Profanity and Power: A Conversation Analysis
of Dialogue in Succession

 

Ellie M. Schmidt

Cinema and Television Arts, Elon University

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements in an undergraduate senior capstone course in communications

Abstract

Profanity can be a powerful linguistic tool for exercising control and power in social relationships. While the use of profanity in media and pop culture has been widely studied, researchers have rarely investigated the relationship between profanity-related linguistic tools and conversational power dynamics in screenwriter-scripted television dialogue. This study uses qualitative conversation analysis to examine excerpts of dialogue from the HBO television series Succession to analyze those relationships in personal and business contexts. Results show that although profanity usage strongly indicated a character’s intent to assert power, it often had limited conversational effect. Instead, profanity acted as an accessory to more successful power-related linguistic strategies, such as interruptions, topic control, and preferred responses. This research highlights the complex ways screenwriters can create valuable exchanges of power within profane dialogue.

Keywords: Television drama, profanity, linguistics, content analysis
Email: eschmidt7@elon.edu

1. Introduction

Inspired by the Murdoch family, the owners of the News Corp empire, the critically acclaimed HBO television series Succession explores family drama surrounding media titans by following the fictional (and disgustingly rich) Roy family and their colossal media and entertainment conglomerate Waystar Royco. The show uses the Roys to critique right-wing media and the billionaire class, presenting itself as a mirror of the world (Samuels, 2023) through a satirical Shakespearean tragedy. The combination of rotten characters, lavish filming locations, grand musical score, and award-winning performances attracted the attention of audiences, but intellectual writing and detailed character studies kept audiences hooked (Bryce, 2023). Succession’s treatment of American politics, media influence, and class makes it valuable to study as a media and cultural artifact.

Succession uses heavy, rapid dialogue to showcase power hierarchies. Often, that dialogue is deeply profane. Within the first three seasons, the word “fuck” is used two thousand and seventy-one times (Gayle, 2023). The vulgarity is creative and comedic, but it also contributes significantly to the show’s complex conversational dynamics and power relations. Showrunner and creator Jesse Armstrong has discussed the ways in which vulgar language reflects power and status disparities: “Power on the show expresses itself much more briefly and brutally, and I would suggest that the least powerful characters probably have the most number of words.” (Zimmer, 2023, para. 6).

While concepts of power in conversation and power in profanity have been studied and discussed respectively, the current study extends the examination of dialogue in screenwriter-scripted conversations, specifically the use of profane language to exercise power. Through qualitative conversation analysis, comparing business conversations and personal conversations in Succession, this study analyzes whether linguistic strategies shift depending on context and what role that shift, if any, plays into how characters leverage conversational power. The results are significant in examining how power is exchanged through profanity and conversational structure, and the conclusions explore the relationship between the two. The findings are also beneficial to screenwriters who aim to craft characters that are able to negotiate, contest, and claim power through their words.

II. Literature Review

Profanity and Power

Profanity is powerful. It is capable of generating profound physiological, cognitive, emotional, and rhetorical outcomes (Steinmetz, 2016). While profanity is ubiquitous, its use and potential for offense differs across languages and cultural contexts. This taboo nature of profanity is key to its power as a linguistic activity. Swearing refers to the use of specific, negatively charged and often emotionally loaded terms, and the most recognizable swear words fall into one of three categories: religion, sex and sexual body parts, and words related to bodily excretions (Stapleton et al., 2022). According to cognitive scientist Benjamin Bergen, “We’re told that these are words, early on, that you can’t say. We punish people for saying them. So, we’re training kids, socially, that these words are powerful.” (Steinmetz, 2016, para. 4). An examination of profanity and culture in entertainment media provides a better understanding of how swear words are used to shift conversational power dynamics, as well as what that says about the characters who use profane words in specific contexts.

Effects of Profanity in Culture

A core feature of profanity is that through its very utterance, it has the potential to offend and arouse negative reactions from others. The act of swearing conveys a speaker’s emotional state to others. The recipient of harsh language may be triggered into a psychologically heightened autonomic or physiological reaction, such as a “fight” or “flight” response (Stapleton et al., 2022), which gives the speaker power over the emotional state of the recipient.

Linguistic impoliteness refers to language that is used to cause offense or is perceived to cause offense. With this, language becomes taboo when it conflicts with what people expect in certain social contexts. The use of taboo language in a context that is socially or culturally unacceptable is likely to be considered impolite (Culpeper, 2018). Some taboo expressions perform functions of intensifying adverb modifiers. Because many vulgar intensifiers can be easily replaced with non-taboo words, the choice to use swear words boosts the pragmatic power of the speaker’s goal to cause offense or construct a negative attitude (Culpeper, 2018).

Swear words may function as cathartic, social, or abusive. Cathartic swearing acts as a powerful vehicle to convey a speaker’s emotional state or intensify the expression of an emotion. Conversational social swearing is often used more positively to manage social relations and interactions because it may have connotations of camaraderie and solidarity (Stapleton et al., 2022). However, if profanity is spoken with cruel intent, it means the words are being used to directly insult or abuse others, and the words are categorized as such. Even when swearing is not directly aimed at another person or group, it is often interpreted as aggressive. Therefore, swearing functions as a form of control through fear, power, and heightened salience (Stapleton et al., 2022).

Effects of Profanity in Media

The study of characters through dialogue is used to explore the relationship between fictional media and society, and the relationship between television dialogue and realism has been highly debated by researchers. While some believe that it will always lean toward being more unrealistic than realistic, fictional dialogue often draws on accepted conversational structures to produce realistic scenarios (Bednarek, 2017). Profane language within fictional dialogue can be used for characterization in terms of social variation (e.g., gender, ethnicity, profession, etc.) and personality, but it can also be used for humor, as a plot device, to create realism, or to control viewer evaluation/emotion (Bednarek, 2017).

Most studies on offensive language in media have focused on frequency, showing that the amount of profanity in media has increased in the past decade with varying effects on audiences. Because film and television have a deep influence on culture, cultivation theory and social learning theory suggest that heavy exposure in media messages shape one’s view of reality (Cressman et al., 2009, Kaye & Sapolisky, 2004). In other words, if viewers are frequently exposed to profanity, it may change their behavior and perceptions of the world. Thus, many researchers have focused on the effects of swearing on audiences.

Some critics claim that television dialogue does not accurately reflect real culture and is instead establishing a culture where excessive swearing is acceptable (Kaye & Sapolsky, 2004). However, others have suggested that the inclusion of swearing in media dialogue promotes authenticity (Bednarek, 2017). Shows that utilize frequent profanity are understood by audiences to have a sense of truth that doesn’t exist in their more sterile counterparts (Gilbert, 2023). Overall, most studies explore the context in which offensive words are spoken, including the genre, intent, directionality, centrality of the character, and audience reactions (Kaye & Sapolsky, 2004) to learn about the sociolinguistic techniques implemented in the writing and how that writing connects to the real world through viewers.

Power in Entertainment Media

Language reveals and reflects power, with every word potentially holding great weight. Within a dramatic text, it is possible to infer much about a character’s status and conversational intentions from their turn-taking and topic management, which are two key elements of the conversational process leading to influence over others (Ng & Deng, 2017).

Studies of the language-power relationship commonly use gender as an operative lens. These particular studies often stress the broader structural dynamics of patriarchy and how it relates to social status and power. In Kimbro (2013), data was taken from six episodes of four sitcoms, and excerpts of dialogue between male-female couples were coded for dismissive, condescending, and infantilizing language used by female characters towards male characters. The findings suggested that neither the needs of the women nor the men were met or mediated by these conversational behaviors. Instead, they reinforced patriarchal stereotypes and maintain the power imbalance that supports male privilege, rather than increasing female power and encouraging egalitarian relationships (Kimbro, 2013).

It is also possible to combine gender and power and power through turn-taking to explore how characters of different gender identities use linguistic devices to assert power. These studies examine stereotypical beliefs about gender roles in linguistic behavior. For example, these stereotypes assume women are less assertive and more supportive, while men are more confrontational and aggressive. Findings on this subject from Li et al. (2022) suggest that the use of conflict-talk associated linguistic devices and linguistic styles used by female characters in The Newsroom often deviated from stereotypes. In doing this, the screenwriters of The Newsroom were able to create vivid, authentic conflict-talk and unique and compelling characters (Li et al., 2022).

Overall, previous studies have been limited in their goals, focusing on the effects of swearing on audiences and the types of profanity most commonly seen in media. There is little research on the combination of profanity and power in entertainment media dialogue, and it has been mainly studied in relation to gender. The current study investigates the underexplored areas of TV dialogue that focus on profanity and power, concentrating on swearing in congruence with power dynamics to learn the ways in which profane language acts as a tool to leverage power and how those techniques may vary based on specific contexts within the show.

Using a conversation analysis on dialogue from Succession, this study examines conversations between the three protagonists (Kendall, Roman, and Shiv Roy) to learn the ways in which profanity-related linguistic tools shape their approaches to power assertion and how those tools may vary from work-related conversations to personal/intimate conversations. This study poses the following research questions:

RQ1: How does the use of profanity and vulgarity-related linguistic tools play into conversational power dynamics in the TV series Succession?

RQ2: In what ways, if any, does the contrast between business conversations and personal conversations impact linguistic devices used to assert power in Succession?

III. Methods

To determine the nature of the relationship between profanity and power in fictional dialogue, a conversation analysis was conducted on all 75 excerpts of dialogue between key characters Kendall, Roman, and Shiv Roy from the final season of Succession. Excerpts were selected from the original versions of the scripts found in Succession: Season Four: The Complete Scripts by Jesse Armstrong. Season four was selected because, following the death of the family patriarch Logan Roy, the characters reach the show’s climax of their final fight for power. Conversations between the three selected characters involve either all three of them together or paired interactions (e.g., Kendall and Roman, Shiv and Roman, and Kendall and Shiv). Conversations with other characters were not considered in order to reduce the possibility of introducing confounding character arcs into the analysis of power dynamics among the focal characters.

Business conversations and personal conversations were separated to provide an additional point of comparative analysis. In order to determine what differentiates the two types of conversations, the intention of the initial speaker was examined. If the dialogue began with the intention of discussing a corporate matter, such as conversations involving Waystar Royco or a business acquisition, the conversation was classified as a business conversation.

