A functional analysis of 2004 Taiwanese political debates

Asian Journal of Communication

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 24-39

  Benoit, William L ^a   Wen, Wei Chun ^b   Yu, Tzu hsiang ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Acclaims; Attacks; Character; Defenses; Functional Theory; Policy; Taiwanese Presidential Debates

Indexed keywords

EID: 85044893973     PISSN: 01292986     EISSN: 17420911     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01292980601114521     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Asard, E., and Gronbeck, B. E., 2000. “ Televised party leader and presidential candidate debates in Sweden and the United States ”. In Argument at century's end: Reflecting on the past and envisioning the future, Edited by: Hollihan, T., 394–402. Annandale, VA: National Communication Association.
2. Baker, K. L., and Norpoth, H., 1981. Candidates on television: The 1972 electoral debates in West Germany. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45: 329–345.
3. Benoit, W. L., 1999. Seeing spots: A functional analysis of presidential television advertisements, 1952–1996, Westport, CT: Praeger.
4. Benoit, W. L., 2003. Presidential campaign discourse as a causal factor in election outcome. Western Journal of Communication, 67: 97–112.
5. Benoit, W. L., (2007). Communication in political campaigns communications. New York: Peter Lang.
6. Benoit, W. L., and Brazeal, L. M., 2002. A functional analysis of the 1988 Bush–Dukakis presidential debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38: 219–233.
7. Benoit, W. L., and Harthcock, A., 1999. Functions of the Great Debates: Acclaims, attacks, and defense in the 1960 presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 66: 341–357.
8. Benoit, W. L., and Wells, W. T., 1996. Candidates in conflict: Persuasive attack and defense in the 1992 presidential debates, Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
9. Benoit, W. L., Blaney, J. R., and Pier, P. M., 1998. Campaign ‘96: A functional analysis of acclaiming, attacking, and defending, New York: Praeger.
10. Benoit, W. L., Hansen, G. J., and Verser, R. M., 2003. A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing U.S. presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 70: 335–350.
11. Benoit, W. L., McHale, J. P, Hansen, G. J., Pier, P. M., and McGuire, J. P., 2003. Campaign 2000: A functional analysis of presidential campaign discourse, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
12. Benoit, W. L., Pier, P. M., Brazeal, L., McHale, J. P., Klyukovski, A., and Airne, D., 2002. The primary decision: A functional analysis of debates in presidential primaries, Westport, CT: Praeger.
13. Bishop, G. F., Meadow, R. G., & Jackson-Beeck, M., (Eds.). (1980). The presidential debates: Media, electoral, and policy perspectives. New York: Praeger.
14. Bitzer, L., and Rueter, T., 1980. Carter versus Ford: The counterfeit debates of 1976, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
15. Blais, A., and Boyer, M. M., 1996. Assessing the impact of televised debates: The case of the 1988 Canadian election. British Journal of Political Science, 26: 143–164.
16. Carlin, D. B., & McKinney, M. S., (Eds.). (1994). The 1992 presidential debates in focus. Westport, CT: Praeger.
17. Chang, C., 2000. Political advertising in Taiwan and the U.S.: A cross-cultural comparison of the 1996 presidential election campaigns. Asian Journal of Communication, 10: 1–17.
18. Chen, Y., 2003. Setting media's agenda in the 2001 Taipei county chief election: An application of a functional analysis of political campaign discourse. Mass Communication Research, 74: 45–72.
19. Cohen, J., 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20: 37–46.
20. Coleman, S., 2000. “ Meaningful political debate in the age of the soundbite ”. In Televised election debates: International perspectives, Edited by: Coleman, S., 1–24. New York: St. Martin's Press.
21. Faas, T., and Maier, J., 2004. Chancellor-candidates in the 2002 televised debates. German Politics, 13: 300–316.
22. Friedenberg, R. V., (Ed.). (1994). Rhetorical studies of national political debates, 1960–1992 (2nd ed.). New York: Praeger.
23. Friedenberg, R. V., (Ed.). (1997). Rhetorical studies of national political debates—1996. Westport, CT: Praeger.
24. Galasinski, D., 1998. Strategies of talking to each other: Rule breaking in Polish presidential debates. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17: 165–182.
25. Gilbert, R. E., 1982. Television debates and presidential elections: The United States and France. Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, 7: 411–429.
26. Hai, B., (2004, February 16). Expose problems under the sun of democracy: Taiwan's presidential debates. Retrieved June 28, 2004, from http://www5.chinesenewsnet.com/MainNews/Opinion/2004_2_16_11_27_3_819.html
