This paper sets out to analyse the generic features and communicative goals of CEO letters from a systemic functional perspective. The data analysed include 362 CEO letters from 122 American, British and Chinese Fortune 500 companies. Informed by Martin’s (1994) notion of macro genre, it is found that generic structures of English and Chinese CEO letters are: (Title) (^ Salutation) (^ Orientation) ^ Retrospect ( Prospect) (^ Coda) (^ Complimentary close) ^ Signature, and the whole CEO letters are genre simplexes composed of metaphorical elemental genres through layers of embedding and complexing. It will be argued that there exist metaphorical elemental genres that are generic compounds consisting in features of both the surface and symbolized genres, serving the argumentative goal of projecting positive corporate images. Symbolized genres are realized by language through evaluative lexis, process types, clause embedding and complexing, etc. A tentative model adapted from Martin’s notion of contextual metaphor (Martin, 1997; Martin & Rose, 2008) is proposed to capture the symbolizing phenomenon.
AertsW.YanB. (2017). Rhetorical impression management in the letter to shareholders and institutional setting: A metadiscourse perspective. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(2), 404–432. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-01-2015-1916
2.
AlshormanS. A. A.ShanahanM. (2021). The voice of profit: Exploring the tone of Australian CEO’s letters to shareholders after the global financial crisis. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 27(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-12-2020-0169
3.
AnwarS. T. (2015). Communicating with shareholders in the post-financial crisis period: A global perspective. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 25(4), 582–602. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCoMA-02-2013-0017
4.
AzizR. A.AbasN.YusobK. F.YusofN. M. (2022). Genre analysis of risk management reports by an Islamic financial institution in Malaysia. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 22(2), 63–87. http://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2022-2202-04
5.
BaginskiS. P.HassellJ. M.HillisonW. A. (2000). Voluntary causal disclosures: Tendencies and capital market reaction. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 15, 371–389. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012002608615
BhatiaV. K. (2008b). Towards critical genre analysis. In BhatiaV. K.FlowerdewJ.JonesR. H. (Eds.), Advances in discourse studies (pp. 166–177). Routledge.
8.
BhatiaV. K. (2008c). Creativity and accessibility in written professional discourse. World Englishes, 27(3–4), 319–326.
BhatiaV. K. (2013). Professional written genres. In HandfordM.GeeJ. P. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 239–251). Routledge.
11.
BhatiaV. K. (2014). Creative exploitation of socio-pragmatic space in professional discourse. In JonesR. (Ed.), Discourse and creativity (pp. 75–91). Routledge.
12.
BhatiaV. K. (2015). Creativity and interdiscursive performance in professional communication. In JonesR. H. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and creativity (pp. 158–169). Routledge.
13.
Breeze FernandezR.VallejoA. M. (2020). Comparing corporate social responsibility discourses in the letter to shareholders: The case of British and Spanish banks. ESP Today, 8(2), 250–274. https://doi.org/10.18485/esptoday.2020.8.2.4
14.
ChangC. (2016). Grammatical metaphor and genre: Exploring contextual metaphor. Linguistic Research, (2), 21–32.
15.
CraigR.AmernicJ. (2018). Are there language markers of hubris in CEO letters to shareholders?Journal of Business Ethics, 149(4), 973–986. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3100-3
16.
de GrootE. B. (2008). English annual reports in Europe: A study on the identification and reception of genre characteristics in multimodal annual reports originating in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom [Doctoral dissertation, Radboud University].
17.
de GrootE. B.KorziliusH.NickersonC.GerritsenM. (2006). A corpus analysis of text themes and photographic themes in managerial forewords of Dutch-English and British annual general reports. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 49(3), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2006.880755
18.
DengY.FengD. (2023). Academic capitalization and public relations communication in higher education: A diachronic genre analysis of university annual reports in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. 43(4), 996–1014. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2021.1960273
19.
EvansL.PierpointJ. (2015). Framing the magdalen: Sentimental narratives and impression management in charity annual reporting. Accounting and Business Research, 45(6–7), 661–690. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2015.1039931
20.
FirthJ. R. (1957). Papers in Linguistics: 1934–1951. Oxford University Press.