Personal conversations were classified as any excerpt that was initiated with the intention of discussing anything outside of company matters, such as the emotional fallout of Logan Roy’s death, Shiv’s unsteady marriage and pregnancy, and other emotional check-ins or intimate family matters. It is possible that conversations change or cross categories, with characters mentioning personal details within the framework of business conversations and vice versa. This will be discussed in the analysis, as it may relate to power-related linguistic tools such as topic control, but it does not affect the original division of conversations based on their initial intent.

Conversation Analysis

Conversation analysis (CA) focuses on how characters use linguistic devices and verbal behaviors in specific excerpts of dialogue to reveal underlying relationships between characters and their behaviors (Li et al., 2022). This study uses CA to examine how the three protagonists in Succession implement profanity-related linguistic tools as well as previously studied conversational structures to assert power.

On a basic level, CA aims to discover how participants understand and respond to each other in their turns of talk. It allows for researchers to ascertain why and how individuals make conversational and linguistic choices and is an indicator of how individuals apply and design structures within the context of their conversations (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008). CA has been used to examine fictional dialogue because, although it is an artificial version of talk, fictional dialogue relies on crucial and functional principles and patterns that occur in natural conversation (Toolan, 1985). The CA method can help researchers examine how social and cultural factors shape and reflect the construction of characters in entertainment media.

The CA approach also allows for the observation of both the overt and covert measures of conversational power and dominance (Mintz, 2014). Any given conversational action has the potential of restricting the other speaker’s contribution to the conversation. However, this potential is only actualized when it is accepted by the other speaker through a complying action or preferred response. When a potentially controlling action is followed by a non-complying action, it is treated as an instance of attempted control (Itakura, 2001).

Interruptions and topic control play a large part in linguistically asserting power, so they are valuable to study within the CA framework. Interruptions, while they may not necessarily indicate a goal to dominate, have the effect of restricting a speaker’s right to participate in conversation, irrespective of the interrupter’s intent, so they are considered controlling (Itakura, 2001). Similarly, in adjacency pairs (Sacks et al., 1974), upon the production of the first pair part, the next speaker is expected to produce an appropriate and relevant second pair part. When it is a speaker’s turn to talk, this turn provides the speaker with the power to exercise topic control. This provides a speaker with power through continuing or raising a topic that is favorable to self and avoiding topics that are not (Ng & Deng, 2017).

Sacks et al. (1974) propose that speakers can either use self-selection or speaker-selects-next techniques to transition between speaker turns. Through this process, speakers can influence who will speak next and, indirectly, increase the probability that they will regain the turn after the next. A common method for selecting the next speaker is through tag-questions such as “You know?”, or “Don’t you agree?” (Ng & Deng, 2017). This greatly contributes to linguistic power dynamics by leading the next selected speaker to produce a preferred response.

To study conversational power in entertainment media, Jones (2009) adapted methods from Sacks et al. (1974) to examine conversational behavior and power in the play, Absurd Person Singular, and found that the turn structures and topic control strategies reveal characters’ antagonism toward each other despite their seemingly polite utterances. Using Hutchby’s methods on argumentative structures, Hirsch (2020) performed CA on dialogue in Succession to investigate how language could establish conversational power relations through action-opposition sequences and asymmetry. The research concluded that there was not an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting the idea that the secondary position in an action-opposition sequences has more power (Hirsch, 2020).

Similarly, the current study examines dialogue from Succession with a focus on the interaction between profanity and power, using CA to examine excerpts of dialogue line by line. To code for structural power dynamics within the dialogue, this study used established CA procedures associated with organizational structures of conversations, such as preferred/dispreferred responses, turn-taking, topic control, and interruptions (Sacks et al., 1974). Profanity-related identification tools established in Stapleton et al. (2022) were used to identify swear words as any taboo word that falls into three established categories: religion, sex or sexual body parts, or bodily excretions.

Profanity was then coded based on whether it was performed with positive or negative intentions. Negative intent involved the use of the word to directly insult or abuse others with the purpose of causing offense, while positive intent involved the use of the word to manage social relations, such as creating connotations of solidarity or enhancing the impact of a message (Culpeper, 2018). The analysis considered how a positively or negatively charged profane phrase impacted linguistic power exchanges within the conversation such as by affecting speaker or listener conversational momentum. Once both business and personal conversations were coded separately using these methods, the two categories of dialogue were examined for similarities and/or differences in the ways the characters use profanity-related linguistic tools to assert power and what that revealed about them as individuals within the context of the show.

IV. Findings & Discussion

The conversation analysis below focuses on 10 representative excerpts from the full CA on profanity-related linguistic tools and conversational power dynamics. This section is divided into three parts: personal, business, and hybrid personal/ business.

Personal Conversations: Positive Outcomes

Findings specific to personal conversations suggest that profanity and taboo language are generally used to enrich jokes and strengthen bonds. Instead of using profanity to assert power, profanity acts to support the characters’ shared power over others, which builds camaraderie among them. Although functionally negative, the data suggests that mutual profane teasing creates a shared feeling of control that equally distributes power. This is seen in Excerpt 1, which occurs a few hours after Logan Roy’s unexpected passing.

