A CRITICAL REVIEW ON THE PROBLEM OF “METAPHORICAL NEOLOGY” IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR CONGRESSES

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 3, 1 - 38, 26.12.2018

Hasan Tutar

https://doi.org/10.22139/jobs.496434

Cited By: 4

Öz

In recent
years, there have been many studies in organizational behavior literature which
are far away from scientific concern and conducted under the influence of
management fashion and enthusiasm. In these studies, contextless rhetoric which
is based on an arbitrary use, contrary to semantics and syntax, obtained by
taking a word from its context and called as “metaphorical neologism” is used.
Moreover, it can be argued that the presentation of these studies under the
name of scientific activity does not mean anything other than wasting time and
mind. The main purpose of this study is to problematize the “metaphoric
neology” which is frequently used in the organizational behavior literature and
to draw the attention to the risks of problems related to the interest in
“saying new things” which is conducted for scientific studies and expressed as
“neologism” in foreign literature. It is thought that the study will contribute
to the fact that literature polluted by metaphorical neologisms which are
contrary to the basic meaning and usage of language and far away from
scientific concerns cannot have any contribution to scientific processes in
general and to literature in particular. The main philosophy of the study is
handled in an interpretative and critical manner.

“Neologism”
is called as the production of rootless, careless concepts with the interest of
fashion, enthusiasm and meaningless “drunkenness of innovation” which are
contrary to the morphological and semantic structure of the language. While
neologism sometimes adheres to the rules of conception production of language,
these “new words” emerged as coinages or neologisms have some important
problems in terms of morphological informational and semantic or morpho-
semantics. These studies carried out on behalf of scientific activities do not
contribute to scientific knowledge, literature and practice. The neologisms,
which have no meaning in the word presence of the language and the factual
world, threaten the organizational behavior discipline in terms of knowledge
and the structure of language. In addition, researches which are fed to
neologism in order to add scientificity to the process are supported by false
causations and researches which do not go beyond stating the obvious have
increased pollution in the literature.

Neologisms
are the conceptions that are produced without paying attention to the harmony
between form, meaning and non-language reality. Their production is not due to
the need for new concepts required by scientific, cultural, technological,
economic and social progress. In contrast, it is enthusiasm, fashion, or
obsessive “passion for innovation”, an unquestionable childish enthusiasm for
innovation. When metaphoric neologism is taken in terms of “Organizational
Behavior”, “what” of “neologism” which in fact is not found in language and
emerged as a result of the combination of word production with ignorant courage
and fashion enthusiasm starts to be important. Neologism, an English word, is
derived from Greek neo (νέο)) “new” and logos (λόγος) words, and in Turkish, it
is expressed as new “word”, “derived word”, “innovation”, and neologism.
Neologism, new derived words, are the words or phrases which are not yet fully
accepted in the language but are new or try to find a place in language. The
word neologism was used in French in 1734 as néologisme and in 1759 as
néologie. The word was first recognized in the English language in the studies
written in 1800 and the usage of this word as “neological”, “neologist” and
“neology” was seen in these years. In Turkish language, this word was first
used by N. Ataç in his work “Diyelim” written in 1954. The concept is
relatively new in Turkish Dictionary. In the large Turkish dictionary, it is
expressed that the concept of neologism has the origin of the French and its
meaning is given as “derived”. 

The
neologisms in the field of organizational behavior, which emerge as a form of
syntaxes consisting of a definer and defined, are in two ways as naming and
variational neology. In naming neology, neologism is produced to name a new
object, phenomenon, or thought. Whatever this kind of neologisms call, they
actually qualify them because they are made with retronyms. In the literature
of organizational behavior, “Cyber slacking”, “Psychological Contract”,
“Materialism Tendency”, “Workplace Impoliteness”, “Organizational Deviation
Behavior”, “Self-Leadership”, “Distributed Leadership”, “Organizational
Attractiveness”, “Work Engagement”, “Work Place Spirituality”, “Entrepreneur
Behavior”, “Innovative Behavior” etc. are the examples of neologism. In
variational neologism, neologisms are produced by taking the language from its
context in order to increase the expression power of the language. In this kind
of neologism, the expression possibilities of language are challenged and
strange forms of expression emerge. In variational neologisms, the existing
word or sentence is used in different meanings from its most known meaning.
Servant Leadership, Psychological Capital, Organizational Socialization,
Contextual Performance, Confidence Asymmetry, Prosaically Motivation,
Recruitment, Employee Sabotage, Organizational Organicity, Paternalistic
Leadership, Nightmare management, Deontological Justice etc.  These words sometimes occur in the form of
chain noun phrases: Toxic Personality Characteristics, Resistance of the Leader
and Followers, Hybrid Third Party Response Strategies are the examples of this
kind of neology. 

