Henning Spang-Hanssen (1920-2002)
Henning Spang-Hanssen graduated as a M.Sc. in Engineering in 1943. He became Dr. of Philosophy in 1960 with the dissertation Probability and Structural Classification in Language Description. Between 1943–1965 he was employed in various industrial companies. From 1965–69 he was a research librarian at the National Technological Library in Denmark, and from 1969–1990 he was professor of applied and mathematical linguistics at the University of Copenhagen. In this position he started a new line of study concerning "Linguistic Aspects of Information and Documentation". In 2000 he became Dr. of honor at the Copenhagen Business School. He has been a member of the national council for humanities research, of Dansk Teknisk Litteraturselskab, DANDOK and NORDINFO and of national and international commissions related to problems of language and terminology. His is one of the very few people who have worked in a research library and tried to relate this to theoretical problems in documentation or information science. In 1999 and 2000 Spang-Hanssen served as a member of evaluation committees for the selection of qualified candidates for professorships in Library and Information Science (LIS) in both Norway and Denmark.
Literature:
Hjørland, B. (2002). Henning Spang-Hanssen (1920-2002). Informationsspecialisten, årg. 4(2), 4-5.
Andersen, E., Larsen, L. & Maegaard, B. (1980): Bibliografi over Henning Spang-Hanssens arbejder. In: SAML: Skrifter om anvendt og Matematisk Lingvistik, vol. 6, pp. 367–371.
Spang-Hanssen, H. (1952). Review of Shannon, C. E. & Weaver, W.:
The Mathematical Theory of Communication. In: Acta Linguistica,
vol. vii, facs. 1–2, pp. 83–87.
Spang-Hanssen, H. (1954). Recent Theories on the Nature of the Language Sign.
København: Nordisk Sprog- och Kulturforlag.
Spang-Hanssen, H. (1957). Kommunikationsteori og sprogvidenskab. In: Blegvad, Mogens,
Elberling, B.V., Johnsen, Erik & Rode, Mikal, eds. Videnskabens
kommunikationsproblemer. Nordisk Sommeruniversitet 1956. København:
Munksgaard, pp. 67–69.
Spang-Hanssen, H. (1959). Probability and Structural Classification in Language
Description. Copenhagen : Rosenkilde and Bagger (Dissertation).
Spang-Hanssen, H. (1964). Maskinel oversættelse og anden maskinel sproganalyse. In:
Dessau, E. Datamaskiner. København: Berlingske forlag.
Spang-Hanssen, H. (1967). Kommunikation og information, sprog og mening. In: Danmarks Tekniske Bibliotek med Dansk Central for Dokumentation 25 år, pp. 37–44.
Spang-Hanssen, H. (1970a). How to Teach About Information as Related to Documentation?
(unpublished speech; published 2001).
http://www.hb.se/bhs/ith/1-01/hsh.htm
Spang-Hanssen, H. (1970b). Sproget som barriere. In: Boman, M., ed. Forskning og
information. (Dansk teknisk litteraturselskab. Skriftserie, nr. 31).
København: Dansk teknisk litteraturselskab, pp. 31–39.
Spang-Hanssen, H. (1972a). Retningslinier for udformning af videnskabelige artikler.
Oversættelse af UNESCO-dokument: Guide for the preparation of scientific
papers for publication (SC/MD/5 (1968)). København.
Spang-Hanssen, H. (1972b). Teknisk terminologiarbejde i Danmark og Dansk Sprognævns
rolle heri. In: Sprog i Norden 1972, pp. 73–78.
Spang-Hanssen, H. (1972c). Teminology 1, Terminology 2, and Terminology 3. In:
Quistgaard, J., Schwartz, H. & Spang-Hanssen, H., eds. 3rd
International Congress of Applied Linguistics, Copenhagen, Denmark, 21st–26th
August, 1972. Congress Abstracts. Copenhagen, p. 186.
Spang-Hanssen, H. (1973). Information! Forsigtig! Eksplosionsfare! In: Rue, N. &
Spang-Hanssen, H., eds. DTL-hilsen til Vibeke Amundsen: 22/12-1973.
(Dansk Teknisk
Litteraturselskab. Skriftserie, nr. 37). Lyngby: Dansk
Teknisk Litteraturselskab, pp. 151–164.
Spang-Hanssen, H. (1974). Kunnskapsorganisasjon, informasjonsgjenfinning,
automatisering og språk. In: Kunnskapsorganisasjon og
informasjonsgjenfinning. Oslo: Riksbibliotektjenesten, pp. 11–61.
Core Concepts in
LIS/Spang_Hanssen_1974.pdf
Spang-Hanssen, H. (1976). Roles and Links Compared with Grammatical Relations in
Natural Languages. (Dansk
Teknisk Litteraturselskab, nr. 40).
Lyngby: Dansk Teknisk Litteraturselskab.
