Observations on the changing language of accounting

The meaning of words can change over time. In addition, new words may enter a language, sometimes replacing other words. This article extends prior literature on language change in accounting by drawing to a larger extent on theories from linguistics, and by placing greater emphasis on mechanisms of and motivations for change. Particular emphasis is placed on the need to verbalize new concepts, and sociocultural change. The latter is illustrated with examples from the development of accounting as an occupational interest group, and the adoption of Anglo-American accounting terminology and culture. The article concludes that language change in accounting, including transmission between languages and cultures, can inform accounting historians about the transfer of technical developments, as well as about socio-economic, political or ideological processes, power relationships, and the importance of terminology in jurisdictional disputes.


Introduction
The meaning of words can change over time, and depending on context. This is relevant for historians, including accounting historians, because words have to be "understood in their historical context" (Mills, 1989, p.22). Accounting 441 transmissions between languages, which are likely to be of considerable relevance to historians where they tell us of contact with other accounting cultures and the socio-economic and political factors that affect adoption of new concepts and terminology.
Finally, this article explores the implications of accounting language as a "language for specific purposes", as a special case of sociocultural change, considering the motivations of occupational interest groups.
The remainder of this article is structured as follows: the next (second) section introduces reasons for and mechanisms of language change in general. The third section explores linguistic and social features of "languages for specific purposes", such as accounting language. The fourth section links the theoretical considerations of the previous sections with prior literature and additional evidence informing on language change in accounting, in particular where this is motivated by the need to verbalize new concepts and by sociocultural change. The fifth section summarizes and concludes the article.

Reasons for and mechanisms of language change Reasons
Language change affects all aspects of language, including pronunciation, syntax, and the lexicon. Natural language change (that is language change that occurs naturally) 1 is not teleological (Keller, 1994), and there are no inherent tendencies such as, for example, for "simplification" (Blank, 1999). So why does language change happen? One obvious cause, in particular for changes in the lexicon (that is vocabulary, words), is contact with other languages and cultures (Thomason, 2006). This is likely to be of particular relevance to accounting historians. For instance, double-entry book-keeping originated in thirteenth and fourteenth century northern Italy. Like this technique, much of the lexicon of accounting and banking spread from Italian to many other European languages (see for example Hendriksen and Van Breda, 1992). For example, early authors of English language books on double-entry adapted "from Italian such words as journal, folio, capital (replacing stock), cash (replacing money) and bank" (Parker, 1989, p.11).
Languages however also change without such obvious influence. According to Blank (1999; with reference to Coseriu, 1958), language is dynamic: "While communicating, we reify what is in our mind and thereby reinvent language every time we speak" (Blank, 1999, p.61). Change occurs because, and as, we use language; it is "a consequence of inherent characteristics of man's mind and human social interaction" (Blank, 1999, p.63).
Thus, the main motivation for change/innovation relates to speakers' pragmatic goals, that is their aim is to achieve or obtain something or to exert influence; this requires successful communication (Blank, 1999;citing Zipf, 1949;Keller, 1994). Keller (1994) applies Adam Smith's theories to linguistics: languages are defined by a "'phenomenon of the third kind', a product of social interaction, created through a series of 'invisible-hand processes' by speakers whose main purpose was to 'get something'" (Blank, 1999, p.63;citing Keller, 1994). Once a change has been initiated it may be adopted by other speakers for sociolinguistic reasons, such as the innovating speaker's prestige or status, or for pragmatic reasons, that is because of "the innovation's good cognitive performance" (Blank, 1999, p.62).
The focus of the present paper is lexical change, that is changes in our "lexicon" (our words, vocabulary). Causes of, or motivations for, lexical change have been widely discussed (for example Ullmann, 1962;Blank, 1999;Grzega, 2004). 2 Like language change more generally, they result from speakers' desire to achieve successful communication. Blank identifies specific motivations or conditions for innovation, which can be summarized as: • the need to verbalize new concepts; • sociocultural change; • cognitive motivations; 3 • speakers' usually unconscious attempts to reduce complexity or irregularity in the lexicon; • psychological causes, where euphemisms can be used to verbalize "emotionally marked concepts". (Blank, 1999, p.80) (such as sex, death, and so on) The first two of these are particularly relevant to the context of commerce and accounting and will be explored in more detail in the main part of this article.

