:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:2008年臺灣總統大選電視辯論的功能分析研究
書刊名:選舉評論
作者:溫偉群 引用關係游梓翔 引用關係
作者(外文):Wen, Wei-chunYu, Tzu-hsiang
出版日期:2008
卷期:5
頁次:頁15-31
主題關鍵詞:功能分析總統選舉電視辯論Functional analysisPresidential electionTelevised debates
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(2) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:43
  • 點閱點閱:49
期刊論文
1.Benoit, William L.、Wei-Chun, Wen、Tzu-Hsiang, Yu(2007)。A Functional Analysis of 2004 Taiwanese Political Debates。Asian Journal of Communication,17(1),24-39。  new window
2.Lee, Cheolhan、William, L. Benoit(2005)。A Functional Analysis of the 2002 Korean Presidential Debates。Asian Journal of Communication,15(2),115-132。  new window
3.鄭自隆(1995)。候選人電視辯論策略及其效果之研究。廣告學研究,5,43-84。new window  延伸查詢new window
4.Baker, K. L.、Norpoth, H.(1981)。Candidates on television: The 1972 electoral debates in West Germany。Public Opinion Quarterly,45,329-345。  new window
5.Benoit, W. L.(2001)。The functional approach to presidential television spots: Acclaiming, attacking, defending 1952-2000。Communication Studies,52,109-126。  new window
6.Benoit, W. L.(2000)。A functional analysis of political advertising across media, 1998。Communication Studies,51,274-295。  new window
7.Benoit, W. L.、Blaney, J. R.、Pier, P. M.(2000)。Acclaiming, attacking, and defending: A functional analysis of U.S. nominating convention keynote speeches。Political Communication,17,61-84。  new window
8.Benoit, W. L.、Brazil, L. M.(2002)。A functional analysis of the 1988 Bush-Dukakis presidential debates。Argumentation and Advocacy,38,219-233。  new window
9.Benoit, W. L.、Hansen, G. J.、Verser, R. M.(2003)。A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing U.S. presidential debates。Communication Monographs,70,335-350。  new window
10.Benoit, W. L.、Harthcock, A.(1999)。Functions of the Great Debates: Acclaims, at tacks, and defense in the 1960 presidential debates。Communication Monographs,66,341-357。  new window
11.Benoit, W. L.、Wells, W. T.、Pier, P. M.、Blaney, J. R.(1999)。Acclaiming, attacking, and defending in presidential nominating acceptance addresses, 1960-1996。Quarterly Journal of Speech,85,247-267。  new window
12.Carlin, D. B.、Morris, E.、Smith, S.(2001)。The influence of format and questions on candidates' strategic argument choices in the 2000 presidential debates。American Behavioral Scientist,44,2196-2218。  new window
13.The Racine Group(2002)。White paper on televised political campaign debates。Argumentation and Advocacy,38,199-218。  new window
14.Wen, W.、Benoit, W. L.、Yu, T.(2004)。A functional analysis of the 2000 Taiwanese-US presidential spots。Asian Journal of Communication,14,140-155。  new window
15.Benoit, W. L.、Pier, R. M.、Blaney, J. R.(1997)。A functional approach to televised political spots: Acclaiming, attacking, defending。Communication Quarterly,45(1),1-20。  new window
16.Cohen, Jacob(1960)。A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales。Educational and Psychological Measurement,20(1),37-46。  new window
學位論文
1.莊伯仲(1995)。候選人電視辯論與電視政見發表會訊息之內容分析:1994年臺北市長選舉之個案研究(碩士論文)。文化大學。  延伸查詢new window
2.Song, J. G.(2000)。Culture, politics and television: A cross-cultural comparative study of Korean and U.S. televised presidential debates(博士論文)。University of Oklahoma at Norman。  new window
3.Wen, W.(1999)。A functional analysis of the 1994 Taipei mayoral debate(碩士論文)。Central Missouri State University。  new window
4.Wen, W.(2002)。A functional analysis of the 2000 Taiwanese presidential campaign discourse(博士論文)。University of Missouri-Columbia。  new window
圖書
1.Benoit, William L.、Blaney, Joseph R.、Pier, P. M.(1998)。Campaign '96: A functional analysis of acclaiming, attacking, and defending。Praeger。  new window
2.Benoit, William L.(1999)。Seeing Spots: A Functional Analysis of Presidential Television Advertisements, 1952-1996。Westport, CT:Praeger。  new window
3.Benoit, William L.(2007)。Communication in Political Campaign Communications。New York:Peter Lang。  new window
4.溫偉群(2007)。總統電視辯論:語藝策略與類型批評。台北:五南。  延伸查詢new window
5.Benoit, W. L.、Pier, P. M.、Brazeal, L.、McHale, J. P.、Klyukovski, A.、Airne, D.(2002)。The primary decision: A functional analysis of debates in presidential primaries。Westport, CT:Praeger。  new window
6.Bibby, J. F.(2000)。Politicsf parties, and elections in America。Belmont, CA:Wadsworth。  new window
7.Fleiss, J. L.(1981)。Statistical methods for ratios and proportions。New York:Wiley。  new window
8.Kaid, L. L.、McKinney, M. S.、Tedesco, J. C.(2000)。Civil dialogue in the 1996 presidential campaign: Candidate, media, and public voices。Cresskill, NJ:Hampton Press。  new window
9.Trent, J. S.、Friedenberg, R. V.(2000)。Political campaign communication: Principles and practices。Westport, CT:Praeger。  new window
10.Benoit, William L.、William, T. Wells(1996)。Candidates in Conflict: Persuasive Attack and Defense in the 1992 Presidential Debates。Tuscaloose, AL:University of Alabama Press。  new window
11.Kaid, L. L.、Holtz-Bacha, C.(1995)。Political Advertising in Western Democracies: Parties and Candidates on Television。Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage。  new window
12.Levine, Myron A.(1995)。Presidential Campaigns and Elections: Issues and Images in the Media Age。Itasca, IL:Peacock Publishers。  new window
13.彭芸(1990)。政治傳播:理論與實務。臺北:巨流圖書公司。new window  延伸查詢new window
其他
1.張益華(1999)。八十七年台北市長電視辯論之攻防策略分析,台北:世新大學。  延伸查詢new window
2.陳玉華(20000221)。候選人菜色趨同上菜方式各有巧妙。  延伸查詢new window
3.馬道容(20000219)。電視政見會三強比看頭。  延伸查詢new window
4.聯合報民意調查中心(20080225)。辯論表現54%讚馬、21%誇謝。  延伸查詢new window
5.聯合報民意調查中心(20080310)。二辯表現馬降至四成六、謝升為二成八。  延伸查詢new window
圖書論文
1.McKinney, Mitchell S.、Carlin, Diana B.(2004)。Political Campaign Debates。Handbook of Political Communication Research。Mahwah:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates。  new window
2.Coleman, Stephen(2000)。Meaningful Political Debate in the Age of the Soundbite。Televised Election Debates: International Perspectives。New York:St. Martin's Press。  new window
3.Friedenberg, Robert V.(1997)。Patterns and Trends in National Political Debates: 1960-1996。Rhetorical Studies of National Political Debates: 1996。Westport, CT:Praeger。  new window
4.游梓翔、溫偉群(2006)。2002年台北市長選戰電視辯論策略之語藝分析。選舉過程中的傳播與策略研究:2002年北高市長選舉個案分析。台北:雙葉。  延伸查詢new window
5.Benoit, W. L.(2005)。Generic rhetorical criticism。The art of rhetorical criticism。Boston:Pearson。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE