Whatever Happened to Karl Buhler?

ADRIAN BROCKYork University

AbstractThe work of Karl Buhler is not particularlywell known in English-speaking countries. IfBuhler is mentioned at all in texts on the his-tory of psychology, it is in connection with hisearly work at the University of Wiirzburg. Thiswork represents only the start of Buhler'scareer in psychology. He subsequently pro-duced important work on perception, Geslalltheory, developmental psychology, theoreticalpsychology and the psychology of language.Buhler's work has had a profound — thoughlargely unnoticed — influence on laterthinkers. It has also been the subject of arevival of interest in Europe in recent years.This article provides an overview of Buhler'slife and work.

In a wide-ranging article on the historio-graphy of psychology, Wcimcr (1974) hasdiscussed what he calls "the suppression ofpsychological history" (p. 248). Weimerpoints out that 'history' is inevitably selective.I Iistorians of psychology — particularly thosewho arc practising psychologists —- havesome general idea of what psychology is andhow it ought to be done. This will lead themto select out certain aspects of psychology'spast and to ignore others. Weimer arguesthat this process is not always a consciousone. Few historians of psychology will delib-erately suppress 'history'. They arc simplynot aware of its existence. Works which didnot have a major impact on psychology willdisappear from the 'collective memory' ofpsychologists.

Weimer illustrates these points with the

Canadian l'sychology/l'sychologie canadienne, 35:3

example of Karl Buhler (1879-1963). Onesuspects that Buhler was chosen because theexample is such a striking one. If Buhler ismentioned at all in texts on the history ofpsychology, it is in connection with his earlywork as Oswald Kiilpc's assistant at the Uni-versity of Wiirzburg (e.g. Hothersall, 1990;Brcnnan, 1991; Hcrgcnhahn, 1992; Leahcy,1992a; Schultz & Schultz, 1992). It wasBuhler's work on 'imageless thought' whichsparked off the famous controversy withWilhelm Wundt over the methods of the'Wiirzburg School'. Boring (1950) wrote:

Buhler was severely criticized by Wundt, byDurr, who was one of his observers, and byvon Aster. Titchcncr, of course, criticized theentile movement. Buhler, however, left thetotal picture of thought without importantchange, and we may thus close our account ofthe Wurzburg school and return once againto Kiilpc. (pp. 4O6A01).

Boring mentions Buhler only in the contextof Kiilpe's students at Wurzburg and as theeditor of Kiilpe's posthumous "Vorlesungen"[Lectures] (Kiilpe, 1920). With regard to thelatter, Boring only comments that "Buhlermay even have introduced llusscrl to Kiilpc"(p. 408). If this was Buhler's only work of anysignificance, then his minor role in the his-tory of psychology would be perfecdy jus-tified. Let us lake a closer look at this'minor' Figure in order to see why Buhler issuch an interesting case.

Concept of GestaltBiihlcr's work as part of the 'WiirburgSchool' represents only the start of his careerin psychology. He subsequendy moved,together with Kiilpe, to the University ofBonn in 1909 and to the University ofMunich in 1913. It was during his stay inBonn that Biihler became interested inEhrenfels' concept of 'Gestalt' and applied

320 Brock

this to the study of perception. The resultsof this work appeared under the title, DieGestaltwahrnehmungen [The Gestalt Percep-tions] (Buhler, 1913). This was one of theearliest attempts to experiment with Gestaltphenomena.1 During his stay in Munich,Biihler turned his attention to developmentalpsychology. His major work on the subject —Die geistige Entwicklung des Kindes [TheMental Development of the Child] —appeared in 1918 (Biihlcr, 1918). This workwas widely used in teacher-training institutesand had already reached its 6th edition by1930 (Buhler, 1930a). An abridged version ofthe book — Abri$ der geistigen Entwicklungdes Kindes [Oudine of die Mental Develop-ment of the Child] — appeared in 1919(Buhler, 1919). This had reached its 5thedition by 1929 (Buhler, 1929a). An Englishtranslation appeared in the following year(Buhler,, 1930b). These works helped toestablish Biihler's reputation as one ofEurope's leading authorities on develop-mental psychology. Buhler is one of the mostfrequendy-cited authors in Vygotsky's Thoughtand Language (1934/1986).

Buhler had become director of the ViennaPsychological Institute in 1922. With die helpand support of his wife, Charlotte Buhler, herapidly transformed it into one of the majorcentres of psychology in Europe. Like theLeipzig Institute many years earlier, itattracted students from all over die world.Charlotte Buhler (1965a) wrote that theVienna Institute had students from 18 differ-ent countries at the 11th International Con-gress of Psychology in Paris. Some of thebetter known figures who studied thereinclude: Hedda Bolgar, Egon Brunswik,Rudolf Ekstein, Herbert Fcigl, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Heinz Harunann, Marie Jahoda,David Klein, Paul Lazarsfeld, Konrad Lorenz,Neal Miller, Karl Popper, Rene Spitz, EdwardTolman, Goodwin Watson and Albert Wellek.Biihler's reputation as a lecturer was legend-

