By Rudi Palmieri
This quantity systematically investigates the position of argumentation in takeover bids. The declaration of those monetary proposals triggers an argumentative scenario, within which either the industrial desirability and the social acceptability of the deal turn into argumentative matters for various sessions of stakeholders (shareholders, staff, consumers, etc.). The research makes a speciality of the strategic maneuvers that company administrators set up so as to convince their audiences whereas complying with detailed regulatory requisites, designed to permit shareholders to make average judgements.
A conceptual reframing of takeovers as an argumentative context brings to gentle the several argumentative occasions of pleasant and opposed bids. The argumentative recommendations that company administrators undertake within the occasions are pointed out and analyzed at the foundation of a corpus of takeover files bearing on deals introduced within the united kingdom marketplace among 2006 and 2010. The argumentative reconstruction focuses specifically at the inferential configuration of arguments, that's comprehensive by way of the Argumentum version of issues (AMT). this type of research permits taking pictures the inherently argumentative techniques in which info turns into a appropriate start line for funding dec
Read Online or Download Corporate argumentation in takeover bids PDF
Similar nonfiction_12 books
- Self-Sufficiency of an Autonomous Reconfigurable Modular Robotic Organism
- 50 Quick Facts About The Indianapolis Colts
- Grammatica Serica recensa
- Six Sigma and Beyond: Problem Solving and Basic Mathematics, Volume II
Extra resources for Corporate argumentation in takeover bids
2002:â•›142). â•… A typical case in which companies elaborate information for persuasive aims is represented by earnings management (Schipper 1989; Healy & Whalen 1999; Dechow & Skinner 2000). Earnings represent fundamental information for investors’ decisions, as they contribute to determining whether the firm is profitable or not. For this reason, companies have strong incentives to manipulate them, for example by introducing expedient thresholds (Degeorge et al. 1999), in order to persuade investors either directly or indirectly, by influencing information intermediaries (analysts and media).
George’s argumentation is a clear example. â•… The structure of argumentation has been the object of numerous studies. For a useful and detailed review of these contributions, see Snoeck Henkemans (2000, 2001). ïœ³ïœ¸ Corporate argumentation in takeover bids argumentation structure, I take inspiration from van Eemeren et al. (2002:â•›63–73). Thus, single argumentation is represented as follows: 1. 1. We lack capital The standpoint is indicated on the top and receives a number. ) and is connected to the standpoint by an arrow representing an inferential passage.
The reconstruction of the inferential configuration of an argument basically consists in the addition of those implicit premises without which the passage from the explicit premise functioning as argument to the standpoint would not be warranted. Indeed, arguers normally communicate their arguments with enthymemes, thus leaving some premises unexpressed: these are not uttered/written, but the arguer can be held committed to them on the basis of what he/she has said explicitly. 27 The AMT aims at analyzing how implicit and explicit premises work together to rationally support a standpoint.