Representation of Psychopathic Characteristics in Fiction - LNU
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Representation of Psychopathic
Characteristics in Fiction
A Transitivity Analysis of the
Protagonist’s External and Internal
Dialogue in the TV-series You
Author: Madeleine Olsson
Supervisor: Jukka Tyrkkö
Examiner: Charlotte Hommerberg
Term: Autumn 20
Subject: Linguistics
Level: Bachelor
Course code: 2EN10EAbstract The series You (2018) challenges the traditional characteristics of a protagonist and introduces the audience to a psychopathic protagonist with traits which are typically recognised in the traditional villain. This study investigates the portrayal of the fictional character Joe Goldberg’s psychopathic characteristics by analysing the language used in his external and internal dialogues. More specifically, drawing on the tools of transitivity analysis (Halliday 1985), the study focuses on the process types and corresponding semantic roles assigned to the pronouns I and you used by the protagonist over the course of three strategically selected episodes of the series. The results of the qualitative and quantitative transitivity analysis of internal and external dialogues throughout three chosen episodes shows that in the internal dialogues Joe appears analytical and assigns attributes and actions to you which correspond to the mental representation of the object of his desire, Beck. While Joe’s internal dialogues ascribe some appealing attributes to Beck, the transitivity analysis also shows that he identifies traits of vulnerability, such as lack of confidence and being indolent in reaching her goals. In contrast, Joe’s approach in the external dialogues continuously appears to project him as a humble person who puts the needs of others before his own, expressing deep consideration and understanding of the needs and emotions of others. The audience is introduced to his manipulative behaviour by this contrast between his external and internal dialogues, which is highlighted by the transitivity analysis in the present study. Key words Discourse Analysis, Transitivity Analysis, Systemic Functional Linguistics, Fictional Psychopaths, Psychopaths and Language
Table of contents
1 Introduction 1
2 Aim & Research Questions 2
3 Previous studies of psychopathy and language 2
3.1 Features in the Language of Psychopaths 2
3.2 The portrayal of Psychopaths in Fiction 3
4 Theoretical underpinnings 5
4.1 The system of transitivity 6
5 Material & Method 8
5.1 Material 8
5.1.1 The TV series YOU 8
5.1.2 Selection of Episodes 9
5.2 Method 9
6 Results and analysis 10
6.1 Quantitative overview of transitivity types and semantic roles 11
6.2 Qualitative analysis of relational, material, mental processes 14
6.2.1 External and Internal Dialogues Episode 1 14
6.2.2 External and Internal Dialogues Episode 5 17
6.2.3 External and Internal Dialogues in Episode 10 20
7 Discussion 22
8 Conclusion 25
References 271 Introduction
Have you ever found yourself captivated by a character on TV with morals you would normally
disagree with? If so, you are not alone. Statistics show an increased interest for movies and
series involving psychopaths. The website The Numbers provides a market success for each
category in the movie business and shows a clear interest for the Thriller/Suspense genre in
film/Tv-series, representing the 5th most watched genre from 1995-2019. The genre is meant to
“pull you in, build tension with intriguing suspense and keep you guessing until the very end”
(MasterClass 2020). The genre includes several subgenres such as: Crime Thrillers, Action
Thrillers, Legal Thrillers and the Psychological Thrillers. The Psychological Thriller subgenre,
which is in focus in the present study, is said to “emphasise the unstable or delusional mental
and emotional conditions of the characters and focus on the devious depths of the human mind”
(Musack 2018).
Shows within the genre, such as Dexter and You, challenge the audiences’ moral compass and
portray a protagonist with characteristics more commonly found in villains. Psychopathy is a
personality disorder known for characteristics such as “impulsiveness”, “lack of empathy”,
“shallow emotions'' and “manipulative smooth talkers” for their goal-driven nature (Hancock
et.al. 2013). Presumably, a character with those characteristics might not be perceived as a
charismatic and likeable protagonist by the audience. However, the writers and producers of
these shows somehow manage to ascribe charming characteristics to their protagonists, who
capture the attention and hearts of the viewers. Psychopathic protagonists in present day fiction
may thus be portrayed as smart, caring and deep.
The focus in this paper is the psychological thriller You, originally a written novel from 2014
which was adapted into a Netflix Original Series in 2018, due to its immense popularity. The
series portrays the protagonist Joe Goldberg, a seemingly charming, modest and clever book
clerk who wants nothing more than to find his one-true-love. However, the audience is quickly
introduced to his twisted thoughts, actions and frantic obsession. He falls in love with an
aspiring literature student, Beck, and does anything to keep her in his life, including murdering
people who intervene with his plans. Tendencies of psychopathy are unraveled as the series
progresses. This study focuses on how the protagonist’s character is projected in his external
and internal dialogues.
1(34)2 Aim & Research Questions
The aim of this paper is to analyse what linguistic choices may reveal about intended
characteristics of the fictional protagonist of the series You (2018), drawing on the analytic tools
of transitivity analysis developed within Systemic Functional Linguistics. The study is
delimited to the protagonist’s lines and is guided by the following research questions:
1. What are the differences between the internal and external dialogues of the protagonist as
regards process types and semantic roles?
3. How do process types and semantic roles vary over the timeline of three chosen episodes of
the series?
2. What do the protagonist’s choices of process types and distribution of semantic roles indicate
in terms of the psychological characteristics?
3 Previous studies of psychopathy and language
The language used by psychopaths and the fictional portrayal of psychopathic characters have
been studied before. Section 3.1 presents previous research on traits and language features
commonly found in individuals with psychopathy. Section 3.2 subsequently presents the
findings of previous studies on the portrayal of psychopathic characters in fiction.
3.1 Features in the Language of Psychopaths
Recent research suggests that much could be learned by examining psychopaths’ language as
many defining characteristics are directly portrayed in their language use. Insincerity,
deception, and manipulation all involve language and are features defined in psychopathy
(Hare, Williamsson, Harpur 1988:68).
Brites (2016) synthesised a number of features of psychopaths and their language from previous
research. The result suggests psychopaths use so-called “hollow language” as a way of
manipulation, meaning thy can repeat and use language without understanding the semantic or
emotional meaning behind it. As an example, the words “I love you” could have the same
emotional depth as asking for a cup of coffee (Hare 1993 as cited by Brites 2016).
