Résumé:
The application of critical discourse analysis in the field of politics of communication within the political context examines the use of language by politicians at various stages to win votes, impose an ideology, or deal with critical crises with caution. Based on Teun Van Dijk’s framework for political discourse analysis, this dissertation studies the speeches of both American president John F. Kennedy and Soviet president Nikita Khrushchev in the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. The analysis included a micro-level analysis of the discursive devices introduced by Van Dijk (2005), and a macro-level analysis, which is based on the dichotomy of 'positive self-representation’ and 'negative other-representation.' The analysis demonstrates that both presidents adopt different
discursive strategies to transmit their political ideologies. The American president employs more discursive devices than his Soviet opponent does, especially in terms of actor description, authority, consensus, hyperbole and lexicalization. However, the Soviet President, Nikita Khrushchev tends to overuse the discursive device, number game, to bring credibility and evidence to his letter to Kennedy. At the Macro-level of analysis, the findings show that both President Kennedy and Khrushchev’s speeches depict ‘Positive self-representation’ and ‘Negative-other representation’ as strategies to achieve credibility and solidarity. While President Kennedy focuses on the negative image of the other to refer to the threat coming from the East, President Khrushchev stresses his positive image and the positive portrayal of Russia, on many occasions, to absolve
himself and his country of the American accusations. It is worth mentioning that according to the findings of this research, both presidents hold similar views on global peace and the avoidance of nuclear war, and opposing opinions on the importance of military bases near each of their respective nations.
