Paradoxaal (anti-)psychologisme in de begin 20e-eeuwse taalkunde

The turn towards antipsychologism around 1900 was a complex process, in logic, and even more in linguistics. Besides paradoxes within the process itself, there were paradoxes in its execution by individual linguists. Metatheoretical psychologism is sometimes combined with linguistic viewpoints associated with antipsychologism and vice versa. Examples can be found in the work of the Dutch linguist Jacques van Ginneken (1877-1945) and of the German linguist John Ries (1857-1933). Whereas Van Ginneken still adopts 19th-century psychologism but also presents analyses of language use which anticipate antipsychologism, Ries explicitly rejects psychologism but also approves of earlier views of the sentence of a purely psychologistic type. How should historiographers of linguistics deal with paradoxes like these?