Complexity of Genitive and of-construction
84 However, the intervention of the
PP „to the growth of Jazz in Indonesia‟ causes a meaning discontinuity between the noun head,
„anxiety feelings‟, and the possessor,
„from the writer‟. Consequently, the NP becomes unclear. Translated into Indonesian, the NP will be:
17.a the anxiety feelings to the growth of Jazz in Indonesia from the writer
~perasaan gelisah terhadap perkembangan Jazz di Indonesia dari penulis
It carries a different meaning from that of the INP. Therefore, the translation is inappropriate. Besides, the ENP does not convey the meaning of the INP. The
meaning carried by the Indonesian apposition is not rendered in the translation. To avoid the meaning discontinuity and ambiguity, the of-phrase is functioned Quirk
et al., 1985; Keizer, 2007. The acceptable phrase should be „the anxiety of the writer‟. Then, the apposition follows the noun it modifies. Completely, the
acceptable NP is „the anxiety of the writer as a Jazz lover and observer‟. In addition, the ambiguity is evident in example 18a. The RC in the
original NP can be interpreted to modify either pribadi or guru, as in: 18.a 1. pribadi yang dihormati
2. guru yang dihormati However, 2 is more logical compared to 1. To clarify the NP, dari can be added
between the head, pribadi, and the possessor, guru Sneddon et al., 2010, such as pribadi dari guru. Explicitly, the phrase, as a whole, means:
18.a 3. pribadi dari guru yang dihormati To conclude, it is clear that yang dihormati modifies guru. Then, guru yang
dihormati modifies the noun head, pribadi. However, the translated version is not
85 correct. Regarding that the relative pronoun is „which‟, the RC „which is
respected‟ modifies „personality‟, rather than „teacher‟. It would be better that the modifier „respected‟ is positioned close to the noun it modifies, as in „a respected
teacher‟. 18.a 4. the personality of a respected teacher
5. a respected teacher‟s personality Compared to the prenominal genitive 5, the postnominal genitive 4 provides a
clearer interpretation. The reason is that the ADJ „respected‟ in the prenominal
genitive may be interpreted to modify the noun „teacher‟ or the possessive compound,
„teacher‟s personality‟ Keizer, 2007. Therefore, by using the of- construction, the modif
ier „respected‟ obviously modifies „teacher‟. Furthermore, the syntactic complexity in genitive construction is found in
example 18b. A heavy postmodification in an NP causes a particular difficulty to translate the NP into English. In example 18b-c, the apposition sebagai lembaga
yang membentuk karakter guru muda modifies the word sekolah functioning as a possessor. Similarly, the RC yang mau menapaki dunia pendidikan in 18c
modifies the possessor orang-orang muda. According to Quirk et al. 1985, when a heavy postmodification modifies the modifier possessor, the of-phrase is
preferred. The use of the genitive construction raises meaning ambiguity and
discontinuity in the ENPs in examples 18b-c. In particular, example 18b contains two constructions of possession, namely peran sekolah and karakter
guru muda. The meaning of the translated NP is ambiguous, since it is the role, which functions as the institution, not the school. The meaning discontinuity
86 occurs in the modifier
which forms young teacher’s character. The intended meaning is that the school forms characters, in particular the characters of young
teachers. Therefore, the prenominal genitive construction is not appropriate when a heavy modification modifies the modifier of the noun head. In order to avoid
meaning ambiguity and discontinuity, the of-phrase is preferred in both possessive constructions in example 18b. The acceptable NPs should be in the third column
of Table 4.12. Similarly, in example 18c, with a prenominal genitive, it is the desire that
wants to commit the field of education, not the youth. In this NP, recognizing the noun that the modifier modifies plays a great role in translating the NP. Following
the theory proposed by Quirk et al. 1985, the correct NP should be „the passion and aspiration of the youths to be teachers to commit in the field of education‟.
By using an of-phrase, the continuity of the meaning is clear. Besides, the modifier can be located next to the noun it modifies, in order to prevent the
ambiguity and discontinuity of meaning. To conclude, the of-phrase becomes the choice for NPs with postmodified possessors.
Table 4.13 Case of prenominal genitive
SL TL
Acceptable Translation
19 kisah cinta komodo love story of komodo
the komodo‟s love story 20
beban yang semakin menindih
the life‟s burden which gets complicated
the complicated burden of life
Genitive versus of-phrase, Appendix 4 number 15, 19, 28, 34
As postnominal genitives are frequently used in a heavy postmodification, the prenominal genitives are preferred in short NPs. For example, the NP in 19
is better translated by a prenominal genitive, as shown in the third column of
87 Table 4.13, because the possessor is simple and not modified. The use of of-
construction in the translation is not grammatical, since it lacks of determiners in the possessor noun. In fact, the definiteness is indicated by the presence of
determiners in the superordinate NP and the modifier or possessor Quirk et al., 1985. The
definiteness of the superordinate NP „love story‟ and the possessor „komodo‟ is not shown in example 19. Therefore, the translation appears
ungrammatical. The acceptable translation will be „the komodo‟s love story‟, with
the definite article referring to one particular komodo, named Indo. Another syntactic complexity emerges in example 20. Based on the
gender factor explained by Quirk et al. 1985, the of-phrase is required when the superordinate phrases are inanimate things. The noun head or the superordinate
phrase in example 20 is „burden‟, so the phrase should be „the burden of life‟.
However, the phrase in the INP is further modified by an RC yang semakin menindih. The RC can turn into an ADJ premodifier
„complicated‟. As a whole, the acceptable translation is „the complicated burden of life‟. To conclude, the
syntactic complexity in translating possessive expressions from INPs into ENPs appears in the choice between prenominal genitives and postnominal of-
constructions. There are some factors in the choice of each construction. Therefore, a good comprehension about the NP structures of the two languages is
necessary in translation.
88