Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.002269176 = product of:
  0.004538352 = sum of:
    0.004538352 = product of:
      0.009076704 = sum of:
        0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 3434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009076704 = score(doc=3434,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 3434, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3434)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article explores how linguistics has influenced information retrieval (IR) and attempts to explain the impact of linguistics through an analysis of internal developments in information science generally, and IR in particular. It notes that information science/IR has been evolving from a case science into a fully fledged, "disciplined"/disciplinary science. The article establishes correspondences between linguistics and information science/IR using the three established IR paradigms-physical, cognitive, and computational-as a frame of reference. The current relationship between information science/IR and linguistics is elucidated through discussion of some recent information science publications dealing with linguistic topics and a novel technique, "keyword collocation analysis," is introduced. Insights from interdisciplinarity research and case theory are also discussed. It is demonstrated that the three stages of interdisciplinarity, namely multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity (in the narrow sense), and transdisciplinarity, can be linked to different phases of the information science/IR-linguistics relationship and connected to different ways of using linguistic theory in information science and IR.

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 3678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=3678,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 3678, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3678)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper explores the relationships between natural language lexicons in lexical semantics and thesauri in information retrieval research. These different areas of knowledge have different restrictions on use of vocabulary; thesauri are used only in information search and retrieval contexts, whereas lexicons are mental systems and generally applicable in all domains of life. A set of vocabulary requirements that defines the more concrete characteristics of vocabulary items in the 2 contexts can be derived from this framework: lexicon items have to be learnable, complex, transparent, etc., whereas thesaurus terms must be effective, current and relevant, searchable, etc. The differences in vocabulary properties correlate with 2 other factors, the well-known dimension of Control (deliberate, social activities of building and maintaining vocabularies), and Syntagmatization, which is less known and describes vocabulary items' varying formal preparedness to exit the thesaurus/lexicon, enter into linear syntactic constructions, and, finally, acquire communicative functionality. It is proposed that there is an inverse relationship between Control and Syntagmatization.

Type

a