During this 20th century, the technical and scientific information explosion offers the great challenges in information retrieval for scientists as well as for other kinds of investiga-tors. As one of the most important instruments with the great demand for proper and prompt information, subject thesaurus emerges with its dual role in scientific research as both a scientific subject and a scientific tool at the same time. Its importance increases proportionally to the preciseness of users' requests. Dissemination of information in a scientific library and similar information services dedicated to the development of science demand to have seriously formulated thesaurus, which provides the possibilities of adding new descriptors, for new subjects as phenomenons of scientific studies. Presently these thesaurus are mainly available in machine-readable form.

Thesaurus as a descriptor language, a controlled and dynamic documentary language containing semantically and generically related terms, requires professional and continual supervision with the aim of giving corrections and extensions in time. Treating problem of thesaurus in this way means that only team work of similar specialists can provide well formulated and structured thesaurus which is for serious use and also relatively easy. There is wide list of requests facing thesaurus authors. These include:

• To recognize terms,

• to provide terminological basis,

• to arrange terminological corpus according to the established semantic and syntactic rules,

• to define descriptor semantic field and structural interrelationships,

• to give parallel term forms in other languages,

• to recognize reflexive relations and

• to elaborate this controlled dictionary.

After establishing the thesaurus, it needs permanent redaction of terminological corpus, replacing old and introducing new actual terms, coordination of various linguistic and language versions as well as analysis of efficiency and usability of basis. The percentage of positive answers to users requests is the best indicator of thesaurus validity.

The aim of this paper is to emphasize and to discuss some specific problems of creating the thesaurus for theory of literature. As one of the branches of humanities, theory of literature classification of literary subjects is founded predominantly on semantic principles. This mode of classifying requests presuffaces definition of terms, absence of polysemy which is not always easy to supply and clear definition of homonyms and synonyms. Literary terms often being in its nature polysemic make great difficulties in projecting a coherent and scientifically valid thesaurus. That seems to be one of the reasons why the classification systems intend to bypass close classification of theoretical view of literary subjects. In our opinion the satisfac-tory conditions for classification of theory of literature subjects are met in two classification systems -- UDC (Universal Decimal Classification) and UNESCO THESAURUS -- which seem to be interwoven in theory of literature classification and that fact provides the basis for this discussion. The point is that UNESCO THESAURUS cited Universal Decimal Classi-fication (English full edition. UDC 8, 1971) as one of the main sources for the section of Philology (Language and Literature).

2. PROBLEMS OF CREATING THE THESAURUS FOR THEORY OF LITERATURE - THE CASES OF UDC AND UNESCO THESAURUS

In macro thesaurus such as UNESCO THESAURUS, the part X01/69 Philology (Lan-guage and Literature) explicates serious point of view for this kind of thesaurus conception. But the theory of literature thesaurus should tend to micro thesaurus concept that means arranging and structuring the group of descriptors dedicated to a special field or a small facet of a basic class derived from the easy identification of characteristics of the study which is applicable, in our case, documents concerning theory of literature subjects.

UDC and UNESCO THESAURUS have in common very close point of view as far as the beginning is concerned, but as we proceed further the differences increase. In UNESCO classification literary philosophy (X57.10) is one term, while literary research (X59.10) is another but hierarchically equivalent and the latter include theory, analysis criticism and awards. In UDC group literary theory, study and technique of literature (index 82.0) includes literary philosophy, literary esthetics and literary taste (index 82.01). Literary philosophy is broader term in UNESCO THESAURUS but narrower term in UDC. The same thing is with literary analyses and criticism: in UDC, criticism and analyses (index 82.09) are in the same level as literary philosophy and in the second case (UNESCO THESAURUS) they are aspects of literary research (X59.ds m roup Literary activity and technique, writing, editing, speaking (index 82.08). Terms such as literary composition and literary technique are very close in semantic sense and subgroups of 82.08 in UDC and cross references to the term, literary composition, correspond with each other. But concept of translation as well as of interpre-tation, in classification sense, form separate group in UDC (index 82.03). Here, translation have been defined as literary technique, while in UNESCO THESAURUS translation and interpretation are terms which hierarchically belongs to linguistics. The truth is that both terms in semantic field have at least two meanings, one as linguistic activity, and another as literary activity. In conception of micro thesaurus, this two aspects should be distinguished.

One wide and very actual field of contemporary theory of literature has been neglected in both mentioned classification systems. The great problem is where to place term literary semiotics and how to classify this subject. In general semiotics is a science of philosophy of meaning, of symbolic logic, connotation and denotation. This is a study of sign and sign sys-tems, meaning and signification, expression and communication. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics cited four aspects of semiotics:

• Semiotic properties,

• theoretical semiotics,

• semiotic methods and

• applied semiotics.

Each of these aspects refers to literary semiotics, theoretical activity which seems to become basic in modern literary analysis. Semiotics properties are immanent to literature in its first imaginative creative level and consequence of this fact is literary analysis based on applied semiotics and developing semiotic methods of literary interpretation. Literary work could be observed as a sign realized on two levels: first level is artistic text itself as signify, while second level is interpretation of meaning of this text as signified. As it is obvious these two terms signify and signified must be included as narrower terms for broader term literary semiotics to the top term literary analyses UF literary interpretation. Term semiology UF semiotics exists in X45 as narrow term of semantics (X44/46) in linguistics (X02/54). The same thing is in UDC; semiotics (index 801.115) is subgroup of orthography (index 801.1). In both cases semiotics is classified as linguistic subjects but its literary aspect doesn't exist in classifications. As we have in mind our conception of micro thesaurus for theory of literature structuralism as philosophy and method of literary interpretation should be related term to semiotics, as well as formalism as interpretation method of artistic text. Narrower terms should be seme, morpheme, mytheme as elements of structural analysis of literary text.

Next problem which we take as our task is the question of literary schools and move-ments. UDC index is 82.015 and there is no further divisions (if possibility to denote particulars by common auxiliary of time and place is excluded). But in Slovenian middle edition of UDC (FID 622, Ljubljana, 1982) there is detailed classification of literary schools and styles (term styles has been used instead of term movements):

Similar problem arises with of literary forms and genres. There is obvious differences in classification between UDC and UNESCO THESAURUS. UDC trends at this problem most traditionally using definition of genre as a class of artistic endeavor having a particular form, technique or content. In UNESCO THESAURUS the term literary forms and genres (X62/68) UF allegory, fantasy, humor and satire is followed by narrower terms fiction (X63.10), poetry (X65), prose (X66) and drama (X676). Out of classical concept of genre stand popular literature (X63.20) with NT best sellers, romance stories, thrillers and science fiction, as well as folk literature (X63.50) with fairy tales as cross reference and legends and proverbs as narrower terms. There are two points of view mixed in UNESCO THESAURUS: immanent analysis to artistic text on one side and external access of literary text concerning the authors in the case of folk literature and the reception in the case of popular literature. Both, folk and popular literature could be realized as literary texts in various genres (poetry, prose, novel, play etc.) and these terms (folk and popular literature) cannot have same hierarchical level as genres in their classical meaning. The same applies to scripts for film or for theater. This term has been formulated from the point of purpose to which it serves, in other words again starting from the external access of literature. Modern theory of literature demands the restriction between these two points of view.

The next group of problem tackles literary devices (X60.20) defined from the point of literary technique. This term is used for alliteration, dialogue, literary characters, literary plot and metaphors. At first sight we can see that literary devices in UDC have been classified in two groups: in linguistics (index 801) as metrics (index 801.6) and in theory, study and technique of literature (index 82.0) with possibility to combine these two groups using subdivision .07 (82.07=801). From this combination long list of literary devices could be made for example metric patterns, verse patterns, various poetic figures. On the other side stand concepts of fabula, of motif, of subject, of composition, of structure, kinds of literary plot, metaphors, grotesque etc. All these literary devices should find their places in micro thesaurus such as thesaurus for theory of literature. Making indexes, alphabet, permuted, KWOK etc is of special importance in thesaurus. As controlled and dynamic dictionary well conceived thesaurus should tend to encompass the entire knowledge of literary science.

3. CONCLUSION

In this paper we have mentioned only a few outstanding problems which appear in making thesaurus for theory of literature. The task facing us will not be easy to fulfill without very hard work but the fact is that the need for this kind of thesaurus increases with develop-ment of theory of literature as a scientific branch.

REFERENCES

Aitchinson, Jean, comp. Unesco Thesaurus. Paris: Unesco, 1977. 2 v. pp. 485, 530.

Approaches to Semiotics. #73. Nomenclator Litterarius, ed. by W. V. Ruttkowski. Bern, Germany: Francke Verlag, 1980. 548 p.

Pravila za izradu predmetnog registra bibliografije knjiga i ölanaka / Nevenka Skendzic. Beograd: Jugoslovenski Bibliografski Institut, 1978. 32 str.

Reönik knjizvnih termina / Dragisa Zivkovic uredn. Beograd: Institut za knjizvnost i umetnost, 1985. 548 str.

Ruttkowski, W. V., ed. Nomenclator Litterartus. Bern: Francke Verlag, 1980. 548 p.

Sebeok, Thomas A., ed. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter, 1986. 3 v. (1179, 451 p.). (Approaches to Semiotics; 73)

Show, Harry. Concise Dictionary of Literary Terms. New York: McGraw-Hill Company, 1976. 290 p.

Skendzió, Nevenka. Pravila za Izradu Predmetnog Registra Bibliografije Knjiga i Olanka. Beograd: Jugoslovenski bibliograf-ski institut, 1978. 32 str.

Univerzalna decimalna klasifikacija : Slovenska skrajsana izdaja. 2. spremenjena in dopolnjena izdaja. Ljubljana: Centralna tehniska knjiznica, 1982. 148 str.

Universal Decimal Classification: English full edition. FID Publication No 179. UDC 8. Language, Linguistics, Literature. London: British Standards Institution, 1971. 36 p.

Verona, Eva. Pravilnik i Priruönik za Izradu Abecednih Kataloga. Zagreb: Drustvo bibliotekara Hrvatske, 1970-1983. 2 d.(475, 691).

Zivkovic, Dragisa, uredn. Recnik Knjizevnih termina. Beograd: Institut za knjizevnost i umetnost, 1985. 548 str.

STANDARDS

A.C1.200 (ISO 1146-1974) Informacija i dokumentacija. Indeksiranje sadrzaja dokumenta. Principi, pojmovi i opsata pravila

A.C2.201 (ISO 5963-1985) Metode za indeksiranje dokumenta, odredivanje njihove sadrzine i odabiranje termina za indeksiranje

A.C1.205 (ISO 2788-1986) Smernice za sastavljanje i razvoj jednojezicnih tezaurusa

A.C1.206 (ISO 5964-1985) Smernice za sastavljanje i razvoj visejezicnih tezaurusa

A.C3.006 (ISO 7154-1983) Principi bibliografskog sredivanja