Speaking law in plain Indonesian: measuring whether automated legal simplification improves public understanding without distorting legal meaning

Aisyah Deby Damayanti

doi:10.67490/ijll.v1i2.923

Authors

Aisyah Deby Damayanti Universitas Nurul Jadid Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.67490/ijll.v1i2.923

Keywords:

automated simplification, legal meaning preservation, legal NLP, plain Indonesian, public legal understanding

Abstract

Background: As Indonesian citizens increasingly encounter law through digital portals, public-service notices, regulatory explanations, and automated interfaces, legal communication must become intelligible without weakening the normative precision that gives law its institutional force. Objective: This study examines whether automated plain-Indonesian simplification can improve public understanding of legal texts while preserving their legal meaning. Method: Using a paired-corpus design, this study analyses 21 excerpts from 18 verified public legal documents, comparing original legal-Indonesian passages with automated simplified versions through linguistic burden analysis, simplification-operation coding, and legal-meaning preservation assessment. Results: The findings show that legal difficulty is driven less by technical vocabulary than by embedded conditions, nominalisation, passive agency, cross-referential dependency, and dense modality. Simplification works most effectively when it sequences legal conditions, restores visible agency, explains necessary legal terms, and unpacks abstract legal processes without changing rights, duties, prohibitions, exceptions, procedures, or sanctions. Implication: However, simplification becomes legally fragile when it compresses scope, shifts institutional responsibility, weakens modal force, or omits qualifying conditions. Novelty: The novelty of this study lies in its dual evaluation model, which treats automated legal simplification as a constrained transformation requiring both accessibility gain and legal-fidelity preservation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] E. Martínez, F. Mollica, and E. Gibson, “So much for plain language: An analysis of the accessibility of U.S. federal laws over time,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, vol. 153, no. 5, pp. 1153–1164, 2024, doi: 10.1037/xge0001572.

[2] F. Ariai and G. Demartini, “Natural language processing for the legal domain: A survey of tasks, datasets, models, and challenges,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 58, pp. 1–37, 2024, doi: 10.1145/3777009.

[3] E. Quevedo, T. Cerný, A. Rodriguez, P. Rivas, J. Yero, K. Sooksatra, A. Zhakubayev, and D. Taibi, “Legal natural language processing from 2015 to 2022: A comprehensive systematic mapping study of advances and applications,” IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 145286–145317, 2024, doi: 10.1109/access.2023.3333946.

[4] A. Alves, P. B. C. Miranda, R. Mello, and A. C. A. Nascimento, “Automatic simplification of legal texts in Portuguese using machine learning. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (pp. 281–286),” IOS Press, 2023, doi: 10.3233/FAIA230975.

[5] K. Alves, M. Silva, E. Santos, G. Valença, and K. Brito, “A generative AI approach for creating and validating simplified versions of government documents,” In Proceedings of the Conference on Digital Government Research, 2025, doi: 10.59490/dgo.2025.968.

[6] E. Ash, A. Kesari, S. Naidu, L. Song, and D. Stammbach, “Translating legalese: Enhancing public understanding of court opinions with legal summarizers,” In Proceedings of the 2024 Symposium on Computer Science and Law, 2023, doi: 10.1145/3614407.3643700.

[7] E. Martínez, F. Mollica, and E. Gibson, “Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives processing difficulty in legal language,” Cognition, vol. 224, Art. no. 105070, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105070.

[8] E. Kmiecicka, E. Michalska, and J. Osiejewicz, “Legal communication and the idea of plain language: Possibilities and limitation,” Journal of International Legal Communication, 2023, doi: 10.32612/uw.27201643.2023.10.3.pp.72-78.

[9] M. A. Rezan and M. Karim, “Legal language in the digital environment: A review of language simplification projects,” Socialis Series in Social Science, 2022, doi: 10.20319/socv3.5768.

[10] P. Homoki and Z. Ződi, “Large language models and their possible uses in law,” Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies, 2024, doi: 10.1556/2052.2023.00475.

[11] D. Beauchemin, M. Albert-Rochette, R. Khoury, and P.-L. D’eziel, “JUDGEBERT: Assessing legal meaning preservation between sentences,” arXiv, 2025, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.16870.

[12] M., I. Lukmana, and W. Gunawan, “Contesting Indonesian plain vs legal languages: Analysis of effectiveness on Indonesian controversial law,” Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2023, doi: 10.17507/tpls.1305.16.

[13] M., J. Nurhadi, D. Puspandari, I. N. Taufik, I. Widia, S. Kodariah, K., and L. K. Sari, “Plain language intervention to improve public understanding of legal language: Descriptive analysis of controversial articles in the Job Creation Law,” Journal of Law and Sustainable Development, 2024, doi: 10.55908/sdgs.v12i2.3224.

[14] A. Puspawati, “Diction model and language format of notarial contracts in Indonesia,” Transformational Language Literature and Technology Overview in Learning (TRANSTOOL), 2025, doi: 10.55047/transtool.v4i2.1618.

[15] M. W. Dali, R. Manangin, A. Halim, N. Mooduto, W. Kobandaha, R. N. T. Naue, et al., “Peran Bahasa Indonesia dalam penyusunan dokumen bantuan hukum di lembaga bantuan hukum,” CENDEKIA: Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengkajian Ilmiah, 2025, doi: 10.62335/cendekia.v2i12.2167.

[16] G. Gonzalez-Delgado and B. Navarro-Colorado, “The simplification of the language of public administration: The case of ombudsman institutions. In Proceedings of the Workshop on DeTermIt!,” Evaluating Text Difficulty in a Multilingual Context @ LREC-COLING 2024, 2024, doi: 10.63317/4gtuwv54idhc.

[17] R. Matusiak, “Simplifying the complex: Nominalisation and passivisation in legal (sub)language and plain English,” Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Bankowej w Poznaniu, 2025, doi: 10.58683/dnswsb.2015.

[18] A. Knutov, A. Chaplinsky, and D. Alimpeev, “The language of regulatory legal acts: Is it time to sound the alarm? Вестник Пермского университета,” Юридические науки, 2022, doi: 10.17072/1995-4190-2022-57-399-426.

[19] M. Cemri, T. Cukur, and A. Koç, “Unsupervised simplification of legal texts,” arXiv, 2022, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2209.00557.

[20] D. Merigoux, N. Chataing, and J. Protzenko, “Catala: A programming language for the law,” Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages, vol. 5, pp. 1–29, 2021, doi: 10.1145/3473582.

[21] D. Setiaji, “Legal language and power: A critical discourse analysis of anti-corruption laws in Indonesia,” Indonesian Journal of Linguistics and Legal Discourse, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 13–21, 2026.

[22] Sadani, “Linguistic construction of justice: A pragmatic analysis of judges’ reasoning in Indonesian constitutional court decisions,” Indonesian Journal of Linguistics and Legal Discourse, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 31–40, 2026.

[23] W. B. M. Setiyawan, “Forensic linguistic evidence in Indonesian courtrooms: A study of language use in criminal verdicts,” Indonesian Journal of Linguistics and Legal Discourse, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2026.

[24] M. Ansori, “Speech act strategies in police interrogation transcripts: Evidence from bahasa Indonesia investigative records,” Indonesian Journal of Linguistics and Legal Discourse, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 51–60, 2026.

[25] P. L. F. Dwany, “Language rights and legal identity: A sociolinguistic study of indigenous language representation in Indonesian law,” Indonesian Journal of Linguistics and Legal Discourse, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 41–50, 2026.