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.
1996Conversational Routines in English: Convention and Creativity. London: Longman.
Arundale, Robert B.
2008 “Against (Gricean) intentions at the heart of human interaction.” Intercultural Pragmatics 5(2): 229–258.
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.
Bertalanffy, Ludwig von
1968General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. New York: George Braziller.
Blackmore, Susan
1999The Meme Machine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cannizzarro, Sara
2016 “Internet memes as internet signs: A semiotic view of digital culture.” Sign Systems Studies 44(4): 562–586.
Clark, Herbert H.
1996Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
Colston, Herbert L.
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.
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.
Coulmas, Florian
1981Conversational Routine. Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dawkins, Richard
1976The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
Dynel, Marta
2016 “ ‘I has seen image macros!’: Advice Animal memes as visual-verbal jokes.” International Journal of Communication 101: 660–688.
Eco, Umberto
1976A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Edmonds, Bruce
2002 “Three challenges for the survival of memetics.” Journal of Memetics 6(2). [URL] (accessed 22 December 2017).
Edmonds, Bruce
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.
Erlehmann, and Plomlompom
2013Internet-MEME: kurz & geek [Internet Memes: short & geeky]. Köln: O’Reilly.
Hartmann, Flora
2017Meme: Die Kunst des Remix. Bildsprache politischer Netzkultur [Memes: The Art of Remix. Visual Language of Political Internet Culture]. Berlin: Amadeu Antonio Stiftung.
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.
Katz, Yuval, and Limor Shifman
2017 “Making sense? The structure and meanings of digital memetic nonsense.” Information Communication and Society 20(6): 825–842.
Kecskes, Istvan
2003Situation-Bound Utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kecskes, Istvan
2008 “Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning.” Journal of Pragmatics 401: 385–406.
Kecskes, Istvan
2010 “Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts.” Journal of Pragmatics 421: 2889–2897.
Kecskes, Istvan
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.
Kecskes, Istvan
2014Intercultural Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
Milner, Ryan M.
2012 “The world made meme: Discourse and identity in participatory media.” PhD dissertation, University of Kansas.
Milner, Ryan M.
2013 “Hacking the social: Internet memes, identity antagonism, and the logic of lulz.” The Fibreculture Journal 221: 61–92.
Milner, Ryan M.
2016The World Made Meme: Discourse and Identity in Participatory Media. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
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).
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.
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.
Rose, Nick
1998 “Controversies in meme theory.” Journal of Memetics 2(1): 66–76.
2014Memes in Digital Culture. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
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.
Sperber, Dan
1996Explaining Culture: A Naturalistic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Sperber, Dan
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.
Tomasello, Michael
2008Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Varis, Piia, and Jan Blommaert
2015 “Conviviality and collectives on social media: Virality, memes, and new social structures.” Multilingual Margins 2(1): 31–45.
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.
2023. Internet Memes – Funktionen und Motivationen. In Digitale Pragmatik [Digitale Linguistik, 1], ► pp. 153 ff.
Rogozina, I. V. & N. Yu. Buhner
2023. Meme Discourse as an Object of Linguocognitive Modelling. Discourse 9:3 ► pp. 165 ff.
Yus, Francisco
2023. Beyond Humour: Relevant Affective Effects. In Pragmatics of Internet Humour, ► pp. 309 ff.
Yus, Francisco
2023. Meme-Mediated Humorous Communication. In Pragmatics of Internet Humour, ► pp. 245 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 september 2023. 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.