Affective stance as creative force in the era of internet memes

References

1. Alba-Juez, Laura, and Michael Haugh
   2025 The Sociopragmatics of Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009368421
   https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009368421 [Google Scholar]
2. Andries, Fien, Katharina Meissl, Clarissa de Vries, Kurt Feyaerts, Bert Oben, Paul Sambre, Myriam Vermeerbergen, and Geert Brône
   2023 “Multimodal stance-taking in interaction — A systematic literature review.” Frontiers in Communication, . 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1187977
   https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2023.1187977 [Google Scholar]
3. Attardo, Salvatore
   2023 Humor 2.0: How the Internet Changed Humor. London: Anthem Press.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Bergs, Alexander
   2019 “What, if anything, is linguistic creativity?” Gestalt Theory(): –. 10.2478/gth‑2019‑0017
   https://doi.org/10.2478/gth-2019-0017 [Google Scholar]
5. Boye, Kasper, and Peter Harder
   2007 “Complement-taking predicates: Usage and linguistic structure.” Studies in Language: –. 10.1016/j.langsci.2021.101416
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2021.101416 [Google Scholar]
6. Busch, Florian
   2021 Digitale Schreibregister: Kontexte, Formen und metapragmatische Reflexionen [Digital Writing Registers: Contexts, Forms, and Metapragmatic Reflections]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110728835
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110728835 [Google Scholar]
7. Bybee, Joan
   1985 Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.9
   https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.9 [Google Scholar]
8. Bybee, Joan, and Suzanne Fleischman
   1995 “Modality in grammar and discourse: An introductory essay”. InModality in Grammar and Discourse, ed. byJoan Bybee, and Suzanne Fleischman, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.32.01int
   https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.32.01int [Google Scholar]
9. Chomsky, Noam
   1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Chondrogianni, Maria
    2011 “The pragmatics of the modal particles να, θα, ας and μη(ν).” InProceedings of the 9th International Conference on Greek linguistics, ed. byKaterina Chatzopoulou, Alexandra Ioannidou, and Suwon Yoon, –. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Cienki, Alan
    2013 “Cognitive linguistics: Spoken language and gesture as expressions of conceptualization.” InBody — Language — Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction (vol.), ed. byCornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva Ladewig, David McNeill, and Sedinha Tessendorf, –. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110261318.182
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261318.182 [Google Scholar]
12. Cienki, Alan
    2017 “Utterance Construction Grammar (UCxG) and the variable multimodality of constructions.” Linguistics Vanguard(), . 10.1515/lingvan‑2016‑0048
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0048 [Google Scholar]
13. Collins, Allan, and Elizabeth Loftus
    1975 “A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing”. Psychological review: –. 10.1037/0033‑295X.82.6.407
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407 [Google Scholar]
14. Corver, Norbert
    2013 “Colorful spleeny ideas speak furiously: A passionate question at the interface of language and emotion.” Ms., Utrecht University (Utrecht OTS).
    [Google Scholar]
15. Cruse, Alan D.
    2000 Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Dancygier, Barbara
    2021 “Fictive deixis, direct discourse, and viewpoint networks.” Frontiers in Communication, 624334.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Dancygier, Barbara
    2017 “Viewpoint phenomena in constructions and discourse.” Glossa: Α Journal of General Linguistics(): .
    [Google Scholar]
18. Dancygier, Barbara, and Lieven Vandelanotte
    2017 “Internet memes as multimodal constructions.” Cognitive Linguistics(): –. 10.1515/cog‑2017‑0074
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2017-0074 [Google Scholar]
19. Dancygier, Barbara, and Lieven Vandelanotte
    2025a “Embodiment and simulated interaction in online stance expression.” Frontiers in Psychology, . 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1479825
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1479825 [Google Scholar]
20. Dancygier, Barbara, and Lieven Vandelanotte
    2025b The Language of Memes: Patterns of Meaning across Image and Text. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108950855
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108950855 [Google Scholar]
21. Deppermann, Arnulf
    2013 “Introduction: Multimodal interaction from a conversation analytic perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics(): –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.014 [Google Scholar]
22. Du Bois, John W.
    2007 “The stance triangle.” InStancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. byRuth Englebretson, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
23. Dubey, Amit, Frank Keller, and Patrick Sturt
    2007 “The effect of phonological parallelism in coordination: Evidence from eye-tracking.” InProceedings of EuroCogSci07: The European Cognitive Science Conference 2007, ed. byStella Vosniadou, Daniel Kayser, and Athanassios Protopapas, –. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Dukes, Daniel, Kathryn Abrams, Ralph Adolphs, Mohammed E. Ahmed, Andrew Beatty, Kent C. Berridge, Susan Broomhall, Tobias Brosch, Joseph J. Campos, Zanna Clay, Fabrice Clément, William A. Cunningham, Antonio Damasio, Hanna Damasio, Justin D’Arms, Jane W. Davidson, Beatrice de Gelder, Julien Deonna, Ronnie de Sousa, Paul Ekman, Phoebe C. Ellsworth, Ernst Fehr, Agneta Fischer, Ad Foolen, Ute Frevert, Didier Grandjean, Jonathan Gratch, Leslie Greenberg, Patricia Greenspan, James J. Gross, Eran Halperin, Arvid Kappas, Dacher Keltner, Brian Knutson, David Konstan, Mariska E. Kret, Joseph E. LeDoux, Jennifer S. Lerner, Robert W. Levenson, George Loewenstein, Antony S. R. Manstead, Terry A. Maroney, Agnes Moors, Paula Niedenthal, Brian Parkinson, Ioannis Pavlidis, Catherine Pelachaud, Seth D. Pollak, Gilles Pourtois, Birgitt Roettger-Roessler, James A. Russell, Disa Sauter, Andrea Scarantino, Klaus R. Scherer, Peter Stearns, Jan E. Stets, Christine Tappolet, Fabrice Teroni, Jeanne Tsai, Jonathan Turner, Carien Van Reekum, Patrik Vuilleumier, Tim Wharton, and David Sander
    2021 “The rise of affectivism.” Natural Human Behavior(): –. 10.1038/s41562‑021‑01130‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01130-8 [Google Scholar]
25. Eitelmann, Matthias, and Dagmar Haumann
    (eds.) 2022 Extravagance in Morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1075/slcs.223
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.223 [Google Scholar]
26. Ekman, Paul
    1993 “Facial expression and emotion.” American Psychologist(): –. 10.1037/0003‑066X.48.4.384
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.4.384 [Google Scholar]
27. Fauconnier, Gilles
    1994 Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language (2nd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511624582
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511624582 [Google Scholar]
28. Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner
    2002 The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Feyaerts, Kurt, Geert Brône, and Bert Oben
    2017 “Multimodality in interaction.” InThe Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. byBarbara Dancygier, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316339732.010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.010 [Google Scholar]
30. Geka, Vassiliki, and Anna Piata
    2023 “Constructions on the rise: The case of ‘ας έστελνε(ς)’/‘as éstelne(s)’.” Paper presented at the16th International Conference of Greek Linguistics. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 14 December 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Geka, Vassiliki, and Anna Piata
    2026 “Constructions on the rise: Insights from multimodality in Modern Greek.” Journal of Greek Linguistics(): –.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Glăveanu, Vlad P.
    2013 “Rewriting the language of creativity: The five A’s framework.” Review of General Psychology(): –. 10.1037/a0029528
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029528 [Google Scholar]
33. Goldberg, Adele A.
    1995 A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Goldberg, Adele A.
    2019 Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Goodwin, Marjorie Harness, Asta Cekaite, and Charles Goodwin
    2012 “Emotion as stance.” InEmotion in Interaction, ed. byAnssi Peräkylä, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730735.003.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730735.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
36. Haspelmath, Martin
    1999 “Why is grammaticalization irreversible?” Linguistics(): –. 10.1515/ling.37.6.1043
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.37.6.1043 [Google Scholar]
37. Hilpert, Martin
    2018 “Three open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar.” InGrammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar, edited byEvie Coussé, Peter Andersson, and Joel Olofsson, –. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.21.c2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.21.c2 [Google Scholar]
38. Hoffmann, Thomas
    2020 “What would it take for us to abandon Construction Grammar? Falsifiability, confirmation bias and the future of the constructionist enterprise.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics(): –. 10.1075/bjl.00042.hof
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00042.hof [Google Scholar]
39. Hoffmann, Thomas
    2022a “Constructionist approaches to creativity.” Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association(): –. 10.1515/gcla‑2022‑0012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2022-0012 [Google Scholar]
40. Hoffmann, Thomas
    2022b Construction Grammar: The Structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139004213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139004213 [Google Scholar]
41. Hoffmann, Thomas
    2024 “The 5C model of linguistic creativity: Construction Grammar as a cognitive theory of verbal creativity.” Journal of Foreign Languages and Cultures(): –. 10.53397/hunnu.jflc.202401011
    https://doi.org/10.53397/hunnu.jflc.202401011 [Google Scholar]
42. Holton, David, Peter Mackridge, Irene Philippaki-Warburton, and Vassilios Spyropoulos
    2012 Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar of the Modern Language (2nd edn.). Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203802380
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203802380 [Google Scholar]
43. Joseph, Brian, and Irene Philippaki-Warburton
    1987 Modern Greek. London: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Karantzola, Eleni