Spang-Hanssen, H. (1977). Multilingual Problems in Scientific and Technical
Information and Documentation. Tidskrift för dokumentation, vol.
33, no. 2, pp. 13–15.
Spang-Hanssen, H. (1978). Oplæg til gruppearbejde. Det menneskelige element i
IoD-virksomhed. In: Rue, N. & Stein, L., eds. 3. Nordiske
IoD-konference, København, 9.–11.juni 1976. (Dansk
Teknisk Litteraturselskab. Skriftserie, nr. 43). Lyngby: Dansk Teknisk
Litteraturselskab, pp. 101–107.
Spang-Hanssen, H. (1982). UDK: en indføring med UDK-hjælpetabeller (tillægstal). (FID publikation, nr. 697). Dansk Central for Dokumentation. Lyngby: Danmarks Tekniske Bibliotek.
Spang-Hanssen, H. (1989). Give care to
the alphabetic index. IN:
FID conference and congress, 44, 1988, Finland:
FID. ISBN: 9519530452.
Spang-Hanssen, H. (1989). Registre på
brugernes niveau. IN:
Orden i papirerne : en hilsen til J. B.
Friis-Hansen. Harbo, Ole [ed] Kajberg, Leif [ed]- pp. 149-155.
Copenhagen: Royal School of Librarianship.
Spang-Hanssen, H. (1991). (Together with Friis-Hansen, J. B., Steen Larsen, P. & Høst,
T.): Informationsordbogen: Ordbog for informationshåndtering, bog og
bibliotek, 2. udg. (DS-Håndbog 109). Charlottenlund: Dansk Standard
(DS).
Spang-Hanssen, H. (1992). DTB mod år 2000 – udgivet i anledning af Danmarks Tekniske Bibliotek’s 50 års jubileum 10. september 1992. Schneider, Anette & Spang-Hanssen, Henning, eds. Lyngby: Danmarks Tekniske Bibliotek.
Spang-Hanssen, H. (2001).: How to teach about information as related to documentation. Human IT. (1), 125-143. http://www.hb.se/bhs/ith/1-01/hsh.htm [written 1970].
Generic group: Information science, biography
Birger Hjørland
Last edited: 01-03-2007
Spang-Hanssen (1974) provides the following nine theses about the organization of knowledge):
|
Tese/thesis |
Original (in Danish) |
Translation by BH (in English) |
|
1 (p. 20) |
En teksts meningsindhold er ikke entydigt repræsenteret ved tekstens udtryk (ordlyd); der kræves supplerende oplysninger om forfatterens semantik, læserens (brugerens) semantik, eventuelt litteraturformidlerens semantik. Et dokuments meningsindhold[1] kan ikke repræsenteres ved formalisering bare af udtrykket. |
The meaning-content of a text is not unambiguously represented by the expression (wording) of the text. Additional information is required about the semantics of the author, the semantics of the reader, and possible the semantics of the intermediary. It is not possible to represent the meaning-content of a document by formalizing just the expression. (See also note 1) |
|
2 (p. 32) |
Meningsindholdet i tekster i naturlige sprog kan ikke fuldt ud beskrives formaliseret, og netop de dele af tekstindholdet, som er væsentlige for informationsgenfindelse – nemlig det sagligt nye – hører til det ikke formaliserbare. |
The meaning-content in texts in natural languages cannot fully be described in formalized ways. In particular those parts of the content which are important for information-retrieval, i.e. what is new knowledge, belong to the parts that cannot be formalized. |
|
3 (p. 32-33) |
Fuldautomatisk referering er uforenelig med naturen i kundskabsudvikling gennem tekster i naturlige sprog. |
Full-automated abstracting is incompatible with the nature of the development of knowledge through texts in natural languages. |
|
4 (p. 36) |
Et dokuments emne kan ikke repræsenteres ved en formalisering bare af udtrykket. |
The subject of a document cannot be represented by a formalization of just the expression. |
|
5 (p. 40) |
Systemer til at repræsentere dokumenters emne – klassifikationssystemer og (emne)indekseringssystemer såsom tesaurussystemer – kan ikke danne tekster, men udgør inventarer, hvorfra emnerepræsentation sker ved valg. |
Systems designed to represent the subjects of documents - classification systems and subject indexing systems such as thesauri, cannot form texts, but are inventories, from which subject representations are made by choice. |
|
6 (p. 40) |
Klassifikationssystemer og tesaurussystemer har ingen syntaks i betydningen sætningslære.[2] De benyttede kombinationsregler er enten logiske operatorer af parataktisk type eller svarer til naturlige sprogs morfologi og orddannelseslære (dette gælder også roller i emnerepræsentationer). Distinktionen mellem syntagmatiske og paradigmatiske relationer har ikke nævneværdig betydning for emnerepræsentation. |
Classification systems and thesauri have no syntax in the sense of being about sentences (footnote 2). The used rules of combination are either logical operators of a paratactic nature or they correspond to the morphology of natural languages (this also applies for roles in subject representations). The distinction between paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations has no relevance worth mentioning for subject representation. |
|
7 (p. 40-41) |
Klassifikationssystemer og tesaurussystemer har en normeret og eksplicit indholdsstruktur, der naturligvis kan ændres, netop fordi den er normeret, men som af af standardiserings- og automatiseringshensyn ikke kan være dynamisk. Hvis man behandler dokumentindhold, som om deres indholdsstruktur stod i entydigt forhold til emnesystemets struktur, bl.a. for at kunne automatisere emnerepræsentation, vil man miste en del af det nye indhold – den nye information – i dokumentsamlinger, som søges igennem under brug af sådanne emnerepræsentationer. Fagområder kan vise sig ret forskellige i henseende til, hvor hurtigt deres specifikke indholdsstruktur ændrer sig; automatiseret emnerepræsentation kan derfor give bedre resultater på visse områder end på andre. |
Classification systems and thesauri has a prescribed and explicit structure of contents, which of course may be changed, exactly because it is prescribed. It cannot, however, be dynamic because it needs to be standardized and used for automation. If document contents are treated as if their structure of contents had an unambiguous relation to the structure of the subject representation system, would parts of the new content get lost- the new information which is searched for by using such subject representations. Disciplines may be rather different in regard to how fast their structure of content are changing; Automatic subject representation may thus provide better results in some fields compared to other fields. |
|
8 (p. 42) |
Da emnerepræsentation er valg inden for kendte inventarer, kan Shannons mål for ’informationsmængde’[3] anlægges på brugen af f.eks. deskriptorer til indeksering af en bestemt dokumentsamling. I modsætning til anvendelser på tekster i naturlige sprog synes betegnelsen informationsmængde om Shannons H for emnerepræsentationer at være rammende. Se vedlagte blad med Sammenstilling af Shannons mål for informationsmængde og forhold ved litteraturbenyttelse, s. 53-54. |
Because subject representations are choices within known inventories, may Shannon's measure of 'amount of information' (note 3) be applied to the use of, for example, descriptors for indexing a given document collection. As opposed to use on texts in natural languages, appears the term 'amount of information' in Shannons H to be very much to the point in relation to subject representations. See enclosed page which compares Shannon's measure of information with issues related to the use of literature, page 53-54 (Not translated). |
|
9 (p. 45) |
Da emnerepræsentationer ikke er tekster, er overgangen mellem systemer eller overgang fra (dele af) naturlige sprog til et emnerepræsentationssystem ikke at sammenligne med oversættelse, men snarere med brug af en flersproget ordbog. Principielt er imidlertid overgange, hvori der indgår et eller flere normerede systemer, afvigende fra forhold mellem naturlige sprog. Dette har teoretiske og praktiske konsekvenser for brug af klassifikationstabeller og tesaurusser, se vedlagte kommentar til betegnelserne EMNEORD og EMNEORDSLISTER, s. 55 til 60. |
Because subject representations are not texts, is the transition between systems or the transition from (parts of) natural languages to a subject representation system not to be compared with translation, but rather with the use of a multilingual dictionary. By principle are, however, transitions in which one or more prescribed systems participate, different from relations between natural languages. This has theoretical as well as practical implications for the use of classification systems and thesauri. See enclosed commentary to the terms EMNEORD og EMNEORDSLISTER, p. 55 to 60 (not translated). |
[1] Jeg kommer i denne fremstilling ikke ind på, at et dokuments ¤informationsværdi¤ for læseren (brugeren) ikke er det samme som dets meningsindhold (for ham). Jeg foreslår at reservere betegnelserne informationsværdi og informering for de tilfælde, hvor meningsindholdet er ¤nyt¤ for læseren, men henviser herom i mit bidrag i ”DTL’s hilsen til Vibeke Ammundsen 22.12.1973”. Lyngby 1973 (DTLs Skriftserie nr. 37, s. 152-164.
ENGLISH TRANSLATION: In this text I [HSH] do not discuss the matter, that the informational value of a document for the reader/user is not identical with its meaning-content (for him). I suggest to only use the terms informational value and informing for the cases, where the meaning-content is ¤new¤ to the reader, see further in my contribution in ”DTL’s hilsen til Vibeke Ammundsen 22.12.1973”. Lyngby 1973 (DTLs Skriftserie nr. 37, s. 152-164.
