This article presents a multimodal genre analysis of crowdfunding proposals, an emerging web-based genre for raising funds from internet crowds for a project or venture. Based on an analysis of nine most-funded Kickstarter crowdfunding proposals, the authors describe the generic move structure using a semiotic approach and examine the role of visual images in constructing meaning within and across moves. The analysis shows that visual images facilitate potential backers’ sense-making in basically two dimensions: rhetorically, functioning to persuade by establishing ethos, logos, and pathos, and compositionally, helping achieve cohesion within and between moves and facilitate move mixing, embedding, and positioning. This study also attests a case-based approach to examining multiple influences on genre emergence.
AndersenT. H.Van LeeuwenT. J. (2017). Genre crash: The case of online shopping. Discourse, Context and Media, 20, 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.06.007
2.
AskehaveI.NielsenA. E. (2005). What are the characteristics of digital genres? Genre theory from a multi-modal perspective. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (p. 98a). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/hicss.2005.687
3.
BarthesR. (1967). Elements of Semiology. Cape.
4.
BatemanJ. (2008). Multimodality and genre: A foundation for the systematic analysis of multimodal documents. Palgrave Macmillan.
5.
BatemanJ. A. (2014). Genre in the age of multimodality: Some conceptual refinements for practical analysis. In EvangelistiA. P.BatemanJ.BhatiaV. K. (Eds.), Evolution in genre: Emergence, variation, multimodality (pp. 237–269). Lang.
BorstI.MoserC.FergusonJ. (2018). From friendfunding to crowdfunding: Relevance of relationships, social media, and platform activities to crowdfunding performance. New Media & Society, 20(4), 1396–1414. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817694599
10.
BrownT. E.BoonE.PittL. F. (2017). Seeking funding in order to sell: Crowdfunding as a marketing tool. Business Horizons, 60(2), 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.11.004
11.
CheongY. Y. (2004). The construal of ideational meaning in print advertisements. In O’HalloranK. L. (Ed.), Multimodal discourse analysis (pp. 163–195). Continuum.
12.
ConnorU.MauranenA. (1999). Linguistic analysis of grant proposals: European union research grants. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00026-4
13.
CotosE. (2019). Articulating societal benefits in grant proposals: Move analysis of broader impacts. English for Specific Purposes, 54(1), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.11.002
CudmoreA.SlatteryD. M. (2019). An analysis of physical and rhetorical characteristics of videos used to promote technology projects on the kickstarter crowdfunding platform. Technical Communication, 66(4), 319–346.
FengH. Y. (2011). Discourse and tales of grant-seeking activity: Academic writing and professional expertise. Lang.
18.
FrydrychD.BockA. J.KinderT. (2016). Creating project legitimacy: The role of entrepreneurial narrative in reward-based crowdfunding. In MéricJ.MaqueI.BrabetJ. (Eds.), International perspectives on crowdfunding (pp. 99–128). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78560-315-020151006
19.
GarzoneG. (2002). Describing e-commerce communication: Which models and categories for text analysis?textus, 14(2), 279–296.
20.
Grebelsky-LichtmanT.AvnimelechG. (2018). Immediacy communication and success in crowdfunding campaigns: A multimodal communication approach. International Journal of Communication, 12, 4178–4204. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/7691/2479
21.
JamiesonK. M. (1973). Generic constraints and the rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 6(3), 162–170.
22.
KaminskiJ. C.HoppC. (2020). Predicting outcomes in crowdfunding campaigns with textual, visual, and linguistic signals. Small Business Economics, 55, 627–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00218-w
LamP. W. Y. (2013). Interdiscursivity, hypertextuality, multimodality: A corpus-based multimodal move analysis of internet group buying deals. Journal of Pragmatics, 51, 13–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.02.006
26.
LeeY.CoyleJ. R.ChenA. N. (2021). Improving intention to back projects with effective designs of progress presentation in crowdfunding campaign sites. Decision Support Systems, 147, 113573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2021.113573
27.
LiuJ. (2020). Research video abstracts in the making: A revised move analysis. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 50(4), 423–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281619894981
28.
MannW.ThompsonS. A. (1992). Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text. Benjamins.
29.
MarissaK. L. E.O’HalloranK. L.JuddK. (2011). Working at cross-purposes: Multiple producers and text-image relations. Text and Talk, 31(5), 579–600. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2011.028
30.
MarshE. E.WhiteM. D. (2003). A taxonomy of relationships between images and text. Journal of Documentation, 59(6), 647–672. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410310506303
31.
MehlenbacherA. R. (2017). Crowdfunding science: Exigencies and strategies in an emerging genre of science communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 26(2), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2017.1287361
32.
MillerC. (2017). Where do genres come from? In MillerC. R.KellyA. R. (Eds.), Emerging genres in new Media environments (pp. 1–34). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40295-6_1
33.
MitraT.GilbertE. (2014). The language that gets people to give: Phrases that predict success on Kickstarter. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 49–61). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2531602.2531656
34.
O’HalloranK. L. (2008). Systemic functional–multimodal discourse analysis (SF-MDA): Constructing ideational meaning using language and visual imagery. Visual Communication, 7(4), 443–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357208096210
35.
PalmieriR.MercuriC.Mazzali-LuratiS. (2022). Persuasive reasons in crowdfunding campaigns: Comparing argumentative strategies in successful and unsuccessful projects on kickstarter. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 16(2), 332–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2021.2008942
36.
RoyceT. D. (2007). Intersemiotic complementarity: A framework for multimodal discourse analysis. In RoyceT. D.BowcherW. L. (Eds.), New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse (pp. 63–110). Erlbaum.
StankoM. A.HenardD. H. (2017). Toward a better understanding of crowdfunding, openness and the consequences for innovation. Research Policy, 46(4), 784–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.02.003
39.
SwalesJ. M. (1981). Aspects of article introductions. University of Aston.
40.
SwalesJ. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
Van LeeuwenT. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. Routledge.
43.
Van MulkenM.le PairR.ForcevilleC. (2010). The impact of perceived complexity, deviation and comprehension on the appreciation of visual metaphor in advertising across three European countries. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(12), 3418–3430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.030
44.
YangJ.LiY.CalicG.ShevchenkoA. (2020). How multimedia shape crowdfunding outcomes: The overshadowing effect of images and videos on text in campaign information. Journal of Business Research, 117, 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.008
45.
ZhouS. (2012). Advertorials: A genre-based analysis of an emerging hybridized genre. Discourse & Communication, 6(3), 323–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481312446265
