ПРЕПРИНТ
О результатах, изложенных в препринтах, не следует сообщать в СМИ как о проверенной информации.
Статья посвящена комплексному описанию мемов как медиаремиксов эпохи цифровой постправды и пост-иронии. Особое внимание уделяется меморизации как социальной практике в культуре соучастия. В качестве главного результата предлагается авторское операциональное определение мемов как коммуникативного жанра, а также развернутый «Алгоритм деконструкции мема».
Пономарев Н. Ф. 2024. ОСНОВЫ МЕМОРИСТИКИ. ОПЕРАЦИОНАЛЬНАЯ ДЕФИНИЦИЯ И АЛГОРИТМ ДЕКОНСТРУКЦИИ МЕМА. PREPRINTS.RU. https://doi.org/10.24108/preprints-3113264
1. Adam J-M., Bonhomme M. La argumentation publicitaria. Madrid: Catedra, 2009.
2. Adler-Nissen R., Andersen K., Hansen L. Images, emotions, and international politics: The death of Alan Kurdi // Review of international studies. 2019. Vol. 46 (1). P. 75-95.
3. Allcott H., Gentzkow M. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election // Journal of economic perspectives. 2017. Vol. 31 (2). P. 211-236. doi:10.1257/jep.31.2.211
4. Allen G. Intertextuality. London: Routledge, 2000.
5. Anderson B. Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso, 2006.
6. Aral S., Walker D. Creating social contagion through viral product design: A randomized trial of peer influence in networks // Management science. 2011. Vol. 57 (9). P. 1623-1639.
7. Ashley K., Plesch V. The cultural processes of appropriation // Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies. 2002. Vol. 32 (1). P. 1-15.
8. Attardo S. Linguistic theories of humor. N.Y.: Mouton de Gruyter, 1994.
9. Barton M.H., Stein K.A., Church S.H. The disruptive power of memes: The carnivalesque and Kevin Spacey’s Place in the Weinstein moment // Relevant rhetoric. 2020. Vol. 11. P. 1-21.
10. Baudrillard J. Simulations. N.Y.: Semiotext(e), 1983.
11. Baym G., Shah C. Circulating struggle: The on-line flow of environmental advocacy clips from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report // Information, communication, and society, 2011. P. 1017-1038.
12. Berger J., Milkman K.L. What makes online content viral? // Journal of marketing research. 2012. Vol. 49 (2). P. 192-205. doi:10.1509/jmr.10.0353
13. Berthon P., Pitt L.F. Brands, truthiness and post-fact: Managing brands in a post-rational world // Journal of macromarketing. 2018. Vol. 38 (2). P. 218-227.
14. Best European Fiction / ed. A. Hemon. Dublin: Dalkey Archive Press, 2009.
15. Bolter J.D., Grusin R.R. Remediation: Understanding new media. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1999.
16. Booth P. Playing fans: Negotiating fandom and media in the digital age. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2015.
17. Bulatovic M. The imitation game: The memefication of political discourse // European views. 2019. Vol. 18 (2). P. 250-253. doi: 10.1177/1781685819887691
18. Calixto D. Memes na internet: Entrelacamentos entre educomunicacao, cibercultura e a 'zoeira' de estudantes nas redes sociais. Dissertacao de Mestrado. Sao Paulo: Universidade de Sao Paulo, 2017.
19. Campanelli V. Toward a remix culture: An existential perspective // The Routledge companion to remix studies / ed. E. Navas, O. Gallagher, X. Burrough. N.Y.: Routledge, 2015. P. 68-82.
20. Carrigan T. New apples tempt business // PC User. 27.09.1989.
21. Carter J. Enchanting memes: Memetic politics in the face of technocratic control. Doctor’s Dissertation. University of Nebraska, 2016. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/commstuddiss/40
22. Chagas V., Freire F., Rios D., Magalhaes D. Political memes and the politics of memes: A methodological proposal for content analysis of online political memes // First Monday. 2019. Vol. 24 (2-4). https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/7264/7731
23. Christopher R. The meme is dead, long live the meme // Post memes: Seizing the memes of production / ed. A. Bown, E.D. Bristow. Punctum books, 2019. P. 31-44.
