Complexity of Phrase Noun Head 1. Incorrect Headword

58 It contrasts with the meaning of the INP. 6.b the front part of a particular house, in this context Uncle Grasshopper‟s house Since the noun head in the INP is depan „front‟, the English version should be „front‟ as an N. Modified by an N, the whole NP should be „the front of his house ‟. In this context, the definite article „the‟ refers to a definite reference Quirk et al., 1985 , namely Uncle Grasshopper‟s house. For convenience, Figure 4.3 shows the syntactic structure of the correct translation. Figure 4.3 Correct translation of Determiner + Head + Complement Obviously, the structures of the NPs shown in Figures 4.2 and 4.3 are completely different. In Figure 4.3 , „front‟ is the noun head modified by a PP „of his house‟ functioning as a complement. From the analysis, it is concluded that the syntactic complexity exists because of different noun heads between INPs and ENPs, which results in different structures of NPs. Consequently, the inconsistent noun heads cause distinct meanings from that of the INPs. Other cases of incorrect noun head in the English translations also occur in the following examples in Table 4.6. 59 Table 4.6 Incorrect noun head in complex modification SL TL Acceptable Translation 7 lurik motif tumbar pecah the motif of Lurik Tumbar Pecah Lurik with Tumbar Pecah motif 8 pusat penghasil buah kiwi di Selandia Baru itu the central kiwi fruit production in New Zealand the centre of kiwi fruit production in New Zealand Complexity of Phrase Noun head, Appendix 2 number 213, 31 Compared to example 6, the modification in examples 7-8 are more complex. It consists of several attributive Ns that modify different Ns. In example 8, the noun head of the INP is lurik followed by the attributive NP motif Tumbar Pecah. In translating NPs containing several attributive Ns, it requires a careful analysis in determining whether the modifier modifies the noun head or other attributive Ns. In example 7, the attributive N Tumbar Pecah modifies the other attributive N motif, forming a constituent motif Tumbar Pecah. It means that Tumbar Pecah refers to one of the names of Lurik patterns. Then, this constituent, motif Tumbar Pecah, modifies the noun head Lurik. Figure 4.4 Head + Attributive NP It explicitly means: 7.a Lurik with a motif named Tumbar Pecah Nonetheless, the English translation „the motif of Lurik Tumbar Pecah‟ carries a distinct meaning. The head is „motif‟, whereas the modifier is a PP 60 complement „of Lurik Tumbar Pecah‟. The word Tumbar Pecah, however, refers to the name of Lurik, instead of the motif. As a whole, the translated NP means: 7.b motif Lurik Tumbar Pecah The acceptable translation is „Lurik with Tumbar Pecah motif‟. The headword is Lurik, while the PP functions as an adjunct, as shown in Figure 4.5. Figure 4.5 Head + Adjunct In addition to wrong noun head of the ENP, example 8 presents a particular case of long postmodification by attributive Ns. The noun head of the entire NP in example 8 is pusat. The head is followed by the attributive NP penghasil buah kiwi, the PP di Selandia Baru, and ended by the demonstrative itu. Figure 4.6 Head + Attributive Nouns + PP + Demonstrative 61 Figure 4.6 shows that kiwi modifies buah to be buah kiwi, then the NP buah kiwi modifies penghasil becoming penghasil buah kiwi. This constituent, penghasil buah kiwi, as a whole, modifies the noun head pusat „centre‟. The new constituent, pusat penghasil buah kiwi, takes another modifier by a PP di Selandia Baru „in New Zealand‟. Finally, the entire phrase is ended by the demonstrative itu. The use of itu indicates a definite reference, which is previously mentioned. Therefore, it is translated into „the‟, instead of „that‟ Sneddon et al., 2010. Semantically, the NP carries meaning: 8.a the kiwi fruit production in New Zealand is the center of kiwi productions around the world The syntactic complexity emerges due to the multiple modification by attributive Ns. Therefore, recognizing the noun headword of the INP is so important that the NP can be translated correctly into English. In example 8, the translation fails to organize the structure of the INP, so it causes the meaning change. It turns to be „the central kiwi fruit production in New Zealand‟. The difference is that the noun head of the INP is pusat, but in the ENP is „production‟. The word „central‟ pusattengah functions as an ADJ modifying the NP „kiwi fruit production‟ penghasil buah kiwi. Structurally, it is illustrated in Figure 4.7. 62 Figure 4.7 Wrong noun head In Indonesian version, the translation carries meaning: 8.b produksi pusat buah kiwi di Selandia Baru itu The translation, even, sounds ungrammatical in the Indonesian. Semantically, it may mean: 8.c among some kiwi fruit productions in New Zealand, it is the one located in the central location or central New Zealand. Although the ENP semantically contains the meanings of pusat and penghasil, the meaning of the entire NP is not conveyed in the target language. In short, different noun heads result in distinct meanings, even the ungrammaticality of the NP, as shown by example 8b. Based on the analysis on the structure of the original NP, the translation should be: 8.d „the centre of kiwi fruit production in New Zealand‟ Quirk et al. 1985 underline that postmodification shows more explicitness compared to premodification. Compared to „the kiwi fruit production centre‟, the NP „the centre of kiwi fruit production‟ is more explicit. This explicitness is 63 shown by the complement PP and the adjunct PP. By the use of complex modification, there is a hierarchical structure within the complement PP itself, „centre of kiwi fruit production‟. The phrase „kiwi fruit‟ becomes a complement NP of „production‟ resulting a new NP, „kiwi fruit production‟. This NP is premodified by a preposition becoming the complement of the noun head, „centre‟. Then, the entire constituent is postmodified by the adjunct PP „in New Zealand ‟. Figure 4.8 Determiner + Head + Complement PP + Adjunct PP Radford 1988 emphasizes that only N-bar can be pronominalised by the pro-N-bar, one. Because „centre of kiwi fruit production‟ is an N-bar, it can be proformed by the pro-N-bar, one, as: 8.e 1. Which centre of kiwi fruit production? The one in New Zealand. 2. Which centre of kiwi fruit production in New Zealand? This one. Based on the analysis discussed, it is concluded that due to incorrect noun head, both the structure and meaning of the ENP change. Consequently, the translation fails to convey the meaning of the INP. In order to produce acceptable 64 translations, a careful analysis is required in investigating the noun head of the INP, particularly NPs with a heavy modification by attributive Ns, as demonstrated in example 8. A heavy modification carries a syntactic complexity in determining the N to which a modifier modifies or the „what modifies what‟. Failure in determining the noun head of the INP can lead to the ungrammaticality of the NP in English. Therefore, recognizing the noun head of the INP becomes great importance before translating the NP into English. Based on the examples provided, the noun head of the INP is located in the beginning of the phrase. Translated into English, the position of the head can be either in the beginning of the phrase preceded by a determiner, as it is postmodified, or in the end of the phrase, as it is premodified.

