Cover not available
Article published In:
Historiographia Linguistica
Vol. 32:1/2 (2005) ► pp.87–116

Reichling and De Groot

Two Dutch reactions to Bühler’s Organon-Modell

| University of Amsterdam
Dutch structuralism developed during the first half of the 20th century as a heterogeneous movement. Interest in the works of Karl Bühler (1879–1963), however, can be observed in the publications of Dutch linguists as different as Albert Willem de Groot (1892–1963) and Anton Reichling (1898–1986), professors of General Linguistics at the universities of, respectively, Utrecht and Amsterdam. Although the ways in which they discuss and make use of Bühler’s insights differ widely, in agreement with their very divergent theoretical orientations, there is one common element: both scholars discovered and criticized, independently of each other, the same ambiguity in the famous organon-model, presented by Bühler in his Sprachtheorie (1934).

Article language: German

Published online: 8 June 2005
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.32.2.05elf
References (33)
References
Block, Russell. 1996. “A. W. de Groot’s Strukturele Syntaxis and Modern Language Theory”. Contemporary Explorations in the Culture of the Low Countries ed. by William Z. Shetter & Inge van der Cruysse (= Publications of the American Association for Netherlandic Studies, 9), 13–23. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl. 1927. Die Krise der Psychologie. Jena: J. A. Barth.Google Scholar
. 1933. “Die Axiomatik der Sprachwissenschaften”. Kant-Studien 381.19–90. (Published separately, with Einleitung and Kommentar by Elisabeth Ströker, Frankfurt/Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1969; 2nd corrected ed., 1976.)Google Scholar
. 1934. Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Gustav Fischer. (2nd ed., with a ‘Geleitwort’ by Friedrich Kainz, Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer, 1965; repr., 1982.)Google Scholar
. 1990[1934]. Theory of Language: The representational function of language. Transl. by Donald F. Goodwin, with an Introduction by Achim Eschbach. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Collinson, William E. 1952. “An Account of de Groot’s ‘Structurele Syntaxis’ in its Application to English”. Lingua 31.162–177.Google Scholar
Daalder, Saskia. 1994. “Anton Reichling en het primaat van het woord”. Voortgang: Jaarboek voor de Neerlandistiek 141.257–272. Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU; Münster: Nodus.Google Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo & Edson Françozo. 1988. “The Pragmatic Turn in Psycholinguistics”. Theoretical Linguistics 151.1–23.Google Scholar
Dempe, Hellmuth. 1930. Was ist Sprache? Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger.Google Scholar
Elffers, Els. 1991. The Historiography of Grammatical Concepts: 19th and 20th-century changes in the subject-predicate conception and the problem of their historical reconstruction. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
. 1994. “Reichling en de psychologie”. Voortgang: Jaarboek voor de Neerlandistiek 141.237–256. Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU; Münster: Nodus.Google Scholar
. 1997. “Linguistics and Psychology: How should we reconstruct their relationship?”. Metahistoriography: Theoretical and methodological aspects of the historiography of linguistics ed. by Peter Schmitter & Marijke van der Wal, 87–106. Münster: Nodus.Google Scholar
. 1999a. “Psychological Linguistics”. Geschichte der Sprachtheorie, vol. IV1: Sprachtheorien der Neuzeit ed. by Peter Schmitter, 301–342. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
. 1999b. “Biografie en vakgeschiedenis: Anton Reichling (1898–1986)”. Voortgang: Jaarboek voor de Neerlandistiek 181.129–149. Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU; Münster: Nodus.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 1983. “Lexicografie en linguïstiek: Reichling gerehabiliteerd”. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taalen Letterkunde 991.186–206.Google Scholar
Graffi, Giorgio. 2001. 200 Years of Syntax: A critical survey. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Groot, Albert W. de. 1949. Structurele Syntaxis. Den Haag: Servire. (Repr., with a preface and introduction by Gijsbertha F. Bos & Herman Roose, 1965.)Google Scholar
1962. Inleiding tot de Algemene Taalwetenschap. Groningen: Wolters–Noordhoff.Google Scholar
1978. Die Hierarchie im System der Sprache. Werkauswahl mit Einleitung und Bibliographie. Transl. by Oskar Reichmann. Ed. by Gijsbertha F. Bos. München: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1973. Main Trends in the Science of Language. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kaldewaij, Jelle. 1988. “The Syntax of two Dutch Structuralists in its Historical Context”. Historiographia Linguistica 15:1/2.239–261. (Repr. in The History of Linguistics in the Low Countries ed. by Jan Noordegraaf, Kees Versteegh & Konrad Koerner, 305–327. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1992.)Google Scholar
Lukkenaer, Pim. 1974. “Over Bühlers taaltheorie en Reichling”. Meta: Mededelingenblad voor Neerlandici te Leiden 8:4.3–4, 8:5.9–11, 8:6.7–13.Google Scholar
Nerlich, Brigitte & David D. Clarke. 1996. Language, Action and Context: The early history of pragmatics in Europe and America, 1780–1930. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Noordegraaf, Jan. 1994. “Reichling Revisited: Algemene taalwetenschap in Nederland 1935–1960”. Voortgang: Jaarboek voor de Neerlandistiek 141.273–302. Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU; Münster: Nodus. (Repr. in Voorlopig verleden: Taalkundige plaatsbepalingen 1797–1960 by Jan Noordegraaf, 178–211. Münster: Nodus, 1997.)Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. 1979. “The Meaning of Meaning”. Mind, Language and Reality. Philosophical papers vol. II1, 215–272. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reichling, Anton. 1935. Het woord: Een studie omtrent de grondslag van taal en taalgebruik. Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink. (2nd ed., 1967.)Google Scholar
. 1963. Das Problem der Bedeutung in der Sprachwissenschaft. Innsbruck: Sprachwissenschaftliches Institut der Leopold-Franzens-Universität.Google Scholar
Stern, Gustaf. 1931. Meaning and Change of Meaning; with special reference to English. Göteborg: Elanders Boktryckeri Aktiebolag. (Repr., Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968.)Google Scholar
Swiggers, Pierre. 1981. “Two Dimensions in Karl Bühler’s Sign Theory”. Ars Semeiotica 41.53–56.Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen. 1972. Human Understanding: The collective use and evolution of concepts. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Verburg, Pieter. 1964. “Albert Willem de Groot”. Jaarboek van de Maatschappij der Nederlandse Letterkunde 1964/1965.66–74.Google Scholar
Vonk, Frank. 1989. “Karl Bühlers taaltheorie en de Nederlandse psychologie en taalkunde tussen 1920 en 1950”. Voortgang: Jaarboek voor de Neerlandistiek 101.239–278. Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU.Google Scholar
. 1992. Gestaltprinzip und abstraktive Relevanz: Eine wissenschafts-historische Untersuchung zur Sprachaxiomatik Karl Bühlers. Münster: Nodus.Google Scholar