Abstract
Corporate apologies are essential rhetorical acts for rebuilding trust in times of crisis. Nevertheless, current research primarily emphasises meso-strategic frameworks, like image repair theories, while overlooking the role of micro-linguistic choices in facilitating persuasion. This study addresses the disparity by analysing metadiscourse—the linguistic devices that organise discourse and negotiate meaning—in corporate apology letters and press releases, using Hyland’s interpersonal model integrated with classical rhetorical appeals. Key findings reveal that apology letters strategically utilise metadiscourse to mediate persuasion: logos is achieved through transitions that structure corrective actions; ethos is achieved through collective self-mentions that project accountability; and pathos is achieved through emotionally charged markers aligned with societal values. Comparatively, apology letters prioritise dialogue engagement, such as frequent self-mentions and participatory directives, to restore legitimacy, whereas press releases focus on promotional language, like superlatives and causal logic, to show that something is marketable. The analysis emphasises the contextual adaptability of metadiscourse—crisis communication necessitates collaborative accountability, whereas non-crisis genres utilise rational and emotional appeals for image enhancement. By refining metadiscourse theory and offering guidelines for crisis rhetoric, this study highlights the role of linguistic strategies in balancing institutional accountability with stakeholder expectations.
Data availability
All data generated or analysed for this study are provided as supplementary files. The corpus metadata, the coding scheme, and the coding results have been uploaded as Supplementary File 1 (Metadata of Corporate Apology Letters), Supplementary File 2 (Hyland’s List of Metadiscourse Items), and Supplementary File 3 (Metadiscourse Items Investigated), respectively. These files can be accessed through the journal’s online platform.
References
Abusalim N, Zidouni S, Alghazo S et al. (2022) Textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in political discourse: a case study. Cogent Arts Humanite 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2022.2124683
Aristotle (1954) Rhetoric and poetics. Modern Library, New York
Austin JL (1975) How to do things with words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Benoit WL (1995) Accounts, excuses, and apologies: a theory of image restoration strategies. Choice Rev Online 33(3):33–1337. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.33-1337
Blum-Kulka S, Olshtain E (1984) Requests and apologies: a cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns. Appl Linguist 5(3):196–213. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.3.196
Chen L, Li C (2023) Interactional metadiscourse in news commentaries: a corpus-based study of China Daily and the New York Times. J Pragmat 212:29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.04.018
Claeys AS, Opgenhaffen M (2021) Changing perspectives: managerial and legal considerations regarding crisis communication. Public Relat Rev 47(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102080
Coombs WT (2007) Ongoing crisis communication: planning, managing, and responding. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Coombs WT, Holladay SJ (2002) Helping crisis managers protect reputational assets: initial tests of the situational crisis communication theory. Manag Commun Q 16:165–186
Coombs WT, Holladay SJ (2012) Amazon.com’s Orwellian nightmare: exploring apology in an online environment. J Commun Manag 16:280–295. https://doi.org/10.1108/13632541211245758
Deal TE, Kennedy AA (1982) Corporate cultures: the rites and rituals of corporate life. Addison Wesley, Reading
Fu X (2012) The use of interactional metadiscourse in job postings. Discourse Stud 14(4):399–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612450373
Fuertes-Olivera PA, Velasco-Sacristán M, Arribas-Baño A et al (2001) Persuasion and advertising English: metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. J Pragmat 33(8):1291–1307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80026-6
Fuoli M (2012) Assessing social responsibility: a quantitative analysis of appraisal in BP’s and IKEA’s social reports. Discourse Commun 6(1):55–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481311427788
Fuoli M (2018) Building a trustworthy corporate identity: a corpus-based analysis of stance in annual and corporate social responsibility reports. Appl Linguist 39:846–885. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw058
Goffman E (1972) Relations in public: microstudies of the public order. Penguin, Harmondsworth
Halliday MAK (1994) An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). Edward Arnold, London
Hearit KM (2006) Crisis management by apology: corporate response to allegations of wrongdoing. Routledge, London
Ho V (2018) Using metadiscourse in making persuasive attempts through workplace request emails. J Pragmat 134:70–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.06.015
Huang Y, Rose K (2018) You, our shareholders: metadiscourse in CEO letters from Chinese and Western banks. Text Talk 38(2):167–190
Hyland K (1998) Exploring corporate rhetoric: metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter. J Bus Commun 35(2):224–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369803500203
Hyland K (2005) Metadiscourse: exploring interaction in writing. Continuum, London
Lazare A (2005) On apology. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Liu S, Zhang J (2021) Using metadiscourse to enhance persuasiveness in corporate press releases: a corpus-based study. Sage Open 11(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211032165
Martin J, White PR (2005) The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manage Rev 20(3):709–734. https://doi.org/10.2307/258792
Myers C (2016) Apology, sympathy, and empathy: the legal ramifications of admitting fault in U.S. public relations practice. Public Relat Rev 42:176–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.10.004
Metzler MS (2001) The centrality of organizational legitimacy to public relations practice. In: Heath RL (ed) Handbook of public relations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, p 321–334
Ogiermann E (2015) Apology discourse. In: Tracy K (ed.) The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction, p. 1. Wiley, Hoboken, p. 1–6
Olshtain E, Cohen AD (1983) Apology: a speech act set. In: Wolfson N, Judd E (eds) Sociolinguistics and language acquisition. Newbury House, Rowley, p. 18–35
Page R (2014) Saying ‘sorry’: corporate apologies posted on Twitter. J Pragmat 62:30–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.12.003
Searle JR (1969) Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Shi X, Xu W (2025) A comparative study of interactional metadiscourse used by American and Chinese corporate leaders in corporate social responsibility (CSR) statements. Text Talk. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2023-0175
Suchman MC (1995) Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Acad Manage Rev 20(3):571–610. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788
Tileagă C (2012) The right measure of guilt: moral reasoning, transgression and the social construction of moral meanings. Discourse Commun 6(2):203–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481312437443
Urloi MC, Ruiz-Garrido MF (2023) Persuasion through interactional metadiscourse of management statements of European renewable energy companies. In: Multimodal communication in the 21st century. Springer, Cham, p. 191–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36690-1_8
Wang Q, Ngai C, Singh R (2021) A discursive analysis of crisis response strategies in CEO apologies—drawing on linguistic insights from the appraisal framework. Manag Commun Q 35(4):602–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189211012009
Wichmann A (2004) The intonation of please-requests: a corpus-based study. J Pragmat 36(9):1521–1549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.03.003
Xu Z, Lin S (2020) A contrastive study of image repair strategies between Chinese and English corporate apologies. Int J Engl Cult Stud 3(1):20–32. https://doi.org/10.11114/ijecs.v3i1.4817
Zhou R, Li S (2023) A study on the persuasive function of metadiscourse in hotel responses to negative reviews on TripAdvisor. Engl Lang Teach 16(6):55. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v16n6p55
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The author conceptualised, drafted, and revised the manuscript, and provided final approval for the published version. She agrees to be accountable for ensuring the accuracy and integrity of the content.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethical approval
Ethical approval was not required as the study did not involve human participants.
Informed consent
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Yang, X. The persuasiveness of metadiscourse: a rhetorical analysis of corporate apology letters. Humanit Soc Sci Commun (2026). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-06585-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-06585-6