Language is known to be an excellent vehicle to express emotions not only to others, but to
oneself (Damásio 2012 as cited by Brites 2016). The absence of semantical and emotional
aspects is related to the central characteristic that psychopaths usually have difficulties learning
2(34)from experience. As a result, the lack of empathy and understanding of emotional words may
be due to the discordance between what psychopathic individuals say they feel and what they
actually feel (Larson 2017:6). Hence, the reason why psychopaths can use words in their favour
to manipulate may be that they are able to recognise the meaning of words, although fail to
associate them with emotional implications.
Studies about how individuals with psychopathy process emotional words showed evidence
that language processes differ in individuals with psychopathic behaviour. The right
hemisphere plays a dominant role in healthy individuals when processing emotional stimuli and
connotative aspects of language. The left hemisphere is the more analytically oriented and
processes the denotative aspects of language (Larson 2017:7). Consequently, the deficits may
well contribute to those behaviours, since a reduced linguistic process may contribute to an
incorrect process of inner speech (Patrick 2016 as cited by Brites 2016).
In presence or absence of psychopathy, different types of knowledge surrounding language
allow a speaker to implement semantics, i.e., meaning of words and expressions (Carroll 2008
as cited by Brites 2016). In certain situations, one could expect another to speak in a certain
manner in relation to the context. Interacting with an individual who merely uses language as a
tool without fully understanding the emotions connected to it might evoke wariness and strikes
as odd, or manipulative. Psychopaths are in many cases seductive speakers and are good at
selecting and using words, although could use them in an “unusual” manner. The words chosen
are sometimes used in a fluid, persuasive and misleading manner to detach themselves from
their behaviour (Hare 1998 as cited by Brites 2016).
3.2 The portrayal of Psychopaths in Fiction
Leistedt and Linkowski (2013) presented a study which investigated the relationship between
psychopathy and cinema. From 400 films (1915-2010), 126 fictional psychopathic characters
were chosen for analysis based on their realistic portrayal. The characters were analysed by
cinema critics and senior forensic psychiatrists. Results showed that in the early years of
cinema, characters with ascribed psychopathy were poorly portrayed due to incomplete
understanding of the psychopathic syndrome. Fictional psychopaths at that time were presented
as villains with bizarre mannerisms like giggling or laughing while engaging in sadistic, violent,
and destructive acts. Characters with psychopathy were rerouted into the horror genre in 1957
and portrayed two sorts of characteristics; either the misfit motivated to kill for sexual pleasure,
or the extremely violent mass murderer. As real-life psychopaths and serial killers had an
3(34)upswing of exploits during the 1960s to the late 1980s, the portrayal showed an increased
interest in the realistic description of the fictional psychopath. With inspiration from infamous
real-life psychopaths, such as Ted Bundy and Jeffry Dahmer, the fictional psychopath was
ascribed exaggerated sophisticated manners, intelligence and wit. The conclusion of this study
was that realistic fictional psychopaths exist but are in the minority. Many portrayals are
exaggerated, and playwrights and producers tend to offer the audience a glimpse of a more
complex and emotional psychopath made likable for the audience (Leistedt & Linkowski,
2013).
In You (2018), the protagonist portrays an individual who commits vile actions, a characteristic
trait that is commonly found in villains. Joe Goldberg’s acts and speech do not always
correspond as he is a character made to split the audience’s mind on whether he is evil or not.
In Naftulin (2020), mental health experts present their views on Joe Goldberg’s mental state.
Social scientist Pamela Ruthledge claims that the protagonist Joe Goldberg:
seems to be an amalgam of personality traits at abnormal levels that are constructed to make a good story
and create a character that elicits a certain amount of empathy in viewers, despite the fact he murders people
(...) In reality, very few people with mental illness behave like this in real life. (Naftulin 2020).
Ruthledge observes that the protagonist Joe Goldberg embodies behaviour from both antisocial
personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder. He often manipulates, lacks empathy
and has an inflated sense of his own importance. However, the audience is not initially
introduced to these characteristics since he appears to express deep feelings for his loved ones
as a justification for the crimes he commits. Additionally, he is intelligent and consequently
gets away with the crimes he commits, which is not necessarily a common trait found in
psychopaths (Robledo 2019).
Parallels can be drawn to the thriller series Dexter (2006), in which Dexter Morgan, another
famous fictional protagonist with psychopathy tendencies, is portrayed as intelligent and gets
away with murder. Dutton (2020) explains that the inner dialogue found both in Dexter and Joe,
where the protagonists analyse their actions, strikes him as an unlikely one, since many real-
world psychopaths do not wish to be self-aware to that degree, nor have and/or maintain strong
attachment to other people. This intelligence and wit found in both Dexter and Joe correspond
with the findings presented by Liestedt and Linkowski (2013), that fictional psychopathic
protagonists are often made likable for the audience.
4(34)The question of why we love fictional psychopaths is discussed by Anthony Robledo (2019).
The audience tends to project themselves onto the central character in a show, the protagonist.
Hence, the portrayal of the protagonist is created for a television audience and has to be likable
for the audience despite the violence or crimes the character might commit. As a result, the
fictional psychopath does not necessarily portray a truthful mirroring of the supposed
personality disorder(s). In summary, exaggerated features such as intelligence, selfishness,
charm and applied strong emotions are importantly ascribed to the protagonist to maintain the
audience as a cheerful supporter of the story.
4 Theoretical underpinnings
This study draws on analytic tools from Systemic Functional Linguistics, and it is necessary to
offer some basic understanding of this approach to the study of language. Systemic Functional
Linguistic (henceforth SFL), first developed by M.A.K Halliday during the 1960s, is an
approach to language function and meaning situated in context (Almurashi 2016:71). The
approach goes beyond the formal structures and analyses the language choices and sentence
structure constructed under the influence of the social and cultural setting. The meaning of
language, or semantics, is identified by Metafunctions (ibid). Metafunctions are three broad
categories which classify human language function and act simultaneously. The categories are:
● Experiential metafuntion – which represents our perceptions of the world and our
consciousness.
● Interpersonal metafunction – which represents participants roles in communicative
acts and the relationship between them.