1 Buhler subsequently became involved in a disputewith Kofika over the originality of 'Gestalt' psychol-ogy (Biihler, 1926a).

ary. Bolgar (1964) wrote:

Any account of Biihler's life would be incom-plete if il did not convey his impact as ateacher. His curiosity was contagious, his lan-guage was vivid and rich in new terms, hisarguments were vigorous and unexpected,whereas his obvious enjoyment of the businessof thinking held his audience of several hun-dred students spellbound through manycourses in general psychology, (p. 678)

Many of Buhler's students went on to becomeprominent in the United States. EgonBrunswik moved to Berkeley and establisheda close collaboration with Edward Tolmanwhom he had befriended in Vienna. PaulLazarsfeld moved to Columbia and eventuallybecame President of die American Sociologi-cal Association. Else Frenkel-Brunswik is per-haps best known as one of the authors of TheAuthoritarian Personality (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson & Sanford, 1950). Theproductivity of die Vienna Institute alonewould merit Buhler an important place in thehistory of psychology (C Buhler, 1965a;Wellek, 1968; Weimer, 1974).

Possible IntegrationBuhler turned his attention to theoreticaland mctiiodological issues in the 1920s. InDie Krise der Psychologie [The Crisis of Psy-chology], he examined the different 'schools'of psychology (e.g., Gestalt psychology,behaviourism, psychoanalysis) and oudincdproposals for how dicir results might beintegrated. The work originally appeared asan article in the journal, Kant-Studien [KantStudies] in 1926 (Buhler, 1926b). It wasreissued as a book in 1927 and again in 1929(Biihler, 1927; 1929b). This work is regardedas a 'classic' in German-speaking countries.A third edition of the book was published in1965 and a fourtii edition in 1978 (Buhler,1965a; 1978). In his review of the third edi-tion, G. W. Allport (1966) wrote:

One wonders why some of the most importantpsychological treatises in the German Ian-

Whatever Happened to Karl Biihler? 321

guage have remained untranslated for dec-ades. One thinks, for example, of Fechner'sPsychophysik, of Brcntano's Psychologic vomempirischen Standpunkt, and of the work hereunder review, Buhlcr's Die Krise derPsychologie. The last named was published in1927, reissued in 1929, and again in 1965.Recently, I have heard rumors that all threeof these neglected classics arc now in theprocess of belated translation. I hope that therumors become realities, (p. 201).

Unfortunately, the work has still not beentranslated into English. This may explain whyit is so rarely discussed by English-speakingtheoretical psychologists.2

Biihler became one of the most eminentpsychologists of the time. He lecturedthroughout Europe during his years inVienna (Czechoslovakia, France, Germany,Great Britain, Hungary, Norway, Spain,Sweden). He spent academic 1927/8 in theUnited Slates where he gave guest lecturesat Stanford, Johns Hopkins and HarvardUniversities. He also spoke at the APA con-vention in 1927 and took part in the'Wittenberg Symposium' on feelings andemotions (Biihler, 1928a; 1928b). Biihlerreturned to the United States in 1929 to givea series of guest lectures at die University ofChicago and to take part in the 9th Interna-tional Congress of Psychology in New Haven(Biihler, 1930c). He was elected President ofthe German Psychological Society in thesame year — a position which he held until1931. Biihler's international reputation — aswell as that of the Vienna Institute — wasconfirmed when, in 1930, he was offered thechair at Harvard University which had beenvacated by William McDougall in 1927.

2 Vygotsky wrote on 'the crisis of psychology' in1927 but the work, was not published until 1982.This work has also not been translated into English— though it is available in German translation(Vygotsky, 1982/1985). For a comparison of the twoworks, see Pleh (1988). Maicrs (1990) has arguedthat both these works are of relevance to the con-tinuing 'monism pluralism' debate in theoreticalpsychology.

Biihler decided to reject the offer. He wasnow at the peak of his career. He hadalready made important contributions to thepsychology of diought, perception, Gcstalttheory, developmental psychology and Uicor-etical psychology. The best was yet to come.Biihler went on to produce a series ofimportant works on language and expressionin the 1930s: Die Axiomatik der Sprachwissen-schaflen [The Axiomatization of the Lan-guage Sciences] (Biihler, 1933a); Ausdrucks-theorie [Theory of Expression] (Biihler,1933b); Sprachtheorie [Theory of Language](Biihler, 1934). The latter has been des-cribed as "the richest, most original andprecise book that has ever been written onthe subject" (Marias, 1967; p. 15).3 This workhas had a profound — though largely unnot-iced — influence on later thinkers. In theirbook on Symbol Formation, Werner andKaplan (1963) wrote:

In this presentation, we shall draw consider-ably on the views of Karl Biihler whoseSprachlheorie, we believe, presents the mostadvanced psychological analysis of the generalstructure of language, (p. 52)

The authors add in a footnote:

It is regrettable that Biihler's book is neitherdiscussed nor even cited in any of the recentworks on language by American psychologists,(p. 52)

This situation has hardly changed today.Biihler's book is ncidicr cited nor mentionedin modern textbooks on the psychology oflanguage (e.g., Fodor, Bever & Garrett, 1974;Clark & Clark, 1977; Foss & Hakes, 1978;Aitchcson, 1983; Garnham, 1985).4

Theory of LanguageBiihler's theory of language was well knownto Werner and Kaplan from Germany. It

3 "Esta Teoria del Lenxuaje de Karl Buhler es fed vezel libro mas rico, original y preciso quc sc ha escrilosobre el tema."

