1887
Volume 13, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Earnings Conference Calls, in which corporate management are quizzed by investment analysts, are a particularly rich source of a phenomenon of question-asking that, though less prevalent, also occurs in many other genres of discourse. When a participant in a dialogue is allowed to ask more than one question consecutively — particularly in order to extend or refine or recast — we see that respondents often react by answering either one or more of the individual questions, or by answering a question that was never actually asked, but which is related to the explicit questions and to other content introduced in the turn. We call this overarching implicit question a , and explore how they can be formed, how they can be answered, how they trigger argumentation, and, indeed, how they can be dodged.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.24002.dag
2025-01-21
2025-02-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Amgoud, L., S. Belabbès, and H. Prade
    2006 A Formal General Setting for Dialogue Protocols, InArtificial Intelligence: Methodology, Systems, and Applications, eds.Gerhard, J. Euzenat, and J. Domingue, Volume41831, 13–23. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 10.1007/11861461_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/11861461_4 [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown, L. D., A. C. Call, M. B. Clement, and N. Y. Sharp
    2015 Inside the ”Black Box” of sell-side financial analysts. Journal of Accounting Research53(1): 1–47. 10.1111/1475‑679X.12067
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.12067 [Google Scholar]
  3. Budzynska, K., M. Janier, J. Kang, C. Reed, P. Saint-Dizier, M. Stede, and O. Yaskorska
    2014 Towards Argument Mining from Dialogue. InFrontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Volume2661, pp.185–196. ISSN: 09226389.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Budzynska, K., M. Janier, C. Reed, and P. Saint-Dizier
    2016 Theoretical foundations for illocutionary structure parsing. Argument and Computation7(1): 91–108. 10.3233/AAC‑160005
    https://doi.org/10.3233/AAC-160005 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chen, J. V., V. Nagar, and J. Schoenfeld
    2018 Manager-analyst conversations in earnings conference calls. Review of Accounting Studies23(4): 1315–1354. 10.1007/s11142‑018‑9453‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-018-9453-3 [Google Scholar]
  6. Clark, C. E.
    2021, July. How do standard setters define materiality and why does it matter?Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility30(3): 378–391. 10.1111/beer.12351
    https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12351 [Google Scholar]
  7. Clayman, S. E.
    2004 Arenas of interaction in the mediated public sphere. Poetics32(1): 29–49. 10.1016/j.poetic.2003.12.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2003.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  8. Clayman, S. E. and M. P. Fox
    2017 Hardballs and softballs. Modulating adversarialness in journalistic questioning. Journal of Language and Politics16(1): 19–39. 10.1075/jlp.16.1.02cla
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.16.1.02cla [Google Scholar]
  9. Clayman, S. E. and J. Heritage
    2002 Questioning presidents: Journalistic deference and adversarialness in the press conferences of U.S. Presidents Eisenhower and Reagan. Journal of Communication52(4): 749–775. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2002.tb02572.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02572.x [Google Scholar]
  10. Cohen, J.
    1960 A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement20(1): 37–46. 10.1177/001316446002000104
    https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104 [Google Scholar]
  11. Crawford Camiciottoli, B.
    2006 Corporate earnings calls: a hybrid genre?, InEnglish for international and intercultural business communication, eds.Fortanet Gòmez, I., J. C. Palmer Silveira, and M. Ruiz Garrido, 109–138. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2009 “Just wondering if you could comment on that”: Indirect requests for information in corporate earnings calls. Text and Talk29(6): 661–681. 10.1515/TEXT.2009.034
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2009.034 [Google Scholar]
  13. D’Agostino, G.
    2022 “(so long, and) thanks for all the color”. Requests of Elaboration and Answers They Trigger in Earnings Conference Calls. InProceedings of the 22nd Edition of the Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA), Cardiff.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2023 Opposition Without Argumentation, Online Handbook of Argumentation for AI, Volume41, 24–28. arXiv. 12658/srd1326809
    https://doi.org/12658/srd1326809 [Google Scholar]
  15. D’Agostino, G., C. Reed, and D. Puccinelli
    2024 Segmentation of Complex Question Turns for Argument Mining: A Corpus-based Study in the Financial Domain. InProceedings of LREC-COLING 2024, Torino.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. de Oliveira, M.d.C. L. and S. M. R. Pereira
    2017 Formulations in Delicate Actions: A Study of Analyst Questions in Earnings Conference Calls. International Journal of Business Communication55(3): 293–309. 10.1177/2329488417712012
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488417712012 [Google Scholar]
  17. D’Agostino, G.
    2023 Transformation, exploitation, and complication of transcribed calls in the financial domain. Presented atAILA 20th World Congress. 12658/srd1326809
    https://doi.org/12658/srd1326809 [Google Scholar]
  18. Garcia, A. and G. Simari
    2004, 01. Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming41. 10.1017/S1471068403001674
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1471068403001674 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hautli-Janisz, A., K. Budzynska, C. McKillop, B. Plüss, V. Gold, and C. Reed
    2022 Questions in argumentative dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics1881: 56–79. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.10.029
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.10.029 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hirsto, H., M. Koskela, and A. Jokipii
    2023, September. Performing financial communication as professional practice: The interplay of consensus and tension in earnings calls. Journal of Professions and Organization10(2): 165–181. 10.1093/jpo/joad011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joad011 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hitchcock, D.
    1992 Relevance. Argumentation61: 251–270. 10.1007/BF00154329
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00154329 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2019 We justify questions, so how does that work?InB. Garssen, J. Wagemans, G. Mitchell, and Godden (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Argumentation, Amsterdam. SICSAT.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2020 Arguing for Questions, InFrom Argument Schemes to Argumentative Relations in the Wild: A Variety of Contributions to Argumentation Theory, eds.Garssen, B. and F. H. van Eemeren, 167–184. Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑28367‑4_11
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28367-4_11 [Google Scholar]
  24. Janier, M., J. Lawrence, and C. Reed
    2014 OVA+: an Argument Analysis Interface. Computational Models of Argument: 463–464. 10.3233/978‑1‑61499‑436‑7‑463
    https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-436-7-463 [Google Scholar]
  25. Keung, E., Z. X. Lin, and M. Shih
    2010 Does the Stock Market See a Zero or Small Positive Earnings Surprise as a Red Flag?Journal of Accounting Research48(1): 105–135. 10.1111/j.1475‑679X.2009.00354.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2009.00354.x [Google Scholar]
  26. Kimbrough, M. D.
    2005 The Effect of Conference Calls on Analyst and Market Underreaction to Earnings Announcements. The Accounting Review80(1): 189–219. 10.2308/accr.2005.80.1.189
    https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2005.80.1.189 [Google Scholar]
  27. Klie, J. C., M. Bugert, B. Boullosa, R. Eckart de Castilho, and I. Gurevych
    2018 The INCEpTION Platform: Machine-Assisted and Knowledge-Oriented Interactive Annotation. InProceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, Santa Fe, New Mexico, pp.5–9. Association for Computational Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Koller, V. and X. Wu
    2023, Analysts’ identity negotiations and politeness behaviour in earnings calls of US firms with extreme earnings changes. Corporate Communications: An International Journal28(5): 769–787. 10.1108/CCIJ‑08‑2022‑0098
    https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-08-2022-0098 [Google Scholar]
  29. Krippendorff, K.
    1995 On the Reliability of Unitizing Continuous Data. Sociological Methodology251:47. 10.2307/271061
    https://doi.org/10.2307/271061 [Google Scholar]
  30. Krippendorff, K., Y. Mathet, S. Bouvry, and A. Widlöcher
    2016, On the reliability of unitizing textual continua: Further developments. Quality & Quantity50(6): 2347–2364. 10.1007/s11135‑015‑0266‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-015-0266-1 [Google Scholar]
  31. Lawrence, J. and C. Reed
    2014 AIFdb Corpora. InComputational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2014, pp.465–466.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lucchini, C. and G. D’Agostino
    2023 Good answers, better questions. Building an annotation scheme for financial dialogues. Technical report. 12658/srd1326777
    https://doi.org/12658/srd1326777 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lucchini, C., A. Rocci, and G. D’Agostino
    2022 Annotating argumentation within questions. Prefaced questions as genre specific argumentative pattern in earnings conference calls. InF. Grasso, N. Green, J. Schneider, and S. Wells (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Edition of the Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 22), Volume vol.32051, Cardiff, pp.61–66. CEUR.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Lucchini, C., O. Yaskorska-Shah, and A. Rocci
    . in press. Comparing Prefaced Questions Across Activity Types. Journalists and Financial Analysts as Argumentative Questioners, De l’argumentativité à l’argumentation. Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Oswald, S., S. Greco, J. Miecznikowski, C. Pollaroli, and A. Rocci
    2020 Argumentation and meaning. Journal of Argumentation in Context9(1): 1–18. 10.1075/jaic.00005.osw
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00005.osw [Google Scholar]
  36. Palmieri, R.
    2017 The Role of Argumentation in Financial Communication and Investor Relations, InThe Handbook of Financial Communication and Investor Relations, ed.Laskin, A. V., 45–60. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781119240822.ch4
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119240822.ch4 [Google Scholar]
  37. Palmieri, R., A. Rocci, and N. Kudrautsava
    2015 Argumentation in earnings conference calls. Corporate standpoints and analysts’ challenges. Studies in communication sciences15 2015(1): 120–132. 10.1016/j.scoms.2015.03.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scoms.2015.03.014 [Google Scholar]
  38. Peldszus, A. and M. Stede
    2013 From Argument Diagrams to Argumentation Mining in Texts. International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence7(1): 1–31. 10.4018/jcini.2013010101
    https://doi.org/10.4018/jcini.2013010101 [Google Scholar]
  39. Rigotti, E.
    2006 Relevance of Context-bound loci to Topical Potential in the Argumentation Stage. Argumentation20(4): 519–540. 10.1007/s10503‑007‑9034‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9034-2 [Google Scholar]
  40. Rigotti, E. and S. Greco
    2019Inference in Argumentation: A Topics-Based Approach to Argument Schemes (1st ed. 2019 ed.). Number 34 in Argumentation Library. Cham: Springer International Publishing : Imprint: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑04568‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04568-5 [Google Scholar]
  41. Rigotti, E. and A. Rocci
    2006 Towards a Definition of Communication Context. Foundations of an Interdisciplinary Approach to Communication. Studies in Communication Sciences6(2): 155–180.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Rocci, A.
    2013 The discourse system of financial communication. Cahiers de l’ILSL (34): 201–221. 10.26034/la.cdclsl.2014.795
    https://doi.org/10.26034/la.cdclsl.2014.795 [Google Scholar]
  43. Rocci, A. and C. Raimondo
    2018 Dialogical Argumentation in Financial Conference Calls : The Request of Confirmation of Inference (ROCOI). InS. Oswald and D. Maillat (Eds.), Argumentation and Inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation, pp.699–715. College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. van Eemeren, F. H. and B. Garssen
    2013 Argumentative patterns in discourse. InD. Mohammed and M. Lewinski (Eds.), Virtues of argumentation: proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 22–26 May 2013.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. van Eemeren, F. H.
    2009Examining Argumentation in Context: Fifteen Studies on Strategic Maneuvering. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co. 10.1075/aic.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.1 [Google Scholar]
  46. Wachsmuth, H., N. Naderi, I. Habernal, Y. Hou, G. Hirst, I. Gurevych, and B. Stein
    2017, Argumentation quality assessment: Theory vs. practice. InR. Barzilay and M.-Y. Kan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), Vancouver, Canada, pp.250–255. Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/P17‑2039
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P17-2039 [Google Scholar]
  47. Wells, S. and C. Reed
    2012 A domain specific language for describing diverse systems of dialogue. Journal of Applied Logic10(4): 309–329. 10.1016/j.jal.2012.09.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jal.2012.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  48. Wilson, D. and D. Sperber
    2004 Relevance Theory, InThe Handbook of Pragmatics, eds.Horn, L. R. and G. Ward, 607–632. Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Zhou, P. and J. Shon
    2013Option strategies for earnings announcements: a comprehensive, empirical analysis. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: FT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.24002.dag
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.24002.dag
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error