Internet meme transformation rules: A view from Peirce’s semiotics

References

1. Bellucci, F. and Burton, J. (2020), ‘Observational advantages and occurrence referentiality’, in A. Pietarinen, P. Chapman, L. Bosveld-de Smet, V. Giardino, J. Corter and S. Linker (eds), Diagrammatic Representation and Inference, 11th International Conference, Diagrams, vol. 12169, Tallinn, Estonia, 24–28 August, Proceedings, Basel: Springer, pp. 202–15.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Bellucci, F. and Pietarinen, A.-V. (2016), ‘Existential graphs as an instrument of logical analysis: Part I. Alpha’, The Review of Symbolic Logic, 9:2, pp. 209–37, https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755020315000362.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Bobrova, A. and Pietarinen, A.-V. (2019), ‘Thoughts, things and logical guidance’, in M. Shafiei and A. V. Pietarinen (eds), Peirce and Husserl: Mutual Insights on Logic, Mathematics and Cognition, Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science, vol. 46, Cham: Springer, pp. 43–58, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25800-9_3.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Cannizzaro, S. (2016), ‘Internet memes as internet signs: A semiotic view of digital culture’, Sign Systems Studies, 44:4, pp. 562–86, https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.2016.44.4.05.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Davison, P. (2012), ‘The language of internet memes’, in M. Mandiberg (ed.), Social Media Reader, New York: New York University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Dawkins, R. (1976), The Selfish Gene, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Dawkins, R. (2006), The God Delusion, Kent: Transworld Publishers.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Edmonds, B. (2005), ‘The revealed poverty of the gene-meme analogy: Why memetics per se has failed to produce substantive results’, Journal of Memetics: Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission, 9:1, http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/2005/vol9/edmonds_b.html. Accessed 10 October 2022.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Fomin, I. (2019), ‘Memes, genes, and signs: Semiotics in the conceptual interface of evolutionary biology and memetics’, Semiotica, 230, pp. 327–40, https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2018-0016.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Goriunova, O. (2014), ‘The force of digital aesthetics: On memes, hacking, and individuation’, The Nordic Journal of Aesthetics, 24:47, pp. 54–75.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Kull, K. (2000), ‘Copy versus translate, meme versus sign: Development of biological textuality’, European Journal for Semiotic Studies, 12:1, pp. 101–20.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Peirce, C. S. (1931–58), The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vols. I–VI (1931–35) (eds C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; vols. VII–VIII (1958) (ed. A. W. Burks), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Perelman, C. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1971), The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Pietarinen, A.-V. (2005), ‘Cultivating habits of reason: Peirce and the logica utens versus logica docens distinction’, History of Philosophy Quarterly, 22:4, pp. 357–72.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Pietarinen, A.-V. (2015), ‘Recent studies on signs: Commentary and perspectives’, Sign Systems Studies, 43:4, pp. 616–50, https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.2015.43.4.15.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Shifman, L. (2014), ‘The cultural logic of photo-based meme genres’, Journal of Visual Culture, 13:3, pp. 340–58, https://doi.org/10.1177/1470412914546577.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Sperber, D. (2000), ‘An objection to the memetic approach to culture’, in R. Aunger (ed.), Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 163–73.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Stjernfelt, F. (2014), Natural Propositions: The Actuality of Peirce’s Doctrine of Dicisigns, Boston, MA: Docent Press.
    [Google Scholar]