322 Brock

remained one of the best-kept secrets of therefugees from Central Europe who came toBritain and the United States in the 1930s.Biihlcr provided the theoretical basis for theLinguistic Circle of Prague. Two of its centralmembers, Roman Jakobson and Jan Muka-rovsky, were heavily indebted to him (e.g.,Jakobson, 1960; Mukarovsky, 1977). Jakobson(1973) wrote that Biihler's work was "forlinguists probably the most inspiring amongall the contributions to the psychology oflanguage" (p. 41). Biihler also had a pro-found impact on philosophy. One of theleading epistemologists of the 20th century,Karl Popper, studied with Biihler in Viennaand productively developed many of Buhler'sideas (e.g., Popper, 1963; 1971). In his auto-biography, Popper (1976) wrote:

From my teachers at the Institute I learnedvery little, but I learned much from KarlBuhler, Professor of Psychology at the Uni-versity of Vienna ... Most important for myown future development was his theory of thethree levels or functions of language, (pp.73-74)

Buhler also influenced the work of majorphilosophers such as Ernst Cassirer andMichael Polanyi (e.g., Cassirer, 1929/1957;Polanyi, 1958). There is now a growing litera-ture which points to the striking similaritiesbetween Buhler's work and the later philos-ophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein (e.g., Toulmin,1969; Barlley, 1973; Bloor, 1983; Eschbach,1984a; Innis, 1988). This has led one biogra-pher to conclude: "If any individual thinkercan be said to have influenced Wittgenstein... it must have been Karl Buhler" (Bartlcy,1973; p. 144).'

Buhler is clearly one of the intellectual

4 Arthur Bliimenthal's historical work, Language anilPsychology, contains a partial translation of otic ofBuhler's early articles on language (Blmnenihal,1970). Buhler's theory of language is far too com-plex to summarize in a few lines. The most detailedaccount in English can be found in Innis (1982). Ofcourse, this is no substitute for reading the originalworks (Buhler, 1933/1082a, 1934/1990).

giants in the history of psychology. Why is itthat his work is virtually unknown to psychol-ogists in English-speaking countries? Thistakes us back to "the suppression of psycho-logical history". Weimer (1974) suggests thatBoring may have felt 'snubbed' when Buhlerrejected the offer of McDougall's chair atHarvard — an offer which had been ten-dered by Boring himself. He writes:

Boring proceeded to write Buhler out of thehistory of psychology after 1930. In the first(1929) edition of his history, there are half adozen references to Buhler on ten pages: aconsiderable amount for a 'contemporary'figure who had not yet reached his peak influ-ence. Kohler, in comparison, had fifteen, andKoffka and Wcrthcimer had six each. In the1950 edition, by contrast, there were two ref-erences to Buhler (and two more citations ofresearch), while Kohler had twenty-one,Koffka ten and Werlheimcr seventeen. Theonly research of Buhler's cited by Boring wasthe early work at Wurzburg. (p. 252)

A more charitable explanation would be thatBoring had revised his opinion of Buhler'simportance between 1929 and 1950. WhenBuhler was forced to leave Vienna in 1938,he had a frosty reception in the UnitedStates.6 Most of the available academic posi-tions had already been taken by the earlier

5 This view has been challenged (Kaplan, 1984).The issue is difficult to prove since Wittgensteindocs not mention Bfihler in ally oi his published orunpublished works (Eschbach, 1988a). No onefioubLs, however, that there are some remarkablesimilarities between their ideas (Innis, 1988).

6 Biihler was arrested shortly after German troopsentered Vienna in March 1938. On April 9, hisname ap|jt>arcd on the first list of professors whowere to be dismissed "for political and world-viewreasons" (Ash, 1987; p. 157). Charlotte Buhler, whohad one Jewish parent, held a visiting professorshipin Norway at the lime. Her name appeared on alater list of professors who were to be dismissed "onracial grounds" (Ash, 1987; p. 157). After interven-tion from abroad, Karl Biihlcr was released fromconfinement and given the choice of forced retire-ment or emigration.

