Cover not available
Part of
Conspiracy Theory Discourses
Edited by Massimiliano Demata, Virginia Zorzi and Angela Zottola
[Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 98] 2022
► pp. 267–294

Chapter 12
#conspiracymemes

A framework-based analysis of conspiracy memes as digital multimodal units and ensuing user reactions on Instagram

ORCID logo | University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany
ORCID logo | University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany
ORCID logo | University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany
Drawing on a multimodal corpus of Instagram memes (see Dancygier and Vandelanotte 2017; Yus 2019), this study explores the forms and functions of online conspiracy memes which are rooted in conspiracy theories (see Byford 2011; Butter and Knight 2020; Uscinski 2020). Focusing on posts, so-called digital multimodal units (DMUs), with regard to platform functions and the ensuing user reactions, this chapter qualitatively investigates DMUs with a discourse-analytic focus from two complementary angles: the posting of internet memes by the account holder as well as the ensuing meta-reflexive discussions (see Bublitz and Hübler 2007) among the audience, in which potential supporters and opponents of conspiracy theories engage to negotiate the semiotics and functions of DMUs.
Keywords: internet memes, multimodal linguistic discourse analysis, digital multimodal units, corpus, Instagram, conspiracy discourse, qualitative analysis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Understanding DMUs and conspiracy theory discourse on Instagram
    • 2.1From memes to DMUs
    • 2.2Conspiracy theory discourse on Instagram
  • 3.Methodology and data
    • 3.1Analytic framework
    • 3.2Data
  • 4.Empirical analysis
    • 4.1Hashtags, image types and topics in the corpus
    • 4.2Qualitative analysis of selected posts
      • 4.2.1Analysis of TC_DMU001_2020-08-25: “The Crazy Guy”
        • Level I: Profile/Post description
        • Levels II + III + IV: Formal and functional dimension and discursive embedding
        • Level V: Metareflexive patterns of description and interpretation
      • 4.2.2Analysis of CE_DMU002_2020-06-03: “COVID Was Gone”
        • Level I: Profile/Post description
        • Level II: Formal dimension
        • Levels III + IV: Functional dimension and discursive embedding
        • Level V: Metareflexive patterns of description and interpretation
    • 4.3DMU comparison
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 December 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.98.12gur
References (62)
References
Attardo, Salvatore. 2017. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Humor. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aupers, Stef, Dana Crăciun, and Andreas Önnerfors. 2020. “Introduction.” In Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories, ed. by Michael Butter, and Peter Knight, 387–390. London, New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Paul, and Tony McEnery (eds.). 2015. Corpora and Discourse: Integrating Discourse and Corpora. London: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bossetta, Michael. 2018. “The Digital Architectures of Social Media: Comparing Political Campaigning on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat in the 2016 U.S. Election.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 95 (2): 471–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bös, Birte, Sonja Kleinke, Sandra Mollin, and Nuria Hernández (eds.). 2018. The Discursive Construction of Identities On- and Offline: Personal – Group – Collective. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bülow, Lars, Marie-Luis Merten, and Michael Johann. 2018. “Internet-Memes als Zugang zu multimodalen Konstruktionen [Internet Memes as an Approach to Multimodal Constructions].” Zeitschrift für angewandte Linguistik 69: 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bublitz, Wolfram, and Axel Hübler (eds.). 2007. Metapragmatics in Use. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butter, Michael, and Peter Knight (eds.). 2020. Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories. London, New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary, and Kira Hall. 2005. “Identity and Interaction: A Sociocultural Linguistic Approach”. Discourse Studies 7 (4–5): 585–614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byford, Jovan. 2011. Conspiracy Theories. A Critical Introduction. London: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Selting, Margret. 2018. Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara, and Lieven Vandelanotte. 2017. “Internet Memes as Multimodal Constructions.” Cognitive Linguistics 28: 565–589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danesi, Marcel. 2017. The Semiotics of Emoji. London: Bloomsbury Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denisova, Anastasia. 2019. Internet Memes and Society. Social, Cultural and Political Contexts. New York, London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Karen M., Joseph E. Uscinski, Robbie M. Sutton, Aleksandra Cichocka, Turkay Nefes, Chee Siang Ang, and Farzin Deravi. 2019. “Understanding Conspiracy Theories.” Political Psychology 40: 3–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eelen, Gino. 2001. A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Egbert, Jesse, and Paul Baker (eds.). 2019. Using Corpus Methods to Triangulate Linguistic Analysis. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frick, Eckhard. 2018. “Emisch/Etisch”. Spiritual Care 7 (1): 99–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gonzáles, Hernández, Eva María, Jaime Eduardo Figueroa Daza, and Jan-Hinrich Meyer. 2019. “Memes and Politics. Why Some Political Memes Go Viral and Others Don’t?” IC – Revista Cientifica de Información y Comunicación 16: 579–613.Google Scholar
Gür-Şeker, Derya. 2021. “#identitäre. Eine multimodale Social Media Analyse über die ‚Identitäre Bewegung‘ auf Instagram. [#identitäre. A multimodal Social Media Analysis of the ‚Identitarian Movement‘ on Instagram]”. In Skandalisieren, stereotypisieren, normalisieren. Die Diskurspraktiken der Neuen Rechten als Untersuchungsfeld einer intersektionalen Germanistik, ed. by Stefan Hermes, Steffen Pappert, Corinna Schlicht, and Melani Schröter, 143–166. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Herring, Susan C. 2013. “Discourse in Web 2.0: Familiar, Reconfigured, and Emergent”. In Discourse 2.0. Language and New Media, ed. by Deborah Tannen, and Anna Marie Trester, 1–25. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Hess-Lüttich, Ernest W. B. 2007. “(Pseudo-)Argumentation in TV-debates“. Journal of Pragmatics 39 (8): 1360–1370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Highfield, Tim, and Tama Leaver. 2014. “A Methodology for Mapping Instagram Hashtags”. First Monday 20 (1). Available at: [URL] [accessed 27/06/2020]. DOI logo
. 2016. “Instagrammatics and Digital Methods: Studying Visual Social Media, From Selfies and GIFs to Memes and Emoji.” Communication Research and Practice 2 (1): 47–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huntington, Heidi E. 2015. 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. 2017. The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Johann, Michael, and Lars Bülow. 2019. “One Does Not Simply Create a Meme: Conditions for the Diffusion of Internet Memes.” International Journal of Communication 13: 1720–1724.Google Scholar
Kanai, Akane. 2019. Gender and Relatability in Digital Culture. Managing Affect, Intimacy and Value. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kleinke, Sonja, and Birte Bös. 2015. “Intergroup Rudeness and the Metapragmatics of its Negotiation in Online Discussion Forum”. Pragmatics 25 (1): 47–71.Google Scholar
. 2018. “Indeterminate us and them: The Complexities of Referentiality, Identity and Group Construction in a Public Online Discussion”. In The Discursive Construction of Identities On- and Offline: Personal – Group – Collective, ed. by Birte Bös, Sonja Kleinke, Sandra Mollin, and Nuria Hernández, 153–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kress, Gunther, and Theo van Leeuwen (eds.). 2001. Multimodal Discourse: the Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Laineste, Liisi, and Piret Voolaid. 2016. “Laughing Across Borders: Intertextuality of Internet Memes.” European Journal of Humour Research 4: 26–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leaver, Tama, Tim Highfield, and Crystal Abidin (eds.). 2019. Instagram: Visual Social Media Cultures. Newark: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Leone, Massimo, Mari-Liis Madisson, and Andreas Ventsel. 2020. “Semiotic Approaches to Conspiracy Theories.” In Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories, ed. by Michael Butter, and Peter Knight, 43–55. London, New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Madisson, Mari-Liis, and Andreas Ventsel (eds.). 2020. Strategic Conspiracy Narratives: A Semiotic Approach. London, New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mahadian, Adi Bayu, and Mohamad Syahriar Sugandi. 2017. “Generated Function of Meme in Online Conversation.” Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research 150: 102–107.Google Scholar
Markham, Annette, and Elizabeth Buchanan. 2012. Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (Version 2.0). Available at: [URL] [accessed 27/06/2020].
McCloud, Scott. 1994. Understanding Comics. The Invisible Art. New York: Morrow.Google Scholar
Milner, Ryan M. 2012. The World Made Meme: Discourse and Identity in Participatory Media. PhD Thesis. University of Kansas. Available at: [URL] [accessed 27/06/2020].
Mostowlansky, Till, and Andrea Rota. 2020. “Emic and etic.” In Cambridge Encyclopedia of Anthropology. Available at: [URL] [accessed 27/01/2021]. DOI logo
Osterroth, Andreas. 2015. “Das Internet-Meme als Sprache-Bild-Text.” IMAGE – Zeitschrift für interdisziplinäre Bildwissenschaft (22): 26–46.Google Scholar
Page, Ruth. 2012. “The linguistics of self-branding and micro-celebrity in Twitter: The role of hashtags.” Discourse and Communication 6 (2): 181–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partington, Alan, Alison Duguid, and Charlotte Taylor. 2013. Patterns and Meanings in Discourse: Theory and Practice in Corpus-Assisted Discourse Studies (CADS). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reisigl, Martin, and Ruth Wodak. 2015. “The Discourse-Historical Approach.” In Methods of Critical Discourse Studies, ed. by Ruth Wodak, and Michael Meyer, 23–61. London. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC: SAGE.Google Scholar
Rickford, Russell. 2016. “Black Lives Matter: Toward a Modern Practice of Mass Struggle.” New Labor Forum 25 (1): 34–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rubinelli, Sara. 2006. The ancient argumentative game: τόποι and loci in action. In Argumentation 20: 253–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shifman, Limor. 2014. Memes in Digital Culture. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stano, Simona. 2020. “The Internet and the Spread of Conspiracy Content.” In Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories, ed. by Michael Butter, and Peter Knight, 483–496. London, New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Statista 2020: Soziale Netzwerke. Statista Dossier zu Sozialen Netzwerken [Social Networks. Statista Dossier on Social Networks]. Available at: [URL] [accessed 27/10/2020].
Stöckl, Hartmut, Helen Caple and Jana Pflaeging (eds.). 2020. Shifts toward Image-Centricity in Contemporary Multimodal Practices. New York, London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taecharungroj, Viriya, and Pitchanut Nueangjamnog. 2015. “Humour 2.0: Styles and Types of Humour and Virality of Memes on Facebook.” Journal of Creative Communications 10: 288–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uscinski, Joseph E. 2020. Conspiracy Theories. A Primer. London: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
van Leeuwen, Theo. 2015. “Multimodality”. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton, and Deborah Schiffrin, 447–465. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Varis, Piia. 2019. “Conspiracy Theorising Online: Memes as a Conspiracy Theory Genre”. Tilburg Papers in Cultural Studies 238. Available at: [URL] [accessed 27/06/2020].
Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiggins, Bradley E. 2019. The Discursive Power of Memes in Digital Culture. Ideology, Semiotics, and Intertextuality. New York, London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiggins, Bradley E., and G. Bret Bouwers. 2015. “Memes as Genre: A Structurational Analysis of the Memescape.” New Media &Society 17 (11): 1886–1906. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yus, Francisco. 2019. “Multimodality in Memes: A Cyberpragmatic Approach.” In Analyzing Digital Discourse: New Insights and Future Directions, ed. by Patricia Bou Franch, and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, 105–132. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zappavigna, Michele. 2015. “Searchable Talk: the Linguistic Functions of Hashtags.” Social Semiotics 25 (3): 274–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Twitter.” In Pragmatics of Social Media, ed. by Christian R. Hoffmann, and Wolfram Bublitz, 201–224. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zenner, Eline, and Dirk Geeraerts. 2018. “One Does Not Simply Process Memes: Image Macros as multimodal constructions.” In Cultures and Traditions of Wordplay and Wordplay Research, ed. by Esme Winter-Froemel, and Verena Thaler, 167–194. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhu, Hongqiang. 2015. “Searchable Talk as Discourse Practice on the Internet: The Case of ‘#bindersfullofwomen’.” Discourse, Context and Media 12: 87–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Șamșudean, Dragoș
2023. Conspiracy Theories and Faith in Romania. What the Orthodox Bloggers Say?. Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Studia Europaea 68:2 ► pp. 175 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.