Narrative analysis helps us better understand how writers handle complex business
communication challenges. This study analyzed shareholder reports of equity
mutual funds whose total returns were high in absolute terms, but low in relative
terms. These reports were complex in that the returns were ambiguous and,
although the subject matter was technical, the readership was broad. Narrative
analysis reveals that mixed-return shareholder reports use a nonlinear hyperstruc
ture, dramatize ideas through contrasting narrators, embed a variety of subgenres,
and complement verbal with visual discourse in order to make readers active par
ticipants in constructing the investment story. Readers' responses to these reports
depends not only on their intellectual understanding, but also on their emotional
interaction with the narrator personae and visual symbolism. The discourse tex
ture, the underlying fabula, and the story affect how readers experience a text.
Applied similarly, narrative analysis could elucidate other business communication
genres, principles, problems, and questions.
Aarseth, E.J. (1994). Nonlinearity and literary theory. In G. P. Landow (Ed.), Hyper/text/theory (pp. 51-86). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press .
2.
Anderson, C.J., & Imperia, G. (1992). The corporate annual report: A photo analysis of male and female portrayals. The Journal of Business Communication , 29, 113-128.
3.
Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.
4.
Bakhtin, M.M. (1986). Speech genres & other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
5.
Bal, M. ( 1997). Narratology: Introduction to the theory of narrative (2nd ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
6.
Blyler, N. (1995). Pedagogy and social action: A role for narrative in professional communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 9, 289-320.
7.
Blyler, N. (1996). Narrative and research in professional communication . Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 10, 330-351.
8.
Blyler, N., & Perkins, J. (1999). Narrative and professional communication. Journal of Business andTechnical Communication, 13, 245-248.
9.
Bogle, J.C. (1994). Bogle on mutual funds: New perspectives for the intelligent investor. New York: Dell.
10.
Booth, W. (1983). The rhetoric of fiction (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
12.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge : Harvard University Press.
13.
Chatman, S.C. (1978). Story and discourse: Narrative structure in fiction and film. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
14.
Courtis, J.K. (1986). An investigation into annual report readability and corporate risk-return relationships. Accounting and Business Research, 16, 285-294.
15.
Courtis, J.K. (1997). Corporate annual report graphical communication in Hong Kong: Effective or misleading? The Journal of Business Communication, 34, 269-288.
16.
Couture, B., & Rymer, J. (1989). Interactive writing on the job: Definitions and implications of "collaboration." In M. Kogen (Ed.), Writing in the business professions (pp. 73-93). Urbana IL: National Council of Teachers of English and Association for Business Communication.
17.
Couture, B., & Rymer, J. (1993). Composing processes on the job by writer's role and task value. In R. Spilka (Ed.), Writing in the workplace: New research perspectives (pp. 4-20). Carbondale : Southern Illinois University Press.
18.
Cross, G.A. (1993). The interrelation of genre, context, and process in the collaborative writing of two corporate documents. In R. Spilka (Ed.), Writing in the workplace: New research perspectives (pp. 141-152). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
19.
Cross, G.A. (1994). Collaboration and conflict: A contextual exploration of group writing and positive emphasis. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
20.
Eco, U. ( 1984). The role of the reader: Explorations in the semiotics of texts. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
21.
Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1984). Audience addressed/audience invoked: The role of audience in composition theory and pedagogy. College Composition and Communication, 35, 155-171.
22.
Faris, K.A., & Smeltzer, L.R. (1997). Schema theory compared to text-centered theory as an explanation for the reader's understanding of a business message. The Journal of Business Communication , 34, 7-26.
23.
Fisher, W.R. (1987). Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
24.
Forman, J., & Rymer, J. (1999). Defining the genre of the "case write-up."The Journal of Business Communication, 36, 103-133.
25.
Genette, G. (1980). Narrative discourse: An essay in method. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
26.
Hyland, K. (1998). Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO's letter. The Journal of Business Communication, 35, 224-245.
27.
Investment Company Institute. (1993). Understanding shareholder redemption decisions. Washington, DC: Author.
28.
Investment Company Institute. (1997). Understanding shareholders' use of information and advisers. Washington, DC: Author.
29.
Iser, W. (1978). The act of reading: A theory of aesthetic response . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
30.
Jackson, S. (1992). Message effects research: Principles of design and analysis. New York: Guilford .
31.
Kelly, C., & Zak, M. (1999). Narrativity and professional communication: Folktales and community meaning. Journal of Business and Technical Communication , 13, 297-317.
32.
Kohut, G.F., & Segars, A.H. (1992). The president's letter to stockholders: An examination of corporate communication strategy. The Journal of Business Communication, 29, 7-21.
33.
Locker, K.O. (1992). What makes a collaborative writing team successful? A case study of lawyers and social workers in a state agency. In J. Forman (Ed.), New visions of collaborative writing (pp. 37-52). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heineman.
34.
Means, T.L. (1981). Readability: An evaluative criterion of stockholder reaction to annual reports. The Journal of Business Communication , 18, 25-33.
35.
Miller, C.R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-167.
Nilsson, S. (1997). Understandability of narratives in annual reports . Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 27, 361-84.
38.
O'Brien, B. (1999, July 6). Paper chase: SEC is tough grader; Push for clarity slows offerings. The Wall Street Journal, C1-2.
39.
Orlikowski, W.J., & Yates, J. (1994). Genre repertoire: The structuring of communicative practices in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly , 39, 541-574.
40.
Rentz, K.C. (1992). The value of narrative in business writing. The Journal of Business andTechnical Communication, 6, 293-315.
41.
Rogers, P.S. (1989). Choice-based writing in managerial contexts: The case of the dealer contact report. The Journal of Business Communication, 26, 197-216.
42.
Securities and Exchange Commission. (1998). A plain English handbook: How to create clear SEC disclosure documents . Washington, DC: Author.
43.
Subramanian, R., Insley, R.G., & Blackwell, R.D. (1993). Performance and readability: A comparison of annual reports of profitable and unprofitable corporations . The Journal of Business Communication, 30, 49-61.
44.
Suchan, J., & Dulek, R. (1988). Toward a better understanding of reader analysis . The Journal of Business Communication, 25, 29-45.
45.
Swales, J.M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
Thomas, J. (1997). Discourse in the marketplace: The making of meaning in annual reports. The Journal of Business Communication, 34, 47-66.
47.
Thralls, C., Blyler, N.R., & Ewald, H.R. (1988). Real readers, implied readers, and professional writers: Suggested research. The Journal of Business Communication , 25, 47-65.
48.
Wyatt, E. (1997, January 5). Is the magic carpet ride getting a bit bumpy? New York Times, section 3, p. 11.
49.
Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W.J. (1992). Genres of organizational communication: A structurational approach to studying communication and media . Academy of Management Review, 17, 299-326.