Mechanisms
There are essentially three ways of finding a word to express a (perhaps new) concept: 1. Semantic change, 4 where an existing word is applied to a new concept; that is it changes meaning or adopts additional meanings (Matthews, 1997;Grzega, 2003); 5 2. loanwords or borrowing from another language (Grzega, 2003;Traugott, 2006); 3. word formation/new coinages/"neologisms", i.e. "creating a new word with the material offered by the speaker's language" (Grzega, 2003, p. 22).
Semantic change occurs gradually, and old and new, sometimes actually contradictory meanings may exist at the same time, perhaps in different contexts, text types or communities (Traugott, 2006). 6 Semantic change has been explored in an accounting context inter alia by Mills (1989) (see earlier). Where language change results from contact with other languages and cultures, it often takes the form of "borrowings" (Thomason, 2006, p.340). Especially where foreign influence leads to the borrowing of foreign concepts, loanwords are frequently used (Blank, 1999). However, when new concepts are adopted from a different cultural context, semantic change also seems inevitably to occur, and the borrowed meaning may not be equivalent to the meaning in the original language. For example, weltanschauung or sushi have taken on a slightly different meaning in English from that in their respective original languages (Traugott, 2006).
An alternative to borrowing a foreign loanword is "loan translation", or "calquing", where a foreign expression is "translated into native forms with roughly equivalent meanings" -for example French surhomme and English superman are calques of German Übermensch (Traugott, 2006, p. 130). Finally, another way of creating a word to express a new meaning is through new coinages or neologisms, for example by means of affixation and compounding (for example "non-current assets").
These motivations for and mechanisms of language change are relevant also to the language of accounting and commerce. Exploring them can provide theoretical, societal and cultural contexts for studying changes in meaning and thus can contribute to a better understanding of accounting history (cf. Mills, 1989) and the wider genealogy of calculative practices, which according to Miller and Napier (1993, p.639) put[s] much more emphasis than do traditional approaches [to accounting history] on the contemporaneous existence of a particular language or vocabulary, and how this enables particular calculative technologies to be endowed with definite meanings and deployed for specific ends.
An exploration of examples of language change in accounting will therefore form the main part of this article. A brief comment is however required first on the particular features of accounting language, as different from everyday language.

Accounting as a language for specific purposes
As with other professional fields of knowledge, accounting in both its theory and practice is, and has been throughout most of its recorded history, peculiarly dependent on a specialized vocabulary or terminology, both to transact its business as expeditiously as possible and to differentiate it from other disciplines. (Mills, 1989, p.21) Accounting language is a highly specialised "dialect" of a "natural" language (such as English). Such special varieties occur where communication serves specific purposes. 7 They are characterised mainly, but not exclusively, by specialized terminology (as for example, in accounting, terms such as "asset", "liability", "true and fair view", "materiality"). In the linguistics literature such varieties are referred to as special "register", "functional variety" , "genre" (Beier, 1998; with reference to Biber, 1986;Swales, 1990); "languages for specific purposes" (for example Engberg, 2006), or even "jargon" (Crystal, 2003;Allan, 2006). 8 Such registers or jargon can have a number of functions and implications. They facilitate communication among members of a group, such as a profession, by allowing economical, efficient and precise expression (Crystal, 2003;Allan, 2006). This they achieve by "standardizing the use of words (lexis) and the denomination of concepts … so that they are optimal for scientific or professional communication" (Engberg, 2006, p.681). This allows them to "capture distinctions not made in the ordinary language" (Allan, 2006, p.110). With regard to accounting, Mills (1989) points out that the link between accounting and its vocabulary is sufficiently important for terminology (such as the elements of financial statements) to be identified and defined in conceptual frameworks.
Registers or jargon as expressions of "occupational linguistic distinctiveness, or identity" (Crystal, 2003, p.370) can also serve to demarcate group identity, in that they can express "professional awareness ('know-how') and social togetherness ('shop-talk')" (Crystal, 2003, p.174). Their use can mark an individual as a member of "an intellectual or technical elite" (Crystal, 2003, p.174). Individuals can join these elites by becoming specialists in the respective domain, "through education, training, or experience" (Engberg, 2006, p.679). Occupations may lay claim to titles, or the right to define terminology, in the context of jurisdictional disputes (cf. Abbott, 1988).
