Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
“Presenting Myself With Readers in Texts”: Analyzing Evidentiality in the Credibility-Building Discourse for Chinese State-Owned Enterprises on Twitter/X
As Chinese State-owned Enterprises (CSOEs) expand globally, building credibility on social media is a crucial yet under-explored challenge in international impression management. This study addresses this gap by investigating how CSOEs construct credibility on Twitter/X. It specifically examines the thematic dimensions of competence, benevolence, and integrity (what to express) and the linguistic use of evidentiality—a key resource for marking information sources (how to express). Applying thematic content analysis and linguistic analysis to 2,472 tweets from eight major CSOEs, findings reveal a clear strategic pattern. Thematically, competence is prioritized by highlighting their daily operations and product exclusivity. Linguistically, CSOEs predominantly employ low-subjectivity evidentials (i.e., zero-marked, inferring, and reporting forms), with high-subjectivity forms (i.e., sensory and belief-based ones) being rare. This suggests a “conservative” intersubjectification strategy, as so-called “presenting myself with readers in texts,” using a neutral, news-report-like style to navigate the epistemic vigilance of a potentially skeptical global audience.
AikhenvaldA. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford University Press.
2.
Aristotle. (2007). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (KennedyG. A., Trans., 2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
3.
BerlinL. N.Prieto-MendozaA. (2014). Evidential embellishment in political debates during US campaigns. Intercultural Pragmatics, 11(3), 389–409. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2014-0018
4.
BoasF. (1938). Language. In BoasF. (Eds.), General anthropology (pp. 124–145). D. C. Heath and Company.
5.
BritoE. P. (2017). “I love homosexuals like I love gangsters”: Epistemics and evidentiality in a Brazilian hybrid television news interview. Text & Talk, 37(5), 561–585. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2017-0019
6.
Brown-DevlinN.LimH. S.TaoJ. (2022). Examining the influence of algorithmic message personalization on source credibility and reputation. International Journal of Business Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884221126489
7.
ButlerJ. K. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of a conditions of trust inventory. Journal of Management, 17(3), 643–663. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700307
8.
ByrmanG.ByrmanY. (2018). In evidence: Linguistic transformations of events in police interview reports. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 41(2), 155–181. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0332586518000100
9.
CamilleriM. A. (2022). Walking the talk about corporate social responsibility communication: An elaboration likelihood model perspective. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, 31(3), 649–661. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12427
10.
CerdaJ.BaileyA. L.HeritageM. (2020). Contexts for self- and co-regulated learning in a dual-language elementary school classroom. Language and Education, 34(5), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2020.1751194
11.
ChafeW. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing, In ChafeW.NicholsJ. (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 261–273). Ablex.
DesaiA. (2018). Corporate communication through social media: Strategies for managing reputation. Vikalpa, 43(3), 171–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0256090918792442
14.
Du BoisJ. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In EnglebretsonR. (Eds.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139–182). John Benjamins.
15.
FineganE. (1995). Subjectivity and subjectivisation: An introduction. In SteinD.WrightS. (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives (pp. 1–15). Cambridge University Press.
16.
FuoliM.HartC. (2018). Trust-building strategies in corporate discourse: An experimental study. Discourse & Society, 29(5), 514–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926518770264
17.
FriessE.LamC. (2018). Cultivating a sense of belonging: Using Twitter to establish a community in an introductory technical communication classroom. Technical Communication Quarterly, 27(4), 343–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2018.1520435
18.
FryerD. L. (2021). Engagement in medical research discourse: A multisemiotic approach to dialogic positioning. Routledge.
19.
GaoY. (2015). Constructing semantic frames in discourse. Peking University Press.
20.
GlantzM. (2010). The Floyd Landis doping scandal: Implications for image repair discourse. Public Relations Review, 36(2), 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.09.002
21.
HallikainenH.HirvonenS.LaukkanenT. (2019). Perceived trustworthiness in using B2B digital services. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 120(3), 587–607. https://doi.org/10.1108/imds-04-2019-0212
22.
HanimannA.HeimannA.HellmuellerL.TrillingD. (2023). Believing in credibility measures: Reviewing credibility measures in media research from 1951 to 2018. International Journal of Communication, 17, 214–235.
23.
HannahM. A.LamC. (2017). Drawing from available means: Assessing the rhetorical dimensions of Facebook practice. International Journal of Business Communication, 54(3), 235–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415572788
24.
HiattM. S.LowmanG. H.MaloniM.SwaimJ.VeliyathR. (2023). Ability, benevolence, and integrity: The strong link between student trust in their professors and satisfaction. International Journal of Management Education, 21(2), Article 100768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100768
25.
HoV. (2019). Hotel management’s attempts at repairing customers’ trust. Pragmatics and Society, 10(4), 493–511. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.18008.ho
26.
HoozeeS.MaussenS.VangronsveldP. (2019). The impact of readability of corporate social responsibility information on credibility as perceived by generalist versus specialist readers. Sustainability Accounting Management and Policy Journal, 10(3), 570–591. https://doi.org/10.1108/Sampj-03-2018-0056
HylandK. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
29.
IngenhoffD.SommerK. (2010). Trust in companies and in CEOs: A comparative study of the main influences. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(3), 339–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0363-y
30.
IsakssonM.Flyvholm-JørgensenP. E. (2010). Communicating corporate ethos on the Web: The self-presentation of PR agencies. International Journal of Business Communication, 47(2), 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943610364516
31.
KentonS. B. (1989). Speaker credibility in persuasive business communication: A model which explains gender differences. International Journal of Business Communication, 26(2), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194368902600204
32.
Kingsley-WestermanC. Y.RenoK. M.HeuettK. B. (2018). Delivering feedback: Supervisors’ source credibility and communication competence. International Journal of Business Communication, 55(4), 526–546. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415613338
33.
LamC.HannahM. A. (2016). Flipping the audience script: An activity that integrates research and audience analysis. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 79(1), 28-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490615593372
34.
LeeG. (2017). Verb objectivity and source qualification: Comparison of quotation attributions in offline and online newspapers. Journalism, 18(7), 890–906. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884916636175
35.
LeeY. (2022). An examination of the effects of employee words in organizational crisis: Public forgiveness and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Business Communication, 59(4), 598–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488419877236
36.
LesterJ. N.ChoY.LochmillerC. R. (2020). Learning to do qualitative data analysis: A starting point. Human Resource Development Review, 19(1), 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484320903890
37.
LundA. K.PetersenH. (1999). Det sku’ vær’ så godt [All meant to be perfect]. Samfundslitteratur.
38.
MackiewiczJ.YeatsD. (2014). Product review users’ perceptions of review quality: The role of credibility, informativeness, and readability. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 57(4), 309–324. https://doi.org/10.1109/Tpc.2014.2373891
39.
MartinJ. R.RoseD. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (2nd ed.). Continuum.
40.
MartinJ. R.WhiteP. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.
41.
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335
42.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J. (2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 210–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.012
43.
MichalovichA.HershkovitzA. (2020). Assessing YouTube science news’ credibility: The impact of web-search on the role of video, source, and user attributes. Public Understanding of Science, 29(4), 376–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520905466
44.
MishraA. K. (1996). Organizational responses to crisis: The centrality of trust. In KramerR. M.TylerT. R. (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 261–287). Sage.
NewellJ. S.GoldsmithE. R. (2001). The development of a scale to measure perceived corporate credibility. Journal of Business Research, 52(3), 235-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00104-6
47.
O’ConnorC.JoffeH. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220
48.
PalmerF. (1990). Modality and the English modals. Longman, London.
49.
Pérez-BlancoM. (2020). Evidential adjectives in English and Spanish journalistic opinion discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 170, 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.08.014
50.
PirsonM.MalhotraD. (2011). Foundations of organizational trust: What matters to different stakeholders?Organization Science, 22(4), 1087–1104. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0581
51.
PortnerP. (2009). Modality. Oxford University Press.
52.
RichardsonB. K.GarnerJ. (2022). Stakeholders’ attributions of whistleblowers: The effects of complicity and motives on perceptions of likeability, credibility, and legitimacy. International Journal of Business Communication, 59(3), 334–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488419863096
53.
SchmidW. (2014). Implied reader. In HühnP.MeisterJ.PierJ.SchmidW. (Ed.), Handbook of narratology (pp. 301–309). De Gruyter.
SunY.KongD. Y.ZhaiL. M. (2023). To interact and to narrate: A categorical multidimensional analysis of Twitter use by US banks and energy corporations. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 66(2), 117–130. https://doi.org/10.1109/Tpc.2023.3260465
56.
SunY.ZhengP.ZhangN. (2025). The impact of linguistic accommodation on transactional and relational goals in business communication. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 68(1), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2025.3541984
57.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In WorchelS.AustinW. G. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson Hall.
58.
TangL. (2021). The putative addressee in the persuasion of diplomatic discourse: China’s communication efforts through South African English-language newspapers. Discourse & Communication, 15(4), 458–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/17504813211002034
59.
WangX. (2016). A struggle for trustworthiness: Local officials’ discursive behaviour in press conferences handling Tianjin blasts in China. Discourse & Communication, 10(4), 412–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481316638150
60.
WhiteP. R. R. (2020). The putative reader in mass media persuasion—stance, argumentation and ideology. Discourse & Communication, 14(4), 404–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481320910512
61.
WhiteP. R. R. (2021). Alignment, persuasiveness and the putative reader in opinion writing. Language, Context and Text: The Social Semiotics Forum, 3(2), 247–273. https://doi.org/10.1075/langct.21001.whi
62.
WillettT. (1988). A cross-linguistic survey of grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language, 12, 51–97. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil
63.
WintterlinF. (2017). Trust in distant sources: An analytical model capturing antecedents of risk and trustworthiness as perceived by journalists. Journalism, 21(1), 130–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884917716000
64.
WuC.SunY. (2023). Discursive construction of message credibility for Chinese state-owned enterprises on Twitter. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 66(3), 236–258. https://doi.org/10.1109/Tpc.2023.3284775
65.
XieY.PengS. Q. (2009). How to repair customer trust after negative publicity: The roles of competence, integrity, benevolence, and forgiveness. Psychology & Marketing, 26(7), 572–589. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20289
66.
XuZ. (2022). Pragmatic functions of evidentiality in diplomatic discourse: Toward a new analytical framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1019359. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1019359
67.
YangK. (2022). How sajiao (playing cute) wins forgiveness: The effectiveness of emojis in rebuilding trust through apology. Discourse & Communication, 17(1), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/17504813221123850
68.
YangK.SunY. (2025). A Tale of identities: Environmental identities based on a deliberate metaphor analysis of U.S. energy companies’ social media. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 39(2), 149–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/10506519241307787
69.
YangL. (2009). Evidentiality in English research articles [Doctoral dissertation]. Xiamen University.
70.
ZhangC.-B.LiY.-N. (2019). How social media usage influences B2B customer loyalty: Roles of trust and purchase risk. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 34(7), 1420–1433. https://doi.org/10.1108/jbim-07-2018-0211
71.
ZhangS.GosseltJ. F.de JongM. D. T. (2020). How large information technology companies use Twitter: Arrangement of corporate accounts and characteristics of tweets. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 34(4), 364–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651920932191
