회계의 국제화와 언어제국주의

Abstract

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) 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.

(4) 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 borderlesscapital market.

(5) 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).