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
ORCID logo | University of Duisburg-Essen
ORCID logo | University of Duisburg-Essen

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
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

Cited by 1 other publications

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 28 march 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.