Abstract
This work aims at investigating the ways in which characters are constructed in dialogue in Downton Abbey, a British period drama television series featuring the lives of an aristocratic family and of their servants in the Yorkshire of the early 20th century. The background for the study includes Bednarek studies on televisual characters characterization (Bednarek 2011, 2012) and Culpeper seminal work on language and fictional characters characterization (2001).
The investigation focusses on the characterization of two female characters which are opposite in terms of intended social position and personality, but which have been chosen because of their entrality to the show (they are both permanent characters, appearing in all the episodes of Season 1 and 2, and are still part of the story and of the cast). It is important to keep in mind that the presence of Character 1 is much heavier than Character 2 as demonstrated by the number of words spoken by each of them (Character 1: 16.162 words vs. Character 2: 4.466). It is interesting however to compare them as they represent two opposite yet complementary aspects of femininity in the society the show aims to recreate. In this analysis we thus set out to explore the aspects of femininity which are displayed by means of the rhetorical and lexical choices guiding the speech of such characters.
The study is based on a small corpus of 226.490 words, including the lines of the two characters for the first three series of the show. Drawing upon a combined methodology, based on both qualitative discourse analysis and quantitative corpus methodologies, in line with the Corpus Assisted Discourse Studies tradition (Partington et al. 2013), we aim at unveiling the set of values behind the characters investigated, by uncovering the linguistic cues that reveal their personality. In addition, we also aim at shedding light upon the discoursal structures which are exploited in the construction of the characters and in their positioning in the network of relationships governing the narrative on screen.
Preliminary results show a tendency for both characters to rely on interrogative sentences and negative sentences.
For example Character 1 asks a question every five sentences, while Character 2 asks a question every four sentences. Also interesting is the use of question tags, (8% of the questions of Character 2 and 3% of the questions of Character 1). This aspect might represent a linguistic trait of Britishness in movies (see Chiaro 2000: 30).
In addition, Character 1 has shown a widespread use of negative statements with 18% of her statements beginning with I in the form: I + aux/modal + negative + predicate, interestingly associated with expressions of thought, feeling, opinion and will, such as know (18 occurrences); think (17 occurrences); sure (10 occurrences); want (10 occurrences).
This seems to suggest a character construction heavily relying on indirectness and hedging. For example, one of the most frequent word clusters for this character is I am afraid (17 occurrences). This aspect seems in line with Lakoff’s argument that women have a stronger tendency than men towards hedging thus preferring strategies aimed at avoiding strong statements (1975).
Character 2 displays an evident tendency towards the use of negative constructions as well. The analysis showed that 24% of the occurrences of I fulfil the pattern I + aux/modal + negative + predicate. In addition, 5 different negatives appear among the top hundred words in the frequency list for Character 2 (e.g. ‘t, occurring 129 times or not occurring 47 times), attesting for 5% of her overall spoken words.
This widespread use of negation on the part of Character 2 might reflect what Weintraub has pointed out, i.e. that “[…]speakers who use many negatives tend to be ppositional and stubborn” (2003: 145) and that the expression of anger can be associated with a high use of negatives (see Weintraub 1989). This description seems to fit Character 2, who is not completely happy with her job and is less involved in the plot. Moreover, it seems to reveal her feelings of dissatisfaction and insecurity, both at work and in her love life.
The tendency of Character 2 towards a less hedged expression of stance, in comparison to the extensive use of hedging in Character 1, might be linked to the different social status of the two women. Character 1 is in fact a member of the aristocracy, whereas Character 2 is one of the servants living in the estate.
The representation of the two women seems to be influenced by the different expectations that society (in fiction) and audience (in real life) have towards them. Moreover, the series is a historical drama aimed at a modern audience, which might not be entirely familiar with the social conventions of the period. The audience may be therefore engaged by aspects of nostalgia and cultural belonging (Baena and Byker 2014).