As a result,
science first of all wants to investigate events and facts. This is the
expression of the desire of science to know the cause of the events in
question. For example, the scientist consciously or possibly intuitively
focuses on a phenomenon and examines whether an event occurs in the phenomenal
world and whether this event happens again when the necessary and sufficient
situations occur. This is the fact (repeats constantly) and the science or
scientist tries to find out the conditions under which this fact is re-emerged,
in short, find out the reason. In the scientific process, this phase is called
as “scientific explanation”, that is explaining the cause of the facts. The
explanation is to present how the process is, what are the situation, person or
events and their reasons. In this sense, both explanation and description are
related to making complex things understandable, but correspond to different
activities used to make the things understandable at different levels.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Neologism, management fashions, guru discourse, rhetoric, metaphoric neologism

ÖRGÜTSEL DAVRANIŞ KONGRELERİ BİLDİRİLERİNDE “METAFORİK NEOLOJİZM” SORUNU ÜZERİNE ELEŞTİREL BİR İNCELEME

Öz

Amaç: Son zamanlarda özellikle
örgütsel davranış yazınında bilimsellik kaygısından uzak, yönetim moda ve
heveslerinin etkisinde çok sayıda çalışma yapılmaktadır. Bu çalışmalarda
genellikle “metaforik neolojizm” denilen ve dilin bağlamından koparılarak,
“semantik” ve “sentaks”ına aykırı, keyfi bir kullanıma dayalı ve içeriksiz bir
retorik kullanılmaktadır. Söz konusu çalışmaların bilimsel faaliyet adı altında
sunulması zaman ve zihin israfından başka bir anlama gelmediği düşünülmektedir.
Bu çalışmanın temel amacı son dönemde örgütsel davranış literatüründe sıkça
kullanılan “metaforik neoloji”lerin sorunsallaştırılması, bilimsel faaliyet
adına yürütülen ve yabancı literatürde “neolojizm” olarak ifade edilen “yeni
bir şeyler söyleme merakı”nın risklerine dikkat çekmektir. Araştırmada örgütsel davranış kongre bildiri başlıklarında metaforik
neolojizmin etkisi nedir sorusu cevaplandırılmaya çalışılacaktır.
Çalışmanın bilimsel kaygılardan uzak ve dilin temel anlam ve kullanım biçimine
aykırı “metaforik neolojizm”lerle kirletilmiş bir literatürün, genel olarak
bilimsel süreçlere ve özel olarak alan yazına herhangi bir katkısının
olmadığına dikkat çekmek gibi bir katkısının olacağı düşünülmektedir.

Yöntem: Çalışmada 2013 yılından beri
yapılan 6 adet Örgütsel Davranış kongresinde sunulan bildiri başlıkları “metin
çözümlemesi” yöntemiyle analiz
edilerek sunulmuştur. İnceleme temel felsefesi itibariyle yorumsamacı ve eleştirel
bir anlayışla ele alınmıştır.

Bulgular: Analiz bulgularına göre sunulan 561 bildirinin %33,12’sinde “metaforik
neoloji”lerle malul çalışmalar olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Sonuç: Metaforik neolojilerle dolu bir
yazının yönteme, uygulamaya ve alana herhangi bir katkısının olamayacağı ve bu
tarz faaliyetlerin sözde bilimsel faaliyetlerden öteye geçmediği, zaman ve
zihin israfından başka bir işe yaramadığı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

