Abstract
Since the definition of elevator pitch, e.g. Pagliarini (2001), researchers have debated the ‘right’ way to pitch an idea. Entrepreneurial pitch is widely taught in business communication, and although most research is based on the content, e.g. Pollack, Rutherford and Nagy (2017), the rhetorical and linguistic characteristics are less researched in English, e.g. Daly and Davy (2016a, b), or indeed other languages. This paper, reports on the rhetorical relations found within obligatory and optional stages in pitch discourse from a previously analysed data set comprising two different corpora: ten English and ten Spanish sets of entrepreneurial pitch. The conclusion suggests a tendency to use five rhetorical relations: result, elaboration, preparation, background and purpose emerging within the obligatory stages in all 20 pitches. In addition, an evaluation relation is present in the pitches that are funded and thus are successful. The intercultural analysis of the two spoken corpora suggest that obligatory stages in Pitch may affect the Rhetorical Structure Theory relations used to convey speakers’ intentions in British English and Peninsular Spanish.
Resumen
Desde la definición de Pagliarini, (2001), los investigadores han debatido la forma “correcta” de presentar una idea. El pitch de negocios se enseña ampliamente en la comunicación empresarial y, aunque la mayoría de las investigaciones se basan en el contenido, véase Pollack, Rutherford y Nagy (2017), las características retóricas y lingüísticas son menos investigadas en inglés, véase Daly y Davy (2016a, b), o incluso otros idiomas. Este estudio, contrasta e informa sobre las relaciones retóricas entre frases del lenguaje oral encontradas en las etapas obligatorias y opcionales del discurso de Pitch. Provienen del análisis de un conjunto de datos de dos corpus diferentes: diez conjuntos de Pitch empresarial en inglés y diez en español. La conclusión señala una tendencia a utilizar cinco relaciones retóricas: RESULTADO, ELABORACIÓN, PREPARACIÓN, CONTEXTO y PROPÓSITO que surgen de las etapas obligatorias en los 20 Pitch. Además, una relación de EVALUACIÓN está presente en los Pitch que se financian y, por lo tanto, tienen éxito. En el análisis intercultural de los dos corpus se manifiesta que las etapas obligatorias del Pitch pueden influir en las relaciones específicas de la teoría de la estructura retórica (RST), utilizadas para transmitir las intenciones de los hablantes del inglés británico y del español peninsular.
Resumé
Depuis la définition de Pagliarini (2001), les chercheurs débattent sur la “bonne” façon de présenter une idée. Le Pitch commercial est largement enseigné dans la communication d’entreprise, et si la plupart des recherches sont basées sur le contenu, voir Pollack, Rutherford, et Nagy (2017), les caractéristiques rhétoriques et linguistiques sont moins bien étudiées en anglais, voir Daly et Davy (Daly and Davy 2016a, b), ou même dans d’autres langues. Cette étude met en contraste et rend compte des relations rhétoriques entre les phrases orales que l’on trouve dans les étapes obligatoires et facultatives du discours de Pitch. Elles proviennent de l’analyse d’un ensemble de données provenant de deux corpus différents: dix ensembles de Pitch commercial en anglais et dix en espagnol. La conclusion indique une tendance à utiliser cinq relations rhétoriques: RÉSULTAT, ÉLABORATION, PRÉPARATION, CONTEXTE et OBJECTIF découlant des étapes obligatoires des 20 Pitch. En outre, une relation d’ÉVALUATION est présente dans les Pitch qui sont financés et donc réussis. Dans l’analyse interculturelle des deux corpus, il est évident que les étapes obligatoires du Pitch peuvent influencer les relations spécifiques de la Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST), utilisée pour transmettre les intentions des anglophones britanniques et des hispanophones péninsulaires.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Brown and Ducasse (2019) discuss RST analysts and the analysis process in terms of working in teams and practice to improve skills. The author acquired RST skills with another co-researcher (Dr Annie Brown), and together they analysed two other English-transcribed spoken corpora comprising 30 local and 30 international students assessed oral presentations and TOEFL iBT speaking tests. They worked on coding RST and calculated an EDU split agreement of 92.3% for TOEFL speaking and a coding of relations at 84% on the same TOEFL data set.
