“Education is a business” : Lexical cohesion of the public opinions in response to the Indonesian Job Creation Law

Ridwan Purnama, Didi Sukyadi, Dasim Budimansyah, Restu Adi Nugraha

Abstract


Lexical choices in a law text contribute to the creation of discourse. The issuance of Law Number 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation Law in Indonesia has resulted in a controversial public discussion concerning questionable educational practices in Indonesia. This study attempted to investigate the accumulated ideas that depict a represented discourse by exploring cohesive devices used in public interpretation regarding the impacts of the inclusion of Article 65 on education policy and practices according to the Job Creation Law. The data were garnered online from public figures’ opinions shared in the Academic Association, Legal Aid Agency, Taman Siswa Family’s Association, Indonesian Teacher Union, Ma’arif Nahdlatul Ulama, and Education Observer Group. The collected interpretation was analyzed by identifying how lexical features were used in the interpretation to construct ideas. The analysis indicates that the public figures’ interpretation shared a common conception that the Job Creation Law intended to construct. The law signals the idea of administering education as a business, potentially affecting the uncontrolled establishments of associations and foundations that administer education in Indonesia. The public interpretation suggests that the Job Creation Law put aside the term “service” that the government should facilitate in the administration of education.


Keywords


Discourse; education; grammar; law

Full Text:

PDF

References


Aji, M. R. (2020, Oktober 20). Aliansi akademisi dukung demo tolak Omnibus Law, sebab. Tempo.co. https://nasional.tempo.co/read/1397859/aliansi-akademisi-dukung-demo-tolak-omnibus-law-sebab

Ali, A. (2008). Menguak tabir hukum [Revealing the legal veil]. Ghalia Indonesia.

Anatolevna, C. V. (2023). Collocations and fixed word combinations in legal German: Didactic approaches and teaching methods for vocabulary work and conveying meaning [Unpublished master’s thesis]. St. Petersburg State University.

Askarial, S. H. (2018). Interpretasi atau penafsiran sebagai metode penemuan hukum [Interpretation as a method of legal discovery]. Menara Ilmu, 12(2), 15-25. https://jurnal.umsb.ac.id/index.php/menarailmu/article/view/506

Asmara, R. (2020). Mewaspadai pasal pendidikan UU Cipta Kerja [Be aware of the education articles in the Job Creation Law]. Detik. https://news.detik.com/kolom/d-5230609/mewaspadai-pasal-pendidikan-uu-cipta-kerja

Assy, R. (2011). Can the law speak directly to its subjects? The limitation of plain language. Journal of Law and Policy. 19(1), 91-112. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23030406

Bagchi, A. (2019). Interpreting contracts in a regulatory state. USFL Rev., 54, 35. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship/997/

Bandov, G. (2023). Diplomatic language – a unique language of international communication. In L. Kordić (Ed.), Language(s) and law (p. 13). Faculty of Law Osijek Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek.

Bartolini, R., Lenci, A., Montemagni, S., Pirrelli, V., & Soria, C. (2004). Automatic classification and analysis of provisions in italian legal texts: a case study. In OTM Confederated International Conferences” On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems”, (pp. 593-604). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Berūkštienė, D. (2016). Legal discourse reconsidered: Genres of legal texts. Comparative Legilinguistics, 28(1), 89-119.

Biel, K. (2016). Phraseology in legal translation: A corpus-based analysis of textual mapping in EU law. In L. Cheng & K. K. Sin, The Ashgate handbook of legal translation (pp. 177-192). Routledge.

Black, H. C. (1990). Omnibus law. In B. A. Garner (Ed.), Black’s law dictionary (6th ed.). West Publishing Co.

Blandino, P. (2024). The possibility of a uniform legal language at the interplay of Legal Discourse, Semiotics and Blockchain networks. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law-Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-10086-z

Breaux, T. D. (2009). Legal requirements acquisition for the specification of legally compliant information systems. North Carolina State University.

Cozma, M. (2017). Dealing with syntactic discontinuities in the translation of legal texts. Buletinul Stiintific al Universitatii Politehnica din Timisoara, Seria Limbi Moderne, 16(1-2), 27-34. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=575320

Dang, D. (2020). Grammatical cohesion in the political discourse of Vietnamese newspapers and English newspapers. International Journal of Advanced Scientific Research and Management, 5(2), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.36282/IJASRM/5.2.2020.1697

Dragoni, M., Villata, S., Rizzi, W., & Governatori, G. (2016). Combining NLP approaches for rule extraction from legal documents. In 1st Workshop on MIning and REasoning with Legal texts (MIREL 2016).

