The argument for transliteration is that it makes your research or writing accessible to non-speakers of the language you’re using in your research. However, I don’t think a completely uncritical stance towards it is useful.

A thread, from my experiences with Arabic

(And can apologists –“isn’t something better than nothing?”– please refrain from responding? that is a bland argument; this happens consistently on Twitter and thought people might have good intentions, it reeks of the effects of white feminism and mansplaining)

But also...sorry, I don’t buy the argument that transliteration makes the work accessible to non-speakers of that language in parallel fields if you are not actively working to make your work accessible to the public and the communities who inherit these histories

(Recognizing of course that academia punishes many who do public-facing work)

The biggest problem is accessibility to communities that don’t have languages in latin-script. Think about how many archives only have transliterated versions of titles and meta-data. Think about how hard that can make a Google Translate.

It means it can be hard to find materials if you don’t understand the multiple systems of transliteration, particularly if your training did not require it..

I consistently hear this from scholars who want access to digitized materials. Many scholars trained outside of Western Europe and North America don’t speak English (and many do) and I don’t think they should have to learn it.

It’s not even just ‘hard’; it makes these collections impregnable. Check out @marwag12345’s @HAZINEblog comic that gets at this. https://hazine.info/gadallah-what-is-open-access/

Then there’s the issue of the blind and those who need accommodation for visibility issues...

I just tried using screen readers with transliterated text: they jump over special characters, which gives you a completely different rendering than the title.

I don’t know enough about this and am reading up. I recognize it can be difficult for word processors to handle Right-to-Left and Left-to-Right text in the same doc. I have to deal with this when just tweeting even sometimes.

..but...that just means we need to invest in solutions....like web developers and programmers who can develop solutions. This is possible for online archives and digitized collections. I know because I’ve worked in them. Not on them. Not with, or on them. In them.

It requires funding and while I know this is hard, I’ve seen many collections get digitized, then neglected. If this isn’t a priority from day 1, it’s never going to be.

(There are people working on this, bless them)

(Actually, while we’re at it, I wonder if it’s standard for academic journals and e-books to request alt-text for images? Any examples would be welcome)

Now for the cultural implications. Transliteration standards are often applied uncritically & they often end up making the cultures they describe diminutive. Even an italic can ‘other’ the language being used. Depending on the context, this is highly inappropriate..

I would even go so far as to say –for cases dealing with Islam– it can be Islamophobic, in some cases, depending where you fall on the Integration-assimilation debates.

In some popular writing, I would argue that you want to other the Muslim in the Western European and North American context. Maybe we don’t want to be identified with the mainstream

One of my biggest problems is with the ways titles of text in Arabic are presented. Capitalize them like you would in English, otherwise, you’re misguiding the eye (it jumps over some text) but also, you’re perhaps missing an opportunity to render the text fully into English...

...you’re making it seem lesser than, because it’s not fully transliterated. Even if the translation of the title is transliterated.

My advice to editors: go with what your writers say they want. Don’t argue the standard is there for a reason. Ask questions politely and respectfully. If something is inconsistent, it is likely for a reason. They’re the experts. Not you.

My advice to writers: take these things seriously. Bring it up in conversation.

And I feel for everyone who has had to gather their strength to push back against a bad standard.

Another thing that kind of shoots the argument that if you’re a non-speaker of the language interested in a different field, transliteration does not help pronounce words & we don’t have standard systems to help readers.

It means we need to think differently about how to frame publications. Maybe pronunciation guides need to be included. QR codes? How are vowels being used? How are letter combinations being used? Again, how do we do this in a way that helps those who need screen-readers.

(I say this also in part because people without language –and people with the language– blatantly mispronounce things with confidence then feel the need to correct native speakers)

These were just some random thoughts and I do have a few more but I need to go have a stressful conversation

PS not saying to do away with transliteration. Just rethink it a bit. Think about creative solutions. Think about new standards. Have fun. Collaborate across divides. Talk to communities.