● Textual metafunction – which represents the organisation of written or spoken
language
By analysing the Metafunctions, we can realise how we adapt, consciously or unconsciously,
our language choices based on the situation and the participants/audience. The language choices
we make in certain situations can have an effect on how we are perceived by others and may
indicate how we perceive others as well as the world. As the theory takes the contextual
dimensions of language into account, SFL has been found useful in the fields of healthcare,
translation, education, to name a few. For example, its application is useful when analysing
genre, discourse analysis, and cohesion. As SFL strives to comprehend meaning and function
5(34)in language, the theory serves as communicative motivation when learning language or
adapting to a certain environment where language plays a role (Almurashi 2016:74).
4.1 The system of transitivity
In SFL, the experiential metafunction represents our perceptions of the world and our
consciousness (Thompson 1996 as cited by Banks 2002). Transitivity analysis serves as a means
to understand a person’s worldview and experiences based on their language use. It captures
how language functions in its context, and situations and experiences are categorised by process
types, which are determined by the main verb of a sentence. The transitivity system serves to
determine and categorise experiences in terms of processes of doing, sensing, being, saying,
behaving and existing. Each process type is determined by its verbal group (what is going on).
Each process type has its own set of participants who are involved in the process, given different
roles (T.Bloor & M.Bloor 2013:113). The participants can be both animate, as in he or your
Spanish professor, or inanimate as in the blue car or my loafers. Transitivity analysis thus deals
with questions such as “who and what does what and to what or whom?”. The process types
and their corresponding participants can be seen below.
Table A presents the process types and its corresponding participant(s).
Process Type Participant(s)
Material Actor Goal/Beneficiary
Mental Senser Phenomenon
Relational Carrier/Identified Attribute/Identifier
Verbal Sayer Receiver
Behavioural Behaver -
Existential Existent -
Below are some examples of each process type. The first process is Material process with
participants Actor/Goal:
(a) I (Actor) withdraw (Material process) money (Goal).
6(34)“I” is the doer of the verb “withdraw” in the clause while “money” is the entity undergoing the
verb. The function is to represent some action or “doing”. By adding “for you”, “you” would
be (Beneficiary) as the service gets done for someone else.
The second process is Mental process with participants Sensor/Phenomenon:
(b) You (Senser) want (Mental process) money (Phenomenon).
The example above functions to represent inner experiences.
The third process is Relational process. It functions to represent our way to characterise,
describe and relate bits of something to something else – to generalise. This process type has
two different, and often difficult to classify, sets of participants, namely Identified/Identifier
and Carrier/Attribute.
Relational processes with participants Identified/Identifier:
(c) He (Identifier) is (Relational process) my best friend (Identified).
This is meant to identify someone or something. This type of relational process can be reversed
so that the Identifier and Identified change place, i.e. “My best friend is he”.
Relational processes with participants Carrier/Attribute:
(d) Most guards (Carrier) are (Relational process) mean (Attribute).
The process type is commonly realised by the verb “be” or “seem”, “become”; “appear”,
“have”, “possess” and “own” (verbs known as copular verbs) and serves to attribute qualities
or possessions to the Carrier.
The fourth process Verbal process shares features from Mental process and Relational process
and includes expressions and indications. Participants are Sayer/Receiver:
(e) The professor (Sayer) told (Verbal process) us (Receiver).
The process indicates all sorts of expressing and indicating. It may be difficult to decide on a
category for these instances, which may belong to both the action-oriented Material process
“He said that” as well as the Mental process of “I told him to stop, I repeated for myself”. Verbs
which may realise clauses of this process are; ask, explain, beg, promise, agree, report, say, tell.
The fifth process shares some features with both Material process and Mental process,
namely Behavioural process with the participant Behaver:
7(34)(f) They (Behaver) were crying (Behavioural process).
These process types function to represent internal consciousness and physiological states in
outer manifestations. This process contains only one participant.
Lastly, the sixth process Existential process shares features from Material process and
Relational process. This type is demonstrated in:
(g) There (Existent) are good chances you get the job (Existential process).
These types function to represent anything that exists or happens. As with Behavioural process,
the Existential process contains only one participant.
5 Material & Method
5.1 Material
5.1.1 The TV series YOU
The data chosen for this analysis is the previously mentioned Tv-series You (2018), based on a
best-selling novel by Caroline Kepnes with the same name, written and produced by Greg
Berlanti and Sera Gamble. This section offers a general background regarding the style of the
writers and producers behind the title You. The background information works as motivation
for the chosen data as it presents the inspiration for the character Joe, intended characteristics
as well as earlier works of the producers.
On the site GoodReads, the original writer of the novel, Kepnes, lists her inspirations for the
main character Joe with big titles amongst the thriller genre such as American Psycho, The
Silence of the Lambs and Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been. Additionally, Kepnes
describes that she, during High School, attended a summer-long psychology experiment/class
at Yale University, knowledge she later applied in her novel You (2014). This knowledge and
the big titles were not the only inspiration for the main character Joe. According to Kepnes, Joe
came from a series of influences and diagnoses of inspiration such as psychopathy, sociopathy
and borderline disorder as she also studied Abnormal Psychology. She explains:
He’s from my love of dark humor, pop culture, Todd Solons movies, Pip from Great Expectations, Prince
lyrics, so many different places and experiences, books and movies. (…) He’s from moments, laughing
when you’re not supposed to, heightened emotional experiences, the horror of losing my father, who also
had a very dark sense of humor. From the good and the bad, Hannibal and Clarice (Kepnes 2019).
Furthermore, for the directors and scriptwriters to the TV-series adaptation, the language and
constant switch from internal and external dialogues are important elements kept in the TV
8(34)adaptation. Berlanti, also known for works in film and television such as Green lantern and Life
As We Know It, explains the key elements to the adaptation from novel to television series:
So much of what is delicious and sticky about the book is that we are hearing his thoughts and we’re
observing how he interacts with people and at the same time we know the truth inside of his head. We
wanted to capture that; it’s one of the unique things about the show (2018).
Gamble, who is a producer known for other series in the Thriller genre such as The Magicians
and Supernatural further explains Joe as a charismatic and charming character who “is a hot-
blooded romantic with a determination to find love, rather than a man who loves killing” and
who also genuinely believes he is a feminist and a good man (The New York Times 2019). As
previously mentioned in section 3.2 by Ruthledge (2020), the protagonist Joe Goldberg shows
traits of some sort of antisocial-personality disorder and manifests certain behaviours
accordingly.
5.1.2 Selection of Episodes
As the paper is restricted, three episodes were selected for transitivity analysis. The chosen
episodes 1, 5 and 10 are argued to represent important events to portray a broad understanding
and progression of the plot. Episode 1 introduces the characters, the obsessive and potentially
dangerous nature of the protagonist as he acts shy and mysterious, although obsesses over his
love interest after their first interaction. Episode 5 presents the lengths to which the protagonist
may go to keep his love interest to himself, which reveals his violent characteristic. Episode 10
closes the plot of the series. The protagonist has committed crimes which he cannot neglect any
longer and doubts his own reasoning to kill. He buries the old memories, kills his love interest,
and ultimately moves to another city. The closing scene shows the protagonist re-doing his
initial observing and thought process over another girl, suggesting he learned nothing from his
previous experiences.
The script was taken from the site SUBSLIKESCRIPT, transcribed by anonymous transcribers.
Thus, the script had to be reviewed and revised for errors manually during the analysis.
5.2 Method
The script was downloaded and copied into a word document for each episode to then be
organised into the protagonist’s lines, followed by dividing the internal and external dialogues.
As the transcribed script was written by anonymous transcribers, it had to be meticulously
revised of potential errors. This was done by observing the episodes chosen for the analysis and
9(34)revising the script simultaneously. The transitivity analysis of the protagonist’s internal and
external dialogues was carried out in chronological order starting from episode 1, 5 and
ultimately 10. Clause by clause, the process types were decided as well as the participants and
their role in the clauses. The excerpt from episode 1 below demonstrates the categorisation
procedure. The processes are abbreviated as Material process [Map], Mental process [Mep],
Relational process [Rp], Verbal process [Vp], Behavioural process [Bp] and Existential process
[Ep].
Material process: If this was a movie, I [Actor]’d grab [Map] you [Goal] and we’d go at it right in the
stacks.
Mental process: And you [Senser] want [Mep] me to notice. [Phenomenon]
Relational process: Your blouse [Identifier] is [Rp] loose.
Verbal process: You [Sayer] told [Vp] me [Receiver] your name.
Behavioural process: You [Behaver] smiled [Bp].
Furthermore, the relevant pronouns me, my mine, your and yours are taken into consideration
as well since the clause structure would not allow I taking the role as a “Goal/Beneficiary”. To
give an example: What did you give I?, is grammatically incorrect. Again, the meaning of the
clause and its participants are in focus, more so than the structure itself. Instances of repetition
and stutter are not counted. The results were inserted into a table for a simpler overview.
Ultimately, a comparison was done between the chronically organised episodes, the
protagonist’s internal and external dialogues and the semantic roles of I and you.
Transitivity analysis and the categorisation of process types require close reading and
interpretation, and it is occasionally difficult to univocally assign a clause to a process type, and
much internal argumentation must be done. The present study offers both quantitative and
qualitative results, but it should be stressed that the quantitative results function mainly as a
backdrop for the qualitative analysis.
6 Results and analysis
This section presents the results of the transitivity analysis. Section 5.1 first offers a quantitative
overview of the total number and distribution of process types in the data and a quantitative
breakdown of semantic roles for each episode. Section 5.2 subsequently offers a qualitative
analysis of selected instances of relational, material and mental processes excerpted from the
three episodes.
10(34)6.1 Quantitative overview of transitivity types and semantic roles
A total of 771 clauses were analysed for transitivity in the protagonist’s language. All six major
categories of process types were found in the material. Table 1 shows the total numbers of
process types in the protagonist’s external and internal dialogues throughout the episodes.
Table 1: A frequency overview of the process types throughout the episodes, the internal and the external
dialogues
Episode 1 Episode 1 Episode 5 Episode 5 Episode 10 Episode 10 Total
Process External Internal External Internal Number
Type External Internal of the
Process
Types
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq % Raw
Number
Material 49 49.5 62 37.6 43 45.3 59 40.1 83 43.9 28 36.8 324
Mental 30 30.3 46 27.9 32 33.7 49 33.3 80 42.3 29 38.2 266
Relational 13 13.1 48 29.1 12 12.6 32 21.8 18 9.5 17 22.4 140
Verbal 2 2.0 4 2.4 7 7.4 6 4.1 3 1.6 1 1.3 23
Behavioural 5 5.1 4 2.4 1 1.1 1 0.7 5 2.6 1 1.3 17
Existential - 0 1 0.6 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 1
Total 99 100 165 100 95 100 147 100 189 100 76 100 771
As noticed, there is a clear preference for the Material process and Mental process in all three
episodes. The internal dialogues are the ones containing the highest frequencies of process types
from episode 1. The majority are Material and Mental, followed by Relational, Verbal,
Behavioural, and Existential processes.
Additionally, there appears to be no general pattern in the frequencies of the current process
types between internal and external dialogues. However, there are interesting observations of
how certain process types are used in certain contexts, and which participant performs the active
role in the clause. Selected instances of relational, material and mental processes are illustrated
and analysed in more detail in section 5.2.
The processing of the dataset also involved categorisation of the semantic roles of the
participants for each process type in the three episodes. Table 2 offers a quantitative overview
of the number of instances of each semantic role category in episode 1. The clauses chosen for
analysis are the ones which contain the pronouns I and you or the corresponding pronouns me,
my, mine, your and yours to recognise what verbal action is ascribed to the pronouns.
11(34)Table 2: Semantic roles assigned to I and you between internal and external dialogues, episode 1
Semantic Roles I Internal I External You Internal You External
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Actor 20 29.0 16 29.6 33 28.7 23 32.4
Goal/Beneficiary 7 10.1 11 20.4 14 12.2 12 16.9
Senser 28 40.6 18 33.3 12 10.4 17 23.9
Phenomenon 2 2.9 1 1.9 10 8.7 2 2.8
Carrier/Identifier 6 8.7 4 7.4 38 33.0 7 9.9
Attribute/Identified 1 1.4 1 1.9 4 3.5 2 2.8
Sayer 0 0 1 1.9 0 0 5 7.0
Receiver 3 4.3 1 1.9 1 0.9 0 0
Behaver 2 2.9 1 1.9 2 1.7 3 4.2
Existent 0 0 0 0 1 0.9 0 0
Total 69 99.9 54 100.2 115 100 71 99.9
% % % %
Table 2 presents the semantic roles assigned to I and you in the protagonist’s internal and
external dialogues in episode 1. Both I and you are overall more frequent in the internal
dialogues than in the external dialogues. The pronoun you in the role of Actor is particularly
frequent in the internal dialogue. In the role as Goal/Beneficiary too, you is twice as frequent
as in the internal dialogues. As the role Senser, I clearly has the highest frequency in the internal
dialogues. You has a lower frequency as participant Senser in both internal and external
dialogues compared to I. You as the role Phenomenon has a considerably higher frequency in
the internal dialogues compared to external dialogues. What is more, you as the performer
Carrier/Identifier is higher in frequency than I, both in the internal and external dialogues, with
a dramatically higher frequency in the internal dialogues. The Role Attribute/Identified has a
low frequency in each category. Episode 1 only has a few instances of you and I occurring in
the semantic roles of Sayer, Receiver and Behaver. These semantic roles are therefore excluded
from further scrutiny. In summary, most of the identified processes occur in the internal
dialogues as much observation is done by the protagonist in episode 1. You has the highest
frequency in each process type in the internal dialogues, with one exception: I has a
considerably higher frequency as the role Senser.
Table 3 presents the semantic roles assigned to I and you between the internal and external
dialogues from episode 5:
Table 3: Semantic roles assigned to I and you in internal and external dialogues, episode 5
Semantic Roles I Internal I External You Internal You External
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Actor 31 30.4 13 31.0 14 14.6 10 17.9
Goal/Beneficiary 10 9.8 4 9.5 21 21.9 13 23.2
Senser 29 28.4 18 42.9 11 11.4 12 21.4
Phenomenon 5 4.9 0 0 11 11.4 5 9.0
Carrier/Identifier 16 15.7 3 7.1 31 32.3 7 12.5
12(34)Attribute/Identified 6 5.9 0 0 4 4.2 4 7.1
Sayer 3 2.9 4 9.5 1 1.0 2 3.6
Receiver 1 1.0 0 0 3 3.1 2 3.6
Behaver 1 1.0 0 0 0 0 1 1.8
Existent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 102 100 42 100 96 100 56 100
Just like in episode 1, there was a higher frequency of processes and consequently of semantic
roles in the internal dialogues. However, in contrast to episode 1, I in the role as Actor is more
frequent than you. You is more frequent in the role Goal/Beneficiary in both the internal and
external dialogues. As in episode 1, I as the role Senser is higher in frequency in both the
internal and external dialogues, although has a much higher frequency in the internal dialogues.
Participant you in the role Phenomenon is, again, more frequent in the internal dialogues.
Furthermore, you clearly has a higher frequency than I in the role as Carrier/Identifier in the
internal dialogues. Episode 5 shows a shift of focus from you to I as the “active” role in most
categories, except as Carrier/Identifier.
Table 4 gives an overview of the categorisation of semantic roles occurring in the protagonist’s
external and internal dialogues in episode 5:
Table 4: Semantic roles assigned to I and you between internal and external dialogues, episode 10
Semantic Roles I Internal I External You Internal You External
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Actor 18 36.0 42 35.3 8 17.0 29 28.7
Goal/Beneficiary 2 4.0 12 10.1 7 14.9 16 15.8
Senser 17 34.0 49 41.2 11 23.4 25 24.8
Phenomenon 2 4.0 3 2.5 6 12.8 17 16.8
Carrier/Identifier 8 16.0 7 5.9 8 17.0 5 5.0
Attribute/Identified 2 4.0 2 1.7 6 12.9 4 4.0
Sayer 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 1 1.0
Receiver 0 0 2 1.7 0 0 0 0
Behaver 1 2.0 2 1.7 0 0 4 4.0
Existent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 50 100 119 100 47 100 101 100
Episode 10 disrupts the trend of episodes 1 and 5. Episode 10 has a dramatic decrease in every
process type found in internal dialogues, and participant I in the role as Actor shows a clear
increase in the external dialogues. The role as Senser is predominantly occupied by the
participant I both in the internal and external dialogues. The role of Carrier/Identifier is
relatively low and equally distributed among the categories. In episode 10, the dialogue is
predominantly external with a strong focus on the protagonist as the “active” participant.
13(34)6.2 Qualitative analysis of relational, material, mental processes
This section offers close, qualitative analysis of relational, material and mental and processes
occurring in the protagonist’s external and internal dialogues in episodes 1, 5 and 10. The
presentation focuses on the external and internal interaction between the protagonist, Joe, and
the object of his desire, Beck, and illustrates instances of different semantic roles performed by
I and you. The section is concluded by a summary of the most important findings of the
qualitative analysis.
6.2.1 External and Internal Dialogues Episode 1
Episode 1 portrays Joe’s first meeting with Beck, as she walks into the bookstore where he
works as a clerk. Joe decides to stalk her to get to know her better and secretly follows her
around. The following examples illustrate instances of relational processes in the protagonist’s
external dialogue:
(1) Are you [CARRIER] all right?
(2) You [CARRIER] okay?
(3) And I'm [CARRIER] not a good chaser.
As these relational processes suggest, Joe acts in a thoughtful and apologetic manner. He is in
the beginning steps of learning about Beck, and what is noteworthy about his external dialogue
is that much of his focus lies on you’s, Beck’s, wellbeing. In addition, Joe depicts himself in
humble terms as being bad at romance (chasing after a girl he loved), which can be seen as a
calculated way of making Beck feel comfortable and relaxed around him.
The relational processes occurring in the protagonist’s internal dialogue however tells a rather
different story. The following examples illustrate instances of relational processes in the
protagonist’s internal dialogue:
(4) If so, Beck, you [CARRIER] really are alone.
(5) You're [CARRIER] blind with love.
(6) You [CARRIER] are special.
(7) You [CARRIER] are talented,
(8) You [CARRIER] are passionate.
