Abstract
Undertaking chairmen’s letters as data, the article discusses strategic manoeuvring of argumentation in Chinese corporate public relations discourses from the perspectives of topical potential, audience demand and presentational devices. Popular topics chosen were explored, including corporate commerciality, legitimation, entrepreneurship and approachability. Additionally, argumentation move structure and schemes such as symptomatic argument, analogy argument and causal argument were analysed. Inference modes undertaking priori, empirical and evaluative knowledge to respond to audiences’ rational, credibility and affective appeals were investigated. Presentational devices including allusion, metaphor and hypallage were also discussed. These findings were attributed to institutional and social-cultural contexts of the discourse. Hopefully, the study can enhance the explanatory power and applicability of the Pragma-Dialectics in corporate discourse studies and facilitate the research on Chinese corporate communication in general.
Keywords
Introduction
Argumentation is defined as ‘a verbal, social and rational activity aimed at convincing a reasonable critic of the acceptability of a certain opinion by advancing one or more propositions designed to justify that standpoint’ (van Eemeren et al., 2017: 1). It is considered to be both dialectic and pragmatic (van Eemeren, 2013). The study of argumentation can be traced back to Aristotle’s dialectic and rhetoric concepts (Aristotle, 2007), which have thus become two major perspectives for argumentation research. The dialectic perspective focusses on the logical aspect of argumentation, considering argumentation as a rational process and underlining the structural features under the help of formal and informal logic (Erduran, 2018; Toulmin, 2003). In contrast, rhetoric is concerned with how humans use symbols, especially language, to reach an agreement that permits coordinated effort of some sort (Hauser, 2002). Modern arguments hold that rhetoric is not only a kind of semiotic behaviour but also a kind of contextual behaviour, social behaviour, interactive behaviour and strategic behaviour. The rhetorical perspective regards argumentation as a type of communicative activity, highlighting its social-practice attribute (Corvellec, 2001; Perelman et al., 1969).
The two perspectives are perceived to be complementary to but irreplaceable by one another (Toulmin, 2001). However, many scholars thus far have taken a competitive view of the two paradigms, assuming their differences to be ideological (van Eemeren, 2013). Consequently, a possible risk is that issues supposed to be addressed following an integrated perspective are prone to overweighting either the dialectical or rhetorical dimension, leaving argumentative discourses hard to interpret fully and systematically.
The abovementioned problems have attracted widespread attention. Some scholars have proposed that discourse analysis should simultaneously explore dialectical and rhetorical dimensions (Corvellec, 2007; Johnson, 2000) or incorporate both dimensions into the theoretical construction to establish a Pragma-Dialectics framework (van Eemeren, 2013). Although these studies have made argumentation research more systematic and multidimensional to a large extent, there is insufficient attention attached to the interaction between the two dimensions and a plethora of concerns about highly argumentative conflict discourses such as news commentary and diplomatic and debating discourses (Duerringer and Justus, 2016; Sijadu, 2020). Research on argumentation-related issues in nonconflicting discourse under institutional contexts such as corporate public relations discourse is, on the other hand, more often than not ignored (Corvellec, 2001, 2007). In addition, previous argumentative studies in business discourse have tended to focus more on argumentation’s role in conflict management (Sillince, 2000), moral defence (Lahdesmaki, 2005) and decision-making (Onkila, 2009) from the perspective of enterprise management, with rare linguistic endeavours devoted to discourse argumentation strategies.
Argumentation does not merely exist in conflict discourse; instead, it is also widely used in nonconflicting discourse, where the writer needs to provide evidence for his or her claim to verify his or her stance (Skerlep, 2001). In this case, the basic purpose of argumentation is to persuade, either convincing the audience by sound arguments or influencing the audience suggestively and manipulatively by fallacies (Reisigl, 2014).
Accordingly, this paper, undertaking the extended theory of Pragma-Dialectics and the related concept of strategic manoeuvring (van Eemeren, 2013), discusses the application of argumentation strategies in nonconflicting discourse, particularly in Chinese corporate public relations discourses, intending to enhance the explanatory power and applicability of the Pragma-Dialectics theory in corporate discourse studies and business communication. Diverging from the discourse on conflict resolution, the argumentation underscored within this paper pertains to discourse within non-conflicting settings, characterized by the employment of specific argumentative logic and strategies. It is a recognized fact that, even within non-conflicting contexts devoid of verbal aggression, argumentation remains engaged with contentious subject matter. In such non-conflictive settings, the task at hand involves transforming a controversial issue into one that garners consensus, with the objective of persuading the audience. Consequently, argumentation within non-conflictive contexts not only serves the purpose of inducing persuasion but also serves as a demonstration of rationality, with the primary aim of convincing the target audience rather than refuting adversaries and substantiating the effectiveness of particular viewpoints.
This paper is organized as follows. Following the introduction, the methodology for the present study, including the choice of data, choice of organization and analytical approach is proposed. After the reconstruction of the discourse and pointing out our focus on strategic manoeuvring in the empirical counterpart of the argumentation stage, results are then presented in Section 4, 5 and 6 to illustrate how different argumentative strategies are manipulated to achieve persuasion and identification and help construct Chinese corporate identity. The paper concludes with the institutional and social-cultural explanations of these findings and recommends avenues for further research.
Methodology
Choice of chairman letters in annual reports
Annual reports (ARs) are considered carefully organized, authoritative nonconflict forms of discourse that highlight and construct a positive corporate identity. The function of annual reports in Western culture, as a highly sophisticated product of corporate design, has changed from ‘informing and reporting to increasingly promoting’ companies (Bhatia, 2010: 39). The English versions of ARs from a Chinese company are regarded as an appropriation or hybridization of the Western genre conventions for annual reports into a Chinese corporate context and culture (Wu et al., 2023). Similar to Western genre conventions, Chinese ARs can also be regarded as promotional documents ‘through which a positive institutional identity and image can be engineered for a company’ in the sense that ‘positive attributes’ of the enterprise are highlighted and ‘confidence in the management team’ is strengthened (Breeze, 2013: 84).
Faced with a choice among different sections of ARs, we selected the ‘chairman’s letter’ as the research data, which displays what the company wants to highlight in its stakeholder communication (Garzone, 2004). A chairman’s letter is ‘the most prominent and widely read part of an AR’ (Hyland 1998: 224) and the ‘most powerful and influential type of corporate reporting’ (Mäkelä and Matias, 2011: 218). As a standardized public relations discourse, such letters are generally written by the enterprise leaders and placed at the beginning of ARs, a detailed analysis of which facilitates the understanding of how companies present their own performance to their target audiences (shareholders, regulatory bodies, media, etc.), using complex discursive strategies to build a positive image, impart confidence in affirming the enterprise’s achievements and offset negative publicity affecting the sector as a whole (Breeze, 2012). Notably, leaders often undertake argumentative strategies to justify their views and positions, to build credibility and to convince the shareholders that the enterprise is pursuing sound and effective strategies (Hyland, 1998), and in turn, to achieve positive construction of enterprises. This is in line with the characteristics of argumentative discourse.
By analysing the argumentative strategies in chairman’s letters of Chinese company, we thus endeavour to gauge the chairmen’s efforts of strategic manoeuvring among topical potential, audience demand and presentational devices in public relations discourse of Chinese corporate ARs. We intend to answer the following four research questions:
RQ1: In light of features of corporate communication, what topics and stances of tend to be chosen in chairmen’s letters of Chinese companies?
RQ2: In such an institutionalized communicative practice as a chairman’s letter, what are the major audience demands to be satisfied and what argumentation strategies have been undertaken to satisfy these demands?
RQ3: Given the characteristics of Chinese corporate public relations discourse, what move structure and argument schemes are used to present the arguments to achieve identification and persuasion?
RQ4: How do these argumentation strategies relate to the immediate institutional and broader social-cultural contexts in China?
Choice of organization
China is playing an increasingly active role in global economic activities. Due to its transition from a planned economy to a market economy, the leaders of Chinese enterprises are becoming increasingly aware that in addition to products, corporate identity also distinguishes the enterprise from its competitors (Peverelli, 2006: 6). Corporate identity is a ‘dynamic construct that is realized in and through the discursive practices of members of business and disciplinary cultures’ (Bhatia and Lung, 2006: 266). Similar to any other type of social identity, corporate identity is far from being fixed, predetermined and unidirectional in nature; rather, it is multiple, changeable, linguistically constructed and contextually constrained, which is in line with the claims of social constructionism (De Fina et al., 2006). Therefore, Chinese companies are trying to design their own identities by appropriating the Western AR genre but adapting it to Chinese culture and expectations.
To avoid the impact of industrial differences on discourse, this study chooses three listed Chinese internet technology enterprises in the 2022 Fortune Global 500 as the research objects, 1 including Alibaba Group Holding Limited (https://www.alibabagroup.com/en-US/ir-financial-reports-financial-results), the Xiaomi Corporation (https://ir.mi.com/financial-information/annual-interim-reports?b1cf09cf_year[value]=2021) and Huawei (http://www.huawei.com/en/press-events/annual-report). These companies are all Chinese internet technology giants with large assets, outstanding social influence and strong development potential. Their enterprise discourses are typical and representative of the entire industry. Moreover, the profile of these enterprises objectively tends to reflect the status quo and development of the internet technology industry in China, which is of great significance to the study of Chinese internet technology brands on the whole.
Analytical framework
Theoretical basis
In extended Pragma-Dialectics (van Eemeren, 2010), the dialectical and the rhetorical perspectives of argumentation theory is integrated through the notion of strategic manoeuvring. Strategic manoeuvring is proposed to manifest in every argumentative move through three aspects: (1) the choice of topical potential, (2) the adaptation to audience demand and (3) the exploitation of presentational devices. The abovementioned three aspects correspond to the focus of traditional rhetoric analysis: the choice of potential topics, which is the entry point of argumentation, corresponds to topic selection; the response to audience needs, exploring the catering strategies for an easier acceptance of certain stance, corresponds to audience orientation; and the means of expression, which represents the manipulation of linguistic forms, corresponds to discourse presentation (van Eemeren, 2013). The topical potential, constructed through audience orientation and discourse presentation and chosen from a set of alternatives topics available, is the meaning presentation of audience demand and discourse presentation from a macroscopic view; audience demand, the adaptation to which means making a selection the agrees best with the frame of reference of the target audience, defines discourse presentation and topic selection and decodes text meaning by clarifying the dialectical relationship among the chairman, the target audience and the discourse; discourse presentation, concerning the choice of stylistic and specific means of expression for the realization of argumentation, is the linguistic encoding of topic potential and audience demand. In a word, these three components are mutually dependent and inseparable, and in turn organically constitute the multiple perspectives for the argumentative analysis in corporate public relations discourse.
Drawing on this theory and the characteristics of Chinese corporate public relations discourse, we outline a practical approach to holistically interpret the strategy manoeuvring of the chairman’s letter in Chinese corporate ARs from the perspectives of topical selection, audience demand and discourse presentation. Thereby, a strategic manipulation mechanism of argumentation in corporate discourse will be presented, which is easily replicable and particularly suitable for argumentative research on Chinese business communication.
Analytical procedures in the paper
We analysed 12 chairman’s letters extracted from corporate ARs of Alibaba, Xiaomi and Huawei in recent 3 years (2020–2022), with 3 from Alibaba, 3 from Xiaomi and 6 from Huawei (3 from the Rotating chairmen and 3 from the chairmen). In light of framework presented by Breeze and Vallejo (2020) on the analysis of chairman’s letters, our analytical procedure was designed as follows (Table 1).
Analytical procedure.
After the preparation work in Step 1 and Step 2, based on van Eemeren (2010), we first reconstructed the discourse and focussed our discussion on the strategic manoeuvring in the empirical counterpart of the argumentation stage, that is, the exploration of argumentative means and criticisms in the discourse.
In Step 4, we analysed the texts and identified the shared topics constructed among the selected companies, highlighting the persuasiveness of argumentation generated from the deliberate choice of certain topics. The analysis of data suggests that the common shared topics in Chinese companies can be extended to cover many domains, including corporate commerciality, corporate legitimacy, corporate entrepreneurship and corporate approachability (Wu et al., 2023). Then we calculated the distribution of these topics in the data and analysed the discrepancy in companies’ favour of certain topics. Furthermore, the analysis also covered such aspects as the general move structure of the argumentation and the argumentative strategies materialized in argumentation schemes such as symptomatic argument, analogy argument and causal argument used to justify and legitimize the companies and their stakeholders (van Eemeren et al., 2017).
In Step 5, diverse audience demands satisfied in the data including rational appeals, credibility appeals and affective appeals (Hyland, 1998) were identified, foregrounding the persuasiveness of argumentation generated from orienting audiences through various inference modes (Freeman, 2005). Then diverse inference modes such as priori reasoning, empirical reasoning and evaluative reasoning to orient the audience were analysed.
Based on the above, in Step 6, a text-level analysis of argumentative strategies was presented, exploring the persuasiveness of argumentation generated from diverse discourse presentational devices. As presentational devices ‘include in the first place the various “figures” of speech and thought that are distinguished in classical and modern dialectic and rhetoric’ (van Eemeren 2010: 121), the use of figure of speech by the chairmen in their letters were discussed.
It is worth mentioning that strategic manoeuvring means making simultaneous choices regarding how to use the topical potential, how to meet audience demand and how to employ presentational devices, for example, different inference modes in Step 5 are also the results of strategic manoeuvring in both topic potential and presentational devices, yet our focal points in Step 4, 5 and 6 are on the aspect of the manoeuvring that is in a particular case most conspicuous for discussion.
Finally in Step 7, we went beyond the ‘what’ identified in previous steps by implication the ‘why’ of strategic manoeuvring. Insights are gained through linking the analysis of the argumentative strategies used to the immediate institutional and broader social-cultural context in general. The institutional dimension highlighted chairmen’s intention of using argumentation for the establishment and maintenance of relationships with their target audiences, including corporate shareholders, employees, financial experts, the media, government agencies and interested public at large; the social-cultural dimension revealed that strategic manoeuvring in argumentation in chairman’s letters, as a social historical practice, was subject to the influence of Chinese social and cultural characteristics.
Reconstructing the chairpersons’ argumentative discourse
Theoretically, argumentative discourse can be reconstructed into the empirical counterparts of four different stages, including the initial situation, the starting points, the argumentative means and the outcomes (van Eemeren, 2010). Strategic manoeuvring represents itself in different ways in these empirical counterparts as arguers adopt different modes of strategic manoeuvring to fulfill different argumentative aims.
The exploration of the data has led to a reconstruction of chairman’s letters as a specific argumentative type characterized by a particular initial situation, particular staring points, particular argumentative means and criticism and a particular outcome. Specifically, in the empirical counterpart of the confrontation stage, the aim of strategic manoeuvring is to indicate the difference of opinion between the company and the stakeholders in the communication; in the empirical counterpart of the opening stage, the aim of strategic manoeuvring is to settle the departure of the discussion, particularly, what the company intends to highlight in the letters; in the empirical counterpart of the argumentation stage, the aim of strategic manoeuvring is to survey how the arguments and criticism advanced, the types of argument undertaken and the clusters of arguments developed in the letters facilitate the foregrounding of corporate achievements and its positive image while offset negative publicity; in the empirical counterpart of the concluding stage, the aim of strategic manoeuvring is to determine the outcome of the discussion, that is the resolution of potential disagreements from the stakeholders. Among the four stages, we are more concerned with the strategic manoeuvring in the argumentation stage, that is, to survey the diverse argumentative means and criticisms used in the letters and how they facilitate the positive construction of the companies.
Strategic manoeuvring in topic potentials
Typical topics constructed
As mentioned earlier, the chairmen’s strategic manoeuvring in topic potentials can be revealed by the various topics selected and constructed through argumentation. The choices are dependent on the chairmen’s judgement on what needs to be made clear to achieve particular goals with the target audience and on their perception of what is capable of increasing the credibility of the argumentations in the audience. Different linguistic strategies are argued to help reveal the chairmen’s topic selection, including modality choice, nominalization and pronoun use (especially first vs. second person perspectives). Based on the analysis of data, it is found that different aspects of topics related to corporate identity are often chosen and constructed through argumentation, including:
1) Corporate commerciality, constructed through the argumentation for corporate ability such as soft and hard powers, is used to encourage shareholder’s support and to stimulate the purchase of corporate products. For instance:
(1) In December 2021, we launched MIUI 13, which substantially improves responsiveness and stability across system applications and third-party apps, which is accomplished by optimizing memory management and background processing efficiency while enhancing data calculation and storage access speeds (Xiaomi, 2021: 10). (2) In our consumer business, our focus is on people-centric innovation. (Huawei, 2020: 3–4).
Example (1) and Example (2) are typical zero modal narratives, which are conventionally considered more objective than narratives containing modal verbs. The statements are constructed as objective facts rather than the subjective judgements. These two narratives in turn strengthen corporate ability associations focussing on expertise and professionalism in terms of product or service quality (Kim and Rader, 2010: 67). From the perspective of topic selection, the arguments validate corporate competence, including not only the enterprise’s hard power, such as product service and core technology (‘MIUI 13’ in Example 1), but also the publicity of the enterprise’s soft power, such as corporate policies and culture (‘people-centric concept’ in Example 2).
2) Corporate legitimation, established by giving a ‘normative dignity’ to corporate practical imperatives (Berger and Luckmann, 1966: 111) and providing justification and factual basis for promotional messages through argumentation, is used to legitimize corporate behaviours and corporate strategies. For instance:
(3) Alibaba is unique in our commitment to being true to ourselves and in our firm belief that customer value creation should be at the root of all innovation (Alibaba, 2020: 19). (4) Through our unwavering commitment to premiumization, we have been prioritizing user experience and improving our competitiveness in the premium smartphone segment. (Xiaomi 2021: 9).
Examples (3) and (4) use the nominalized phrase commitment to to materialize the specific process of ‘commitment’, and the argument is presented as an established, authentic and authoritative fact. Nominalization is a common means of text construction used to highlight the authority, objectivity and professionalism of the text. It imperceptibly constructs the authority and legitimacy of corporate policy, facilitating the publicity of corporate confidence and the justification of corporate behaviour. From the perspective of topic selection, the argument strengthens audiences’ awareness of the legitimacy of corporate policies and concepts (the concept of adhering to customer value creation in Example 3 and premiumization in Example 4) through nominalization, which is conducive to corporate resource acquisition and performance improvement and serves to the publicity of the corporation’s legitimate strategic concept.
3) Corporate entrepreneurship, foregrounded through the argumentation for corporate social responsibility by presenting corporate philosophies, policies, etc., is used to construct the view of righteousness and benefit of the companies. For instance:
(5) We need to give more thought towards the positive value being created for society; addressing challenges related to essential technology; supporting the development of rural revitalization; becoming more environmentally friendly and sustainable (Alibaba, 2021: 15). (6) Faced with external volatility, we need to remain focussed and stay true to our vision and mission. We need to double down on our commitment to building the foundations of the digital economy and to driving green and sustainable development (Huawei, 2022: 2–3).
Both Example (5) and Example (6) argue for corporate social responsibility (CSR) through the use of need to, a typical expression to indicate deontic modality. Through the argumentation, the corporate view of righteousness and benefit is constructed, facilitating the publicity of the social responsibility of the enterprise (Kim and Rader, 2010: 67). CSR is widely regarded as a fundamental component of business communication. The advocacy for CSR plays a pivotal role in fostering trust among stakeholders and enhancing a company’s reputation as a dependable participant in society. This in turn showcases the organization as one dedicated not solely to profit-seeking, but also to corporate entrepreneurship, steadfast commitment to sustainable practices and meaningful contributions to society, as elucidated by Breeze (2020).
4) Corporate approachability, materialized through appealing to the audience’s emotion and moral sense and enhancing the intelligibility and informality of the discourse by using accessible rather than specialized vocabularies, is used to win the target audiences’ acceptance and identification of the company.
(7) We could not have achieved any of this without the ongoing trust and support of our customers, partners and friends from all over the world. You have given us the foothold and the confidence we need to keep climbing. On behalf of everyone at Huawei, thank you for sticking by our side (Huawei, 2021: 2). (8) All in all, Alibaba is committed to a path of sustainable and high-quality development. You will soon see the ESG Annual Report that we are about to publish, where we will share much more about our progress in environmental protection, social responsibility and corporate governance (Alibaba 2022: 19).
First-person (we, our) and second-person (you) perspectives are both used in Examples (7) and (8) respectively. On the one hand, the use of first-person perspective positions the company alongside its employees, inviting a degree of audience involvement in the company’s activities. The target-inclusive pronoun ‘we’ helps the target audiences (potentially the employees) ‘feel themselves into’ the chairmen’s emotional episodes (Hatfield et al., 2011), through which the target audiences are able to experience the text as actors and share their experiences and emotions with the chairmen. On the other hand, the second-person perspective functions in a similar way as the first-person perspective in the sense that it promotes the acquisition of participant perspective of the target audiences (potentially the stakeholders) by directly or indirectly crowning them as the protagonist (Borghi et al., 2004). By undertaking different perspectives in the argumentations, the chairmen manage to transmit emotional signals to influence and appeal to target audiences and to enhance the audiences’ empathy and identification with the chairmen, and in turn, establishes the approachability of the company (Wu et al., 2023).
After the identification of the topics constructed in the argumentation, we calculated the distribution of these four topics to see whether there are preferences of certain topics in these companies. The results are shown in Table 2. 2
Topic distribution in the data.
As indicated in Table 1, there are similarities among the companies as to the distribution of these topics. Notably, among the four topics, corporate commerciality and corporate legitimation are the preferred topics by all three companies in 2020. Since presentations of corporate commerciality and legitimate policies are generally believed to have a greater influence on both product perceptions and the overall company evaluation than those of CSR (Brown and Dacin, 1997; Kim and Rader, 2010), chairmen are more concerned with the presentation of the achievements of the companies and the legitimacy of the corporate policies and culture.
Apart from the similarities, there are some differences in the companies’ preference of certain topics. Firstly, while Alibaba and Huawei attempt to place more emphasis on the display of corporate legitimation by promoting corporate policies, philosophy and culture in these 3 years, Xiaomi places more emphasis on the presentation of corporate commerciality rather than corporate legitimacy. This difference could be attributable to the fact that the former two companies are already world-renowned Chinese tech giants heralded as Chinese flagship multinational firms which do not need to overprove their own strengths and ability. Comparatively speaking, Xiaomi, as a fast-rising brand in the world market, is more eager to show its expertise in producing high-quality products or services rather than the promotion of corporate philosophy, culture and policies for identification; therefore, ability-focussed topics are preferred (Kim and Rader, 2010).
Secondly, there are significant differences among the companies in the number of topics about CSR. These topics, which have always been incorporated as major topics in Alibaba and Huawei chairmen’ letters these years, take up a relatively lower proportion in Xiaomi chairman’s letters, although we can see an increasing awareness of Xiaomi to reflect on the company’s social and environmental impact and its growing devotion to sustainable practices and making its positive contributions to society known in recent 2 years.
Apart from the choices on particular topics, the use of certain arguments (as instances of argumentation structure and argumentation schemes) in a critical discussion is also related to the strategic choices concerning the topical selection in the argumentation stage, which is ‘a selection from the available potential of arguments’ (van Eemeren, 2010: 100). Therefore, the typical argumentation structure and argumentation schemes are then explored.
The general move structure
Based on the analysis of the data, the move-structure of the argumentation in chairman’s letters can be identified, shown in Figure 1:
The move-structure of the chairman’s letter.
As indicated in Figure 1, in chairmen’s letters, the text often begins with the general review of corporate performance of the reporting year based on the factual information provided in the accounting discourse and financial discourse, often mingled with background information indicating a harsh business environment; then significant achievements of the reporting year from various aspects are elaborated and underlined; In move 3, detailed accounts of future corporate actions, measures and expected outcomes will be mentioned, followed sometimes by expressions of gratitude to management team, stakeholders and employees for their effort; in the end move, a positive and confident closing is made as a pep talk to encourage company employees and build their confidence.
Argumentation schemes
It is found that three argumentation schemes such as symptomatic argument, analogy argument and causal argument are used to construct the persuasiveness of the discourse (van Eemeren et al., 2017).
Argumentation based on a symptomatic relation
In a symptomatic argument, a standpoint is defended by ‘citing in the argument a certain sign, symptom or distinguishing mark of what is claimed in the standpoint’ (van Eemeren et al., 2017: 84). For instance:
(9) We know without doubt that the ongoing digital transformation of our economy and society will be unstoppable. COVID-19 has made us fundamentally re-evaluate our relationship with the world around us. It has catalysed development of brand-new digital solutions in life, work, education, business management and public services. Today, digitalization is the new norm (Alibaba 2020: 17).
From the perspective of argumentation logic, the standpoint the chairman wants to defend in Example (9) is digitalization is unstoppable/ the new norm. The standpoint is true because development of brand-new digital solutions in life, work, education, business management and public services is true and it is considered symptomatic of digitalization. From the perspective of strategic manoeuvring, the introduction of industry trends is seemingly insignificant, yet it actually serves the topic construction by entering the text as a heterogeneous discourse (Bakhtin, 1981). Specifically, through the argumentation of the digital background and business environment, the chairman constructs the company as being actively adaptable to the trend of digital operation, and devoted to the digital transformation in all fields. While highlighting the background, an implicit proposition is presupposed for image construction, that is, Alibaba, as an advocate and practitioner of the digital economy, has always been adapting to the trends of the era and playing a major role in promoting the application of digitalization in diverse fields of society.
Argumentation based on a relation of analogy
In an analogy argument, a standpoint is defended by ‘showing that something referred to in the standpoint is similar to something that is cited in the argumentation’ (van Eemeren et al., 2017: 86). The similarity is an implicit prerequisite for the successful derivation of the argumentation. For instance:
(10) In 2020, Xiaomi posted solid performance amid the pandemic and global economic uncertainty, with revenue and adjusted net profit growing 19.4% and 12.8% year-over-year to RMB245.9 billion and RMB13.0 billion, respectively. Many of our business and financial metrics achieved all-time highs while we outpaced our global peers in terms of smartphone shipment growth and maintained the leading position in mainland China’s smart TV market. (Xiaomi 2020: 4).
From the perspective of argumentation logic, Xiaomi is compared with its global peers in Example (10), assuming that they are all under the influence of the epidemic and global economic fluctuations. The implicit presupposition is that Xiaomi cannot post solid performance amid the pandemic and global economic uncertainty because its global peers did not. Using factual data such as revenue and net profit as the basis, the chairman negates this implicit premise and proposes the standpoint that Unlike its global peers, Xiaomi posted solid performance amid the pandemic and global economic uncertainty. From the perspective of strategic manoeuvring, positive construction of oneself through the passive- that is, negatively evaluated- construction of others is a commonly used method for image construction of the company (Wu and Zhang, 2019). In this case, the chairman uses analogy argument, not for ‘convergence’ but for ‘seeking differences’, which highlights the resilience and vitality of Xiaomi under the impact of the epidemic and turbulent economic environment.
Argumentation based on a causal relation
In a causal argument, a standpoint is defended by ‘making a causal connection between the argument and the standpoint’ (van Eemeren et al., 2017: 88). For instance:
(11) As a global corporate citizen, we want to create a positive impact with our technology, so we work closely with governments, customers, enterprises and non-profit organizations to give back to local communities (Huawei 2020: 9).
From the perspective of argumentation logic, the chairman uses Huawei wants to create a positive impact with our technology as factual basis, and then he proposes the standpoint that Huawei works closely with governments, customers, enterprises and non-profit organizations to give back to local communities. Based on the empirical judgement that the intention of creating a positive impact with technology requires the close work with different concerned parties, the chairman establishes a causal relationship between the basis and the claim. From the perspective of strategic manoeuvring, causal argument uses factual judgements (crisis or problems) and empirical judgements (emotions, concepts or values) to reveal the objective causal relationship between basis and claim (Yang and Ran, 2017), presenting subjective persuasion as objective proof, which can effectively demonstrate the rigour of argumentation logic and construct the reasonableness of argumentation. In this case, the socially-responsibility of Huawei, who collaborates with concerned parties to carry out public welfare activities and promotes social development through digital technology, has been successfully constructed.
Strategic manoeuvring in audience demands
Knowledge in argumentation is embodied in the use of authoritative judgements and evidence in the reasoning, which can avoid logical fault and ensure that the steps from data to claim are rational and legitimate. The general rhetorical purpose in the argumentation of a chairman’s letter is persuasion, seeking to gain the audience’s acceptance of a particular claim proposed. The primary audience of chairpersons’ letters in corporate annual reports typically consists of shareholders, investors, financial analysts and other stakeholders directly involved in the company’s financial performance and decisions. These individuals and organizations are particularly interested in the company’s financial health, strategic direction and future prospects. They seek detailed information about the company’s financial results, operational strategies, risk management and plans for growth. The secondary audience often includes a broader range of stakeholders, such as employees, regulatory bodies, governmental agencies, media outlets, competitors and the general public. While these stakeholders may not have the same level of direct financial interest as the primary audience, they are still affected by the company’s activities and decisions. For instance, employees are interested in understanding the company’s plans for human resources and workforce development, while regulatory bodies may assess the company’s compliance with industry regulations and standards. Media outlets and competitors may analyse the information for news coverage and strategic insights. Based on the source of the knowledge and the inferential rules of argumentation (Freeman, 2005) and the rhetorical effects of the chairman letters (Hyland, 1998), we summarize three modes of argumentation, and examples for each mode are presented as follows.
(11) Priori knowledge (such as common sense and commonly accepted laws of nature) and logical connectives for rational appeals
(12) It’s clear that cyber security and privacy protection are becoming necessary capabilities for all organizations, crucial for a properly functioning digital world. As always, cyber security and privacy protection remain our top priorities (Huawei, 2020: 5).
(13) Luckily, we are well-positioned in the world’s biggest consumption market and backed by the world’s most resilient and dynamic supply chain system here in China. Moreover, the economy and life in China was among the first to return to normalcy. All these factors have reinforced confidence in our long-term growth and value-creation (Alibaba, 2021: 14).
Rational appeals to audiences are mainly accomplished through the propositional content of the argumentation. The logic connecting a claim and data is an essential part of the argumentation’s overall persuasiveness (Hyland, 1998). In Example (12), by using the code gloss ‘it is clear that’, the chairman resorts to the common understanding that cyberspace security is important as a shared evidential for reasoning and the significance of this particular information regarding the way in which the chairman intends to be conveyed. Simply based on the audience’s rational thinking, the enterprise strategy of taking cybersecurity and privacy protection as its top priorities is justified during the reasoning process. In Example (13), by using the logical connective ‘moreover’ and the demonstrative pronoun ‘these’, the argument structure of the discourse is made explicit. This denotes how the chairman intends the meaning relations between ideas to be conveyed and understood. The chairman’s lines of thought are clearly indicated through surface logicality, and arguments are successfully built and conveyed during the process.
From the perspective of discourse generation, reasoning based on a priori knowledge intends to employ the rational logic of the discourse itself and the evidence shared by both the chairman and the audience to consummate a natural flow of the textual meaning from data to claim. A similar cognitive schema is triggered in the audience’s cognitive domains to make them believe that what they are told is true; in turn, the rationality and feasibility of the argument are constructed. From the perspective of audience demand, reasoning with a priori knowledge tends to adapt to primary audiences’ demands, which are centred around corporate financial performance and investment decisions, and it functions rhetorically to point the primary audiences in the direction of the argument intended by the chairman and guides them to complete the cognitive transition from data to claim through rational judgement and to enhance the rational understanding of the core concepts, connotations and attributes of corporate strategy.
2) Empirical knowledge (such as the experience of the chairman) and highly charged expressions (such as emphatics) for credibility appeals
(14) Alibaba prioritized self-innovation and incubation of new ideas above all else over the past 20 years. From Taobao to Alipay to Cainiao to Alibaba Cloud, from DingTalk to Freshippo to Taobao Live – all of these new ‘animals’ helped to improve the lives of consumers, advance development of commerce and drive progress in society (Alibaba, 2020: 18). (15) We firmly believe that collaboration leads to shared success and mutual development, and we are confident in our ability to work with partners from around the world to forge a secure, reliable, competitive and healthy value chain (Huawei, 2021: 13).
Apart from rational appeals, persuasiveness in argumentation also depends on the chairman’s credibility. In Example (14), the chairman resorts to the empirical knowledge that the birth of a new ‘species’ such as Taobao, Alipay, Cainiao and Taobao Live promotes consumers’ living standards and the development of commerce and society for credibility appeals to establish the credibility of the corporate value that the company always prioritizes self-innovation and the incubation of new ideas. In Example (15), the intensifier ‘firmly’ is used to demonstrate a confident and decisive image. The certainty, assurance and credibility of the claim is foregrounded, helping to instil confidence and trust in the target audience (Hyland, 1998).
From the perspective of discourse generation, this inference mode undertakes empirical knowledge and the experience of the chairman, who represents the authoritative and representative voice of the company, for reasoning. The perceived integrity and authority of the chairman help to indicate the chairman’s convictions in their claims and the authority of their assertions. By doing so, corporate values such as corporate policy, philosophy and culture are legitimized (van Leeuwen, 2007). In turn, the legitimacy and credibility of the argument are established. From the perspective of audience demand, similar to rational appeals, credibility appeals are more concerned with the primary audiences’ demands in corporate performance and prospects. They exploit the primary audience’s psychology of high trust in authority, which is especially true in the Chinese cultural context for the audiences’ identification of the company. This mode guides the primary audiences to accept the empirical judgement of the authority, grafting their high trust in corporate authority on the identification of the corporate policies, norms and values and making it easier for shareholders to identify with the ideas and objectives of the company.
3) Evaluative knowledge (such as the subjective perception of the chairman) and personalized expressions (such as second-person pronouns) for affective appeals
(16) Cloud is another area where we’re pushing technology to its limits to bring the benefits of innovation to everyone. [. . .] we provide stable, reliable, secure, trustworthy, and sustainable cloud services that enable our customers to develop applications more easily and do more with their data (Huawei, 2020: 5). (17) I hope that you and your loved ones have stayed safe and healthy over this past year, discovered silver linings amidst the challenges (Alibaba, 2021: 14).
In addition to rational appeals and credibility appeals, chairmen must attend to the desired effects of their discourse on the target audience. Typically, chairmen have to create a dialogic space to involve the audience in argumentation. This affective element is manifested in considering the attitude of the audience and evaluating the text from the stance and values of the audience. One aspect of affective appeals is the chairman’s personal evaluation of what he or she is discussing (Hyland, 1998). In Example (16), the chairman resorts to the personal evaluation and perception that cloud services are beneficial to customers for reasons that build on the acceptability of the corporate philosophy that the company adheres to customer centricity and strives to bring the benefits of innovation to each customer. Another means for affective appeals is to directly address the audience using second-person pronouns to personalize the discourse (Hyland, 1998). In Example (17), the terms ‘you’ and ‘your loved ones’ are used to draw the audience into the discourse as a participant in a dialogue. In turn, audiences are more involved and easier to identify with the chairman.
From the perspective of discourse generation, evaluative reasoning carries affective connotations by using subjective evaluative knowledge to transmit emotional signals to influence the audience. The purpose is to relate to the audience for affective appeals and to make the chairman and the audience achieve consensus based on the shared emotion. By winning the recognition of the audience, the acceptability of the discourse is achieved. From the perspective of audience demand, evaluative reasoning aims for emotional resonance from the secondary audiences by appealing to emotion. Different from primary audiences, secondary audiences’ needs are broader and encompass transparency, accountability, compliance, employee welfare and strategic insights. The chairman evaluates using the shared concepts and values, which is conducive to arousing the emotional resonance of the secondary audiences, guiding them to establish the associations of CSR.
The abovementioned three audience-oriented strategies are closely related and indispensable. From the perspective of argumentative logic, the rational appeal of the discourse constructed through prior knowledge is the basis on which credibility and affective appeals can be constructed. Without this basis, the latter two concepts are ill-grounded and can easily be converted into fallacies. From the perspective of argumentative rhetoric, affective appeals are seen as groundwork conducive to cultivating audiences’ perception of positive corporate identities; rational appeals pave the way for the rational understanding of corporate profiles, including strategy, organization, competence and culture; and credibility appeals are the ultimate goals for argumentation, which are conducive to cultivating audiences’ understanding of the similarity and homogeneity of the core values of similar enterprises and in turn, promoting the identification of the economic identity of the country as a whole. Different strategies gradually enrich the audience’s recognition of companies from diverse domains, making their recognition increasingly comprehensive and integrated.
Strategic manoeuvring in presentational devices
As indicated earlier, the focus in this section is on the exploration of the persuasiveness of argumentation generated from diverse discourse presentation devices. Apart from the verbal presentational strategies including modality choice, nominalization and pronoun use mentioned in 4.1, we are also concerned with the use of figures of speech by the chairmen in the letters. Allusion, reference, parody and metaphor are typical rhetorical strategies used in ARs (Wu et al., 2023). Our analysis reveals the use of allusion, metaphor and hypallage by the chairmen during the argumentation stage in the data.
1) Allusion
(18) As the saying goes, ‘Good timber does not grow with ease. The stronger the wind, the stronger the tress’ (Xiaomi, 2020: 6). (19) Plum blossoms tend to grow sweeter from a harsh winter’s freeze (Huawei 2022: 4).
Generally, allusions in argumentation help to deepen and strengthen the arguments conveyed. In these two examples, the chairmen use allusions to two well-heard Chinese idioms. The ‘illocutionary force, polyphonic nature and cognitive implications’ of the idioms combine to make them powerful allies in the development of an argument (Gándara, 2004: 345).
2) Metaphor
(20) Globalization is our long-term battle; Chinese domestic consumption is our cornerstone battle and big data powered by cloud computing is our battle for the future (Alibaba, 2021: 18). (21) We will continue to plant seeds in sunrise industries and customers that represent the future, and together drive the high-quality and sustainable development of our cloud computing business (Alibaba, 2022: 17).
Apart from allusion, metaphors are also found in the letters. They are useful presentational devices to conceptualize the multiplicity of corporate roles in simpler and creative ways (Wu et al., 2023). Example 20 and 21 undertake the usual means of representing the company as a soldier in the battle who fights fearlessly in the commercial war and a cultivator in the field who spare no effort to bring benefits to mankind. Argumentation then becomes less complex, more intelligible and in turn more persuasive.
3) Hypallage
(22) When the going gets tough, the tough keep going (Huawei, 2020: 10).
In Example 22, we can see the interchange of the words ‘go’ and ‘tough’. This original usage enhances the novelty and fun of the argumentation, which can help shorten the distance between the chairman and the target audiences during the argumentation stage, making the target audiences easier to identify with both the chairman and his/her arguments.
Discussion
This article sets out to analyse how strategic manoeuvring is represented in chairman’s letters in Chinese corporate ARs from the perspectives of topical selection, audience demand and discourse presentation. Notably, the choices made in topical selection and responding to audience demand are closely related to the institutional and social-cultural contexts of these Chinese companies, and discourse presentation devices change alongside with the changes in topic construction and audience demands.
From the perspective of strategic manoeuvring in topical selection, corporate commerciality, legitimation, entrepreneurship and approachability are the common topics chosen by the chairmen. It is clear that these topics provide clues for understanding how Chinese companies construct the discourses and ways of talking and what they want to highlight to both their primary audiences (shareholders) and secondary audiences (employees, financial experts, the media, government agencies and interested public at large).
The primary areas of interest in corporate discourse predominantly revolve around corporate commerciality and legitimation. This preference may be attributed to the paramount importance placed on these aspects by shareholders. Specifically, the dissemination of financial success and the establishment of corporate legitimacy are regarded as top priorities for most companies. This prioritization stems from the shareholders’ desire to gain firsthand insights into the company's financial performance, enabling them to make well-informed decisions regarding their investments (Breeze, 2013).
Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the emphasis on ‘face’ constitutes a salient characteristic within Chinese social and cultural psychology (Shi, 2016). As a consequence of this cultural influence, chairpersons are inclined to undertake measures aimed at creating, upholding, showcasing or accentuating a positive corporate image. This inclination leads them to select topics such as corporate commerciality and legitimation in order to safeguard and enhance the reputation and 'face' of their respective companies.
In addition, corporate entrepreneurship is another concerned issue for most Chinese companies. Previous analyses in Section 3 reveal that constructing corporate entrepreneurship has been more habitual in companies with more robust systems such as Alibaba and Huawei, which have a longer tradition of CSR disclosure and generally disclose more information on the topic. Comparatively speaking, it is a more recent topic in Xiaomi’s ARs, which is possibly due to the increasing tendency to stress corporate commitment to sustainability in China. This change may reveal that instead of sole foregrounding profitability, those responsible in the company now definitely frame messages containing explicit statements about the environment and social well-being together at the same time in response to national policies.
Last but not least, corporate approachability is another popular topic in chairmen’s letters. These topics are generally targeted at both shareholders and employees, with an aim to engage them in the corporate mission, inspire their loyalty and make them identify more strongly with the company to the degree that corporate aims and value system correspond with their own personal values (Breeze, 2013; Cornelissen, 2014). Apart from this, as Chinese culture is a typical high-context culture, which advocates collectivism and emphasizes harmony to avoid conflict (Hofstede et al., 2010), chairmen in these companies are more inclined to build a corporate image of being close to the audiences to demonstrate harmony and friendship in the letters.
From the perspective of strategic manoeuvring in audience demand, it is more closely related with the social-cultural backgrounds of Chinese companies. Possible due to Confucius hierarchical way of thinking, Chinese culture has a high-power distance, which emphasizes social status, referential power, authority and legitimacy (Singh et al., 2003) and discourses have always stressed the high status of authority, and the words of an authoritative figure are regarded as more worthy than those of an ordinary person, and they are often regarded as the standard or guarantee of truth or morality; therefore, in order to demonstrate the authenticity, correctness, rationality and impartiality of the standpoint, the experience and evaluation of the chairmen, who are commonly-acknowledged authoritative voices of the companies, are tend to be used in argumentation as a standard or guarantee of truth or morality in responding to different audience demands (Shi, 2013).
Conclusion
The study takes the speeches delivered by the chairmen of internet technology companies as examples to explore the discursive argumentative strategy in Chinese public relations discourses. Although this study only focusses on a small set of discourses, our analysis brings out interesting aspects of Chinese corporate discourses by illustrating how strategic manoeuvring is deployed during the argumentation stage of corporate chairmen’s letters. In addition to raising awareness for argumentation in business public relations discourses, the study familiarizes the researchers with the argumentation strategies available to corporate chairmen seeing to convince types of target audiences, which can lead to productive discussions about the organization and presentation of chairmen’s letters. This study has laid a practical foundation for the follow-up comparative study of Chinese and foreign business discourse argumentation. The method proposed thus far can be verified and further studied by introducing more Chinese and foreign enterprise discourses in the future.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by MOE (Ministry of Education in China) Project of Humanities and Social Sciences (Project No. 21YJC740063).