3.1 Settings and Happenings

The construction of settings and happenings involves anchorage of time and space, clarification of modality, enactment of narrative events, communication of narrative causality, and management of scene structure and scene changes.

3.2 Characters

The second major category of ‘the communication of the narrative’ concerns the construction of characters (characterisation) and includes anchorage of the characters, character biographies, social and individual character traits, relationships between characters, and narrative roles.

Kozloff (Reference Kozloff2000) uses the function of ‘character revelation’ to talk about how dialogue distinguishes characters from each other, for instance through accent or idiosyncratic linguistic practices. For Kozloff (Reference Kozloff2000: 43–6), this includes various aspects of character such as class, intelligence, personality, character psychology, emotional state, or motive. In another relevant non-linguistic study, Pearson (Reference Pearson and Allen2007a: 43) proposes six elements of character identity: psychological traits/habitual behaviours, physical characteristics/appearance, speech patterns, interactions with other characters, environment, and biography. However, she is not interested in a detailed linguistic analysis of TV dialogue, but rather focuses on ‘identifying the elements that constitute a character abstracted from the design of the text and existing in the story, that is, in the minds of producers and audiences’ (Pearson Reference Pearson and Allen2007a: 43). With respect to language, I showed in Bednarek (Reference Bednarek2010a) that the main characters in the dramedy Gilmore Girls are distinguished by references to their relationships with others (e.g. mother–daughter) and their environment (e.g. workplace), as well as differences in levels of (in-)formality and evaluative/emotional preferences.

Building on these suggestions about elements of character, and also drawing on additional linguistic research on televisual characterisation (as reviewed in Bednarek Reference Bednarek, Locher and Jucker2017b), TV dialogue can function:

• to introduce and identify characters

• to inform viewers about characters’ biographies

• to construct characters (social and individual character traits, expressive identity)

• to construct relationships between characters

• to inform viewers about the role of characters in the narrative.

This can happen either through self-revelation (characters’ own dialogue) or when other characters comment upon a character (Kozloff Reference Kozloff2000: 44–5) – what Culpeper (Reference Culpeper2001: 167) calls self-presentation and other-presentation.

3.2.1 Anchorage of the Characters

As mentioned, the function ‘anchorage of the characters’ relates to the use of TV dialogue to identify and name characters. Here, dialogue in early episodes of a TV series is again important. Thus, in the first episode of Community, we find three instances of My name’s/is and one instance of her name is, which work to introduce characters to each other and to the viewers (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1 Introducing characters in Community

The episode also features a humorous scene in which the (elderly) Pierce attempts to introduce Jeff to the other characters, getting everyone’s name wrong but providing an elegant way of establishing who the characters are as well as revealing aspects of his character (old, racist, and sexist).

(13)

PIERCE: I’m also a Toastmaster so perhaps I should do the introduction.

JEFF: Definitely.

PIERCE: Right you already know Brittles.

BRITTA: Britta.

PIERCE: Abed, Abed the Arab, is that inappropriate?

ABED: Sure.

PIERCE: Roy, Roy, the wonder boy.

TROY: Troy.

PIERCE: Little princess Elizabeth.

ANNIE: Annie.

PIERCE: And finally this beautiful creature is named Shirley.

JEFF: Is that even close?

(SydTV, Community)

On the whole, this episode features several instances where names are used either to talk about or to address main characters: Abed (13 occurrences), Jeff (10 occurrences), Britta (7 occurrences), Pierce (6 occurrences), Annie (6 occurrences), Shirley (5 occurrences), Troy (4 occurrences). Such repeated use of character names in telecinematic discourse identifies characters and reminds audiences of who they are (Kozloff Reference Kozloff2000: 36; Mittell Reference Mittell2015: 133).

2.1 Control of Viewer Evaluation and Emotions

Dialogue clearly functions to guide viewers’ responses, for instance by controlling pacing, creating tension or suspense, setting up viewers for a surprise, drawing their attention to a plot element, guiding their interpretation, or eliciting their emotional responses (Kozloff Reference Kozloff2000: 49–51). In example (9) in the previous chapter, the voice-over narrator introduces viewers to the backstory relevant to Birds of Prey but also guides viewer expectations regarding genre and narrative. With its mentions of New Gotham, Batman, Joker, and Catwoman, viewers are likely to expect a fantasy story, an expectation that will influence their reactions to the narrative.

Viewers’ emotional responses can be elicited through the expression of character emotion, conflict, drama, tension, and so on. For instance, in the final episode of season three of the political drama Homeland (spoiler alert), one of the main characters (Brody) is publicly hanged, his death watched by another main character (Carrie), who is in love with him. In a highly emotional scene, viewers are exposed to both Brody’s dying and Carrie’s reaction, including her repeated shouting of his name. While Claire Danes’s performance of Carrie’s grief is multimodal and the graphic footage of Brody’s death is also crucial, her shouts clearly contribute to eliciting viewers’ emotional response to this scene. The scene can be viewed at www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlIzL8afSz8 (last accessed 3 December 2017), as a transcription would not do full justice to its powerful emotionality.

Additionally, certain dialogue lines create and foil viewer expectations, generate suspense, or arouse curiosity. As discussed in Mittell (Reference Mittell2015: 83) in the final minutes of the pilot episode of Veronica Mars, the main character asks herself a range of questions: ‘The Lilly Kane murder file – what’s Dad been up to? … My surveillance photo from the Camelot – why is it in the Lilly Kane file? What was Mom doing there, and what business did she have with Jake Kane? And the million-dollar question: why did Dad lie to me?’ Mittell discusses these questions as setting up story arcs, but they simultaneously create suspense.

Kozloff (Reference Kozloff2000: 50–1) also provides examples where dialogue helps viewers to interpret the visuals, for instance in relation to smell and beauty. In example (1), from the medical comedy-drama series Nurse Jackie, the eponymous Jackie converses with two elderly Jewish patients about their chicken soup (itself a stereotype). Since the audience cannot smell the soup, it is the dialogue that makes them vicariously experience it.

2.2 Exploitation of the Resources of Language

Kozloff (Reference Kozloff2000) explicitly associates the function ‘exploitation of the resources of language’ with Jakobson’s poetic function. On a general level, exchanges between characters can be said to constitute a particular ‘rhythm’ (Kozloff Reference Kozloff2000: 87). On a more specific level, the function is divided into four categories by Kozloff: poetic use of language, jokes/humour, dramatic irony, and on-screen verbal storytelling (where characters tell a story).

The poetic use of language includes characters’ reciting of poetry as well as their use, in dialogue, of literary devices such as rhyming, alliteration, metaphor, repetition, contrast, and incongruity (Kozloff Reference Kozloff2000: 52–3, passim). Both kinds of poetic language use occur in TV series. The Nurse Jackie pilot begins with the protagonist, a nurse, reciting in voice-over a fragment from a poem by T. S. Eliot (Let us go then, you and I, when the evening is spread out against the sky like a patient etherized upon a table) – which is also an instance of intertextuality (discussed below). In contrast, example (2) from SydTV (Weeds) shows how characters can jointly create poetic effects. Josh (a teenage drug dealer) and Nancy (a suburban mother and drug dealer) have a conversation about dealing to children, which ends with a poetic exchange. Josh’s first turn is a poem in itself, but his second turn creates a rhyming effect as a response to Nancy’s (You’re a poet):

Another example of the poetic use of language comes from the British crime drama River (spoiler alert). In example (3), one of the protagonists of River (murdered detective Stevie, who appears and interacts with detective River) uses several literary devices (including rhyme and parallelism) as well as producing, in alphabetic order, the many synonyms British English offers to describe someone as mentally ill:

Kozloff’s second subcategory of this function (jokes/humour) includes witty lines or jokes by characters, as in the final turn in example (4), from the dramedy Gilmore Girls:

Incidentally, Lorelai’s punning here is also an allusion (intertextual reference) to a song by Paul Simon (‘You Can Call Me Al’). I discuss such intertextuality in more detail below.

In addition, humour includes cases where we laugh at characters or their situation (Kozloff Reference Kozloff2000: 54). The dialogue in example (5), from the medical drama Grey’s Anatomy, is a good example, featuring an exchange between the hospital interns George, Alex, Meredith, Izzie, and Cristina. In this plotline, George has found out that he has syphilis and asks Alex to treat him, intending this treatment to be as private as possible. Instead, in a very funny scene, the female interns start coming in one by one, while George is face-down with his buttocks exposed:

Humour abounds in sitcoms, but also in other television genres, and can be the result of incongruity at all levels (Brock Reference Brock, Piazza, Bednarek and Rossi2011), for instance breaches of conversational organisation (Stokoe Reference Stokoe2008); incongruous or unexpected swearing, e.g. by members of the clergy (Walshe Reference Walshe2011); or dialect dissonance, i.e. divergence from conventionalised norms and expectations regarding dialect use (Coupland Reference Coupland, Thøgersen, Coupland and Mortensen2016).

Kozloff (Reference Kozloff2000) mentions irony as the third subcategory of this function, focusing on dramatic irony, where viewers know more than the characters. I have already mentioned House of Cards in this respect (see example (18) in Chapter 3). Similarly, in the pilot episode from Community, viewers (but not the characters) know early on that the study group that Jeff pretends to run is purely an attempt to spend time with another character, Britta.

Another example from SydTV occurs in the sitcom 2 Broke Girls. In this episode, the two female protagonists Caroline and Max, who want to start a cupcake business, attend a party to ask TV celebrity Martha Stewart to taste their cupcake. They dress as caterers to get in and the exchange in example (6) occurs while Caroline changes into her dress in the bathroom stall, and Max is outside it:

Here the dialogue is funny because Caroline does not know that Martha Stewart is in the bathroom and can hear everything she is saying, while Max, Martha Stewart, and the viewers are aware of this fact. As mentioned in Chapter 1, pragmatic research has shown how humorous effects in TV series often rely on participation-based strategies. The humorous exchange in example (6) is prototypical for 2 Broke Girls and other sitcoms in that the characters are not intentionally funny on the level of the diegesis (as would be the case if they deliberately joked), but the interaction is clearly intended to be humorous for the audience (Messerli Reference Messerli2016: 84–5). Dramatic irony can thus have various effects, including the creation of humour and the revelation of narrative roles as in the House of Cards example.

Kozloff’s final subcategory for this function is on-screen verbal storytelling, especially where the storytelling is not relevant to the plot but ‘compelling as a story, because of the intrinsic gratifications of storytelling’ (Kozloff Reference Kozloff2000: 56, emphasis in original). Perhaps example (7) might be considered a relevant example from the crime dramedy Castle – here crime writer Castle spins detective Beckett a hypothetical story about ‘whodunnit’:

In addition to Kozloff’s four subcategories (poetic use of language, jokes/humour, irony, on-screen verbal storytelling), I propose three additional subcategories: linguistic innovation, intertextuality (allusions to other texts), and metafictionality.

Linguistic innovation has already been discussed in Chapter 2. As mentioned, some TV series are lauded for invention, creativity, and play, and series with young adults who are close friends will include a high degree of linguistic innovation. In addition, sci-fi and fantasy series such as Star Trek or Firefly may create new words (e.g. warp speed; gorram) as well as new sociolinguistic environments (e.g. code-switching between English and Mandarin Chinese in Firefly; see Mandala Reference Mandala, Wilcox and Cochran2008) or whole languages (e.g. Klingon in Star Trek or Dothraki and Valyrian in Game of Thrones). Such invention could be seen as the ultimate ‘exploitation of the resources of language’. Linguistic innovation in SydTV will be the subject of Chapter 9, so no more will be said about it here.

