Prenominal Genitive ‘s versus Postnominal of-construction

35 The next factor in the choice of prenominal genitive and postnominal of- phrase is subjective and objective relation. The following NP in example 19g has left-to-right predication. 19.g 1. the imprisonment of the murderer 2. Someone imprisoned the murderer. Verb Object The NP in 19g.1 has a corresponding sentence in 19g.2, which is assumed to have verb-object relation. This is what Quirk et al. 1985 calls the objective relation. With the objective relation, of-phrases are preferred to prenominal genitives. The genitive construction is uncommon and unnatural with objective relation, except when the noun head or N 2 is a deverbal noun. Thus, in the NP „the imprisonment of the murderer ‟, the phrase has a corresponding genitive as „the murderer‟s imprisonment‟. Yet, the rule cannot occur in the following NPs in example 19h. 19.h 1. love of power ~ Someone loves power. power‟s love 2. men of science ~ Men study science science‟s men On the other hand, the NPs in 19i have right-to-left predication. 19.i 1. the arrival of the train ~ The train arrived. Subject Verb 2. the funnel of the ship ~ The ship has a funnel. The relation between the NPs is a subject-verb relationship and is mentioned as subjective relation Quirk et al., 1985, p. 1278. Either the genitive construction or of-phrase can occur with subjective relation. Thus, examples 19i have the genitive equivalents: 19.j 1. the train‟s arrival 2. the ship‟s funnel 36 3. the activity of the students ~ the students‟ activity The students are active. Furthermore, Haegeman and Guéron 2004 explain that there seems to be a process of passivization in the NP as in the corresponding clause. 19.k 1. John paints Carol. 2. John‟s picture of Carol Example 19k.1 provides an active sentence and 19k.2 is the nominal counterpart. The external argument, which shows the person who is painting, is expressed by the genitive John’s, while the internal argument, which describes what the painting is about, is expressed by the of-phrase. By contrast, in the nominal counterpart of the passive sentence, the internal argument is expressed by a by-phrase. 19.l 1. Carol is painted by John. 2. Carol‟s picture by John Syntactic factors also play a role in the choice of genitive and of-phrase constructions Quirk et al., 1985. Either the genitive or of-phrase can be expanded by both left-branching structure by premodification and right-branching structure by postmodification. The use of of-construction is preferred, particularly with a long postmodification. It is as stated by Quirk et al. 1985 that “heavy restrictive postmodification of the noun head constraints the choice of the of- construction” p. 1281. 19.m 1. his daughter‟s arrival ~ the arrival of his daughter 2. his 19-year- old daughter‟s arrival from Swiss ~ the arrival of his 19-year-old daughter from Swiss 37 Particularly with a restrictive modification of the noun head, Quirk et al. 1985 emphasize that the genitive construction is more preferred than the of- phrase, in order to avoid awkwardness, discontinuity, and ambiguity. Thus, the NP in example 19n.1 is more understandable compared to 19n.2. 19.n 1. my frie nd‟s arrival which had been expected for several weeks 2. the arrival of my friend which had been expected for several weeks It is „the arrival‟ which is really expected, not „my friend‟, since the RC modifies the noun head. On the other hand, when a heavy postmodification modifies the modifier of the noun head or the possessor, the of-construction is used. 19.o 1. the arrival of my friend who has been studying in London for two years 2. my friend‟s arrival who has been studying in London for two years The RC directly modifies „my friend‟ instead of „the arrival‟. In other words, the modifier is directly located next to the noun it modifies. Keizer 2007 supports that “of-construction is required in construction where the ADJ can be interpreted as modifying either the genitive noun or a compound noun the first element of which is a bare genitive” p. 311. 19.p a poor doctor ‟s daughter Example 19p can be interpreted that the ADJ „poor‟ modifies the N „daughter‟ or the possessive compound „doctor‟s daughter‟. Therefore, by the use of- construction, the meaning is obvious that the ADJ „poor‟ modifies the N „doctor‟. 19.q the daughter of a poor doctor The of-construction is also preferred when the modifier of the noun head is coordinated or expanded by an apposition Quirk et al, 1985, Keizer, 2007. 38 19.r 1. the arrival of my friend and my brother my friend and brother‟s arrival 2. the arrival of my friend, a student of Cambridge University my friend‟s arrival, a student of Cambridge University

4. Syntactic Complexities in Translating Noun Phrases

A syntactic complexity of an NP already exists in one language due to the presence of an extra hierarchical level within the NP. Givón 2009 provides a definition of complexity as the following. Complexity is a property of organized entities, of organisms, or of systems. Within an organized system, the simple entities may bear relations to the system as a whole, or to its subparts, or to each other. It is by definition a network of nodes and connection, where the nodes stand for either the simplest entities or to more abstract, higher level sub-parts of the system, and the connections stand for the nodes‟ relations within the system p. 1. In this research, complexity refers to the organization of an NP. Entities are described as modifiers; they may bear relation with either the noun head or the other modifiers. The nodes defined by Givón 2009, in this research, refer to either the simplest entity, such as N, ADJ, preposition, or the higher levels, such as N or N. The connections of nodes within the system refer to either sister or daughter. It is illustrated in Figure 2.8. Figure 2.8 2-level hierarchy 39 The ADJ „red‟ is the sister node of the N „carpet‟, while the determiner „the‟ becomes the sister node of the N „red carpet‟. Meanwhile, the N „red carpet‟ is the daughter of N. The NP contains a 2-level hierarchic system, since there is no hierarchic branching below N „carpet‟. The presence of one entity already reveals an extra hierarchical level. Hence, Givón 2009 underlines that “increased complexity is increased hierarchic organization; that is an increase in the number of hierarchic levels within a system” p. 2. By the definition, syntactic complexity appears in some levels of NP structure. The more modifiers appear, the more complex the NP is. It is further explained by Givón 2001 as: The mere presence of a modifier already reveals the existence of an extra hierarchical level, whereby the head noun and the modifier are sister nodes under the higher NP node. Further hierarchic complexity is added when two or more modifiers cluster the same head noun. Further complexity is added when a phrasal modifier comes with its own syntactic structure p. 2. As an example, the phrase „the big barn behind the house‟ contains two modifiers, namely the ADJ „big‟ and PP „behind the house‟. The PP has its own syntactic structure consisting of Preposition + Determiner + Noun. 40 Figure 2.9 Hierarchical levels in NP The syntactic complexity appears because either the noun head is modified by one or more modifiers, or the modifier takes its own modifier with its syntactic structure. The reason is that an extra hierarchical level exists when a modifier appears Givón, 2001. Syntactic complexities occur in the research data gathered from the translation products of ELESP students batch 2010. Most INPs take heavy modifiers. The modification causes particular difficulties in translating the NPs into English. Translating NPs from Indonesian into English, which is called interlingual translation Munday, 2008, involves two distinct verbal languages. Syntactic complexities appear due to the presence of multiple modifiers and the difference of NP structure between both languages. To produce natural translations of INPs in English, the natural structures of ENPs are required. The reason is that translation is transferring the meaning of the source language into the target language using the natural form of the target language Larson, 1984.