An exploratory study on the impact of language styles used by Hillary Clinton’s political speeches to the critical mass

Human uses language to express their ideas and thoughts to communicate with others. Due to they articulate their intention, they use the style which emerge as the variances of the language. Everyone produces difference style to convey his or her purposes which entail the listeners to provide the responses. They, therefore, convince the listeners with the most favourable style in order to they understand and trust their thoughts. It is very fascinating to investigate the language style that is used by Hilary Clinton as the presidential nomination from Democratic Party in the United States in her political speeches to the critical mass’ responses. How is the impact between the language style and the critical mass responses on the styles of Hillary Clinton’s political speeches? What language styles that are used by Hillary Clinton in her political speeches? What kind of critical mass’ responses that emerge as the reactions to Hillary Clinton’s political speeches? How is the relation between language style used by Hillary Clinton’s political speeches and the critical mass responses?

Theoretically, the writer uses the language style and the socio- psychological approach to answer the problems. The language style induces to recognize the types of the style that is used by Hillary Clinton’s political speeches either formal or informal style while socio-psychological approach converses the relationship between the speaker’s language and listeners’ responses. Methodologically, the writer asserts descriptive qualitative study as research design, the data are collected by skimming and scanning, and analyzed by intensive reading and inter-textual reading process.

The finding shows that Hillary Clinton uses formal and informal style with it’s variances in it. Those are colloquial and slang style. The most frequently style that is found in Hillary Clinton’s political speeches is informal style with colloquial as the dominant than slang style. Due to Hillary uses informal style in her political speeches, it influences the critical mass to give informal responses. They declare tree kinds of responses. Those are cognitive, affective and behavioural responses. Actually, there is no direct relationship between the styles and the responses. The messages of the statement are usually believed as more influential than the style’s impact. But, as a linguistic researcher, the writer consider that the statement is too simplified, since the messages can be facilitated or constrained by the language style.