References
Baccarani C, Bonfanti A (2015) Effective public speaking: a conceptual framework in the corporate-communication field. Corp Commun: An Int J 20(3):375–390. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-04-2014-0025
Baron RA, Markman GD (2000) Beyond social capital: how social skills can enhance entrepreneurs' success. Acad Manag Exec 14:106–116. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2000.2909843
Baron RA, Markman GD (2003) Beyond social capital: the role of entrepreneurs social competence in their Financial Success. J Business Venturing 18:41–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(00)00069-0
Belinsky SJ, Gogan B (2016) Throwing a change-up, pitching a strike: an autoethnography of frame acquisition, application, and fit in a pitch development and delivery experience. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 59:323–341. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2016.2607804
Bhatia V (2004) Worlds of written discourse: a genre-based view. A &C Black
Bhatia V (2014) Analysing genre: language use in professional settings. Routledge
Bird B, Schjoedt L (2009) Entrepreneurial behaviour: its nature, scope, recent research, and agenda for future research. In: Carsrud AL, Brännback M (eds) Understanding the entrepreneurial mind. Springer, New York, pp 327–358
British Broadcasting Commission BBC2(2012–14) Dragons’ Den. Television series. UK, London
Brown A, Ducasse AM (2019) An equal challenge? Comparing TOEFL iBT™ speaking tasks with academic speaking tasks. Lang Assess Q 16(2):253–270
Cardon MS, Mitteness C, Sudek R (2016) Motivational cues and angel investment: interactions among enthusiasm, preparedness and commitment. Enterp Theory Pract 41:1057–1085. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12255
Carlson L, Marcu D (2001) Discourse tagging reference manual. ISI Technical Report ISI-TR-545 54(2001):56
Carlson L, Marcu D, Okurowski ME (2001) Building a discourse tagged corpus in the framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory. Paper presented at the Second SIG dial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue (SIGdial-2001), Aalborg, Denmark
Chafe W (1996) Beyond beads on a string and branches on a tree. In: Goldberg AE (ed) Conceptual structure, discourse and language. CSLI, Stanford, pp 49–65
Chen XP, Yao X, Kotha S (2009) Entrepreneur passion and preparedness in business plan presentations: a persuasion analysis of venture capitalists' funding decisions. Acad of Management J 521:199–214. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.36462018
Clark C (2008) The impact of entrepreneurs’ oral “pitch” presentation skills on business angels’ initial screening investment decisions. Venture Capital:257–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691060802151945
da Cunha I, Iruskieta M (2010) Comparing rhetorical structures of different languages: the influence of translation strategies. Discourse Stud 125:563–598
da Cunha IJ, Torres-Moreno M, Sierra G (2011) “On the development of the RST Spanish Treebank .” Proceedings of the 5th Linguistic Annotation Workshop. LAW V '11, 1–10 Association for Computational Linguistics. Stroudsburg, PA, USA
Daly P, Davy D (2016a) Structural, linguistic and rhetorical features of the entrepreneurial pitch lessons from Dragon’s Den. J Manage Dev 35(1):120–132. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-05-2014-0049
Daly P, Davy D (2016b) Crafting the investor pitch using insights from rhetoric and linguistics. In: Alessi GM, Jacobs G (eds) The Ins and Outs of Business and Professional Discourse Research. Reflections on Interacting with the Workplace. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 182–203. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137507686_10
Eggins S, Slade D (1997) Analysing casual conversation. Cassell, London
García-Gómez A (2017) Televised entrepreneurial discourse: conversational structure and compliance gaining strategies, studies in media and communication. 5(1):104–116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11114/smc.v5i1.2426
García-Gómez A (2018) Dragons’ Den: enacting persuasion in reality television. Discourse, Context and Media 21(C):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.09.014
Hasan R (1989) The structure of text. In: Halliday M, Hasan R (eds) Language, context, and Luntext: aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 52–69
Mann WC, Thompson SA (1988) Rhetorical structure theory: toward a functional theory of text organization. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 8(3):243–281
Martin JR (1992) English text system and structure. John Benjamins, Amsterdam
Martin J, White P (2005) The language of evaluation: appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire
Martín-Martín P (2005) The rhetoric of the abstract in English and Spanish scientific discourse: a cross-cultural genre-analytic approach. 21, Peter Lang
Maxwell AL, Jeffrey SA, Lévesque M (2011) Business angel early stage decision making. J Bus Ventur 26(2):212–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.09.002
Miller GR (1980) On being persuaded: some basic distinctions. In: Roloff ME, Miller GR (eds) Persuasion: new directions in theory and research, 6th edn. Sage, Beverly Hills, pp 11–28
Miller TC, Stone DN (2009) Public speaking apprehension (PSA), motivation, and affect among accounting majors: a proof-of-concept intervention. Issues Account Educ 24(3):265–298. https://doi.org/10.2308/iace.2009.24.3.265
O'Keefe DJ (2015) Persuasion: Theory and research. Sage Publications, Los Angeles
Pagliarini R (2001) What is an elevator pitch? American Venture Magazine 31:31–32
Pollack JM, Rutherford MW, Nagy BG (2017) Preparedness and cognitive legitimacy as antecedents of new venture funding in televised business pitches. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 36:915–939. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00531.x
Radio Televisión Española RTE (2013) Tu Oportunidad Television series. Spain, Madrid
Spalton P (2010) Dragon’s Den: the perfect pitch: how to win over an audience. Harper Collins, London
Stede M (2004) The Potsdam commentary Corpus. In2004 ACL Workshopon discourse annotation, pages 96–102, Barcelona, Spain
Stiff JB, Mongeau PA (2003) Persuasive communication, 2nd edn. Guilford, New York
Taboada M (2001) Collaborating through talk: the interactive construction of task-oriented dialogue in English and Spanish. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Universidad Complutense, Madrid
Taboada M (2004) Building coherence and cohesion: task-oriented dialogue in English and Spanish. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia
Taboada M (2006) Discourse markers as signals (or not) of rhetorical relations. J Pragmat 38(4):567–592
Taboada M (2016) http://www.sfu.ca/rst/ Simon Ford University RST website developed by William Mann maintained by Maite Taboada
Taboada M, Lavid J (2003) Rhetorical and thematic patterns in scheduling dialogues: A generic characterization. Functions of Language 10(2):147–178. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.10.2.02tab
Taboada M, Mann W. 2005–2016. http://www.sfu.ca/rst/ Simon Ford University RST website developed by William Mann maintained by Maite Taboada. Accessed 07/09/2017
Taboada M, Mann WC (2006) Rhetorical structure theory: looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Stud 8(3):423–459
Yale RN (2014) The impromptu gauntlet: an experiential strategy for developing lasting communication skills. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly 77(3, 2):81–296
Funding
The study was supported by grant (ID No: FFI2013-47792-C2-2-P) from the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad as part of a larger research project EMO-FUNDETT: PROPER.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Thanks to the anonymous reviewers who provided insightful feedback.
Highlights
Justification and contributions of the research: This is the first study to employ a multidimensional analysis to deconstruct entrepreneurial pitch by investigating its stages and related rhetoric. In this way, known qualities and determinants of funding decisions around successful pitch from the literature are extended into diverse linguistic contexts.
Research questions/purpose: The purpose of the study is to report on the rhetoric employed to deliver successful entrepreneurial pitch in UK English compared with Peninsular Spanish.
Methods: The innovative analysis combines an adaptation of Genre Theory and Rhetorical Structure Theory to build on previous research that contrasts spoken business English and Spanish in appointment scheduling.
Information/data: The corpus is derived from a 3-min pitch to business angels in two reality shows. Data comprised transcripts made from programs available online and/or via ‘on-demand’: 10 Spanish participants on ‘Tu Oportunidad 2013” and 10 English participants on ‘Dragons’ Den(2012)’, selected with a gender balance and parallel products types. The UK episodes were taken from 2012 to 2014, and the Spanish were from 2013.
Results/findings: Findings across both languages, and within the obligatory stages of pitch (Opening⁁ Proposition⁁ Product⁁ Purpose⁁ Business), evidence a tendency to employ five principal rhetorical relations: RESULT, ELABORATION, PREPARATION, BACKGROUND and PURPOSE. Importantly, an EVALUATION is present in the pitches that are funded, drawing implications for the delivery of a successful pitch.
Limitations: The study limitations are that (a) each subsample was a convenience sample delimited by what was available online and (b) in discourse studies, the sample size is dictated by the granular nature of the analysis employed to mount arguments from representative, but not unwieldy data sets.
Theoretical implications and recommendations: Implications for business communication educators encompass both the teaching of evidence-based communication skills to successfully persuade and the avoidance of the pitfalls of unsuccessful communication: a combination which underpins the achievement of global intercultural real-world standards.
Practical and managerial implications and recommendations: This study is useful for entrepreneurial pitch that involves cross-border business activity between English and Spanish. The intercultural analysis suggests that obligatory stages in pitch may affect the Rhetorical Structure Theory relations used to convey speakers’ intentions in British English and Peninsular Spanish.
Policy implications and recommendations: In offering a two-pronged matrix of characteristics for successful and unsuccessful persuasion, findings demonstrate that linguistic factors have an important role in improving cross-cultural knowledge in the context of business communication, as well as underlying implications for shifting workplace realities and settings.
Recommendations for further research: Cross-cultural linguistic analysis makes explicit the differences experienced by speakers in cross-border business activity, so further research on pitch in other languages can provide evidence to promote success in communication across different languages and cultures.
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ducasse, A.M. Evidence-based persuasion: A cross-cultural analysis of entrepreneurial pitch in English and Spanish. J Int Entrep 18, 492–510 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-020-00278-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-020-00278-0