Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton August 3, 2017

Internet memes as multimodal constructions

Barbara Dancygier and Lieven Vandelanotte
From the journal Cognitive Linguistics

Abstract

This paper considers a range of so-called image macro Internet memes and describes them as emerging multimodal constructions relying as much on image as on text, and apportioning roles to images much like constructional slots, for instance to fill in a subject role in a subjectless clause, or even to provide the main clause content to a textually given when-clause. In addition to existing or partially altered linguistic constructions, many examples also rely on specific top text/bottom text division of labor, and crucially depend on frame metonymy, with limited formal means quickly cueing richly detailed frames (for instance by using iconic images). The popularity of memes, forming series and cycles of iterations and remixes, and their role in establishing and maintaining discourse communities seems to be driven by a need to express and reconstrue viewpoints, often starting from ideas, affects or stereotypes assumed to be intersubjectively shared with viewers, whose responses they solicit. This paper argues that a proper description of Internet memes of the type considered requires a construction grammar approach, complemented by an understanding of viewpoint dynamics in terms of a Discourse Viewpoint Space regulating the network of spaces and viewpoints.

Funding statement: The authors gratefully acknowledge the support provided by KU Leuven (Senior Fellowship, SF/16/004) which allowed Barbara Dancygier to carry out research at KU Leuven (September-December 2016) and which greatly facilitated our joint work on this project.

References

Brideau, Kate & Charles Berrett. 2014. A brief introduction to impact: ‘The meme font’. Journal of Visual Culture 13(3). 307–313.10.1177/1470412914544515Search in Google Scholar

Brône, Geert, Bert Oben, Annelies Jehoul, Jelena Vranjes & Kurt Feyaerts. 2017. Eye gaze and viewpoint in multomodal interaction management. Cognitive Linguistics 28(3).10.1515/cog-2016-0119Search in Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. 2016. Depicting as a method of communication. Psychological Review 123(3). 324–347.10.1037/rev0000026Search in Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. & Richard J. Gerrig. 1990. Quotations as demonstrations. Language 66(4). 764–805.10.2307/414729Search in Google Scholar

Coulson, Seana. 2001. Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511551352Search in Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Dancygier, Barbara. 1998. Conditionals and prediction: Time, knowledge and causation in conditional constructions (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486463Search in Google Scholar

Dancygier, Barbara. 2012. The language of stories: A cognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511794414Search in Google Scholar

Dancygier, Barbara. 2017. Viewpoint, discourse, and multimodal artifacts. Plenary lecture, AFLiCo 7 - Discourse, Cognition & Constructions: Implications & Applications, 7th International Conference of the French Association for Cognitive Linguistics, Liège University, Belgium, 31 May–3 June.Search in Google Scholar

Dancygier, Barbara & Eve Sweetser. 2005. Mental spaces in grammar: Conditional constructions (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 108). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486760Search in Google Scholar

Dancygier, Barbara & Lieven Vandelanotte. 2016. Discourse viewpoint as network. In Barbara Dancygier, Lu Wei-Lun & Arie Verhagen (eds.), Viewpoint and the fabric of meaning: Form and use of viewpoint tools across languages and modalities (Cognitive Linguistics Research 55), 13–40. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110365467-003Search in Google Scholar

David, Oana. 2016. Metaphor in the grammar of argument realization. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Dawkins, Richard. 1976. The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations, 366–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. 1988. The mechanisms of ‘construction grammar’. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14. 35–55.10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3). 501–538.10.2307/414531Search in Google Scholar

Forceville, Charles J. Urios-Aparisi, Eduardo (ed.) 2009. Multimodal metaphor (Applications of Cognitive Linguistics 11). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110215366Search in Google Scholar

Geeraerts, Dirk & Eline Zenner. 2016. One does not simply borrow a meme: Memetics from the perspective of cognitive contact linguistics. Plenary talk at the symposium “The dynamics of wordplay”, University of Trier, 29 September–1 October.Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Green, Jennifer. 2014. Drawn from the ground: Sound, sign and inscription in Central Australian sand stories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139237109Search in Google Scholar

Israel, Michael. 2011. The grammar of polarity: Pragmatics, sensitivity, and the logic of scales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511975288Search in Google Scholar

Kress, Gunther & Van Leeuwen. Theo. 2001. Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lou, Adrian. 2017. Multimodal simile: The “when” meme in social media discourse. English Text Construction 10(1). 106–131.10.1075/etc.10.1.06louSearch in Google Scholar

Louw, Bill. 1993. Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In Mona Baker, Gill Francis & Elena Tognini-Bonelli (eds.), Text and technology. In honour of John Sinclair, 157–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.64.11louSearch in Google Scholar

McNeill, David. 2006. Gesture, gaze, and ground. In Steve Renals & Samy Bengio (eds.), Machine learning for multimodal interaction, 1–14. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.10.1007/11677482_1Search in Google Scholar

Pascual, Esther. 2002. Imaginary trialogues: Conceptual blending and fictive interaction in criminal courts. Utrecht: LOT.Search in Google Scholar

Pascual, Esther. 2014. Fictive interaction: The conversation frame in thought, language, and discourse (Human Cognitive Processing 47). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.47Search in Google Scholar

Rohrer, Tim. 2005. Mimesis, artistic inspiration and the blends we live by. Journal of Pragmatics 37(10). 1686–1716.10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.015Search in Google Scholar

Ruppenhofer, Josef & Laura A. Michaelis. 2010. A constructional account of genre-based argument omissions. Constructions and Frames 2(2). 158–184.10.1075/cf.2.2.02rupSearch in Google Scholar

Sanders, José & Gisela Redeker. 1996. Perspective and the representation of speech and thought in narrative discourse. In Gilles Fauconnier & Eve Sweetser (eds.), Spaces, worlds and grammar (Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture), 290–317. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Shifman, Limor. 2012. An anatomy of a YouTube meme. New Media & Society 14(2). 187–203.10.1177/1461444811412160Search in Google Scholar

Shifman, Limor. 2013. Memes in a digital world: Reconciling with a conceptual troublemaker. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 18. 362–377.10.1111/jcc4.12013Search in Google Scholar

Shifman, Limor. 2014. Memes in digital culture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9429.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Stubbs, Michael. 1995. Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies. Functions of Language 2(1). 23–55.10.1075/fol.2.1.03stuSearch in Google Scholar

Taylor, John R. 2003. Linguistic categorization, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Tobin, Vera & Michael Israel. 2012. Irony as a viewpoint phenomenon. In Barbara Dancygier & Eve Sweetser (eds.), Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective, 25–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139084727.004Search in Google Scholar

Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2009. Speech and thought representation in English: A cognitive-functional approach (Topics in English Linguistics 65). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110215373Search in Google Scholar

Verhagen, Arie. 2005. Constructions of intersubjectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Wiggins, Bradley E. & G. Bret Bowers. 2015. Memes as genre: A structurational analysis of the memescape. New Media & Society 17(11). 1886–1906.10.1177/1461444814535194Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2016-9-19
Revised: 2017-6-7
Accepted: 2017-6-9
Published Online: 2017-8-3
Published in Print: 2017-8-28

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston