Argumentation in financial analyst reports: creativity or conventionality?

The present paper aims at analysing the argumentative patterns typical of financial analyst reports, trying to assess whether they mainly follow conventionalized models or creative patterns. An interdisciplinary approach, integrating genre/discourse analysis, pragmatics, argumentation theory and corpus analysis, will be applied here in order to understand how analysts employ linguistic strategies to mitigate or enhance certain events and to affect investors’ behaviour. The corpus used is made up of reports issued by Goldman Sachs Research in the period November 2009-November 2011. In particular, argumentation theory will be employed to analyse the nature, functions and constraints of persuasive discourse, aiming at determining and setting the limits of rationality in a world of values (Bondi 1998: IX). In their effort to convince the public of something that is controversial, financial analysts try to bridge the gap between pure facts/data and recommendations/ persuasion. The argument outcome will mainly hinge on the participants’ discursive capacities.