1887
Volume 3, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
GBP
Buy:£15.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This study applied the Functional Theory of Political Campaign Discourse to the July 25, 2010 Australian Prime Minister debate. Attacks were more common than acclaims, both of which occurred more frequently than defenses. Incumbent Prime Minister Gillard acclaimed more, and attacked less, than challenger Abbott. This contrast was particularly acute when the candidates discussed past deeds (record in office). The two candidates discussed policy more than character. When discussing general goals and ideals, they acclaimed more than they attacked. These results are compared with studies of political leaders debates in other countries and elections.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.3.2.03ben
2014-01-01
2018-10-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.3.2.03ben
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error