GarzoneG. E. (2005). Letters to shareholders and chairman’s statements: Textual variability and generic integrity. In GottiM.GillaertsP. (Eds.), Genre variation in business letters (pp. 179–204). Peter Lang.
GiordanoW.PizziconiS.FerranteL. D. (2019). Genre hybridization in annual reports: The case of Walmart. In GarzoneG. E.GiordanoW. (Eds.). Discourse, communication and the enterprise: Where business meets discourse (pp. 152–175). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
25.
HadroD.KlimczakK. M.PaukaM. (2021). Management’s choice of tone in letters to shareholders: Sincerity, bias and incentives. Spanish Accounting Review, 24(2), 202–219. https://doi.org/10.6018/rcsar.393181
26.
HallidayM. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Edward Arnold.
27.
HallidayM. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. Arnold.
28.
HallidayM. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). Arnold.
29.
HallidayM. A. K. (1998). Things and relations: Regrammaticising experience as technical knowledge. In MartinJ. R.VeelR. (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 185–236). Routledge.
30.
HallidayM. A. K.MatthiessenC. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. Routledge.
31.
HildebrandtH. W.SnyderR. D. (1981). The Pollyanna hypothesis in business writing: Initial results, suggestions for research. The Journal of Business Communication, 18(1), 5–15.
HuC.TanJ. (2020). A multi-dimensional analysis of register features of letters to shareholders by Chinese and American enterprises. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 1(6), 66–76. https://doi.org/10.13458/j.cnki.flatt.004729
34.
HuangY.RoseK. (2018). You, our shareholders: Metadiscourse in CEO letters from Chinese and Western banks. Text & Talk, 38(2), 167–190. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2017-0041
35.
HylandK. (1998). Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s Letter. Journal of Business Communication, 35(2), 224–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369803500203
36.
KeuschT.BollenL. H. H.HassinkH. F. D. (2012). Self-serving bias in annual report narratives: An empirical analysis of the impact of economic crises. European Accounting Review, 21(3), 623–648. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2011.641729
37.
KiattikulwattanaP. (2019). Do letters to shareholders have information content?Asian Review of Accounting, 27(1), 137–159. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARA-01-2018-0002
38.
LeeW. W. L. (2018). A cross-cultural and contrastive investigation of the corporate governance report and the chairman’s letter of Chinese and US companies [Doctoral dissertation, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
39.
LeeW. W. L. (2020). Impression management through hedging and boosting: A cross-cultural investigation of the messages of US and Chinese corporate leaders. Lingua, 242, Article 102872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102872
40.
LiuM.WuD. (2015). Discursive construction of corporate identity on the Web: A glocalization perspective. Intercultural Communication Studies, 24(1), 50–65.
41.
LiuX. (2017). Exploring the rhetorical use of interactional metadiscourse: A comparison of letters to shareholders of American and Chinese financial companies. English Language Teaching, 10(7), 232–241.
42.
LuN.YuanC. (2022). Judicial opinions as a genre simplex with an embedding structure. Journal of Foreign Languages, 45(3), 34–47.
43.
MalinowskiB. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In BurkeL.CrowleyT.GirvinA. (Eds.), The Routledge language and cultural theory reader (pp. 386–394). Routledge.
44.
MartinJ. R. (1984). Lexical cohesion, field and genre: Parceling experience and discourse goals. In WangZ. (Ed.), Genre studies (pp. 31–64). Shanghai Jiaotong University Press.
45.
MartinJ. R. (1994). Macrogenres: The ecology of the page. Network, 21, 21–52.
46.
MartinJ. R. (1997). Analyzing genre: Functional parameters. In ChristieF.MartinJ. R. (Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 3–39). Continuum.
47.
MartinJ. R. (1999). Modelling context: A crooked path of progress in contextual linguistics. In WangZ. (Ed.), Genre studies (pp. 222–247). Shanghai Jiaotong University Press.
48.
MartinJ. R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education, 20(1), 10-21.
49.
MartinJ. R.RoseD. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. Continuum.
MartinJ. R.WhiteP. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.
52.
MobasherA.AliA. M. (2015). Exploring the macrostructure of management forewords of corporate annual reports. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 4(1), 14–25.
53.