24. Coulson S., Fauconnier G. Fake guns and stone lions: Conceptual blending and privative adjectives // Cognition and function in language / ed. B. Fox, D. Jurafsky, L. Michaelis. Palo Alto: The Center for the Study of Language and Information, 1999. P. 143-158.
25. Csordás T., Horvath D., Mitev A., Markos-Kujbus E. User-generated Internet memes as advertising vehicles: Visual narratives as special consumer information sources and consumer tribe integrators // Commercial communication in the digital age: Information or disinformation? / ed. G. Siegert, M.B. Rimscha, S. Grubenmann. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017. P. 247-266. doi:10.1515/9783110416794-014
26. Dancygier B., Lieven. Internet memes as multimodal constructions // Cognitive linguistics. 2017. Vol. 28 (3). P. 565-598. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2017-0074.
27. Dawkins R. The God Delusion. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2006.
28. Dawkins R. The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976.
29. de Kosnik A. Rogue archives: Digital cultural memory and media fandom. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2016.
30. De Leon F.M.G. The rise of meme culture: Examining the language of memes as a satirical tool to promote socio-political awareness // English Language Studies. 15 December 2017. University of Santo Tomas España, Manila.
31. de Saint Laurent C., Glăveanu V.P., Literat I. Making sense of refugees on social media: Perspective-taking, political imagination, and Internet memes // American behavioral scientist. 2018. Vol. 62 (4). P. 440-457.
32. de Seta G. Digital folklore // Second International Handbook of Internet Research / ed. J. Hunsinger, M. Allen, L. Klastrup. Dordrecht: Springer. 2020. P. 167-183. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1555-1_36
33. Dean J. Sorted for memes and Gifs: Visual media and everyday digital politics // Political studies review. 2019. Vol. 17 (3). P. 255-266. DOI: 10.1177/1478929918807483
34. Deus E.P., Campos R.D., Rocha A.R. Memes as shortcut to consumer culture: A methodological approach to covert collective ideologies // Revista de Administraçao Contemporánea. 2022. Advance online publication. https://doi .org/10.1590/1982-7849rac202221C005
35. Deuze M. Participation, remediation, bricolage: Considering principal components of a digital culture // The Information society. 2006. Vol. 22. P. 63-75.
36. Donovan J. How memes got weaponized: A short history. MIT Technology Review. October 24, 2019. https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/10/24/132228/political-war-memes-disinformation/
37. Duncombe S. Dream: Re-imagining progressive politics in an age of fantasy. N.Y.: New Press, 2007.
38. Fairclough N. Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992.
39. Falconer R. The new polymath (Remixing Knowledge) // The Routledge Companion to Remix Studies / ed. E. Navas, O. Gallagher, X. Burrough. N.Y.: Routledge, 2015. P. 397-408.
40. Falero S.M. Digital participatory culture and the TV audience. Everyone’s a critic. Fullerton: Palgrave McMillan, 2016. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-50000-7
41. Ferrada Stoehrel R., Lindgren S. For the Lulz: Anonymous, aesthetics, and affect // TripleC – communication, capitalism and critique, 2014. Vol. 12 (1). P. 238-264.
42. Ferrari R. Pepe the Frog: Participatory culture, and the sociopolitical significance of memes. College writing: Intensive. 9 December 2016. https://edspace.american.edu/rf5440b/wp-content/uploads/sites/760/2016/09/Memes-paper.pdf
43. Fransen M.L., Smit E.G., Verlegh P.W.J. Strategies and motives for resistance to persuasion: An integrative framework // Frontiers in psychology. 2015. Vol. 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01201
44. Galip I. Methodological and epistemological challenges in meme research and meme studies // Digital technology, culture and society. 2024. Vol. 8 (4). P. 312-330. DOI: 10.1080/24701475.2024.2359846
45. García López F., Martínez Cardama S. Strategies for preserving memes as artefacts of digital culture // Journal of librarianship and information science. 2020. Vol. 52 (3). P. 895-904. doi:10.1177/0961000619882070
46. Gee J.P. Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. N.Y.: Routledge, 2004.
47. Gibson W. God's little toys // Wired. 2005. Vol. 13 (7).
48. Gillespie T. The relevance of algorithms // Media technologies. Essays on communication, materiality, and society / ed. Ed. T. Gillespie, P.J. Boczkowski, K.A. Foot. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2014. P. 167-194.
49. Greenberg C. Avant-garde and kitsch // Partisan review. 1939 (Fall).
50. Hakoköngäs E., Halmesvaara O., Sakki I. Persuasion through bitter humor: Multimodal discourse analysis of rhetoric in internet memes of two far-right groups in Finland // Social Media + Society. 2020. P. 1-11. DOI: 10.1177/2056305120921575
51. Hansen L. How images make world politics: International icons and the case of Abu Ghraib // Review of international studies. 2015. Vol. 41 (2). P. 263-268.
52. Hayden-Roy P.A. On parasitic discourse in Till Eulenspiegel: Can we take it seriously? // Lesarten: New methodologies and old texts / ed. A. Schwarz. Bern: Peter Lang, 1990. P. 79-87.
53. Heiskanen B. Meme-ing electoral participation // European Journal of American Studies. 2017. Vol. 12 (2).
54. Highfield T., Leaver T. Instagrammatics and digital methods: Studying visual social media, from selfies and GIFs to memes and emoji // Communication research and practices. 2016. Vol. 2 (1). P. 47-62. https://doi. org/10.1080/22041451.2016.1155332.
55. Hodge R., Kress G. Social semiotics. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1988.
56. Hoesterey I. Pastiche: Cultural memory in art, film, literature. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001.
57. Horton D., Wohl R.R. Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance // Psychiatry. 1956. Vol. 19 (3). P. 215-229.
58. Howard P.N. Lie machines: How to save democracy from troll armies, deceitful robots, junk news operations, political operatives. Yale University Press, 2020.
59. Hristova S. Visual memes as neutralizers of political dissent //tripleC: Communication Capitalism and Critique. 2014. Vol. 12 (1). P. 265-276. DOI:10.31269/triplec.v12i1.507
60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1421
61. Huntington H. Subversive memes: Internet memes as a form of visual rhetoric // Selected papers of Internet research 14.0, Denver, USA, 2013.
62. Huntington H.E. The affect and effect of internet memes: Assessing perceptions and influence of online user-generated political discourse as media. Doctor Dissertation. Colorado State University, 2017.
63. Hutcheon L. A theory of parody. N.Y.: Methuen, 1985.
64. Hutcheon L. A theory of adaptation. N.Y.: Routledge, 2006.
65. Iedema R. Multimodality, resemiotization: Extending the analysis of discourse as multi-semiotic practice // Visual communication. 2003. Vol. 2 (1). P. 29-57.
66. Illouz E., Gilon D., Shachak M. Emotions and cultural theory // Handbook of the sociology of emotions. Vol. II / ed. J.E. Stets, J.H. Turner. N.Y.: Springer, 2014. P. 221-244.
67. Irwin W. What is an allusion? // Journal of aesthetics and art criticism. 2001. Vol. 59. P. 287-297.
68. Jakobson R. On linguistic aspects of translation // On translation / ed. R. Brower. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959. P. 232-239.
69. Jameson F. Postmodernism and consumer society // The anti-aesthetic: Essays on postmodern culture / ed. H. Foster. Port Townsend Bay Press, 1982. P. 111-125.
70. Jenkins H. Transmedia storytelling 101 // The official weblog of Henry Jenkins. 22 March 2007. http://henryjenkins.org/2007/03/transmedia_storytelling_101.html
71. Jenkins H., Li X., Krauskopf A.D., Green J. If it doesn't spread, it's dead. Creating value in a spreadable marketplace. 2010.
72. Jenkins H., Purushotma R., Weigel M., Clintion K., Robison A.J. Confronting the challenge of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st Century. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2009.
73. Katz Y., Shifman L. Making sense? The structure and meanings of digital memetic nonsense // Information, communication and society. 2017. Vol. 20 (6). P. 825-842. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1291702
74. Katz Y., Shifman L. Making sense? The structure and meanings of digital memetic nonsense // Information, communication and society. 2017. Vol. 20 (6). P. 825-842. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2017.1291702
75. Kennedy G.A. Classical rhetoric and its Christian and secular tradition from ancient to modern times. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1987.
76. Kincheloe J.L. On to the next level: Continuing the conceptualization of the bricolage // Qualitative inquiry. 2005. Vol. 11 (3). P. 323-350.
77. Kingsmith A.T. Why so serious? Framing comedies of recognition and repertoires of tactical frivolity within social movements // A journal for and about social movements. 2016. Vol. 8 (2). P. 286-310.
78. Kristeva J. Word, dialogue, and novel // Desire in language: A semiotic approach to literature and art / ed. L. Roudiez. N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1986. P. 64-91.
79. Kustritz A.M. Seriality and transmediality in the fan multiverse: Flexible and multiple narrative structures in fan fiction, art, and vids // TV/Series. Vol. 6. P. 225-261. https://doi.org/10.4000/tvseries.331
80. Lash S. Sociology of postmodernism. London: Routledge, 1990.
81. Leone M. The art of trolling: Semiotic ingredients, sociocultural causes, and pragmatic effects // Virality and morphogenesis of rightwing Internet populism/ ed. E. Kimminich, J. Erdmann. 2018. N.Y.: Peter Lang. P. 163-178.
82. Levy N. The bad news about fake news // Social epistemology review and reply collective. 2017. Vol. 6 (8). P. 20-36.
83. Lieback H. Truth-telling and trolls: Trolling, political rhetoric in the twenty-first century, and the objectivity norm // Aspeers. 2019. Vol. 12. P. 9-36. DOI: 10.54465/aspeers.12-03
84. Lymarev A. The secret third thing. A pragmatic analysis of post-irony and post-ironic internet memes. Master thesis. University of Oslo, 2023.
85. MacDonald S. What do you (really) meme? Pandemic memes as social political repositories // Leisure sciences. 2020. Vol. 43 (1-2). P. 143-115. DOI: 10.1080/01490400.2020.1773995
86. Manovich L. Remix strategies in social media // The Routledge companion to remix studies / ed. E. Navas, O. Gallaghe., X. Burrough. N.Y.: Routledge, 2015. P. 135-153.
87. Markham A.N. Bricolage // Keywords in remix studies / ed. E. Navas, O. Gallagher, X. Burrough. N.Y.: Routledge, 2018. P. 43-55.
88. Markham A.N. Remix cultures, remix methods: Reframing qualitative inquiry for social media contexts // Global dimensions of qualitative inquiry / ed. N.K. Denzin, M.D. Giardina. Walnut Creek: Routledge Left Coast Press, 2013. P. 63-81.
89. Markowski M. Pragmatics of irony and post-irony in Internet memes. Master’s Thesis. Jagiellonian University, 2022.
90. Marx G.T. Surveillance and society // Encyclopedia of social theory / ed. G. Ritzer. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2004. P. 275-280.
91. McCandless D. Information is beautiful. London: Collins, 2010.
92. McDowell J. How Reality TV fakes it // Time. 6 February 2006.
93. McIntyre L. Post-truth. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2018.
94. McKelvey F., DeJong S., Frenzel J. Memes, scenes and #ELXN2019s: How partisans make memes during elections // New media and society. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211020690
95. Milner R.M. Pop polyvocality: Internet memes, public participation, and the Occupy Wall Street movement // International journal of communication. 2013b. Vol. 7. P. 2357-2390.
96. Morris J. Simulacra in the age of social media: Baudrillard as the Prophet of Fake News // Journal of communication inquiry. 2021. Vol. 45 (4). P. 319-336. DOI: 10.1177/0196859920977154
97. Nagle A. Kill all normies: Online culture wars from 4chan and Tumblr to Trump and the alt-right. John Hunt Publishing, 2017.
98. Nikolajeva M., Scott C. The dynamics of picture book communication // Children’s literature in education. 2000. Vol. 31. P. 225-239.
99. Nissenbaum A., Shifman L. Meme templates as expressive repertoires in a globalizing world: A cross-linguistic study // Journal of computer-mediated communication. 2018. Vol. 23. P. 294-310.
100. Noelle-Neumann E. The spiral of silence: A theory of public opinion // Journal of communication. 1974. Vol. 24 (2). P. 43-51.
101. Norrick N.R. Involvement and joking in conversation // Journal of pragmatics. 1994. Vol. 22. P. 409-430. doi: 10.1016/0378-2166(94)90117-1.
