The Importance of Language from the Conceptual Difference Between Duty and Responsibility

In the dictionary, the word “görev” is defined as “a duty, obligation, or responsibility” and is explained through three distinct concepts; it is a modern term shaped by the linguistic revolution.

Etymologically derived from the verb “gör,” which originally carried the meaning of “the thing that must be seen or done,” the word gradually came to be used in institutional and human contexts to denote “assumed responsibility or obligation.”

This article aims to examine why the word “görev” does not carry the same meaning as “vazife” and to explore the negative consequences of such semantic narrowing.

Semantic Disconnection

The word “görev,” often equated with concepts such as “vazife” and “sorumluluk,” fails to meet its etymological definition and, by being conflated with these concepts, obscures their true nature, thereby negatively affecting the depth of the language and the contextual structure of thought.

At the beginning of the 20th century, as part of the linguistic revolution, the word derived from the verb “gör” was formed in Turkish by adding the suffix -av, resulting in “görev.” The corresponding French term is “fonction,” meaning “function.” ^【1】

Ziya Gökalp derived the word “uf’ûle” to correspond to this, but its usage never became widespread. ^【2】

The word “vazife,” which is often equated with “görev,” is of Arabic origin. Its dictionary definition is “food, salary, or work assigned for a specific period.” In the history of Islamic institutions and the science of fiqh, it carries meanings such as “a task required to be performed within a specific time, obligation, regular daily voluntary worship (evrad), legal duty or condition, salary or allowance, and a type of land tax.” ^【3】

Why Were They Considered Similar?

The word “görev,” initially introduced as a philosophical equivalent to the French “fonction,” gained widespread usage due to both everyday misuse and the ideological drive of the linguistic revolution to Turkify the language by assigning the term to replace other concepts.

Those who advocated for the Turkification of the language sought to eliminate words of Arabic origin—words that had enriched Turkish in terms of meaning and depth through Islam—solely because of their Arabic roots and Islamic associations, in pursuit of their own political agendas. This attitude was less a genuine effort at linguistic reform through the adoption of foreign terms and more a product of the secularization efforts prevalent in the political atmosphere of the time.

In this context, the confusion between these terms is historically rooted in the dominant ideology of early 20th-century Türkiye and represents the subordination of language to political manipulation. ^【4】

Why Can They Not Be Equated?

Although the two words may appear similar in meaning and usage over time, the word “görev,” shaped under the influence of the linguistic revolution, denotes “function,” whereas the meaning of “vazife” refers to an assigned obligation.

Having a function and bearing an obligation are conceptually and semantically distinct.

In this context, it is more appropriate to use “görev” for machines, as in “Our new engine fulfilled its duty/function,” whereas “vazife” is more suitable when expressing a sense of responsibility or obligation toward a person in cultural or faith-based contexts.

^【5】

Why Is Correct Usage of These Concepts Important?

Using words interchangeably on the basis of their perceived similarity, without regard to their etymological structure, natural development within society, or conceptual context, poses a threat that can erase the intellectual identity of the language. To displace words from their proper places is to first cause semantic drift and narrowing, and ultimately to stifle intellectual activity. A language built on concepts whose meanings have not been properly anchored leads to imprecise expression and an unfounded foundation in thought. Consequently, the intended meaning fails to align with the understood meaning.

Such errors constitute vital threats to a nation’s linguistic heritage and the meaning-making activities associated with that language. For this reason, the sensitivity and efforts of linguistic and intellectual institutions in this area must be given utmost importance. Otherwise, individuals cannot correctly interpret life, themselves, and society; education cannot be properly delivered; and transmitted knowledge cannot be accurately understood.

In such an atmosphere, speaking without awareness of what one believes, thinks, or says is not merely careless—it is dangerous.