(9) You’re [CARRIER] smart…
14(34)(10) except in the ways you’re [CARRIER] really not, (smart, special, talented, passionate)
(11) I’m [CARRIER] not always right.
(12) I’m [CARRIER] human.
(13) I [CARRIER] wasn’t crazy after all.
As seen in these instances of internal dialogues, Joe uses relational processes liberally. He
ascribes many attributes to you based on the limited information he has on her thus far. Hence,
he is already creating his mental representation of her and suggests her strengths and
weaknesses. Interestingly, the attributes ascribed to I are more apologetic and humble. He
portrays himself as a mere human who makes mistakes, while he sets great expectations on you.
Thus, he freely provides Beck with attributes that are appealing to him, possibly because he
fantasises about all of those appealing characteristics spilling over on him.
The following examples illustrate material processes occurring in the external dialogue of
episode 1. They portray Joe’s service-minded characteristics both inside and outside of his
bookstore. The first two examples are situated in the bookstore while the other two are after an
accident involving Beck:
(14) Can I [ACTOR] help you find something?
(15) I'll... I'll [ACTOR] get you another one.
(16) No, I didn’t… I [ACTOR] didn’t save your life.
(17) You [ACTOR] don't have to get me anything.
As for these material processes, Joe’s actions results in him portrayed as modest, helpful and
unpretentious in his external dialogues. The I seems to be only of service for you, Beck, and
expects nothing in return. Even when he did indeed save her life, he claimed he did not, as in
(16). This modesty appears somewhat exaggerated since Beck quite literally almost died.
The following material processes are taken from Joe’s internal dialogue in episode 1:
(18) I [ACTOR] ’ll clean for us.
(19) I [ACTOR] will cook for us, every day.
(20) I [ACTOR] ’ll even do your laundry…
(21) I [ACTOR] ’ll make our bed every morning.
15(34)(22) I [ACTOR] can help, Beck.
As indicated by these material processes, Joe’s internal dialogue in episode 1 represents the I
as planning to perform a number of activities that are beneficial to you, once the I and the you
are in a relationship. These instances of material processes are suggestive of Joe’s vision of a
future life together with Beck, where he will act as the perfect partner, managing the household
chores to Beck does not have to. The material processes with you as Actor in episode 1 depict
Beck in a rather different manner:
(23) Went to Brown, where you [ACTOR] majored in lit, cool.
(24) So you [ACTOR] didn’t finish.
(25) You [ACTOR] ’ve started a few poems about that day,
(26) but you [ACTOR] never finish them
The activities performed by the you in these instances are presented as not completed. This
suggests that Joe imagines Beck as lacking tenacity, i.e., she does not complete what she
initiates. His internal dialogues portray Beck as the perfect victim, because she is vulnerable
and in need of help to realise her potential.
The following examples illustrate mental processes in Joe’s external dialogues:
(27) I [SENSER] feel the same way sometimes.
(28) Good, you [SENSER] won't regret it.
(29) Yeah, I [SENSER] missed it.
The mental processes suggest Joe responds to interests and inclinations Beck seems to have. In
interaction with her, he uses this knowledge of feelings and understandings that may seem
sympathetic to her. He also portrays himself as having feelings when explaining that he had
been homesick for New York, which may suggest to Beck that he is home-loving, someone
who she can rely on and who shares her feelings and interests.
The following examples illustrate mental processes in the internal dialogues in episode 1:
(30) I [SENSER] have been learning a lot.
(31) I learned [SENSER] two definitive things by sourcing your computer.
(32) I [SENSER] know from your posted schedule.
16(34)(33) You [SENSER] like a little attention.
(34) And you [SENSER] want me to notice.
(35) You [SENSER] want to be seen
(36) But you [SENSER] want people to watch
(37) You [SENSER] want so badly to be one of them.
As these instances of mental processes in internal dialogues indicate, I occur as Sensor in mental
processes of perception, where the protagonist has learned things and come to know things
about Beck through stalking her. You however occurs as Sensor in mental processes of
emotions, where desires are ascribed to Beck, she likes attention (33) and wants to be noticed
(35). Additionally, he speculates that that Beck has insecurities regarding the friendships she
has with her friends. He draws the conclusion that she only acts as being one of them, while not
feeling convinced that she is.
6.2.2 External and Internal Dialogues Episode 5
Episode 5 portrays Joe and Beck as a couple. Much of Joe’s focus now lies on Beck’s group of
friends as Joe is competing against them for Beck’s attention. The following examples illustrate
instances of relational processes in the protagonist’s external dialogue:
(38) You [CARRIER] trash goblin!
Few instances of relational processes involving Beck can be found in the external dialogues.
What could be drawn from the example above is the fact that Joe managed to create what seems
to be a relaxed relationship together with Beck as he ventures to make fun of her in an
affectionate way.
The relational processes occurring in Joe’s internal dialogue are much more explicit. The
following examples illustrate relational processes in the internal dialogues from episode 5:
(39) I'm [CARRIER] not a bad person.
(40) I'm [CARRIER] the only real feminist
(41) Beck, I'm [CARRIER] a good friend.
(42) I'm [CARRIER] an understanding, supportive boyfriend.
(43) But you're [CARRIER] safe now, thanks to me.
17(34)(44) I'm [CARRIER] brave.
(45) Honestly, Beck, you're [CARRIER] lucky to have me
As in episode 1, the internal dialogues of episode 5 include much more explicitly ascribed
attributes to both I and you compared to the external dialogues. As the examples illustrate, Joe
constructs an internal worldview where he depicts himself as someone who Beck needs. He
fuels his own self-worth with attributes such as brave, supportive, understanding and that he is
the only real feminist Beck knows.
The following examples illustrate material processes in the external dialogues of episode 5:
(46) I'll [ACTOR] fold the laundry.
(47) I [ACTOR] can get you some paper towels.
(48) I'm [ACTOR] pushing her to make her deadlines.
(49) Peach is setting you [GOAL] up to fail.
(50) She has it out for me [GOAL] from the first day we met.
The first two examples depict Joe as performing thoughtful acts for Beck and her friends. On
the contrary, the last two examples illustrate Joe’s characterisation of her friends’ actions. The
material processes in the external dialogues illustrate Joe in an effort to convince Beck that her
friends are bad for her. He portrays her friends as intending to spoil her dream of becoming a
published writer and to sabotage the relationship between Joe and Beck.