102. Orinx K., Struye de Swielande T. China and cognitive warfare: Why is the West losing? // Cognitive warfare: The future of cognitive dominance / ed. B. Claverie, B. Prébot, N. Beuchler, F. du Cluzel. NATO Collaboration Support Office. 2022. P. 8-1 – 8-7.
103. Palagret C-A. Influence de l'art sur la publicite: Citations et detournements // Art et publicite. 28 Mars 2008. http://palagret.eklablog.com/influence-de-l-art-sur-la-publicite-citations-et-detournements-a114822912
104. Penney J. It's so hard not to be funny in this situation»: Memes and humor in US youth online political expression // Television and new media. 2020. Vol. 21 (8). P. 791-806.
105. Peterson M.A. Performing media: Towards an ethnography of intertextuality // Media anthropology / ed. E. Rothenbuler, M. Coman. London: SAGE Publications, 2005. P. 129-138.
106. Phillips W., Milner R.M. The ambivalent Internet: Mischief, oddity, and antagonism online. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2017.
107. Piata A. Stylistic humor across modalities. The case of classical art memes // Internet pragmatics. 2019. Vol. 3. P. 174-201. https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00031.pia.
108. Porter M.J., Larson D.L., Harthcock A., Nellis K.B. Re(de)fining narrative events: Examining television narrative structure // Journal of popular film and television. 2002. Vol. 30. P. 23-30.
109. Poster C. A Historicist recontextualization of the enthymeme // Rhetoric society quarterly. 1992. Vol. 22 (2). P. 1-24.
110. Prensky M. Digital natives, digital immigrants. Part 1 // On the Horizon. 2001. Vol. 9 (5). P. 1-6. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
111. Prochazka O. Internet memes – A new literacy? // Ostrava Journal of English Philology. 2014. Vol. 6 (1). P. 53-74.
112. Rajewsky I.O. Intermediality, intertextuality, and remediation: A literary perspective on intermediality // Intermédialités. 2005. Vol. 6. P. 43-64.
113. Rochat A. US president 2.0 or how netizens use memes to remix politics: From pre-election discourse to its critique through textual carnivalesque. Thèse de doctorat. University of Lausanne, 2019. http://serval.unil.ch
114. Rogoff I. Studying visual culture // The visual culture reader / ed. N. Mirzoeff. London: Routledge, 1998. P. 14-26.
115. Ross A.S., Rivers D.J. Digital cultures of political participation: Internet memes and the discursive delegitimization of the 2016 U.S. presidential candidates // Discourse, context and media. 2017. Vol. 16. P. 1-11.
116. Sartwell C. Appropriation // Encyclopedia of Aesthetics. Vol. 1 / ed. M. Kelly. N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1998. P. 68-70.
117. Schiele J. Dank memes and visual discourse. Bachelor Thesis. University of Groningen, 2017.
118. Schwartz H. The culture of the copy. N.Y.: Zone, 1996.
119. Searle I.R. Speech acts, mind and social reality // Speech acts, mind and social reality: Discussions with John R. Searle / ed. G. Grewendorf, G. Meggle. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 2002. P. 3-16.
120. Segev E., Nissenbaum A., Stolero N., Shifman L. Families and networks of internet memes: The relationship between cohesiveness, uniqueness, and quiddity concreteness// Journal of computer-mediated communication. 2015. Vol. 20. P. 417-433.
121. Seiffert-Brockmann J., Diehl T., Dobusch L. Memes as games: The evolution of a digital discourse online // New media and society. 2018. Vol. 20 (8). P. 2862-2879. DOI: 10.1177/1461444817735334
122. Shifman L. Memes in digital culture. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2014.
123. Sim S. Retro // The Routledge companion to postmodernism / ed. S. Sim. N.Y.: Routledge, 2005.
124. Singer P.W., Brooking E.T. Like war: The weaponization of social media. Boston: Mariner Books, 2019.
125. Spitzberg B.H. Toward a model of meme diffusion (M3D) // Communication theory. 2014. Vol. 24 (3). P. 311-339. doi:10.1111/comt.12042
126. Stone D.A. Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas // Political science quarterly. 1989. Vol. 104 (2). P. 281-300.
127. Sturken M., Cartwright L. Practices of looking: An introduction to visual culture. N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2001.
128. Suler J.R. The online disinhibition effect // CyberPsychology and behavior. 2004. Vol. 7 (3). P. 321-326.
129. Tay G. Binders full of LOLitics: Political humour, internet memes, and play in the 2012 U.S. presidential election (and beyond) // European journal of humour research. 2014. Vol. 2 (4).
130. Thibault M. Do not talk about anonymous: Censura, autocensura e anonimato nelle periferie del Web // Lexia. 2016. Vol. 21-22. P. 237-254.
131. Torres E.C. The intertextuality of works of art in advertising // Advertising and society review. 2015. Vol. 16 (3). P. 4-12.
132. Tsakona V., Chovanec J. Revisiting intertextuality and humour: Fresh perspectives on a classic topic // The European journal of humour research. 2020. Vol. 8 (3). P. 1-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2020.8.3.
133. Turner M. Conceptual blending and counterfactual argument in the social and behavioral sciences // Counterfactual thought experiments in world politics / ed. P. Tetlock, A. Belkin. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. P. 291-295.
134. Wagener A. Hypernarrativity, storytelling, and the relativity of truth: Digital semiotics of communication and interaction // Postdigital science and education. 2020. Vol. 2 (1). P. 147-169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-019-00066-7
135. Walker R. Political cartoons: Now you see them // Canadian parliamentary review. 2003. Vol. 26 (1). P. 16-21.
136. Waysdorf A.S. Remix in the age of ubiquitous remix // Convergence: The international journal of research into new media technologies. 2021. P. 1-16.
137. White E.B. Preface // A subtreasury of American humor / ed. E.B. White, K.S. White. N.Y.: Coward-McCann, 1941.
138. Wiggins B.E, Bowers G.B. Memes as genre: A structurational analysis of the memescape // New media and society. 2014. Vol. 17 (11): 1886-1906.
139. Wiggins B.E. The discursive power of memes in digital culture. Ideology, semiotics, and intertextuality. N.Y.: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, 2019.
140. Yankoski M., Scheirer W., Weninger T. Meme warfare: AI countermeasures to disinformation should focus on popular, not perfect, fakes // Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 2021. Vol. 77 (3). P. 119-123. DOI: 10.1080/00963402.2021.1912093
141. Yus F. Multimodality in memes: A cyberpragmatic approach // Analyzing digital discourse: New insights and future directions / ed. P. Bou-Franch, P. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich. Palgrave Macmillan, 2019. P. 105-131. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92663-6.
142. Zappavigna M. Discourse of Twitter and social media: How we use language to create affiliation on the Web. London: Bloomsbury, 2012.
143. Барт Р. Удовольствие от текста // Барт Р. Избранные работы: Семиотика. Поэтика. М., 1989. C. 462-518.
144. Бахтин М.М. Вопросы литературы и эстетики. Исследования разных лет. М., 1975.
145. Бахтин М.М. Проблема речевых жанров // Бахтин М.М. Эстетика словесного творчества. М. 1979. С. 237-280.
146. Деникин А.А. К определению термина «партиципация» в контексте современных художественных практик // Наука телевидения. 2018. №14 (1). С. 58-79.
147. Кристева Ю. Текст романа // Кристева Ю. Избранные труды. Разрушение поэтики. М., 2004. C. 395-602.
148. Леви-Строс К. Неприрученная мысль // Леви-Строс К. Первобытное мышление. М. 1999. С. 111-336.
149. Моль А. Художественная футурология. К роли китча и копии в социально-эстетическом развитии // Борев В.Ю., Коваленко А.В. Культура и массовая коммуникация. М., 1986. С. 259-297.
150. Ортега-и-Гассет Х. Восстание масс. М., 2003.
151. Пономарев Н.Ф. Постмодернистские стратегические коммуникации. Постправда. Мемы. Трансмедиа: монография. М., 2020.
152. Шомова С.А. Мем-летописец: репрезентация новостной повестки дня пандемии в меметическом контенте рунета // Мониторинг общественного мнения: экономические и социальные перемены. 2021. № 5. С. 399-424. https:// doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2021.5.1977
153. Шомова С.А. Развлекать и властвовать: образы российской власти и оппозиции в интернет-мемах // Вестн. Моск. ун-та. Сер. 10. Журналистика. 2019. № 3. С. 23-41.
