Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-br6xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-01T10:56:31.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 September 2025

Barbara Dancygier  and
Lieven Vandelanotte
Barbara Dancygier
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia, Vancouver
Lieven Vandelanotte
Affiliation:
University of Namur, Belgium
Get access

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
The Language of Memes
Patterns of Meaning Across Image and Text
 , pp. 234 - 242
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Antonopoulou, Eleni & Nikiforidou, Kiki. 2009. Deconstructing verbal humour with Construction Grammar. In Brône, Geert & Vandaele, Jeroen (eds.), Cognitive Poetics: Goals, Gains and Gaps, 289–314. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antonopoulou, Eleni & Nikiforidou, Kiki. 2011. Construction grammar and conventional discourse: A construction-based approach to discoursal incongruity. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 2594–2609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, Nicholas. 2000. Truth conditional discourse semantics for parentheticals. Journal of Semantics 17: 31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Attardo, Salvatore. 1994. Linguistic Theories of Humour. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Attardo, Salvatore. 2023. Humor 2.0: How the Internet Changed Humor. London: Anthem Press.Google Scholar
Barclay, Katie & Downing, Leanne. 2023. Memes, History and Emotional Life (Cambridge Elements in the Histories of Emotions and the Senses). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, Lisa Feldman. 2017. How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
Bateman, John A. 2008. Multimodality and Genre: A Foundation for the Systematic Analysis of Multimodal Documents. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, John A. 2014. Text and Image: A Critical Introduction to the Visual/Verbal Divide. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackmore, Susan. 1999. The Meme Machine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brideau, Kate & Berrett, Charles. 2014. A brief introduction to Impact: ‘The meme font’. Journal of Visual Culture 13(3): 307–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brône, Geert. 2008. Hyper- and misunderstanding in interactional humor. Journal of Pragmatics 40(12): 2027–2061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2014. Quotatives: New Trends and Sociolinguistic Implications. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bülow, Lars, Merten, Marie-Luis & Johann, Michael. 2018. Internet-Memes als Zugang zu multimodalen Konstruktionen. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik 69: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 2016. Depicting as a method of communication. Psychological Review 123(3): 324–347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, Herbert H. & Gerrig, Richard J.. 1990. Quotations as demonstrations. Language 66(4): 764–805.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris & Branigan, Philip. 1997. Quotative inversion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulson, Seana. 2001. Semantic Leaps: Frame-Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cukor-Avila, Patricia. 2002. She say, she go, she be like: Verbs of quotation over time in African American vernacular English. American Speech 77(1): 3–31.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara. 1998. Conditionals and Prediction: Time, Knowledge and Causation in Conditional Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara. 2004. Identity and perspective: The Jekyll-and-Hyde effect in narrative discourse. In Achard, Michel & Kemmer, Suzanne (eds.), Language, Culture, and Mind, 363–76. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara. 2005. Blending and narrative viewpoint: Jonathan Raban’s travels through mental spaces. Language and Literature 14(2): 99–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara. 2009. Genitives and proper names in constructional blends. In Evans, Vyvyan & Pourcel, Stéphanie (eds.), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, 161–184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara. 2011. Modification and constructional blends in the use of proper names. Constructions and Frames 3(2): 208–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara. 2012a. The Language of Stories: A Cognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara. 2012b. Negation, stance verbs, and intersubjectivity. In Barbara Dancygier & Eve Sweetser (eds.), Viewpoint in Language: A Multimodal Perspective, 69–93. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara (ed.). 2017. The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara. 2021. Fictive deixis, direct discourse, and viewpoint networks. Frontiers in Communication 6: 624334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara & Sweetser, Eve. 2005. Mental Spaces in Grammar: Conditional Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara & Sweetser, Eve (eds.). 2012. Viewpoint in Language: A Multimodal Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara & Sweetser, Eve. 2014. Figurative Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara & Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2009. Judging distances: Mental spaces, distance, and viewpoint in literary discourse. In Brône, Geert & Vandaele, Jeroen (eds.), Cognitive Poetics: Goals, Gains and Gaps, 319–369. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara & Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2016. Discourse viewpoint as network. In Dancygier, Barbara, Lu, Wei-lun & Verhagen, Arie (eds.), Viewpoint and the Fabric of Meaning: Form and Use of Viewpoint Tools across Language and Modalities, 13–40. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara & Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2017a. Viewpoint phenomena in multimodal communication. Cognitive Linguistics 28(3): 371–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara & Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2017b. Internet memes as multimodal constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 28(3): 565–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara & Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2017c. Reappraising ‘snowclones’: Replicability and Construction Grammar. Paper presented at the 14th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, University of Tartu, Estonia.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara & Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2025. Embodiment and simulated interaction in online stance expression. Frontiers in Psychology 15: 1479825.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2017. Discourse-Pragmatic Variation in Context: Eight hundred years of LIKE. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, Richard. 1976. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, Eirian C. 1979. On the Semantics of Syntax: Mood and Condition in English. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2016–. Corpus of News on the Web (NOW). Available online at www.english-corpora.org/now/.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat & Reed, Susan. 2001. Conditionals: A Comprehensive Empirical Analysis. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehé, Nicole & Kavalova, Yordanka. 2007. Parentheticals: An introduction. In Dehé, Nicole & Kavalova, Yordanka (eds.), Parentheticals, 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denisova, Anastasia. 2019. Internet Memes and Society: Social, Cultural, and Political Contexts. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2007. The stance triangle. In Englebretson, Robert (ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El Refaie, Elisabeth. 2013. Cross-modal resonances in creative multimodal metaphors: Breaking out of conceptual prisons. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 11(2): 236–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El Refaie, Elisabeth. 2019. Visual Metaphor and Embodiment in Graphic Illness Narratives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan. 2017. The Emoji Code: How Smiley Faces, Love Hearts and Thumbs Up are Changing the Way We Communicate. London: Michael O’Mara Books.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1994 [1985]. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles & Turner, Mark. 1996. Blending as a central process of grammar. In Goldberg, Adele (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language, 113–130. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles & Turner, Mark. 1998. Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science 22(2): 133–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles & Turner, Mark. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Feyaerts, Kurt, Brône, Geert & Oben, Bert. 2017. Multimodality in interaction. In Barbara Dancygier (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 135–156. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di semantica 6(2): 222–253.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1988. The mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: 35–55.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul & Catherine O’Connor, Mary. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3): 501–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fludernik, Monika. 1993. The Fictions of Language and the Languages of Fiction: The Linguistic Representation of Speech and Consciousness. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Forceville, Charles. 1996. Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forceville, Charles. 2008. Metaphor in pictures and multimodal representations. In Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, 462–482. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forceville, Charles. 2009. Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for research. In Charles Forceville & Eduardo Urios-Aparisi (eds.), Multimodal Metaphor, 19–44. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forceville, Charles. 2013. Creative visual duality in comics balloons. In Veale, Tony, Feyaerts, Kurt & Forceville, Charles (eds.), Creativity and the Agile Mind: A Multi-Disciplinary Study of a Multi-Faceted Phenomenon, 253–274. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forceville, Charles. 2020. Visual and Multimodal Communication: Applying the Relevance Principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Forceville, Charles & Urios-Aparisi, Eduardo (eds.). 2009. Multimodal Metaphor. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forceville, Charles, Hekkert, Paul & Tan, Ed. 2006. The adaptive value of metaphors. In Klein, Uta, Mellmann, Katja & Metzger, Steffanie (eds.), Heuristiken der Literaturwissenschaft: Disziplinexterne Perspektiven auf Literatur, 85–109. Paderborn: Mentis.Google Scholar
Fox, Sue. 2012. Performed narrative: The pragmatic function of this is + speaker and other quotatives in London adolescent speech. In Buchstaller, Isabelle & van Alphen, Ingrid (eds.), Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and Cross-disciplinary Perspectives, 231–257. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 1997. Diachronic Prototype Semantics: A Contribution to Historical Lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2019. Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia M. 1980. Some wherefores of English inversions. Language 56: 582–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, Jacqueline Hirsh & Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2024. POV: me, an empath, sensing the linguistic urge … to study the forms and functions of text-memes. English Today 40(2): 97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, John. 2013. The rise of bounding asterisks in lieu of italicization for styling text. Daring Fireball (online blog), 6 February 2013. https://daringfireball.net/2013/02/bounding_asterisksGoogle Scholar
