Ideologies in British Soap Operas A Critical Discourse and Semiotic Analysis of

Diplomarbeit

zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades einer Magistra der Philosophie an der Geisteswissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz

vorgelegt von Silvia Macek

am Institut für Anglistik

Begutachter: Ao.Univ.-Prof.Mag.Dr. Bernhard Kettemann

Graz, im Dezember 2008

Für meine Eltern, meine Großeltern und meine kleine Schwester:

DANKE für eure Liebe und Unterstützung!

Contents

1. Introduction 1 2. Soap as a Medium 3 2.1. A General Introduction to 3 2.1.1. Why is it called ‘Soap Opera’? 3 2.1.2. What are Soap Operas? 4 2.1.3. What are Soap Operas about? 7 2.2. The British Soap Phenomenon Coronation Street 9 2.2.1. British Soap Culture 9 2.2.2. Coronation Street 11 3. The Concept of Ideology 14 3.1. What is ‘Ideology’? 14 3.2. Ideology, Media and Soaps 16 4. Socio-Political and Historical Background 18 4.1. Great Britain in the 1980s: The Concept of ‘Thatcherism’ 18 4.1.1. Reforms and Interventions under Thatcher 19 4.1.2. The ‘Vigorous Virtues’ 20 5. Empirical Analysis 22 5.1. Critical Discourse Analysis 22 5.1.1. What is Critical Discourse Analysis? 23 5.1.2. Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis 24 5.1.2.1. Fairclough’s Three-Dimensional Model 25 5.2. Semiotics 27 5.2.1. What is Semiotics? 27 5.2.2. The Sign 28 5.2.2.1. De Saussure’s and Peirce’s Concepts of the Sign 28 5.2.2.2. Icon, Index and Symbol 29 5.2.2.3. Denotation and Connotation 30 5.2.2.4. Codes 30 5.3. Research Question 31 5.4. Analysis 31 5.4.1. Work Ethics 32 5.4.1.1. Scene 1 33 5.4.1.2. Scene 2 36 5.4.1.3. Scene 3 38 5.4.1.4. Scene 4 42 5.4.1.5. Scene 5 44 5.4.1.6. Evaluation of the Socio-Cultural Significance 46 5.4.2. Position of Women 47 5.4.2.1. Scene 1 48 5.4.2.2. Scene 2 50 5.4.2.3. Scene 3 52 5.4.2.4. Scene 4 53 5.4.2.5. Scene 5 55 5.4.2.6. Scene 6 57 5.4.2.7. Evaluation of the Socio-Cultural Significance 59 5.4.3. Social Differences 61 5.4.3.1. Scene 1 62 5.4.3.2. Scene 2 64 5.4.3.3. Scene 3 66 5.4.3.4. Scene 4 69 5.4.3.5. Scene 5 70 5.4.3.6. Scene 6 72 5.4.3.7. Scene 7 74 5.4.3.8. Evaluation of the Socio-Cultural Significance 76 6. Summary and Conclusion 78 7. Deutsche Zusammenfassung 81 Bibliography 84

1. Introduction

For a long time since it first started to become established in the media, soap opera has hardly been noticed as an object of serious research, by people working in the field of media theory as well as in sociology, cultural studies or linguistics. Only from the mid-1980s on, when diverse soap opera formats all over the world began to gain more and more popularity, researchers have started to acknowledge the soap opera as a special form of popular culture and an important economic commodity that is worth being investigated.

Language is the most powerful and influencing means of communication, in non-fictional as well as in fictional texts. It feeds us with knowledge and is able to influence the way we perceive and judge what is happening around us. In short, it shapes our ideologies about the world. Soap operas are seen as being major carriers of ideologically-laden messages. In a television format like that of soap opera it is the language used by the characters and the accompanying signs such as props, setting, body language or the camera work that are able to convey such messages.

In the following thesis I want to explore how and what kinds of ideologies are conveyed linguistically as well as semiotically in the longest-running and one of the most popular soap operas in Great Britain, namely Coronation Street. For this purpose I will analyse several extracts of dialogues from various episodes of the 1980s, which was a very interesting and influential period considering the political and socio-cultural background.

Chapter two starts with a general introduction to soap opera, beginning with an outline of the historical development followed by the most important key concepts. Finally, some information about British soap culture in general and Coronation Street in particular is given.

Chapter three provides a general overview of what ideology is and tries to find an accurate and apt definition, and describes how it is used in the field of the media and especially of soap operas.

In chapter four, a short overview of the socio-political and historical background is given in order to be able to locate the chosen episodes in British history and culture. Special focus is

1 put on the concept of Thatcherism, since this is what has mostly influenced the period of the 1980s.

Chapter five then contains the empirical analysis. Before starting with the actual analysis, I will provide an outline of the approach I will be taking and the methods that will be applied, which are Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and Semiotic Analysis. Thus, I will focus on Norman Fairclough’s model of CDA and on de Saussure’s and Peirce’s concepts of the sign, which I deem most appropriate for the purpose of this paper. I will then investigate several text extracts with regard to three different major issues that are prevalent in and mainly constitute the majority of the soap’s storylines. Every dialogue will be transcribed and then analysed from a linguistic as well as a semiotic point of view. Taking these analyses as a basis, an evaluation of the socio-cultural significance which consequently reveals the ideological function of the discourse practice will be carried out.

2 2. Soap as a Medium

This chapter aims at introducing the term ‘soap opera’. It starts with answering the questions of why it was named this way, what a soap opera is, and what it is about. Furthermore, an introduction to British soap culture in general and to Coronation Street, the serial that serves as the basis for the analysis, is provided. Special emphasis is put on the 1980s here, since this is the time period which is taken into consideration in the analysis.

2.1. A General Introduction to Soap Opera 2.1.1. Why is it called ‘Soap Opera’?

Already in the 1930s, the term ‘soap opera’ appeared in the American newspaper Newsweek for the first time. It denoted the genre of daily running radio serials, which were also called ‘washboard weepers’ then (cf. Weiß 2004: 15). But what has a radio serial actually to do with washing and soaps?

When the Great Depression hit the United States at the beginning of the 1930s, diverse companies throughout the whole country aimed at continuing to sell their products despite the severe economic crisis. Large companies such as Procter and Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive or Pepsodent (cf. Weiß 2004: 27) saw a great potential of advertising their products in the upcoming genre of domestic drama via the new medium radio, which had become a significant part of public as well as – and even more important to the corporate companies – private life in America (cf. Borchers et al. 1994: 23). In 1930, about 40% of all American households were in possession of a radio; in 1940 the number had already risen up to 98%. Even then, broadcasting time was divided up into ‘primetime’, which lasted from 7 p.m. to 11 p.m., and ‘daytime’, lasting from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. (cf. Weiß 2004: 26).

One of the first daytime radio serials, Oxydol’s Own Ma Perkins, first broadcast in 1933, which centred on the widowed housewife Ma Perkins and her fateful life and whose heroines offered a high potential of identification for the target group, namely housewives, was

3 produced and sponsored by the company Procter and Gamble. The company’s aim was to advertise its product via directly addressing the target group. The product name ‘Oxydol’, was not only mentioned in the title but also several times in the serial itself, and this increased the sale of the product enormously; in the 27 years of the serial’s transmission, Procter and Gamble sold ‘Oxydol’ over three Billion times (cf. Weiß 2004: 27f). The product that is being talked about here was a kind of soap, and therefore this special type of serial was called ‘soap opera’.

Why people call it an ‘opera’ is a more controversial question. According to Süß and Kosack, certain similarities between a soap opera and a ‘real’ opera can be recognised. Both must be highly dramatic and emotional. In both forms of dramatic presentation, the protagonists are – in most cases – unhappily in love, have to clear several hurdles and get together only in the very end of the story. Moving the audience to tears is what both soap opera and real opera are supposed to achieve (cf. Süß and Kosack 2000: 49).

Robert C. Allen offers another possible explanation for the unusual naming of the genre. According to him, the term ‘soap opera’ suggests something like an ironic aloofness to the real opera: “’Opera’ acquires meaning only through its ironic, double inappropriateness. Linked with the adjective ‘soap’, opera, the most elite of all narrative artforms, becomes a vehicle for selling the most humble of commodities.” (1985: 8f). This attempt of an explanation seems to be more tangible and logically understandable, since already the name – ‘soap opera’ – without even considering the deeper meaning of it, bears a certain extent of irony. In any serious circumstances, no-one would probably mention a household cleaning product in connection with one of the most elevated of dramatic narrative forms.

2.1.2 What are Soap Operas?

Considering the story of how it came into being, soap operas can be said to have been an economically efficient and profitable concept in its origins. Nowadays, soap opera has nothing to do anymore with advertising household products. It has developed into an independent and exceedingly successful television genre that has shifted its purpose from

4 advertising to pure entertainment. With the coming up and the subsequent spreading of the medium television, the decline and fall of radio soaps was destined, and finally in 1961, CBS dropped the very last radio soap from its schedule (cf. Landbeck 2002: 48). From then on, diverse soap operas started their triumphant advance in television.

Charlotte Brunsdon calls a soap opera “in some ways the paradigmatic television genre (domestic, continuous, contemporary, episodic, repetitive, fragmented, and aural).” (Brunsdon, quoted in Mumford 1995: 14). For Robert Allen, soaps are simply “daytime dramatic serials” (Allen 1985: 3). Borchers defines soap operas as “significant as a popular culture phenomenon in terms of their textual constitution or their impact on audiences [...].” (Borchers et al. 1994: 21). There is no clear and undisputed definition of what soap operas are. Nevertheless, there are certain formal characteristics, also called ‘genre codes’, that can be generally assigned to soaps and that help to identify them as such:

Regular time-slot: Soaps are serials that are marked by a regular rhythm of transmission, which means that they are broadcast daily or at least weekly. Furthermore, they usually run always at the same time and on the same TV station. (cf. Weiß 2004: 21)

Narrative infinity: “[A] central aesthetic characteristic of the soap opera is its absolute resistance to narrative closure” (Allen, quoted in Mumford 1995: 67).One major difference between soap operas and other forms of television drama is its open-ended nature. There is no concluding point in the narrative, to which the action moves. One storyline can theoretically span an indefinite number of episodes. There are, however, temporary narrative resolutions, as not all narrative threads can be left unresolved (cf. Selby and Cowdery 1995: 161).

Cliffhanger-ending: In order to keep the story exciting and captivate the audience, soaps are making use of the so-called ‘cliffhanger-ending’. This means that an episode ends just when it gets most suspenseful. Mostly, the last scene of an episode revolves around some surprising or unexpected situation, and with the cliffhanger the resolution of this situation is delayed until the beginning of the next episode. (cf. Weiß 2004: 21)

Slow pace of narration: Since soap operas were originally designed for the ‘in passing entertainment’ of housewives, the storylines are not supposed to be too fast-going. The viewers should be able to keep up with the plot while taking part in other activities, such as

5 housework. Therefore producers of soap operas include many flashbacks and dialogues that pass past events in revue, through which the pace of narration is permanently slowed down. This dramatic device allows the audience to miss several episodes and still be able to follow the storyline. (cf. Weiß 2004: 22)

Dominance of the spoken word: The fact that events in soap operas are rather talked about than presented in pictures can also be explained primarily by the history of soap production. Low production budgets, the above mentioned consideration of the target audience and its original purpose led to the soap being a “radio with pictures”, as it is often labelled (cf. Weiß 2004: 23). Dialogues are predominant, action scenes nearly non-existent.

Wide range of characters: In soap operas, one always finds a large cast with equally important characters, even though not all of them play major roles in the story at the same time. For now, a certain character becomes the focus of attention in a story thread, some other time he or she is moved into the background again and another character is given special emphasis. No single character is indispensable, and all characters are somehow connected with one another (cf. Weiß 2004: 22).

Camera perspective: Another characteristic feature of soap operas is the frequency of close- up shots, especially of the faces of the characters. This special camera technique makes the audience feel close to and familiar with the characters; viewers get the feeling of being able to put themselves into the position of the characters and of really understanding their problems (cf. Weiß 2004: 23).

These are some of the most important characteristic features that generally constitute and help to identify a soap opera. The following quote by Mumford summarises the above mentioned characteristics quite well: “A soap opera is a continuing fictional dramatic television program, presented in multiple serial installments each week, through a narrative composed of inter- locking storylines that focus on the relationships within a specific community of characters.” (1995: 18)

6 2.1.3 What are Soap Operas about?

Soap operas are very often labelled a ‘women’s genre’: “The assumption that soaps are for women is widely held and the interest shown in soaps by both feminist critics and the more traditional women’s magazines stems from this appeal to a predominantly female audience.” (Geraghty 1991: 39). Apart from the fact that the original soap operas with an integrated promotion of household products were produced for the commercially motivated target audience of housewives, there seem to be other plausible reasons for the genre being so closely associated with women as viewers. According to Tania Modleski, quoted in Mumford, what makes watching soap operas so appealing for women is their specific narrative structure, especially the cycles of interruption and repetition, which resembles the daily lives of conventional housewives (cf. Mumford 1995: 33). Geraghty on the other hand argues that it is the engagement with the personal which is central to women’s involvement with soaps: “For it is still the women who are deemed to carry the responsibility for emotional relationships in our society [...]” (Geraghty 1991: 42). Another interesting and more feminist viewpoint is that “[...] soaps give women a voice in a patriarchal society, and even show and celebrate the sexuality of the middle aged woman.” (web 1). It is argued that in soap operas, the patriarchal order is often disrupted by events such as divorce and love affairs, and that such events make patriarchy appear subordinate. Thus, women are shown as superior which gives them self- esteem and a feeling of going one step forward in their fight for equality (cf. web 1). Dyer, quoted by Richards, points out that “this validation and self assertion of women must go some way to account for its lasting popularity.” (web 1).

In fact, what soap operas generally most often deal with are the private problems of the characters. Weiß has filtered out three major categories of content from different studies that work on the contents of soap operas.

The first and most important category is social relationships. Interpersonal matters are what nearly all soap operas deal with. , sexual dramas or emotional and moral conflicts constitute main parts of most soaps. Political or social topics as well as their work only play a role if they influence the private lives of the characters in some way. (2004: 19)

7 Besides social relationships, illnesses are an important element of soaps. Injuries, dramatic accidents and diseases are very frequently brought into play. What is noticeable here is that the illnesses that characters suffer in soaps do not seem to be dangerous to the audience. Cantor and Pingree found out that even if characters fall ill with any serious diseases which in fact happens quite often, only very few of them actually die of them. More frequent causes of death are accidents and violence. Furthermore, they stated that the illnesses presented appear to be rather rare and will probably seldom afflict viewers (cf. Cantor and Pingree 1983: 84). I would not entirely agree with that statement, since nowadays soap operas try more and more to be realistic and reflect everyday real life, which also means confronting the audience with tragic and appalling incidents that may just as likely happen to members of the audience.

The third content category that Weiß has filtered out is crime and intrigues. Generally, soap operas contain much less violence and action than other television genres. This can again be attributed to the fact that soaps were originally produced as radio serials and therefore the spoken word and dialogues predominated – and still predominate today – over action scenes as dramaturgic devices. Furthermore, soap operas, as already mentioned above, deal mainly with interpersonal problems and conflicts and with how these conflicts are dealt with and solved through lengthy discussions and explanations. Thus, verbal violence can much more often be found in soap operas than physical violence (cf. Weiß 2004: 19f).

The following conclusion by Cantor and Pingree summarises quite aptly what soap operas are about: Overall, daytime serials create a world dominated by interpersonal relationships, where characters discuss romantic, marital, and family problems, and where health and work are major concerns within these contexts. There is little physical violence or crime. The serial world seems physically safe but emotionally hazardous, mainly because of the continual sorting and re-sorting of relationships. (1983: 84).

8 2.2. The British Soap Phenomenon Coronation Street

In the second edition of British Television – An Illustrated Guide, Coronation Street is titled the “most successful soap opera in the history of British prime-time television.” Indeed, it is – along with East Enders and – consistently the highest rating show on British television (cf. web 10). Being a Granada production, it is broadcast nationally in the United Kingdom on the station ITV. It is a remarkable fact, that Coronation Street was first aired in 1960 and is still being broadcast and watched by a considerable number of people, too. Thus, it is the longest-running and one of the most popular British TV soap operas (cf. web 2). But before investigating this special soap opera more closely, I would like to give some insight into British soaps in general.

2.2.1. British Soap Culture

Right from the beginning on, British radio directors, first and foremost BBC’s John Reith, refused to produce soap operas following the American example, declaring to be strict opponents of the American way of soap opera production. The first British radio soap called The Front Line Family, was only produced during World War ll. It was supposed to convince the American and Canadian people to help Britain in war. Later, was broadcast. This serial wanted to impart newly won agricultural knowledge to British farmers after World War ll (cf. Landbeck 2002: 56). The first British television soap, first broadcast in 1960, is Coronation Street, which I will investigate in more detail in the next chapter. Today, the three most popular and highest rated soaps are EastEnders, Emmerdale and Coronation Street. These three are also called the ‘flagship soaps’, being the main programmes for the BBC and ITV. They are never scheduled against each other and poor ratings automatically raise questions about the channels associated with them (cf. web 10).

Even though there are certain characteristics and features that may be constitutive of all soap operas generally, significant differences between soaps from different countries can be made out. These differences may be explained by the varying historical, social and cultural as well as the production backgrounds in the individual countries that very probably influence the

9 structure and content of a soap opera. Thus, also the British soap has special characteristic features that clearly identifies it as a typically British soap opera.

British soap operas tend to be strongly related to specific regions; for example, EastEnders is set in the East End of London, the setting for Coronation Street is a certain street in Manchester, which should give the soaps a more realistic touch besides attracting viewers from that area (cf. web 3). Hobson argues as follows: “One of the major functions or consequences of the British soap opera is that all the series have a considerable role in reflecting the national identity through regional representation.” (2003: 120).

In contrast to the typical American soaps, which are centred on wealthy families and their glamorous lives, British soaps focus on working-class communities. They attempt to be more realistic, incorporating social realist storylines such as family discord, marriage breakdown or financial problems, and putting an emphasis on everyday characters and situations. However, Brundson argues that although this social realism undoubtedly contributes to the popularity of British soap operas, there should be no doubt about the fact that they are only ‘realistic’ to a certain extent. “[...] more dramatic things happen more often in soap operas than in ‘real life’: However, soaps allow us to be entertained, to look and laugh, as well as think about life.” (Brundson 1984: 86).

Another major difference to American soaps is the inclusion of comedy elements in British ones, serving as some kind of comic foil to the emotional turmoil that constantly permeates them. Comic stereotypes, such as ‘the gossip’ or ‘the grumpy old man’ are often created for that purpose (cf. web 10).

These are the most important characteristics that constitute a typical British soap opera. Now, I would like to investigate the soap Coronation Street more closely.

10 2.2.2. Coronation Street

As already mentioned, Coronation Street has been one of the most popular soap operas in the United Kingdom since it was first broadcast in 1960. The show revolutionised UK television and quickly became a British institution (cf. web 10). When Coronation Street was launched on Friday, 9 December 1960, no-one would have dared to think about it becoming such a tremendous success – creating viewing records, being heaped with awards and inspiring other serials (cf. Kay 1991: 6). Facing several problems concerning cast, set and even the name of the soap opera, the producers did not expect the serial to run on after the first twelve episodes. When Coronation Street had become essential viewing not only in Britain but also around the world, being broadcast in Thailand, Sri Lanka, Singapore and Sierra Leone to name just a few countries, it was clear that this soap opera was on a good way to become one of the most successful and influential products of television in Great Britain (cf. Kay 1991: 20).

The Eighties, which is the period that is taken into account in the analysis of this thesis, was the decade of the soap opera. New serials proliferated all over the world, and in Great Britain the notorious ‘EastEnders – Coronation Street war’ broke out. EastEnders was launched by the BBC in 1985 and from then on, the two soaps were constantly fighting for the No 1 ranking in the soap-hitlist. Coronation Street itself went through several essential changes concerning storylines and the serial’s set. Whereas death and marriages dominated many of the storylines of the Sixties and the Seventies, adultery, divorce and even murder now entered the Street and their inhabitants' lives.

In the beginning of the Eighties, the view arose, that Coronation Street was ageing and decaying, not moving with the times and clinging to its antiquated storylines and cast. David Liddiment, executive producer of the soap then, argued: The Street had been around for 25 years and a lot of its audience had grown up with it. So I was conscious of the need to continue to appeal to the younger audience, but not necessarily by the injection of young people’s stories because, if you do that, you alienate your older audiences. The last thing the Street should do is to start addressing the young specifically; it just wouldn’t be appropriate. (Kay 1991: 26).

Being aware of the fact – and even intentionally pursuing this aim – that Coronation Street was meant to be produced primarily for an older audience, new perceptions of the soap arose in the second half of the Eighties. It was seen as sexier and more shocking, including affairs

11 and adulterous relationships in the storylines and showing bedroom scenes much more frequently than before.

Also the actual street underwent changes in the 1980s. Houses were rebuilt and converted, and the new developments such as factory units and private housing around the street were woven in. This rebuilding of the street offered the opportunity to introduce new characters and move some of the established ones. So, despite accusations of being old-fashioned and sticking too much to established conventions, Coronation Street has changed dramatically over the years, even though the changes are made with great respect, as Liddiment argues (cf. Kay 1991: 23ff).

Coronation Street is set in the north of England, in a street of terraced houses in the fictional suburb of . The living rooms of these houses and the Rover’s Return pub are the focus of the serial. Observing manners of northern life and signifying it are main concerns of ‘Corrie’, as it is often called. Qualities that are perceived to be synonymous with the north of England, such as being ‘down to earth’, ‘speaking as I find’, ‘standing no nonsense’, being blunt but honest and straightforward and therefore admirable, are revealed and embraced by the serial (cf. Hobson 2003: 122).

Being the typical British soap, Coronation Street embodies ‘social realism’, regarding the “everyday inner-city working class life of a street in Manchester” (cf. web 1). Jordan has listed some conventions of social realism that have in her view been certainly adopted by Coronation Street. Among these are the following: life should be presented in the form of a narrative of personal events; characters should be working-class and be credibly accounted for in terms of the ordinariness of their homes, families and friends; the locale should be urban and provincial, preferably in the industrial north; the settings should be commonplace and recognisable, such as the pub, the street or the home; the style should be such as to suggest an unmediated, unprejudiced and complete view of reality; the viewer should have the impression that he or she has spent some time at the expense of the characters depicted (cf. Jordan 1981: 28). As already mentioned, the soap started in the 1960s and its representation of reality is based on the northern terraced community, reflecting the working-class values which have existed in the decades before the serial began. Among these values is the belief that hard work as well as gaining and retaining respectability are important qualities that

12 should be tried to achieve, as many characters in the soap have done and are still doing (cf. Hobson 2003: 108).

Hobson describes Coronation Street as ‘character-led’, its storylines and issues growing naturally out of the personality of the characters involved (2003: 111). Its handling of strong social issues is much more integral to the characterisation within the serial, meaning that the problems of the contemporary social world are derived from what happens to the characters and are handled within dialogues, wherein the characters try to solve these problems (cf. Hobson 2003: 113). Hobson even goes as far as saying that Coronation Street “[...] has become one of the leading series for inclusion of serious issues [...]” (2003: 114). In the beginnings of the soap, the characters were mainly employed in lower middle-class jobs, such as publicans, school teachers and postmen. In the course of time, this has shifted towards many characters being self-employed, owning their own businesses. What is special about Coronation Street concerning the characters is that it has a long tradition of strong-minded, tough women (cf. Geraghty 1991: 135). Dyer argues that besides the emphasis on common sense, the absence of work and politics, and the perspective of nostalgia, the stress on women and the strength of women are the four aspects that inform this soap opera and even come close to defining its fictional world (cf. Dyer 1981: 4). According to Jordan, most viewers of Coronation Street would certainly name , Annie Walker, and Hilda Ogden when asked to name the most important characters of the serial, before even considering any men (cf. Jordan 1981: 32).

Tony Warren, the prime mover of Coronation Street, presented the soap in a memo, with which he sold the programme to his supervisors, as follows: A fascinating freemasonry, a volume of unwritten rules. These are the driving forces behind life in a working-class street in the North of England. The purpose of Florizel Street [as it then was] is to examine a community of this nature, and in so doing to entertain. (Jordan 1981: 27).

13 3. The Concept of Ideology

In order to be able to detect and analyse certain ideologies in a soap opera, a definition and short description of the term ‘ideology’ in connection with the media in general and soap operas in particular is necessary first and will be ‘tried’ in the following chapters. I used the word ‘tried’ intentionally here, because it seems to be difficult to find a general and universally applicable definition of the innumerably discussed term ‘ideology’ as can be seen in the following chapter.

3.1. What is ‘Ideology’?

The concept of ideology has often been discussed and worked on in various fields of science such as philosophy, economics or linguistics. Over the last two centuries, many theorists have tried to find definitions for the term and have used it in different contexts. Thus, different forms and positions associated with the concept of ideology have developed. In what follows, I will discuss the most influential theories and their founders.

One of the greatest moments in the development of the modern conception of ideology is associated with Karl Marx. Marx believed that people’s ideas and behaviour can be ascribed to their interactions with their physical and social environment and that their knowledge and beliefs are most importantly shaped by the economic relationships that exist in society. Neither innate ideas, whether from God or biology, nor established authority, whether religion or the state, should be the foundation of knowledge, belief or action. He claimed that the social as well as the political ideas of those people who have power, status and wealth in a society are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships (cf. Gee 1996: 4). Summarising Marx’ ideas, ideology can be described as a set of ideas which produces a partial and selective view of reality and which serves the interests of those in power in a society. The ruling class justifies their wealth and privilege by representing their ideas as ‘natural’ (cf. web 11). According to Lye, this is a matter of how the dominant institutions in a society work through values, conceptions of the world and symbol systems to

14 legitimise the current order, rather than a matter of the groups in power deliberately trying to oppress people or change their consciousness (cf. web 6).

Other influential theorists that worked on the field of ideology are Lukács, Althusser and Gramsci, all mentioned in Lovell. Lovell argues that there are two main positions concerning ideology, namely ideologies as opposed world-views, rooted in the differential placing of social classes within the structure of social relations, and the different experiences, activities and interests that result from that on the one hand, and ideological domination, meaning the use of ideas by the dominant class to further their domination, on the other hand. According to Lovell, these are extreme positions on a continuum rather than opposed concepts (cf. Lovell 1981: 41). The three theorists mentioned above all move along this continuum, thus broadening the concept of ideology. Lukács maintains the identification of ideology with ideas. For him, different world-views are discrete, to be related only to their social base in class interest and thus being relatively unproblematic. Althusser on the other hand is talking about a theory of ‘ideology in general’, transforming ideology into a theory of the production of the experiencing, acting human subject and including a particular effect, namely that of recognition, in his theory. Gramsci, positioning himself between the former two theorists, differentiates ideas into those which are developed as abstract general systems, and those which remain socially embedded, being expressed in action and common sense (cf. Lovell 1981: 44).

Today, Marx’ concept of ideology is still valuable, even though it has been adapted to the point that all belief systems or world views can be thought to be ideological. However, there is no absolute truth with which to measure the accuracy of ideologies (cf. web 11). This means that ideologies are neither right nor wrong, that they are only a relativistic intellectual strategy for categorising the world. Being a coherent system of ideas, an ideology relies upon some basic assumptions about reality which may or may not have any factual basis. Thus, these assumptions are actually subjective choices (cf. web 12). According to Althusser, the shaping of people’s cognitive and affective interpretations of the world are carried out by the state ideological apparatuses, namely churches, schools, the family and through cultural forms such as literature, music, advertising etc. (cf. web 6).

Kurt Lenk, a German philosopher, offers a quite concrete definition for ‘ideology’ which also seems to be suitable for this thesis:

15 [Rechtfertigungsideologien] sind modellbildende Ideologien, die sich auf die gesamten gesellschaftlichen Beziehungen erstrecken. Das zu Grunde liegende Modell ist meist eine auf Rationalität und Wissenschaftlichkeit pochende Deutung der Realität. Ideologisch ist ein solches Modell, weil es bestrebt ist, seinerseits ein verbindliches Verständnis von Realität – nicht selten unter dem Anspruch der unangreifbaren Anwendung rationaler Argumente und Argumentationsstrukturen – als einzig ‘vernünftigerweise’ vertretbares zu etablieren (web 15).

3.2. Ideology, Media and Soaps

Television is an important medium of modern mass communication or, as Marshall and Werndly point out, a ‘monological’ medium, which means that it is not meant to be produced for specific individuals but for an unlimited number of people (cf. 2002: 3). Although it is a relatively new institution, television can – according to media theorists Fiske and Hartley – also be related to very old forms of verbal communication. Besides its function as entertainment, it has an important social communication role similar to that of storytellers of older tribal societies. There, the storyteller functioned as a medium through which the wider culture was relayed to people. He or she interpreted and passed on stories, explaining the wider world to his or her audience. Thus, the ancient storyteller, and in a way also modern television, which can be thought of here as fulfilling a similar mediating role, act to interpret and make sense of events and ideas according to certain sets of values that dominate the society (cf. Marshall and Werndly 2002: 9).

Now, critics might argue that ‘light entertainment’ television formats, to which also soap operas certainly belong, are not entitled to convey values or ideologies, since they are fictional and artificial media constructions and apart from that deal with superficial and insignificant issues. Debilitating this point of view, Terry Lovell argues: “Entertainment is not primarily a vehicle for the transmission of ideas. But even the most emotionally saturated entertainment will also produce ideas, and these will certainly be locatable in terms of ideology.” (1981: 47). Viewers of apparently realistic fictional programs such as soap operas often detect a certain coherence of the version of life that is shown in such programs and their own experience. Thus, they tend to constantly make comparisons between the fictional world presented in the soaps and the non-fictional world they inhabit,

16 even though these comparisons might be often made indirectly or unconsciously. Consequently, the ideological aspects of the soap opera narrative are both understood and evaluated by viewers in terms of the real world, and on the other hand viewers also understand this real world in terms of the program they watch (cf. Mumford 1995: 9).

However, Mumford further argues that even though a program expresses some kind of ideology, this does not mean that viewers uniformly accept that ideology or respond to it without critical inspection. It is furthermore not necessary to accept a certain ideology in order to be able to experience pleasure in the program or genre. According to Mumford, pleasure can well exist in tension with and even in contradiction to the program’s ideological imperatives, and very often this pleasure involves the act of disagreeing with the program’s social, sexual, ethnic or other politics. Still, viewer’s capability of resisting or ignoring ideologies in soap operas does not lessen the genre’s role and power of reproducing and perpetuating them (cf. Mumford 1995: 118).

17 4. Socio-Political and Historical Background

Television with its vast amount of varying programmes has a considerable influence on the individual viewers and on society as a whole. Observing this circle of influence and power- roles from another perspective, it gets clear that it is also – at least to some degree – inevitable that a country’s actual political and socio-economic situation has some kind of influence on its culture and along with it on its entertainment industry, to which the media and television belong. Fairclough puts it this way: “[...] this wider contextual matrix [the wider social, cultural and political context] must be attended to because it shapes discourse practices in important ways and is itself cumulatively shaped by them. This is particularly clear in the case of the media.” (Fairclough 1995: 50).

As this thesis focuses on the detection and analysis of ideologies in a British soap opera in the 1980s, it is necessary to give an overview of the political and socio-economic situation of that time in Great Britain in order to be able to draw conclusions about possible connections between ideologies represented in the soap opera and the ideologies that the political and economic system then had developed and imposed on society.

4.1. Great Britain in the 1980s: The Concept of ‘Thatcherism’

When talking about the political and socio-economic situation of Great Britain in the 1980s, it is virtually impossible to avoid discussing Margaret Thatcher and her political career and achievements. Being involved in politics from an early age on, Margaret Hilda Thatcher was the youngest ever female Conservative candidate to stand for election as a Member of Parliament in 1950. After being finally elected as a Member of Parliament in the 1959 election, she occupied several political posts, such as Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance or Secretary of State for Education and Science, before she became Conservative Party leader in 1975. Finally in 1979, Thatcher became the United Kingdom’s first female Prime Minister (cf. web 8).

18 The term ‘Thatcherism’ was coined by Thatcher’s opponents who claimed that she had imposed by force a dogma of will that was rejected by most people in Britain. However, the term was taken up by her supporters who used it even more persistently (cf. Letwin 1992: 17). Among other things, Thatcherism denotes a special style of governance. As prime minister, Thatcher centralised a great deal of power to herself, often disregarding traditional cabinet structures. It was this personal approach and her toughness in critical situations such as the Falklands War or the Miner’s Strike that gave her form of governance a special touch (cf. web 8). According to Letwin (1992: 130), Thatcherism and the Conservative Party as a whole are believed to be the determined defenders of capitalists, business and the wealthy.

4.1.1. Reforms and Interventions under Thatcher

One of Margaret Thatcher’s main aims was to diminish the power of the trade unions and their supposed influence on paralysing of the British economy. This longstanding battle culminated in the Miner’s Strike of 1984, an answer to the proposals to close down a large number of mines, after which the leadership of the National Union of Mineworkers conceded without any deal (cf. web 7; web 8; web 13). Thatcher also applied monetarist policies in order to reduce inflation, and she reduced public spending. These deflationary measures resulted in a recession, lasting approximately from 1979 to the beginning of 1981, which led to a rising number of unemployed (cf. web 13).

Reduced state intervention and free markets are topics that were consistently emphasised by Thatcher’s political philosophy (cf. web 7). Thus, privatisation is one of the issues that is often associated with Thatcherism. The economic motive for this policy was to restore the vitality of the British economy, which had been declining in the years prior to Thatcher’s terms of office. To achieve this goal, many large state-controlled utilities, such as British Telecom or British Airways, and other big loss-making corporations were transferred out of the public sector and of public subsidy (cf. Letwin 1992: 98).

Although Thatcher had supported British membership in the European Community, she believed that its role should be limited to ensuring free trade and effective competition. Thus,

19 she opposed proposals from the EC for a federal structure and increasing centralisation of decision-making, fearing that this might reverse the changes she was making in Great Britain. In a speech, she argued: “We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level, with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels.” (web 7).

Even though Britain experienced a period of boom, including an unprecedented housing boom, during much of the 1980s, this period was also marked by poverty, homelessness and violence. However, many of the policies introduced by the Thatcher government have been kept since (cf. web 13).

4.1.2. The ‘Vigorous Virtues’

One of the most important elements of Thatcherism is the Thatcherite conception of the individual. Although never articulated explicitly, it has been the theme in a series of speeches as well as acts. Margaret Thatcher once said: “There is no such thing as society.” This remark only makes sense when the tri-partite character of the Thatcherite view of Britain is exposed: Thatcherism starts with a conception of the individual, moves to a conception of the family suited to foster the individual characteristics which it favours, and regards the proper society as one in which the favoured characteristics of individuals and families can flourish and be manifested. (Letwin 1992: 32).

The ideal individual preferred by Thatcherism should be upright, self-sufficient, energetic, adventurous, independent-minded, loyal to friends, and robust against enemies. These virtues can also be described as the ‘vigorous virtues’, being emphasised in contrast to but not necessarily excluding the so-called ‘softer virtues’ such as kindness, humility, gentleness, sympathy and cheerfulness. In the Thatcherite view, the vigorous virtues had been neglected in Britain at the end of the twentieth century and must therefore be reinforced in order to regain a well-working and stable state.

Thatcherites believed that people are eager and able to care for themselves. They emphasised the striving for self-respect and independence, and attempted to treat the British people not as invalids or children that have to be taken care of but as independent individuals who can

20 pursue their own projects within the framework established by the law of the country. Strongly linked with the ‘creation’ of such individuals and of great importance was the family, since it was the means by which the vigorous virtues were transmitted from one generation to the next by example and constant individual exhortation in a loving and trusting atmosphere. So the adults in a family were supposed to insist on the cultivation of the vigorous virtues with patience, care and persistence.

Thatcherites have seen themselves and the whole country confronted with problems such as rising crime, a sense of dependency on the state, a growing disrepute of the family and lack of concern for the moral upbringing of children. The aim of the vigorous virtues and their cultivation in individuals through the family was to establish a country where people practising these virtues have room to flourish, and resulting from that a nation which is rich, powerful, culturally dynamic respected by other nations. This positive vision of a vigorous and independent Britain and the need not to think of government as the solution to all ills, since government cannot be expected to do something about the condition of individuals and families in a modern liberal state, became the main goal to be achieved by Margaret Thatcher and her government (cf. Letwin 1992: 32ff).

21 5. Empirical Analysis

Before starting with the actual analysis, I will outline the methods and approaches I will apply in the empirical analysis. The theoretical background and the methodological approaches I have chosen for this thesis are Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) on the one hand and Semiotics on the other hand. After introducing these approaches and their most important concepts which I will apply in the analysis, I will formulate a research question, presenting the aim of the empirical analysis.

5.1. Critical Discourse Analysis

Language is structured according to different patterns that people’s utterances follow when they take part in different domains of social life. ‘Discourse Analysis’ refers to the analysis of these patterns. It is not just one specific approach, but a series of interdisciplinary approaches that are made use of to explore different social domains in various types of studies (cf. Phillips and Jorgensen 2002: 1). The starting point of discourse analytical approaches is the claim that people’s access to reality is always through language. Language creates representations of reality that are never mere reflections of a pre-existing reality but contribute to constructing reality. Thus, language generates and consequently constitutes the social world (cf. Phillips and Jorgensen 2002: 8f).

A range of conceptions exist of what the term ‘discourse’ actually means. In a very broad sense, discourse is seen as connected stretches of language. Foucault calls discourse: “[...] a group of statements in so far as they belong to the same discursive formation. [Discourse] is made up of a limited number of statements for which a group of conditions of existence can be defined” (Foucault 1972: 117). For Norman Fairclough, whose approach to Critical Discourse Analysis I will focus on in the following, the term ‘discourse’ signals the particular view of language in use as an element of social life which is closely interconnected with other elements (cf. Fairclough 2003: 3).

22 5.1.1. What is Critical Discourse Analysis?

This special approach to discourse analysis, often abbreviated to CDA, provides theories and methods for the empirical study of the relations between discourse and social and cultural developments in different social domains (cf. Phillips and Jorgensen 2002: 60). Since it is difficult to define CDA in simple terms, Fairclough and Wodak (cf. 1997: 271ff) have compiled eight main tenets that summarise what CDA is and what it does:

1.) CDA addresses social problems by analysing linguistic aspects as well as cultural and social processes and structures in texts. 2.) Power relations are discursive; CDA shows how these relations are exercised and who is the dominating part in the discourse. 3.) Discourse constitutes society and culture. CDA is the analysis of the dialectical relationship between discourse and other elements of social practices. Each discursive event reproduces or transforms culture and society and its inherent power relations. 4.) Discourse does ideological work as ideologies construct certain representations of reality and of communities. 5.) Discourse is historical, meaning that discourses are always connected to earlier, historical discourses. 6.) Discourse is a form of social action. In CDA, language-as-discourse is both a form of action which is socially and historically situated and in a dialectical relationship with other social aspects. 7.) The link between text and society is mediated. CDA tries to find and make indirect connections between social and cultural structures and processes and properties of the text. 8.) Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory. CDA carries out systematic, concrete, linguistic textual analysis of language use in social interaction.

23 5.1.2. Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis

Norman Fairclough sees discourse in a dialectical relationship with other social dimensions. This means that discourse is an important form of social practice which reproduces as well as changes knowledge, identities and social relations, but at the same time is also shaped by other social practices and structures (cf. Phillips and Jorgensen 2002: 65).

Fairclough’s approach is a text-oriented form of discourse analysis which tries to unite the following three traditions: Firstly a detailed textual analysis within the field of linguistics, secondly a macro-sociological analysis of social practice, and thirdly the micro-sociological, interpretative tradition within sociology where everyday life is treated as the product of people’s actions in which they follow a set of shared ‘common-sense’ rules and procedures (cf. Fairclough 1992: 72). Moreover, he sees it as a ‘critical’ approach to discourse analysis in that it aims at making visible through analysis connections between properties of texts and social processes and relations which are generally not obvious to people who produce and – especially important for this thesis – who interpret those texts:

Adopting critical goals [in discourse analysis] means aiming to elucidate such naturalisations [i.e. ideological representations which are seen as non-ideological common sense], and more generally to make clear social determinations and effects of discourse which are characteristically opaque to participants. (Fairclough 1995: 28)

Even though Fairclough makes use of detailed text analysis to gain insights into how discursive processes operate linguistically in specific texts, he argues that text analysis alone is not sufficient for discourse analysis. An interdisciplinary perspective is needed in which textual and social analysis is combined in order to show the links between texts and societal and cultural processes and structures. The interpretative tradition should contribute to an understanding of how people actively create a rule-bound world in everyday practices. Thus, Fairclough’s understanding of discourse as being both constitutive and constituted is central to his theory (cf. Phillips and Jorgensen 2002: 66).

24 5.1.2.1. Fairclough’s Three-Dimensional Model

Fairclough’s approach is based upon a three-dimensional method of discourse analysis. He sees discourse as simultaneously a language text, discourse practice, and sociocultural practice. The following model illustrates these three dimensions:

Process of production

Text Description of form (text analysis)

Interpretation of meaning Process of interpretation (processing analysis)

Discourse practice

Explanation and

evaluation of the Sociocultural practice sociocultural significance and ideological function (social analysis) (Situational; institutional; societal)

Dimensions of discourse Dimensions of discourse analysis

(cf. Fairclough 1995: 98)

This model serves as an analytical framework for empirical research on communication and society. It is based upon the principle that texts can never be understood or analysed in isolation but only in relation to webs of other texts and to the social context. Thus, referring to Fairclough’s model, the analysis of a communicative event includes: an analysis of the

25 linguistic structure (level of text), an analysis of the discourses which are articulated in the production and the consumption of the text (level of discourse practice), and an analysis of considerations about whether the discourse practice reproduces or restructures the existing order of discourse and about what consequences this has for the broader social-cultural practice (level of socio-cultural practice) (cf. Phillips and Jorgensen 2002: 68ff). I will discuss these stages of analysis in more detail now since they are of special importance for the empirical analysis of this thesis.

Concerning the description of texts, Fairclough provides a list of questions that can be asked of a text. These questions serve as possible guidelines for the descriptive part of the analysis. I will now present the questions which might be of relevance for my analysis (cf. Fairclough 2001: 92ff):

Question 1 is concerned with the experiential value a word possesses. It describes how a speaker presents the world around him or her, regarding his or her knowledge and beliefs. The experiential value can be found within the choice of vocabulary as well as the grammatical structure of the text. Ideologies become evident in certain words and classification schemes and thus this question is of special interest in connection with this paper since it can serve as a tool for detecting certain ideologies in the soap dialogues.

Question 2 focuses on the relational value of a word. This value can unfold the social relationships and how they are enacted with in a text. They can find expression in euphemisms or in the use of markedly formal or informal words, for example.

Question 3 is concerned with the expressive value. This type of value can provide an insight into the evaluation of reality that the producer of a text makes. Since this value can guide the consumer of a text to certain ideologies and classifications, it is also of special importance for this paper.

The second stage in the analysis of a text is the interpretation of its meanings, where the relationship between text and interaction is analysed (cf. Fairclough 2001: 122f). The cognitive processes within the consumers of a text are analysed at this stage. Every consumer has a repertoire of resources that are used to construct certain versions of reality. At the level of interpretation it is investigated which types of Member’s Resources are used by the

26 consumer in order to interpret a text. By ‘Member’s Resources’ Fairclough means the natural and social worlds that people inhabit, the values, beliefs and assumptions people draw upon when producing or interpreting texts. He also suggests some questions that can be posed to a text at this stage, namely: What is going on, who is involved, what relationships are at issue, what is the role of language?

The third and last stage in Fairclough’s model is the stage of explanation of the socio-cultural significance of the forms and meanings used. At this level, discourse should be portrayed as a part of a social process, as a kind of social practice showing how it is determined by social structures. Fairclough offers three questions that can be asked of a particular discourse under investigation: What power relations at situational, institutional and societal levels help shape this discourse (social determinants)? What elements of Member’s Resources, which are drawn upon, have an ideological character (ideologies)? How is this discourse positioned in relation to struggles at the situational, institutional and societal levels? Does the discourse contribute to sustaining existing power relations, or does it transform them (effects)? (cf. Fairclough 2001: 135ff)

5.2. Semiotics

5.2.1. What is Semiotics?

Semiotics is in its broadest sense known as the study of signs. Even though it has already been of interest for medieval philosophers, modern semiological analysis is said to have begun with the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) and the American philosopher Charles Saunders Peirce (1839-1914) (cf. Berger 1991: 6), whose concepts of semiotics will be investigated more closely in one of the next chapters.

However, various definitions of what semiotics is and what it actually comprises exist. In his work A Theory of Semiotics, the Italian semiotician Umberto Eco describes semiotics as follows: Semiotics is concerned with everything that can be taken as a sign. A sign is everything which can be taken as significantly substituting for something else. This

27 something else does not necessarily have to exist or to actually be somewhere at the moment in which a sign stands for it. (1976: 7). In the 1960s, French semiotician and literary scholar Roland Barthes, wrote: Semiology aims to take in any system of signs, whatever their substance and limits; images, gestures, musical sounds, objects, and the complex associations of all of these, which form the content of ritual, convention or public entertainment: these constitute, if not languages, at least systems of signification (Barthes 1967: 9).

Semiotics analyses and studies art, literature, anthropology, the mass media and other sign systems. Not only linguists but also philosophers, psychologists, sociologists, literary or media theorists, to name just a few, are involved in the extensive field of semiotics (cf. web 14).

5.2.2. The Sign 5.2.2.1. De Saussure’s and Peirce’s Concepts of the Sign

Since much of their work was devoted to a fundamental definition of the term ‘sign’, the two dominant models of what constitutes a sign are those of de Saussure and Peirce.

In de Saussure’s two-part model, a sign is composed of a ‘signifier’ or ‘sound image’, meaning the form which the sign takes, and the ‘signified’ or ‘concept’, which is the concept it represents. The sign then is the whole resulting from the association of the signifier with the signified. For de Saussure, sound image and concept are intimately linked and inseparable. He further argued that no sign makes sense on its own but only in relation to other signs, and thus only if it is part of a certain sign system. Thus he emphasised relationships rather than material things, and the context of a sign which is essential for creating meaning (cf. web 14). Another important aspect stressed by de Saussure is the arbitrariness of signs. The relationship between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary, meaning un-natural and unmotivated. In de Saussure’s view, there is no logical connection between a word and a concept, which makes meaning in texts interesting but also problematical (cf. Berger 1991: 8).

In contrast to de Saussure’s two-part model, Peirce’s sign consists of three components: the ‘representamen’, being that which represents something else, the ‘object’, being that which

28 the sign stands for, that which is represented by it, and finally the ‘interpretant’, being described as the possible meaning the sign allows for (cf. Dines and Larsen 2002: 26f). The importance of sense-making in Peirce’s model has had particular appeal for communication and media theorists who stress the importance of interpretation and thus reject equating content and meaning (cf. web 14).

5.2.2.2. Icon, Index and Symbol

A lasting and influential contribution of Peirce in the field of semiotics is his division of signs in three basic classes: icons, indices and symbols. Peirce himself regarded it as ‘the most fundamental division of signs’. However, it provides more of a classification of different ‘modes of relationship’ between sign vehicles and their referents than distinct ‘types of signs’ (cf. web 14).

Icons are based on their similarity to the object (cf. Johansen and Larsen 2002: 36). This means that iconic signs interrelate with their semiotic objects by virtue of some resemblance or similarity with it, such as maps and the territories they map (cf. Merrell 2001: 31).

An indexical sign is connected with the object it signifies but it does not represent or picture it in the direct way that icons do. An example would be the Eiffel Tower signifying Paris. However, the Eiffel Tower also functions iconically to represent the Parisian landmark. Thus, signs can both be iconic and indexical (cf. Selby and Cowdery: 1995: 46).

Symbols are constructed or agreed upon to be used as signs as conventional designations with a referentiality and a meaning that are determined by conventional usage (cf. Johansen and Larsen 2002: 43). This means that there is no necessary natural link or a link due to some resemblance or similarity, as with indices and icons, between the representamen and the semiotic object (cf. Merrell 2001: 31). A red rose, for example, is a symbol of romance and love not because it resembles either of these objects but because it has come to symbolise these things over the centuries (cf. Selby and Cowdery 1995: 46). Thus, a symbol is an arbitrary, unmotivated and a conventionally ‘learned’ type of sign.

29 5.2.2.3. Denotation and Connotation

These two concepts are highly important ideas in semiotics and semiotic analysis. “’Denotation’ tends to be described as the definitional, ‘literal’, ‘obvious’ or ‘commonsense’ meaning of a sign.” (web 14). It is understood as the literal or dictionary meaning of the signifier (cf. Marshall and Werndly 2002: 30). The art historian Erwin Panofsky argued that the denotation of a representational visual image is what all viewers from any culture would recognise this image as depicting (cf. web 14).

‘Connotation’ on the other hand refers to the socio-cultural and personal associations of the sign (cf. web 14). It is what comes to our mind, the things or feelings that we associate with it when we perceive a certain sign. Marshall and Werndly argue that “it is through connotation that we convey cultural attitudes, beliefs and values.” (2002: 30). Thus, connotations carry social judgements.

5.2.2.4. Codes

According to Berger (1991:23), codes are “highly complex patterns of associations we all learn in a given society and culture. These codes [...] affect the way we interpret signs [...].” Already de Saussure stressed that signs are only meaningful when they are interpreted in relation to each other. Thus, codes are interpretive frameworks or ‘sign systems’ that are used by both producers and interpreters of texts. In media texts, signs are selected and combined in relation to familiar codes in order to limit the range of possible meanings they are likely to generate when read by the audience (cf. web 14). Eco puts it this way: “Codes [...] are applied to the message in the light of a general framework of cultural references, which constitutes the receiver’s patrimony of knowledge: his ideological, ethical, religious standpoints, his psychological attitudes, his tastes, his value systems, etc. “ (1972: 115; quoted in Berger 1991: 24). Codes are all-pervasive and provide a useful concept for analysing media texts.

30 5.3. Research Question

The main research question that will be worked on in the course of the empirical part of this thesis is: How and by which linguistic and/or semiotic means are ideologies constructed and evaluated in Coronation Street in the 1980s? The underlying hypothesis is that the media discourse in general and soap operas in particular deliver certain ideologies that influence the way individuals and also society as a whole understand the world in which they live. The sub- questions to be answered are: What kinds of ideologies can be found concerning the topic of work ethics? What ideologies can be found concerning the position of women? What ideologies concerning social differences among the characters can be found in the respective dialogues and text extracts?

The material used consists of 10 DVDs of Coronation Street from the 1980s, from which I will choose relevant episodes and extracts that contain examples of different ideologies conveyed.

5.4. Analysis

In the following I will investigate several text extracts from various episodes of Coronation Street. As soap operas fall into the generic category of drama, the texts contained are naturally dialogues or monologues. I will collect examples with similar content and put them together under a broad thematic category. The examples will be transcribed and placed at the beginning of each analysis. Concerning the transcription, the following explanations are necessary:

... : pause in speech [syll/s] : one or more words of the original text left out [text] : texts within brackets describe what the speakers are doing or what is happening at the moment

31 Concerning the concrete analysis, I will stick to Fairclough’s three stages of analysis of a text, which I have discussed in detail above. This means that I will firstly describe the texts by means of their linguistic and semiotic devices. Along with this description of form I will interpret the possible meaning of the discourse practices of each example or scene. Finally, I will evaluate the socio-cultural significance by filtering possible ideologies out of the results of description and interpretation of the texts.

5.4.1. Work Ethics

Since Coronation Street lays claim to being about working-class culture, it seems appropriate to investigate the area of work and work ethics with regard to the existence of ideologies here (cf. Dyer 1981: 2).

It is often argued that the world of work and business is ignored in British soap operas. Dyer for example says that “the absence of work [...] inform[s] Coronation Street and indeed come[s] close to defining its fictional world” (Dyer 1981: 4). A closer investigation shows that work and business are not at all absent in Coronation Street. It is, however, more down- market business, such as small pubs and shops or one-man factories or firms, and it has to be conceded that the soap does not deal with work and business relations in any depth. Nevertheless, the characters are constantly shown at work, be it in the pub, the factory or the corner shop. Thus, business and work here serve as important providers of settings and stories and are thus essential in the soap (cf. Geraghty 1991: 52).

In the following I will analyse several dialogues from a linguistic as well as a semiotic point of view and see how characters in the soap deal with work and work ethics and what their attitudes towards working are. From the results, conclusions about prevailing ideologies will be drawn in the end.

32 5.4.1.1. Scene 1

The first scene that is being investigated more closely presents a young couple called Gail and Brian Tilsley, parents of baby Nick. Gail is working in the kitchen, while Brian is sitting on the sofa in the living room, reading a newspaper. They are within earshot.

Gail: I’ll put the kettle on in a minute. Brian: Need any help? G: No, you sit down and put your feet up! You don’t get many days off! ... Anyway, you did the shoppin’. B: You don’t get any days off [sylls] G: Th’is different. Th’isn’t like a normal day’s housework, not with you there to chat to. B: ... Do you get lonely, luv? G: Not so much during the day, there’s no time. More at night... B: Ahh, I know... G: [comes and sits down on the sofa next to Brian] Ey, now don’t start feeling guilty, that’s not a complaint! I know you’ve got to work! I know you’re not out boozin’ or with other women! B: Ahh, I [syll] you would complain then. G: No, I’d just smash your head in! [smiles] B: [laughs] ... It won’t always be like this, luv. G: I know. B: No, I mean it, kid. We won’t always be struggling for money. G: Don’t say I married an ambitious man! B: Well, I never used to be, as long as I had enough money to run my bike and buy a few pints, take a bird out now and again...but now, with Nicky and all this...I want more, for all of us. Yeah, I am ambitious. And don’t laugh! G: I don’t... (Source 2, Episode 4: 07:40)

33 Description of form and interpretation of meaning: – Linguistic analysis The participants in this text are a young woman and her husband, having some casual conversation while she is preparing something for tea-time. The relationship between the two of them seems to be a close and loving one, since he is calling her “luv” (meaning “love”) twice and “kid” once in this extract, both being terms of affection. A third participant mentioned once in the dialogue is their son Nicky. The three of them form the family that the husband is referring to when saying “We won’t always be struggling for money” and “...for all of us.” Using personal pronouns in the first person plural with an inclusive meaning indicates that what he wishes to earn and gain in the future is not only meant to be for him alone but also for his family and that the concept of family is thus of great importance for the speaker.

The following expressions lead to the realisation that the main topics in this conversation are work(ing) and money as a logical consequence of work(ing): “getting days off”, “a normal day’s housework”, “you’ve got to work” and “struggling for money”.

Concerning textual attributes, there is one descriptor that is most striking in this dialogue, namely “ambitious”, with the husband being the descriptee. It appears twice here; the first time in an attributive position: “an ambitious man”, the second time in a predicative position: “I am ambitious”. Even though attributive adjectives are generally interpreted as being more essential, i.e. being more constitutive of a person’s identity and thus less situation-dependent than predicative ones, here the husband’s realisation that he is ambitious is not only a momentary feature attributed by the situation but a quality that he sees as being part of his identity, or at least one that he intends to make a part of his identity (cf. Marko 2008: 31ff).

Regarding the information structure in this dialogue, two examples of presupposition can be found here. The utterance “No, you sit down and put your feet up! You don’t get many days off!” implies that the day the conversation is taking place is the husband’s day off. The second example, “We won’t always be struggling for money”, implies that at the moment the family is struggling for money, but that this circumstance will change sometime in the future (cf. Marko 2008: 44).

What is noticeable when taking the conversational structure into consideration is the following sequence of speech acts:

34 B: It won’t always be like this, luv. Æ ASSERTIVE G: I know. Æ ASSERTIVE B: No, I mean it, kid. We won’t always be struggling for money. Æ ASSERTIVE (more insistent) / COMMISSIVE G: Don’t say I married an ambitious man! Æ DIRECTIVE B: Well, I never used to be... Æ ASSERTIVE

The directive in the fourth turn of this dialogue extract can be considered an indirect speech act. The wife actually doesn’t want her husband not to say that she married an ambitious man, but wants to know from him if he really thinks himself being an ambitious man. Thus, she is asking him an indirect question to which she then gets an answer. Furthermore, the phrase “Don’t say I married an ambitious man!” indicates that the speaker expects a confirmation of what he or she has stated (in this case the wife expects the confirmation that her husband is indeed an ambitious man) (cf. Marko 2008: 63f).

With the statement “I want more”, the husband substantiates his ambition. More here stands in contrast to “[having] enough money to run my bike and buy a few pints, take a bird out now and again”, which is not enough anymore.

– Semiotic analysis At the beginning of the scene, the wife is standing in the kitchen, preparing something to eat. The setting is a conventional middle-class household. Not many props are shown in the two rooms and the furniture is quite ordinary, which might signify that the family living there is not overly well-situated. What is shown in the scene, however, are some household objects. A colander and an ironing board are two indexical signs connoting the household, which is obviously the wife’s territory since the objects are always shown somewhere nearby her.

While the couple is talking casually about rather irrelevant things, the camera catches the respective speaker in a medium shot, which serves as a signifier for personal relationships (cf. Selby and Cowdery 1995: 57). When the discussion starts becoming more serious, the wife leaves her work in the kitchen and goes round into the living room, sitting next to her husband. Now both are shown while talking. When the husband starts touching upon the subject of being ambitious and wanting more, the camera catches him in a close-up,

35 signifying intimacy. This way of using the camera indicates that the subject he is now discussing is of more significance than what he was talking about before, thus making it the main subject of the scene.

5.4.1.2. Scene 2

The second scene chosen for analysis features Hilda and Stanley Ogden, both aged between 50 and 60, and their lodger Eddie Yeats, aged about 30. Hilda works as a cleaner and Eddie is a dustman. It is sometime in the morning and Hilda and Eddie are about to leave the house for work, meeting at the breakfast table.

Eddie: Got anything in the way of food and drink for the workin’ lad, ‘ilda? Hilda: Well, there’s a cuppa tea but there’s nowt to eat on account o’ the fact that the non- working lad over there has [sylls] the last piece of bread! [both look at Stan] E: You know, I don’t know how he can digest food, with him not moving, you know. H: Well, he don’t need to digest it, does ‘e? He just swills it through him on a tide of ale [both laugh] E: Hey, it’s very good, that! Stanley: [sylls] the pair a’ you! I don’t feel well this morning! H: Well, what’s up with ya? Besides your bottom bein’ stuck to that chair?!

(Source 3, Episode 7: 02:50)

Description of form and interpretation of meaning: – Linguistic analysis The main participants in this short extract of a dialogue are Hilda Ogden, a typical working- class wife who works as a cleaner at several employers, and her lodger Eddie Yeats, a young single man working as a dustman. The third participant here is Stanley Ogden. He is Hilda’s husband and is obviously unemployed at the moment.

36 In the conversation between Hilda and Eddie, Stanley is referred to as the “non-working lad” in contrast to Eddie, referring to himself as the “working lad”. By saying “for the workin’ lad” instead of “for me” the speaker emphasises the fact that he has a job and that he is about to go and work after having had breakfast. The descriptor “workin’” is used in an attributive position here, describing a more permanent feature of the descriptee, namely that he has a fixed job and that he is permanently working in this job (cf. Marko 2008: 31ff). The semantic domain that this descriptor pertains is that of activity (cf. Marko 2008: 37). The fact that the speaker just mentions that he is a working member of society but that he does not say what kind of job he is doing points to the fact that in this conversation it does not play a role what profession he has but that it is only relevant that he has one at all.

The same applies to the description of “non-workin’ lad”, with the difference that here the descriptee does not have a job. The phrases “with him not moving” and “besides your bottom bein’ stuck to that chair” further emphasise the fact that the participant that is addressed here does not work at the moment (the metaphor “your bottom bein’ stuck to that chair” indicating that the addressee appears so lazy that it seems as if he never moves away from where he is just sitting). Both expressions have the evaluative meaning that not working is not considered positive (cf. Marko 2008: 1). Not enough that Stanley does not work; in addition to this he “has eaten the last piece of bread”. With this statement Hilda wants to express that the people that work and thus contribute to the upkeep of the family would need power and energy in form of food in order to be able to do their jobs properly, and that it is them who really deserve it. Furthermore, she wants to make clear that the person who does not work is obviously not aware of this ‘rule’ or has deliberately violated it and is consequently even more contemptible than he already is. Considering Hilda’s statements in this conversation, one gets the impression that Stanley’s main ‘activities’ are sitting around and drinking a lot of beer.

Stanley, the non-working lad, is ridiculed throughout this conversation by the two people who have a job. Besides the comments about him not moving, his bottom being stuck to a chair and him digesting food by swilling it through on a tide of ale, all three being used to make fun of him, the fact that Hilda and Eddie talk about Stanley as if he couldn’t hear them even though he is sitting in front of them indicates that they do not respect him on account of the fact that he does not work while the two of them do work and contribute to the upkeep of the house and the family. Only in the end Hilda addresses Stanley directly, when he has had

37 enough of being ridiculed and tells Hilda and Eddie to leave him alone, but even then she implicitly complains about his laziness.

– Semiotic analysis The scene starts with Eddie entering the living room where Hilda and Stanley are in. Hilda is preparing herself for work, putting on her coat. Both Eddie and Hilda are dressed in their working clothes. Eddie wears a blue gear and Hilda wears her blue coat. On the door leading out of the room a blue jacket is hanging. This collection of blue pieces of clothing might hint at their belonging to or at least at some connection with the blue collar workers, as opposed to the white collar workers. Even though the Ogdens and Eddie do not work in a factory, they are closer to the blue collars with regard to their jobs than to the white collars, which emphasises their affiliation to the working-class in its literal meaning. Hilda’s style as a whole allows the conclusion that she belongs to the working-class. She almost always wears three curlers and a patterned headscarf, which have even become her trademark over the years. Only when there is some special occasion such as a marriage or some celebration she puts them off. In the series, they serve as indexical signs, connoting Hilda’s belonging to the working-class.

Hilda and Eddie are standing besides the breakfast table when talking, while Stanley is sitting at the table, smoking a cigarette. The working members of the house are literally as well as figuratively speaking on their feet, ready to set off for work, while the “non-working lad” is depicted in a passive, sitting position. This constellation visually portrays the difference between the working and the non-working members of the family and thus semiotically supports the topic that is dealt with linguistically in the dialogue.

5.4.1.3. Scene 3

The next scene to be analysed is a discussion between Mavis and Derek Wilton, a married couple of about 50 years of age. It is sometime in the morning and Mavis is sitting at the breakfast table when Derek enters the room.

38

Mavis: Oh Derek, come and sit down, you’ve hardly touched your breakfast! Derek: Busy day, Mavis, tide of industry waits for no man! M: Derek... D: Yes, my luv? [is busy, prepares himself for leaving the house] M: What...what exactly are you going to do today? D: ... Just oil the wheels of commerce, as normal. [kisses Mavis] M: Derek ... I know! D: Know? What? M: Yesterday I phoned your office to have a talk with you and...and the girl told me that ... well, that you weren’t working there anymore ... Come and sit down, luv ... d’you want a cup of tea now? D: [sits down] No. [is very dejected] M: Derek, you must talk to me, I’m your wife, I need to understand! D: I offered my resignation, unless they fully reinstated me ... they accepted it. M: It’s not that I don’t understand! Why didn’t you tell me? D: I didn’t want to distress you unnecessarily. I knew within a few days, I ... I’d find myself an equivalent position, then I would have announced it to you as a fait accompli, as they say. M: You should’ve told me! D: I didn’t tell you because I love you! ... M: What have you been doing these last couple of days? D: Nah, I’m not a man to lie idle, Mavis. I’ve been on the library, checkin’ through the advertisements, looking up old and trusty contacts ... which is what I should be doing now! [gets up] M: Oh Derek, you can’t go, please! There’s so much to sort out! There’s the house and my job with Rita and ... Derek, sit down, luv! D: Sitting down is not gonna get me very far, Mavis. Look, leave it to me, there’s nothing you can do and your worrying is not going to help. Just trust me! Have I ever let you down? It’s like ... D’you remember that card they used to put on the television? M: What card? D: Do not adjust your set, normal service will be resumed as soon as possible. [kisses her] I promise you it will be, so don’t fret. [leaves] (Source 10, Episode 3: 02:10)

39 Description of form and interpretation of meaning: – Linguistic analysis The participants in this dialogue are Mavis and Derek Wilton. Mavis works at the Kabin newsagent business, owned by a good friend of hers. In the course of this conversation it turns out that Derek has lost his job and that he did not tell his wife about it.

Derek is very articulate in his talk, making use of two well-chosen expressions in the course of the conversation: “Tide of industry waits for no man” and “Oil the wheels of commerce”. The first expression is a grammatical metaphor, personifying the non-human entity “tide of industry” (cf. Marko 2008: 29f). It expresses that the business world moves on steadily, not waiting for any single person, and that people have to go along with this tide if they do not want to fall by the wayside. Derek uses this expression here as an explanation for why he has no time to sit down and have breakfast with Mavis, because if he did, he would risk falling too far behind with his work. As it turns out later, it is rather an excuse for not wanting to talk to her. He wants to avoid being asked unpleasant questions by his wife, since she might find out that he has been fired from his job. By using this metaphor, he passes on the responsibility for his decision, implicitly explaining that it is not up to him to decide whether he can stay at home a bit longer and have breakfast or not.

The second phrase, “Oil the wheels of commerce”, is again a metaphor for working. The abstract entity of commerce is transformed into a concrete object with wheels that have to be oiled, and the picture of Derek oiling these wheels is drawn. Besides stating that he is going to do what he always does, namely work, with this expression Derek also emphasises that he is in some way indispensable in his job, since by “oiling the wheels” he makes sure that commerce runs well and smoothly. Being able to formulate such elaborate phrases indicates that Derek belongs to the upper end of the working-class. Another evidence for this is his use of the term “fait accompli”, a French loan word meaning an accomplished or finished fact, which would probably not be known by a member of any lower social class, respectively any lower part of the working class.

At the end of the dialogue, Derek assures Mavis that everything will be okay again, by which he means that he will soon find an “equivalent position”. He tries to convince her that she should not worry and that she does not need to undertake any action in order to change the situation but that he will manage everything. He uses a simile here, comparing their situation

40 with what was written on a “card they used to put up on the television”, saying “Do not adjust your set! Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible!”. The “set” could stand for their way of life, which does not have to be changed in Derek’s opinion since he will soon find a new job, and thus “normal service”, meaning having a job and earning regular money, will be started again.

– Semiotic analysis At the beginning of the scene, Mavis is sitting at the breakfast table in the living room, which is nicely furnished, when Derek rushes in, busily gathering together his things. He does not even look at her on account of the fact that he is in a hurry and has to leave for work. Only when Mavis asks him what exactly he is going to do today, he looks at her in a somehow irritated way.

Derek’s facial expression and his tone of speaking when he tells Mavis that they have accepted his resignation emphasise his disappointment about this circumstance. From the moment on when Mavis tells him that she knows all about it, Derek’s movements suddenly appear slow and heavy and his face shows sorrow and embarrassment, which he unsuccessfully tries to hide. Only when he says that he should better go and put an effort into finding a new job his body language becomes more assertive and self-confident again. Derek gets up from his chair, being now taller than Mavis and looking down on her. In this superior position, he gains back the power to tell her that she should leave everything to him and that her worrying is not going to help.

Concerning camera shots, it is noticeable that they change from a long shot, which is being made use of most of the time, to a close-up the moment the essence of the scene is brought up for discussion. When Derek finally tells Mavis about his sacking and when he later tells her that he loves her, he is shown in a close-up which functions as a signifier for intimacy and signals that something important is about to be announced.

41 5.4.1.4. Scene 4

The next scene is a very short dialogue between two women, and Ivy Tilsley, who meet in the Rover’s Return, the local pub which serves as the main meeting point for the inhabitants of Coronation Street.

Bet: Are you on your own again, luv? Ivy: Yeah, he’s gone to [sylls]. You know, he’s been a new man since he’s started work! I mean, he’s looking out all his old mates, you know, not hidin’ himself away! B: It’s what’s called self-respect, luv, and that’s somein you can’t measure in brass!

(Source 3, Episode 2: 23.00)

Description of form and interpretation of meaning: – Linguistic analysis The two women talking seem to be quite intimate friends, since Bet is calling Ivy “luv” twice in the course of this conversation, which points to a close relationship. The man that Ivy is referring to as “he” must be a close relative or friend of hers since the judgement “he’s been a new man since he’s started work” presupposes that she has known this person very well and for quite a long time because only if this is the case she is able to notice some change in his personality. It can be supposed that the man the two women are talking about here is Ivy’s husband, because no other person, not even a family member or a good friend, is normally so closely associated with someone and taken for granted on one’s side than the husband or the wife.

What is interesting and worth being investigated in this dialogue is the information structure. Several presuppositions can be made out here (cf. Marko 2008: 44). Firstly, when Bet asks if Ivy is on her own again, this implies that she was not on her own before. Secondly, by saying “since he’s started work” Ivy implicitly provides the information that he has not worked before. Bet starts the conversation by asking Ivy if she on her own again. Formally, this kind of rogative demands a Yes/No – answer, but here the person responding takes it as an invitation to tell about the condition and activities of her husband even though he is not

42 mentioned in the question in any way. What follows is an analysis, respectively an explanation by Bet of why Ivy’s husband’s frame of mind has changed so much

Being a “new man” here means that because he has started work he has gained back his self- confidence and his “self-respect”, which Bet explicitly states at the end of the dialogue. Self- respect seems to be a highly important quality because according to Bet “you can’t measure [it] in brass”. The term “brass” is an expression synonymous with money and comes originally from brass or copper coins (cf. Miller 1986: 21). Thus, having self-respect resulting from having a job is valued even higher than money here.

– Semiotic analysis The scene takes place in the Rover’s Return, with Bet standing behind the bar and Ivy standing at the bar opposite to her. Other people can be seen in the background, chatting, having drinks and playing darts, symbolising a usual pub-scenery. Like in the previous scenes, the person that touches upon the central topic of the scene is shown in a close-up, which signals the importance of what the participant says. In this scene, the camera shows Ivy’s face in a close-up when she tells Bet that her husband has been a new man since he started to work, which is the central topic of the dialogue.

The term “self-respect” is uttered by Bet more slowly and emphatically than the rest of what she says, which gives it a slight schoolmasterly tone and marks that this term is the essence of her statement. When Bet states that “[...] that’s somein you can’t measure in brass!” she shakes her head, which serves as an illustrator with a comitative relation to the verbal language. By using this body language she emphasises what she utters. Shaking one’s head is always connected with some negative aspect. In this case, the speaker is connecting the negation “can’t” with the shaking of her head.

43 5.4.1.5. Scene 5

This scene features a young woman called Jenny, the girlfriend of her father called Rita and Rita’s friend and employee Mavis. It takes place in the Kabin, the newsagent shop of Coronation Street, which is owned by Rita and where she and Mavis are working.

Rita: Ey, you want to watch that daddy o’ yours! He’s all about all work and no play! Jenny: I’m not with ya?! R: Well, he was supposed to be seein’ me tonight, and he phoned and said he can’t make it cause he got too much work on! J: Well, if that’s what he said... R: I’ll just go and put the kettle on, Mavis, before tea time rush [leaves the room] M: Oh, that’s alright. ... Look, Jenny, I don’t quite know how to put this, but, well if you know any reason why your dad has [sylls] ... J: [sylls]? M: Well, I mean he’s acting very strange, isn’t he? I mean, one minute he can’t wait to get this holiday booked and the next minute he seems to be avoiding her! J: Yeah, well, if he says he’s got work to do... M: Oh yes, well, he used that sort of excuse before, didn’t he, when Gloria was around [sylls] J: [sylls] M: She doesn’t know what to think! And I can’t say that I blame her! So, if you know anything at all, then I, well I think Rita has a right to know, I do honestly! J: Look, it’s not like that ... If you must know, he’s ... He’s lost his job, he’s been made redundant! M: [shouting] Lost his job? J: Shh! Promise you don’t breathe a word! M: Well, I mean, there’s nothing to be ashamed of in loosin’ your job, not these days! J: Yeah, well, you don’t know my dad. He’s a proud man and last thing he wants right now is sympathy, not from Rita nor anybody else!

(Source 7, Episode 6: 16.20)

44 Description of form and interpretation of meaning: – Linguistic analysis The main conversation here takes place between Jenny, the daughter of the man that is being talked about in the dialogue, and Mavis, employee and good friend of Rita. It is about the strange behaviour of Jenny’s father, who is involved with Rita. Rita complains about him claiming that he has to work so much by ordering Jenny to better watch him, since he seems to forget that there is more about life than just work. Rita then leaves the scene, leaving Jenny and Mavis on their own.

Mavis seems to sense that something is wrong with Jenny’s father on account of his strange behaviour: “Well, I mean, he’s acting very strange, isn’t he?”. Erroneously, she thinks that the reason for this is another woman. Jenny pretends that she does not know what the matter is with her father, just saying that “if he says he’s got work to do...”. Only in the end, when she senses the danger of a fatal rumour, namely that her father has another woman, arising, she admits that the reason why he is acting so strange is that he has lost his job.

Mavis seems to be a bit shocked at first, but then she says that there is no reason to be ashamed of loosing one’s job. By saying “Yeah, well, you don’t know my dad. He’s a proud man...” Jenny hints at the fact that her father is embarrassed about being unemployed and that he does not even want his girlfriend nor anybody else to know about it.

– Semiotic analysis What is especially interesting from a semiotic point of view in this scene are the facial expression of the speakers. From when Jenny enters the Kabin, Rita looks at her very suspiciously and even a bit reproachfully, just as if she knew that Jenny knows something about her father and is not willing to tell her. Jenny on the other hand tries to make an innocent and ignorant impression, which does not really work out well. Her forced smile and the way she avoids looking Rita and Mavis in their eyes reveal that she knows more than she admits.

When Jenny finally comes out with the truth about her Father’s unemployment, she does it in a whispering tone, not wanting anybody to hear it because that would hurt her father’s pride even more than it already does.

45 5.4.1.6. Evaluation of the Socio-Cultural Significance

From what has been analysed in the examples above, the following conclusion can be drawn: a dominant ideology in Coronation Street concerning work ethics is that winning or retaining respectability and self-respect as well as preparing the necessary conditions for a reasonably pleasant and comfortable life for oneself and one’s family through hard work is an important quality to be sought among the working-class. The striving for self-respect and self- sufficiency also appear on the list of the Thatcherite vigorous virtues. In the Thatcherite view, people were seen as energetic and able to care for themselves. They were encouraged to pursue their projects with the help of the government, which was supposed to offer the necessary general set-up, and to achieve their goals by working hard and striving for economic independence.

In the scenes investigated, the overall attitude of work being an important factor for being respected by oneself and other members of the community is conveyed. In scene 4, this is even explicitly articulated by a member of the working-class, namely the barmaid Bet. She states that self-respect is a very important quality to be sought and that having a job automatically helps someone to achieve this quality. Also in the third scene, the fact that the husband does not tell his own wife about having lost his job hints at him being embarrassed about this circumstance. He is ashamed that his bosses have fired him and that he is without a job now. This has obviously taken away his self-respect and in order not to loose his respectability as well he avoids telling his wife or anyone else about the loss of his job. A very similar situation can be found in scene 5. Here, the man having lost his job avoids seeing his girlfriend because he does not want her or anybody else to find out about his unemployment. The statement by his daughter, “He’s a proud man”, implies that pride is connected with having a job, and that not having a job means the loss of one’s pride and self- respect.

A character that has obviously also lost his respectability is Stanley Ogden in scene 2. The “non-working lad” Stanley is being ridiculed by the two people that do have a job. He has lost his respectability because he does not work and is dependent on his wife Hilda who brings the money home. She and Eddie seem to be of the opinion that they are in a superior position

46 because they both have jobs and that this entitles them to make fun of and degrade Stanley. Thus, the view that not working means not being respected by society is conveyed here.

Brian Tilsley in scene 1 ruminates about wanting more for himself and his family. He has found out that he is not content with what he has achieved so far and that he is an ambitious man deep down inside. This gives the impression that achieving something through working hard is desirable and honoured by family members and society. The scene above with Stan not working and thus not being able to achieve something is the negative example of this ideology, since his idleness is not honoured by his family but rather met with disdain and mockery.

5.4.2. The Position of Women

British soaps are generally more heavily dominated by women than for example American soap operas. They present a narrative in which the woman as a mother, wife, daughter or good friend takes on the burden of being both the moral and practical support to the family as well as to the community (cf. Geraghty 1991: 74f.). Dorothy Hobson comments this fact as follows: These serials [soap operas] have traditionally offered a range of strong female characters and this has proved a popular feature of the genre for its audience. They show women of different ages, class and personality types, and offer characters with whom many members of their female audience can empathise. They also include male characters often for romantic interest, sometimes as comic characters or ‘bad’ characters, but in the main the men do not have the leading roles within the serials (2003: 85).

Since it is women that play the major roles in British soap operas, and thus also in Coronation Street, it is worth investigating what ideologies are conveyed in connection with the status and position of women here.

47 5.4.2.1. Scene 1

The first scene that is investigated with regard to the position of women takes place in a hospital. The young single mother Gail has given birth to a little girl that she calls Sara some hours ago and now she is in the room where the new-borns are put up. Shortly before, Gail’s mother Audrey was there to visit her daughter and grand-daughter. A young man called Ian was waiting outside the room, watching Gail through the glass door, while Audrey had a look at the baby and talked to Gail. Audrey wants Ian and Gail to become a couple. Ian and Audrey left together some moments before. Gail now talks to a young nurse who is working in there.

Gail: Ian might be Sara’s father, in case you’re wondering. Nurse: Oh ... your mother seems to think very highly of him. G: She’d marry me off to him tomorrow if she had a way! N: But you don’t want to. G: I don’t. ... I’ve got all I want. N: Yeah. [goes over to Gail] G: ‘N the way I feel right now they can all shout at each other all their lives, fight it out between them. N: You don’t care. G: I don’t. Why should I? I’ve got more than any o’ them.

(Source 8, Episode 1: 22:40)

Description of form and interpretation of meaning: – Linguistic analysis The two participants in this dialogue are Gail and the nurse. Other members of the textual population that are talked about are Ian, the possible father of Gail’s child, and Audrey, Gail’s mother, who were both there to see Gail and the baby some moments before the transcribed scene takes place (cf. Marko 2008: 3). The third proponent is the baby-girl called Sara. With the expressions “I’ve got all I want” and “I’ve got more than any o’ them”, Gail refers to Sara. She obviously means that she does not need anybody or anything else than her baby and that she does not care what the others do as long as she is with her little girl.

48 By “they”/”them” she probably means her family or people who are closely connected with her. By saying “ ’N the way I feel right now, they can all shout at each other all their lives, fight it out between them” she implies that at the moment she does not care, but that under other, not so positive circumstances she would care or even has already cared about them shouting and fighting. Now, she is happy with the situation as it is and does not seek any change.

One person that would like to change the situation is Gail’s mother Audrey: “She’d marry me off tomorrow if she had a way”. In this material process “she”, by which Audrey is meant, is the agent, “’d marry...off” is the process and “me” is the patient. Agents are generally interpreted as active and thus capable of deciding about how to proceed (cf. Marko 2008: 19). In this case, the epistemic modality “would”, hidden in the contracted form “’d”, modifies, weakens or even obliterates the agent’s activeness. Gail expresses that she is an independent woman and that no-one has the right nor the power to tell her what to do.

The appearance of the nurse in this scene does not have any special importance for the situation itself. Her statements rather serve as a stimulation for Gail to express her thoughts and opinion. From what Gail says, the nurse deduces what she feels or thinks. The dialogue is a line-up of assertives, which function as rogatives in some cases. More exactly, some of the assertives given by the nurse are taken as rogatives by Gail. When the nurse says “But you don’t want to”, Gail answers this statement by saying “I don’t. I’ve got all I want”. The second example works similarly: the statement “You don’t care” is answered by Gail with “I don’t. Why should I?”. Gail uses the nurse’s deductive statements as an invitation to explain her situation, namely that she is completely content with her situation at the moment. “Why should I?” is a rhetorical question with which Gail further endorses her argument, since for her there would be no reasonable answer to that question if it was to be answered (cf. Marko 2008: 64).

– Semiotic analysis When the scene starts, Gail is sitting besides her baby, who is lying in an incubator, in a light- blue nightdress. She looks still exhausted but happy and relieved. Before she tells the nurse that the man who was waiting outside might be the father of her baby, she looks at her

49 knowingly for some moments as if she knew that the nurse is wondering about the whole situation.

Even though neither Gail nor the nurse mention the baby explicitly in the course of the dialogue, it gets clear that it is her that Gail is talking about when she says “I’ve got all I want”; Gail gets up from her chair with a bit of a strain, which makes clear that the birth has taken place not long ago, and turns to the baby in the incubator, looking at her with a loving smile. The nurse also comes there and looks at Sara. Also the camera pans to the baby and zooms her in slightly, which indicates that the baby is now the centre of the conversation.

Shortly before that scene, Gail’s mother and Ian left the hospital. While Audrey was with Gail in the room, the possible father of the child Ian had to wait outside. Gail did not want to see him or talk to him, but he perseveringly waited outside. While Gail talks to her mother, Ian is shown in the background, looking through the glass window from outside. This could be interpreted as a sign for the insignificance of the man in a modern woman’s world.

5.4.2.2. Scene 2

In this scene, the two youngsters and Jenny Bradley are chatting casually at some party.

Martin: What cause you wanna get married anyway? [syll] You know, all the women want it legal an’ all that. Jenny: You know, you are a million years out o’ date! Women are independent now! M: Oh, I know you are, [syll] (Source 8, Episode 4: 20:30)

50 Description of form and interpretation of meaning: – Linguistic analysis A young man called Martin Platt and a girl called Jenny Bradley are the participants in this short extract of a dialogue. Martin starts the conversation with a rhetorical question about marriage. The personal pronoun “you” in the question does not refer to Jenny directly but is used generically. With that question he implies that in his opinion marrying does not have any sense because there is no rational reason for doing it.

Following this he mentions that women are the ones that “want it legal”. He obviously thinks that women generally feel the need to have some security, weather financial- or emotional- wise, and that this is the reason why it is usually women who pressurise men into marriage. Jenny immediately retorts that with this opinion Martin is very far behind the state of affairs concerning women’s position and that “women are independent now”. Using the exaggeration “a million years” emphasises how antiquated Martin’s view is.

The psychological descriptor “independent” occurs in a predicative position here and implies that Jenny’s statement is a generalisation about the state of women at the time when the scene takes place (cf. Marko 2008: 31ff). However, it does not come out clearly from Jenny’s utterance in what way she deems women independent, that is if they are financially, emotionally or otherwise independent from men, respectively husbands.

– Semiotic analysis Jenny and Martin are sitting next to each other, with Jenny looking in the direction of the camera. They are obviously at some party; modern music is being played and the muttering of several other people talking to each other can be heard. The two youngsters are shown in a medium shot, with some bottles positioned in the foreground of the picture and part of the body of another young woman shown in the background. Jenny is nicely dressed, wearing a necklace and earrings.

When Jenny says “You know you are a million years out of date”, she puts her hand on Martin’s shoulder. This gesture conveys the impression that she somehow pities Martin for his ignorance of the present-day situation of women. She accompanies her ensuing statement “Women are independent now!” with the gesture of pointing with her finger at herself. She

51 confirms her statement with presenting Martin a concrete and lively example of an independent woman, namely herself.

5.4.2.3. Scene 3

This scene features Gloria Todd and her friend Bet Lynch, who is going to be married today. They have just come from the hairdresser, clowning about. Bet is sitting at the table, smoking a cigarette, while Gloria is preparing tea for them.

Bet: Glo ... Gloria: Hmm? B: I feel badly again. G: Oh, well, don’t! B: What am I doing? Who needs an ‘usband? I mean look at you, you got a nice flat, a job you like, a date now and again, I could still have all that! What the hell am I gettin’ married for? G: Because a good husband’s better than all that. ... Well, I think so.

(Source 8, Episode 5: 05:30)

Description of form and interpretation of meaning: – Linguistic analysis The two participants here are Bet and Gloria, two friends who are whiling away the time until the forthcoming marriage of Bet. Bet has doubts about her doing the right thing. She “feel[s] badly again” about the marriage, asking herself why she needs to get married at all. “What am I doing? Who needs an ‘usband?” are the rhetoric questions with which Bet expresses her doubts. She then takes her friend Gloria as a positive example of a single woman: Gloria has a nice flat, a job she likes and a date now and again. Bet says she could still have all that if she had not decided or agreed to get married, and at the moment it seems as if she would prefer all these things to being a married woman.

52 Gloria tries to assure her that she has made the right decision by telling her that she is getting married “because a good husband’s better than all that”. Adding “Well, I think so” debilitates her argument again, since it implies that she is not really sure about it but only thinks that it is like that and that this is no general view but only her personal opinion, which lends less weight to it.

– Semiotic analysis The scene is obviously set in Gloria’s flat, since she is the one that prepares the tea. While she is preparing it, Bet is sitting at the table and smokes a cigarette. She is wearing a leopardskin- patterned, very low-cut dress and lots of jewellery. When she utters that she feels badly again, Gloria comes to sit by and talk to her. Bet has a worried and very uncomfortable expression on her face when she talks about husbands, which emphasises the feeling that she is about to make a big mistake.

5.4.2.4. Scene 4

This scene takes place at Hilda Ogden’s home, with Kevin and Sally living there as her lodgers. Kevin just wanted to leave the house to go and see Sally when she suddenly rushes in, being very upset. Hilda is ironing some clothes and follows their conversation.

Kevin: Ah, what’re you doin’ here? Was startin’ the way down to the Rover’s to see you! Sally: Well, you’d no need to bother, because I don’t work there anymore! K: Hey, what’s that? S: She’s only taken Betty Turpin on again for dinner times, hasn’t she! Hilda: Well, Bet Lynch has? S: So I told her what she could do with that rotten job if that’s all she thought of me! K: You mean you packed it in? S: Wouldn’t you have? H: Ahh, well, I am sorry, it’s supposed to be such a happy day for you and all. Kevin’s told me your good news!

53 S: Oh, great. H: Well, look, never mind about Bet Lynch. I, I know it’s a rotten thing to happen, but well, we’ve got something to celebrate, haven’t we? Kevin, get the rest of the sherry! S: Celebrate? H: Yeah! I’d like to drink a toast to you both, wish you a happy marriage! S: What marriage? K: Hey? S: Don’t you listen to anything, Kevin? I told you we could just about afford to get married o’ what I was bringing in from the Rover’s! No we’ve got no chance! [sighs]

(Source 7, Episode 6: 22:20)

Description of form and interpretation of meaning: – Linguistic analysis The three participants in this dialogue are Sally Seddon and her boyfriend and husband-to-be , and the owner of the flat Hilda Ogden. Kevin was just about to go and see Sally at her workplace, the Rover’s Return, when Sally suddenly rushes in, being very upset. She tells Kevin that she does not work there anymore because her boss, Bet Lynch, has taken in another woman for dinner times. Kevin asks her then if she “packed it in”, which is a colloquial expression for stopping something. She replies with a rhetoric question: “Wouldn’t you have?”, with which she wants to justify her decision. It implies that for Sally it was a logical consequence to quit the job after being betrayed like this by her boss, that everyone else would have acted this way and that she quasi did not have any other choice.

Hilda is sorry for Sally and Kevin, since this was supposed to be a happy day for them both, namely the day that they intended to announce their marriage. She thinks that Sally is so upset because she has lost her job. When saying “Well, look, never mind about Bet Lynch. I, I know it's’ a rotten thing to happen, but, well, we’ve got something to celebrate, haven’t we?” Hilda is not yet aware of the fact that something more important depends on Sally’s job in the Rover’s. It comes out only in the last part of the dialogue that there is a much better reason for Sally to be so angry and despaired, namely that as a consequence of her unemployment, they cannot afford to marry. When Sally says “Now we’ve got no chance!” she makes clear that

54 their marriage depended on what she earned by working in the pub and that they have to abandon the thought of a marriage now.

Considering the conversational structure and the number of turns taken in the dialogue and their length in more detail, it seems as if Sally’s boyfriend Kevin only plays a minor role in the conversation even though he is directly affected by what is discussed. From 16 turns, he only takes 4, and what he says does not contribute anything essential to the discussion. In fact, Hilda and Sally are the ones that continue the talk. At the end of the dialogue, Sally even reprimands Kevin for not listening properly to what she says, which points to his subordinate role in their relationship (cf. Marko 2008: 67f).

– Semiotic analysis From how Sally enters the scene, it can already be guessed that something is wrong with her. She storms in with a desperate and furious look on her face. She does not greet nor look at either Kevin or Hilda when coming in, stands there in the middle of the room with her arms crossed and is on the verge of tears.

The camera follows Sally from when she enters the flat until she stops at some place in the middle of the room. Her face is taken in a close-up, signifying the importance of what she utters, when she delivers the bad news. Hilda, doing the ironing, is positioned on a level with Sally, while Kevin stands somewhere in the background, which underlines his secondary importance in this scene.

5.4.2.5. Scene 5

This is just one sentence taken out of a dialogue between Deirdre Barlow and Mike Baldwin. Mike is known for being a womaniser who is not interested in getting married or settling down. Here Deirdre comforts Mike because Maggie, a woman he has made pregnant, refuses to talk to him and work the situation out, which seems to cause him a lot of worry.

55 Mike: But then I forgot: this is the 80s, isn’t it? Woman’s lib, men are superfluous!

(Source 3, Episode 7: 14:40)

Description of form and interpretation of meaning: – Linguistic analysis This utterance by Mike Baldwin is a kind of admission that women in the 1980s do not need men anymore, neither for practical purposes nor for being happy and content. His statement implies that it is a generally known fact that this decade is the decade of women’s liberation, and that this means that men are not needed anymore like they were before. He alludes to his personal situation, where a woman is pregnant with his child, but has left him and does not want to talk to him and find a solution suiting both of them.

The fact that Deirdre does not comment his statement directly might mean that she principally agrees with it and thus cannot contradict Mike because she does not want to hurt him. It is a way of indirectly telling him that he is actually right in his view.

– Semiotic analysis The scene takes place in the Rover’s Return, with Mike and Deirdre sitting at a table opposite of each other. Both look not very cheerful, Mike on account of the fact that he has been left by a woman and Deirdre because she feels with him and does not like to see him suffering. The tone with which he utters the statement implies that even if he is not happy with it, he has to accept it, whether he likes it or not.

56 5.4.2.6. Scene 6

The following is a discussion between Hilda and Stanley Ogden. It is sometime in the morning and Hilda is ready to leave for work, while Stanley has just come downstairs from the bedroom, asking what is there for breakfast.

Hilda: Now, Stanley Ogden, I want you out o’ this house in ten minutes and cracking on with that window round! Stanley: Ahh [sylls] Any post? H: No, the only post we get is bills, which I have to pay! S: Look, will you shut up, I’ve done nowt! H: Very true! You’ve never done nowt since the day we got married, except eat’n sleep’n booze’n dodge work! S: I’m sick to death o’ ya naggin’! H: Oh, are you? Well I’d look, cause I’m sick to death of struggling to try and keep this house going, workin’ all the hours [sylls]! There’s no pleasure, nothin’ but bed and work!

(Source 3, Episode 1: 01:00)

Description of form and interpretation of meaning: – Linguistic analysis This dialogue features the middle-aged couple Hilda and Stanley Ogden. Hilda urges Stanley vehemently to make himself ready and get to work. He brushes her command aside, asking if there is any post for him. Again Hilda takes the opportunity to complain, saying that “the only post we get’s bills, which I have to pay”. This is the first hint at why Hilda is so furious.

It goes on with Stanley telling her to shut up because he has “done nowt”, meaning “nothing”. Hilda immediately takes this up again and accuses Stanley of having done “nowt since the day we got married, except eat’n sleep’n booze’n dodge work”. He cannot defend himself with any watertight arguments but just shouts that he is sick to death of her nagging, to which she finally replies that she is also sick to death of managing everything in their household,

57 including working many hours to earn the money which they need in order to pay all their bills and make a living.

In almost every turn that Hilda takes, a complaint about Stanley can be found. The fact that she addresses Stanley with his full name in the first turn of the transcribed scene indicates that firstly Hilda is very furious and that secondly she is really serious about the matter that she is going to touch upon in the following. She is at the end of her tether about him not supporting them financially. According to her statements, she has to work so hard that there is no time for any pleasure anymore, that her life only consists of “bed and work”, which obviously does not satisfy her. But Hilda’s displeasure about the whole situation does not seem to have much effect on Stanley. The only thing he wants is peace and quiet. He does not really respond to Hilda’s complaints nor does he try to defend himself, since this would probably prolong the discussion and thus only further disturb his peace.

– Semiotic analysis The scene is set in the living room of the Ogdens. Stanley has just come down from upstairs where the bedroom is situated. He seems to be still tired, yawning and rubbing his eyes and his belly. Hilda is about to leave for work. She has her blue coat and her rollers and headscarf on. Her movements and gestures are quick and hectic, which indicates that she is in a hurry. She obviously has not even got enough time to have breakfast before she goes to work, but just pours down a cup of tea very quickly. Stanley on the other hand moves very slowly and seems to be without any hurry. In contrast to Hilda, he does not seem to be worrying about being late for work.

Hilda talks in a very strict and commanding tone. While saying: ”Now, Stanley Ogden, I want you out o’ this house in ten minutes and cracking on with that window round!”, she points with her forefinger at Stanley and moves her head forward. These gestures accompany Hilda’s verbal attack on Stanley and suggest that she is performing some kind of warning or intimidation. When uttering the words “Very true!...”, she puts her cup down hard, so that the china rattles. She shouts at him and finally sails out, slamming the door loudly. These are all signs that emphasise her great anger at Stanley and his idleness.

58 Hilda’s statement “You’ve never done nowt since the day we got married, except eat’n sleep’n booze’n dodge work!” is accompanied by her putting a purse out of her pocket. She opens it and rummages in it a bit, as if she wants to check if there is enough money in it. This gesture can be perceived as a sign for the fact that it is Hilda who brings the money home and who is in control of the budget.

5.4.2.7. Evaluation of the Socio-Cultural Significance

The ideology that shines through these text extracts is that women in the 1980s have become independent , which also means that they do not need to marry. They are well able to stand on their own feet and through that have gained the opportunity to develop as persons in their own right, not being defined over their husbands anymore. Women are economically self- sufficient and do not need husbands or men for maintaining their lifestyle. It is often rather the other way round, which means that it is the woman who supports her husband financially. This view of the woman also fits in with the image of the ideal of the individual of Thatcherism in the 1980s. Self-sufficiency and independent-mindedness were qualities that were being reinforced in order to regain a functioning and stable state. One might even draw parallels between the government lead by a strong woman in Britain at that time and the presentation of strong and independent women in the soap.

In the first scene analysed here, Gail is presented as a young mother who is independent from any man or husband. She does not even want one, even though there is a potential candidate called Ian who seems to be wanting her and who is also the possible father of her child. She is content with what she has and does not need anyone, neither for practical nor for personal or emotional reasons. That the man who is the possible father of Gail’s child is not even given the permission by her to see the child further strengthens the image that men do not really have any right to a say when it comes to matters that concern the women. Also the image of Ian waiting outside the room, only being visible through the glass window, emphasises the impression that he – as a representative for men in general – only stands in the background of the woman’s life.

59 Mike Baldwin in scene 5 sustains a similar lot as Ian in scene 1. He has been left by the woman who is pregnant with his child and she also does not grant him any right to decide along with her what happens with the child or them as a family. He seems to have resigned and has admitted that a woman is in no way dependent on a man, that men are simply superfluous in the 1980s.

In the scenes 2 and 3 the concept of marriage is called into question. Jenny, a young woman, explains to a man of the same age called Martin that women are independent now. She relates this statement to Martin’s previously uttered assumption that women in general feel the need to get married, which she immediately has to correct. In the other scene, Bet feels badly about getting married soon. She asks herself why she should give up her quite pleasant life just to become a married woman, not seeing any sense in a marriage anymore. She calls to her mind that she can well live without a husband and that her life might change to the worse if she marries.

In the other two scenes, the financial independence of women is being made an issue. At the Ogden’s home, it is Hilda who brings the money home, who pays the bills and who is thus the one that supports the family financially. Even though her husband Stanley seems to have some kind of job, it is her who works regularly and has a regular income. So here the woman is not only economically self-sufficient, she additionally supports her husband financially and has thus become the head of the family. In scene 4, the young woman Sally has just lost her job. The problem now is that she and her husband-to-be Kevin will not be able to marry since their marriage depended on what Sally earned in her job as a barmaid. So here too it is the woman and her income on which the family depends. Sally is not only independent concerning her financial situation, it is also her income on which their marriage depends. It is not the man who plays the major role and who is in control of everything but the woman.

60 5.4.3. Social Differences

As already mentioned above, Coronation Street lays claim to being about the working-class and working-class culture. “Working-class” is a term that describes a social class, and it is used in many different ways. In ordinary conversation, it comprises a group of people employed in specific fields or types of work, and thus the belonging to the working-class is often based on the work performed (cf. web 16). However, factors such as home, attitude, life-style, mannerisms, education, clothing and speech also affect the social standing and are important parameters that may determine to which social class people belong (cf. web 17).

The following model is an example of how people may be categorised into the working-class and possible sub-classes:

Upper working-class: a person belonging to the upper working-class does not hold a university degree and works in a skilled or at least well-experienced role such as supervisor, foreman, or skilled trade such as plumber, electrician, joiner, tool-maker or train driver. Working-class: a person belonging to the working-class proper generally has low educational attainment and works in a semi-skilled or unskilled blue-collar profession, in fields such as industrial or construction work. Working-class jobs are for example car assembler, lorry driver, docker or production labourer. Lower working-class: a person belonging to the lower working-class generally works in low or minimum wage occupations and/or the personal service industries, such as cleaner, shop assistant or bar worker (cf. web 17).

Coronation Street mainly features characters belonging to the above mentioned sub- categories of the working-class. Though some characters appear that could be classified as belonging to the petty bourgeoisie concerning their professions, such as shop owners Rita Fairclough and Alf Roberts or landlady Annie Walker. Yet Coronation Street manages well to seem to be about the working class, and this is the reason why even obviously bourgeois characters are conceived as deviant members of the working-class (cf. Jordan 1981: 31).

61 In this chapter, various text extracts will be investigated with the aim to detect ideologies based on the existence of social differences among the characters.

5.4.3.1. Scene 1

The first scene investigated here is set in the bedroom of the couple Hilda and Stanley Ogden. They are ill and are visited by Mrs. Walker, for whom Hilda works as a cleaner. Mrs. Walker has just entered the room.

Hilda: Oh, Mrs. Walker, what a nice surprise! Mrs. Walker: I’ve come to see how you are, Mrs. Ogden. Hilda: Oh, isn’t that kind! Look, Stan, isn’t that nice? Stanley: Oh, very nice, yeah. H: Oh, make yourself comfortable, Mrs. Walker! Pull that chair up, hehe ... Oh, just [syll] Stan’s pants on the bed end, that’s it. [coughs] Mrs. W: I won’t come any closer. H: No, no, better not, you don’t want to be gettin’ our germs. S: And we don’t want anybody else’s germs. Mrs. W: Well, tell me, Mrs. Ogden, how are you feeling? H: Oh, terrible, terrible! Splittin’ ‘ead, chest pains, weak as a kitten ... Mind you, I am a lot better than I was! Mrs. W: Well, you’re moving in the right direction. H: Yes, and eh, Stan’s on the mend though, aren’t you, chuck? S: Just slowly, very slowly! Mrs. W: Good, good. H: You, eh, you won’t have been in this room before, Mrs. Walker? Mrs. W: No, no. Unfortunately, the necessity hasn’t arisen. H: ... Stan’s going to decorate next week! S: Am I, eh? ... [coughs] Mrs. W: Somethin’ wrong, Mr. Ogden?

62 H: Oh, it’s his chest, you know, it’s still very painful ...

(Source 1, Episode 2: 18:10)

Description of form and interpretation of meaning: – Linguistic analysis The participants in this dialogue are Annie Walker and Hilda and Stanley Ogden. The couple is ill and Mrs. Walker has come by to see how Hilda is doing. Hilda encourages Mrs. Walker to make herself comfortable which she does by sitting down somewhere at the other end of the room. Mrs. Walker’s statement “I won’t come any closer” implies on the one hand that she is afraid of catching the germs from the ill couple. On the other hand, she might want to distance herself from the Ogdens on account of the obvious difference between her and them concerning social standing. Hilda obviously thinks the first possibility to be the right one, and ignores or at least pretends to ignore the second one by saying “No, no, better not, you don’t want to be gettin’ our germs”.

There are several expressions and phrases that point to the difference in social standing between Mrs. Walker and the Ogdens. The informal terms “Splittin’ ‘ead” and “weak as a kitten” as descriptions for one’s physical condition would probably not been used by members of higher social classes. Also the word “chuck” as a “venerable term of affection or endearment” (Miller 1986: 25) can rather be found in the vocabulary of members of the lower working-class, such as the Ogdens, and will hardly be found in the vocabulary of someone like Mrs. Walker. In contrast to that, the Ogdens would hardly say something like “...unfortunately, the necessity hasn’t arisen!” as Mrs. Walker does when commenting Hilda’s indirect question about the bedroom.

– Semiotic analysis The scene takes place in the bedroom of the Ogdens. It is a rather simply furnished room with an old-fashioned wallpaper and an old wardrobe. Wallpaper and curtains are held in dark and heavy brownish and yellow colours. The room is not very tidy, the wardrobe is open and a dress is hanging outside.

63 The ill couple is lying in bed when Mrs. Walker enters the room. She is dressed in a light-blue dress with a precious-looking brooch on it and wears white gloves. She brings a beautiful bunch of flowers which she gives to Hilda. When Hilda tells her to pull the chair up and put Stanley’s pants away, Mrs. Walker looks very sceptically and uneasily, as if she wants to say that it is the host’s duty to do these things according to the rules of manners. She takes Stanley’s pants with two fingers, throws it away very quickly and wipes her hands off afterwards, obviously being disgusted with it.

Mrs. Walker’s looks and behaviour are very elegant and they give the impression that she does not really fit in the surrounding here. She indeed seems to feel uneasy about being together in one room with the two ordinary people. Nevertheless, Mrs. Walker smiles politely as etiquette requires it, even though her smile cannot hide that she feels quite uncomfortable there.

5.4.3.2. Scene 2

The following is a conversation between the landlady Mrs. Walker and her two employees Bet Lynch and Elizabeth Turpin, who both work as barmaids in the Rover’s Return. It takes place in the private rooms of Mrs. Walker. She is asking the two women for their opinion about the outfit that she intends to wear to a wedding.

Bet: Elizabeth! Elizabeth: Did you want me, luv? Mrs. Walker: What do you think? E: Very nice ... Mrs. W: Now, don’t say very nice. I want constructive criticism. Now, do you think that this is too formal? B: Now, I never said that, Mrs. Walker! I just said that you look the dead spit o’ Margaret Thatcher! Mrs. W: I know exactly what you said. And in normal circumstances I would take that as a great compliment, had I been opening a debate in the house, or touring a steelworks.

64 B: I wasn’t havin’ a go at you, Mrs. Walker. Mrs. W: As my employee I sincerely hope not, but you have sown a seed of doubt! ... Now, Elizabeth, would Mrs. Thatcher wear this to a wedding? Now, truthfully! E: Well, yes, to a, to a registry office she would. Mrs. W: Exactly, exactly! That was precisely my thought! [sylls] Mrs. W: You know, I really must rely on my own instincts in future because they are invariably right! Thank you, Bet. B: Thank you, Mrs. Walker. [leaves the scene] Mrs. W: Really, it’s quite sad, you know, this constant desire of the uneducated to score off their intellectual superiors. And they always get the worst of it, haha! E: Yes, Mrs. Walker.

(Source 1, Episode 5: 01:40)

Description of form and interpretation of meaning: – Linguistic analysis This scene again features landlady Mrs. Walker and her two employees Bet Lynch and Elizabeth Turpin, called Betty. Mrs. Walker is about to go to a wedding and asks the two women for advise concerning her outfit. As she has not got the answer that she had expected from Bet, she calls for Elizabeth to ask her too. Elizabeth seems to be a bit frightened by her boss and it gives the impression that she only tells Mrs. Walker that she looks nice because she is afraid of telling her the truth. Bet on the other hand is more honest and daring and has told Mrs. Walker that she looks “the dead spit o’ Margaret Thatcher”. Mrs. Walker does not take it as a compliment here but as an indication for the fact that she is dressed too formally for the occasion and is obviously offended by Bet’s honesty even though she pretends to want to hear only the absolute truth. The term “dead” in Bet’s utterance here means “really” or “very” and is commonly used as an intensive adjective in Britain (cf. Miller 1986: 31).

In this dialogue, the social difference between the two barmaids and their landlady becomes obvious firstly in the subservient way that Bet and especially Elizabeth behave in the presence of Mrs. Walker, and secondly in the language they use. Expressions like “the dead spit” and “havin’ a go at you”, which means to attack verbally (Miller 1986: 48), used by barmaid Bet

65 are standing in contrast to phrases like “constructive criticism”, “I sincerely hope not, but you have sown a seed of doubt”, “invariably right” or “this constant desire of the uneducated to score off their intellectual superiors” used by landlady Mrs. Walker. In this last sentence, she even expresses quite bluntly that she sees herself as “intellectual superior” to “the uneducated”, by which she obviously means Bet. Even though Elizabeth is normally a loyal friend of Bet, she does not dare to contradict Mrs. Walker here.

– Semiotic analysis It is one of Mrs. Walker’s private rooms where this scene takes place. The room is nicely furnished, with some seemingly precious objects, such as a leather chair, a golden tea pot, a silver candlestick and others standing around. The room is held in a light pink colour. Compared to the bedrooms of the Ogdens for example, it looks very comfortable and elegant and one would assume that is belongs to a rather wealthy person.

Bet calls for Elizabeth at the beginning of the scene with a loud and coarse yell, which makes Mrs. Walker look at her in a reprimanding way, which conveys that she is not used to such rough and indecent manners. To Elizabeth’s creeping into Mrs. Walker’s favour, Bet reacts with a reproachful and warning look. She stands there with her arms crossed, continuously looking at Elizabeth, as if she wants to say how disgusted she is with her insincere and ‘toady’ way.

5.4.3.3. Scene 3

This scene immediately follows scene 2. Bet comes into the Rover’s from upstairs, where Mrs. Walker’s private rooms are situated. Hilda is there, sweeping the floor, being in a dejected mood.

Bet: You know, I’ll swing for her one o’ these days! God help me out when I swing her! She gets me in there, Bet dear, tell me honestly, absolutely honestly, what do you think of my outfit? So I tell her!

66 Hilda: Well, you’re asking for it, aren’t ya? B: Well, I didn’t say it nasty, I just told her, well, more or less. You should’ve heard her! H: Well, at least folk are talkin’ to you. B: Ey? H: I said, at least folk are talkin’ to you, that’s summat! B: What’s up with you? H: Oh, never mind me and my petty little worries, you’ve just been told off by madam Walker! ... Happens to me every flippin’ day in my life! [sylls] B: D’you know, I thought I’d missed your singin’! C’mon, what’s the matter? H: Only lost my job, cross the road. B: What fo’? H: What I did with that football coupon. B: Oh, give over, pull the other one! Mike Baldwin’d never give you the sack for that. He might be a swine, but he’s a swine with a sense o’ humour! H: Na, maybe he is, but them that work for ‘im aren’t. They threatened to walk out if he didn’t gimme the push, and they sent me to Coventry! Not that that worries me, I mean, it’s hardly uplifting conversation talkin’ to that lot. B: They made him give you the sack? H: Yeah, so he did, didn’t he? Well, he would, wouldn’t he? I’m nothing, me! B: And you’re just takin’ it? H: What else can I do? I’ve just told you, I’m nothing! Got no union to back me up. What am I? A simple cleaner! [sylls] H: I wouldn’t care if folk round ‘ere treated me like summat normal! I’ve not even been invited to this wedding!

(Source 1, Episode 5: 02:50)

67 Description of form and interpretation of meaning: – Linguistic analysis This scene is the continuation of the previous one. Bet is very furious about Mrs. Walker treating her badly just because she has not told her what she wanted to hear about her outfit for the wedding. She comes down, vehemently complaining about what happened, and engrossed in her stream of abuse does not notice that something is wrong with Hilda, who is sweeping the floor. Hilda then says that “at least folk are talkin’ to you”, by which she means that she would prefer to be reprimanded than not being talked to at all. This statement prompts Bet to ask Hilda what the matter is with her. With a volley of criticism, Hilda says that Bet should not mind her “petty little worries” since what just happened to Bet is much more tragic and of greater importance. She then adds that this happens to her “every flippin’ day” and that it is therefore nothing worth being mentioned. The term “flipping” has no particular meaning here and is used to strengthen an oath or an exclamation (cf. Miller 1986: 40). What she wants to say is that what has happened to her, namely that she lost her other job in the factory, is much more tragic and deserves being talked about.

What comes through Hilda’s complaints about loosing her job is that she feels worthless and unimportant. According to herself, she is nothing, just a simple cleaner who has not even a union that would back her up in situations like these. What further annoys her is that the people around here do not treat her “like summat normal”. She relates this to the fact that she has not even been invited to the wedding that will soon take place in the street even though she is a long-standing resident.

– Semiotic analysis The scene takes place in the Rover’s Return. Already from the facial expression that Hilda shows when Bet enters the scene it can be guessed that something is wrong with her. Hilda is shown at work, wearing her typical working outfit and her rollers. She looks depressed and disappointed when telling Bet the story of her dismissal. First, when they are still chatting casually, the two women are shown in a long shot. When it comes to the serious part of the conversation where Hilda tells Bet what has happened to her, they are shown in a medium shot, respectively Hilda in a close-up which signals that important issues and intimate details are being talked about. Later in the conversation, Bet and Hilda are seen working together, putting down the chairs from the tables to prepare the opening of the pub.

68 5.4.3.4. Scene 4

This scene is also set in the pub. Fred is a barman working in the Rover’s Return. His wife Eunice has just very quickly popped in, asking for Fred, and then left again as quickly as she came. Obviously, she is not wanted in there anymore for some reason. In the booth of the Rover’s, a wedding reception is taking place.

Eunice: Fred! [whispering] Bet: Fred! You’re wanted! [shouting] Hilda: I know just how she feels. B: Why’s that? H: Well, me and ‘im [points at Stanley who is sitting besides her]. We’re social outcasts an’ all, when it comes to the celebrities like what’s goin’ on in there. B: Well, I don’t know why, ‘ilda, you’ve got all the social graces for me, cock. H: I know very well we have.

(Source 2, Episode 6: 19:00)

Description of form and interpretation of meaning: – Linguistic analysis In this scene several characters are involved, but the main participants are Hilda and Stanley Ogden and Bet Lynch. Hilda watches Eunice calling for Fred and sympathises with her, saying that she knows how Eunice must feel because she is in a similar situation. Obviously, Eunice is not wanted in the pub or tries to avoid someone staying there, since she does not dare to come in and only whispers Fred’s name so that nobody may notice her. Hilda relates this to her own situation, meaning that she and Stanley are “social outcasts” when it comes to celebrities like the wedding reception that is taking place at the moment in the booth of the Rover’s Return. They do not seem to be invited to the reception, and Bet is wondering why, because for her, the Ogdens “’ve got all the social graces”. Hilda is very self-confident and confirms this, saying that she knows very well that they have.

69 – Semiotic analysis In this scene, Stanley serves as a main participant even though he does not say a word. During the whole dialogue, which concerns him as well since Hilda talks about “us” and thus includes Stanley, he just stands besides Hilda at the bar, seemingly not interested at all in what the women are talking about. All he wants is the beer that Bet is preparing for him. However, it is Stanley who serves the point of the scene: just when Hilda has finished the sentence “I know very well we have”, Stanley gets his beer from Bet and starts slurping it noisily. Hilda turns her head slowly towards him and sends him a disgusted look. Bet suppresses a laugh and turns away. Thus, Stanley very funnily presents the reason why the Ogdens are “social outcasts”.

5.4.3.5. Scene 5

The following scene takes place in the booth of the Rover’s Return. It is the ruby wedding celebration of Hilda and Stanley Ogden. Alf Roberts, owner of the street’s corner shop, is the first guest there.

Hilda: Now then, which would you prefer? Sweet or dry? ... Sherry! Alf: Oh, sherry, ya, I’ll have the sweet. Stan: He’d rather a pint of beer like me, wouldn’t ya? H: Yes, well, Mr. Roberts is more used to movin’ in society than you are, Stan.

(Source 4, Episode 8: 11:25)

Description of form and interpretation of meaning: – Linguistic analysis As it is common practice at diverse celebrations in the street, Hilda offers Alf a drink at his arrival. She asks him whether he wants his drink “sweet or dry”. At first Alf does not seem to know what Hilda means, but then she quickly adds that it is sherry that she offers. Stanley, who is standing besides them, throws in that “he’d rather a pint of beer like me, wouldn’t

70 ya?”. Stanley here assumes that if Alf could choose, he would rather have a beer than a sherry, like he himself would. Hilda then replies that “Mr. Roberts is more used to movin’ in society than you are, Stan”. What she means by that is that Alf as a shop owner and thus a person of higher social standing knows what is desired and considered proper at events of a high standard. In a quite polite way she expresses that in contrast to Alf, Stanley as a simple worker has not got any idea of how to behave at glamorous events, because he never gets the opportunity to move in society. This again implies that she considers her own celebration as an event of a higher standard, and herself as someone who very well knows what is desirable at such an event, even though she belongs to the lower working-class. By stating that Stanley is not really used to moving in society, Hilda implicitly admits that she herself is not used to it either, since the two of them are a married couple and are thus probably moving in the same social milieu.

– Semiotic analysis The room where the celebration takes place is nicely decorated and a large buffet has been prepared for the guests. Also Hilda, who is usually almost always shown in her working outfit, is nicely dressed and styled, even though she does not look as elegant as Mrs. Walker for example would at such an event.

Alf Roberts makes a very elegant impression. He wears a tie and a jacket and his hair is severely combed back. Stanley on the other hand wears no tie and the first few buttons of his shirt are open. He has his hands put in his pocket and stands there in a rather nonchalant and careless way. Someone who does not know would probably not guess that Stanley is the one that celebrates his Ruby Wedding regarding his outfit and compared to Alf for example.

71 5.4.3.6. Scene 6

This scene takes place in the home of the Duckworths. It is sometime in the morning and the parents Vera and Jack and son Terry are having breakfast together. Jack is currently working as some stand-in in the Rover’s Return, and Vera is employed at Mike Baldwin’s clothing factory across the street.

Vera: Oh, now what you’re lookin’ fo’? Jack: Milk! V: It’s there [sylls]! J: Where? V: There! J: Oh damn! Lookin’ for the bottle, weren’t I? V: Look, for everyone to know: no bottles on the table from now on. Or sugar bags. We’re havin’ milk jugs and sugar basins. J: Well, I suppose we’ll be havin’ fish’n chips on flippin’ plates, will we? V: Yeah! Yeah, we will! Terry: [sylls] V: Look, belt up, you! It’s about time you had a little bit o’ respect for ya father! T: Oh yeah, like what you have, you mean. V: Alright, I admit that I’d been a bit sceptical about his chances, but now he’s got real prospects! Well, I think, as a family, we should support him! J: Your mother’s right: support me! T: I’ve done nothing but support you ever since I got my first wagepacket! V: [sylls] Encourage him! Look, wouldn’t you like to see your father as a landlord of his own little pub, me as a landlady ... T: You know what them pub landladies do, don’t ya? They get together, in groups, go away on Marbella, get off with all the golfers, while their own fellas are slaving away behind the bar! V: How do you know? T: Because I’m a very well informed young person, that’s why! Still, suppose [syll] it beats poundin’ a swing machine in Baldwin’s sweatshop. V: Ey ya, I may as well let my nails grow long now! And have my hair done every week!

72 J: Hang on, hang on! Who is getting this pub? [points at himself] V: Alright chuck, so you’re gonna let your nails grow and have your hair done every week as well! [sylls] V: You know, I’m a very fortunate woman! J: I’ve been tellin’ you that for years! V: Yeah, my husband an’ me son, both on their way to fame and fortune ... T: I’ll settle for the fortune ... [sylls] T: You seem to be very certain, mother! V: I am certain. You both got one priceless asset behind you! T: What’s that then? V: Me!

(Source 6, Episode 7: 14:40)

Description of form and interpretation of meaning: – Linguistic analysis The scene starts with Jack looking for milk for his breakfast muesli. It turns out that the reason why he cannot find it is that Vera has decided to banish all kinds of packing, such as milk bottles or sugar bags from the table, and to have milk jugs and sugar basins instead from now on, which Jack is not used to. With the intention to make a joke, he says that if it starts like this, they will be having fish and chips on plates in future. He takes it as a joke, because obviously it is not common at the Duckworth’s home to eat fish and chips from plates. Unexpectedly, Vera responds that they indeed will eat from plates from now on. This first part of the conversation implies that the Duckworths have been rather sloppy and indifferent about table manners but that Vera intends to change their behaviour.

The reason why Vera wants this to change in the future is revealed later on when she asks Terry if he would not be happy about her and Jack being landlady and landlord of their own little pub. Vera is sure about Jack’s chances to run his own pub sometime in the near future, and this is why she intends to adapt their way of living to their soon expected new social

73 standing. Besides improving their table manners, Vera also intends to change her looks: “I may as well let my nails grow long now! And have my hair done every week!”.

At the end of the dialogue, Vera mentions that she deems herself a “very fortunate woman”, because her son and her husband are both “on their way to fame and fortune”. The reason why she is so sure about them soon climbing up the social ladder in contrast to her son Terry, who is rather sceptical about it, is because the tow men have got “one priceless asset” behind them, by which she means herself.

Besides their professions and current lifestyle, the Duckworth’s way of talking allows the assumption that they do not belong to a very high social class. Expressions such as “Oh, damn!”, “flippin’ plates”, “belt up” as a slang phrase for “be quiet”, “Ey ya” as a signal for everyone to listen, or “chuck” will probably nor be heard at the kitchen table of a family belonging to any upper class.

– Semiotic analysis The setting of this scene is the kitchen of the Duckworths. It is quite modestly furnished, with all the common kitchen utensils and foodstuffs standing around. Vera is dressed in her blue working-coat, signalling her belonging to the working-class and that she is about to leave for work soon. When she wallows in her image of being a landlady, she ostentatiously puts her hand to her hair, a gesture denoting elegance and noble-mindedness, which does not really seem to go with her otherwise rather rough and ordinary behaviour and way of talking.

5.4.3.7. Scene 7

This scene takes place in the Rover’s Return. Hilda Ogden, one of the longest-standing residents here, is about to leave Coronation Street because a new job somewhere else has been offered to her. She has come by to have a last drink in ‘her’ pub.

74 Gloria: Merry Christmas, Hilda! Hilda: Oh, merry Christmas, luv! G: And a very happy new year! H: Well, I hope so! G: Tell you what: I wish I was comin’ with you, retiring to a country cottage ... H: Well, won’t be exactly retiring, I’ll have Dr. [sylls] to see to ... D’you know what my new address is? G: Tell me! H: [sylls] Blackberry Lane, Artington, Derbyshire! G: Ey, you know, joining the upper classes ain’t no mistake!

(Source 8, Episode 8: 10:00)

Description of form and interpretation of meaning: – Linguistic analysis The main participants in this conversation are Hilda Ogden and Gloria Todd, the barmaid. When Gloria emphatically wishes Hilda a “very happy new year”, she alludes to the fact that the new year means a new beginning for Hilda since she will leave Coronation Street and start a new life somewhere else. Gloria then states that she envies her for retiring to some country cottage. Hilda answers that she will not be retiring but that she has a job to do there, namely seeing to some doctor.

Fairly proudly, Hilda then tells Gloria her new address, which is “Blackberry Lane, Artington, Derbyshire”. Gloria immediately understands this to be a very posh and noble residential area, saying that “joining the upper classes ain’t no mistake”. By moving away from Coronation Street into some noble country cottage in order to work for some obviously wealthy doctor, Hilda automatically joins the “upper classes”, which is also recognised and admired by her friends.

75 – Semiotic analysis The scene takes place at Christmas time, and the Rover’s Return is decorated accordingly. Behind Hilda, a small Christmas tree with flashing colourful lights is placed, and all over the pub, colourful Christmas paper chains are hanging. Quite unusual for her, Hilda is dressed very elegantly, with a light brown winter coat and underneath a violet-coloured blouse on. Around her neck, she wears a pink necklace. She has put off the three rollers which are so typical for Hilda and which have meanwhile become a trademark of her. This might also signal her new beginning and the change in lifestyle that will accompany her move away from Coronation Street.

5.4.3.8. Evaluation of the Socio-Cultural Significance

The episodes of Coronation Street from the 1980s convey the ideology that British society is class-ridden and that a very big goal in people’s lives is managing to climb up the social ladder. The differences between some characters in Coronation Street are made visible very clearly through the language they use, as well as the way they dress, live and behave.

In scene 1, the elegant and educated Mrs. Walker makes clear through her behaviour at the Ogdens home that she sees herself superior to the working-class couple. By giving the impression that she does not feel very comfortable there she conveys that she does not fit there on account of her higher social standing. In the next scene, Mrs. Walker tells Elizabeth in a very condescending way that people like Bet, who belong to the lower working-class, can never pit her wits against someone from her social standing and education. She values herself more highly than people from a possibly lower social position. Consequently, she does not have many friends in the street and is not really liked by her employees, too. Furthermore, her way of making people feel that she is standing out and of positioning herself above all the others often makes her appear very arrogant and even ridiculous.

In scenes 3 and 4, it is Hilda Ogden who has the feeling of being inferior to other inhabitants of the street on account of her belonging to the lower working-class. She regards herself as being nothing, not being respected and accepted as an equal member of the community. She

76 feels excluded because of her social standing and complains that the people around are so shallow as to think of her not being good enough because she is just a simple cleaner. She refers to herself and her husband as “social outcasts”, though being aware that it is also their, and especially Stanley’s, manners that are the reason why they are sometimes excluded from diverse social events in the street.

In scene 6, , who works at the clothing factory, dreams of herself and her family rising to a higher social class through her husband Jack becoming landlord of his own pub. As she is quite sure of this happening in the near future, she wants to adapt their lifestyle to their new social standing, which here concretely means using plates and cutlery and changing their, and especially her, outward appearance. The impression is conveyed that Vera is very happy about her family escaping from the lower working-class, climbing up the social ladder and soon leading a wealthier life.

In scene 7, it comes out that Hilda has finally managed to escape from the working-class environment of Coronation Street, moving to a wealthier residential area. She thus joins a higher standing class in some way and is also envied by some of her friends for it. It seems as if Hilda has finally got some kind of reward for struggling all her life and having been through a lot.

What comes through all these presentations is that there are still irreconcilable differences between higher and lower classes and that people are very well aware of these differences and often even make use of them. Often, people from lower social classes get a taste of the power of people from higher classes and are thus humiliated and degraded, but cannot do something against it since they are dependent on them in some way. Nevertheless, there seems to be some kind of justice also for the seemingly underprivileged members of society.

77 6. Summary and Conclusion

This paper is supposed to show that the popular British soap opera Coronation Street conveys certain ideologies concerning the major issues that constitute the soap via the language used by the characters and the signs that accompany their conversations. Even though a soap opera is a fictional narrative and people watching it are well aware of this fact, these fictional discourses – what is said and also how it is said – have an influence on the discursive construction of reality by the audience.

The approaches that I have used in the analysis are Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis and Semiotics, especially de Saussure’s and Peirce’s concepts of the sign. Fairclough’s approach allows for an interdisciplinary perspective where also societal and cultural processes and structures are integrated in the text analysis. This is why his approach seems most appropriate for the purpose of this paper. Since any television format employs a lot of signs, it was indispensable here to investigate the accompanying sings and their socio-cultural significance additionally to the linguistic analysis.

The topics chosen for the investigation here are work ethics, the position of women in society and social class differences. All three issues are prevalent in Coronation Street and also in other British soap operas and can be even said to constitute their story lines. Thus, it seemed obvious to search for the ideologies that underlie these issues. The three empirical analyses start with a general introduction to the topic that is going to be investigated in the following and how it is integrated in the episodes of Coronation Street. Then, concrete text extracts from selective episodes are given. As Jeffrey Miller already mentions in his introduction to the book Street Talk – The Language of Coronation Street, the soap is pervaded by a very “colourful colloquial language” (1986: 8). However, the “mixture of northernisms, historical slang and the everyday words and phrases which are the currency of working-class life” (1986: 7) makes the characters sometimes really difficult to understand.

In the next step, a description of form and an interpretation of meaning of the transcribed scene is tried. Firstly, a linguistic analysis is carried out. Here, certain linguistic devices and strategies being made use of in the text are detected and their meanings are interpreted. Secondly, a semiotic analysis is carried out. Here, the diverse signs, from setting, props, the

78 characters’ styling and body language to the camera work are investigated with regard to their significance for and connection with the results of the linguistic analysis. These two sections of the chapter are supposed to answer the first part of the research question, namely how and by which linguistic and/or semiotic means ideologies are constructed and evaluated in Coronation Street.

After all relevant scenes have been analysed linguistically as well as semiotically, an evaluation of the socio-cultural significance brings the chapter to an end. From what has been analysed above, conclusions are drawn concerning the main topic stated at the beginning and possible ideological functions arising from these. This last part of the chapter thus should answer the respective sub-questions of the research question posed in advance of the empirical analysis.

The analyses of all three main issues that were discussed have brought out one main ideology each which has been discussed in detail at the end of the respective chapters. The analysis of the first main issue, namely ‘work ethics’, has revealed the ideology that winning respectability and self-respect through hard work is an important quality to be sought among the working-class. The notion that work is an important factor for being respected by oneself and other members of the community is conveyed in the chosen scenes of this chapter. Pride and respect are closely connected with having a job, and those who do not work or have lost their jobs often withdraw from public life and from their community because they are ashamed and feel worthless. It also happens that those people are being talked about or even ridiculed by other family members.

The second ideology that has been detected concerns the position of women. Women in the 1980s have become able to stand on their own feet and to develop as persons in their own rights, not being defined over their husbands or partners. They have become independent, economically as well as emotionally, and do not need husbands or men for maintaining their lifestyle. It is often the woman who supports the family financially. Men seem to be superfluous in the 1980s and often stand in the background of the strong women’s lives. It seems as if the concept of marriage has become out-of-date or that it is at least not absolutely necessary anymore for a woman of the 1980s to marry. The image that it is not the man but the woman who plays the major role and who is in control of everything dominates Coronation Street.

79 The third main chapter deals with social differences. The analysis has shown that British society is class-ridden and that climbing up the social ladder is a very big goal in people’s lives. In Coronation Street, differences between some characters concerning their social standing are made visible quite clearly through the language they use and the way they dress, live and behave. Often, characters that either belong to the very high or the very low end of a class are presented as ridiculous because they are extreme in their behaviour and style, and thus the middle way is depicted as the appropriate one.

Considering these results, the hypothesis that the soap is not a mere and superficial entertainment programme but that it also conveys certain ideologies and by that influences the way the audience sees and understands the world or at least different aspects of the world can be confirmed with this.

80 7. Deutsche Zusammenfassung

Die Seifenoper ist mittlerweile eines der beliebtesten und meist gesehensten Fernsehformate weltweit. Millionen von Zuschauern schalten jeden Tag den Fernseher ein, um mit zu fiebern und zu verfolgen, wie ihre Fernseh-Helden den Lebensalltag meistern und sich mit allseits bekannten und vielfach selbst erlebten Problemen beschäftigen und versuchen, diese so gut wie möglich zu lösen. Eine der beliebtesten und die am längsten ausgestrahlte britische Seifenoper, die auch Untersuchungsobjekt dieser Arbeit ist, ist Coronation Street, die sich mit Menschen aus der Arbeiterklasse und deren Alltagssorgen und Problemen beschäftigt.

Lange Zeit wurde die Seifenoper als Objekt ernsthafter empirischer Untersuchungen ignoriert. Doch ihre immense und stetig steigende Popularität und die daraus resultierende Erkenntnis, dass sie eine enorme und nicht wegzudenkende ökonomische Größe für viele Fernsehproduzenten und –sender bedeutet, verhalfen der Seifenoper dazu, auch in verschiedenen wissenschaftlichen Bereichen, wie der Medienwissenschaft, Soziologie oder auch der Sprachwissenschaft ihren Platz als Forschungsobjekt zu finden.

Seifenopern werden vielfach als Träger und Übermittler verschiedener Ideologien im Sinne von Weltanschauungen gesehen. Was und vor allem auch wie etwas in einer solchen Serie gesagt wird kann Einfluss darauf haben, wie ihre Zuseher die Welt in der sie leben oder zumindest verschiede Aspekte dieser Welt wahrnehmen und beurteilen. Da Seifenopern zwar fiktionale aber doch realistische Darstellungen des ‚ganz normalen‘ Lebens liefern, mit deren Charakteren sich Zuschauer oftmals leicht identifizieren können, kann ihnen eine gewisse Vorbildfunktion nicht abgesprochen werden. Die mit den Dialogen einhergehenden Zeichen, wie z.B. der Set-Aufbau, die verwendeten Requisiten, das Styling und die Körpersprache der Charaktere, oder auch die Kameraeinstellungen spielen dabei eine unterstützende und nicht zu unterschätzende Rolle. Ziel dieser Arbeit ist es, herauszufinden, wie und mit welchen linguistischen und semiotischen Mitteln bestimmte Ideologien in Coronation Street konstruiert und evaluiert werden.

Das zweite Kapitel der Arbeit beschäftigt sich mit Seifenopern im allgemeinen. Auf einen kurzen Überblick über die historische Entwicklung der Seifenoper folgt eine Auflistung und Erklärung der wichtigsten Begriffe und Konzepte, die in Zusammenhang mit Seifenopern

81 stehen. Anschließend wird auf die britische Seifenopern-Kultur im allgemeinen und auf Coronation Street im speziellen eingegangen.

Das nächste Kapitel beinhaltet einen kurzen Überblick über den Begriff der Ideologie und wie diese in Zusammenhang mit den Medien und speziell mit Seifenopern zu bringen ist.

Weiters wird in Kapitel vier kurz und überblicksmäßig der sozio-politische und geschichtliche Hintergrund der 80er-Jahre dargestellt, um die untersuchte Seifenoper auch zeitlich einordnen zu können. Besonderes Augenmerk wird hierbei auf Margaret Thatcher und ihre Regierungszeit und Errungenschaften gelegt, da diese jene Zeit maßgeblich geprägt haben.

Kapitel fünf beginnt mit einer Einführung über die in der Analyse angewandten Methoden, nämlich in erster Linie Norman Fairclough’s kritische Diskursanalyse. Aufgrund seiner Ansicht, dass bei der Textanalyse auch soziologische und kulturelle Aspekte eine wichtige Rolle spielen sollten, fand ich seine Methode als besonders passend für diese Arbeit. Weiters wird in diesem Kapitel auch ein kurzer Überblick über die Semiotik geboten, die bei der Analyse eines visuellen Mediums unerlässlich scheint, wobei hier Ferdinand de Saussure’s und Charles Saunders Peirce’s Anschauungsweisen spezielle Aufmerksamkeit finden.

Die eigentliche empirische Analyse ist in drei Teile aufgeteilt. Jeder dieser Teile beschäftigt sich mit einem speziellen Thema, auf welches die folgende Analyse aufgebaut ist. Zuerst findet sich eine kurze allgemeine Einführung über das Thema mit dem Bezug auf Coronation Street. Anschließend wird eine zu dem Thema passende transkribierte Szene aus einer Episode der Seifenoper angeführt, gefolgt von einer Beschreibung ihrer Form und einer Interpretation ihrer Bedeutung mittels einer detaillierten sprachlichen und semiotischen Analyse der Szene. In dieser Analyse werden mittels der oben besprochenen Methoden sprachliche Besonderheiten und Techniken herausgefiltert, die in irgendeiner Form Hinweise darauf geben, wie in der Serie mit dem genannten Thema umgegangen wird. Zusätzlich dazu wird versucht herauszufinden, welche Zeichen verwendet werden und wie diese die verwendete Sprache im Hinblick auf eine mögliche Ideologie unterstützen. Nachdem verschiedene relevante und themenverwandte Szenen untersucht worden sind, schließt eine Auswertung der sozio-kulturellen Bedeutung der Analyseergebnisse und die Beschreibung einer daraus resultierenden ideologischen Funktion das jeweilige Kapitel ab.

82 Im Zuge der empirischen Analyse hat sich herausgestellt, dass sich aus der verwendeten Sprache und den unterstützenden Zeichen einzelner Szenen gewisse Ideologien bezüglich bestimmter Themenbereiche herausfiltern lassen. Aus der Behandlung des ersten Themenbereiches ‚work ethics‘ konnte die Anschauung herausgefiltert werden, dass das Gewinnen und Bewahren von Ehrbarkeit und Selbstachtung hoch angesehene und erstrebenswerte Qualitäten im Leben von Menschen, die der Arbeiterklasse angehören, darstellen. In den untersuchten Szenen wird die Einstellung vermittelt, dass Arbeit ein wichtiger Faktor dafür ist, dass man von anderen respektiert wird, aber auch dass man sich selbst respektieren kann. Stolz und Respekt sind eng verbunden mit dem Nachgehen einer Arbeit, und der Umkehrschluss davon ist, dass man diese Qualitäten gemeinsam mit seinem Job verliert.

Die zweite Ideologie, die aus den ausgesuchten Szenen herausgefiltert werden konnte, betrifft die Position der Frau in der Gesellschaft der 80er Jahre. Frauen in den 80ern sind unabhängig, sowohl emotional als auch finanziell. Der unbedingte Zwang, zu heiraten und eine Familie zu gründen und sich ausschließlich um diese zu kümmern, besteht nicht mehr. Frauen können auch ohne diese traditionellen Werte glücklich werden und ihr Leben in vollen Zügen genießen. Sie haben sich die Möglichkeit erkämpft, sich als eigenständige Personen zu entwickeln und auch als solche wahrgenommen zu werden und müssen nun nicht mehr über ihre Ehemänner definiert werden. Oftmals dreht sich der Spieß sogar um und es sind die Frauen, die Ihre Lebenspartner finanziell und emotional unterstützen bzw. unterstützen müssen.

Der dritte Themenbereich behandelt soziale Unterschiede. Aus der Analyse konnte herausgelesen werden, dass die britischen Bürger der 80er Jahre auf eine Klassengesellschaft fixiert sind und dass dies auch gut zu beobachten bzw. zu spüren ist. Ein sozialer Aufstieg ist das große Ziel vieler Menschen aus den unteren sozialen Schichten. In Coronation Street ist der Klassenunterschied zwischen einzelnen Charakteren deutlich sichtbar durch die von ihnen verwendete Sprache und die Art und Weise, wie sie sich verhalten und benehmen.

83 Bibliography

Sources

Source 1: Podmore, Bill, Producer (1980). Coronation Street – 16 Classic Episodes 1980 [DVD]. Granada Television. Source 2: Podmore, Bill, Producer (1981). Coronation Street – 16 Classic Episodes 1981 [DVD]. Granada Television. Source 3: Podmore, Bill, Pauline Shore and Mervyn Watson, Producers. (1982). Coronation Street – 16 Classic Episodes 1982 [DVD]. Granada Television. Source 4: Podmore, Bill, Pauline Shore and Mervyn Watson, Producers. (1983). Coronation Street – 16 Classic Episodes 1983 [DVD]. Granada Television. Source 5: Podmore, Bill, Mervyn Watson and John G. Temple, Producers (1984). Coronation Street – 16 Classic Episodes 1984 [DVD]. Granada Television. Source 6: Podmore, Bill, Mervyn Watson and John G. Temple, Producers (1985). Coronation Street – 16 Classic Episodes 1985 [DVD]. Granada Television. Source 7: Temple, John G., Producer (1986). Coronation Street – 16 Classic Episodes 1986 [DVD]. Granada Television. Source 8: Temple, John G., Producer (1987). Coronation Street – 16 Classic Episodes 1987 [DVD]. Granada Television. Source 9: Podmore, Bill and Mervyn Watson (1988). Coronation Street – 16 Classic Episodes 1988 [DVD]. Granada Television. Source 10: Podmore, Bill and Mervyn Watson (1989). Coronation Street – 16 Classic Episodes 1989 [DVD]. Granada Television.

References

Allen, Robert C. (1985). Speaking of Soap Operas. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. Barthes, Roland (1967). Elements of Semiology. London: Cape. Berger, Arthur Asa. (1991). Media Analysis Techniques. London: Sage.

84 Borchers, Hans, Gabriele Kreutzner and Eva-Maria Warth (1994). Never-ending Stories: American Soap Operas and the Cultural Production of Meaning. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier. Brundson, Charlotte (1984). Writing about Soap Opera. London: Comedia. Cantor, Muriel G. and Suzanne Pingree (1983). The Soap Opera. Beverly Hills: Sage. Dyer, Richard (1981). “Introduction”. In: Richard Dyer, Christine Geraghty, Marion Jordan, Terry Lovell, Richard Paterson and John Stewart, Television Monograph. Coronation Street. London: British Film Institute. 1-8. Eco, Umberto (1976). A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Fairclough, Norman (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press. Fairclough, Norman (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman. Fairclough, Norman (2001). Language and Power. London: Longman. Fairclough, Norman (2003). Analysing Discourse. Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge. Fairclough, Norman and Ruth Wodak (1997). “Critical Discourse Analysis”. In: Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse Studies 2: A Multidisciplinary Introduction – Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage. 258-284. Foucault, Michel (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Routledge. Gee, James Paul (1996). Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses. 2nd ed. Oxon: RoutledgeFalmer. Geraghty, Christine (1991). Women and Soap Opera. A Study of Prime Time Soaps. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hobson, Dorothy (2003). Soap Opera. Cambridge: Polity Press. Johansen, Jorgen Dines and Svend Erik Larsen (2002). Signs in Use. An Introduction to Semiotics. London: Routledge. Jordan, Marion (1981). “Realism and Convention”. In: Richard Dyer, Christine Geraghty, Marion Jordan, Terry Lovell, Richard Paterson and John Stewart, Television Monograph. Coronation Street. London: British Film Institute. 27-39. Kay, Graeme (1991). Life in the Street. Coronation Street Past and Present. Kettering: Boxtree Limited. Landbeck, Hanne (2002). Generation Soap. Mit deutschen Seifenopern auf dem Weg zum Glück. Berlin: Aufbau Taschenbuch Verlag. Letwin, Shirley Robin (1992). The Anatomy of Thatcherism. London: Fontana.

85 Lovell, Terry (1981). “Ideology and Coronation Street”. In: Richard Dyer, Christine Geraghty, Marion Jordan, Terry Lovell, Richard Paterson and John Stewart, Television Monograph. Coronation Street. London: British Film Institute. 40-52. Marko, Georg (2008). An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis. Unpublished handout. Department of English Studies, University of Graz. Marshall, Jill and Angela Werndly (2002). The Language of Television. London: Routledge. Merrell, Floyd (2001). “Charles Sanders Peirce’s Concept of the Sign”. In: Paul Cobley (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Semiotics and Linguistics. London: Routledge. 28-39. Miller, Jeffrey (1986). Street Talk. The Language of Coronation Street. London: Ward Lock Limited. Mumford, Laura Stempel (1995). Love and Ideology in the Afternoon. Soap Opera, Women, and Television Genre. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Phillips, Louise and Marianne W. Jorgensen (2002). Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: Sage. Selby, Keith and Ron Cowdery (1995). How to Study Television. Houndmills: Macmillan Press. Süß, Peter and Gabriele Kosack (2000). Daily Soaps. Macher, Fans und Stars. München: Deutscher Taschenbuchverlag Weiß, Nikola (2004). Daily Soaps. Das Geheimnis deutscher Seifenopern. Düsseldorf: Verlag Dr. Müller.

Web References web 1: Richards, Sarah (1997). “Why are Soap Operas so popular?”. [Online] http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/sar9501.html [2008, March 13]. web 2: Chandler, Daniel (1994). “The TV Soap Opera genre and its viewers”. [Online] http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Modules/TF33120/soaps.html [2008, March 13] web 3: “BBC” (2003). “The history and conventions of Soap Opera”. [Online] http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1087193 [2008, March 13] web 4: Allen, Robert C. (n.d.). “Soap Opera”. The Museum of Broadcast Communications. [Online] http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/S/htmlS/soapopera/soapopera.htm [2008, March 13]

86 web 5: Kenny, Joanne (n.d.). “Course Diary of Joanne Kenny”. [Online] http://webpages.dcu.ie/~sheehanh/tv/tvd99/jkenny1.htm [2008, March 13] web 6: Lye, John (1997). “Ideology: a brief guide”. [Online] http://www.brocku.ca/english/jlye/ideology.html [2008, March 16] web 7: “Wikipedia” (2008). “Margaret Thatcher”. [Online] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher [2008, March 18] web 8: “Wikipedia” (2008). “Thatcherism”. [Online] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism [2008, March 18] web 9: “Margaret Thatcher Foundation” (2008). “Biography”. [Online] http://www.margaretthatcher.org/essential/biography.asp [2008, March 18] web 10: “Wikipedia” (2008). “Soap Opera”. [Online] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap_opera [2008, March 18] web 11: “Northallerton College”. (n.d.). “Ideology”. Media Studies. [Online] http://www.northallertoncoll.org.uk/media/ideology.htm [2008, April 28] web 12: “Wikipedia” (2008). “Ideology”. [Online] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology [2008, April 28] web 13: “Wikipedia” (2008). “Modern economic history of UK. The Thatcher Era.” [Online] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_economic_history_of_Britain#1979.E2.8093199 0:_The_Thatcher_Era [2008, April 30] web 14: Chandler, Daniel (1994). “Semiotics for Beginners”. [Online] http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/semiotic.html [2008, May 5] web 15: “Wikipedia” (2008). “Ideologie”. [Online] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideologie [2008, May 5] web 16: “Wikipedia” (2008). “Working class”. [Online] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class [2008, September 21] web 17: “Wikipedia” (2008). “Social class”. [Online] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class [2008, September 21]

87