국제회계기준의 잠재적 신자유주의 - 회계언어의 의미관계론적 접근 -

Accounting as language corresponds to linguistic signs because people cannot recognize any trace that indicates natural connection, for example, between captions or items and numbers or amounts in financial statements and financial conditions and operating results. The true nature of language or signs does not lie in substance but in form. There are very few accounting professors in the world who advocate the theory of meaning as relation, which is related to the basis of the revenue and expense view in accounting language. Differences between the balance sheet developed on the basis of the asset and liability view and that developed on the basis of the revenue and expense view have become less conspicuous due to the operation of measurement by fiat. However, IFRS does not fully acknowledge the influence of the measurement by fiat, and seems to assume that the differences between the two above-mentioned types of balance sheets can be easily adjusted by including deferred assets and/or other costs in the balance sheet developed on the basis of the revenue and expense view. Such an attitude, which is believed to be shaped by IFRS’s mapping theories for accounting (theory of meaning as substance), is tantamount to neglecting a linguistic system of accounting. As to the relationship between perception and language, there is a serious conflict between mapping theory (theory of meaning as substance) and linguistic relativism (theory of meaning as relation). We are an advocate of the theory of meaning as relation, and We are opposed to IFRS’s theory of meaning as substance(nomenclaturism). 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. Linguistic imperialism in IFRS arises when companies try to seek comparability and at the same time reduce cost. We must resist such imperialism. We cannot expect IFRS to be accepted as the only accounting system in all countries ( IFRS Only). Instead, IAS should be adopted as an additional accounting system (IFRS Plus). In short, listed companies should make two kinds of financial statements, which are one for domestic and the other for international stake-holders, because additional costs are inevitable when companies compete in a borderless capital market. After all, the effort to promote the harmonization and convergence of various accounting standards could only benefit a selected few borderless companies.