2. Predicate Nominalisation by -nya

The research also finds that a syntactic complexity exists in translating nominalized predicates by –nya from Indonesian into English. Sneddon et al. 1996 mention that –nya functions to nominalize the predicate of a clause into an NP. The predicate attached –nya indicates the noun head of the NP Sneddon et al., 1996. It occurs in the examples provided in Table 4.7. 65 Table 4.7 Complexity in translating NP with predicate nominalisation by -nya SL TL Acceptable Translation 9 Tulisan singkat ini, sejujurnya, lahir dari kegelisahan penulis sebagai seorang penggemar dan pemerhati musik jazz, oleh masih sangat minimnya perhatian masyarakat, terutama Indonesia, terhadap jenis musik ini. The writer assumed that people of Indonesian have lack of attention to this kind of music . This writing came from the anxiety of the writer as a Jazz lover and observer due to little attention of the public, especially Indonesians, to this type of music . 10 Letaknya yang jauh dari daratan Asia menyebabkan industri perikanan di sana berkembang dengan pesat. The location is far from the mainland of Asia led to the fishing industry growing rapidly. a Being located far from the mainland of Asia makes fishery industry in Japan grow rapidly. b Because the location is far from the mainland of Asia , fishery industry grows rapidly in Japan. Complexity of Phrase Noun head, Appendix 2, number 75, 147 The function of –nya inserted in the predicate is to nominalize the predicate. When the predicate is nominalised by –nya, the subject of the basic clause becomes the possessor Sneddon, 1996, as illustrated in 9a-b. Basic clause: 9.a Perhatian masyarakat, terutama Indonesia, terhadap jenis musik ini masih sangat minim. Nominalized predicate: 9.b masih sangat minimnya perhatian masyarakat, terutama Indonesia, terhadap jenis musik ini Translating a nominalized predicate or a nominalised ADJ requires certain consideration. Sometimes, a literal translation is not appropriate in translating NPs containing nominalized predicates, as Sneddon 1996 mentions that “if there is another component of the predicate before the verb or the ADJ, a literal translation into English is often difficult, requiring a paraphrase to be used” p. 66 137. Therefore, it raises a syntactic complexity, since a literal translation is not appropriate to translate the nominalised predicates. The translations in example 9 try to paraphrase the NP into a dependant clause. However, the paraphrasing is not acceptable due to the ungrammaticality of the clause. The word choice „have lack of attention‟ in 9 is not grammatical in English. The meaning of „lack‟ in Indonesian is kekurangan. It is distinct from the meaning of the INP, sangat minim or sangat sedikit. The acceptable word choice should be „very few‟ or „little‟. Furthermore, the phrase contains a possessive expression in which the possessor is expanded by an apposition, like perhatian masyarakat, terutama Indonesia. According to Quirk et al. 1985, of-phrase is preferred when the modifier is expanded by an apposition. Therefore, the translation will be acceptable like: 9.c This writing came from the anxiety of the writer as a Jazz lover and observer due to very few little attention of the public, especially Indonesians, to this type of music. Other than by an NP, it can be paraphrased by a dependant clause, such as: 9.d This writing came from the anxiety of the writer as a Jazz lover and observer because majority people, especially Indonesians, have little attention to this type of music . A little modification is made in the phrase „majority people‟, in order to show the general reference of the apposition. The paraphrasing is also required in translating an N modified by –nya followed by an RC, as in example 10. In this case, the suffix -nya is not to nominalise the predicate. In fact, it is a possessive pronoun for singular noun „it‟ 67 referring to the word „Japan‟. An analogy is provided in order to make the explanation clear. Basic clause: 10.a Nilai Ratna tinggi. Hal ini membuat orang tua bangga. Ratna gets high score. It makes her parents proud. The two clauses in example 10a can be combined by nominalising the first clause to be the subject of the combined clause. Nominalized clause by yang: 10.b Nilainya yang tinggi membuat orang tua bangga. Her high score makes Ratna‟s parents proud. The proclitic -nya in nilainya functions as a possessive pronoun replacing Ratna. Besides, the functions of the word tinggi in 10a and 10b are different. In 10a, tinggi is a predicative ADJ, but in 10b it is a nominalised predicate by preposing the particle yang. The proclitic -nya as a possessive pronoun is applied in the noun head in example 10d. Basic clause: 10.c Letak Jepang jauh dari daratan Asia. Hal ini menyebabkan industri perikanan di sana berkembang dengan pesat. Nominalised clause: 10.d Letaknya yang jauh dari daratan Asia menyebabkan industry perikanan di sana berkembang dengan pesat. The literal translation of the NP written in bold will be: 10.e its far location from the mainland of Asia The translation, however, sounds not natural in English. In this case, a paraphrasing is required since a literal translation will be unacceptable in English. The research finds that the NP is paraphrased into an independent clause being the subject of the entire sentence, shown in the second column in Table 4.7. 68 Consequently, the sentence is not grammatical. Following Sneddon‟s 1996 theory that a paraphrasing is required in a nominalised predicate, the NP should turn into a dependant clause, as in the following. 10.f 1. Being located far from the mainland of Asia makes fishery industry in Japan grow rapidly. or 10.f 2. Because the location is far from the mainland of Asia, fishery industry grows rapidly in Japan. In conclusion, an NP containing a nominalized predicate by -nya requires a particular analysis in translating the NP into English. A paraphrasing is necessary to translate NPs containing predicate nominalisation, because a literal translation will not be appropriate Sneddon, 1996. To conclude, the syntactic complexity appears in the case of paraphrasing NPs into dependant clauses. The paraphrasing is necessary to convey the meaning of the INP in the natural structures of the ENP.

