Cover not available
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

| 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: 19 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00033.die
References (49)
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 101: 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 401: 385–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts.” Journal of Pragmatics 421: 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.Google Scholar
2013. “Hacking the social: Internet memes, identity antagonism, and the logic of lulz.” The Fibreculture Journal 221: 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
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Osisanwo, Ayo & Toluwalope Mary Falade
2024. Directives and references in selected coronavirus-motivated internet memes. Language and Semiotic Studies 10:2 ► pp. 245 ff. DOI logo
Bülow, Lars
2023. Image Macros als Ressource für sprachliche Verstärkungsprozesse. In Remotivierung in der Sprache [Linguistik in Empirie und Theorie/Empirical and Theoretical Linguistics, ], ► pp. 257 ff. DOI logo
Kecskes, Istvan
2023. The Socio-Cognitive Approach as a Theoretical Framework. In The Socio-Cognitive Approach to Communication and Pragmatics [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 33], ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Rogozina, I. V. & N. Yu. Buhner
2023. Meme Discourse as an Object of Linguocognitive Modelling. Discourse 9:3 ► pp. 165 ff. DOI logo
Yus, Francisco
2023. Beyond Humour: Relevant Affective Effects. In Pragmatics of Internet Humour, ► pp. 309 ff. DOI logo
Yus, Francisco
2023. Meme-Mediated Humorous Communication. In Pragmatics of Internet Humour, ► pp. 245 ff. DOI logo
Diedrichsen, Elke
2020. Linguistic expressions as cultural units. International Journal of Language and Culture 7:1 ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo
Diedrichsen, Elke
2023. Internet Memes – Funktionen und Motivationen. In Digitale Pragmatik [Digitale Linguistik, 1], ► pp. 153 ff. DOI logo
Diedrichsen, Elke
2024. Characterizing Cultural Linguistics in Digital Communication. In The Handbook of Cultural Linguistics [Springer Handbooks in Languages and Linguistics, ], ► pp. 157 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 october 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.