NgaiC. S. B.SinghR. G. (2017). Move structure and communication style of leaders’ messages in corporate discourse: A cross-cultural perspective. Discourse & Communication, 11(3), 276–295.
54.
PatelliL.PedriniM. (2014). Is the optimism in CEO’s letters to shareholders sincere? Impression management versus communicative action during the economic crisis. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1855-3
55.
PooleR. (2016). Good times, bad times: A keyword analysis of letters to shareholders of two Fortune 500 banking institutions. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488414525449
56.
PooleR. (2017). “New opportunities” and “Strong performance”: Evaluative adjectives in letters to shareholders and potential for pedagogically-downsized specialized corpora. English for Specific Purposes, 47, 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.03.003
57.
QianY. (2022). A stylometric approach to the interdiscursivity of professional practice. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01362-7
58.
RavelliL. (1988). Grammatical metaphor: An initial analysis. In SteinerE. H.VeltmanR. (Eds.), Pragmatics, discourse and text: Some systemically-oriented approaches (pp. 133–147). Pinter.
59.
RavelliL. (2003). Renewal of connection: Integrating theory and practice in an understanding of grammatical metaphor. In Simon-VandenbergenA.TaverniersM.RavelliL. (Eds.), Grammatical metaphor: Views from systemic functional linguistics (pp. 37–64). Benjamins.
60.
SinghV.SinglaH. (2024). The effect of MD&A disclosures on corporate performance: A panel quantile regression analysis. Asian Journal of Accounting Research, 9(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJAR-09-2023-0309
61.
SinglaH.SinghV. (2024). Voluntary disclosures and their drivers: A study of MD&A reports in India. Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies, 15(1), 127–145. https://doi.org/10.15388/omee.2024.15.7
62.
SongY.WuH.ChangX.HuangX. (2022). Research on the attribution behavior of management earnings forecast under the settings of COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Audit & Economics, 37(3), 83–94.
63.
StantonP.StantonJ.PiresG. (2004). Impressions of an annual report: An experimental study. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 9(1), 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280410516500
64.
StawB. M.McKechnieP. I.PufferS. M. (1983). The justification of organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(4), 582–600. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393010
65.
SunM.JiangL.SunJ. (2013). Research on market reaction to self-serving performance attribution bias. Accounting Research, 4, 46–51.
66.
SzenesE. (2021). Revisiting the role of embedding in Systemic Functional Linguistics: Construing depth in “big texts”. Finnish Journal of Linguistics, 34, 179–219.
67.
ThalerR. H. (1991). Quasi-rational economics. Russell Sage Foundation.
68.
UrloiM. C.Ruiz-GarridoM. F. (2023). Persuasion through interactional metadiscourse of management statements of European renewable energy companies. In Bellés-FortuñoB.Bellés-CalveraL.Martínez-HernándezA.-I. (Eds.), New trends on metadiscourse: An analysis of online and textual genres (pp. 191–221). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36690-1_8
69.
VivianY. C. L.MeiC. C. Y. (2022). Move structuring and metadiscourse strategies in public listed companies’ chairperson statements. LSP International Journal, 9(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.11113/lspi.v9.18002
70.
VogelR. (2010). Company annual reports: Analysis of the genre with regard to communication strategies. Discourse and Interaction, 3(1), 87–111.
71.
WangX.ZhengL.LiL.ZhengY.SunP.ZhouF. A.GuoX. (2017). Immune to situation: The self-serving bias in unambiguous contexts. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 822. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00822
YuH. (2018). A functional approach to genre analysis: Theory and practice. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
74.
YuthasK.RogersR.DillardJ. F. (2002). Communicative action and corporate annual reports. Journal of Business Ethics, 41(1), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021314626311
Prospect) (^ Coda) (^ Complimentary close) ^ Signature, and the whole CEO letters are genre simplexes composed of metaphorical elemental genres through layers of embedding and complexing. It will be argued that there exist metaphorical elemental genres that are generic compounds consisting in features of both the surface and symbolized genres, serving the argumentative goal of projecting positive corporate images. Symbolized genres are realized by language through evaluative lexis, process types, clause embedding and complexing, etc. A tentative model adapted from Martin’s notion of contextual metaphor (Martin, 1997; Martin & Rose, 2008) is proposed to capture the symbolizing phenomenon.