Earticle

This study analyzes the differences/similarities of the rhetorical strategies in TV presidential debates used by Lee Hoi-Chang, a three-time presidential candidate in Korea, from 1997 to 2007.It investigated how contextual factors such as a candidate's party affiliation (incumbent party, challenger party, or third party), debate formats, and opponents (front-runner and running-behind candidates) influenced Lee's rhetorical strategies in debates during the three elections. Content analysis of nine TV presidential debates throughout three elections was conducted using Benoit's functional analysis framework (acclaiming/attacking/defending, issue/character). The results showed that Lee more often used the acclaiming strategy when he was the candidate for a major challenger party than when he was the candidate for the incumbent party, and much more often than when he was the candidate for a third party. He used the attacking strategy slightly more often when he was the candidate for the incumbent party or a third party than when he was a candidate belonging to a major challenger party. He used the defending strategy most often as a candidate for an incumbent party, next most often for a major challenger party, and least often for a third party. The results of this study were not consistent with general assumption that a candidate's incumbency should affect his/her debate strategies. This study suggests that comparison of an individual candidate's debate discourses across multiple campaigns is needed.