Registers or jargon can also augment the speaker's self-image, and make seem important what is in essence trivial, especially where s/he draws on a Graeco-Latinate lexicon (Allan, 2006). This "achieves a double-whammy by also mystifying and intimidating the clientele" (Allan, 2006, p.110). Thus registers or jargon also serve to exclude non-members by creating communication barriers (Crystal, 2003;Allan, 2006).
For the register of accounting we use specialised terminology, but we also share "everyday" words with non-accountants. We need to be aware first that terminology may have different definitions in everyday usage as opposed to our special register, and second even where we agree on a definition, terminology may still be interpreted differently by different groups of persons (lay persons, practising accountants, regulators and legislators, and academics). Such differences in interpretation have been well established (see inter alia Haried, 1972Haried, , 1973Oliver, 1974;Belkaoui, 1980;Houghton, 1987). Further, as argued in this article (and elsewhere), terminology and meaning change. This affects also the differences in meaning between the specialized register of accounting and everyday language.

Language change in accounting and commerce
The earlier sections introduced theoretical frameworks for motivations and mechanisms in language change, and the characteristics and functions of languages for specific purposes. This section links these theoretical frameworks with prior literature and additional examples/evidence illuminating language change in accounting. It argues that exploring motivations and mechanisms can provide a theoretical framing for changes in meaning as well as, more significantly, the societal and cultural contexts of change that may otherwise remain underexplored or misunderstood. These include inter alia contact with other cultures, and the motivations and politics of occupational groups.

Mechanisms
Special registers use the same mechanisms to satisfy the demand for new terminology as other language areas. However, they use, and combine, some of these methods more frequently (Beier, 1998, with reference to English). Semantic shift frequently occurs in the accounting registers of languages. It is explored by Mills (1989) when tracing the changing meaning and connotations of French le compte. She argues that this shift suggests: that the idea of the account, and thus of accountability or responsibility, was changing, becoming more closely associated with concepts of enumeration and losing, as a result, the pervasive sense of legality and stewardship that had characterised it earlier. (Mills, 1989, p.30) Neologisms (new coinages) have been employed productively in special registers, including accounting language, especially in terms of combinations of different words (compounding) (Beier, 1998), as for example in "non-current assets". According to Labardin and Nikitin (2009) the increasing division of labour among French accountants in the second half of the nineteenth century resulted in the combination of adjectives with the term comptabilité, to create terms such as comptabilité agricole, comptabilité industrielle, comptabilité commerciale, comptabilité générale and comptabilité auxiliare.
Where concepts are imported from foreign language areas, non-translation, or the adoption of "loanwords" appears common, as do new coinages based on foreign components (Beier, 1998;Kirkness, 1998) (cf. for example the large number of words of Italian origin in accounting and banking). This can however be problematic, because the meaning is likely to shift between the source and target languages. This also occurs when a special register uses "loanwords from everyday language" or from other disciplines (Beier, 1998(Beier, , p.1407; with reference to Savory, 1967;Klasson, 1977). Examples of the former, in English, may be "reserve", "prudence", or "realisation", which have different meanings in accounting as compared to "everyday language". The latter is well illustrated by Parker (1994), who explains that British accountants had no generic terminology describing the debit and credit sides of the balance sheet before the late eighteenth century, but with attempts to formulate the balance sheet equation such terminology was needed. Thus the word "assets", 9 which was in eighteenth-century English, "a concept and a word in the English law of executorship" became employed in the nineteenth century in a commercial context and approximating its modern meaning (Parker, 1994, p.79).
Such semantic shift resulting from borrowing from everyday language or another discipline is illustrated by Crystal (2003) with regard the semantic field of economics (in its widest sense, encompassing accounting). 10 Crystal distinguishes between lexemes that have always had an "economic" meaning in English (for example "account", "tax", "revenue" or "cheque") and lexemes where such a connotation was at some point added to originally more general meanings (for example "wealth", "pay", "bull" and "bear"). The former group dominated until the fifteenth century, while from the mid-sixteenth century until approximately 1700 growth occurred largely in the second group, suggesting a large increase in terms that adopted a specialized meaning. This also occurs in more recent times: in the semantic field of economics the need for new terminology is predominately satisfied by familiar terms adopting new meanings (that is semantic change) (Crystal, 2003). This is also the case for accounting, and differs from science and technology, where neologisms dominate.