Whatever Happened to Karl lliihler? 323

wave of refugees who had left Germany after1933. His major works had never been trans-lated into English. The dominant trend inAmerican psychology and linguistics wasbehaviourism. Garvin (1964) wrote:

With the end of Buhlcr's career in Europeciiine also the end of his contact with themainstream of linguistic thought. In theUnited Slates both psychologists and linguistswere at the time too strongly committed tobehaviorism to receive the newly arrived rep-resentative of a school of thought considered'menialislic'. (p. 634)

The only academic position which Buhlercould obtain was at the tiny St. ScholasticaCollege in Duluth, Minnesota. Cut oil" fromhis culture and language — as well as thefacilities and stimulation of a large university— he found it very difficult to adapt toAmerican psychology or to life in the Ameri-can Midwest. He continued to do researchbut his work was rejected by publishers andhas never appeared in print.7 After severalunsuccessful attempts to find a position at amore prominent institution, Buhler leftacademia in 1945 and became a clinicalpsychologist at the Cedars of Lebanon Hospi-tal in Los Angeles •— a posidon which heheld until 1955. After his retirement, hehelped his wife widi her psychodicrapy prac-tice in Hollywood (Eschbach, 1990).

Shackles of BehaviourismBuhler had never been forgotten in hisnative Germany. He was invited to attend the1960 International Congress of Psychology inBonn and was made 'Honorary President'for the occasion. An expanded version of hisaddress was published in German as a book

7 Buhler had been a prolific author before 1938.Quite incredibly, he published nothing at all in theUnited States after this date. The only works that hepublished in English were two articles whichappeared in the Dutch journal, Aria Psychologica(Buhler, 1952; 1954). These were on human andanimal navigation systems — topics which were farremoved from his interests in Vienna.

(Buhler, 1960). The German PsychologicalSociety look the opportunity to award himits highest honour — 'The Wilhelm WundtMedal* — for distinguished contributions topsychology (Ungchcucr, 1984). Buhlerreturned to the United Slates where he spenthis final years. Certain changes were takingplace which might have helped to preparethe way for a greater appreciation of hiswork. Psychology had begun to throw off theshackles of behaviourism and there was agrowing interest in language and diought. Itis no accident diat die works of Piaget andVygotsky from die 1920s and -30s were sud-denly 'discovered' around this time." Therewas no corresponding interest in Biihler'swork. His major works had never been trans-lated and were known to only a few. Buhlerwas invited to take part in a conference oflinguists at the University of Indiana in 1962but he was already 83 years old and too ill toattend. He died in Los Angeles on October26, 1963 having never held a universityappointment in die United States or a posi-tion commensurate with his status in Europe(Garvin, 1964; Wellek, 1968; C. Buhler,1972).9

This whole episode has been virtuallyignored by American historians of psychologyfor whom Buhler is still a relatively'unknown' figure.10 Apart from the need tointroduce Buhler to an English-speakingaudience — and to explain how one ofEurope's leading psychologists could suffersuch isolation and neglect in United States— there is another reason why Biihler's lifeand work should be re-examined. The lastfew years have seen a revival of interest inBiihler's theories in Europe. Some writershave begun to speak of a "Buhler-Renais-

8 Some writers have seen the 'cognitive revolution'of the 1960s as evidence of a Kuhnian paradigm-shift (e.g., Palermo, 1971; Gardner, 1985; Baars,1980). As Danzigcr (1992) pointed out in a recentCPA address, this view is highly ethnocentric. It canonly work if one looks no further than the UnitedSlates. There was no need for a cognitive revolutionin Europe. Psychology had never gone 'behaviorist'in the first place (Brock, 1991, Lcahcy, 1992b).

324 Brock

sance" (Koerner, 1984; Eschbach, 1988b).The start of this interest can be traced backto the reissue of Die Krise der Psychologicand Sprachtheorie in 1965 (Buhlcr, 1965a;1965b). These were followed by new editionsof Abrifi der geistgen Entwicklung des Kindes,Ausdruckstheorie and Die Axiomatik derSprachwissenschaften (Biihler, 1967; 1968,1969a). A collection of unpublished manu-scripts — accompanied by an intellectualbiography — also appeared around this time(Buhler, 1969b). These publications led to agrowing interest in Biihler's work."

Collected WorksThe year 1984 is of particular importancesince this was the 50th anniversary of the firstedition of Sprachtheorie (Buhlcr, 1934). Anumber of publications were prepared tocoincide with this date. These include twovolumes — entitled, Buhler-Studien [BuhlerStudies] —which contain 25 essays on differ-ent aspects of Buhler's life and work(Eschbach, 1984b). Another volume of essaysappeared in the same year (Graumann &Hermann, 1984). Two conferences devotedto Biihler's work — one in Austria and one

9 It was around this time that Brandt (1963) wroteto the American Psychologist to complain of "linguis-tic isolation" (p. 70). He noted that, in the mostrecent issue of that journal, he could not find onesingle reference to a foreign-language publication.It should be noted that the insularity ot Americanpsychology goes beyond the problem of linguisticisolation (Brandt, 1970). A survey of members ofthe Society of Experimental Social Psychology —"an elite organization of American social psychol-ogists" (Rosnow, 1981; p. 34) — found that 33%had never read the European Journal of Social Psy-chology and 43% had never read the British Journalof Social and Clinical Psychology (Lcwicki, 1982). Itis hardly surprising that American psychology hasbeen described as "our monocultural science"(Kennedy, Scheirer & Rogers, 1984)

10 Charlotte Buhler is much better known than herhusband in the United States. After the initial diffi-culties of the 1940s and -50s, she experienced mod-erate success. She lived until 1974 and became aprominent spokesperson for 'humanistic' psychol-ogy in later years (e.g., C. Buhlcr, 1965b; 1969;1971; Buhler & Allen, 1972).

in Germany — were also held in 1984. Aselection of papers from both these confer-ences was subsequently published in (heNetherlands (Eschbach, 1988c). Biihler'sworks are still being published in Europe. Agroup of researchers at the University ofEssen (Germany) and the Max Planck Insti-tute for Psycholinguistics (Netherlands) iscurrently preparing a ten-volume edition of'Collected Works'. Half of these volumes willcontain previously unpublished material(Emrich, 1990).

