Advertisement

Who Run the World? Cats: Cat Lovers, Cat Memes, and Cat Languages Across the Web

  • Mattia Thibault
  • Gabriele Marino
Article

Abstract

The paper provides an overview of the macro-isotopy “cat”, a totemic figure disputed between the elitist and often-esoteric subculture related to the origins of Internet and the standardized mass culture permeating social media. Due to its features, “cat” is a cultural unit which is easy to anthropomorphize and iconize, according to a variety of textual practices, including so-called Internet memes (lolcats) and one of the most interesting examples of sign proliferation to date: the creation of a whole new language (lolspeak) based upon systemic misspellings and mistakes.

Keywords

Cats Internet memes Lolspeak Semiotics Transtextuality 

References

  1. 1.
    Auerbach, David. 2012. Anonymity as Culture: Treatise. Triple Canopy 15. https://www.canopycanopycanopy.com/contents/anonymity_as_culture__treatise. Accessed 9 Feb 2012.
  2. 2.
    Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1965. Tvorčestvo Fransua Rable i narodnaja kul’tura Srednevekov’ja i Renessansa. Moskva: Chudožestvennaja literatura.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bastide, Françoise, and Paolo Fabbri. 1984. Lebende Detektoren und komplementäre Zeichen: Katzen, Augen und Sirenen. Zeitschrift für Semiotik 6(3): 257–264.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bateson, Gregory. 1956. The message ‘This is play’. In Group processes: Transactions of the second conference, ed. Bertram Schaffner, 145–242. New York: Josiah Macy Foundation.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Castells, Manule. 2001. The Internet Galaxy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Crystal, David. 2006. Language and the Internet. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eckert, Penelope. 2006. Communities of practice. In Enyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. Keith Brown, 683–685. Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eco, Umberto. 1975. Trattato di semiotica generale. Milano: Bompiani.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eco, Umberto. 1979. Lector in fabula. Milano: Bompiani.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eugeni, Ruggero. 2015. La condizione postmediale: media, linguaggi e narrazioni. Brescia: La Scuola.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fink, Eugen. 1957. Zur ontologischen Frühgeschichte von Raum–Zeit–Bewegung. Den Haag: M. Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Finocchi, Riccardo (ed.). 2016. Carte Semiotiche annali 3: Strategie dell’ironia nel Web. La Casa Usher: Lucca.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fiorentini, Ilaria. 2013. Zomg! Dis Iz a New Language: The Case of Lolspeak. Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics 19.1: 90–108. http://www.ncl.ac.uk/linguistics/assets/documents/5.Fiorentini_NWPL.pdf. Accessed 4 Dec 2013.
  14. 14.
    Fiorentini, Ilaria. 2015. Le lingue del LOL: scritture ludiche di varietà non standard in rete. In Elaborazione ortografica delle varietà non standard: esperienze spontanee in Italia e all’estero, ed. Silvia Dal Negro, Federica Guerini, and Gabriele Iannàccaro, 159–179. Bergamo: Bergamo University Press.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gee, James Paul. 2003. What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Genette, Gérard. 1982. Palimpsests: Literature in the second degree. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Herring, Susan C. 2012. Special internet language varieties: Culture, creativity, and language change. Paper presented at the workshop LETiSS-Languages go web: Standard and nonstandard languages on the Internet. Pavia, 4–5 April 2012.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jenkins, Henry, Sam Ford, and Joshua Green. 2013. Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Landowski, Eric. 2012. Régimes de sens et styles de vie. Actes Sémiotiques 115. http://epublications.unilim.fr/revues/as/2647. Accessed 16 Feb 2012.
  20. 20.
    Lotman, Juri. 1992. La semiosfera: l’asimmetria e il dialogo nelle strutture pensanti. Venezia: Marsilio.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marino, Gabriele. 2015. Semiotics of spreadability: A systematic approach to Internet memes and virality. Punctum 1: 43–66.  https://doi.org/10.18680/hss.2015.0004.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mazzucchelli, Francesco. 2016. Flamewar, shitstorm e altre catastrofi: litigare ai tempi del social web. In Nuove forme d’interazione: dal Web al Mobile, eds. Guido Ferraro and Anna Maria Lorusso, 117–139. Tricase (LE): Libellula Edizioni.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shifman, Limor. 2013. Memes in Digital Culture. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thibault, Mattia. 2016. Do not talk about anonymous: Censura, autocensura e anonimato nelle periferie del Web. Lexia 21–22: 237–254.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Thibault, Mattia. 2017. Untag yourself: Opacità e trasparenze negli stili di vita online. Carte Semiotiche annali 4: 103–118.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Volli, Ugo. 2005. Le spazialità di Internet. In Laboratorio di semiotica, 37–67. Roma-Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zittrain, Jonathan. 2008. The Future of the Internet. And How to Stop It. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Filosofia e Scienze dell’Educazione (DFE)Università degli Studi di TorinoTurinItaly
  2. 2.CIRCe-Interdepartmental Centre for Research on CommunicationUniversity of TurinTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations