I don’t claim to know a lot about “memes” other than the definition. I have not, for example, read Dawkins’ original exposition. So it is possible, nay likely that I am not using the word correctly. And to tell you the truth, my using the term was intended to suggest affectation (as was my using the word “whence” – right up there with the word “whom” in connoting, “lookit me usin’ fancy words! hyuk!”).
But yes, I would have thought that any language of unit is a “meme”. In fact the way I first read about the term was in a linguistic and cultural context (though I don’t remember exactly where so I can’t give a cite). Words change meaning over time; words affect how people think and act; how people think and act affect what they say. This “evolution” of language and culture can be considered to have underlying units of transmission, “memes”, analogous to how genes are the mechanism for evolution.
A word like “cow” may be so core as to not count as having any particular connotation, but a “colloquialism” like a slang phrase surely does – we repeat these phrases without thinking of what they mean, and when we stop to think about it, can’t explain why they are what they are. And it’s definitely cultural – native English speakers from England or Australia, for example, may never have heard of the phrase at all, it sounds distinctly American to me. So isn’t that exactly what a meme is? Something that’s getting culturally passed around with non-literal meanings?
BTW, I just tabbed over to begin reading the Wikipedia article on the topic “meme”, and Richard Dawkins himself is quoted in the very first line as saying (bolding mine): Examples of memes are tunes, catch-phrases, beliefs, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches.. And hey, it also comments that “The idea of memes has proved a successful meme in its own right…” Which I also said, though intended ironically. It is to laugh.
As such I think it’s a bit pffft out there, a formalization of a vague and intuitive concept as a way to lend an air of empirical objectivity to intrinsically fuzzy matters.
Still, I’ll read the rest of the article, and if you want to begin a discussion on the validity of the concept of “meme” we can do that in another thread.