27. Hellweg, S. A., Pfau, M., and Brydon, S. R., 1992. Televised presidential debates: Advocacy in contemporary America, New York: Praeger.
28. Hinck, E. A., 1993. Enacting the presidency: Political argument, presidential debates, and presidential character, Westport, CT: Praeger.
29. Hornik, R., and Burton, S., 1996. Taiwan's second miracle. Time, 147: 45–47.
30. Jamieson, K. H., and Birdsell, D. S., 1988. Presidential debates: The challenge of creating an informed electorate, New York: Oxford University Press.
31. Jorgensen, C., Kock, C., and Rorbech, L., 1998. Rhetoric that shifts votes: An exploratory study of persuasion in issue-oriented public debates. Political Communication, 15: 283–299.
32. Kaid, L. L., 1999. “ Comparing and contrasting the styles and effects of political advertising in European democracies ”. In Television and politics in evolving European democracies, Edited by: Kaid, L. L., 219–236. Commack, NY: Nova Science.
33. Kaid, L. L., and Holtz-Bacha, C., 1995. “ Political advertising across cultures ”. In Political advertising in Western democracies, Edited by: Kaid, L. L., and Holtz-Bacha, C., 206–227. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34. Kraus, S., (Ed.). (1962). The great debates: Kennedy vs. Nixon, 1960. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
35. Kraus, S., (Ed.). (1979). The great debates: Carter versus Ford 1976. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
36. Kraus, S., 2000. Televised presidential debates and public policy, 2nd ed., Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37. Landis, J. R., and Koch, G. G., 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrica, 33: 159–174.
38. Lanoue, D. J., 1991. Debates that mattered: Voters’ reaction to the 1984 Canadian leadership debates. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 24: 51–65.
39. Lanoue, D. J., and Schrott, P. R., 1991. The joint press conference: The history, impact, and prospects of American presidential debates, New York: Greenwood Press.
40. Latest polls after the debate. (2004, February 22). China Times, p. A2.
41. Lee, C., and Benoit, W. L., 2004. A functional analysis of presidential television spots: A comparison of Korean and American ads. Communication Quarterly, 52: 68–79.
42. Lee, C., and Benoit, W. L., 2005. A functional analysis of the 2002 Korean presidential debates. Asian Journal of Communication, 15: 115–132.
43. Martel, M., 1983. Political campaign debates: Issues, strategies, and tactics, New York: Longman.
44. Matsaganis, M., and Weingarten, C., 2001. The 2000 U.S. presidential debate versus the 2000 Greek prime minister debate. American Behavioral Scientist, 44: 2398–2409.
45. Merritt, S., 1984. Negative political advertising: Some empirical findings. Journal of Advertising, 13: 27–38.
46. Polls after the debate. (2004, February 22). United Daily News, p. A4.
47. Schroeder, A., 2000. Presidential debates: Forty years of high-risk TV, New York: Columbia University Press.
48. Schrott, P. R., 1990. Electoral consequences of ‘winning’ televised debates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 54: 567–585.
49. Schrott, P. R., and Lanoue, D. J., 1992. How to win a televised debate: Candidate strategies and voter response in Germany, 1972–1987. British Journal of Political Science, 22: 445–467.
50. Stewart, C. J., 1975. Voter perception of mud-slinging in political communication. Central States Speech Journal, 26: 279–286.
51. Support rates after the debate: Lien 41%, Bian 35%. (2004, February 15). United Daily News, p. A1.
52. Swerdlow, J. L., (Ed.). (1987). Presidential debates 1988 and beyond. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
53. Tak, J., Kaid, L. L., and Lee, S., 1997. A cross-cultural study of political advertising in the United States and Korea. Communication Research, 24: 423–430.
54. Ward, I., and Walsh, M., 2000. “ Leaders’ debates and presidential politics in Australia ”. In Televised election debates: International perspectives, Edited by: Coleman, S., 43–65. New York: St. Martin's Press.
55. Wells, W. T., (1999). An analysis of attacking, acclaiming, and defending strategies in the 1976–1984 presidential debates. PhD dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia.
56. Wen, W.-C., Benoit, W. L., and Yu, T.-H., 2004. A functional analysis of the 2000 Taiwanese and US presidential spots. Asian Journal of Communication, 14: 140–155.
57. Who wins the debate? Bian 39%, Lien 32%. (2004, February 15). China Times, p. A1.
58. Yin, L., (2004, February 23). Whether Taiwan will win or lose is based on the cross-Strait peace. Retrieved June 8, 2004, from http://tw.people.com.cn/GB/14811/14869/2353702.html