@article{oai:stars.repo.nii.ac.jp:00009179,
 author = {全, 在紋 and CHUN, Jae-Moon},
 issue = {4},
 journal = {桃山学院大学経済経営論集, ST.ANDREW'S UNIVERSITY ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {The conclusions reached in this paper are summarized as follows:
（１）Many limited companies had grown sharply in the background of the
industrial revolution of the 18 th century.In addition, in order to calculate
profit and loss,they had taken on the heavy task of inclusion of fixed asset
costs, i.e., depreciation expenses. At the same time, companies that wanted
to avoid such a task as much as possible also appeared. There was the
emergence of the heavy task of depreciation expenses in the name change
from “Italian style(or Venetian style)bookkeeping” to “double entry
bookkeeping”. At the same time, the accounting words “single entry
bookkeeping” also appeared in parallel with it.
（２）In our opinion, it is “single” with “double” and “double” with “single”.
As in the relationship between “right” and “left”, the relationship between
“upper” and “lower”, the relationship among “medium,” “large”, and “small”
in the everyday language, the meaning of words are all relative(differential).
There is no recognition without words.
（３）There is no “asset and liability view” without “revenue and expense
view” and there is no “revenue and expense view” without “asset and
liability view”. According to this logic, “double entry bookkeeping” is the
thesis, with “single entry bookkeeping” as the antithesis. This is the
viewpoint in the structuralism theory of accounting as language. Likewise,
there are many other similar cases in accounting terms. For example,
“periodical accounting of profit and loss” is the thesis,with “lot accounting of
profit and loss” as the antithesis. “Accrual basis” is the thesis, with “cash
basis” as the antithesis. “Principles based” is the thesis, with “rules based”
as the antithesis. And so on.
（４）In daily life, when existing words and new words were born, all of
them were just rhetoric(metaphor)at the beginning. Because the outside
world when not having words is like chaos as Umezu et al pointed out.
“Materialistic accounting theory(materialistische Kontentheorie)” is the
thesis, with “ personalistic accounting theory ( personalistische
Kontentheorie)” as the antithesis. Therefore, materialistic accounting theory
that is seen only in physical distribution as the correct mapping about the
outside world of chaos is a legitimate settlement against personalistic
accounting theory. If materialistic accounting theory criticizes personalistic
accounting theory as “personification theory”, it will conversely lead to anticriticism
that is “materialization theory”},
 pages = {225--271},
 title = {複式簿記の誕生(新説) : 構造主義会計言語論から},
 volume = {61},
 year = {2020},
 yomi = {チョン, ジェムン}
}