Motivations
A number of possible motivations for language change (including semantic change) were identified above (for example Blank, 1999). In accounting and commercial language, the strongest specific motivations appear to be the need to verbalize new concepts (because of technical developments or foreign contact; cf. also Parker, 1994) and sociocultural or socio-economic change. As will be discussed later, these motivations can often not be clearly distinguished. As noted earlier, change can adopt a number of different mechanisms, but unlike natural sciences and technology, accounting seems to favour semantic shift (or new coinages involving semantic shift of the components).
The need to verbalize new concepts Any external social changes (for example conquest, trade, migration, institutional changes, social movements, and so on), but especially contact between different cultures, can lead to changes to the communication systems (Blank, 1999). When a foreign concept is imported, the receiving language/culture will not have an appropriate or equivalent term for this (because if such a term existed, the concept would also have had to exist). For example, because of the importance of North Italian banking in the development of the history of banking, most banking terms in German (and other European languages) were borrowed from Italian (for example Konto, Giro, Bank, Kredit) 11 (cf. earlier). Other reasons for borrowing are explored later. However, as noted earlier, borrowing (semantic loan) usually brings with it semantic change, suggesting that the borrowed terminology and meaning are not quite equivalent to the originals.
Prior literature on translating true and fair view (TFV) into the legislation and languages of EU member states illustrates this: the translations of TFV, for example, are not, as a rule, literal translations of the English original (Rutherford, 1983;Nobes, 1993;Alexander, 1993;Aisbitt and Nobes, 2001) nor applied equivalently (e.g. Nobes, 1993, Aisbitt andNobes, 2001). Kosmala-MacLullich (2003) finds that a variety of translations appear in Polish which reflect a lack of consensus on the concept's role. She argues that this is due to the fact that the Polish translations are incompatible with the meanings associated with TFV in English. The translations of TFV as well as its national implementations demonstrate that countries managed to impose their own culture on an alien concept (Nobes, 1993; see also Parker, 1989). In summary: neither the concepts not the terminology are equivalent.
New concepts may also arise as a result of technical developments. An interesting example is the introduction of TFV into the UK Companies Act 1947. Walton (1991) suggests that the decision to replace the previous term "true and correct" with "true and fair" may merely have reflected the legislature catching up with a meaning that had already changed -that is a semantic shift. According to Walton, changes in the accounting treatment prescribed by the Companies Act, for example the development relating to the form and content of financial statements, give evidence that a change in the meaning of this phrase had already taken place -the words were changed to reflect this. The newly coined term was created, as had been the old one, by borrowing and combining words from everyday English and giving them a new and specific meaning.
For a technical term of a special register of language it should not have mattered what the term was, as long as the members of the relevant (occupational) group using this term agreed on its meaning. Blank (1999, p.84) points out that "[t]he efficiency of language change has not necessarily to be of panchronic validity" -it is sufficient if innovations are perceived to serve the communicative goals of a group of speakers (Blank, 1999, p.84) who accept a shared understanding (Edwards, 2006). However, it appears that the occupational group was concerned that the meaning of the technical phrase "true and correct" had become too far removed from the meanings of true and correct in everyday language. In other words, the interface or overlap between everyday language and the special register interfered with the desire to communicate (or appear to be communicating) with non-members. Specifically, correct may have been seen to be incompatible with estimates (Rutherford, 1985) and the materiality concept (de Paula, 1948). Such communication with the wider public, for example by "revealing to the public some of its professional terminology and insights" is important for an occupational group because it provides a means of publicly claiming/extending and supporting its jurisdiction (Abbott, 1988, p.61).
More recently, the IASB's change of the titles of financial statement components has puzzled some observers. As argued by the European Accounting Association's Financial Reporting Standards Committee (EAA FRSC) (2006): 12 … we note that the IASB proposes to change the titles of statements that have several hundred years of history and, therefore, a high degree of common understanding, such as the balance sheet, which the IASB proposes to rename to "statement of financial position", or at least decades such as the cash flow statement, which the IASB proposes to rename to "statement of cash flows".
The IASB's rationale for the changes may perhaps be construed as an example similar to the one of TFV. The Basis of Conclusions (IAS 1 BC16) for IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements argues that "the title 'statement of financial position' not only better reflects the function of the statement but is consistent with the Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements, which contains several references to 'financial position'". This seems to suggest that the function of the balance sheet has changed, and therewith the meaning of the term "balance sheet". This semantic shift then prompted the regulator to coin a new term to better signal the changes in the concept.
As these examples also illustrate, technical accounting developments cannot be understood in isolation from the sociocultural context (including foreign influence) in which they occur. This is because accounting is socially constructed (for example Tinker, 1985). Accounting is not a neutral technical practice, but often serves more to legitimate behaviour of individuals or organizations than to aid decision-making (Power, 2003). Language can be a tool in this. Linguistic relativism would suggest that the language we use can influence thinking, or at least perception and memory (see for example Crystal, 1987;Györi, 2000;Evans, 2004). Therefore a change in terminology may be intended to alter perceptions (for example to encourage "political correctness") (Jones and Wareing, 1999). Potter (1999) suggests that "[i]n placing certain kinds of language beyond question, we allow ourselves to "think what we say, rather than say what we think" (Potter, 1999, p.60;citing Kramer, 1993, p.53). Thus, the wording of new regulation (including the national implementation of supra-national regulation) may reflect intentions of regulators that only become apparent on closer investigation. Potter (1999) illustrates this power of language as a tool of legitimisation and control in the context of Australian Public Sector reforms. There, changing definitions and interpretations of the terms "accrual accounting" and "asset" were employed to drive accounting change and allowed the accounting profession to extend its jurisdiction. Young's (2003) close examination of the text of selected FASB standards shows the standard setter's rhetorical efforts to persuade readers to accept its perspective. These texts construct a standard as good and the FASB as a good standard setter and attempt to "maintain the myth of accounting objectivity" (Young, 2003, p.621), while silencing alternatives and criticisms.
A critical interpretation of the IASB's terminology changes may equally suggest an attempt to influence and direct policy. By creating or changing terminology and definitions, boundaries are set within which we can think about accounting. 13 Labardin and Nikitin (2009, p.149) suggest that the semantic shift from International Accounting Standards to International Financial Reporting Standards may not be innocent, since "financial markets have recently taken over financial accounting harmonization and they just need financial reporting, not accounting".

Sociocultural change and occupational interest groups
Like accounting, language is social behaviour (Blount & Sanches, 1977). As was pointed out above, language change occurs because of "human social interaction" (Blank, 1999, p.63); because humans wish to exert influence, which requires successful communication (Zipf, 1949;Keller, 1994;Blank, 1999). Any social theory of language has to consider the influence of ideologies (individual or shared), social positions and power of speakers, and the prestige that comes with the acquisition of new languages or registers (Blount & Sanches, 1977; see also Bargiela-Chiappini, 2006).
Examples of language change motivated by social or sociocultural change include the development of an occupational group (or the extension of its jurisdictions -cf. Labardin & Nikitin, 2009). Change may arise because new technical concepts develop and require to be named (see above), but also for social and ideological reasons. According to Thornborrow (1999, p.142) "[p]eople often have to work to establish their own identity categories, to name their particular social group, and to stake their claim in owning their representations of themselves". This can be done through the use of a specific register by its speakers: " … speakers' choice of linguistic code, or variety, plays an important role in establishing their group identity" (Thornborrow, 1999, p.142). This is particularly relevant for professional registers, such as accounting language. Registers can serve to demarcate group identity and belonging to a special elite, and to exclude other individuals. They can instil the speaker with the social capital of belonging to a special group and having special skills. Nonmembers can attempt to join such groups through training and education and a process of socialisation, which "incorporates the transmission of both cultural knowledge and social skills and thus involves learning how to speak and behave within a given society" (Johnson, 2006, p.51).
Parker notes that one of the reasons for the adoption of new words by accountants is "to enhance their prestige" (Parker, 1994, p.71) and describes how "[t]he word accountant has been upgraded in relation to the words 'bookkeeper' and 'clerk'" (Parker, 1994, p. 74). Similarly, Labardin and Nikitin (2009) describe how the French term tenue des livres (book-keeping) gradually lost prestige during the nineteenth century, while comptabilité (a term initially only used in the context of Royal/Public Finances) became considered superior.
Such changes are particularly likely when a professional group attempts to lay claim to new jurisdictions or greater status. Miller and Napier (1993, p.641) suggest that the "far from insignificant shift in terminology" from cost accounting to management accounting "was of crucial importance in assisting accounting as an occupational category in its rise through the corporate hierarchy".
Similar status-related factors can be observed in the adoption and adaptation of terminology elsewhere. For example, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the nascent German audit profession attempted to raise its status by creating a public perception of equality with older professions. 14 Both the German legal profession and the better-established Anglo-American professions served as models in this (see Evans, 2005). One way to stress the association with the Anglo-American professions was by using terminology that would imply such a link. 15 By using terms such as Deutsche Chartered Accountants, a strong signal was given that the German profession considered itself equivalent to that of the UK; or was striving for equivalence. English language terms such as "accountant", "auditor" and "trustee", and so on were sometimes used interchangeably with the German Buchprüfer, Bücher-Revisor or Treuhänder, the denotations of members of competing professional associations. 16 These borrowings and usages often suggest misunderstandings (as identified by for example Raschenberger, 1929) or sometimes deliberate misrepresentations (as alleged for example by Herrmann, 1927). In either case they reflected the different ideologies and aspirations of competing groups of auditors during a time of intense intra-professional conflict: beeidete or vereidigte Bücherrevisoren ("sworn-in" auditors), who were usually sole practitioners, and audit firms originally set up as Treuhandgesellschaften ("trust companies"), which tended to be organised as corporations (Markus, 1997;Evans, 2003Evans, , 2005Evans and Honold, 2007). The German term Treuhandgesellschaft thus extended its original meaning (much beyond, for example, the meaning of the English trust company).
An association with the legal profession was also implied through the use of the term Anwalt ("lawyer"). This was a means to create an ideological link with the older established professions, and was used frequently. Compounds such as Organisationsanwalt (for engineers engaging to some extent in management accounting, Anon., 1911), Wirtschaftsanwalt ("economic advocate"; Sorge, 1921) and Steueranwalt ("tax advocate"; Anon., 1920) were used.
The importance attributed to terminology, and in the German example particularly to a professional designation, is also apparent in the German profession's resistance to the coercive influences of linguistic purism. 17 A society, the Allgemeiner Deutscher Sprachverein (General German Language Society) was created in 1885 with the aim to cleanse the German language of borrowed foreign words, including terms such as addieren (to add), agieren (to act), Akzise (excise) Baisse and Hausse (bear and bull market), Amortisation, and so on (Allgemeiner Deutscher Sprachverein, 1918). In 1916, one of the members of the oldest German audit association, the Verband Deutscher Bücherrevisoren, received a letter from the local municipal authorities requesting him to replace the foreign designation Bücher-Revisor with a more appropriate term (that is of German origin), such as Buch-Prüfer or Prüfungsbeamter (Anon., 1916).
Not surprisingly, the official request was not well received. A contributing factor may have been that some of the synonyms suggested by the Sprachverein emphasized the lower skilled mechanical aspects of auditing (such as checking, re-performing calculations) and may have been felt to be degrading to the profession's status. The profession may have feared that a change in title would also have resulted in a shift in the underlying meaning, and affected its jurisdictional claims in the public domain. 18 Such a close link between title and jurisdiction was also apparent in a later dispute: the German profession was formally organized in 1931, when the statutory audit requirement was introduced and a new professional qualification, the Wirtschaftsprüfer, was created. The title initially chosen for the new qualification had been Wirtschaftstreuhänder. However: at the last minute and on the insistence of lawyers, engineers and economists who did not wish the word Treuhänder (Trustee) to be included in the name, it was changed to Wirtschaftsprüfer, a term suggesting functions limited to auditing compared with the more comprehensive duties implied by the title Wirtschaftstreuhänder. (Markus, 1997, p.34) This supports the suggestion that exact definition of professional titles and boundaries is essential in jurisdictional disputes. According to Abbott (1988, p. 63), "[t]he legally established world of professional jurisdiction also exaggerates the rigidity of discourse noted in the public arena. Since all terms must be legally defined, reification is absolute".