D. Complexity of Modification

The most frequent syntactic complexity found in the translation products of batch 2010 students of ELESP is modification case, consisting of 314 numbers. The syntactic complexities exist because of the presence of hierarchic complexity in an NP. The more modifiers cluster within a noun head, the more complex the NP is. It is explained further by Givón 2001 as: The mere presence of a modifier already reveals the existence of an extra hierarchical level, whereby the noun head and the modifier are sister nodes under the higher NP node. Further hierarchic complexity is added when two or more modifiers cluster the same noun head. Further complexity is added when a phrasal modifier comes with its own syntactic structure p. 2. 69 The following section focuses particularly on the cases of modification. In translating NPs from Indonesian into English, the syntactic complexities in modification include several cases, such as incorrect modification, passive-active form, and change of modification. Each of the cases is discussed as follows.

1. Incorrect Modification

The existence of more than one modifiers within an NP raises a syntactic complexity as presented by the following example in Table 4.8. Table 4.8 Wrong modification by adjunct and complement SL TL Acceptable Translation 11 penguasa Kerajaan Majapahit yang ke-6 the sixth Majapahit leader the sixth empress of Majapahit Kingdom Complexity of Modification, Appendix 3 number 302 Although the possessive expression, such as Presiden Indonesia ke-4 in part B, is correctly translated into English, the research finds that a similar case shown in example 11 is incorrectly translated into English. The noun head, penguasa, is modified by two modifiers; they are the modifying NP Kerajaan Majapahit and the ordinal number preceded by yang which forms an ADJ RC yang ke-6. The order follows Sneddon et al. ‟s 2010 theory that an RC comes after a modifying N. Macdonald 1972 also adds that the use of yang after the modifying NP, such as in buku sejarah yang lama, indicates that the RC is construed with the noun head, in this case, penguasa. The translated NP provided in the second column of Table 4.8 is not grammatical. In that word order, the ordinal number „sixth‟ seems to modify „Majapahit‟, instead of the head „leader‟. By positioning a prenominal modifier, „Majapahit‟, between the ordinal number and noun head, the 70 ungrammaticality occurs. Furthermore , the word choice „leader‟ is not suitable for translating penguasa, since the context is a kingdom. To be specific, the head penguasa should be translated into „empress‟ instead of „leader‟, regarding that the context is a kingdom and it refers to a female emperor. In translating the NP, penguasa Kerajaan Majapahit yang ke-6, it should be noted that between the two modifiers of the translated version , „Majapahit Kingdom‟ and „the sixth‟, one functions as a complement and the other one as an adjunct. The modifying NP Kerajaan Majapahit changes into a complement PP „of Majapahit Kingdom‟. Combined with the noun head, the NP becomes an N- bar, „empress of Majapahit Kingdom‟. Then, the ordinal number functions as an attribute that modifies the N-bar. Finally, the definite article, „the‟, expands the N- bar into N-double bar. As a whole, the correct translation of penguasa Kerajaan Majapahit yang ke-6 is „the sixth empress of Majapahit Kingdom‟. Figure 4.9 Determiner + Attribute + Head + Complement The N-bar position can be replaced by the pro-N-bar, one, as: 11.a The sixth [empress of Majapahit Kingdom] is more popular than the first one.