Excerpt 1. Season 4, Episode 3 “Connor’s Wedding”

  1. ROMAN: Are we gonna be okay?
  2. KENDALL: We’ll be okay. You’ll be okay.
  3. ROMAN: Yeah, you’re not gonna be okay. You’re fucked. You are completely fucked.
  4. KENDALL: Well you’re fucked. You’re totally fucked.

In Excerpt 1, on line 2, Kendall completes the second part of Roman’s adjacency pair, which suggests that Kendall is not intent on creating a power struggle. On line 3, Roman uses social profanity to make a dark joke, which prompts Kendall to use the same profanity to tease Roman, forming unity between them and equally distributing power.

In high-stress personal situations, profanity is not immediately used. Instead, characters produce expected responses to fulfill adjacency pairs, which results in a significant lack of power struggles in such excerpts. The following excerpt takes place during a high-stress situation as Kendall, Roman, and Shiv learn that their father has fallen ill and is in critical condition.

Excerpt 2. Season 4 Episode 3 “Connor’s Wedding”

  1. KENDALL: He said he got short of breath.
  2. ROMAN: He got short of breath?
  3. KENDALL: Yeah and – but yeah, I don’t know Frank thinks he’s gone.
  4. SHIV: Why didn’t you come get me?
  5. KENDALL: I did, Shiv. We did.
  6. SHIV: How long was it happening before – I was right out there.
  7. KENDALL: I’m sorry, we did but – I wasn’t thinking. I’m sorry. I didn’t –
  8. ROMAN: There was like no time, Shiv.

In Excerpt 2, there is no profanity or vulgarity. This is significant because it displays how the context of a high-stress personal situation affects linguistic attempts at power. While profanity in other, often business-related, excerpts commonly enhances a character’s grasp at dominance, an absence of profanity, particularly in high-stress personal situations, displays a reduced interest in the cruel struggle for power. Unlike excerpts with profanity, Excerpt 2 suggests that there is a relationship between a lack of profanity and effectively using questions, preferred responses, and beneficial interruptions to support an environment of equal power.

In Excerpt 2, when Roman asks a question on line 2, Kendall provides a preferred response, which effectively allows for an equal power transfer. On line 4, Shiv’s exercise of topic control shows her conversationally asserting power as a way to gain control over an uncontrollable situation. Roman and Kendall engage in her change of topic by answering her question, which suggests that they don’t want to create any tension or struggles.

On line 7, Kendall begins to apologize in an attempt to peacefully calibrate the power dynamic, and his jumbled words are interrupted by Roman on line 8. Here, although Roman’s interruption takes power from Kendall, he uses that power for the good of the group instead of benefiting himself by making sure Shiv understands Kendall’s sincerity.

These conclusions about high-stress personal situations cannot be made if one character is experiencing it while the others are not. When this is the case, the exchanges of power are imbalanced because the character experiencing the high-stress situation is in a weakened state, as seen in the following excerpt when Shiv approaches her brothers after a significantly emotional fight with her husband, Tom.

Excerpt 3, Season 4, Episode 7 “Tailgate Party”

  1. SHIV: Fuck Tom.
  2. KENDALL: Yeah, fuck Tom.
  3. ROMAN: So, hey? Funeral? If no one wants to grab it, happy to take the
  4. main energy spot?
  5. KENDALL: Yeah?
  6. ROMAN: Yeah. No problem. I got it. Seemed like no one wanted to say. Happy?
  7. I’ve just had some thoughts – appearing and – Yeah.
  8. KENDALL: I know that. I know that thing.
  9. SHIV: Knock yourself out, Rome, paint it red.

In Excerpt 3, Shiv uses abusive profanity to insult Tom, and this usage does not function to directly assert power over Kendall and Roman because it is not aimed at them. Rather, it reveals her emotions to her brothers. On line 2, by repeating Shiv’s profanity, Kendall’s use of profane language functions more socially, as a way to positively validate Shiv’s emotions. However, when Roman exercises topic control on line 3, this suggests that he wants to move the conversation onto a subject that selfishly benefits himself. Shiv does not fight to change the conversation back to Tom at any point and Kendall provides preferred responses to Roman on lines 5 and 8, indicating her weakened state and therefore allowing Roman to effectively gain control of the conversation.

Business Conversations: Entering Conversations with Power

Unlike high-stress personal conversations, profanity is used much more frequently and in more varied patterns within high-stress business conversations. In these situations, the character who is “losing” the argument may use profanity to grasp at control, while the “winning” character may use profanity to emphasize their points. The following excerpt is a high-stress situation because it follows Kendall and Roman’s discussion on the extremely ethical concerns surrounding whether to call the U.S. presidential election for controversial candidate Jeryd Mencken.

Excerpt 4. Season 4, Episode 8 “America Decides”

  1. ROMAN: Don’t be a Prissy Peter? Maybe we could do with a dose of that?
  2. Just a nice little dose of the frighteners? Wind shit back twenty?
  3. KENDALL: Somebody pushed Sophie –
  4. ROMAN: And she’s okay?
  5. KENDALL: Yeah. People will say shit, Rome. A lot of tiresome shit forever.
  6. ROMAN: Mmm? Sure but think about the fucking – action, the fucking, choo-choo of it.
  7. We’ll be in the fucking West Wing. Nothing matters, Ken, nothing matters.
  8. Dad’s dead and the country’s a big pussy waiting to get fucked. I’m serious.
  9. Let’s get fucking. Do shit! We’re not chin-stroke motherfuckers. We can pay
  10. for any damages. Let’s just jam our head in the bosom of history and just –
  11. blurghghghg!
  12. KENDALL: Uh-huh?

In Excerpt 4, on line 2, Roman uses profanity casually to strengthen his positive feelings surrounding being in control of the outcome of the election. Feeling threatened by Roman’s eagerness, Kendall exercises topic control on line 3 to introduce a personal matter that may sway Roman in the opposite direction. This tactic works for a turn because Roman provides a preferred response on line 7 by engaging with the new topic, yielding momentum.

On line 5, Kendall uses negative profanity to emphasize that their decision to put Mencken in office may permanently harm their reputations. By returning the conversation back to the original topic, this conversational decision by Kendall inadvertently gives Roman a chance to regain his power. On lines 6-11, Roman uses extreme amounts of profanity and vulgarity to assert power over his brother and project control onto their current situation. Kendall’s response on line 12 suggests that he is unable to counterargue, which displays that overall, intense negative profanity may maintain a weaker character’s enfeebled state and that characters who begin conversations in control likely maintain control.

In addition, the CA data suggests that when characters hold conversational and contextual power over others, they are more likely to produce preferred responses because they feel safe in their positions. Profanity is used to intensify arguments and solidify trust between characters. This is evident in the following excerpt, in which Kendall confidently knows Shiv has no other option than to join his plan to block Swedish businessman Lukas Matsson’s company GoJo from acquiring Waystar Royco.

Excerpt 5. Season 4, Episode 10 “With Open Eyes”

  1. KENDALL: Hey I’m sorry.
  2. SHIV: No you’re not shut the fuck up.
  3. KENDALL: I – What can I say?
  4. ROMAN: Nothing. We might get – Shall we get someone? Laird or Tellis?
  5. SHIV: Not fucking Laird. And not Tellis. I detest Tellis. Tellis is the fucking worst.
  6. Call Tellis. We obviously need a read. Call Tellis. He’s not getting even a fucking tiny
  7. piece of this.
  8. KENDALL: Shiv. You okay? To do this?
  9. SHIV: This is ugly. This is fucking bad.
  10. KENDALL: Well. Uh-huh. But – we’re a powerful block. This was sloppy.
  11. It was careless. We’re ready to fucking kill him.

In Excerpt 5, Shiv uses abusive profanity to insult Kendall and other off-screen characters because she is in a contextually weak position after being promised the role of CEO by Lukas Matsson and then having that promise ripped away from her behind her back. Oppositely, Kendall does not engage with profanity until line 11 when he uses it socially to agree with Shiv’s anger and show her that he and Roman are ready to help her get revenge. Because his motivations are selfish, since having Shiv join his side will increase his odds of blocking GoJo’s deal with Waystar Royco, his social profanity functions as a subtle persuasion tactic to advance his personal business goals.

In situations when conversational power begins to be challenged by a character who doesn’t enter the conversation in a weakened state, refusal to produce preferred responses and ganging up may weaken an overly confident character. If the initial speaker is not able to successfully regain control, they lose their conversational confidence. This power struggle is dynamic, as seen in the following excerpt.

Excerpt 6. Season 4, Episode 5 “Kill List”

  1. SHIV: Just interesting. How you two look golden?
  2. ROMAN: And, Shiv… I’m confused – are you offended that there’s messy write-ups
  3. about Dad, or that you’re not mentioned enough in these fuck-pies?
  4. SHIV: I’m fine. I like watching you guys Mini-Dad it. Like when the Muppets put on a
  5. trench coat and act like they’re a real person.
  6. I don’t care, if you want to burn Dad’s legacy – but I actually think it would be better,
  7. for all of us, to be together. Like not even with an agenda, just to… get through this?
  8. ROMAN: Shiv, we’re trying to prep to get inside his head and squeeze every nickel
  9. out of this while keeping the numbers straight across five fucking divisions.
  10. KENDALL: We’re death wrestling with ogres.
  11. SHIV: Reading documents, is what you’re doing, Ken.
  12. KENDALL: You know one thing? If you want, just to mention, we can cut Tom’s throat
  13. anytime you like?

In Excerpt 6, Shiv enters the conversation with power because she knows Kendall and Roman have planted aversive news about their father in the media behind her back. On lines 4-5, Shiv uses teasing, which suggests she feels in complete control of the situation and conversation. However, when she doesn’t get a response to her teasing following line 5, this lack of an expected preferred response weakens her confidence and gives her brothers more power over her. In effect, she asks a question on line 7 to force a response. However, Roman exercises topic control and uses intensifying profanity to emphasize how busy he and Kendall are in an attempt to push Shiv out of the discussion and regain conversational control.

Kendall sides with Roman on line 10 to reinforce their joint power against Shiv, and on lines 12-13 Kendall exercises topic control to introduce a personal subject matter. By mentioning Shiv’s husband Tom, who she is on bad terms with, Kendall shifts the power back to himself. This is an example of how personal emotions and memories are often brought up in business conversations by less powerful characters in an attempt to force others to let their guard down, get distracted, or change their opinions. Personal topics are also brought up in business conversations as persuasion strategies by characters who feel in power.

Personal and Business Conversations: Profanity as an Accessory

Across both personal and business excerpts, profanity is used frequently to intensify. These intensifying words help characters gain and keep power because they are used when characters are attempting to persuade others to agree with their opinions or defend their side of an argument by either positively or negatively emphasizing points. However, because these intensifiers are used so frequently and with such little regard, they do not usually result in immediate power shifts.

Similarly, tag-questions are often used at the end of conversational turns. Phrases such as “Yeah?”, “Right?”, and “Okay?” are commonly used to assert power by attempting to lead the second speaker into producing a preferred response and completing an adjacency pair. However, the power is not granted when the second speaker fails to engage with the pressure of the tag-question, similar to the conversational tactics seen in Excerpt 6.

Interruptions are used when characters feel that their opinions/suggestions/arguments are not being understood by others. This aggressive act of cutting off other characters’ conversational turns suggests that characters feel they must assert dominance to (re)gain control. The following excerpt includes three interruptions by Kendall to aggressively assert his concern over Roman’s desire to pull out of a high-risk presentation.

Excerpt 7. Season 4, Episode 6 “Living+”

  1. KENDALL: It’s enough to make you lose your faith in capitalism. You can say anything!
  2. You got pages?
  3. ROMAN: Yeah. And I was just – I was thinking, they’re great and everything,
  4. I like them, I do. But –
  5. KENDALL: What? What the fuck?
  6. ROMAN: I wonder if we should do this? Maybe we should postpone?
  7. Hey, dude, no, it’s okay. Or – maybe we dump it on Ray? It’s his division.
  8. But not do the whole –
  9. KENDALL: This is the – this is the idea though, Rome?
  10. ROMAN: I know, but, I wonder if the idea, isn’t a bit – I wonder if I can sell it?
  11. KENDALL: Uh-huh? You think it’s nuts?
  12. ROMAN: No! Just. Pitching fucking playhouses and living forever and doubling all the
  13. numbers up –
  14. KENDALL: It’s time. It’s big-swing time. We have to.

In Excerpt 7, on line 5, Kendall interrupts Roman’s non-aggressive approach to expressing his qualms about the speech. Kendall uses negative profanity to question Roman, which suggests he feels threatened. On line 12, Roman uses intensifying profanity to suggest that Kendall is acting out of line, and this negative connotation placed on Kendall functions to convince him that Roman is valid for wanting to get out of doing a high-risk presentation. Kendall’s interruptions are ultimately effective in maintaining his power by convincing Roman to retreat from attempting to convince Kendall to cancel the presentation.

Overall, characters use cathartic profanity to express shock or frustration, but this usage does not seem to have any connection to linguistic power. If anything, cathartic profanity reveals characters’ inner thoughts and emotions, which provides other characters an opportunity to take advantage of them, either by appealing to their emotions or having a better understanding of their motives which informs their conversational tactics, as seen in the following excerpt.

Excerpt 8. Season 4, Episode 10 “With Open Eyes”

  1. ROMAN: Fuck. Who instead?
  2. KENDALL: Sounds like he’s speaking to a few faces. Lawrence? Klein?
  3. ROMAN: Fuck. So. I mean – okay? Um. Well – okay? I guess. With her.
  4. Things are – are back –

In Excerpt 8, Roman’s use of “fuck” expresses shock at Kendall’s reveal of significant information and does not function to assert power. This reveal of emotion allows for Kendall to later use Roman’s emotional weakness to his advantage by claiming Roman’s too soft for the CEO role at Waystar Royco. Oppositely, abusive profanity is used to insult characters, often to make the target of the insult feel bad. Both powerful and powerless speakers use abusive profanity. However, the use of abusive profanity does little to weaken the subject of the insult. Instead, the usage mostly results in the target feeling encouraged to fight back more aggressively, as seen in the following excerpt.

Excerpt 9. Season 4, Episode 8 “America Decides”

  1. SHIV: Fuck you. This is about the future of the Republic.
  2. ROMAN: Nah, it’s because you’ve broken up with your boyfriend.
  3. SHIV: You prick.

In Excerpt 9, because Shiv has been ganged up on by her brothers, she uses profanity to insult them, and this language is an attempt to regain control of the conversation. Instead of being insulted or hurt by her profanity, on line 2, Roman uses an insensitive and misogynistic comment to fight back. Shiv’s continuous utilization of profanity in her fight does not ultimately pay off because Roman and Kendall refuse to argue with Shiv any further by not producing preferred responses. As a result, they eventually “win” the conversation.

Similarly, conversational strategies to exercise topic control to avoid certain topics do not always work when the second speaker is not willing to engage, as seen in Excerpt 10. The selected dialogue begins after Shiv tells Kendall he can’t be CEO because he’s killed someone.

Excerpt 10. Season 4, Episode 10 “With Open Eyes”

  1. KENDALL: You don’t need to worry about that, nothing happened. That’s not an issue.
  2. ROMAN: No, man.
  3. KENDALL: It doesn’t matter. What’s important is, I can say it didn’t happen.
  4. I’m clean skin.
  5. ROMAN: Did it happen or not?
  6. KENDALL: It. Did. Not. Happen.
  7. ROMAN: Fucking bullshit.
  8. KENDALL: Fucking… Vote for me. Vote for me!

In Excerpt 10, Shiv holds the initial conversational power because she stubbornly refuses to vote Kendall into the CEO position and does not complete adjacency pairs. As a persuasion strategy, Kendall lies that he made up his vulnerable confession to vehicular manslaughter. He exercises topic control on line 1 to steer the conversation away from his lie and onto how his past will not affect his ability to be CEO. However, Roman adopts Shiv’s tactics and refuses to engage with the new topic, using questions and profanity to call Kendall’s bluff. Understanding the conversation is not moving in his favor, Kendall uses negative profanity on line 8 to emphasize his desperate last attempt at power. However, with Shiv and Roman ganged up against him, Kendall can’t win.

V. Conclusion

The first research question in this study examined the relationship between the use of profanity-related linguistic tools and conversational power dynamics. The CA revealed that profanity is a strong indicator of a character’s attempt to assert dominance, often with limited effect. In Succession, profanity rarely accompanies a successful exchange of power even though it is ubiquitous in high-stress conversations between characters where power is at stake. While abusive profanity and social profanity are frequently used as persuasion tactics, the “losing” speaker in the conversation generally cannot overcome their lack of power with profanity alone. Instead, profanity acts in concert with other conversational strategies, such as interruptions, topic control, and preferred responses.

Despite research showing that profanity often creates a response within a target of profane language (Stapleton et al., 2022), the profanity used in Succession does not have much immediate effect. This may be due to how common profane and vulgar language is used by the Roy family, both in personal and workplace environments. This normalization of impolite language speaks to the show’s portrayal of wealth’s corruptive power. Instead of displaying the lives of the wealthy as extravagant or desirable, the dialogue choices in Succession tell a story about the abuse of power by the uber-rich in an imbalanced economic world. These characters carelessly inflict damage on the less-privileged people around them with little acknowledgement of their destruction because they are blinded by their all-consuming need for power and praise. Themes of greed and corruption are represented through the characters’ consistent usage of profanity in conversation.

Conversational tactics are not always consistent, but the data suggests that when characters begin conversations in positions of power, they are generally able to keep it, while weaker characters struggle to completely gain control. Conversational tactics to gain control, such as interruptions and topic control, work better than profanity for asserting and maintaining power. Although profanity is used within the framework of these strategies, the power does not seem to shift with turns of profane dialogue. Instead, the most effective strategy to retain power in conversation is to withhold producing preferred responses. Complying actions in the dialogue are rare, so when powerful characters refuse to engage with or be weakened by profanity usage, interruptions, or topic control, the data suggest that there is no chance for the weaker character to successfully take any power for themselves.

Regarding RQ2 concerning the contrast between linguistic devices used to assert power in business and personal conversations, the results reveal that the lines between the two types of conversations are extremely blurred. Personal topics are frequently brought up within the framework of business conversations and personal conversations can be quickly transformed into business conversations. When personal topics are raised in business discussions, it is usually as a power-related persuasion tactic, as seen in Excerpt 6. There are many more linguistic similarities between business conversations and personal conversations than differences, perhaps owing to the world-building choices of the show’s creators and the critiques of hyper-capitalism inherent in the show.

Profanity is used similarly across both personal and business conversations. The only difference found in the data is that profanity is not initially used in high-stress personal situations, and it is used extensively in high-stress business situations. This data supports the finding that personal conversations hold less weight to these characters because they are less willing to attempt to assert power in intense personal contexts, especially when it involves a life-altering event that negatively affects all of the characters, as seen in Excerpt 2. Conversely, in business contexts, characters are constantly determined to come out on top. This is unsurprising as the core characters in the show often forsake their own humanity and toy with everyone else’s in search of corporate power.

Whether profanity in fictional media provides useful implications for real life interactions has been widely debated. While the constant use of profane language in Succession paints an exaggerated portrait of the billionaire class, the writing is deliberately stylized to comment on hyper-wealthy people in the real world. The vulgar language is overly masculine, aggressive, and impolite, which creates a fictional world that successfully satirizes the corporate elite and simultaneously reveals real workplace issues.

The perpetual use of profanity on Succession may offer insights into how profanity within television dialogue should be approached by screenwriters and audiences with real viewers in mind. Littered with over-the-top vulgar language, Succession’s scripts demonstrate how profanity may be used as a tool for building characters, themes, and fictional worlds that underscore the loss of humanity. Cruel words are spoken with utter disregard for time, place, or people, but they clearly establish the brutality within this fictional atmosphere and reflect the power-hungry linguistic intentions of the characters.

