Speech acts in humanitarian crowdfunding campaigns

Humanitarian crowdfunding relies heavily on persuasive language to mobilise support, yet the pragmatic mechanisms underlying such persuasion remain insufficiently explored. Drawing on speech act theory, this study examines the distribution and discursive functions of different types of speech acts in humanitarian crowdfunding campaigns, using Gaza-related GoFundMe campaigns as a case study. A corpus of 981 campaigns was analysed using natural language processing techniques based on Searle’s taxonomy of illocutionary acts. The findings reveal a clear hierarchy in speech act usage. Assertive acts dominate campaign discourse, primarily serving to reduce information asymmetry by providing factual details, descriptions of circumstances, and concrete evidence of need, in ways consistent with enhancing credibility and legitimacy in a highly competitive and trust-sensitive crowdfunding environment. Commissive acts appear oriented toward establishing trust and accountability by articulating future commitments regarding fund use. Directive acts are employed sparingly, suggesting an awareness of donor autonomy and the potential risks of overly forceful appeals, whereas expressive acts are used in a controlled manner to evoke empathy without undermining authenticity. Declarative acts appear infrequently, reflecting the absence of institutional authority in crowdfunding contexts, and are mainly used for symbolic announcements and legitimacy framing. Overall, these findings contribute to research on persuasive discourse, pragmatics, and digital humanitarian communication by illuminating how linguistic action operates in geopolitically sensitive humanitarian crowdfunding contexts.