THE REPRESENTATION OF ENGLISH FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES IN INDONESIAN VOCATIONAL LANGUAGE POLICY
A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS PERSPECTIVE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21009/ishel.v1i1.56987Keywords:
English for Medical Purposes (EMP), Critical Discourse Analysis, ESP policy, vocational education, language ideologyAbstract
This study investigates the representation of EMP in key Indonesian vocational English language policy documents. Despite the increasing demand for clinical communication skills among healthcare professionals in the globalized medical landscape, EMP remains largely absent in national curriculum standards and policy guidelines. Using a qualitative approach based on CDA, particularly Fairclough’s three-dimensional model and Wodak’s Discourse-Historical Approach, this research analyzes how policy texts construct, silence, or marginalize domain-specific language needs, especially in the medical sector. The data consist of four national policy documents published between 2010 and 2024: Permendiknas No. 47/2010, Perpres No. 8/2012 on the National Qualifications Framework (KKNI), ESP Graduate Competency Standards, and the 2020 English training curriculum. Findings show that English is predominantly represented as a tool for economic mobility and global competitiveness. At the same time, medical communication needs are excluded from both the textual and ideological layers of policy. The absence of EMP is not incidental but reveals an underlying economistic discourse that privileges business-oriented English over ethical and human-centered communication. This study contributes to applied linguistics and language policy literature by highlighting the ideological bias in vocational ESP policy and advocating for the inclusion of EMP as a recognized curricular domain. Implications include curriculum reform, the need for cross-sector collaboration, and the development of a national EMP framework aligned with the competencies required in healthcare professions.
References
Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be? Pearson Education.
Block, D., Gray, J., & Holmes, S. (2012). Introduction. In D. Block, J. Gray, & M. Holme (Eds.), Social class and applied linguistics (pp. 1–18). Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (J. B. Thompson, Ed.; G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.). Polity Press.
Chen, L., & Wu, X. (2022). Situated medical English communication: A framework for curriculum integration. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 65, 34–46.
Crystal, D. (2012). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Dolowitz, D., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making. Governance, 13(1), 5–23.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Polity Press.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). Pantheon Books.
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2023). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (5th ed.). Routledge.
Hall, S. (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. SAGE Publications.
Hornberger, N. H. (2006). Negotiating the language-education interface: An introduction. In O. García, T. Skutnabb-Kangas, & M. E. Torres-Guzmán (Eds.), Imagining multilingual schools (pp. 105–126). Multilingual Matters.
Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes: A learning-centered approach. Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, D. C. (2013). Language policy. Palgrave Macmillan.
Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B. (1997). Language planning from practice to theory. Multilingual Matters.
KDCA (Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency). (2024). National EMP Roadmap. Seoul: KDCA.
Kompetenzzentrum Wien. (2022). National EMP Assessment Report. Vienna: Federal Ministry of Education, Austria.
Kurniawan, H., & Subekti, N. (2023). Fragmentasi pengajaran English for Specific Purposes di institusi vokasi. Jurnal Bahasa dan Pendidikan Vokasi, 9(1), 44–59.
Li, X., & Yang, Y. (2023). English for Medical Purposes in clinical training: Needs, practices, and challenges. ESP Today, 11(2), 121–137.
MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology – Japan). (2019). Medical English Core Curriculum (MECC). Tokyo: MEXT.
Miller, G. E. (1990). The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Academic Medicine, 65(9), S63–S67.
PERSI (Perhimpunan Rumah Sakit Seluruh Indonesia). (2023). Laporan pengaduan komunikasi pasien di rumah sakit rujukan. Jakarta: PERSI.
Putri, M., Susanto, R., & Widodo, A. (2022). Rethinking vocational ESP: Case study of EMP instruction in Indonesian nursing schools. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 55–66.
Spolsky, B. (2009). Language management. Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–112.
Van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Springer.
WHO (World Health Organization). (2021). Patient safety: Communication in multilingual healthcare settings. Geneva: WHO Press.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2023). Methods of critical discourse studies (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Sukisno, Muchlas Suseno, Ninuk Lustyantie
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
