Constructing, persuading and silencing: the rhetoric of accounting standards

Rhetoric, argument and impression management in hostile takeover defence documents

“…As observed by Brennan & Gray (2000: 9), the contentious aspect of hostile takeover bids suggests that rhetorical manipulation is likely to be more prevalent in such a nonroutine corporate reporting context. Rhetoric as an impression management strategy is the art of persuasive discourse and the one-way flow of argument to influence the reader in favour of a particular perspective (Young, 2003;Basso & Hines, 2007). Cockcroft & Cockcroft (2005) classify rhetorical devices into four categories: (1) lexical choice; (2) schematic devices; (3) sound patterning; and (4) figurative language.…”

“…Target company managers present arguments why shareholders should reject the offer. Such arguments are intended to manipulate the perceptions and opinions of shareholders in favour of the actions proposed by target company managers (Young, 2003). Effective arguments are particularly important in hostile takeovers where shareholders are free to choose between acceptance and rejection of the offer.…”

Accounting narratives and impression management

“…This concerns (Walters, 2004: 171). Rhetorical devices may be used such as silence (Young, 2003), antithesis (Davison, 2002), metaphor (Walters-York, 1996) or repetition (Davison, 2008 (Source: Milne et al , 2006: 816) Repetition is exemplified in Illustration 10, where repeating short key phrases at the beginning of successive sentences (anaphora) is used to emphasize business intangibles and future growth. The first phrase continues thus: It's about the liberation of our people and our assets -these new businesses will be free to innovate and free to operate at speed.…”

The consideration of environmental matters in the audit of financial reports

“…Power (1999, p. 25) then concluded that "in this way, disturbances to the system, in the form of new demands, or old demands with a new rhetoric, can be managed by transforming the unfamiliar and intractable into the familiar and possible". Young (2003) raised the concern that audit standard-setting might involve deliberate ambiguities in the language of the standards, so as to be acceptable to people holding opposing views. This gives rise to suggestions of 'doublethink' and 'doublespeak' (Robb, 2003a(Robb, , 2003b.…”