A Pragma-Dialectical Investigation Into Argumentative Patterns Based On Symptomatic Argumentation In Corporate Image Repair Discourse

Corporate image is a dynamic and complex cognitive and assessive system.A good corporate image can help an enterprise attract investment and customers,improve the return on assets,and create competitive advantages.However,corporations’ images are often damaged due to unpredictable crises.For the purpose of avoiding significant losses,it is imperative for every corporation to handle the corporate image repair discourse cautiously.Corporate image repair discourse is essentially communicative and interactive,whose purpose is to convince the public reasonably and effectively.Corporations ought to maintain the balance between reasonableness and effectiveness in order to convince the audience of their standpoints and regain confidence in them.In other words,corporations should utilize appropriate arguments,giving adequate responses to potential critical questions.In doing so,corporations should take topic potential,audience demand,and presentational devices into consideration.To this end,within the particular institutional context,corporations tend to utilize argumentative patterns based on symptomatic argumentation to repair damaged images.Within the framework of Pragma-Dialectics,this study attempts to investigate how argumentative patterns based on symptomatic argumentation are prototypically used in corporate image repair discourse.Specifically,this study attempts to answer the following questions:(1)What are the institutional preconditions of corporate image repair discourse? How could they constrain the utilization of argumentative patterns based on symptomatic argumentation in corporate image repair discourse?(2)What types and variants of argumentative patterns based on symptomatic argumentation are utilized in corporate image repair discourse under the constraints of the particular institutional preconditions?(3)How do corporations maneuver the argumentative patterns based on symptomatic argumentation strategically to convince the public?As shown in the research results,firstly,the discursive construction of corporate image repair is constrained by the crisis type and the crisis history.Specifically,when corporations are not responsible for controversial behavior,they should choose to construct defensive image repair discourse such as denying the blame and shifting the responsibility.When corporations are responsible for controversial behavior,they should choose to construct submissive image repair discourse such as showing corrective behavior,regret,and apology.In addition,in light of similar crisis histories,the discursive construction of corporate image repair should also be adjusted accordingly.That is to say,if a corporation has a similar crisis history,the image repair discourse it constructs should be milder and more submissive.Secondly,constrained by particular institutional preconditions,corporations may put forward two different standpoints based on different crisis responsibilities: “Our corporation should not be to blame” and “Our corporation should be forgiven”.The former is supported by the argumentative patterns based on symptomatic argumentation based on “positivity” and two variants of the argumentative patterns based on symptomatic argumentation based on “irrelevance”: the “subject of the misbehavior” type and the “misbehavior itself”type.The latter is supported by the argumentative patterns based on symptomatic argumentation based on “positivity” and two variants of the argumentative patterns based on symptomatic argumentation based on “specialty”: the “subject of the misbehavior” type and the “circumstances of the misbehavior” type.Thirdly,as to strategic maneuvering,corporations may cut into the critical questions skillfully,which helps them not only respond to the critical questions from the audience appropriately but also avoid redundant explanations.In addition,corporations should be neither cringing nor arrogant in wording and phrasing and tell the truth of the matter objectively,and thus meet the material and psychological needs of the audience.Theoretically,this study provides a pragma-dialectical perspective for research on corporate image repair discourse and reveals the argumentative property of corporate image repair discourse.Meanwhile,this study takes the constraints of particular institutional preconditions on argumentative patterns based on symptomatic argumentation into consideration to further conclude the institutional context of corporate image repair discourse.Besides,it investigates the types and variants of argumentative patterns based on symptomatic argumentation utilized in corporate image repair discourse under the constraints of particular institutional preconditions.Practically,it is conducive to offering corporations reasonable suggestions on the discursive construction of image repair and providing guidance for the audience to judge corporate image repair discourse reasonably.