Partnership: The Canadian Journal Of Library And Information Practice And Research, 6(1). Retrieved from https://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/perj/article/view/1427