Moving on, intertextuality occurs frequently in US TV series such as Lost, Community, The Big Bang Theory, or Gilmore Girls and exploits the common culture that viewers and the characters share. Such intertextuality functions to reveal the characters and their world but also to create pleasure in viewers and to bond with them, creating a community (Bednarek Reference Bednarek2010a: 31–3; Queen Reference Queen2015: 252).² Language is exploited because of its cultural value here. In example (8) – from The Wire – we can see a contrast between the speaker (‘stick up man’ Omar) and his allusion to a well-known fairy tale (The Three Little Pigs), which also recasts him as the ‘big bad wolf’.

Intertextuality may also contribute to characterisation, for instance when Buffy characters reference Star Trek (Mandala Reference Mandala2007: 54), the nerds in The Big Bang Theory refer to sci-fi (Bednarek Reference Bednarek2012b), or when the older character Mike from the political comedy series Veep references the TV series Doogie Howser from the late 1980s/early 1990s:

In example (9), Mike’s reference to the television character Doogie Howser is not understood by the much younger Jonah, which emphasises the difference between these characters in terms of the social variable of age (type characteristics), but those audience members who are old enough to remember this programme may also bond with Mike. In other cases, characters may be constructed as sophisticated because they reference a particular text. Further examples of intertextuality in TV series are provided in Pearson (Reference Pearson, McCabe and Akass2007b: 248–9), Bednarek (Reference Bednarek2010a: 31–3), Queen (Reference Queen2015: 249–51), and in Chapter 9.

Finally, metafictionality exploits the potential of language to comment on language use itself (metalinguistic comments) but also includes dialogue that foregrounds the conventions or production aspects of TV narratives – such reflexive playfulness is a feature of many contemporary TV series (see Chapter 1, note 10).³ For example, in the second episode of season 4 of the musical comedy-drama Glee the character Brittany explicitly comments on the show’s use of voice-overs by saying, Oh. I thought I was doing a voice-over. In the final episode of the second season of the drama/thriller Mr. Robot, an FBI agent tells one of the characters (Darlene) you are not on some TV show, which plays with viewers’ knowledge that yes, she is indeed on a TV show.

Another instance of metafictionality comes from the sitcom Arrested Development. In example (10), one of the main characters, the oldest son and part-time magician George Oscar (Gob), questions why a doctor would use ambiguous language, making the family think that his father has died when in fact he has escaped out of the hospital window (the doctor’s words earlier in the episode are We lost him. He just uh, got away from us. I’m sorry). George Oscar comments directly on the doctor’s dialogue and indirectly on the implausibility of the plot, hence foregrounding the constructedness of the narrative.

Particular series exploit metafictionality to a high degree, while metacommunication can work in the service of other functions such as characterisation or control of viewer evaluation – as in the case of The West Wing (Richardson Reference Richardson2006).

2.3 Opportunities for Star Turns

Kozloff (Reference Kozloff2000: 60) suggests that some film dialogue functions to showcase a star and ‘to keep our attention focused upon that star, and to give the star a chance to “show off”’. She argues that such dialogue can be identified because it is longer, requires above-average variety of emotional expression, and provides a platform for vocal skill. She also says that this category is ‘primarily pertinent to a certain category of films, those designed as showcases for stars with unique histrionic talents’ (Kozloff Reference Kozloff2000: 60).

There are at least two aspects to be questioned here – first, whether this function is limited to such films, and second, whether length is a necessary criterion. In relation to contemporary TV series, much dialogue seems to allow actors a chance to ‘show off’. It is too difficult to choose one dialogue extract that would illustrate this perfectly, and it would be very hard to demonstrate this without a video of the actor’s performance. However, actors from TV series such as House of Cards, Breaking Bad, or Homeland are regularly nominated for awards and become known for their performance as a particular character. A web search for videos from these series will find many examples of particularly successful acting performances. But perhaps these do indeed tend to occur in particular kinds of TV series that might be considered as vehicles for known stars such as Kevin Spacey, Bryan Cranston, or Claire Danes.

In relation to length, certain types of dialogue arguably provide a platform for a star turn regardless of length. For example, dialogue by other actors may elicit a star performance, as when characters are given a bleak medical diagnosis by a doctor and must react to this. Even a story premise may provide a platform for showcasing performing skills as in The United States of Tara, The Americans, or Orphan Black, where the same actor plays multiple personalities or persons and makes use of linguistic and other cues to distinguish these people. This can also occur in particular ‘doppelgänger’ episodes, as in Buffy, where the actor Alyson Hannigan performs both the ‘normal’ and the ‘Vampire’ version of the character Willow, each clearly distinguished (e.g. season 3, episode 16).

3.1 Explicit or Implicit Thematic Messages

Like film dialogue, dialogue in TV series sometimes conveys explicit messages to the audience: Kozloff (Reference Kozloff2000: 56–7) mentions ‘preachy passages’ and ‘overt moralizing’ as examples of dialogue expressing a film’s moral. Some TV episodes also have a ‘moral’, especially when they come from religious or quasi-religious narratives (e.g. Highway to Heaven (1984–9), 7th Heaven (1996–2007)). A more recent example comes from the BBC series Call the Midwife, which occurs at the very end of the episode:

It is also possible to identify passages of TV dialogue where characters explicitly comment on social reality. Thus, the characters in Gilmore Girls discuss political issues related to women and feminism (Bednarek Reference Bednarek2010a: 35, 39–40). The British TV series Happy Valley also includes discussions by policewomen about misogyny and sexism (season 2, episode 5). In example (12), Leslie and Ben – two of the protagonists of the sitcom Parks and Recreation – use a speech to directly address the sexism that female politicians face in the United States:

Mad Men is also famous for intentionally communicating feminist messages, as explicitly stated by its creator (see Goggin Reference Goggin, Allen and van den Berg2014: 82). But discussion of social issues is not just limited to feminist concerns – example (13) shows a critical comment on the US healthcare system, which occurs in a storyline from the dramedy Weeds after the main character, Nancy, has been shot and is in hospital:

I understand the comparison in example (13) of the US healthcare system with so many other countries as an explicit and intentional criticism of sociopolitical reality. Mittell (Reference Mittell2015: 343) discusses an example from the finale of Homeland’s first season, where a video testimonial of one of the protagonists, Sergeant Nick Brody, makes a critical political statement about American drone strikes, which, he argues, the viewers are initially ‘invited to endorse or at least consider as valid’. The first season of the comedy Master of None is an example of a TV series that successfully integrates humour with critical messages about contemporary life (for instance, racism on television in the episode ‘Indians on TV’). In the British police drama Life on Mars, different strategies are combined to encourage viewers to critically engage with aspects of society, ranging from the personalisation and juxtaposition of different views to identification with characters and characters’ explicit social critique (Richardson Reference Richardson2010a: 161–6).

There are also examples of contemporary TV narratives that include storylines that portray the LGBTQI community in ways that seem to elicit viewer sympathy (e.g. Glee, Last Tango in Halifax, Please Like Me), portraying for instance homophobia or negative reactions to ‘coming out’. In example (14), from Call the Midwife, which takes place in the late 1950s/early 1960s, couple Delia and Patsy confront the now-historical reality in the United Kingdom of not being able to get married. I have included more detailed information such as pauses ([..] = medium pause), speed (preceding speech, applies until the next speaker’s turn), and voice quality (following speech, applies up to preceding exclamation mark).

The moving nature of this emotionally powerful exchange (reinforced through phonological and multimodal cues) elicits viewer sympathy for the women’s situation and may trigger sympathy for people who are still in this situation in countries without such rights.

However, in relation to explicit messages where characters comment on social issues or praise/criticise other characters’ behaviour, it is often hard to say whether audiences are positioned to agree or disagree. Another question is whether the characters are meant to be read as spokespersons for the TV series (Richardson Reference Richardson2010a: 165–6). It is therefore difficult to find many clear examples of overt thematic messages in TV dialogue that can unproblematically be identified as a ‘moral’ for the audience. More often, viewers are presented with different morals and asked to reflect on them but are not necessarily directed to take sides. In general, it is possible to argue that overtly moral TV series would presumably put off some viewers, and representations that can be interpreted in different ways, depending on the viewer, are more interesting and appealing to audiences (Richardson Reference Richardson2010a; Raymond Reference Raymond2013; Bednarek Reference Bednarek2015b).⁴

In addition to overt thematic messages, Kozloff includes less overt use of allegory to convey a social, moral, or political message. Such allegorical dialogue has a subtext, a double-layering (Kozloff Reference Kozloff2000: 59–60). Douglas (Reference Douglas2011: 33) mentions The West Wing and Battlestar Galactica as examples of political allegory in US TV series. Implicit messages are also apparent in TV series such as Our Friends in the North or The Wire, which explore sociocultural and political issues by way of fictional narratives, offering implicit critiques. Thus, the British Our Friends in the North critically portrays life in North East England from the 1960s to the 1990s. The Wire, according to creator David Simon, addresses ‘what the drug war has become in America and what it was costing us as a society’ (White House 2015: n.p.). Simon has stated elsewhere, ‘I am not particularly interested in making the most entertaining stories unless they are actually contending with an argument that matters’ (Chotiner Reference Chotiner2015: n.p.). The storylines in the Netflix prison drama Orange Is the New Black can also be interpreted as criticisms of the American prison system and the way contemporary society views and treats those whom it has incarcerated.

In sum, certain TV series do make an argument, do have a thematic message, and do comment on human realities, and may do so in implicit, sophisticated ways. Both explicit and implicit thematic messages can critique, reinforce, or negotiate dominant/hegemonic cultural ideologies, including language ideologies (see Lippi-Green Reference Lippi-Green2012: 17 for an example of the latter).

3.2 Promotion of Real-Life Products

In rare cases, the ‘message’ that is conveyed through TV dialogue is an instance of what I term ‘verbal’ product placement. There can be agreements between companies and networks, meaning that series are ‘required by the networks to include specific products in their content’ (Sandler Reference Sandler2007: KL 529–30). A clear example of a verbal product placement occurs in the musical drama Nashville:

This conversation between the country musicians and protagonists Rayna and Deacon is essentially a plug for the real-life charity FosterMore. Between the final scene of this episode and the closing credits, an advert for the charity is inserted (Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1 Still from Nashville showing an advert for FosterMore

A less clear example of verbal product placement is evident in example (16), where one of the two characters in the HBO dramedy Girls, Shoshanna, positively evaluates the dating show Baggage while watching it:

There is a fine line between mentioning real-life products (such as genuine TV programmes) to create realism and anchor characters in a world similar to the audience’s (see Section 4.2) and promoting such products. Extended positive discussions are more likely to fulfil promotional functions.

3.3 Ideological Representations

As we have seen, TV dialogue can convey overt thematic messages or have an intended subtext with an implicit message. In these cases, the assumption is that the relevant messages are intentional. However, there are many cases where it is not clear if aspects of the dialogue have been designed to create an explicit/implicit message, but where the dialogue nevertheless challenges, reinforces, or negotiates hegemonic ideologies. The function ‘ideological representations’ captures such cases. (In this respect, this is an exception to not making any assumptions about scriptwriters’ intentionality.)

To give an example, there are thirty-one instances across eleven episodes of the adjective fat in SydTV where fat refers to body size, nutrition, etc. While some references occur with respect to men (my fat ugly face (Hot in Cleveland), some fat old emir (Dollhouse)) or unspecified/mixed gender (I did not mean to imply that everyone here is fat and ugly (Hot in Cleveland)), the vast majority of instances related to body image or dieting are used to refer to women, including the trope/stereotype of the ‘former fat girl’, which occurs in two different episodes in SydTV. In this way it could be argued that these episodes both reflect and reinforce cultural ideologies about gender and the obsession of the US and other cultures with the aesthetics of the female body. An extended example is discussed in Bednarek (Reference Bednarek2010a: 180–227), in relation to how Gilmore Girls reproduces the US mainstream ideology of eating meat.

It may not always be easy to distinguish ‘ideological representations’ from ‘explicit or implicit thematic messages’, but perhaps the latter occur in more marked contexts – for instance, in speeches, in longer stretches of dialogue, or in a voice-over at the beginning or end of an episode.

4.1 Imitating ‘Real’ Spoken and Written Language

Kozloff (Reference Kozloff2000: 47–9) suggests that one way of creating realism is to represent normal conversational activities such as ordering food, greetings, or small talk, which are strictly speaking not necessary for advancing the plot but which provide authenticity. Examples also occur in TV dialogue, such as the introduction in example (17) and the conventional politeness in the conversation with a dinner guest in example (18):

However, most of these exchanges would simultaneously fulfil additional functions such as characterisation or plot development, since TV dialogue has a low tolerance for scenes that do not move the story forward (Bull Reference Bull2007: KL 1893–6).

More generally – as already summarised in Chapter 2 – TV dialogue has to be realistic or authentic enough not to alienate viewers, and hence selectively imitates the features that we associate with ‘real’ (unscripted) speech, including institutional and casual encounters. Realism/authenticity can also be produced by successful representations of particular language varieties (e.g. associated with professional or ethnic groups). Lopez and Bucholtz (Reference Lopez and Bucholtz2017: 23) talk about an authenticity effect, i.e. ‘the result of carefully engineered artistic artifice and its ratification by audience members’.

I also include genre imitations under this function, for instance the creation of fictional but realistic CNN newscasts in season 4 of House of Cards, which report on the shooting of the fictional president. Similar examples occur in other series such as Homeland (Figure 4.2 and examples (19) and (20)).

Figure 4.2 Still from Homeland showing a fictional newscast

Here the scriptwriters have created fictional newscasts and print news stories that characters encounter in the narrative, imitating the kinds of newscasts and news stories that audiences are familiar with and encounter in their everyday lives. Such news items can also function to communicate narrative causality, for instance when they provide necessary background information.

4.2 References to the ‘Real’ World

TV dialogue also uses references to existing ‘real-life’ entities to anchor the narrative in the world known to the viewer. As Fludernik (Reference Fludernik2009: 42) notes, references to real places may hide the fictionality of a narrative, and Bruti and Vignozzi (Reference Bruti, Vignozzi, Ferrari and Bruti2016b) point out that references to the cultural and historical background lend credibility to TV period dramas.

There are many instances of references to the ‘real’ world in SydTV, including Lex (Lexington Avenue in New York); Beyoncé and Janelle Monáe (singers); DeGeneres and de Rossi (celebrity couple); Hugh Jackman (actor); Louis Vuitton (brand); Tetris (computer game); Tic Tacs (candy), Spanx (clothing product); Mad Libs (word game); the ’Bucks (coffee chain Starbucks); vo-tech (type of school); Terps (University of Maryland athletic team Maryland Terrapins); and America’s Most Wanted, Baggage (reality television programmes). The SydTV episode of 2 Broke Girls in example (6) above takes this realism further by not only referencing but also featuring Martha Stewart, as herself.

In TV series like The Americans, Homeland, and Narcos archival footage of events is integrated, for instance featuring utterances by real politicians in relation to actual events that have occurred. Even without dialogue such archival footage creates realism; that is, the dialogue is not necessary but can contribute to this effect. References to real historical events also occur, for instance in the voice-over narration in Netflix’s Narcos or when characters in the drama Mad Men, which takes place at an advertising agency in the 1960s, discuss Richard Nixon’s election campaign:

Above, I suggested that intertextual references (allusions to other texts) can be discussed in relation to the exploitation of language for its cultural value. Insofar as intertextuality refers to ‘real-life’ phenomena (existing cultural texts such as films, novels, TV series), it also creates realism, since it shows that characters are ‘embedded in a similar social world to that of the viewers themselves’ (Queen Reference Queen2015: 251).

5.1 Creation of Consistency

It is crucial for dialogue in TV series to create consistency across episodes and seasons. As explained in Chapter 1, TV narratives rely on ‘consistent and persistent storyworlds and characters’ (Mittell Reference Mittell2015: 22). The production process with showrunners helps to create this consistency. The television producer and writer Peter Dunne puts it strongly: ‘In television, audiences are built on consistency. It is the number one rule in series TV’ (Dunne Reference Dunne, McCabe and Akass2007: 100). This includes consistency of characters, plot, and the general style, tone, and ‘brand’ of a show. In sum, a successful TV series is one that is consistent (Epstein Reference Epstein2006: 4).

As a TV series progresses, its dialogue should therefore remain in line with what audiences have come to expect of the series (e.g. in terms of humour, wittiness, and literary and aesthetic qualities) and of the characters (the way each character speaks and how they interact). Thus, a corpus linguistic analysis of dialogue produced by one of the protagonists in Gilmore Girls across all its seasons suggests that her style does remain fairly consistent and that a stable character ‘adds to serial stability’ (Bednarek Reference Bednarek, Piazza, Bednarek and Rossi2011a: 194).

An obvious way of creating consistency is through catchphrases (e.g. Homer Simpson’s d’oh) or salient ‘signature interjections’ (Bednarek Reference Bednarek2010a: 137). But consistency does not mean that change is not possible, even in relation to catchphrases. For instance, bazinga is a catchphrase (and signature interjection) for the character Sheldon in The Big Bang Theory but is not used in all seasons. However, when characters diverge too much from the way they usually speak, this can become a source of meta-linguistic commentary and can be used stylistically for foregrounding (Bednarek Reference Bednarek2010a: 110–11, 133).

Evidence for the importance of consistency also comes from what we know about the TV production process. Thus, show ‘bibles’ are sometimes given to new writers who join a scriptwriting team, which provide them with detailed information about the series, sometimes even information about characters’ language choices (Douglas Reference Douglas2011: 34, 71).⁷ Manuals on scriptwriting also advise novice writers to be consistent in their writing (e.g. Smith Reference Smith2009: KL 751). They are told that in order to write ‘in service to the show’ (Douglas Reference Douglas2011: 263), they need to be familiar with its pace and style and to ‘hear the characters’ voices in [their] head’ (Douglas Reference Douglas2011: 157). Showrunners also often talk about the voice of a series (e.g. Tracy Newman and Jonathan Stark in Priggé Reference Priggé2005: 110, 142; John Beck in Finer & Pearlman Reference Finer and Pearlman2004: 205) or about writers learning the voices of the characters (e.g. Bill Lawrence in Priggé Reference Priggé2005: 182; Ron Hart in Finer & Pearlman Reference Finer and Pearlman2004: 209), as further discussed in Chapter 10.

5.2 Creation of Continuity

The serial nature of TV series, which often feature plot lines that are continued across episodes (story arcs, cf. Chapter 1) means that TV dialogue must also function to create continuity. Serials in particular must do so, and often provide continuity for the viewer simply by including a recap sequence with dialogue from previous episodes at the beginning of a new episode, usually prefaced by Previously on … (Richardson Reference Richardson2010a: 137). But the new episode itself can also include references to events that happened in previous episodes. For example, a conversation in the third episode of Mad Men between account executive Pete and secretary Peggy refers to a sexual encounter between them that happened in the first episode:

Although he does not focus on linguistic analysis, Mittell (Reference Mittell2015: 180–94) discusses many strategies for triggering and managing viewers’ memories from recaps to embedded redundancies, diegetic retelling of happenings, voice-over, flashbacks, and so on. Particular series may develop their own strategies to update viewers, for instance to create continuity between different seasons (for an example, see Richardson Reference Richardson2010a: 137).