Such emphasis on definition also applies to key terminology. The first specialist dictionaries or encyclopaedias of a discipline can be an indication of the emancipation of a new independent (sub)discipline. Thus, Rossenbeck (1998) stresses the significance of the publication by Nicklisch (1926) of the first independent encyclopaedia of Betriebwirtschaftslehre (business administration) in Germany. This was the first "inventory-taking" and demarcation of boundaries of a new independent discipline developing within the wider Wirtschaftswissenschaft (economics). In an English language context, Mills (1989) sees the fact that the key terms of financial accounting were defined in the FASB's conceptual framework project as an indication of the profession's dependency on its specialised vocabulary. 19 Sociocultural change and English as a lingua franca Foreign influence can take different forms and have a variety of effects. That it can lead to the need to verbalize new concepts was discussed earlier. As was also shown earlier (with the example of the nascent German profession), adoption of foreign terminology and titles may offer prestige and play a part in jurisdictional disputes.
Not only the early German profession tried to enhance its prestige by borrowing from other disciplines. The pre-eminence of Anglo-American accounting systems, and in particular of US GAAP, has led to attempts to emulate this, inter alia with the introduction of foreign terminology. This has led to conscious or unconscious adoption of a US accounting culture, with Anglo-American terminology being introduced into accounting discourse in other countries and languages (sometimes, but not always, because of a lack of suitable national terminology). Many illustrations could be provided. For example, Labardin and Nikitin (2009, p.149) see the "ever-growing impact of Anglo-American terms in the French accounting vocabulary" as reflecting "Anglomania" among French accounting academics. In the context of the implementation of the European Commission's fourth company law directive, discussions in the German academic and practitioner literature appeared more often to use the English terms "true and fair" and "override/overriding" than their German translations. Other English terms frequently used in more recent German academic discourse would be "peer-review", "quality-control", "impairment" or "corporate governance", to quote just a few examples. These are foreign terms in German, that is not loanwords. Kosmala-MacLullich (2003) provides a Polish example.
Accounting historians may wish to explore the motivations for such a linguistic shift, inter alia because it is likely to be symptomatic of wider sociocultural and socio-economic changes, which also affect accounting development. One explanation may be that English has now become the international lingua franca, not only in accounting, but also in science and academe in general. In accounting it has gained additional status by also being the language of the IASB.
Partly because of this, English terminology may be widely adopted and integrated into professional registers to signal prestige and affiliation with elite academic or professional groups (internationally educated, sophisticated, professionally aware). 20 More cynically, it is likely that it is also used by some to "mystify and intimidate" non-members (see above, Allan, 2006, p.110).
There are a number of implications relating to the increasing adoption of foreign terminology: first, like law, accounting is a culture dependent domain. 21 Terminology does not mean the same in different cultural contexts and is not simply transferable (Engberg, 2006). As argued above, the use of loanwords or foreign words inevitably brings with it a semantic shift. Thus, there is no real equivalent in English accounting culture and language for the German use of the English language term "controlling", and the English term "corporate governance" is also very likely to mean something subtly different in German accounting discourse from what it means in an Anglo-American, English language context. Secondly, prior literature (Süllwold, 1980;Traxel, 1979;Podder-Theising, 1984; all as cited in Schröder, 1998) suggests that the use of English as lingua franca may lead to a restriction of original thinking or cognitive processes. 22 Thirdly, the increasing use of English terminology (as foreign words, rather than integrated loanwords) in accounting discourse may also lead to problems in the communication between experts and lay-persons (Ammon, 1998); between members of different professional groups, and between academics and practitioners. This has implications for professions' jurisdictional claims as well as inter-professional disputes, as for example between accountants and lawyers over the interpretation of terminology such as TFV.
Exploration of the terminology used/favoured by different groups, its origin and interpretation, and the shift from, for example, French to English in French accounting discourse, is therefore relevant to accounting historians because it can provide evidence of changing fashions, economic and political influence of the source language and motivations of the adopters. It can also illuminate misunderstandings, or the deliberate use of specific terminology, in jurisdictional disputes.

Summary and some concluding observations
This article builds on and extends prior literature on language change in accounting. It argues that, while explorations of earlier meanings of words are essential for accounting historians (cf. Mills, 1989), motivations and mechanisms of language change are equally rich sources, illuminating societal and cultural contexts of accounting change.
The article draws on theories on language change from linguistics. It also argues that accounting language constitutes a "language for specific purposes", and briefly explores features of such special languages or registers. It then links these theoretical concepts and considerations with examples from prior literature, and with additional evidence from accounting. Emphasis is placed on motivations for language change that are considered especially important in an accounting context: the need to verbalize new concepts, and sociocultural change. The latter is illustrated with examples from the development of accounting as an occupational interest group, and the adoption of Anglo-American accounting terminology and culture.
Previously, Mills (1989) had effectively drawn our attention to the danger of changes in meaning, where terminology has remained the same. She also provided suggestions on how to address this problem. To study the development of accounting vocabulary, she suggests as possible sources accounting records and literature, including literature with commercial and economic themes, and "dictionaries, encyclopaedias and other kinds of wordbooks" (Mills, 1989, p.23). She argues that " … they are potentially a valuable form of evidence for the history of the discipline, particularly concerning the social context of accounting" (Mills, 1989, p.24).
It should perhaps be added that (non-specialist) dictionaries and encyclopaedias are unlikely to capture short-term temporary changes, which are typical for times of transition. Records and literature reflecting specialist discourse are more suitable sources to illuminate such issues. Dictionaries and encyclopaedias have the added disadvantage to reflect changes only with some time-lag. They do, however, have the advantage of being "'a catalogue of received ideas', expressing the collective representation of a subject" (Mills, 1989, p.24;with reference to McArthur, 1986, p.24), as well as potentially signalling the development of new (sub)disciplines or providing an insight into language change in totalitarian regimes (see earlier).
Mills' article explicitly "ignores the origin of words and their transmission from one language to another as subjects of study. Rather it seeks to clarify their sense within particular historical contexts" (Mills, 1989, p.23). The present article, on the other hand, is mainly concerned with the origin of words and their transmission between languages or between different registers of the same language. It argues, inter alia, that such transmissions are likely to be of considerable relevance to historians where they tell us of contact with other (accounting) cultures and the socio-economic and political factors that affect adoption of new concepts and terminology. Examples (not necessarily in English) that have been previously explored or could be further explored in this context are inter alia the transmission of many commercial and accounting terms from thirteenth-and fourteenth-century Italian banking (see for example Parker, 1989); the transmission of accounting terminology from law (for example Parker, 1994; see also Mills, 1989); the probable link of the discourse on order in Colbert's France (see Miller, 1990) to concepts of "orderly bookkeeping" in German and Nordic accounting cultures; and so on. The exploration of such transmissions is important because it can illuminate the history of the exchange of ideas (and the ideologies and politics involved therein) between different disciplines and cultures.
The present article also contributes by exploring examples of the motivations for and implications of language change in occupational registers, in the context of the sociology and politics of occupational groups. Exact definitions of professional titles and boundaries are essential in jurisdictional disputes. Differences in interpretation, for example between law and accounting registers, are likely to contribute to interprofessional disputes -sometimes due to misunderstanding. Examining the mechanisms and motivations for change, that is why and how occupational groups choose, retain, reject, or defend professional designations, or control the definitions of key terminology (see for example Abbott, 1988), is likely to make useful contributions to research on the history of professions. It can throw light on technical developments as well as developments relating to a profession's jurisdiction.
In summary, exploring language change in accounting, possibly in collaboration with historical linguists, can tell us much about the transfer of technical developments and about socio-economic, political or ideological processes and power relationships in accounting change. It is likely, therefore, to contribute yet another perspective to "the crafting of multiple histories from multiple perspectives via multiple methodologies" encouraged by Parker (1999, p.29).

Notes
21. An example of a relatively culture-independent domain is, according to Engberg (2006), the field of electricity. In that field there is considerably greater overlap in meaning between terms from different cultures than in culture-dependent domains. 22. Others, however (Gauger, 1988;Knapp, 1984;both cited in Schröder, 1998) do not agree with this notion, but argue instead that the impoverishment of cognitive approaches may be due to the power of American research and publishers, rather than the English language.