depending on types of discourse and types of online platforms, which have different affordances giving rise to medium-specific forms and meanings. Although a diverse set of examples is presented and discussed, the focus is mainly on image ‘macro memes’ and ‘labelling’ memes. The discussion on their constructional status and reliance on a particular kind of frame is also applied to a pervasive pattern found in Twitter discourse and not usually considered alongside established Internet memes. The role of frames in the meaning-making mechanisms of memes and Twitter discourse is investigated. The paper not only considers the factors that enable memes to convey their meaning in discourse, but also the tension between the systematicity involved in memetic creativity and the short life span of many memes. Given the nature of the studied multimodal signals, Vandelanotte claims that the apparatus of CxG can be applied to adequately describe these phenomena: even these complex plurisemiotic signals are construction/pattern-based, as constructions represent conventionalized semiotic patterns of diverse modalities. The analysis requires case-by-case evaluation, since some patterns are too fleeting to become entrenched or do not acquire a conventionalized form-meaning stability. As for the discourse nature of memes, the paper argues that the formal aspects of memes signal their memetic nature and constrain discourse expectations: the topics dealt with are relatively light- hearted and the response expected is often humorous. Memes’ belonging to series and families of memes shows they are inherently strongly dialogic, and rely on a broader community of discourse recognizing certain attitudes, beliefs and conventions. However, the discourse sequence of memes is often particularly hard to mark off in time and space, given that while sometimes specific responsive chains or threads can be isolated as ‘meme conversations’, more typically memes continue to resonate in series of exchanges across expanding circles of Internet users, which has to be fed into definitions of discourse constructions. The paper by Sofía Pérez Fernández, Pedro Gras & Frank Brisard, entitled “Semantic polyfunctionality and constructional networks: On insubordinate subjunctive complement constructions in Spanish”, offers an analysis of insubordinate subjunctive complement clauses (ISCs) in three varieties of Spanish (Peninsular, Argentinean and Chilean) and in data from spontaneous conversation, semi-structured spoken data, and spontaneous-interactive written language. From a constructional approach the paper problematizes how to deal with a highly pragmatically specified surface form that expresses diverse meanings. The study explores whether the meanings expressed by these insubordinate constructions are encoded in the construction or can be derived via independently existing principles of pragmatic interpretation. The authors present strong arguments to support their analysis, alongside quantitative data exploring semantic, grammatical, discourse and pragmatic features of ISCs. Fernández et al. propose a twofold classification, distinguishing non-quotative constructions as minor imperative sentence types (wishes, strong and weak directives), and quotative constructions (quotative directive), and model the relation between the different identified constructions by integrating horizontal relations and multimodal links in a traditional inheritance network based on vertical links. The authors claim that quoted directives differ from the other three semantic types, both in terms of their formal behaviour and in terms of their frequency, and they would therefore constitute a subschema of the ‘quotative’ construction. Conversely, the other three semantic types (strong directives, weak directives and wishes) do share the same form and meaning.