This chapter first considers some correlations between memetic constructions and select figurative meanings, showing how our approach differs from existing multimodal metaphor approaches. As a case in point, the chapter presents an analysis of when-memes as relying on similative patterns of meaning, and also extends this discussion to include the family of If 2020 Was X memes.

This chapter turns to memetic experimentation. Meme blends, meta-memes, or cases of ‘memeception’ (or recursivity in memes) all manipulate aspects of form to create new meaning effects. Antimemes, on the other hand, do not alter the form, but change the viewpoint structure and so, the meaning. Some memes, finally, appear to enjoy memetic form for form’s sake, and border on art forms; the so-called Loss meme is our main example here.

This chapter considers the use of pronouns, and how they relate to such roles as Meme Maker, Meme Character (depicted in a meme’s image), and Meme Viewer (i.e. the ‘reader’ of a given meme). One illustration of how odd pronouns actually behave in memes is to consider the use of I, which does not refer to the Meme Maker, but is used to represent embedded discourses attributed to a depicted Meme Character. Just as curious is the use of me, in patterns such as Me Verb-ing, or Me/Also Me, which apparently instruct us to look for Meme Maker in the meme’s image, which in fact shows an unrelated Meme Character (possibly non-human, like an animal), such that the depicted character represents the experience of the Meme Maker. Such examples show that deixis is used in unusual ways in memetic discourse, to support the expression of viewpoint and stance targeted in the meme, rather than to identify specific referents.

This chapter considers more platform-specific forms, exploiting possibilities such as the ready integration of emoji on X/Twitter or the integration with audio and video on TikTok. We focus on the expression of emotional meanings and stance, and also pay attention to the co-construction of memetic discourse by multiple discourse participants in online exchanges. Overall, we suggest that the easy transfer across platforms and modes reveals a kind of memetic mindset in which discourse takes shape online, even where this does not necessarily involve fully formed or identifiable memes in a strict sense.

This chapter expands the discussion of memetic quotation to cases, including cases of what we call ‘dialogue labelling’, which do not feature explicit reporting verbs, but rely on depiction of interlocutors, interpretation of embodied behaviour, and sometimes quotation marks to signal the embedded Discourse Spaces, and viewpoints exchanged, in them. We include both one-off dialogue labelling examples and Image Macro memes (such as Anakin and Padmé) in our analysis. We also analyse a range of discourse patterns building on the basic Me/Also Me pattern, and round off with the Repeat after Me meme.

This chapter ties together the various strands of the book, and reflects on the emerging grammar of memes. We revisit some of the questions first asked in the opening chapter, about why linguists should study memes, or how the specific kind of multimodality in the memes we studied differs from other multimodal genres, and we think through the way the space of a meme is used in the types of memes we studied. Finally, we summarize why we think memes are an important object of study.

This chapter turns to labelling memes, where some images may develop into full-blown Image Macros, while others remain non-entrenched. Here, the textual component is different from both when-memes and from the typical Image Macro memes. In typical labelling memes, parts of a depicted scene are labelled with words or phrases which do not describe anything in the image, but instead collectively call up a different frame. Well-known examples discussed include the Is This a Pigeon? meme, and the Distracted Boyfriend meme (DBM), showing a man turning over to admire an attractive passing woman (dressed in red), while the woman (in blue) whose hand he’s holding looks on indignantly. This scene of a change in attention and preference – a choice for a new and attractive opportunity – gets to be applied to unrelated choices and new preferences. Labelling itself can sometimes be visual again. Overall, we stress the constructional properties of DBM – with strong argument structure-like properties – alongside the role of embodied features (emotions and attentions expressed in facial expressions and posture) and the figurative, similative meaning often arrived at compositionally.

This chapters reflects on the economy of expression required in memes, which encourages Meme Makers to incorporate fictive Discourse Spaces to metonymically call up experiences. It surveys cases of memetic quotation in cases that are close to recognizable existing linguistic constructions involving verbs such as say, tell and be like, but adding further constructional specifications in their memetic applications, thereby yielding very specific meanings. Forms analysed include Said No One Ever, It’ll Be Fun They Said, And Then He Said X, What If I Told You and Be Like; the latter in particular sometimes combines with very complex content being ‘quoted’ or demonstrated, as the chapter illustrates.

This chapter consider advertising strategies based on, or inspired by, meme genres. Our most interesting examples don’t so much directly borrow a fully-formed, recognizable meme to reuse it in an ad (though this, too, is sometimes done). Instead, really successful memetically inspired ads partly borrow from existing meme codes, such as when-memes or the ‘Sections of’ meme, and adapt these creatively to suit the persuasive goals identified. This suggests that aspects of the grammar of memes are affecting other forms of communication.

This chapter introduces the distinction between entrenched images or Image Macros (IMs) and Non-Entrenched Images (NEIs), and focuses most of its discussion on examples involving IMs that feature the characteristic ‘Top Text’ (TT) and ‘Bottom Text’ (BT), such as the One Does Not Simply and Good Girl Gina memes (ODNS and GGG). It shows how these IM memes allow Meme Makers to categorize experiences very quickly, efficiently and (if successful) humorously, adding further examples to such categories as ‘futile undertakings that are impossible to achieve’ (ODNS) or ‘virtuous behaviour of highly considerate women’ (GGG), thanks in large part to the frames evoked visually. It also discusses aspects of the construction grammar approach to language, as applicable to these meme constructions, including specific constructional properties of GGG memes and the constructional networks they fit into.