1887
Volume 13, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper explores questions of constructionality and framing in Internet discourse. It proposes a sharper understanding of what, as analysts, we mean by Internet memes, before turning to formal and semantic aspects of Internet memes as multimodal (image-text) constructions. A broad range of examples is considered, but the focus is mainly on image macro memes and labelling memes. Particular attention is focused on the presentational templates that mark out particular meme constructions, and grounds for distinctions between creative constructs and entrenched, conventionalized constructions are offered. The role of frames in the meaning-making mechanisms of memes is investigated, and also explored for a type of Twitter discourse not usually considered alongside established Internet memes.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00050.van
2021-08-02
2021-12-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Antonopoulou, Eleni & Kiki Nikiforidou
    (2009) Deconstructing verbal humour with Construction Grammar. InGeert Brône & Jeroen Vandaele (eds.), Cognitive Poetics: Goals, Gains and Gaps, 289–314. De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. (2011) Construction grammar and conventional discourse: A construction-based approach to discoursal incongruity. Journal of Pragmatics43: 2594–2609. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.013 [Google Scholar]
  3. Attardo, Salvatore
    (1994) Linguistic Theories of Humour. De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Boas, Hans C.
    (2017) Computational resources: FrameNet and Constructicon. InBarbara Dancygier (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 549–573. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316339732.035
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.035 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brideau, Kate & Charles Berret
    (2014) A brief introduction to Impact: ‘The meme font’. Journal of Visual Culture13 (3): 307–313. 10.1177/1470412914544515
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1470412914544515 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brône, Geert
    (2008) Hyper- and misunderstanding in interactional humor. Journal of Pragmatics40 (12): 2027–2061. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.011 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brône, Geert & Elizabeth Zima
    (2014) Towards a dialogic construction grammar: Ad hoc routines and resonance activation. Cognitive Linguistics25 (3): 457–495. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0027
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0027 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bülow, Lars, Marie-Luis Merten & Michael Johann
    (2018) Internet-Memes als Zugang zu multimodalen Konstruktionen. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik69: 1–32. 10.1515/zfal‑2018‑0015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zfal-2018-0015 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cienki, Alan
    (2007) Frames, Idealized Cognitive Models, and domains. InDirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 170–187. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Coulson, Seana
    (2001) Semantic Leaps: Frame Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction.: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511551352
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551352 [Google Scholar]
  11. Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dancygier, Barbara
    (1998) Conditionals and Prediction: Time, Knowledge and Causation in Conditional Constructions. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Dancygier, Barbara & Eve Sweetser
    (2005) Mental Spaces in Grammar: Conditional Constructions. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486760
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486760 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2014) Figurative Language. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Dancygier, Barbara & Lieven Vandelanotte
    (2016) Discourse viewpoint as network. InBarbara Dancygier, Wei-lun Lu & Arie Verhagen (eds), Viewpoint and the Fabric of Meaning: Form and Use of Viewpoint Tools across Languages and Modalities. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110365467
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110365467 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2017) Internet memes as multimodal constructions. Cognitive Linguistics28 (3): 565–598. 10.1515/cog‑2017‑0074
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2017-0074 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dawkins, Richard
    (1976) The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (2013) Just for Hits (Saatchi & Saatchi New Creators Showcase). Available online athttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFn-ixX9edg
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Deppermann, Arnulf
    (ed.) (2013) Conversation Analytic Studies of Multimodal Interaction. Special issue ofJournal of Pragmatics46 (1).
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Devylder, Simon
    (2019) Review of Barbara Dancygier (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. English Text Construction12 (1): 143–153. 10.1075/etc.00022.dev
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.00022.dev [Google Scholar]
  21. Du Bois, John W.
    (2007) The stance triangle. InRobert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, 139–182. John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  22. Feyaerts, Kurt, Geert Brône & Bert Oben
    (2017) Multimodality in interaction. InBarbara Dancygier (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 135–156. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316339732.010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.010 [Google Scholar]
