Linguistic Indeterminacy in Indonesian Statutory Language: The Interpretive Consequences of Ambiguous Connectives and Modal Markers

Alfa Rizky Ramadhan (Universitas Tidar)

Prosiding Seminar Nasional Kajian Bahasa, Sastra, dan Pengajarannya: Semnas Kabastra
Vol. 3 No. September (2026): UPCOMING Prosiding Seminar Nasional kabastra XI 2026 (IN PRESS)

Statutory language is expected to give legal subjects stable advance notice of what the law requires, permits, and prohibits, yet theories of legal interpretation hold that ambiguity and vagueness cannot be fully eliminated from legal texts. Existing work on Indonesian legal language has focused on definitions and the plain-versus-legal register debate, leaving open how meaning is fixed at the level of individual function words. This article examines how connectives (dan, atau, dan/atau) and modal markers (dapat, wajib, harus, boleh) produce linguistic indeterminacy in Indonesian statutes and what interpretive consequences follow. It uses a qualitative, corpus-assisted doctrinal-linguistic design applied to the operative text of four statutes (Law 31/1999, Law 1/2004, Law 11/2008, and Law 12/2022; 266 articles, 23,354 words). The analysis identifies competing readings at six connective loci and in three groups of modal usage. Examples include the unbracketed formula dengan sengaja dan tanpa hak atau melawan hukum in Law 11/2008, the unexplained alternation between dan denda and dan atau denda in Law 31/1999, the use of dapat for at least five functions, and the alternation of wajib and harus without any stated difference in legal force. None of these function words is defined in the statutes examined. Provisionally, most connective loci are ambiguities of scope, discretionary dapat is a case of vagueness, and the dan denda / dan atau denda contrast is under-specification. These readings affect legal content through three channels: what must be proved, what sanction follows, and who holds power or duty. Only one case, dapat merugikan in Arts. 2(1) and 3 of Law 31/1999, is confirmed by the legislator through the Elucidation. The remaining consequences are textual implications that have not been tested against court decisions. The corpus is small and selected for convenience, so the findings cannot be generalized, and the study shows where indeterminacy can arise, not that it has produced divergent outcomes. The article suggests drafting practices, including bracketing mixed connective formulas, stating how dan/atau is to be read, harmonizing sanction wording, and glossing dapat where it affects an element of an offence.