Future research may use CA to analyze earlier seasons of Succession to gather a more holistic view of how profanity functions as a conversational power device. Because these findings suggest that profanity does not offer much direct effectiveness despite its frequent usage, future research may also benefit from examining how Kendall, Roman, and Shiv interact with other characters, especially those who lack their inherited power advantages. Although there are clear power struggles between the siblings, their close proximity to power may put them on a more equal playing field than others. It is possible that their use of profanity may be more effective in directly asserting dominance when used to target characters who did not grow up in an environment of constant vulgar language usage. As a result, the findings are restricted from examining how these characters may use different conversational power techniques towards characters who they aren’t related to or with whom they have different, complicated histories.

This study does not quantitatively measure the frequency of swear words or other linguistic tools within the dialogue as other previous studies have. Without this quantitative analysis, the findings cannot establish whether characters who used more swear words had better or worse results in asserting power over others in conversation.

Using conversation analysis on only three characters in one show does not allow for generalized conclusions to be made about how profanity may contribute to conversational power dynamics in the natural world. However, these characters are meant, at times, to be unrealistic caricatures and exaggerations of the top 1%. While the show’s thematic elements are rooted in realism, the linguistic choices are not always accurate reflections of reality or common conversations.

Nevertheless, the dialogue in Succession is a meaningful representation of language that affects the way we look at the wealthy elite, capital structures, and generational abuse. This analysis presents valuable insight into how complex dialogue can be produced. While the findings can only be applied directly within the context of this specific show, they serve as a guiding point to how screenwriters can create realistic and meaningful exchanges of power through linguistic choices in dialogue.

Acknowledgements

I want to express my deepest appreciation to Dr. Brooks Fuller for his invaluable guidance, expertise, and encouragement throughout the entire research process. The completion of this paper would not have been possible without his kindness, enthusiasm, and unwavering commitment to supporting me every step of the way.

References

Bednarek, M. (2017) The role of dialogue in fiction. In M. Locher & A.H. Jucker (Eds.), Pragmatics of fiction. (pp. 129-158). De Gruyter Mouton.

Bryce, A. L. (2023, March 27). An ode to “Succession” as the final season airs. Euronews. Retrieved from https://www.euronews.com/culture/2023/03/25/succession-how-we-fell-in-love-with-a-tv-show-about-awful-people – :~:text=But the thing that makes,that fill the audience with

Culpeper, J. (2018). Taboo language and impoliteness. In K. Allan (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Taboo Words and Language (pp. 28-40). Oxford Handbooks. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198808190.013.2

Cressman, D., Callister, M., Robinson, T., & Near, C., (2009). Swearing in the cinema: An analysis of profanity in US teen-oriented movies, 1980-2006. Journal of Children and Media, 3(29), 117-135, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/137

Gayle, A. (2023, March 24). “Succession” and the F-word, by the numbers. The Ringer. Retrieved from https://www.theringer.com/succession/2023/3/24/23653923/succession-f-word-stats-by-the-numbers

Gilbert, M. (2023, March 30). On a lot of TV shows, profanity is a blessing, not a curse. The Boston Globe. Retrieved from https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/03/30/arts/lot-shows-profanity-is-blessing-not-curse/

Hirsch, K. (2020). A study on power relations in Succession: A conversation analysis approach to the study of power [Thesis, Södertörns högskola, Engelska]. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:sh:diva-44424

Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation Analysis. Polity Press.

Itakura, H. (2001). Describing conversational dominance. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(12), 1859-1880. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00082-5

Jones, R. (2009). Turns, topics and tyranny: Conversation analysis and power in Alan Ayckbourn’s Absurd Person Singular, Innervate, 1, 167-174.

Kaye, B. K., & Sapolsky B. S. (2004). Talking a “blue” streak: Context of offensive language in primetime network television programs. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(4), 911-927, DOI: 10.1207/s15506878jobem4502_7

Kimbro, W. (2013) He’s just a man: Power imbalance between female and male characters in American sitcoms, Portland State University McNair Scholars Online Journal, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.15760/mcnair.2013.44

Li, H., Liu, H., & Liu, D. (2022). Gender/power relationships in fictional conflict talk at the workplace: Analyzing television dramatic dialogue in The Newsroom. Journal of Pragmatics, 187, 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.10.030

Mintz, A. (2014). “Who’s got the power?”: Gaining and granting dominance in conversation. [Undergraduate Honors Thesis, Baylor University]. ​​https://baylor-ir.tdl.org/handle/2104/8950

Ng, S. H., & Deng, F. (2017). Language and Power. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.436

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735. https://doi.org/10.2307/412243

Samuels, R. (2023, March 23). “Succession” works by appealing to our “anti-social desires,” says author of “Prestige TV and the contradictions of the liberal class.” Fortune. Retrieved from https://fortune.com/2023/03/23/why-do-liberals-love-succession-hbo-ansitosical-desires-hidden-fantasies/

Stapleton, K., Fägersten, K. B., Stephens, R., & Loveday, C. (2022). The power of swearing: What we know and what we don’t. Lingua, 277, 103406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2022.103406

Steinmetz, K. (2016, December 15). Why we swear: Profanity is powerful. Time. Retrieved from https://time.com/4602680/profanity-research-why-we-swear/

Toolan, M. (1985). Analysing fictional dialogue. Language & Communication, 5(3), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/0271-5309(85)90010-2

Zimmer, B. (2023, May 30). The weaponized language of “Succession.” The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-weaponized-language-of-succession-eb97357f