Cover not available
Part of
The Pragmatics of Internet Memes
Edited by Chaoqun Xie
[Benjamins Current Topics 120] 2022
► pp. 85–121

On the interaction of core and emergent common ground in Internet memes

| Technological University Dublin
Internet memes are meaningful objects of diverse shapes that spread across networks of mediated participation (term from Milner 2012: 10). The distribution and reception of memes bears aspects of communicative interaction, because memes establish usage conventions. This paper will be concerned with the pragmatics of Internet memes. Given that flexibility, novelty and originality are driving forces in meme culture, the question arises how traditional pragmatic notions like recipient design and common ground can be said to apply for the interaction with memes. Kecskes’ (2008, 2010, 2012, 2014; Kecskes and Zhang 2009) distinction between core common ground and emergent common ground will be discussed and put to use for an explanation of the complex interactive dynamics of Internet communication. This modern form of communication oscillates between reference to shared cultural contents and the establishment and perpetuation of conventions on the one hand, and the pursuit of originality on the other hand. This paper will demonstrate how memes can vary with respect to the degree to which they require core common ground or the generation of emergent common ground for their proper usage. The scale presented as a result of the discussion represents a continuum of the prevalence of semantics versus pragmatics involved in the usage and interpretation of memes.
Keywords: Internet memes, pragmatics, common ground, digital media, Internet culture
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: On the term ‘meme’
  • 2.Internet memes
  • 3.Internet memes as communicative items
    • 3.1Defining Internet memes as communicative items
    • 3.2Meme genres
  • 4.The pragmatics of Internet memes
    • 4.1Formal and functional motivation of memes
    • 4.2A dynamic approach to common ground
  • 5.A 5-way typology of memes
    • 5.1Established advice animals
    • 5.2 situation memes (Established meme/topic connection): Comment on circumstance chosen by the user
    • 5.3Memetic Silliness (Katz and Shifman: linguistic, visual, embodied, other)
    • 5.4 comment memes (Established meme/topic connection): Comment on contributions by other users
    • 5.5 reaction memes: No meme/topic connection: Reaction to contributions by other users
  • 6.Beyond established memes: Sentiments and codes
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 3 May 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.120.05die
References
Aijmer, Karin
1996 Conversational Routines in English: Convention and Creativity. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Arundale, Robert B.
2008 “Against (Gricean) intentions at the heart of human interaction.” Intercultural Pragmatics 5(2): 229–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barr, Dale J. and Boaz Keysar
2007 “Making sense of how we make sense: The paradox of egocentrism in language use.” In Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influences, ed. by Herbert L. Colston, and Albert N. Katz, 21–42. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bertalanffy, Ludwig von
1968 General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. New York: George Braziller.Google Scholar
Blackmore, Susan
1999 The Meme Machine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cannizzarro, Sara
2016 “Internet memes as internet signs: A semiotic view of digital culture.” Sign Systems Studies 44(4): 562–586. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H.
1996 Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Catherine R. Marshall
1981 “Definite reference and mutual knowledge.” In Elements of Discourse Understanding, ed. by Aravind K. Joshi, Bonnie L. Webber, and Ivan A. Sag, 10–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Colston, Herbert L.
2007 “Social and cultural influences on figurative and indirect language.” In Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influence, ed. by Herbert L. Colston, and Albert N. Katz, 99–130. New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2008 “A new look at common ground: memory, egocentrism, and joint meaning.” In Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer, ed. by Istvan Kecskes, and Jacob Mey, 151–187. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Conte, Rosaria
2000 “Memes through (social) minds.” In Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science, ed. by Robert Aunger, 83–119. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coulmas, Florian
1981 Conversational Routine. Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dawkins, Richard
1976 The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diedrichsen, Elke
2013a “Constructions as memes – Interactional function as cultural convention beyond the words.” In Beyond Words, ed. by Frank Liedtke, and Cornelia Schulze, 283–305. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013b “From idioms to sentence structures and beyond: The theoretical scope of the concept ‘Construction’.” In Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics: The Role of Constructions in Grammars, ed. by Brian Nolan, and Elke Diedrichsen, 295–330. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 “On the semiotic potential of Internet memes.” In Vision Fulfilled: The Victory of the Pictorial Turn, ed. by András Benedek, and Kristóf Nyíri, 201–213. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences and Budapest University of Technology and Economics.Google Scholar
Dynel, Marta
2016 “ ‘I has seen image macros!’: Advice Animal memes as visual-verbal jokes.” International Journal of Communication 10: 660–688.Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto
1976 A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edmonds, Bruce
2002 “Three challenges for the survival of memetics.” Journal of Memetics 6(2). [URL] (accessed 22 December 2017).
2005 “The revealed poverty of the gene-meme analogy – why memetics per se has failed to produce substantive results.” Journal of Memetics 9(1). [URL] (accessed 12 January 2018).
Enfield, Nicholas J.
2008 “Common ground as a resource for social affiliation.” In Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer, ed. by Istvan Kecskes, and Jacob Mey, 223–254. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Erlehmann, and Plomlompom
2013 Internet-MEME: kurz & geek [Internet Memes: short & geeky]. Köln: O’Reilly.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Flora
2017 Meme: Die Kunst des Remix. Bildsprache politischer Netzkultur [Memes: The Art of Remix. Visual Language of Political Internet Culture]. Berlin: Amadeu Antonio Stiftung.Google Scholar
Katz, Albert N.
2007 “Discourse and sociocultural factors in understanding nonliteral language.” In Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influences, ed. by Herbert L. Colston, and Albert N. Katz, 185–209. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Katz, Yuval, and Limor Shifman
2017 “Making sense? The structure and meanings of digital memetic nonsense.” Information Communication and Society 20(6): 825–842. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan
2003 Situation-Bound Utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 “Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 385–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2889–2897. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 “Sociopragmatics and cross-cultural and intercultural studies.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Keith Allan, and Kasia M. Jaszczolt, 599–616. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Intercultural Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan, and Fenghui Zhang
2009 “Activating, seeking and creating common ground: A Socio-cognitive approach.” Pragmatics & Cognition 17(2): 331–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knobel, Michele, and Colin Lankshear
2007 “Online memes, affinities, and cultural production.” In A New Literacies Sampler, ed. by Michele Knobel, and Colin Lankshear, 199–227. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lefler, Jordan
2011 “I can has thesis? A linguistic analysis of lolspeak.” LSU MA Thesis. [URL]
Levinson, Stephen C.
2006 “On the human ‘interaction engine’.” In Roots of Human Sociality, ed. by Nicholas J. Enfield, and Stephen C. Levinson, 39–69. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Milner, Ryan M.
2012 “The world made meme: Discourse and identity in participatory media.” PhD dissertation, University of Kansas.
2013 “Hacking the social: Internet memes, identity antagonism, and the logic of lulz.” The Fibreculture Journal 22: 61–92.Google Scholar
2016 The World Made Meme: Discourse and Identity in Participatory Media. Cambridge: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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). [URL] (accessed 25 December 2017). DOI logo
Nissenbaum, Asaf, and Limor Shifman
2017 “Internet memes as contested cultural capital: The case of 4chan’s \b\ board.” New Media & Society 19(4): 483–501. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panzarasa, Pietro, and Nicholas R. Jennings
2006 “Collective cognition and emergence in multi-agent systems.” In Cognition and Multi-Agent Interaction, ed. by Ron Sun, 401–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rose, Nick
1998 “Controversies in meme theory.” Journal of Memetics 2(1): 66–76.Google Scholar
Sharifian, Farzad
2011 Cultural Conceptualisations and Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shifman, Limor
2014 Memes in Digital Culture. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan
1994 “The modularity of thought and the epidemiology of representations.” In Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture, ed. by Lawrence A. Hirschfeld, and Susan A. Gelman, 39–67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996 Explaining Culture: A Naturalistic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
2000 “An objection to the memetic approach to culture.” In Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science, ed. by Robert Aunger, 163–173. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
2008 Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varis, Piia, and Jan Blommaert
2015 “Conviviality and collectives on social media: Virality, memes, and new social structures.” Multilingual Margins 2(1): 31–45.Google Scholar
Yus, Francisco
2018 “Identity-related issues in meme communication.” Internet Pragmatics 1(1): 113–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar