Cover not available
Article published In:
Internet Pragmatics
Vol. 6:1 (2023) ► pp.67–106

“I am a real cat”

French-speaking cats on Twitter as an enregistered variety and community of practice

| Leipzig University

This paper is an exploration of the variety of French-speaking cats on Twitter. Among the many creative phenomena that the internet has produced, animal-related language varieties, the language used by pets, have been explored as early as the 2000s, yet with a strong and almost exclusive focus on English. I first describe the shared repertoire of lexical, semantic, phonographic, and syntactic features used by French-speaking cats, and show how the simultaneous use of a childlike code and a formal register constructs the sociolinguistic persona of cats as ambivalent animals. I argue that the French variety has become “enregistered” (Squires 2010) insofar as it is perceived and ideologically constructed as a variety of its own while promoting a welcoming culture towards new members. In doing so, cats show that the belonging to a community of practice, notably by drawing on a common repertoire of resources, does not need to be linked with processes of exclusion.

Keywords: Twitter, internet variety, enregisterment, community of practice, French, cats, cat-related language varieties, LOLspeak, LOLcat
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Francophone cats online
  • 2.Cat-related language varieties until now
  • 3.Typical features of English-speaking cats
  • 4.Investigating cats online: The corpus
    • 4.1How it all began
    • 4.2Sütterlin Scat Katz: The established member at the core of the community
    • 4.3A structured network of interrelated accounts
    • 4.4Data selection and researcher’s involvement with the online community
  • 5.Constructing an ambivalent sociolinguistic persona: Cats as arrogant yet needy pets
    • 5.1Recurring topics: More than snapshots of the cats’ daily lives
    • 5.2Lexical features: Euphemisms, exaggerations, and wordplays
    • 5.3The semantic field of personal relations: Childlike politeness and obsequiosity
    • 5.4Phonographic features: Between sociolect and language acquisition
    • 5.5Syntactic features: A mix-and-match
  • 6.Constituting a community of practice: Towards the enregisterment of the variety
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 11 July 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00083.tru
References
Asur, Sitaram, Bernardo A. Huberman, Gabor Szabo, and Chunyan Wang
2011 “Trends in social media: Persistence and decay.” Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 51: 434–437. [URL]. DOI logo
Austin, Jessica, and Leslie Irvine
2020 “ ‘A very photogenic cat’: Personhood, social status, and online cat photo sharing.” Anthrozoös 33(3): 441–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berland, Jody
2008 “Cat and mouse: Iconographics of nature and desire.” Cultural Studies 22 (3–4): 431–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blommaert, Jan, and Piia Varis
2015 “Enoughness, accent and light communities: Essays on contemporary identities.” Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies 1391.Google Scholar
Brannon, Brittany
2012 “Writing speech: LOLcats and standardization.” Articulāte 171: 33–41.Google Scholar
Brubaker, Jed R.
2008 “Wants Moar: Visual media’s Use of text in LOLcats and silent film.” Gnovis Journal 8(2): 117–124.Google Scholar
Bury, Beata
2017 “Such LOL: Linguistic variety and identity construction in internet memes.” Neophilological Studies 131: 81–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bury, Beata, and Adam Wojtaszek
2017 “Linguistic Regularities of LOLspeak.” Sino-US English Teaching 14(1): 30–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Calka, Michelle
2010 “I can has community? A case study and reflection on norms and social support in a Lolcat fan group.” In Group Communication: Cases for Analysis, Appreciation and Application, ed. by Laura W. Black, 83–90. Dubuque: Kendall Hunt.Google Scholar
Cook, Guy
2000 Language Play, Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, David
2018 The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language (3rd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dash, Anil
2007 “Cats can has grammar.” [URL]
Fiorentini, Ilaria
2013 “ ‘ZOMG! Dis iz a new language’: The case of Lolspeak.” Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics 19(1): 90–108.Google Scholar
Gauer, Brittany, and Erica J. Benson
2011 “ ‘I can has rules?’ A syntactic analysis of Lolspeak.” Poster presented at Student Research Day, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. [URL] (accessed 20 August 2020).
Gawne, Lauren, and Jill Vaughan
2011 “I can haz language play: The construction of language and identity in LOLspeak.” In Proceedings of the 42nd Australian Linguistic Society Conference, ed. by Maïa Ponsonnet, Loan Dao, and Margit Bowler, 97–122. Canberra: Australian National University Research Repository.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1981 Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Golbeck, Jennifer, and Cody Buntain
2018 “This paper is about lexical propagation on Twitter. H*ckin smart. 12/10. Would accept!” In 2018 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), 587–590. Barcelona: IEEE. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haraway, Donna J.
2003 The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael
2015 Im/Politeness Implicatures. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, Graham M., and Bambi B. Schieffelin
2009 “Talking text and talking back: ‘My BFF Jill’ from Boob Tube to YouTube.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14(4): 1050–1079. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laksono, Daniel P., and Adventina Putranti
2016 “I can haz stail: A language style of LOLcat meme in Icanhas.Cheezburger.Com.” Journal of Language and Literature 16(1): 70–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger
1991 Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lefler, Jordan
2011 “I can has thesis? A linguistic analysis of Lolspeak.” Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College. [URL]
Leppänen, Sirpa
2015 “Dog blogs as Ventriloquism: Authentication of the human voice.” Discourse, Context & Media 81: 63–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maddox, Jessica
2021 “The secret life of pet Instagram accounts: Joy, resistance, and commodification in the Internet’s cute economy.” New Media & Society 23(11): 3332–3348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miltner, Kate
2011 “Srsly phenomenal: An investigation into the appeal of LOLCats.” MA Thesis, London School of Economics and Political Science.
Mondémé, Chloé
2018 “Comment parle-t-on aux animaux ? Formes et effets pragmatiques de l’adresse aux animaux de compagnie.” [How do we talk to animals? Pragmatic forms and effects of addressing pets] Langage et societe [Language and Society] 163(1): 77–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Podhovnik, Edith
2018 “The purrification of English: Meowlogisms in online communities: A qualitative description of a selected #blackcat community on Instagram.” English Today 34(3): 2–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
forthcoming. Purrieties of Language: How We Talk about Our Cats Online. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo
Punske, Jeffrey, and Elizabeth Butler
2019 “Do me a syntax: Doggo memes, language games and the internal structure of English.” Ampersand 61: 1–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosen, Aliza
2010 “Iz in ur meme / aminalizin teh langwich: A linguistic study of LOLcats.” Verge 71: 1–12.Google Scholar
Santos, Eduarda Abrahão de los
2012 “Lolcats and Lolspeak: The importance of the internet culture for English professionals.” BELT – Brazilian English Language Teaching Journal 3(1): 62–76.Google Scholar
Saugera, Valérie
2017 “La fabrique des anglicismes.” [Inventing anglicisms] Travaux de linguistique [Linguistic Work] 75(2): 59–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sherzer, Joel
2002 Speech Play and Verbal Art (1st edn.). Austin: University of Texas Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Squires, Lauren
2010 “Enregistering internet language.” Language in Society 39(4): 457–492. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah
2004 “Talking the dog: Framing pets as interactional resources in family discourse.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 37(4): 399–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Charlotte
2016 Mock Politeness in English and Italian: A Corpus-Assisted Metalanguage Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thibault, André
2008 “Français des Antilles et français d’Amérique : les diatopismes de Joseph Zobel, auteur martiniquais.” [French of the Antilles and French of America: the diatopisms of Joseph Zobel, author from Martinique] RLiR 721: 115–156.Google Scholar
Vajta, Katharina
2012 “Autant en emporte le vin, ou : de l’importance des voyelles nasales.” [ Autant en emporte le vin, or: On the importance of nasal vowels] Moderna språk [Modern Languages] 11: 145–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Velupillai, Viveka
2015 Pidgins, Creoles and Mixed Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wenger, Etienne
1998 Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whitney, Phillips, and Ryan M. Milner
2017 The Ambivalent Internet: Mischief, Oddity, and Antagonism Online. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Wile, Cailin
2020 “The effect of nonstandard language on the perception of cuteness in animal memes.” Kentucky Philogical Review 351: 51–55.Google Scholar
Zappavigna, Michele, and J. R. Martin
2018 “#Communing affiliation: Social tagging as a resource for aligning around values in social media.” Discourse, Context & Media 221: 4–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Leihan, Jichang Zhao, and Ke Xu
2016 “Who creates trends in online social media: The crowd or opinion leaders?” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 21(1): 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar