Concreteness in Business letters : a Corpus-based Analysis of British and Pakistani English

Linguistic features of business letters have been a research target of both linguists and business writers. In this study, the language of British and Pakistani Business letters was compared and contrasted in terms of concreteness and abstractness. A corpus of 100 business letters from Inner Circle and Outer Circle writers were collected for analysis. The findings of the study revealed that British writers use more specific and concrete nouns, definite determiners, numeral, possessive and demonstrative adjectives, cohesive and rhetorical devices than the Pakistani Writers in order to be become concrete and vivid in their communication. The present findings are rather corpus specific since the data include only two countries; however this study may lead to further cross circle research including Expanding Circle research of business letters in terms of concreteness and abstractness. The issue of concreteness in Cross-circle business English can also be studied from psychological, sociological and anthropological perspectives in future Research.

Preparers’ and non-preparers’ lobbying on the proposed prohibition of goodwill amortisation in ED3 ‘business combinations’

In this paper preparers’ and non-preparers’ positions regarding accounting for goodwill are examined through studying submitted comment letters on ED3 ‘Business Combinations’. Preparers have, because of economic consequences, incentives to lobby for the non-amortisation approach and non-preparers for the amortisation approach. As hypothesised, non-preparers are found to support amortisation of goodwill to a greater extent than do preparers. Moreover, the two groups’ supportive arguments, i.e. how they argue for or against the non-amortisation or amortisation approach, are studied. Again, as hypothesised, the results show that the two groups use the same type of ‘sophisticated’ framework based arguments instead of economic consequences arguments. Taken together the examination of the comment letters thus indicates that both preparers and non-preparers point at conceptual strengths and weaknesses, instead of pointing at the real cause of the lobbying activities, i.e. perceived economic consequences, when they try to affect the final outcome of the standard. These findings confirm earlier research which has suggested that self-interested lobbyists use accounting theories and concepts as useful justifications.