A Functional Analysis of the 2002 Korean Presidential Debates

Abstract

This study applied the Functional Theory of Political Campaign Discourse to the 2002 Korean presidential debates. These messages stressed acclaims (positive statements) more than attacks; defenses were the least common function. Policy (issues) occurred more frequently than character (image). General goals and ideals were used more to acclaim than attack. The incumbent party candidate acclaimed more and attacked less than challenger party candidates (and acclaimed more and attacked less on past deeds in particular). The most common form of defense was simple denial. These results were contrasted with the most recent American presidential debates to reveal similarities and differences between presidential debates in these two cultures.