Buhler continues to be a relatively neglect-ed figure in English-speaking countries. Themain reason for this is that his major workswere never translated into English. Thissituation has begun to change. An Englishtranslation of Die Axiomatik der Sprachwissen-chaften appeared in 1982 (Buhler, 1933/1982a). More recently, an English translationof Sprachtheorie has appeared — 56 yearsafter it was originally published (Buhler,1934/1990) .n One suspects that it will not belong before Die Krise der Psychologie is trans-lated into English. It is this work whichexemplifies Biihler's constant desire toreflect upon the theoretical foundations ofpsychology. The issues which he discussedhave never been resolved and his work con-tinues to be of interest to psychologists inGerman-speaking countries. A translation ofthis work — together with the recent transla-tion of Sprachtheorie — could help to sparkoff a revival of interest in the English-speak-ing world. It seems safe to predict that

11 Biihler's works continued to be reissued. Afourth edition of Die Krise der Psychologie appearedin 1978 and a third edition of Sprachthenrie in 1982(Buhler, 1978; 1982b).

12 The work was translated by a Canadian, DonaldGoodwin. In his translator's preface, Goodwin(1990) writes: Though it is a historical work andmust be read as such, in translating the Theory ofLanguage, I have hoped it will become a contempor-ary work as well, for it addresses topics of consider-able contemporary relevance" (p.xlv). It should benoted that the 'linguistic turn' in philosophy andthe social sciences has helped to prepare the wayfor this revival of interest in Buhlcr's work.

Whatever Happened lo Karl Buhler? 325

Biihler will eventually receive the recognitionthat he was unable to obtain during his ownlifetime.

Paper presented at the 101st annual meetingof the American Psychological Association inToronto. I would like to thank Kurt Danzigcrand Richard Walsh-Bowers for their helpfulcomments on an earlier draft. Commentsshould be sent lo Adrian Brock, Departmentof Psychology, Oglelhorpc University, 4484Peachlree Road, Atlanta, Georgia, 30319-2797U.S.A.

ResumeLes travaux de Karl Buhler ne sont pastrcs connus dans les pays anglophoncs. Sion y fait allusion dans certains textesportant sur l'histoire de la psychologie, onparlcra surtout de ses premiers travaux al'Univcrsite de Wiirzburg. Mais cctteepoque n'etail qu'un prelude au reste dela carriere de Buhler en psychologic. II apar la suite enrichi le domaine par destravaux important^ sur la perception, latheoric dc la forme, la psychologiegenetique, theorique et du langagc. Us ontcu unc influence profonde, mais engrande partie passee inapcrcuc, sur lespenseurs qui suivirent scs traces. Au coursdes dernieres annees, en Europe, on aconstate un regain de popularite destravaux de Buhler. Cet article brosse unportrait de sa vie et dc son ocuvre.

ReferencesAdorno, T.W., Frenkcl-Brunswik, E., Levinson,

DJ. & Sanford, R.W. (1950). The authoritar-ian personality. New York: Harper & Row.

Aitchison, J. (1983). The articulate mammal: Anintroduction to psycholinguistics. (2nd cd.)London, England: Hutchinson.

Allport, G.W. (1966). An appreciation of DieKrise der Psychologie by Karl Buhler. Jour-nal of General Psychology, 75, 201-204.

Ash, M.G. (1987). Psychology and politics in

interwar Vienna: The Vienna PsychologicalInstitute, 1922-1942. In M.G. Ash & W.R.Woodward (Eds.), Psychology intwentieth-century thought and society, (pp.143-164) Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Baars, BJ. (1986). The cognitive revolution inpsychology. New York: Guilford Press.

Bartlcy, W.W., m (1973). Wittgenstein.Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.

Bloor, D. (1983). Wittgenstein: A social theoryof knowledge. New York: Columbia Univer-sity Press.

Blumenlhal, A.L. (1970). Language and psy-chology: Historical aspects of psycholinguis-lics. New York: Wiley.

Bolgar, II. (1964). Karl Buhler: 1879-1963.American Journal of Psychology, 77, 674-678.

Boring, E.G. (1950). A history of experimentalpsychology. (2nd ed.) New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Brandt, L.W. (1963). Linguistic isolation?American Psychologist, 18, 70-71.

Brandt, L.W. (1970). American psychology.American Psychologist, 25, 1091-1093.