Harding, Jennifer Riddle. 2017. Similes, Puns, and Counterfactuals in Literary Narrative. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, Christopher. 2025. Language, Image, Gesture: The Cognitive Semiotics of Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartman, Jenny. 2019. Conditionals in therapy and counseling sessions: Therapists’ and clients’ uses of what if-constructions. Journal of Pragmatics 140: 112–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Stefan & Ungerer, Tobias. 2024. Attack of the snowclones: A corpus-based analysis of extravagant formulaic patterns. Journal of Linguistics 60(3): 599–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37(6): 1043–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, Marc D., Chomsky, Noam & Tecumseh Fitch, W.. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298: 1569–1579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herring, Susan C. 2022. Grammar and electronic communication. (1st ed., 2013) In Carol A. Chapelle (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (online). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0466.pub2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2017a. From constructions to Construction Grammars. In Barbara Dancygier (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 284–309. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2017b. Construction Grammars. In Barbara Dancygier (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 310–329. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2019. English Comparative Correlatives: Diachronic and Synchronic Variation at the Lexicon-Syntax Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hui-Chieh, Hsu, Brône, Geert & Feyaerts, Kurt. 2021. When gesture ‘takes over’: Speech-embedded nonverbal depictions in multimodal interaction. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 552533.Google Scholar
Huntington, Heidi E. 2016. Pepper spray cop and the American dream: Using synecdoche and metaphor to unlock Internet memes’ visual political rhetoric. Communication Studies 67(1): 77–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iser, Wolfgang. 1972. Der implizite Leser: Kommunikations formen des Romans von Bunyan bis Beckett. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.Google Scholar
Israel, Michael, Riddle Harding, Jennifer & Tobin, Vera. 2004. On simile. In Achard, Michel & Kemmer, Suzanne (eds.), Language, Culture, and Mind, 123–135. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Eric S. 2014. The modes of visual rhetoric: Circulating memes as expressions. Quarterly Journal of Speech 100(4): 442–466.Google Scholar
Jewitt, Carey (ed.). 2014. The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Johann, Michael & Bülow, Lars. 2019. One does not simply create a meme: Conditions for the diffusion of Internet memes. International Journal of Communication 13: 1720–1742.Google Scholar
Kang, Ji-in, Hanbeom Jung, A Young Kwon & Kwon, Iksoo. 2023. Meaning extensions of internet memes: A case study of the ‘If 2020 was a(n) X’ meme. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 21(1): 178–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kress, Gunther. 2010. Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kress, Gunther & van Leeuwen, Theo. 2001. Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larkin, Philip. 2012. The Complete Poems. Edited by Burnett, Archie. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Lee, David. 2001. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lou, Adrian. 2017. Multimodal simile: The ‘when’ meme in social media discourse. English Text Construction 10(1): 106–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lou, Adrian. 2021. Multimodal Similes: Toward a Cognitve Understanding of Similative Meaning. PhD dissertation, The University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Lugea, Jane. 2013. Embedded dialogue and dreams: The worlds and accessibility relations of Inception. Language and Literature 22(2): 133–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGregor, William B. 1994. The grammar of reported speech and thought in Gooniyandi. Australian Journal of Linguistics 14(1): 63–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGregor, William B. 1997. Semiotic Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathis, Terrie & Yule, George. 1994. Zero quotatives. Discourse Processes 18: 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matlock, Teenie. 2004. Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory and Cognition 32: 1389–1400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCrae, James. 2017. Meme marketing: How brands are speaking a new consumer language. Forbes Communications Council, 8 May 2017. Online at www.forbes.com/sites/forbescommunicationscouncil/2017/05/08/meme-marketing-how-brands-are-speaking-a-new-consumer-language/.Google Scholar
Milner, Ryan M. 2013. Pop polyvocality: Internet memes, public participation, and the Occupy Wall Street movement. International Journal of Communication 7: 2357–2390.Google Scholar
Milner, Ryan M. 2016. The World Made Meme: Public Conversations and Participatory Media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Miltner, Kate M. & Highfield, Tim. 2017. Never gonna GIF you up: Analyzing the cultural significance of the animated GIF. Social Media + Society 3(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117725223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moder, Carol. 2008. It’s like making a soup: Metaphors and similes in spoken news discourse. In Tyler, Andrea, Kim, Yiyoung & Takada, Mari (eds.), Language in the Context of Use: Cognitive Approaches to Language and Language Learning, 301–320. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Colette. 2011. Quoting Speech in Early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nørgaard, Nina. 2019. Multimodal Stylistics of the Novel: More Than Words. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Partington, Alan. 2006. The Linguistics of Laughter: A Corpus-Assisted Study of Laughter-Talk. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pascual, Esther. 2002. Imaginary Trialogues: Conceptual Blending and Fictive Interaction in Criminal Courts. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Pascual, Esther. 2014. Fictive Interaction: The Conversation Frame in Thought, Language, and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pascual, Esther & Sandler, Sergeiy (eds.). 2016. The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paz, María Antonia, Mayagoitia-Soria, Ana & González-Aguilar, Juan-Manuel. 2021. From polarization to hate: Portrait of the Spanish political meme. Socia Media + Society 7(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211062920Google Scholar
Pérez-Sobrino, Paula. 2017. Multimodal Metaphor and Metonymy in Advertising. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Sobrino, Paula, Littlemore, Jeannette & Ford, Samantha. 2021. Unpacking Creativity: The Power of Figurative Communication in Advertising. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piata, Anna. 2020. Stylistic humor across modalities: The case of Classical Art Memes. Internet Pragmatics 3(2): 174–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podhovnik, Edith. 2023. Purrieties of Language: How We Talk about Cats Online. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2004. Snowclones: Lexicographical dating to the second. Language Log. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000350.htmlGoogle Scholar
Reddy, Michael J. 1979. The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In Ortony, Antony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 284–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1975. Whose main clause? (Point of view in sentences with parentheticals). In Kuno, Susumu (ed.), Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics 1, 127–171. Cambridge, MA: Dept. of Linguistics, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Rohrer, Tim. 2005. Mimesis, artistic inspiration and the blends we live by. Journal of Pragmatics 37(10): 1686–1716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology 104: 192–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, Andrew S. & Rivers, Damian J.. 2017. Internet memes as polyvocal political participation. In Schill, Dan & Hendricks, John Allen (eds.), The Presidency and Social Media: Discourse, Disruption and Digital Democracy in the 2016 Presidential Election, 285–308. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef & Michaelis, Laura A.. 2010. A constructional account of genre-based argument omissions. Constructions and Frames 2(2): 158–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seargeant, Philip. 2019. The Emoji Revolution: How Technology is Shaping the Future of Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semino, Elena. 2010a. Unrealistic scenarios, metaphorical blends and rhetorical strategies across genres. English Text Construction 3(2): 250–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semino, Elena. 2010b. Descriptions of pain, metaphor and embodied simulation. Metaphor and Symbol 25(4): 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shifman, Limor. 2012. An anatomy of a YouTube meme. New Media & Society 14(2): 187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shifman, Limor. 2013. Memes in a digital world: Reconciling with a conceptual troublemaker. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 18: 362–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shifman, Limor. 2014. Memes in Digital Culture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Naomi & Copland, Simon. 2021. Memetic moments: The speed of Twitter memes. Journal of Digital Social Research 4(1): 23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 1981. Irony and the use-mention distinction. In Cole, Peter (ed.), Radical Pragmatics, 295–318. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 1st ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spreadbury, Ash L. 2022. X they said Y they said as a sarcastic multi-sentential construction. In Yamanashi, Masa-aki (ed.), Studies in Cognitive Linguistics 16, 137–166. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Stirling, Lesley & Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Deixis and anaphora. In Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey, K. Pullum (eds.), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, 1449–1564. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stöckl, Hartmut, Caple, Helen & Pflaeging, Jana (eds.) 2020. Shifts toward Image-Centricity in Contemporary Multimodal Practices. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1996. Fictive motion in language and ‘ception’. In Bloom, Paul, Peterson, Mary A., Nadel, Lynn & Merrill, F. Garrett (eds.), Language and Space, 211–276. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1989. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2003. Linguistic Categorization. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. ‘Object complements’ and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26(1): 125–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Mulac, Anthony. 1991. The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tobin, Vera & Israel, Michael. 2012. Irony as a viewpoint phenomenon. In Barbara Dancygier & Eve Sweetser (eds.), Viewpoint in Language: A Multimodal Perspective, 25–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urmson, James O. 1952. Parenthetical verbs. Mind 61: 480–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2002. But forced to qualify. Distancing speech and thought representation as a symptom of uninformedness in Larkin. Leuvense Bijdragen (Leuven Contributions in Linguistics and Philology) 91(3–4): 383–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2006. Speech or thought representation and subjectification, or on the need to think twice. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 20: 137–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2009. Speech and Thought Representation in English: A Cognitive-functional Approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2010. Is the echo question a type of reported speech? In Cappelle, Bert & Wada, Naoaki (eds.), Distinctions in English Grammar Offered to Renaat Declerck, 338–355. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2012. Quotative go and be like: Grammar and grammaticalization. In Buchstaller, Isabelle & van Alphen, Ingrid (eds.), Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and Cross-disciplinary Perspectives, 173–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2017. Viewpoint. In Barbara Dancygier (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 157–171. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2019. Changing perspectives: Something old, something new. Pragmatics 29(2): 170–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2020. (Non-)quoting and subjectivity in online discourse. E-rea 17(2): online. https://doi.org/10.4000/erea.9782Google Scholar
Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2021. Creative constructs, constructions, and frames in Internet discourse. Constructions and Frames 13(1): 160–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandelanotte, Lieven & Davidse, Kristin. 2009. The emergence and structure of be like and related quotatives: A constructional account. Cognitive Linguistics 20(4): 777–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, Arie. 2005. Constructions of Intersubjectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie. 2019. Grammaticale stilistiek en stilistische grammatica. Varianten van redeweergave in het Nederlands. Nederlandse Taalkunde 24(1): 83–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Roncador, Manfred. 1988. Zwischen direkter und indirekter Rede: Nichtwörtliche direkte Rede, erlebte Rede, logophorische Konstruktionen und Verwandtes. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Aidan. 2023. How to read a meme: Context, agency and knowledge in Distracted Boyfriend. MA thesis, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Wiggins, Bradley E. 2019. The Discursive Power of Memes in Digital Culture: Ideology, Semiotics, and Intertextuality. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiggins, Bradley E. & Bret Bowers, G.. 2015. Memes as genre: A structurational analysis of the memescape. New Media & Society 17(11): 1886–1906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wikström, Peter. 2019. Acting out on Twitter: Affordances for animating reported speech in written computer-mediated communication. Text & Talk 39(1): 121–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winston, Elizabeth A. 1995. Spatial mapping in comparative discourse frames. In Emmorey, Karen & Judy, S. Reilly (eds.), Language, Gesture and Space, 87–114. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Xie, Chaoqun (ed.). 2022. The Pragmatics of Internet Memes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yus, Francisco. 2011. Cyperpragmatics: Internet-Mediated Communication in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yus, Francisco. 2018. Identity-related issues in meme communication. Internet Pragmatics 1(1): 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zappavigna, Michele. 2018. Searchable Talk: Hashtags and Social Media Metadiscourse. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Zappavigna, Michele. 2019. ‘And then he said… No one has more respect for women than I do’: Intermodal relations and intersubjectivity in image macros. In Hartmut Stöckl, Helen Caple & Jana Pflaeging (eds.), Shifts toward Image-Centricity in Contemporary Multimodal Practices, 204–225. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zappavigna, Michele & Logi, Lorenzo. 2024. Emoji and Social Media Paralanguage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zenner, Eline & Geeraerts, Dirk. 2018. One does not simply process memes: Image macros as multimodal constructions. In Winter-Froemel, Esme & Thaler, Verena (eds.), Cultures and Traditions of Wordplay and Wordplay Research, 167–193. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmer, Ben. 2013. The cyberpragmatics of bounding asterisks. Language Log (online blog), 7 February 2013. https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4466Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA

The PDF of this book complies with version 2.1 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved user experiences and achieves the intermediate (AA) level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge-org.demo.remotlog.com is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Barbara Dancygier, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Lieven Vandelanotte, University of Namur, Belgium
  • Book: The Language of Memes
  • Online publication: 12 September 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108950855.013
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Barbara Dancygier, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Lieven Vandelanotte, University of Namur, Belgium
  • Book: The Language of Memes
  • Online publication: 12 September 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108950855.013
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Barbara Dancygier, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Lieven Vandelanotte, University of Namur, Belgium
  • Book: The Language of Memes
  • Online publication: 12 September 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108950855.013
Available formats
×