This article revisits the debate concerning con trolled and natural indexing languages, as used in searching the databases of the online hosts, in-house information retrieval systems, online public access catalogues and databases stored on CD-ROM. The debate was first formu lated in the early days of information retrieval more than a century ago but, despite significant advances in technology, remains unresolved. The article divides the history of the debate into four eras. Era one was characterised by the introduction of controlled vocabulary. Era two focused on comparisons between different indexing languages in order to assess which was best. Era three saw a number of case studies of limited generalisability and a general recognition that the best search performance can be achieved by the parallel use of the two types of indexing languages. The emphasis in Era four has been on the development of end-user-based systems, including online public access catalogues and databases on CD-ROM. Recent developments in the use of expert systems techniques to support the representation of meaning may lead to systems which offer significant support to the user in end-user searching. In the meantime, however, information retrieval in practice involves a mixture of natural and controlled indexing languages used to search a wide variety of different kinds of databases.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
T.M. Aitchison et al., Comparative Evaluation of Index Languages 2 vols ( Institution of Electrical Engineers, London, 1969-1970).
2.
J. Aitchison and A. Gilchrist, Thesaurus Construction2nd ed. (Aslib, London, 1987).
3.
C.J. Armstrong and J.A. Large (eds), Manual of Online Search Strategies (Gower, Aldershot , 1988).
4.
R. Basch, The seven deadly sins of full text searching, Database (August 1989) 15-23.
5.
R. Basch, My most difficult search, Database (June 1991) 65-67.
6.
M.J. Bates, How to use controlled vocabularies more effectively in online searching, Online (November 1988) 45-56.
7.
M.J. Bates, Re-thinking subject cataloguing in the online environment, Library Resources and Technical Services33 (October 1989) 403-411.
8.
K. Battacharya , The effectiveness of natural language science indexing and retrieval, Journal of Documentation30(3) (1974) 235-254.
9.
D.C. Blair and M.E. Maron, An evaluation of retrieval effectiveness for a full text document retrieval system, Communications of the ACM28 (1985 ) 289-299.
10.
B.R. Boyce and J.P. McLain, Entry point depth and online searching using a controlled vocabulary, Journal of the American Society for Information Science40 (1989) 273-276.
11.
M.L. Calkins , Free text or controlled vocabulary: a case history step-by-step analysis ... plus other aspects of search strategy, Database3 (1980) 53-67.
12.
D. Carrow and J. Nugent, Comparison of free text and index search abilities in an operating information system. In: Information Management in the 1980s: Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science 40th Annual Meeting, September 26 - October 1, 1977 (Knowledge Industry Publications , White Plains, NY, 1981) 131-138.
13.
B. Chorton , Searching the literature for concepts, Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences17 (1977) 45-46.
14.
C.W. CleverdonReport on the Testing and Analysis of an Investigation into the Comparative Efficiency of Indexing Systems ( College of Aeronautics, Aslib Cranfield Research Project, Cranfield, UK, 1962).
15.
C.W. Cleverdon et al., Factors Determining the Performance of Indexing Systems. Vol.1: Design; Vol.2: Test Results (College of Aeronautics, Aslib Cranfield Research Project, Cranfield, UK, 1966).
16.
C.W. Cleverdon , The Cranfield tests on index language devices , Aslib Proceedings19 (1967) 173-194.
17.
C.W. Cleverdon , A Comparative Evaluation of Searching by Controlled Language and Natural Language in an Experimental NASA Database ( European Space Agency, Space Documentation Service, Frascati, Italy, 1977)
18.
M.D. Cooper , Failure time analysis of office system use, Journal of the American Society for Information Science42(9) (October 1991) 644-656.
19.
S.A. Cousins , Enhancing subject access to OPACs: controlled vocabulary versus natural language, Journal of Documentation48(3) ( 1992) 291-309.
20.
C.P.R. Dubois , The use of thesauri in online retrieval, Journal of Information Science8(2) (1984) 63-66.
21.
C.P.R. Dubois , Free text versus controlled vocabulary: a reassessment , Online Review11(10) (August 1987) 243-253.
22.
P. Duckitt, The Value of Controlled Indexing Systems in Online Full Text Databases: Proceedings of the 5th International Online Information Meeting ( Learned Information, Oxford, 1981 ) 447-453.
23.
H. Feinberg, The thesaurus in indexing and searching. In: Indexing Specialized Formats and Subjects, edited by H. Feinberg (Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, NJ, and London,1983) 260-281.
24.
R. Fidel , Who needs controlled vocabulary?Special Libraries83(1) (Winter 1992) 1-9.
25.
R. Fugmann, The complementarity of natural and indexing languages. In: Universal Classification 2: Subject Analysis and Ordering Systems: Proceedings of the 4th International Study Conference on Classification Research, edited by J. M. Perrault and I. Dahlberg. Indeks Verlag, ( Frankfurt am Main, 1982-83) 86-89.
26.
R. Fugmann , The complementarity of natural language and indexing languages, International Classification9(3) (1982) 140-144.
27.
R.G. Henzler , Free or controlled vocabulariesInternational Classification5(l) (1978) 21-26.
28.
E.M. Keen, Aspects of Computer-based Indexing Languages: Computers in Libraries International '91: Proceedings of the 5th Annual Conference on Computers in Libraries, held in London in February 1991 (Meckler, London, 1991).
29.
E.M. Keen and J.A. Digger, Report of an Information Science Index Languages Test ( Department of Information Retrieval Studies, CLW, Aberystwyth , 1972).
30.
F.W. Lancaster , MEDLARS: report on the evaluation of operating efficiency, American Documentation20 (1969) 119-142.
31.
F.W. Lancaster et al., Evaluating the effectiveness of an online, natural language retrieval system, Information Storage and Retrieval8 (1972 ) 223-245.
32.
F.W. Lancaster , Natural Language Versus Controlled Language: A New Examination in Perspectives in Information Management ( Butterworths, London, 1989) 1-23.
33.
F.W. Lancaster , Indexing and Abstracting in Theory and Practice (Library Association, London, 1991).
34.
K. Markey , et al., An analysis of controlled vocabulary and free text search statements in online searches, Online Review4 (1982) 225-235.
35.
D.L. Pope and R.L. Jones, Status with IQ - escaping from the Boolean straightjacket, Program22(1) (January 1988) 32-43.
36.
E. Percz , Text enhancement, controlled vocabulary versus free text, Special Libraries73(3) (1982) 183-192.
37.
T.A. Peters and M. Kurth, Controlled and uncontrolled vocabulary subject searching in an academic library online catalog, Information Technology and Libraries (September 1991).
38.
J.S. Ro , An evaluation of the applicability of ranking algorithms to improve the effectiveness of full text retrieval 1: on the effectiveness of full text retrievalJournal of the American Society for Information Science39 (1988) 73-78.
39.
J. Rothman, Is indexing absolute? In: Indexing specialised formats and subjects , edited by H. Feinberg (Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, NJ and London, 1983) 22-23.
40.
G. Salton, A new comparison between conventional indexing (MEDLARS) and automatic text processing (SMART, Journal of the American Society for Information Science23 (1972 ) 75-84.
41.
M. Sievert and B.R. Boyce, Hedge trimming and the resurrection of the controlled vocabulary in online searching, Online Review7 (1982) 489-494.
42.
E. Svenonius , Unanswered questions in the design of controlled vocabularies, Journal of the American Society for Information Science37(5) (September 1986) 331-340.