[2] Ordet syntaks bruges som modsætning til semantik, til morfologi (ordbøjning) og til forholdet mellem størrelser i et inventar (der siges at have paradigmatisk sammenhæng i modsætning til den syntagmatiske sammenhæng i en sætning eller tekst). – Hvad man i teorien for søgesystemer ofte kalder syntagmatiske relationer beskrives faktisk bedre inden for matematisk-logisk kombinatorik end ved analogi med naturlige sprog. F.eks. er forskellen mellem ’og’ og ’eller’ fundamental i søgestrategi (fællesmængde, norsk: snitt, modsat union), men de tilsvarende sproglige størrelser er af samme syntaktiske type (kaldet: paratakse [sideordning]). Omvendt har den syntaktiske type hypotakse (underordning) ingen modsvarighed i søgesystemer.
ENGLISH TRANSLATION: The word syntax is used in opposition to semantics, and to morphology (inflexion) and to the relations between terms in an inventory (which are said to have a paradigmatic connection as opposed to the syntagmatic relation in a sentence or a text). What is termed syntagmatic relations in the theory of retrieval systems is actually better described within mathematical-logical combinatorics than by analogy to natural languages. The difference between "and" and "or" is, for example, fundamental in search strategy ('intersection' opposed to 'union'), while the corresponding linguistic items belong to the same syntactic kind (termed parataxis [co-ordinate]). The syntactic kind 'hypotaxis' (subordinate) has, on the other hand, no correspondence in retrieval systems.
[3] C. E. Shannon: The mathematical theory of communication. [Oprindeligt i Bell System Technical Journal 1948. Bogudgave (med bidrag af Warren Weaver) Urbana 1949].
ENGLISH TRANSLATION: Shannon, C. E. & Weawer, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. (Originally published by C. E. Shannon in Bell System Technical Journal 1948).
Extract from text in Danish:
”Det er i denne sammenhæng vigtigt at mærke sig, at de synspunkter, som har domineret lingvistikken i de sidste 10-15 år, især i USA - altså den fra Noam Chomsky stammende transformationelle-generative skole - ikke har haft nævneværdig praktisk virkning p& automatiseret tekstbehandling. I det teoretiske grundlag og i det "tekniske apparat" (såsom regelskrivning i algoritmisk form) er der betydelige ligheder mellem transformationsgrammatik og elektronisk databehandling, men når automatisk tekstbehandling i praksis stadig synes at måtte henholde sig til traditionelle grammatiske kategorier og traditionelt opstillede ordbøger, viser det efter min opfattelse, at problemerne ved automatisering af tekster - i modsætning til problemerne ved automatisering av matematiske beregninger - er basale og ikke elimineres qennem mere automatorienterede udformninger af lingvistikken.
Jeg er derfor enig med Gerard Salton i hans pessimistiske vurdering af den nyeste lingvistiks relevans for automatiseret dokumentation, men Salton synes at identificere lingvistik med nyere amerikansk lingvistik og derved overse viden, som er opnået allerede før transformationsgrammatikken eller samtidigt rned den i andre lande, bl.a. i Skandinavien.” (Spang-Hanssen, 1974, 17).
Den såkaldt pragmatiske retning inden for nutidens lingvistik vil udvide opfattelsen af 'sproglig aktivitet' til at omfatte alle faktorer, der kan påvirke brug af sprog (f.eks. forhold der får os til at vælge at tale i stedet for at tie, valg af samtalepartner, holdning over for partneren, forestillinger om partnerens viden og ønsker). Det forekommer mig for tidligt at vurdere dette synspunkts reelle muligheder for at beskrive f.eks. emneindeksering som en udelukkende sproglig aktivitet.” (Spang-Hanssen, 1974, 47).
Translation:
"In this connection it is important to realize that the points of view, which have been domination within linguistics in the last 10-15 years, in particular in the USA (i.e. Noam Chomsky's school of generative grammar) not has had practical influence worth mentioning in relation to natural language processing." In its theoretical foundation and in the technicalities (such as the writing of rules in algorithmic form) exist important similarities between generative grammar and electronic data processing. Natural language processing seems, however, in practice still to depend on traditional categories of grammar and traditionally formed dictionaries. This demonstrates in my opinion the the problems related to automation of text - as opposed to problems related to automation of mathematical computations, are fundamental and thus cannot be eliminated just by computer-oriented versions of linguistics.
I thus share with Gerald Salton his pessimism about the usefulness of recent linguistics in relation to automated documentation. However, Salton seems to identify linguistics with modern American linguistics and thus to miss the knowledge, which was gained before generative grammar evolved or which was gained in other countries such as Scandinavia".(Spang-Hanssen, 1974, 17, translated by BH).
"The so-called pragmatic approach in modern linguistics tries to expand the understanding of linguistic activity' to include all issues, which may influence the use of language (e.g. what determines that we chooses to speak rather than to be silent, the choice of people with whom we communicate, attitudes towards the listener, imaginations of the listeners knowledge and wants). I believe it is too early to evaluate the potentials of this approach for describing issues like subject indexing as linguistic activities. " (Spang-Hanssen, 1974, 47, translated by BH).