neoloji, yönetim modaları, guru söylemi, retorik, metaforik neolojizm

Kaynakça

• Becermen, M. (2004). Dilthey, Heidegger ve Gadamer’de Anlama Sorunu. Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6 (6), 35-66.
• Bochmann, Klaus (1977). Conditions Socials Et Conditions Linguistiques De La Néologie Lexical Et Leur Place Dans Un Modèle De La Production Lexicale. Philologica Pragensia, 20: 79-87
• Gür, Tahir (2013) Post-Modern Bir Araştırma Yöntemi Olarak Söylem Çö-zümlemesi. Zeitschrift Für Die Welt Der Türken Journal of World of Turks, 185, Vol. 5, No. 1.
• Lehrer, Adriana (2003). Understanding Trendy Neologisms. Italian Journal of Linguistic-Revista di Lingustica, Vol:15, 369-382
• Maudlin, Tim (1994). Quantum Non-Localty and Relativity: Metaphysical İntimations of Modern Physics. Aristotelian Society Series, vol. 13. Oxford: Blackwell. s, 13
• Purvis, Trevor ve Hunt, Alan (2014). Söylem İdeoloji, Söylem İdeoloji, Söy-lem İdeoloji. (Çev: Simten Coşar), Moment Dergi, Sayı 1/1, s. 9-36.
• Safire, William (2007). Retronym. New York Times Magazine. 8(2): 15-24.
• Vermes, A., P. (2003). Proper Names in Translation: An Explanatory At-tempt. Across Languages and Cultures 4 (1), p. 89-108
• Yurtbaşı, Metin (2017). Türkiye’de 2000-2017 Döneminde Oluşan Veya Yay-gınlaşan Yeni Sözler (Neolojizmler). Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, Yıl: 5, Sayı: 40, s. 499
• Arıstoteles (1998). Retorik. (Mehmet H. Doğan, Çev.), İstanbul: YKY. S.47
• Arıstotle (1991). De Interpretatione, The Complete Works of Aristotle. Vo-lume I, (Jonathan Barnes, Edit ve J. L. Ackrill. Trans). Princeton: Prin-ceton University Press.
• Barnard, C. (2003). Language, Ideology and Japanese History Textbooks. London: Routledge.
• Bauer, L. (1983). English Word-Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.
• Bogdan, R.C. ve Biklen, S.K. (1992). Qualitative Research for Education to Theory and Methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon A Division of Simon & Schuster Inc.
• Barnhart, Robert, K. (2006). Chambers Dictionary of Etymology. Paris: Chambers Harrap Publishers.
• Frege, Gottlob. (1989). Anlam ve Yönletim Üzerine. (Çev. H. Elkatip), Felsefe Tartışmaları. 5. Kitap, İstanbul: Panaroma.
• Hartley, J. (2002). Communication, Cultural and Media Studies. London: Routledge.
• Heidegger, Martin. (2008). Being and Time. New York: Harper&Row Pub-lishers.
• Jorgenson M. ve L.J. Phillips (2002). Discourse Analysis as Theory and Met-hod. London: Sage.
• Kerremans, D.A. (2015), Web of New Words: A Corpus-Based Study of the Conventionalization Process of English Neologisms. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
• Lakatos, Imre (1981). Science And Pseudo-Science, Conceptions Of Inquiry: A Reader, (Ed. Stuart Brown, John Fauvel and Ruth Finnegan), Rout-ledge and The Open University Press.
• Matheson, D. (2005). Media Discourse: Analysing Media Text. Berkshire: Open University Press.
• Mil, B. (2007). Nitel Araştırmalarda Söylem Analizi Ve İlkeleri. A.Yüksel., B. Mil., Y. Bilim. (Ed.), Nitel araştırma: neden, nasıl, niçin içinde (s.157-167).Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
• Neuman, W., L. (2008). Toplumsal Araştırma Yöntemleri: Nitel Ve Nicel Yaklaşımlar. (Çev: S. Özge) İstanbul: Yayın Odası.
• Newmark, Peter (1988). A Textbook Of Translation, London and New York: Prentice Hall.
• Özlem, Doğan (2003). Bilim Felsefesi, İstanbul: İnkılap Kitabevi.
• Palmer, F., R. (1987). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Platon, (2000). Kratylos. (Çev. Cenap Karakaya), İstanbul: Sosyal Yayınları.
• Kulaksızoğlu, Işın B., ve Tükel, Raşit (2009). Psikiyatri. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Yayınları.
• Punch, K., F. (2005). Sosyal Araştırmalara Giriş: Nicel Ve Nitel Yaklaşımlar. ( Çev: D.Bayrak, H.B.Arslan, Z. Akyüz). Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
• Robert, Boenig ve Kathleen, Davis (2000). Manuscript, narrative and lexicon: essays on literary and cultural transmission in honor of Whitney F Bolton. London: Associated University Presses.
• Roland, Barthes (1999). Göstergebilimsel Serüven. (Çev: Mehmet Rıfat, Sema Rıfat), İstanbul: Kaf Yayıncılık.
• Rossi, Jean-Gérard. (2001). Analitik Felsefe. (Çev: Atakan Altınörs). İstanbul: Paradigma Yayınları.
• Sözen, E. (1999). Söylem, Belirsizlik, Mücadele, Bilgi/Güç ve Refleksivite. İstanbul: Paradigma Yayınları. s.20
• Tonkiss, K. (2006). Analysis text and speech: content and discourse analysis. C. Seale, (2nd ed.). In. Researching Society and Culture. (367-383). Lodan:Sage
• Van Dijk, T. (1998). Opinion and Ideologies in the Press. (Approaches to Media Discourse içinde. Der. Allan Bell ve Peter Garrett). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
• Wittgensteın, Ludwig (2002). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, İstanbul: Metis Yayıncılık.
• Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (2009). Philosophical Investigations. New Jersey: Blackwell Publishers.
• Wodak, R. ve Meyer, M. (2002). Methods Of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage Publications.
• Yıldırım, A., ve Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yön-temleri (6. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.