buah kiwi yang ranum kiwi fruit which was ripe

81 15.b 1. There is only one komodo in a bedroom; it happens that the komodo is injured. However, the phrase „the Komodo who was in pain‟ means: 15.b 2. There are, for example, two komodos in the bedroom; one is in a good condition, the other one is injured. The intended Komodo in the RC is the one that is injured. Using a restrictive postmodifier restricts the phrase among other similar condition. Since the komodo in the INP is the only one in the bedroom, that happens to be injured, the English modification will be better by an ADJ premodifier, as shown in the third column of Table 4.11. Furthermore, the presence of postmodifier by an ADJ RC seems unnatural in example 15c. The presence of yang is necessary, since the noun head, buah, takes a modifying noun, kiwi. Therefore, when it is postmodified by an ADJ, the ADJ must come in an ADJ RC Sneddon et al., 2010. The English correspondence, „which‟, is not necessary in English, since the NP is natural in an adjectival premodification, as in „ripe kiwi fruits‟. Another case of syntactic complexity in changing postmodifiers into premodifiers reveals in example 16a. The INP buah hasil petikan refers to all harvested kiwi fruits. When it is translated by a restrictive RC in English, as the „fruit which was harvested‟, the meaning changes. It refers to particular fruits; the fruit which are harvested among all kiwi fruits . The context will be „from all kiwi fruits , some have been harvested, while the others have not been harvested‟, and the meaning is peculiar. Instead of using a postmodifier, particularly by a restrictive RC, the meaning will be well-delivered by a premodifier by past participle for a passive construction. Similarly, the RC should be changed into an 82 ADJ premodifier, as example 16b shows. Compared to example 16a, the present participle in 16b is used for the active construction. In conclusion, postmodifiers by RCs preceded by yang are not always translated into RCs in English, especially restrictive RCs. To function restrictive clauses, the context of the NP should be considered. When the NP is already specific, as in 15a-c and 16a-b, there is no need to restrict the NPs by restrictive RCs. Instead, based on examples 15-16, translating the Indonesian RCs by yang into restrictive clauses in English results in unnatural translations. The reason is that the structure of the INP strongly appears in the ENP. It is against the nature of translation, which emphasizes that translation is maintaining the meaning of the source language into the target language using natural structures of the target language Larson, 1984. Based on the analysis, it is evident that syntactic complexity in translating INPs into ENPs exists in the change of Indonesian postmodifiers by RCs into English adjectival premodifiers. Among 314 numbers of incorrect modifications, one of the cases is due to the frequent use of restrictive RCs. The research finds that due to different structures of modification between Indonesian and English, the syntactic complexity occurs in translating the NPs. Therefore, a good comprehension of NP in the source language, Indonesian, and the target language, English, is obligatory in order to produce a good translation.

E. Complexity of Genitive and of-construction

In Indonesian, possessive expression is indicated by the postmodification, in which the possessor follows the noun head possessee. However, in ENPs, 83 there are two syntactic devices of possessive constructions, namely the prenominal genitive and the postnominal of-construction. There are some factors related to the choice of each construction, as discussed in Chapter II. In this case, the syntactic complexity in translating NPs from Indonesian into English occurs in the choice of prenominal genitives and postnominal of-constructions. In the discussion in part B, the different use of these two constructions is found in the correct translations. Nonetheless, the incorrect translations are also found in the case of genitive and of-construction, as presented in the following. Table 4.12 of-construction in postmodified possessor SL TL Acceptable Translation 17 kegelisahan penulis sebagai seorang penggemar dan pemerhati musik jazz the anxiety feelings to the growth of Jazz in Indonesia from the writer the anxiety of the writer as a Jazz lover and observer 18 a. pribadi guru yang dihormati teacher personality which is respected the personality of a respected teacher b. peran sekolah sebagai lembaga yang membentuk karakter guru muda school‟s role as the institution which forms young teachers‟ character the role of school as the institution to build the characters of young teachers c. selera dan cita-cita orang- orang muda yang mau menapaki dunia pendidikan youth‟s desire and passion who want to enter educational world the passion and aspiration of the youths to be teachers to commit in the field of education Genitive versus of-phrase, Appendix 4 number 14, 36, 28, 34 The presence of postmodifiers following the possessors causes a certain difficulty in translating the NPs into English. All of the translated NPs presented in Table 4.12 are incorrect forms of possessive constructions in postmodified possessors. As an instance, the possessor noun in 17 is modified by a quite long apposition. For a long postmodification of possessors, the of-phrase is preferred. In the translation, the PP „from the writer‟ is used to express the possession. 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