The following examples illustrate material processes occurring in the internal dialogues of
episode 5:
(51) Beck, I [ACTOR] even do your damn laundry.
(52) I [ACTOR] protect your time.
(53) I [ACTOR] just hit the girl with a rock
(54) I [ACTOR] would never hurt a woman.
(55) It's brave, what I [ACTOR] do for you.
(56) Because you [ACTOR] force me to.
(57) you're [ACTOR] actually writing.
18(34)(58) Peach tried hard to get you [GOAL] for a girls' night,
(59) but you [ACTOR] picked me.[GOAL]
As indicated by these material processes in episode 5, Joe acts for Beck’s benefit, as he is taking
care of household chores to give her more time to write. As a result of his good favours, Beck
is writing and chooses to spend more time with Joe than with her friends as illustrated by
example (58) and (59). Since Joe is convinced that one of Beck’s friends in particular, Peach,
is setting her up to fail as a writer, he takes it upon him to kill that friend. Example (54) confirms
that, even after committing the attack and describing the weapon in (53), Joe declares in his
internal dialogue that he would not hurt a woman. The instances of material processes suggest
Joe does not view his actions as wrong or bad but rather unselfish and necessary in order to
benefit Beck.
The following instances are examples of mental processes occurring in Joe’s external dialogues:
(60) Maybe you [SENSER] can’t see it.
(61) I [SENSER] don’t like messing with other people’s lives.
The mental processes in the external dialogues illustrated above continue to create some sort of
worldview hierarchy. Joe seems confident that he, rather than Beck herself, understands what
is right for her, as illustrated in example (60). Interestingly, Joe claims he does not wish to get
involved in other people’s personal problems. For the viewer, this is greatly contradictory and
gives, yet again, a glimpse of how he tries to manipulate Beck into thinking he modest and
reserved and that he fully respects other people’s boundaries.
The mental processes found in Joe’s internal dialogues give a different picture of how he relates
to others:
(62) I [SENSER] love our little routine.
(63) But I [SENSER] have to know what we're up against.
(64) I [SENSER] know what it's like to be in love with you, Beck.
(65) you'll realize [SENSER] that life is so much healthier away from this toxicity.
The mental processes in Joes’ internal dialogue are suggestive of his controlling mind. He
expresses content having a routine together with Beck that looks alike day after day.
19(34)Furthermore, example (65) indicates that he understands much more about Beck’s relationship
with others that she herself does.
6.2.3 External and Internal Dialogues in Episode 10
The plot culminates in episode 10, where Joe captures Beck inside a cage of glass in the
basement of his bookstore. This episode is different from episodes 1 and 5 in the sense that it
involves more instances of processes in external dialogue than internal dialogue. The following
examples illustrate instances of relational processes in the protagonist’s external dialogue:
(66) if I [CARRIER] was some premeditated, cold-blooded monster
(67) I'm [CARRIER] not a killer.
(68) That’s all you’re [CARRIER] going to be, a prisoner.
The relational processes presented suggest that Joe does not see himself as killer or monster.
Both instances of I seem confident in nature. The process concerning you connote a different
feeling. Joe claims a position where he reduces Beck to a prisoner.
The examples below illustrate relational processes in internal dialogues:
(69) I'm [CARRIER] not some sicko.
(70) I'm [CARRIER] your protector.
(71) What if you're [CARRIER] not the one?
(72) And I'm [CARRIER] not a selfish person
The internal dialogues are not too different from the external dialogues. Joe does not consider
himself a sicko or selfish but rather sees himself as Beck’s protector. However, example (71)
reveals that he is beginning to doubt whether Beck is really a worthy object of his attention and
desires, since she does not seem to appreciate the unselfish deeds he has done for her, such as
killing her friend and depriving her of her freedom.
The following excerpts illustrate material processes occurring in external dialogues in episode
10:
(73) There's not a line in the world that I [ACTOR] wouldn't cross for you.
(74) your life has been better since you [ACTOR] met me [GOAL].
20(34)(75) Well, she tried to kill me [GOAL].
The material processes above illustrate Joe’s beliefs. Joe tenaciously tries to convince her that
she has a better life since she met him. He confesses that he would do anything for her and that
he killed her friend in self-defense, somewhat trying to continue convincing Beck that Peach
was after him.
The following examples illustrate material processes occurring in internal dialogues in episode
10:
(76) I [ACTOR] had to do a lot for you [GOAL], in the end.
(77) You [ACTOR] wrote the story.
(78) Beck, and it made you [GOAL] famous.
(79) All I [ACTOR] did was bring it to life.
(80) but I [ACTOR] cobbled that manuscript together
(81) I [ACTOR] helped you
These material processes in internal dialogues suggest that Joe believes Beck was able to
successfully write her book and get it published thanks to his help and actions. Although the
story and fame are hers, example (76), (80) and (81) illustrate that Joe sees himself as having
played an important role in the completion of the book which he depicts as partly his
achievement too.
The following instances are examples of mental processes in external dialogues in episode 10:
(82) If you [SENSER] see this place as a prison.
(83) I [SENSER] fell in love with a writer.
(84) I'm [SENSER] hoping it will be the same for you.
These mental processes in external dialogues share personal thought aloud between I and you.
Joe strives to persuade Beck to see the cage as an opportunity to write, and not a prison. He
speaks from experience when he says he hopes the cage will support her creativity, as it did for
him. The mental processes suggest his mental presentation of Beck that he created in the very
beginning of episode 1 is the one he wants.
21(34)The following examples are occurrences of mental processes in internal dialogues from episode
10:
(85) you believe [SENSER] I have a good heart somewhere.
(86) I [SENSER] have to believe love conquers all
(87) I knew [SENSER] what you were thinking.
(88) In the end, you [SENSER] couldn't love me.
The mental processes in these internal dialogues illustrates different stages of insight. The first
two examples, (85) and (86) prove that he believed his actions were romantically motivated and
that he can make Beck understand that since they love each other. The latter examples, (87) and
(88) illustrate Joe realising that he can no longer read Beck’s mind. Finally, he understands that
she could not see his actions as justified by love. The last two examples are suggestive of his
controlling behavior and that she had to live up to his mental presentation of her in order for
him to love her.
7 Discussion
Section 7 discusses the findings in relation to the research questions and previous research on
characteristics of the language used by psychopathic characters.
As explained by Gamble (2018), the TV adaptation of the novel kept the unique concept of
hearing Joe’s internal, imagined dialogue with the other characters while simultaneously
interacting with them externally. In general, Joe’s internal and external dialogues differ quite
dramatically, and most explicitly articulated process types showed in his internal dialogues. His
external dialogues do not correspond to his internal, presumably more true, thoughts, and
suggest he manipulates others in his favour. As he knows how to approach others to be liked,
he carefully restrains his language in the external dialogues as they involve other
conversationalists. His internal dialogues appear bolder, more aggressive in nature, whereas his
external dialogues are remarkably humbler and do not appear self-centred. This can be seen in
the protagonist’s use of process types and semantic roles. His external dialogues were generally
found to have a more balanced frequency between I and you, although showed a majority of I
being the active doer as shown in section 5.1. Presented in the qualitative analysis of external
dialogues, he appears to continuously put others' needs before his own, expressing deep
consideration and understanding of the needs and emotions of other characters. However, his
22(34)internal dialogues are predominantly analytical, and he tends to behave as if he can read people
like books, which is shown in particular by the attributes and lack of tenacity ascribed to Beck
in the relational and material processes in the internal dialogues. The audience is introduced to
his manipulative behaviour by the contrast between his external and internal dialogues. In
summary, in the internal dialogues, Joe ascribes Beck with appealing attributes but indolent in
reaching her goals, and thus, incapable of accomplishing the ideal mental representation he has
created of her. The attributes are more sparingly used in external dialogues to appear humble
and understanding, and thus, let the audience understand his obsessive and degrading nature
regarding Beck. As a result, both internally and externally, Joe assigns himself as the active
role of a supportive source as suggested by the material and mental processes.
The study was designed to follow the progression of the protagonist’s external and internal
dialogues over three episodes of the series. Joe studies Beck, her interests, her routines and her
relationships. Suggested from the internal dialogues, he creates a mental presentation of her,
fitted as the perfect victim to manipulate. Surprisingly, Joe’s assumptions about Beck are often
accurate and most actions seem to play out in his favour. The results from his internal dialogues
indicated a focus on you in episode 1, which subsequently shifts to I in episode 10. The contrast
is double the frequency respectively and suggests that his emotions towards Beck might not
have been as strong as the audience was initially introduced to. One more finding to support
this claim is that you was found to have a relatively high frequency as Goal, both in the internal
and external dialogues. However, in episode 10, especially in the internal dialogues, you has
the lowest frequency of all episodes, suggesting that Beck became less of a Goal for Joe. You
and I as the active role in the dialogues were found to vary over the course of the three episodes
in the material and relational processes. However, I occupied the active role of Sensor
throughout all of the analysed episodes. This finding suggests that Joe, from the first episode,
fails to understand or acknowledge other’s emotions or simply regard his own as more
important, and he focuses more on other character’s actions and attributes. What is more, much
focus is on Joe’s actions in favour of Beck – how he needs to assist her goals for them to become
reality. Instead of observing her, he reflects on how great of a boyfriend he is, how he is making
her life better and how he can isolate her from what he sees as toxic friends and relationships.
Hence, as suggested by the results in table 3, much focus is on his plans and actions, rather than
anyone or anything else. Pamela Ruthledge (2020) claimed that Joe may embody traits from
narcissistic personality disorder. This claim is arguably supported by the results in table 2-4 and
the progression of the series. He initially notes Beck’s actions and persona as you occupies the
23(34)active role of many process types. From episode 5 and onward, he becomes the active
participant in the majority of the processes, and you is assigned the passive roles of Goal,
Phenomenon and Receiver of his actions and thoughts. In summary, Joe portrayed features of
self-importance and self-awareness from episode 1 by observing the roles he assigned to
himself and Beck both internally and externally. His focus was on you’s actions and
associations while focusing on his emotions internally. Eventually, he assigned himself as
active roles in each process type, which supports the previous suggestions that he believed Beck
needed his assistance to achieve a persona he wished her to have.
As the internal dialogues are constructed as a two-people-conversation without a second
conversationalist, Joe is free to construct internal dialogues of his desires. His internal dialogues
may indicate that he has a need to feel in charge. Much like features found in fictional and real
psychopaths, Joe is self-centred, extremely goal driven and acts as if he is the puppet master of
his show. Hence, both inflated sense of self-importance and wit are found and correspond to
the claims by Leisteds & Linkowski (2013) that today’s fictional psychopath may exhibit
exaggerated levels of intelligence, and by Ruthledge (2020) that Joe lacks empathy and has an
inflated sense of self-importance. The claims are supported by the distribution of process types
and semantic roles. The focus lies on you initially but shifts as soon as he feels content as to
what he believes he understands about Beck’s character, i.e., the mental presentation he creates
of her as suggested by the relational processes. His beliefs can be seen in his use of I as Sensor
throughout the analysis and the dramatic change from you being the active role to I being the
active role in each process type. As Damásio (2012) explained – language is an excellent vehicle
to express emotions to others and to oneself. Hence, the combination of wit (as suggested by
Liestedt & Linkowski 2013), and his strong desire for love (as suggested by Gamble 2019)
might also indicate that the internal dialogues function to convince himself (and the audience)
that he does everything for love. However, the self-appointed attributes he assigns to Beck is
making his relationship shallow and non-sustainable. This can be argued to become clear to Joe
in episode 5 where he becomes the active doer to nurture Beck’s progression. His true thoughts
are mainly shown in his internal dialogues as an intriguing and valuable source to understand
his intended characteristics. This finding agrees well with the genre of the series – it is meant
to emphasise the delusional and unstable mental and emotional conditions of the characters.
Contrary to the bold internal dialogues, he carefully restricts his knowledge and liberal thoughts
about other characters in his external dialogues. The feature presented by Hare (1993) regarding
“hollow language” found in individuals with psychopathy can be seen in Joe’s external
24(34)You can also read