    1995 “Let’s talk about concession: The case of the Modern Greek particle as.” Journal of Pragmatics(): –. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)00090‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00090-2 [Google Scholar]
45. Kempf, Luise, and Stefan Hartmann
    2022 “What’s extravagant about be-sandal-ed feet? The morphology and pragmatics of German pseudo-participles.” InExtravagant Morphology: Studies in Rule-Bending, Pattern-Extending and Theory-Challenging Morphology, ed. byMatthias Eitelmann, and Dagmar Haumann, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.223.02kem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.223.02kem [Google Scholar]
46. Kitis, Eliza and Anastasios Tsangalidis
    2005 “Expressivity as an option of tense-aspect in language: The case of Modern Greek imperfective past.” InReviewing Linguistic Thought: Converging Trends for the 21st Century, ed. bySophia Marmaridou, Kiki Nikiforidou, and Eleni Antonopoulou, –. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110920826.143
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110920826.143 [Google Scholar]
47. Klairis, Christos, and Georgios Babiniotis
    1999 Grammar of Modern Greek: Structural-Functional-Communicative, Vol. II, The Verb. Athens: Elinika Grammata.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Langacker, Ronald W.
    2006 “On the continuous debate about discreteness.” Cognitive Linguistics(): –. 10.1515/COG.2006.003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.003 [Google Scholar]
49. Lanwer, Jens P.
    2017 “Apposition: A multimodal construction? The multimodality of linguistic constructions in the light of usage-based theory.” Linguistics Vanguard(), . 10.1515/lingvan‑2016‑0071
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0071 [Google Scholar]
50. Leech, Geoffrey N.
    1969 A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Lehmann, Claudia
    2024 “What makes a multimodal construction? Evidence for a prosodic mode in spoken English.” Frontiers in Communication: –. 10.3389/fcomm.2024.1338844
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1338844 [Google Scholar]
52. Lou, Adrian
    2017 “Multimodal simile.” English Text Construction(): –. 10.1075/etc.10.1.06lou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.10.1.06lou [Google Scholar]
53. Lyons, John
    1995 Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511810213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810213 [Google Scholar]
54. Martin, Jim R., and Peter R. R. White
    2005 The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
55. Meletis, Dimitrios
    2020 The Nature of Writing a Theory of Grapholinguistics. Dherbey: Fluxus Editions. 10.36824/2020‑meletis
    https://doi.org/10.36824/2020-meletis [Google Scholar]
56. Meletis, Dimitrios, and Christa Dürscheid
    2022 Writing Systems and Their Use: An Overview of Grapholinguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110757835
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110757835 [Google Scholar]
57. Moser, Amalia
    2014 “Aspect and aktionsart: A study on the nature of grammatical categories.” InMajor Trends in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics Vol. 1, ed. byNikolaos Lavidas, Thomaï Alexiou, and Areti-Maria Sougari, –. London: Versita. 10.2478/9788376560762.p14
    https://doi.org/10.2478/9788376560762.p14 [Google Scholar]
58. Nikiforidou, Kiki
    1991 “Conditional and concessive clauses in Modern Greek: A syntactic and semantic description.” PhD dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.
59. Nikiforidou, Kiki
    1996 “Modern Greek as: A case study in grammaticalization and grammatical polysemy.” Studies in Language(): –. 10.1075/sl.20.3.04nik
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.20.3.04nik [Google Scholar]
60. Nikiforidou, Kiki, and Mirjam Fried
    2025 “Multimodality and grammar: An introduction.” InMultimodal Communication from a Construction Grammar Perspective, ed. byKiki Nikiforidou, and Mirjam Fried, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.38.intro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.38.intro [Google Scholar]
61. Norde, Muriel, and Graeme Trousdale
    2024 Creativity, Paradigms and Morphological Constructions: Evidence from Dutch Pseudoparticiples. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
62. Pascual, Esther
    2002 Imaginary Trialogues: Conceptual Blending and Fictive Interaction in Criminal Courts. Amsterdam: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
63. Pascual, Esther
    2014 Fictive Interaction: The Conversation Frame in Thought, Language, and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.47
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.47 [Google Scholar]
64. Pavlenko, Aneta
    2005 Emotions and Multilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
65. Rhee, Seongha
    2016 “On the emergence of the stance-marking function of English adverbs: A case of intensifiers.” Linguistic Research(): –. 10.17250/khisli.33.3.201612.003
    https://doi.org/10.17250/khisli.33.3.201612.003 [Google Scholar]
66. Roussou, Anna, and Anastasios Tsangalidis
    2010 “Reconsidering the ‘modal particles’ in Modern Greek.” Journal of Greek Linguistics(): –. 10.1163/156658410X495817
    https://doi.org/10.1163/156658410X495817 [Google Scholar]
67. Sampson, Geoffrey
    2016 “Two ideas of creativity.” InEvidence, Experiment and Argument in Linguistics and Philosophy of Language, ed. byMartin Hinton, –. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
68. Schmid, Hans-Jörg
    2017 “A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations.” InEntrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge, ed. byHans-Jörg Schmid, –. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1037/15969‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-002 [Google Scholar]
69. Shifman, Limor
    2013 “Memes in a digital world: Reconciling with a conceptual troublemaker.” Journal of Computer Mediated Communication(): –. 10.1111/jcc4.12013
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12013 [Google Scholar]
70. Sullivan, Karen
    2007 “Metaphoric extension and invited inferencing in semantic change.” Culture, Language and Representation: –.
    [Google Scholar]
71. Trotzke, Andreas, and Xavier Villalba
    2021 “Expressive meaning across linguistic levels and frameworks”. InExpressive Meaning Across Linguistic Levels and Frameworks, ed. byAndreas Trotzke, and Xavier Villalba, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198871217.003.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198871217.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
72. Tsangalidis, Anastasios
    2001 “Criteria of modality: The category of modal particles in Modern Greek.” Studies in Greek Linguistics: –. [in Greek]
    [Google Scholar]
73. Tsangalidis, Anastasios
    2012 “Conditionals in Modern Greek.” InThe Verb System of Modern Greek, ed. byMaria Tzevelekou, Anastasios Tsangalidis, and Angeliki Psaltou-Joycey, –. Athens: Patakis. [in Greek]
    [Google Scholar]
74. Tzartzanos, Achilleas
    1963 Modern Greek Syntax of Koine Dimotiki (2nd edn.). Athens: OEDB.
    [Google Scholar]
75. Uhrig, Peter
    2020 “Creative intentions — The fine line between ‘creative’ and ‘wrong’.” Cognitive Semiotics(): –. 10.1515/cogsem‑2020‑2027
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2020-2027 [Google Scholar]
76. Ungerer, Tobias
    2023 “A gradient notion of constructionhood.” Constructions(): –.
    [Google Scholar]
77. Ungerer, Tobias, and Stefan Hartmann
    2023 Constructionist Approaches: Past, Present, Future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009308717
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009308717 [Google Scholar]
78. Vasilaki, Natalia
    2023 “The Modern Greek particle AS: The distinctive properties of the construction AS + IMPERFECTIVE PAST.” Master’s thesis, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.
    [Google Scholar]
79. Veloudis, Ioannis, and Irini Philippaki-Warburton
    1983 “The subjunctive in Modern Greek.” Studies in Greek Linguistics: –. [in Greek]
    [Google Scholar]
80. Verhagen, Arie
    2025 “Construction Grammar, multimodal communication, and design features of language: Preliminaries to a coherent research program.” InMultimodal Communication from a Construction Grammar Perspective, ed. byKiki Nikiforidou, and Mirjam Fried, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.38.01ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.38.01ver [Google Scholar]
81. Wetherell, Margaret
    2012 Affect and Emotion: A New Social Science Understanding. London: SAGE Publications. 10.4135/9781446250945
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446250945 [Google Scholar]
82. Wierzbicka, Anna
    1986 “Human emotions: Universal or culture-specific?” American Anthropologist(): –. 10.1525/aa.1986.88.3.02a00030
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1986.88.3.02a00030 [Google Scholar]
83. Wiltschko, Martina
    2024 “Emotions do not enter grammar because they are constructed (by grammar).” Language Under Discussion(): –. 10.31885/lud.7.1.261
    https://doi.org/10.31885/lud.7.1.261 [Google Scholar]
84. Zeschel, Arne
    2009 “What’s (in) a construction? Complete inheritance vs. full-entry models.” InNew directions in cognitive linguistics, ed. byVyvyan Evans, and Stéphanie Pourcel, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.24.15zes
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.15zes [Google Scholar]
85. Zima, Elisabeth
    2014 “Gibt es multimodale Konstruktionen? Eine Studie zu [V(motion) in circles] und [all the way from X PREP Y].” Gesprächsforschung Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion: –.
    [Google Scholar]
86. Zipf, George K.
    1949 Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
    [Google Scholar]