コクサイ カイケイロン ニオケル ゲンゴ テイコク シュギ ソ ヨンダル キョウジュ タイニン キネンゴウ

全, 在紋, Chun, Jae-moon

The conclusions reached in this paper can be summarized as follows : (1) We should distinguish meta-language from object language. Our thoughts become confused and lost in a maze when the ranks of the language are confused, which is the problem that often arises when addressing linguistic significance in international accounting. In order to think clearly, the distinction between the meta-language for control (accounting standards) and that for description (language for standards and language for disclosure) must be made clear. All three meta-languages mentioned above can be designed as uniform language or as auxiliary language. (2) There is very little chance that each of the above three meta-languages will ever be transformed into a world-wide uniform language in accounting, as suggested by the failure of linguistic imperialism and the delay in the popularization of Esperanto. The meta-languages may become the international auxiliary language, at most, because language is not only a means of communication but is also at one with the culture (values) to which the language speakers belong. (3) Professor Ijiri points out that the effort to establish a world-wide uniform language should be much easier in accounting than in Esperanto because of the fundamental commonality of accounting as a language. According to him, this is because there is no difference in the fundamental structure of the recording in double-entry bookkeeping that has been adopted by most nations. However, an analysis of Ijiri’s international accounting theory using Saussure’s linguistics reveals that while his theory addresses the syntagmatic relation (double-entry bookkeeping) in accounting language, it does not give any consideration to the paradigmatic relation. (4) The significance of double-entry bookkeeping is overestimated not only by professor Ijiri but also by accountants in general. It is especially overestimated by many accounting researchers, both inside and outside Japan. Double-entry bookkeeping, without a doubt, is often considered one of the accounting postulates (the premises of accounting). Meanwhile, the significance of other accounting systems, such as single-entry bookkeeping, is seldom given any consideration. Both the double-entry and single-entry bookkeeping systems have merits and demerits. Nevertheless, a deep-rooted tendency to blindly advocate double-entry bookkeeping is prevalent among accountants. (5) Language is not merely a means of communication. More importantly, it determines human perception, thought, and behavior. According to Saussure’s linguistics, accounting as the language of business holds not only a decisionmaking function but also an accountability function that strictly controls the perception, thought, and behavior of businessmen. However, the executive officers of the International Accounting Standards Board do not fully acknowledge this issue. (6) In recent years, accounting fraud has been severely punished in many developed countries. This fact can unmistakably be attributed to intercultural conflicts, or conflicts between the values of everyday language (benefit of the general public) and the values of accounting language (performance of the corporation). Such conflicts arise because the perception, thought, and behavior of the businessmen are strongly bound by the accounting language. In other words, corporate scandals will arise as long as there is an accounting system in the company, just as traffic accidents will occur as long as there are vehicles on the road. (7) Linguistic imperialism in International Accounting Standards (IAS) arises when companies try to seek comparability and at the same time reduce cost. We must resist such imperialism. We cannot expect IAS to be accepted as the only accounting system in all countries (IAS Only). Instead, IAS should be adopted as an additional accounting system (IAS Plus). In short, listed companies should make two kinds of financial statements, i.e., one for domestic and the other for international stakeholders, because additional costs are inevitable when companies compete in a borderless capital market. (8) Each country has its own accounting standards. The international consensus is that there needs to be common accounting standards that can be applied to companies worldwide. However, no company should be forced to adopt such common standards exclusively. After all, the effort to promote the harmonisation and convergence of various accounting standards could only benefit a selected few borderless companies. Furthermore, it is likely that such an effort would result in the diversification of accounting standards. In other words, the development of common standards may be equivalent to the creation of another new language (another new culture).

5

KJ00000154995

論文

Article

コクサイカイケイロンニオケルゲンゴテイコクシュギソヨンダルキョウジュタイニンキネンゴウ

書誌事項

この論文をさがす

抄録

収録刊行物

キーワード

詳細情報詳細情報について

書き出し

問題の指摘