  23. Fillmore, Charles J.
    (1975) An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society (BLS), 123–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (1982) Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Hanshin Publishing Co., 111–137.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di semantica6 (2): 222–253.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2003) Double-decker definitions: The role of frames in meaning explanations. Sign Language Studies3 (3): 263–295. 10.1353/sls.2003.0008
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  27. Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language63 (3): 501–538. 10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  28. Forceville, Charles
    (2008) Metaphor in pictures and multimodal representations. InRaymond W. Gibbs, Jr. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, 462–482. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.028
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.028 [Google Scholar]
  29. Fried, Mirjam
    (2009) Construction grammar as a tool for diachronic analysis. Constructions and Frames1 (2): 262–291. 10.1075/cf.1.2.04fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.1.2.04fri [Google Scholar]
  30. (2010) Constructions and frames as interpretive clues. Belgian Journal of Linguistics24: 83–102. 10.1075/bjl.24.04fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.24.04fri [Google Scholar]
  31. Goldberg, Adele E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Green, Jennifer
    (2014) Drawn from the Ground: Sound, Sign and Inscription in Central Australian Sand Stories. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139237109
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139237109 [Google Scholar]
  33. Grice, Paul
    (1989) Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Harding, Jennifer Riddle
    (2017) Similes, Puns, and Counterfactuals in Literary Narrative. Routledge. 10.4324/9781315682020
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315682020 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hart, Christopher
    (2016) The visual basis of linguistic meaning and its implications for critical discourse studies: Integrating cognitive linguistic and multimodal methods. Discourse & Society27 (3): 335–350. 10.1177/0957926516630896
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926516630896 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2017) Metaphor and intertextuality in media framings of the (1984–1985) British Miners’ Strike: A multimodal analysis. Discourse & Communication11 (1): 3–30. 10.1177/1750481316683291
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481316683291 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hoffmann, Thomas
    (2017) Multimodal constructs – multimodal constructions? The role of constructions in the working memory. Linguistics Vanguard3 (s1): 20160042. 10.1515/lingvan‑2016‑0042
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0042 [Google Scholar]
  38. Huntington, Heidi E.
    (2016) Pepper spray cop and the American dream: Using synecdoche and metaphor to unlock internet memes’ visual political rhetoric. Communication Studies67 (1): 77–93. 10.1080/10510974.2015.1087414
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2015.1087414 [Google Scholar]
  39. Jewitt, Carey
    (ed.) (2014) The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. 2nd edition. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Langacker, Ronald W.
    (2005) Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. InFrancisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & M. Sandra Peña Cervel (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction, 101–159. Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Kress, Gunther & Theo van Leeuwen
    (2001) Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Lou, Adrian
    (2017) Multimodal simile: The “when” meme in social media discourse. English Text Construction10 (1): 106–131. 10.1075/etc.10.1.06lou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.10.1.06lou [Google Scholar]
  43. Machin, David
    (2013) What is multimodal critical discourse studies?Critical Discourse Studies10 (4): 347–355. 10.1080/17405904.2013.813770
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2013.813770 [Google Scholar]
  44. Östman, Jan-Ola
    (2005) Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. InJan-Ola Östman & Mirjam Fried (eds.), Construction grammars. Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, 121–144. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3 [Google Scholar]
  45. Pascual, Esther
    (2014) Fictive Interaction: The Conversation Frame in Thought, Language, and Discourse. John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.47
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.47 [Google Scholar]
  46. Ruppenhofer, Josef & Laura A. Michaelis
    (2010) A constructional account of genre-based argument omissions. Constructions and Frames2 (2): 158–184. 10.1075/cf.2.2.02rup
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.2.2.02rup [Google Scholar]
  47. Shifman, Limor
    (2012) An anatomy of a YouTube meme. New Media & Society14 (2): 187–203. 10.1177/1461444811412160
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811412160 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2014) Memes in Digital Culture. The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Vandelanotte, Lieven
    (2018) ‘Shunting the same idea back and forth’? Reappraising simile across text and image. Paper presented at the2018 PALA conference, University of Birmingham (UK), 25–28 July 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. (2020) (Non-)quoting and subjectivity in online discourse. E-rea [Online] 17 (2). Online since15 June 2020. doi:  10.4000/erea.9782
    https://doi.org/10.4000/erea.9782 [Google Scholar]
  51. Vandelanotte, Lieven & Barbara Dancygier
    (eds.) (2017) Multimodal Artefacts and the Texture of Viewpoint. Special issue ofJournal of Pragmatics122 (1–106).
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Vandelanotte, Lieven & Kristin Davidse
    (2009) The emergence and structure of be like and related quotatives: A constructional account. Cognitive Linguistics20 (4): 777–807. 10.1515/COGL.2009.032
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2009.032 [Google Scholar]
  53. Wiggins, Bradley E. & G. Bret Bowers
    (2015) Memes as genre: A structurational analysis of the memescape. New Media & Society17 (11): 1886–1906. 10.1177/1461444814535194
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814535194 [Google Scholar]
  54. Zenner, Eline & Dirk Geeraerts
    (2018) One does not simply process memes: Image macros as multimodal constructions. InEsme Winter-Froemel & Verena Thaler (eds), Cultures and Traditions of Wordplay and Wordplay Research. De Gruyter Mouton. 167–193. 10.1515/9783110586374‑008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110586374-008 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00050.van
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00050.van
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): constructions; frames; Internet memes; multimodality; Twitter
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error