Article published in:The Pragmatics of Internet Memes
Edited by Chaoqun Xie
[Internet Pragmatics 3:2] 2020
► pp. 223–259
On the interaction of core and emergent common ground in Internet memes
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.
- 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
Published online: 19 August 2019
Arundale, Robert B.
Barr, Dale J. and Boaz Keysar
Bertalanffy, Ludwig von
Clark, Herbert H., and Catherine R. Marshall
Colston, Herbert L.
2002 “Three challenges for the survival of memetics.” Journal of Memetics 6(2). http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/2002/vol6/edmonds_b_letter.html (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). http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/2005/vol9/edmonds_b.html (accessed 12 January 2018).
Enfield, Nicholas J.
Erlehmann, and Plomlompom
Katz, Albert N.
Katz, Yuval, and Limor Shifman
Kecskes, Istvan, and Fenghui Zhang
Knobel, Michele, and Colin Lankshear
2011 “I can has thesis? A linguistic analysis of lolspeak.” LSU MA Thesis. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/1271
Levinson, Stephen C.
Milner, Ryan M.
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). https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5391/4103 (accessed 25 December 2017).
Nissenbaum, Asaf, and Limor Shifman
Panzarasa, Pietro, and Nicholas R. Jennings
Varis, Piia, and Jan Blommaert
Cited by 1 other publications
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 april 2021. 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.