FARRADANE'S RELATIONS AS PERCEPTUAL DISCRIMINATIONS

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1108/eb026598
Pages144-157
Published date01 March 1975
Date01 March 1975
AuthorS.D. NEILL
Subject MatterInformation & knowledge management,Library & information science
FARRADANE'S RELATIONS AS
PERCEPTUAL DISCRIMINATIONS
S. D. NEILL
Professor
The School of Library and Information Science
The University of Western Ontario
Farradane's categories of relations
(Fig.
1)
are viewed
as
percepts rather than
concepts. It is argued that Farradane's original use of language supports this
view. A comparison of Farradane's categories with perceptual discrimina-
tions in humans is attempted. The conclusion seems to support claims made
for relational operators, whether those of Farradane or similar relational
indexing
devices
as in
PRECIS,
to have the potential to act
as
metalanguages.
INTRODUCTION
A CLOSE reading of Farradane's psychological support for his categories of rela-
tions leads one to wonder how the relations manage to serve his practical pur-
poses.
While it is not impossible to match his process of
'learning
by association'
to the stages of mental abilities of Piaget, or the types of learning of Robert
Gagné (Appendix A), the match is so difficult to make and so full of questionable
areas,
that one is left with a feeling of insecurity. Farradane's learning process is
exceptionally simple compared to others.
Similarly, his use of Guilford's structure of intellect model, itself only a tentative
construct, suffers from the same malaise. Guilford's complex processes of intel-
lection seem to overwhelm Farradane's table of relations, and to fit his parameters
only by stretching the meanings of words (Appendix B).
One of the more troublesome inconsistencies is Farradane's predilection to use
'perception' and 'conceptualization' as if they were interchangeable. In his first
explanations of his relational categories, he spoke of methods of perception and
"the relations in our perceptual patterns".1 In one article in 1961 he spoke of
"patterns of different concepts",2 and labelled the axis of developing distinctness
as "conceptual clarity".3 Yet in 1966 this dimension of his relational table
is
called
"increasing clarity of perception".4 Mackenzie's article on the application of the
relations in a German language context also betrays this confusion. The table of
relations is labelled "increasing clarity of perception", but his text speaks of
"clarity of conception".5
There seems little doubt that, as time went by, Farradane wrote about the rela-
tions as being between concepts, rather than events or experiences, as in his first
investigations. In his contribution to the Sayers Memorial Volume, his Concurrent
category is described as being mere awareness of two concepts; the temporal
relations as two concepts linked on occasion.6 In 1963, the Fixed relation was
described as two concepts always (within the context) linked together.7
We must be aware that Farradane uses the word 'concept' very loosely: "the
concepts may be just words (descriptors)... or they may be class terms or other
idea groupings".8 If, however, a concept is defined as a class representation, as
144

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT