Zum Hauptinhalt springen
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Evaluation in English earnings conference calls: a corpus-assisted contrastive study

  • Jixian Pang is Professor of English and Applied Linguistics and Dean of the School of Foreign Languages, Zhejiang University City College, Hangzhou, China. His research interests include discourse analysis, English for specific purposes and research methods in linguistics. He has published widely in scholarly journals at home and abroad, including international journals like Applied Linguistics, English for Specific Purposes, Journal of Second Language Writing, World Englishes and Language in Society.

    und

    Fang Chen is a lecturer in the School of Foreign Languages, Zhejiang University City College, Hangzhou, China. Her research interests include discourse analysis and cognitive linguistics. She has published in international journals like Applied Linguistics and Language in Society, in addition to a few papers in Chinese academic journals.

    EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 1. Juni 2018

Abstract

An earnings conference call is a hybrid genre of reporting and promotional discourses in which evaluation plays an important role. Using data from two self-built corpora, this study aims to explore the frequency and functions of evaluation in English earnings conference calls issued by Chinese companies and international companies. Using the computer software package Wmatrix, we carried out a key semantic domains analysis and keywords analysis of the data. The major findings of the analyses are as follows: First, the four parameters of evaluation receive different degrees of importance in earnings conference calls. Second, in earnings conference calls evaluation performs three inter-related functions: as an image promotion strategy, as a speaker identity indexing strategy, and as metadiscourse. Third, although there are similarities, speakers of Chinese companies deviate from their international counterparts in using evaluative language during the calls in aspects of parameters and word choice. Possible reasons for these similarities and differences are discussed with reference to the functions of evaluation in the call as a hybrid genre, genre awareness, and cultural influences.

About the authors

Jixian Pang

Jixian Pang is Professor of English and Applied Linguistics and Dean of the School of Foreign Languages, Zhejiang University City College, Hangzhou, China. His research interests include discourse analysis, English for specific purposes and research methods in linguistics. He has published widely in scholarly journals at home and abroad, including international journals like Applied Linguistics, English for Specific Purposes, Journal of Second Language Writing, World Englishes and Language in Society.

Fang Chen

Fang Chen is a lecturer in the School of Foreign Languages, Zhejiang University City College, Hangzhou, China. Her research interests include discourse analysis and cognitive linguistics. She has published in international journals like Applied Linguistics and Language in Society, in addition to a few papers in Chinese academic journals.

References

Archer, Dawn, Andrew Wilson & Paul Rayson. 2002. Introduction to the USAS Category System. http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/usas/. (accessed 6 August 2017.)Suche in Google Scholar

Bassemir, Moritz, Zoltan Novotny-Farkas & Julian Pachta. 2013. The effect of conference calls on analysts’ forecasts–German evidence/ Social Science Electronic Publishing 22(1). 151–183.10.1080/09638180.2011.640454Suche in Google Scholar

Besnier, Niko. 1993. Reported speech and affect on Nukulaelae atoll. In Jane H Hill & Judith T Irvine (eds.), Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse, 161–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas & Edward Finegan. 1989. Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect/ Text 9(1). 93–124.10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93Suche in Google Scholar

Brown, Stephen J., Stephen A Hillegeist & Lo Kin. 2004. Conference calls and information asymmetry/ Journal of Accounting and Economics 37(3). 343–366.10.1016/j.jacceco.2004.02.001Suche in Google Scholar

Bushee, Brain J., Dawn A Matsumoto & Greg S Miller. 2003. Open versus closed conference calls: The determinants and effects of broadening access to disclosure/ Journal of Accounting and Economics 34(1). 149–180.10.1016/S0165-4101(02)00073-3Suche in Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace. 1986. Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In Wallace Chafe & Nichols Johanna (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 261–272. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Suche in Google Scholar

Cho, Hyeyound & Hyunsook Yoon. 2013. A corpus-assisted contrastive genre analysis of corporate ECCs between Korean and native-English speakers/ English for Specific Purposes 32(3). 170–185.10.1016/j.esp.2013.03.001Suche in Google Scholar

Crawford Camiciottoli, Belinda. 2006a. Rhetorical strategies of company executives and investment analysts: Textual metadiscourse in corporate earnings calls. In Vijay K. Bhatia & Maurizio Gotti (eds.), Explorations in Specialized Genres, 115–133. Bern: Peter Lang.Suche in Google Scholar

Crawford Camiciottoli, Belinda. 2006b. Corporate earnings calls: A hybrid genre. In Juan Carlos palmer-Silveira, Miguel F Ruiz-Garrido & Inmaculada Fortanet-Gómez (eds.), Intercultural and international business communication: Theory, research, and teaching, 109–138. Bern: Peter Lang.Suche in Google Scholar

Crawford Camiciottoli, Belinda. 2009. Just wondering if you could comment on that: Indirect requests for information in corporate earnings calls/ Text & talk 29(6). 661–681.10.1515/TEXT.2009.034Suche in Google Scholar

Crawford Camiciottoli, Belinda. 2010a. Earnings calls: Exploring an emerging financial reporting genre/ Discourse & Communication 4(4). 343–359.10.1177/1750481310381681Suche in Google Scholar

Crawford Camiciottoli, Belinda. 2010b. Discourse connectives in genres of financial disclosure: Earnings presentations vs. earnings releases/ Journal of Pragmatics 42(3). 650–663.10.1016/j.pragma.2009.07.007Suche in Google Scholar

Crawford Camiciottoli, Belinda. 2011. Ethics and ethos in financial reporting analyzing persuasive language in ECCs Business Communication Quarterly 74(3). 298–312.10.1177/1080569911413810Suche in Google Scholar

Crawford Camiciottoli, Belinda. 2013. Rhetoric in financial discourse: A linguistic analysis of ICT-mediated disclosure genres. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.10.1163/9789401210102Suche in Google Scholar

Crawford Camiciottoli, Belinda. 2014. Pragmatic uses of person pro-forms in intercultural financial discourse: A contrastive case study of earnings calls/ Intercultural Pragmatics 11(4). 521–545.10.1515/ip-2014-0023Suche in Google Scholar

Hoey, Michael. 2000. Patterns of Lexis in Text. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Hunston, Susan. 1989. Evaluation in experimental research articles. Birmingham: University of Birmingham dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar

Hunston, Susan. 1994. Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In Malcolm Coulthard (ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis, 191–218. London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar

Hunston, Susan. 2000. Evaluation and the planes of discourse: Status and value in persuasive texts. In Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, 176–207. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Hunston, Susan & Geoff Thompson. 2000. Evaluation: An introduction. In Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, 16–40. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 1998. Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s Letter/ Journal of Business Communication 35(5). 224–245.10.1177/002194369803500203Suche in Google Scholar

Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Malavasi, Donatella. 2006. Annual reports: An analysis of lexical evaluation across sections. In Marina Bondi & Julia Bamford (eds.), Managing Interaction in Professional Discourse: Intercultural and Interdiscoursal Perspectives, 147–158. Rome: Officina Edizioni.Suche in Google Scholar

Martin, James Robert. 2000. Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, 159–197. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Palmieri, Rudi, Rocci Andrea & Kudrautsava Nadzeya. 2015. Argumentation in ECCs. Corporate standpoints and analysts’ challenges. Studies in Communication Sciences 15. 120–132.10.1016/j.scoms.2015.03.014Suche in Google Scholar

Piotti, Sonia Rachele. 2006. Relevance and reliability in economic and financial reporting: An analysis of CEOs’ letters and Chairmen’s Statements. In Gabriella Del Lungo, Dossena Marina & Belinda Crawford Camiciottoli (eds.), Variation in Business and Economics Discourse: Diachronic and Generic Perspectives, 115–125. Roma: Officina Edizioni.Suche in Google Scholar

Poncini, Gina & Lorene Hiris. 2012. CEO Letters of Securities Brokerage Firms in Times of Financial Market Distress. (Departmental Working Paper No. 2012-4). Retrieved from Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods, University of Milan website: http://www.demm.unimi.it/ecm/home/ricerca (accessed 6 August 2017).Suche in Google Scholar

Rayson, Paul. 2002. Matrix: A statistical method and software tool for linguistic analysis through corpus comparison. Lancaster: Lancaster University dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar

Rayson, Paul. 2008. From keywords to key semantic domains/ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(4). 519–549.10.1075/ijcl.13.4.06raySuche in Google Scholar

Rutherford, Brain A. 2005. Genre analysis of corporate annual report narratives. A Corpus-linguistics based approach/ Journal of Business Communication 42(4). 349–378.10.1177/0021943605279244Suche in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2018-06-01
Published in Print: 2018-06-26

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Heruntergeladen am 16.4.2026 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/text-2018-0008/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen