Cover not available
Article published In:
Constructional Approach(es) to Discourse-Level Phenomena: Theoretical challenges and empirical advances
Edited by Renata Enghels and María Sol Sansiñena
[Constructions and Frames 13:1] 2021
► pp. 160–191

Creative constructs, constructions, and frames in Internet discourse

| University of Namur (NaLTT institute) | KU Leuven (FunC research group)
This paper explores questions of constructionality and framing in Internet discourse. It proposes a sharper understanding of what, as analysts, we mean by Internet memes, before turning to formal and semantic aspects of Internet memes as multimodal (image-text) constructions. A broad range of examples is considered, but the focus is mainly on image macro memes and labelling memes. Particular attention is focused on the presentational templates that mark out particular meme constructions, and grounds for distinctions between creative constructs and entrenched, conventionalized constructions are offered. The role of frames in the meaning-making mechanisms of memes is investigated, and also explored for a type of Twitter discourse not usually considered alongside established Internet memes.
Keywords: constructions, frames, Internet memes, multimodality, Twitter
Article outline
  • 1.Internet memes, memes on the Internet
  • 2.Multimodal constructions in online discourse
  • 3.Frames in Internet memes
  • 4.Labelling memes, and the case of the distracted boyfriend
  • 5.The conversation frame in Twitter discourse
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 August 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00050.van
References (54)
References
Antonopoulou, Eleni & Kiki Nikiforidou. (2009). Deconstructing verbal humour with Construction Grammar. In Geert Brône & Jeroen Vandaele (eds.), Cognitive Poetics: Goals, Gains and Gaps, 289–314. De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
. (2011). Construction grammar and conventional discourse: A construction-based approach to discoursal incongruity. Journal of Pragmatics 431: 2594–2609. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Attardo, Salvatore. (1994). Linguistic Theories of Humour. De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. (2017). Computational resources: FrameNet and Constructicon. In Barbara Dancygier (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 549–573. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brideau, Kate & Charles Berret. (2014). A brief introduction to Impact: ‘The meme font’. Journal of Visual Culture 13 (3): 307–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brône, Geert. (2008). Hyper- and misunderstanding in interactional humor. Journal of Pragmatics 40 (12): 2027–2061. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brône, Geert & Elizabeth Zima. (2014). Towards a dialogic construction grammar: Ad hoc routines and resonance activation. Cognitive Linguistics 25 (3): 457–495. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bülow, Lars, Marie-Luis Merten & Michael Johann. (2018). Internet-Memes als Zugang zu multimodalen Konstruktionen. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik 691: 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cienki, Alan. (2007). Frames, Idealized Cognitive Models, and domains. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 170–187. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coulson, Seana. (2001). Semantic Leaps: Frame Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction.: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara. (1998). Conditionals and Prediction: Time, Knowledge and Causation in Conditional Constructions. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara & Eve Sweetser. (2005). Mental Spaces in Grammar: Conditional Constructions. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2014). Figurative Language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara & Lieven Vandelanotte. (2016). Discourse viewpoint as network. In Barbara Dancygier, Wei-lun Lu & Arie Verhagen (eds), Viewpoint and the Fabric of Meaning: Form and Use of Viewpoint Tools across Languages and Modalities. De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2017). Internet memes as multimodal constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 28 (3): 565–598. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, Richard. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. (2013). Just for Hits (Saatchi & Saatchi New Creators Showcase). Available online at [URL]
Deppermann, Arnulf (ed.). (2013). Conversation Analytic Studies of Multimodal Interaction. Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics 46 (1).Google Scholar
Devylder, Simon. (2019). Review of Barbara Dancygier (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. English Text Construction 12 (1): 143–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. (2007). The stance triangle. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, 139–182. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feyaerts, Kurt, Geert Brône & Bert Oben. (2017). Multimodality in interaction. In Barbara Dancygier (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 135–156. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. (1975). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society (BLS), 123–31.
(1982). Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Hanshin Publishing Co., 111–137.Google Scholar
(1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di semantica 6 (2): 222–253.Google Scholar
(2003). Double-decker definitions: The role of frames in meaning explanations. Sign Language Studies 3 (3): 263–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language 63 (3): 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forceville, Charles. (2008). Metaphor in pictures and multimodal representations. In Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, 462–482. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam. (2009). Construction grammar as a tool for diachronic analysis. Constructions and Frames 1 (2): 262–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2010). Constructions and frames as interpretive clues. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 241: 83–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Green, Jennifer. (2014). Drawn from the Ground: Sound, Sign and Inscription in Central Australian Sand Stories. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Paul. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Jennifer Riddle. (2017). Similes, Puns, and Counterfactuals in Literary Narrative. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hart, Christopher. (2016). The visual basis of linguistic meaning and its implications for critical discourse studies: Integrating cognitive linguistic and multimodal methods. Discourse & Society 27 (3): 335–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2017). Metaphor and intertextuality in media framings of the (1984–1985) British Miners’ Strike: A multimodal analysis. Discourse & Communication 11 (1): 3–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. (2017). Multimodal constructs – multimodal constructions? The role of constructions in the working memory. Linguistics Vanguard 3 (s1): 20160042. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huntington, Heidi E. (2016). Pepper spray cop and the American dream: Using synecdoche and metaphor to unlock internet memes’ visual political rhetoric. Communication Studies 67 (1): 77–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jewitt, Carey (ed.). (2014). The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. 2nd edition. Routledge.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. (2005). Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & M. Sandra Peña Cervel (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction, 101–159. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kress, Gunther & Theo van Leeuwen. (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. Arnold.Google Scholar
Lou, Adrian. (2017). Multimodal simile: The “when” meme in social media discourse. English Text Construction 10 (1): 106–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Machin, David. (2013). What is multimodal critical discourse studies? Critical Discourse Studies 10 (4): 347–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Östman, Jan-Ola. (2005). Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. In Jan-Ola Östman & Mirjam Fried (eds.), Construction grammars. Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, 121–144. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef & Laura A. Michaelis. (2010). A constructional account of genre-based argument omissions. Constructions and Frames 2 (2): 158–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shifman, Limor. (2012). An anatomy of a YouTube meme. New Media & Society 14 (2): 187–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2014). Memes in Digital Culture. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vandelanotte, Lieven. (2018). ‘Shunting the same idea back and forth’? Reappraising simile across text and image. Paper presented at the 2018 PALA conference, University of Birmingham (UK), 25–28 July 2018.
. (2020). (Non-)quoting and subjectivity in online discourse. E-rea [Online] 17 (2). Online since 15 June 2020. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vandelanotte, Lieven & Barbara Dancygier (eds.). (2017). Multimodal Artefacts and the Texture of Viewpoint. Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics 1221 (1–106).Google Scholar
Vandelanotte, Lieven & Kristin Davidse. (2009). The emergence and structure of be like and related quotatives: A constructional account. Cognitive Linguistics 20 (4): 777–807. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiggins, Bradley E. & G. Bret Bowers. (2015). Memes as genre: A structurational analysis of the memescape. New Media & Society 17 (11): 1886–1906. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zenner, Eline & Dirk Geeraerts. (2018). One does not simply process memes: Image macros as multimodal constructions. In Esme Winter-Froemel & Verena Thaler (eds), Cultures and Traditions of Wordplay and Wordplay Research. De Gruyter Mouton. 167–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Yus, Francisco
2023. Meme-Mediated Humorous Communication. In Pragmatics of Internet Humour, ► pp. 245 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.