Brennan, J.F. (1991). History and systems ofpsychology. (3rd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prenticc-IIall.

Brock, A. (1991). Imageless thought or stimu-lus error? The social construction of privateexperience. In W.R. Woodward & R.S.Cohen (Eds.), World views and scientificdiscipline formation, (pp. 97-106) Dordrecht,Netherlands: Kluwcr.

Buhler, C. (1965a). Die Wiener psychologis-che Schule in der Emigration. |Thc Viennapsychological school in emigration.] Psy-chologische Rundschau, 16, 187-196.

Buhler, C. (1965b). Some observations on thepsychology of the third force. Journal ofHumanistic Psychology, 5, 54.

Buhler, C. (1969). Humanistic psychology asan educational program. American Psychol-ogist, 24, 736-742.

Buhler, C. (1971). Basic theoretical conceptsof humanistic psychology. American Psy-chologist, 26, 378-386.

Buhler, C. (1972). Charlotte Buhler. In L.J.Pongratz, W. Traxel & E.G. Wchner (Eds.),

326 Brock

Psychologic in Selhstdarstellungen. (pp. 9-42)Bern, Switzerland: Huber.

Biihler, C, & Allen, M. (1972). Introduction tohumanistic psychology. Monterey, CA:Brooks-Cole.

Buhler, K. (1913). Die Gastaltwahrnehmungen.Experimentelle Untersuchungen zurpsychologischen und asthetischen Analyse derRaum- und Zeitanschaung. [The Gestalt per-ceptions: Experimental investigations for apsychological and aesthctical analysis ofviews of space and time. I Stuttgart, Ger-many: Spemann.

Buhler, K. (1918). Die geistige Entwicklung desKindes. (The mental development of thechild.] Jena, Germany: Fischer.

Buhler, K. (1919). Abrifi der geistigenEntwicklung des Kindes. [Outline of themental development of the child.] Leipzig,Germany: Quelle & Mayer.

Buhler, K. (1926a). Die "neue Psychologie1

Koffkas. [The 'new psychology' of Koffka.]Zeitschrift fur Psychologie, 99, 145-159.

Buhlcr, K. (1926b). Die Krise der Psychologie.[The crisis of psychology.] Kant-Studien, 31,455-526.

Buhler, K. (1927). Die Krise der Psychologie.[The crisis of psychology.] Jena, Germany:Fischer.

Buhlcr, K. (1928a). The origin of language.Psychological Bulletin, 25, 169-170.

Buhlcr, K. (1928b). Displeasure and pleasurein relation to activity. In C. Murchison(Ed.), Feelings and emotions: The WittenbergSymposium, (pp. 195-199) Worcester, MA:Clark University Press.

Buhler, K. (1929a). Abrifi der geistigenEntwicklung des Kindes. [Outline of themental development of the child.] (5thed.) Leipzig, Germany: Quelle & Mayer.

Buhler, K. (1929b). Die Krise der Psychologie.[The crisis of psychology.] (2nd ed.) Jena,Germany: Fischer.

Buhlcr, K. (1930a). Die geistige Entwicklungdes Kindes. [The mental development ofthe child.] (6th cd.) Jena, Germany:Fischer.

Buhler, K. (1930b). The mental development ofthe child: A summary of modern psychological

theory. (O. Ocscr, Trans.) New York:Harcourt, Brace & Co. (Original work pub-lished in 1929).

Buhlcr, K. (1930c). Erlebnis, Bcnchmen undWerk. [Experience, behaviour and work.lIn E.G. Boring (Ed.), Ninth internationalcongress of psychology: Proceedings andpapers, (pp. 102-103) Princeton, NJ: Psycho-logical Review.

Buhler, K. (1933a). Die Axiomatik derSprachwissenschaften. |The axiomatizationof the language sciences.) Kant-Studien, 38,19-90.

Buhler, K. (1933b). Ausdruckstheorie: DasSystem an der Geschichte aufgezeigl. [ Theoryof expression: The system as shown byhistory.] Jena, Germany: Fischer.

Buhler, K. (1934). Sprachlheorie: DieDarstellungsfunktion der Sprache. [Theory oflanguage: The representational function oflanguage.] Jena, Germany: Fischer.

Buhler, K. (1952). The skywise and neighbor-wise navigation of ants and bees. Ada Psy-chologica, 8, 225-263.

Buhler, K. (1954). The essentials of contactnavigation. Ada Psychologica, 10, 278-316.

Buhlcr, K. (1960). Das Gestaltprinzip im Lehender Menschen und der Tiere. [The Gestaltprinciple in the life of human beings andanimals.] Bern, Switzerland: Hubcr.

Buhler, K. (1965a). Die Krise der Psychologie.[The crisis of psychology.] (3rd cd.)Stuttgart, Germany: Fischer.

Biihlcr, K. (1965b). Sprachlheorie: DieDarstellungsfunktion der Sprache. [Theory oflanguage: The representational function oflanguage.] (2nd ed.) Stuttgart, Germany:Fischer.

Buhler, K. (1967). Abri$ der gcisligenEntwicklung des Kindes. [Outline of themental development of the child. | (9(hed.) Heidelberg, Germany: Quelle & Meyer.

Buhler, K. (1968). Ausdruckstheorie: Das Sys-tem an der Geschichte aufgezeigt. [Theory ofexpression: The system as shown by his-tory.] (2nd ed.) Stuttgart, Germany:Fischer.

Buhler, K. (1969a). Die Axiomatik derSprachwissenschaften. [The axiomatization

Whatever Happened to Karl Biihler? 327

of the language sciences.] Frankfurt, Ger-many: Klostermann.

Biihler, K. (1969b). Die Uhrcn der Lebewesenund Fragmente aus dent Nachlafi. (The clocksof living beings and fragments from theestate.] Vienna, Austria: Bohlau.

Biihler, K. (1978). Die Krise der Psychologie.[The crisis of psychology.] (4th ed.) Frank-furt, Germany: Ullstein.

Buhler, K. (1982a). The axiomatization of thelanguage sciences. In R.E. Innis (Ed.), KarlBuhler: Semiotic foundations of languagetheory, (pp. 91-164) New York: PlenumPress. (Original work published 1933).

Buhler, K. (1982b). Sprachtheorie: DieDarstellungsfunktion der Sprache. [Theory oflanguage: The representational function oflanguage.] (3rd ed.) Stuttgart, Germany:Fischer.

Buhler, K. (1990). Theory of language: Therepresentational function of language. (D.F.Goodwin, Trans.) Amsterdam, Netherlands:John Benjamins. (Original work published1934).

Gassircr, K. (1957). The philosophy of symbolicforms, vol. 3. (R. Mannheim, Trans.) NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press. (Originalwork published 1929)

Clark, H.H. & Clark, E.V. (1977). Psychologyand language: An introduction to psycholin-guistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jano-vich.

Danzigcr, K. (1992, June). Docs the history ofpsychology have a future? Address given atthe 53rd annual meeting of the CanadianPsychological Association, Quebec, Canada.[To be published in Theory and Psychol-ogy.1

Emrich, U. (Ed.) (1990). Max-Planck-Ge-sellscliafl Berichte und Mitleilungen, Heft2/90: Max-Planck-lnstitul fur Psycholinguistik.[Max Planck Society reports and announce-ments, booklet 2/90: Max Planck Institutefor Psycholinguistics.] Munich, Germany:Max-Planck-Gcsellschafl.

Eschbach, A. (1984a). Vcrstchcn und Inter-pretation. Karl Biihler's synchytischeBegriffe und I.udwig WittgensteinsFamilienahnlichkeiten. [Understanding and

interpretation: Karl Biihler's synchytic con-cepts and I.udwig Wittgenstein's familyresemblances.] In A. Eschbach (Ed.),Buhler-Studien, vol. 2. (pp. 175-206) Frank-furl, Germany: Suhrkamp.

Eschbach, A. (Ed.) (1984b). Buhler-Studien.[Biihler Studies.] Frankfurt, Germany:Suhrkamp. (2 vols.)

Eschbach, A. (1988a). Karl Buhler undLudwig Wittgenstein. [Karl Buhler andLudwig Wittgenstein.] In A. Eschbach(Ed.), Karl Biihler's theory of language, (pp.385-406) Amsterdam, Netherlands: JohnBenjamins.

Eschbach, A. (1988b). Vorwort. [Preface.] InA. Eschbach (Ed.), Karl Buhler's theory oflanguage, (pp. viii-xix) Amsterdam, Nether-lands: John Benjamins.

Eschbach, A. (Ed.) (1988c). Karl Buhler'stheory of language: Proceedings of the con-ferences held at Kirchberg, August 26, 1984and Essen, November 21-24, 1984. Amster-dam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Eschbach, A. (1990). Editor's introduction —Karl Buhler: Sematologist. In K. Buhler,Theory of language, (pp. xiii-xliii) Amster-dam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Fodor, J.A., Bever, T.G., & Garrett, M.F.(1974). The psychology of language: An intro-duction to psycholinguistics and generativegrammer. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Foss, DJ. & Hakes, P.T. (1978). Psycholinguis-tics: An introduction to the psychology oflanguage. Englcwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Gardner, H. (1985). The mind's new science: Ahistory of the cognitive revolution. New York:Busk Books.

Garnhain, A. (1985). Psycholinguistics: Centraltopics. London, England: Mcthuen.

Garvin, P. (1964). Note. [Karl Buhler obitu-ary.] Language, 40, 663-664.

Goodwin, D.F. (1990). Translator's preface. InK. Buhler, Theory of language, (pp. xlv-xlvi)Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Graumann, C.F. & Hermann, T. (Eds.)(1984). Karl Biihlers Axiomatik: h'Unfzig JahreAxiomatik der Sprachwissenschaften. [KarlBuhler's axiomalizalion: Fifty years of

328 Brock

'Axiomatization of the language sciences'.]Frankfurt, Germany: Klostermann.

Hergenhalm, B.R. (1992). An introduction tothe history of psychology. (2nd ed.) Belmont,CA: Wadsworth.

Hothersall, D. (1990). History of psychology.(2nd cd.) New York: McGraw-Hill.

Innis, R.E. (1982). Key themes in Buhlcr'slanguage theory. In R.E. Innis (Ed.), KarlBtihler: Semiotic foundations of languagetheory, (pp. 1-73) New York: Plenum Press.

Innis, R.E. (1988). The thread of subjectivity:Philosophical remarks on Buhler's languagetheory. In A. Eschbach (Ed.), Karl Buhler'stheory of language, (pp. 77-106) Amsterdam,Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics.In T.S. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language, (pp.350-377) Gambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Jakobson, R. (1973). Main trends in the scienceof language. London, England: Allen 8cUnwin.

Kaplan, B. (1984). Einige Bemerkungcn zuEinfliisscn aiif Wittgenstein. [Some remarksabout influences on Wittgenstein. | In A.Eschbach (Ed.), Buhler-Studien, vol. 2. (pp.207-226) Frankfurt, Germany: Suhrkamp.

Kennedy, S., Sheirer, J. & Rogers, A. (1984).The price of success: Our monoculturalscience. American Psychologist, 39, 996-997.

Koerner, K. (1984). Karl Biihlers Sprachthco-rie und Ferdinand de Saussures 'Cours'.fKarl Buhler's theory of language and Fer-dinand dc Saussure's 'Gours'.] In A. Esch-back (Ed.), Buhler-Studien, vol. 2. (pp.89-115) Frankfurt, Germany: Suhrkamp.

Kiilpc, O. (1920). Vorlesungen her Psychologie[Lectures on psychology.] Leipzig, Ger-many, Hirzel.

Lcahcy, T.H. (1992a). A history of psychology:Main currents of psychological thought. (3rded.) Englewood Gliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Leahey, T.H. (1992b). The mythical revol-utions of American psychology. AmericanPsychologist, 47, 308-318.

Lewicki, P. (1982). Social psychology as viewedby its practitioners: Survey of SESPmembers' opinions. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 8, 409416.

Maicrs, W. (1990). The significance ofBuhlcr's 'axiomatic' and Vygotsky's 'gen-eral psychology' for theoretical psychologyand its persistent monism-pluralism debate.In W.J. Baker, M.E. Hyland, R. vanHezewijk 8c S. Tcrwcc (Eds.), Recent trendsin theoretical psychology, vol. 2. (pp.377-388) New York: Springer.

Marias, J. (1967). Nota preliminar deltraductor. [Preliminary note by the transla-tor.] In K. Buhler, Teoria del lenguaje. (pp.15-16) Madrid, Spain: Revista de Occidentc.

Mukarovsky, J. (1977). The world and visualart: Selected essays by Jan Mukarovsky. (P.Steiner &J. Buduck, Trans.) New Haven,CT: Yale University Press.

Palermo, D. (1971). Is a scientific revolutiontaking place in psychology? Science Studies,J, 135-155.

Pleh, G. (1988). Two conceptions of the crisisof psychology: Vygotsky and Biihlcr. In A.Eschbach (Ed.), Karl Buhler's theory oflanguage, (pp. 407-413) Amsterdam, Neth-erlands: John Benjamins.

Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge:Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Popper, KR. (1963). Conjectures and refuta-tions: The growth of scientific knowledge. NewYork: Basic Books.

Popper, KR. (1971). Objective knowledge: Anevolutionary approach. Oxford, England:Clarendon.

Popper, KR. (1976). Unended quest: An intel-lectual autobiography. Glasgow, Scotland:Collins.

Rosnow, R.L. (1981). Paradigms in transition.Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Schullz, D.P. & Schultz, S.E. (1992). A historyof modern psychology. (5th ed.) Fort Worth,TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Toulmin, S. (1969). Ludwig Wittgenstein.Encounter, 58, 58-71.

Ungchcuer, G. (1984). Biihler und Wundt.IBuhler and Wundt.] In A. Eschback (Ed.),Buhler-Studien, vol. 2. (pp. 9-67) Frankfurt,Germany, Suhrkamp.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1985). Die Krisc der Psycho-logie in ihrer historischen Bedeutung. [The

Whatever Happened to Karl Buhler? 329

crisis of psychology in its historical mea-ning. J In L. Wygotski, Ausgewahlte Schriften,vol. 1. (pp. 57-278) Cologne, Germany:Paul-Rugensiein. (Original work publishedin 1982).

Vygotsky, L.S. (198b). Thought and language.(A. Kozulin, Trans.) Cambridge, MA: MITPress. (Original work published 1934)

Wcimer, W.B. (1974). The history of psychol-ogy and its retrieval from historiography: I.

The problematic nature of history. ScienceStudies, 4, 235-258.

Wcllek, A. (1968). The impact of the Germanemigration on the development of Ameri-can psychology. Journal of the History of theBehavioral Sciences, 4, 207-229.

Werner, H. & Kaplan, B. (1963). Symbol for-mation: An organismic-developmentalapproach to language and the expression ofthought. New York: Wiley.