Fairclough, N. (2023). Critical discourse analysis. In M. Handford & J. P. Gee (Eds.). The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 11-22). Routledge.

Fitryantica, A. (2019). Harmonisasi peraturan perundang-undangan indonesia melalui konsep Omnibus Law [The harmonization of Indonesian laws and regulations through the concept of Omnibus Law]. Gema Keadilan, 6(3), 300-316. https://doi.org/10.14710/gk.2019.6751

Ginting, S (2019). Interpretasi gramatikal sistematis historis kasus dugaan penodaan agama oleh Ahok [The interpretation of historical systematic grammatical of alleged religious blasphemy case by Ahok]. Law Pro Justitia, 2(2), 61-75. https://ejournal-medan.uph.edu/lpj/article/view/248

Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(2), 193-202. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195564

Gustafsson, M. (1984). The syntactic features of binomial expressions in legal English. Text-Interdisciplinary. Journal for the Study of Discourse, 4(1-3), 123-142. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1984.4.1-3.123

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (2014). Cohesion in English (No. 9). Routledge.

Hunston, S. (2013). Systemic functional linguistics, corpus linguistics, and the ideology of science. Text & Talk, 33(4-5), 617-640. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2013-0028

Igorevna, S. A. (2023). Pragmatic aspects of the use of English modal verbs in business discourse and ways of their translation into Russian [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Saint Petersburg State University.

Kaufman, J. P. (2023). Judicial interpretation and competition law enforcement: Authoritarian legal culture, semantic dissonance and skewed agencification in post-socialist Croatia. Review of Central and East European Law, 48(3-4), 275-318. https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-bja10084

Klebanov, B. B., Diermeier, D., & Beigman, E. (2019). Lexical cohesion analysis of political speech. Political Analysis, 16(4), 447-463. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25791949

Kubuj, K. (2022). The role of general clause of (public) morals based on selected European court of human rights’ judgments. Białostockie Studia Prawnicze, 4(27), 101-119. https://doi.org/10.15290/bsp.2022.27.04.07

Lararenjana, E. (2020). Mengenal apa itu Omnibus Law beserta konsep dan sejarah perkembangannya [Knowing what Omnibus Law is and its concept and history of development]. Merdeka. https://www.merdeka.com/jatim/mengenal-apa-itu-omnibus-law-beserta-konsep-dan-sejarah-perkembangannya-kln.html

Larasati, C. (2020, Oktober 7) FSGI: UU Cipta Kerja Jalan Masuk Kapitalisasi Pendidikan. Medcom.id. https://www.medcom.id/pendidikan/news-pendidikan/lKYwVo3b-fsgi-uu-cipta-kerja-jalan-masuk-kapitalisasi-pendidikan

Łaziński, M., Jóźwiak, K., & Krajewski, G. (2022). Imperfective and perfective verbs in Polish legal texts. Linguistic analysis and results of a survey. Language: codification, competence, communication, 1-2 (6-7), 7-19. https://doi.org/10.2478/lccc-2022-0001

Lukin, A., & Marrugo, A. G. (2023). The international laws of war: Linguistic analysis from the perspectives of register, corpus and grammatical patterning. Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, 1(aop), 1-27. https://brill.com/view/journals/ihls/14/2/article-p223_004.xml?language=en

Madrunio, M. R. (2022). Lexical and grammatical features of Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) on academic partnerships. Journal of English and Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 64-85. https://doi.org/10.59588/2961-3094.1004

Mahy, P. (2022). Indonesia’s Omnibus Law on job creation: Legal hierarchy and responses to judicial review in the labour cluster of amendments. Asian Journal of Comparative Law, 17(1), 51-75. https://doi.org/10.1017/asjcl.2022.7

Martens, K., & Golub, A. (2021). A fair distribution of accessibility: Interpreting civil rights regulations for regional transportation plans. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 41(4), 425-444. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X18791014

Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Mawar, S. (2020). Metode penemuan hukum (interpretasi dan konstruksi) dalam rangka harmonisasi hukum [Methods of legal discovery (interpretation and construction) in the context of legal harmonization]. Jurnal Justisia: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Perundang-Undangan Dan Pranata Sosial, 1(1), 22-38. https://jurnal.ar-raniry.ac.id/index.php/Justisia/article/view/2558

Merdeka.com. (2020, Oktober 7). Ancaman Sekolah Kian Mahal Karena UU Cipta Kerja, 7/10/2020). Merdeka.com. https://katadata.co.id/berita/nasional/5f7d4d4bd8cbb/ancaman-sekolah-kian-mahal-karena-uu-cipta-kerja

Mertokusumo, S. (1993). Bab-bab tentang penemuan hukum [Chapters on legal discovery]. Citra Aditya Bakti.

Michael, T., Siregar, E., Siregar, R. G., Yasa, I. W. L., & Kusuma, I. M. W. (2021). The principle of synderesis in interpreting legislation. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 8(7), 37-40. http://doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v8i7.2877

Osbeck, M. (2012). What is “good legal writing” and why does it matter? Journal of the Legal Writing Institute, 18, 225-256. https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/938/

Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse analysis: An introduction. A&C Black.

Paltridge, B. (2012). Discourse analysis: An introduction (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury

Pebrianto, F. (2023). Sejumlah mantan hakim konstitusi menentang Perpu Cipta Kerja Jokowi [A number of former constitutional judges have opposed Jokowi's Job Creation Regulation]. Tempo. https://nasional.tempo.co/read/1675609/sejumlah-mantan-hakim-konstitusi-menentang-perpu-cipta-kerja-jokowi

Pradewo, B. (2020, Oktober 8). Pengamat Pendidikan Dukung 100 Persen Mahasiswa Demo Tolak UU Ciptaker. Jawapos.com. https://www.jawapos.com/nasional/01292399/pengamat-pendidikan-dukung-100-persen-mahasiswa-demo-tolak-uu-ciptaker

Putra, A. (2020). Penerapan Omnibus Law dalam upaya reformasi regulasi [Implementation of the Omnibus Law in regulatory reform efforts]. Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, 17(1), 1-10. https://jurnal.uns.ac.id/respublica/article/view/58461

Putra, I. P. (2020, Oktober 6). LP Ma'arif NU Bakal Ikut Gugat UU Ciptaker ke MK. Medcom.id. https://www.medcom.id/pendidikan/news-pendidikan/3NOqlAmk-lp-ma-arif-nu-bakal-ikut-gugat-uu-ciptaker-ke-mk

Ramos, F. P. (2002). Beyond the confines of literality: A Functionalist approach to the sworn translation of legal documents. Puentes, 2(November 2002), 27-35. https://wpd.ugr.es/~greti/revista-puentes/pub2/04-articulo.pdf

Robertson, C. (2011). Multilingual legislation in the European Union. EU and national legislative-language styles and terminology. Research in Language, 9(1), 51-67. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-011-0011-3

Thea DA, A. (2023, Maret 21). 4 Catatan LBH Jakarta terkait persetujuan Perppu Cipta Kerja jadi UU. Hukumonline.com. https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/4-catatan-lbh-jakarta-terkait-persetujuan-perppu-cipta-kerja-jadi-uu-lt6419a13e3baac/

Toruan, H. D. (2017). Pembentukan regulasi badan usaha dengan model Omnibus Law [The establishment of business entity regulations using the Omnibus Law model]. Jurnal Hukum Tora Fakultas Hukum Universitas Kristen Indonesia, 3(1), 463-472. http://ejournal.uki.ac.id/index.php/tora/article/view/1118/

Usfunan, J. (2017). Menata undang-undang dengan Omnibus Law [Organizing the law with the Omnibus Law]. Hukum Online. https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/menata-undang-undang-dengan-omnibus-law-lt5a28e1bb91cc6/

Vass, H. (2017). Lexical verb hedging in legal discourse: The case of law journal articles and Supreme Court majority and dissenting opinions. English for Specific Purposes, 48, 17-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.07.001

Venturi, G. (2012). Design and development of temis: A syntactically and semantically annotated corpus of Italian legislative texts. In Proceedings of the workshop on semantic processing of legal texts (SPLeT 2012) (pp. 1-12). Language Resources and Evaluation Conference.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v14i1.70237

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


View My Stats

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.