Concept of ‘subject’ in the context of library and information science from a new angle

Dutta, Bidyarthi and Dutta, Chaitali Concept of ‘subject’ in the context of library and information science from a new angle. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 2013, vol. 60, n. 2, pp. 78-87. [Journal article (Paginated)]

[thumbnail of ALIS-Paper-June-2013.pdf]
Preview
 Text
ALIS-Paper-June-2013.pdf
Download (170kB) | Preview
[thumbnail of ALIS-Paper-June-2013.pdf]
Preview
 Text
ALIS-Paper-June-2013.pdf - Published version
Download (170kB) | Preview

English abstract

The concept of subject as expounded in library and information science (LIS) has been interpreted here from the standpoint of the concept of word in linguistics. Both the concepts have been thoroughly reviewed. It has been observed that the concept of subject so long conceived by different researchers in LIS is basically preceded by the concept of document. The description of subject, therefore in most cases, by default becomes incumbent within the concept of document. Since the document is a macroscopic entity, therefore document-dependent description of subject naturally portrays a macroscopic layout of the same. This paper attempts to develop a document-independent description of subject, which is based on semantically-related words within the domain of appropriate context. According to this new description the subject would eventually become definable as sets of well-defined and semantically-related words that may be regarded as microscopic description. It has also been found out that the seed of document-independent and word-based definition of subject was already sown in the concept of semantic field, a domain under the subject linguistics. This concept was incepted by Trier and subsequently modified by Lehrer. It has been logically established that the idea of foci incepted by Ranganathan and the idea of semantic field incepted and modified by Trier and Lehrer respectively are conceptually equivalent. A subject may therefore be described as sets of semantic fields and, in turn as sets of words.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: Linguistic interpretation of subject, semantic field, semantics, foci, facet, macroscopic subject, microscopic subject, Linguistics, universe of subjects
Subjects: A. Theoretical and general aspects of libraries and information.
A. Theoretical and general aspects of libraries and information. > AA. Library and information science as a field.
A. Theoretical and general aspects of libraries and information. > AC. Relationship of LIS with other fields .
B. Information use and sociology of information > BA. Use and impact of information.
Depositing user: Bidyarthi Dutta
Date deposited: 31 Jul 2013 05:35
Last modified: 02 Oct 2014 12:27
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/19813

References

References

1) www.wikipedia.org

2) Borko H, (1968). Information science: what is it? American Documentation 19 (1): 3-5.

3) Belkin N J, (1990). The cognitive viewpoint of information science. Journal of Information Science 16 (11): 11-15.

4) Brookes B C, (1980). The foundations of information science. Part 1: philosophical aspects. Journal of Information Science 2: 125-133.

5) Saunders W L, (1974). The nature of information science, The Information Scientist 8(2): 57–70.

6) Farradane J, (1976). Towards a true information science, The Information Scientist 10(3): 91–101.

7) Meadow C T, (1979). Information science and scientists in 2001, Journal of Information Science 1(4): 214–22.

8) Webber S, (2003). Information science in 2003: a critique, Journal of Information Science 29(4): 311–30.

9) Bawden D, (2008). Smoother pebbles and the shoulders of giants: the developing foundations of information science, Journal of Information Science 34(4): 415–26.

10) Ranganathan S R, (1963). Documentation and its facets. London: Asian Publishing House.

11) Hjørland B, (1992). The concept of "subject" in Information Science. Journal of Documentation 48 (2): 172-200.

12) Cutter C A, (1904). Rules for a Dictionary Catalog. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

13) Drake C L, (1960). What is a subject? Australian Library Journal 9: 34-41.

14) Wilson P, (1968). Two Kinds of Power. An Essay on Bibliographical Control. Berkeley: University of California Press.

15) Hutchins W J, (1975). Languages of Indexing and Classification: A Linguistic Study of Structures and Functions. London, UK: Peter Peregrinus.

16) Hutchins W J, (1977). On the problem of “aboutness” in document analysis. Journal of Informatics 1: 17-35.

17) Hutchins W J, (1978). The concept of “aboutness” in subject indexing. Aslib Proceedings 30: 172-181.

18) Maron M E, (1977). On indexing, retrieval and the meaning of about. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 28: 38-43.

19) Miksa F, (1983). The Subject in the Dictionary Catalog from Cutter to the Present. Chicago, IL: American Library Association.

20) Soergel D, (1985). Organizing Information: Principles of Data Base and Retrieval Systems. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

21) Hjørland B, (1997): Information Seeking and Subject Representation. An Activity-theoretical approach to Information Science. Westport, CT & London, UK: Greenwood Press.

22) Hjørland B, (2001). Towards a theory of aboutness, subject, topicality, theme, domain, field, content . . and relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 52 (9): 774–778.

23) Hjørland B, (2002). Epistemology and the socio-cognitive perspective in Information Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53 (4): 257-270.

24) Molina M P, (1994). Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Concept and Practice of Written Text Documentary Content Analysis. Journal of Documentation 50 (2): 111-133.

25) Metcalfe J, (1973). When is a Subject not a Subject? IN: Towards a theory of Librarianship. Ed. by Conrad H. Rawski. New York: Scarecrow Press.

26) Frohmann B, (1994). The Social Construction of Knowledge Organization: The Case of Melvin Dewey. Advances in Knowledge Organization 4: 109-117.

27) Ranganathan S R, (1967). Prolegomena to Library Classification. London: Asia Publishing House.

28) Gopinath M A, (1976). Colon Classification. (I: Classification in the 1970's. A second look. Revised edition. Ed. by Arthur Maltby. London, Clive Bingly, 51-80).

29) Stam R, (2000). Film Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

30) Hjørland B & Nicolaisen J, (2005). Bradford’s Law of Scattering: Ambiguities in the Concept of "Subject". IN: Crestani, F. & Ruthven, I. (Eds.): CoLIS 2005, LNCS 3507, pp. 96 – 106. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

31) Sen B K, (2009). Universe of knowledge from a new angle. Annals of Library and Information Studies 56(1): 7-12.

32) Akmajian A et al, (2008). Linguistics: an introduction to language and communication. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India.

33) Lehrer A, (1974). Semantic fields and lexical structure. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

34) Palmer F R, (1996). Semantics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

35) Hintikka J, (1994). Aspects of Metaphor. Springer: [s.l]


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS