“We’re Doing Well in Virtually Every Corner of the World”: A Corpus-Assisted Discourse Study of Persuasiveness in Apple’s Earnings Conference Calls

Studies on ECCs in Accounting and Finance

In accounting and finance, ECCs have been a topic of research since the late 1990s (Camiciottoli, 2018). The majority of research on ECCs in these fields has concentrated on analyzing how language affects trade volume, analyst forecasts, and information asymmetries (Bowen et al., 2002; Brown et al., 2004; Frankel et al., 1999). In recent years, content and textual tone analyses have been common in disclosure research (Price et al., 2012). Scholars have identified the tone of quarterly earnings press releases and connected it to indicators such as stock returns, volatility, and business performance (Davis et al., 2007; Demers & Vega, 2008; Henry, 2008). These textual analyses identified statistically significant correlations in how language is used in disclosure documents, demonstrating that managers carefully and effectively communicate information through word choices. Moreover, Price et al. revealed that language tone is a strong predictor of abnormal returns and trading volume. Similarly, Davis et al. (2015) explored the tone of ECCs, concluding that manager-specific elements such as early career experiences and engagement in charity organizations are substantially correlated with tone. And Burgoon et al. (2016) demonstrated the importance of vocal and linguistic characteristics in spotting potentially fraudulent statements in ECCs.

The vast majority of ECC disclosure studies have been undertaken in the field of accounting and finance. These studies have largely used quantitative approaches to focus on “who” reports “what” and “how much” is concerned (Tregidga et al., 2007). But such research has rarely employed a detailed textual examination and offers little information on the linguistic strategies used to achieve corporate persuasive aims. Although language itself is significant, it is generally regarded as a measurable unit that can be linked to numerous company attributes in order to statistically assess the impacts of disclosures on business performance and vice versa (Jaworska & Nanda, 2018). More recently, Tregidga et al. have argued that discursive methods in ECCs should be given more weight and that quantitative research methodologies are excessively reductionist. Additionally, accounting academics have asserted the necessity of building on methodological techniques by exploring the linguistic aspect of ECCs (Berger, 2011; Beyer et al., 2010). Following this advice, recent studies in accounting and finance have produced intriguing results pertaining to how participants at ECCs use language persuasively to attain their aims (Camiciottoli, 2018; Larcker & Zakolyukina, 2012; Price et al., 2012).

Studies on ECCs in Business Communication

In business communication studies, discourse analysts are increasingly interested in ECCs as a channel for voluntary disclosure. This field of study has been established by performing a corpus-assisted analysis of English ECCs (Camiciottoli, 2006, 2010, 2013). Camiciottoli (2010) defined the ECC's macrostructure as consisting of seven moves and characterized ECC earnings presentations as a hybrid genre of reporting and promotional discourses. Camiciottoli (2013) also analyzed the macrostructures and microrhetorical strategies of ECC presentations and earnings releases. In addition, by examining the relationship between persuasive language and ethical stances in earnings presentations, Camiciottoli (2011) found that firm leaders employ a range of explicit lexicons to emphasize their devotion to progress.

Cho and Yoon (2013) conducted a computer-assisted contrastive study to compare the corporate ECCs of Korean speakers and native-English speakers, suggesting that the ECC provides a perfect venue for studying non-native speakers’ business English proficiency. And Palmieri et al. (2015) examined argumentation in ECCs, defining the types of positions that companies take in the Q&A sections following their presentation as “descriptive, predictive, evaluative, practical, and explanatory” (pp. 125–126). That is, the researchers found that company speakers frequently used reasonable and compelling arguments to defend their evaluative and predictive positions when responding to analysts’ questions. But previous business communication studies on ECCs have only investigated a few persuasive linguistic features and are limited by the small scale of their data sets (e.g., reports from only one or two financial years). Thus, large-scale systematic examinations of the linguistic strategies used for persuasive purposes in ECCS are still lacking. In addition, as Beattie (2014) proposed, future research on financial disclosures would benefit from methodological diversity, particularly the use of computer-aided tools created in corpus linguistics that do not rely on a predetermined word list.

Corpus linguistics methods have been used outside mainstream accounting and finance to examine financial discourses, including CEO letters (Hyland, 1998a), corporate press releases (Maat, 2007), CEO presentations (Rogers, 2000), corporate social responsibility reports (Lischinsky, 2011), and investment fund managers’ reports (Bruce, 2014). But ECCs have not yet attracted similar attention from corpus linguists, and only a few studies have employed corpus methods to investigate ECCs. For instance, using a key semantic domain analysis, Pan and Chen (2018) examined the use of the English language in the ECCs of Chinese and other international companies. The researchers concluded that Chinese corporate speakers diverged notably from the speakers in other international companies in their parameter and word choices, possibly due to the greater genre awareness and cultural influences of the Chinese speakers. But this project was based solely on the results of traditional corpus tools, which lack qualitative insight into the context of language use.

Recent scholarship has paid greater attention to methodological innovations. Accordingly, linguists have begun to note the relationship between corpus linguistics and discourse analysis. For instance, McEnery and Wilson (2000) found that corpora have been utilized sparingly in discourse studies, a finding that agrees with Biber et al.'s (1998) conclusion that discourse studies “are not typically corpus-based” (p. 106). This lack of corpus-based discourse studies has motivated several linguists to endorse a new synthesis of discourse-analysis approaches and corpus linguistics methods—that is, a corpus-assisted discourse study (CADS) approach (Baker, 2006; Stubbs, 1996). CADS is defined as the research and comparison of properties of certain discourse types, including the methodologies and tools created within corpus linguistics (Partington, 2010). The use of CADS as a linguistic methodological synergy is now widely acknowledged (Ancarno, 2020). A CADS may provide more insight into corpus studies of organizational discourse because it pays special attention to the context in which language is used (p. 175), making it a particularly appropriate method for analyzing a large-scale ECC corpus. For this study, then, we use a CADS approach to examine the persuasive strategies in ECCs, thereby addressing the lack of literature on large-scale systematic examinations of this topic.

Overall Trend

Figure 1 shows the trend of the normalized frequencies (per thousand words) of metadiscourse use in Apple's ECCs from 2013 through 2022. As Figure 1 shows, the highest three frequencies of metadiscourse use occurred in 2020 quarter (Q)2, 2020 Q3, and 2022 Q4—all during the COVID-19 pandemic. The average frequency of metadiscourse use occurring after the outbreak of COVID-19 is notably higher than it was in the preceding period (158.41 versus 150.29, respectively). Company executives may have felt the need to employ additional metadiscourse markers in order to persuade and reassure stakeholders during this uncertain time.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Normalized frequencies of the metadiscourse employed in Apple's ECCs (from 2013 through 2022).

Distribution Patterns

Table 2 lists the distribution of metadiscourse markers in the ECCs. The company executives employed more than twice as many interactional as interactive metadiscourse markers (13,534 versus 5,061, respectively). Of the interactional categories, self-mentions were used the most (44.16%), followed by boosters (17.33%), engagements (6.84%), attitudes (2.65%), and hedges (1.80%). Of the interactive categories, transitions were used most frequently (24.89%). Frames and evidentials constituted a much lower percentage of the markers used (1.45% and 0.38%, respectively). And code glosses and endophorics were used the least (0.33% and 0.17%, respectively).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Distribution of Metadiscourse Markers.

Marker Category	Absolute Frequencies	Percentage of Total Markers
Interactive
Code glosses	61	0.33
Endophorics	32	0.17
Evidentials	71	0.38
Frames	269	1.45
Transitions	4,628	24.89
Interactional
Hedges	336	1.80
Boosters	3,223	17.33
Attitudes	493	2.65
Self-mentions	8,211	44.16
Engagements	1,271	6.84
Total	18,595	100.00

Metadiscourse helps to construct credible, affective, and rational arguments in discourse (Hyland, 2005), performing a persuasive function. We will now examine the top-three most frequently used metadiscourse markers in the corpus: self-mentions, transitions, and boosters. The targeted metadiscourse markers are italicized in each example.

First, self-mentions are the most frequently used metadiscourse markers, accounting for 44.16% of all metadiscourse markers. These markers include but are not limited to first-person pronouns in plural (“we,” “our,” and “us”) and singular form (“I”). Table 3 lists the four self-mention markers that are used most frequently in the corpus. The use of “I” in these self-mentions commonly refers to CEO Tim Cook himself, emphasizing his leading position in this presentation, as in Example 1:

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Frequency of the Use of Self-Mentions.

Self-Mentions	Absolute Frequencies
We	3,548
I	1,503
Our	1,049
Us	311

CEO Cook uses “I” to express an individual point of view, which reinforces his leading role within the organization (Skorczynska, 2020). In contrast, “we,” “our,” and “us” are used to refer to the corporation and its institutionalized voice as well as the Apple team, showing the expertise of the firm and its excellent design team, as in Examples 2 and 3:

Example 2: And we [self]’re very optimistic that this too shall pass and that the market and particularly us [self] will grow again. (2016 Q2)

The use of self-mention expressions in the corpus contributes to the establishment of company devotion and accountability, serving as credible appeals or ethos—a means of persuasion (Hyland, 2005). The collective pronouns “we,” “us,” and “our” designate a single agent and suggest to the audience that the corporation is accountable and reliable (Liu & Zhang, 2021). That is, the use of the collective form indicates the solidarity of the Apple team. This aura of reliance and dependability is extended by connecting the plural pronoun with explicit statements of the company's aims—to make outstanding goods and provide the greatest customer experience—making the audience confident in the company by demonstrating that all members of the team will work hard to achieve the same goal. This finding aligns with Skorczynska's (2020) suggestion that by increasing the dialogue between audiences and speakers, the interplay of first-person voices likely increases the effectiveness of persuasion.

Second, transitions are the most common type of interactive resources. As a crucial source for achieving text cohesion and coherence, transition markers indicate an intricate and logical relationship between clauses, making the text more persuasive. Of the three types of transition markers—“addition, comparison, and consequence” (Hyland, 2005, p. 50)—the Apple team favored additions (e.g., “and”), followed by consequences (e.g., “so,” “because”) and then comparisons (e.g., “but”; see Table 4).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Frequency of the Use of Transitions.

Transitions	Absolute Frequencies
And	1,774
So	1,461
But	618
Because	243

In Examples 4 and 5, the addition marker “and” serves as a transition to information that supplements the previous clause, thereby enhancing the text's persuasiveness:

Example 4: We have the strongest hardware portfolio that we’ve ever had. And [transition] we have a great product pipeline for the future, both in products and in services. (2021 Q1)

These examples both refer to the future in the information added by the transitions. The corpus shows that the Apple team makes frequent “futurological” predictions (Fairclough, 2003, p. 167) that follow the transitional word “and.” These predictions are relevant, targeting major interest groups such as financial stakeholders and government regulators in order to build their trust and support.

Fairclough (2003) emphasized the link between such future projections and social power. Being able to generate futurological predictions is crucial for firms because these future claims can legitimize, justify, and persuade present actions. For futurological predictions to be legitimized, they require the authority of the issuing organization. In Examples 4 and 5, the clause preceding the “and” transition builds perceived authority and helps to legitimize the futurological prediction in the clause following it, a clause that in turn establishes authority by making a prediction. Thus, the Apple team shapes the opinion of other parties to be favorable toward Apple's corporate perspective by employing this strategic communication tactic.

Example 6 demonstrates how the Apple team uses transitions of consequence:

Example 6: We’re now planning to expand our channel before the holiday because [transition] we’re convinced that the Watch is going to be one of the top gifts of the holiday season. (2015 Q3)

In Example 6, the word “because” is a transition to a clause that explains the reason for the consequence in the clause that precedes it. That is, the transition “because” helps listeners to understand the logic (Hyland, 2005) behind Apple's decision to expand its “channel before the holiday.” In this way, consequence transitions help to make rational arguments in order to persuade audiences.

Examples 7 and 8 demonstrate how the Apple team uses transitions of comparison:

Example 7: I feel like we are reasonably well positioned in China. I’m sure we can do better, but [transition] I think we are doing fairly well there. (2015 Q4)

In these two examples, the transition marker “but” is employed to highlight declarations of discrepancy or counterclaim. Such counterclaims emphasize how the present situation makes up for previous inadequacies or varies from previous situations (Kim & Lim, 2013). The employment of a comparison transition, then, helps speakers to position themselves in response to listeners’ objections (Hyland, 2004). In Example 7, the speaker wants to convince the audience that although “we can do better,” what “we are doing” now is already good. In Example 8, the speaker is claiming that despite having “tough competitors,” “we have the best products.” Thus, the Apple team's use of the transition marker “but” makes for a successful persuasion technique by gaining sympathy or acceptance from the listeners (Hyland, 2004).

And third, boosters significantly contribute to promotional discourse. The nature of ECCs as a hybrid genre determines the high frequency of the boosters. Because a corporate ECC is both descriptive and promotional, ECC presenters employ boosters in order to develop a favorable business image and increase the audience's confidence in the company (Pan & Chen, 2018). Table 5 presents the top 10 boosters employed by the Apple team.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 5.

Frequency of the Use of Boosters.

Boosters	Absolute Frequencies
Very	825
Think	676
More	448
Really	346
Obviously	257
Much	146
Believe	136
Of course	119
Most	100
Even	80

Example 9 shows how the Apple team uses boosters descriptively:

Example 9: The next thing is with the iPhone SE, we have seen our ability to attract even [booster] more [booster] customers into the platform with an incredible [booster] product that is at a new price point for us with the latest [booster] technology, and so we’re optimistic about attracting even [booster] more [booster] customers with that. We also look at our pipeline, and we’re very [booster] excited about what's in our pipeline. (2016 Q2)

Example 9 contains several boosters referring to the iPhone SE, a new product released by Apple in 2016, such as a commendatory adjective (“incredible”) and various expressions of comparison (e.g., “even more,” “latest”). Such comparative and superlative word forms are boosters for adjusting the strength or force of assessments, which are classified as graduation (Martin & White, 2005). Further, according to Hyland (2000), employing boosters can help sharpen the value of the information presented. In this example, the use of boosters emphasizes the company's technological brilliance in order to persuade stakeholders and potential investors that the company is trustworthy and authoritative. Thus, this example represents the team's successful perception management that aligns with Apple's institutional and corporate goals.

Example 10 shows how the Apple team uses boosters promotionally:

Example 10: We are also broadening the scope of many of these services. If you take Apple Pay as an example, it started off as the most [booster] convenient, most [booster] private and most [booster] secure way to make a payment in a store or in an app. (2019 Q1)

The use of superlative adjectives in this example helps the speaker to persuade listeners of the excellence and superior quality of Apple's service Apple Pay. This glowing description of Apple Pay makes this appear to be more of a promotional piece than an objective explanation of the service. Value-laded evaluations impact audiences by persuading or even misleading listeners to perceive things in a certain way (Hunston & Thompson, 2000). The booster “most” is carefully selected to increase emotional engagement. When a well-known brand portrays a service as the “most convenient,” “most private,” and “most secure,” it becomes harder for the audience to reject it (Liu & Zhang, 2021). Apple's use of boosters in this example parallels its use of superlative adjectives when it presented its new iPad Air (Liu & Zhang, 2021). An essential strategic communicative objective of ECCs is to enhance the company's image because reputation, brands, and corporate culture represent the nonmaterial assets that are the basis of sustainable long-term success (Zerfass & Viertmann, 2017). The use of boosters in this example emphasizes certainty, closes down options (Hyland, 2005), and increases the effectiveness of affective appeals, contributing to the persuasive effect and furthering strategic communication.

A Competitive Company

Apple employs metadiscourse resources in the ECCs to portray itself as a competitive company in terms of its current state and the quality of its unreleased products and services. Examples 11–13 show how these metadiscourse markers are strategically employed to increase persuasiveness:

Example 11: We [self] are very [booster] excited [attitude] by the level of customer response that we [self]’ve got for our [self] current portfolio. We [self]’re super [booster] confident [attitude] about the pipeline of products and services that we [self] have, and therefore [transition], we [self] believe [booster] that there is great value in our [self] stock. (2015 Q2)

The frequent use of boosters (e.g., “very,” “super,” “really”) with attitude markers (e.g., “excited,” “confident,” “bullish,” “good”) expresses the speaker’s confidence in the subject. The combination of self-mentions, boosters, and attitude markers makes announcements more persuasive by demonstrating that the speaker is responsible for the content of the statement. Boosters indicate a high level of certainty in the statement made (Hyland, 2005) whereas attitude markers address the present view of the company or shape how the quality of products and services is perceived. When the CEO presents the state of the company and introduces new products in these examples, he acts as an authoritative leader—a powerful figure. Accordingly, he employs boosters and attitude markers to stress the Apple team's skillfulness and the company's competence. This finding echoes Dubois et al.'s (2016) finding that when a powerful corporate leader presents information related to competence, the persuasive effect is more likely to be achieved. Thus, these examples show that by employing metadiscourse, Apple establishes a confident and competitive company image to enhance persuasion.

A Caring Corporation

As Examples 14–17 demonstrate, Apple employs metadiscourse resources in the ECCs to portray itself as a caring corporation that always puts its customers first:

Example 14: And so [transition] market shares are important [attitude] and unit volumes are important [attitude], but [transition] these other things for us [self] are extremely [booster] important [attitude], because [transition] we [self] are all about customer experience and enriching lives. (2013 Q2)

In Examples 14 and 15, the use of a combination of boosters and attitude markers such as “extremely important” and “most important” clearly indicates that Apple considers and understands its consumers’ concerns, empathizing with their beliefs and judgments. These markers influence consumers’ attitudes about and relationships with corporations. The high frequency of the combination of boosters and attitude markers such as “extremely important” and “most important” may be attributed to the genre characteristics of the ECC (Catenaccio, 2008). Thus, an important communicative purpose of such markers in these examples is to promote a good image of the company by letting customers know that they are valued.

Examples 16 and 17 describe products and services offered by Apple, which are common topics in ECCs. Adjective boosters in the phrases “even more affordable,” “more attractive,” “very elegant,” and “very easy” are linked to values that can shield the presentation from debate or dispute (Van Leeuwen, 2008). Because the introduction of new products may suggest a legitimacy crisis in organization management (Kostova & Zaheer, 1999), the CEO again presents himself as the leader of a caring corporation in order to demonstrate the high quality of Apple's products and services and make a powerful emotional contact with the audience.

A Close Friend

As Examples 18 and 19 demonstrate, Apple employs metadiscourse resources in the ECCs to portray itself as a close friend who shares the feelings of customers:

Example 18: If you [engagement] look at the absolute number of upgraders, it was the highest [booster] that we [self]’ve seen in any quarter. And [transition] if you [engagement] look at the switcher number, it's the highest [booster] that we [self]’ve seen in any quarter. If you [engagement] look at the upgrade rate, it's similar to last year. (2017 Q1)

In these two examples, the CEO employs the engagement marker “you” to background his authoritative identity as a leader and foreground a new identity as a close friend with the same status as the audience. By using the engagement marker “you,” the CEO implies that the audience perceives the product as he does and shares his sentiments and feelings, creating a common understanding that increases persuasion. There are numerous modes of address in English that can cultivate this kind of familiarity (Baker, 1992). The use of second-person rather than third-person plural forms suggests a greater degree of closeness in the context. In Examples 18 and 19, the engagement marker “you,” which addresses the audience directly by using second-person pronouns, improves the interactive effect by closing the distance between the speaker and the listener. The use of “you” and “your” also has the interlocutory effect of implying a close and harmonious interaction (Fu, 2012). When the CEO tries to reduce his power by putting himself into the audience's shoes, he adopts engagement markers that demonstrate friendship and closeness, echoing Dubois et al.'s (2016) finding that low-power communicators can use warmth to persuade the audience.

In sum, companies’ desire to persuade present and future shareholders drives their ECCs. These Apple ECCs employ metadiscourse resources strategically to construct positive interactive roles that vary in power—a competitive company, a caring corporation, and a close friend—in order to enhance persuasive effectiveness. Such strategic communication can be explained by legitimacy theory, which is used as a main paradigm for explaining organizations’ social disclosure practices (Bebbington et al., 2008). According to this theory, legitimacy is a resource that businesses require in order to operate and survive. Legitimacy is granted to institutions that adhere to social standards and expectations. Strategic communication, then, is critical in closing the legitimacy gap between how an organization wants to be viewed and how it is actually viewed (Campbell et al., 2003). Such communication can create trust, develop relationships, and build legitimacy that in turn secures room for an organization to operate and maneuver (Zerfass & Viertmann, 2017). Suchman (1995) analyzed numerous ways for maintaining legitimacy. One tactic entails communicating certain personal characteristics in order to evoke a favorable attitude from receivers. Apple employs this tactic in order to persuade and maintain its legitimacy by using metadiscourse resources to successfully manage different interactive roles that construct it as a competitive company, caring corporation, and close friend.