The persuasiveness of metadiscourse: a rhetorical analysis of corporate apology letters

Corporate apologies are essential rhetorical acts for rebuilding trust in times of crisis. Nevertheless, current research primarily emphasises meso-strategic frameworks, like image repair theories, while overlooking the role of micro-linguistic choices in facilitating persuasion. This study addresses the disparity by analysing metadiscourse—the linguistic devices that organise discourse and negotiate meaning—in corporate apology letters and press releases, using Hyland’s interpersonal model integrated with classical rhetorical appeals. Key findings reveal that apology letters strategically utilise metadiscourse to mediate persuasion: logos is achieved through transitions that structure corrective actions; ethos is achieved through collective self-mentions that project accountability; and pathos is achieved through emotionally charged markers aligned with societal values. Comparatively, apology letters prioritise dialogue engagement, such as frequent self-mentions and participatory directives, to restore legitimacy, whereas press releases focus on promotional language, like superlatives and causal logic, to show that something is marketable. The analysis emphasises the contextual adaptability of metadiscourse—crisis communication necessitates collaborative accountability, whereas non-crisis genres utilise rational and emotional appeals for image enhancement. By refining metadiscourse theory and offering guidelines for crisis rhetoric, this study highlights the role of linguistic strategies in balancing institutional accountability with stakeholder expectations.