1887
Volume 28, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In this article I analyse object labelling image macro internet memes as multimodal metaphors, taking the Distracted Boyfriend meme as a case study. Object labelling memes are multimodal texts in which users add labels to a stock photograph to convey messages that are often humorous or satirical in nature. Using the relevance-theoretic account of metaphor, I argue that object labelling memes are multimodal metaphors which are interpreted using the same processes as verbal metaphors. The labelling of the image guides the viewer in the construction of ad hoc concepts, and it is these ad hoc concepts that contribute to the overall meaning that is communicated. The analysis in this article is rooted in the relevance-theoretic claim that pragmatic interpretive processes are triggered by all and any ostensive acts of communication. I also draw heavily on Deirdre Wilson’s work on lexical pragmatics to show how this plays out in the case of a multimodal digital text. Memes, like verbal metaphors, do not require a special theory or framework. They can be understood as ostensive stimuli which trigger the search for an optimally relevant interpretation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.21010.sco
2022-06-27
2022-08-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barthes, Roland
    1977Image, music, text. London: Fontana.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Carston, Robyn
    2002Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  3. Clark, Billy
    2013Relevance theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139034104
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139034104 [Google Scholar]
  4. Dancygier, Barbara & Vandelanotte, Lieven
    2017 Internet memes as multimodal constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(3). 565–598. 10.1515/cog‑2017‑0074
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2017-0074 [Google Scholar]
  5. Forceville, Charles
    2020Visual and multimodal communication: Applying the relevance principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780190845230.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190845230.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Forceville, Charles & Clark, Billy
    2014 Can pictures have explicatures?. Linguagem em (Dis)curso, 14(3). 451–472. 10.1590/1982‑4017‑140301‑0114
    https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-4017-140301-0114 [Google Scholar]
  7. Gibbs, Raymond W.
    1994The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Glucksberg, Sam
    2001Understanding figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195111095.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195111095.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Jackendoff, Ray, Cohn, Neil & Griffith, Bill
    2012A user’s guide to thought and meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Jewitt, Carey
    2013 Multimodal methods for researching digital technologies. InSara Price, Carey Jewitt & Barry Brown (eds.), SAGE handbook of digital technology research, 250–265London: Sage. 10.4135/9781446282229.n18
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282229.n18 [Google Scholar]
  11. Knobel, Michele & Lankshear, Colin
    2008 Remix: The art and craft of endless hybridization. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(1). 22–33. 10.1598/JAAL.52.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.52.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  12. Miltner, Kate M.
    2014 “There’s no place for lulz on LOLCats”: The role of genre, gender, and group identity in the interpretation and enjoyment of an Internet meme. First Monday, 19(8). 10.5210/fm.v19i8.5391
    https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i8.5391 [Google Scholar]
  13. Oswald, Steve & Maillat, Didier
    2018 Deceptive puns: The pragmatics of humour in puns. InCristián N. Padilla (ed.), Perspectivas sobre el significado: Desde lo biológico a lo social, 145–171. La Serena: Editorial Universidad de la Serena.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Reboul, Anne
    1998 A relevance theoretic approach to reference. Relevance theory workshop, 45–50. University of Luton.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 1999 Reference, agreement, evolving reference and the theory of mental representations. InMartine Coene (ed.), Traiani Augusti vestigia pressa sequamur :studia 1 lingvistica in honorem L. Tasmowki, 601–616. Padova: Unipress.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Recanati, François
    2012Mental files. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199659982.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199659982.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2014 Mental files and identity. InAnne Reboul (ed.) Mind, values, metaphysics: Philosophical papers Dedicated to Kevin Mulligan. University of Geneva. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑05146‑8_27
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05146-8_27 [Google Scholar]
  18. Scott, Kate
    2020Referring expressions, pragmatics, and style: Reference and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 2021a The pragmatics of rebroadcasting content on Twitter: How is retweeting relevant?Journal of Pragmatics, 184. 52–60. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.07.022
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.07.022 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2021b Contrastive stress in English: Meaning, expectations and ostension. InElly Ifantidou, Louis de Saussure & Tim Wharton (eds.), Beyond meaning, 29–41. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.324.c2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.324.c2 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2022Pragmatics online. Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/b22750
    https://doi.org/10.4324/b22750 [Google Scholar]
  22. Segev, Elad, Nissenbaum, Asaf, Stolero, Nathan & Shifman, Limor
    2015 Families and networks of internet memes: The relationship between cohesiveness, uniqueness, and quiddity concreteness. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(4). 417–433. 10.1111/jcc4.12120
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12120 [Google Scholar]
  23. Shakespeare, William
    1597/1980Romeo and Juliet. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Shifman, Limor
    2014Memes in Digital Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre
    1986/95Relevance: Communciation and cognition. Second edition (with postface) ed.Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 1998 The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. InPeter Carruthers & Jill Boucher (eds.), Language and thought, 184–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511597909.012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597909.012 [Google Scholar]
  27. Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.
    2008 A deflationary account of metaphor. InRaymond W. Gibbs (ed.), Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, 84–105. Cambridge: Camrbidge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.007 [Google Scholar]
  28. Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre
    2015 Beyond speaker’s meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 15(44). 117–149.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Wharton, Tim
    2009Pragmatics and non-verbal communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511635649
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635649 [Google Scholar]
  30. Wilson, Deirdre
    2003 Relevance and lexical pragmatics. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 15(2). 273–292.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Wilson, Deirdre & Carston, Robyn
    2007 A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. InNoel Burton-Roberts (ed.), Pragmatics, 230–260. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑349‑73908‑0_12
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-73908-0_12 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2019 Pragmatics and the challenge of “non-propositional” effects. Journal of Pragmatics, 145. 31–38. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  33. Wilson, Deirdre & Kolaiti, Patricia
    2017 Lexical pragmatics and implicit communication. InPiotr Cap & Marta Dynel (eds.), Implicitness: From lexis to discourse, 147–175. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.276.07wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.276.07wil [Google Scholar]
  34. Wilson, Deirdre & Sperber, Dan
    2002 Truthfulness and relevance. Mind, 111(443). 583–632. 10.1093/mind/111.443.583
    https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/111.443.583 [Google Scholar]
  35. 2012Meaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139028370
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370 [Google Scholar]
  36. Yus, Francisco
    2018 Identity-related issues in meme communication. Internet Pragmatics, 1(1). 113–133. 10.1075/ip.00006.yus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00006.yus [Google Scholar]
  37. 2021a Incongruity-resolution humorous strategies in image macro memes. Internet Pragmatics, 4(1). 131–149. 10.1075/ip.00058.yus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00058.yus [Google Scholar]
  38. 2021b Pragmatics of humour in memes in Spanish. Spanish in Context, 18(1). 10.1075/sic.00070.yus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.00070.yus [Google Scholar]
  39. Zappavigna, Michele
    2012Discourse of Twitter and social media: How we use language to create affiliation on the web. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/pc.21010.sco
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.21010.sco
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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