Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Cognitive Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Divjak, Dagmar

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.902
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 2.297

CiteScore 2018: 2.09

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 1.075
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 2.063

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 28, Issue 3


Internet memes as multimodal constructions

Barbara Dancygier / Lieven Vandelanotte
  • Corresponding author
  • English Unit, University of Namur, 5000 Namur, Belgium
  • Functional and Cognitive Linguistics: Grammar and Typology Research Group, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-08-03 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2017-0074


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.

Keywords: constructions; frame metonymy; Internet memes; intersubjectivity; multimodality; viewpoint


  • Brideau, Kate & Charles Berrett. 2014. A brief introduction to impact: ‘The meme font’. Journal of Visual Culture 13(3). 307–313.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).Google Scholar

  • Clark, Herbert H. 2016. Depicting as a method of communication. Psychological Review 123(3). 324–347.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Clark, Herbert H. & Richard J. Gerrig. 1990. Quotations as demonstrations. Language 66(4). 764–805.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

  • Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

  • Dancygier, Barbara. 2012. The language of stories: A cognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

  • Fillmore, Charles J. 1988. The mechanisms of ‘construction grammar’. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14. 35–55.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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Lou, Adrian. 2017. Multimodal simile: The “when” meme in social media discourse. English Text Construction 10(1). 106–131.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.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.Google Scholar

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

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

  • Rohrer, Tim. 2005. Mimesis, artistic inspiration and the blends we live by. Journal of Pragmatics 37(10). 1686–1716.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ruppenhofer, Josef & Laura A. Michaelis. 2010. A constructional account of genre-based argument omissions. Constructions and Frames 2(2). 158–184.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.Google Scholar

  • Shifman, Limor. 2012. An anatomy of a YouTube meme. New Media & Society 14(2). 187–203.Google Scholar

  • Shifman, Limor. 2013. Memes in a digital world: Reconciling with a conceptual troublemaker. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 18. 362–377.Google Scholar

  • Shifman, Limor. 2014. Memes in digital culture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

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

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

About the article

Received: 2016-09-19

Revised: 2017-06-07

Accepted: 2017-06-09

Published Online: 2017-08-03

Published in Print: 2017-08-28

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.

Citation Information: Cognitive Linguistics, Volume 28, Issue 3, Pages 565–598, ISSN (Online) 1613-3641, ISSN (Print) 0936-5907, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2017-0074.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Svetlana Valerievna Kanashina
Philological Sciences. Issues of Theory and Practice, 2018, Number 12-2, Page 313

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in