A study on translating noun phrases from Indonesian into English : syntactic complexities.

ABSTRACT

Pratiwi, Vincensia Dian Ratna. (2015). A Study on Translating Noun Phrases from Indonesian into English: Syntactic Complexities. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Programme, Sanata Dharma University.

A noun phrase is one of the lexicological units in translation that carries meanings. The different structures of noun phrases in Indonesian, as the source language, and English, as the target language, cause syntactic complexities in translating the noun phrases. The mere presence of a modifier already reveals an extra hierarchical level of noun phrase structure. The complexities existed in the translation products of the students of the English Language Education Study Programme batch 2010 in Sanata Dharma University.

The research aimed to investigate the syntactic complexities in translating noun phrases from Indonesian into English. Noun phrases were selected as the focus of the research.

To answer the research question, the researcher used a content analysis. The data were taken from twelve texts of translation from Indonesian into English gained through purposive random sampling. The structure of noun phrases included in the data was limited to noun head modified by minimal one modifier. From twelve texts of translation, 1044 noun phrases were found. The noun phrases were examined by comparing the structure and meaning in the source language and the target language to find the syntactic complexities.

The findings showed that the syntactic complexities in translating noun phrases from Indonesian into English consisted of three major parts, namely the complexity of phrase noun head, the complexity of modification, and the complexity of genitive and of-construction. Of 1044 data of noun phrases, 406 were correctly translated into English, while 638 were incorrectly translated due to the three major cases of syntactic complexities. The complexities occurred because of the difference of noun phrase structures between Indonesian and English.

Keywords: noun phrase, translation, syntactic complexities

viii ABSTRAK

Pratiwi, Vincensia Dian Ratna. (2015). A Study on Translating Noun Phrases from Indonesian into English: Syntactic Complexities. Yogyakarta: Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Frasa nomina adalah salah satu unit leksikologi yang membawa arti dalam terjemahan. Adanya perbedaan struktur frasa nomina antara Bahasa Indonesia, sebagai bahasa asal, dan Bahasa Inggris, sebagai bahasa target, menyebabkan kompleksitas sintaksis dalam penerjemahan frasa nomina. Keberadaan satu pewatas telah menunjukkan adanya tingkat hirarkis tambahan dalam struktur frasa nomina. Kompleksitas ini terdapat di hasil terjemahan mahasiswa Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris angkatan 2010 di Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Penelitian ini bertujuan meneliti kompleksitas sintaksis dalam menerjemahkan frasa nomina dari Bahasa Indonesia ke Bahasa Inggris. Frasa nomina dipilih sebagai fokus dari penelitian.

Untuk menjawab masalah penelitian, peneliti melakukan analisis dokumen. Data diambil dari dua belas (12) teks terjemahan dari Bahasa Indonesia ke Inggris, yang didapat dengan purposeful random sampling. Struktur frasa nomina yang masuk dalam data dibatasi pada nomina utama yang dimodifikasi oleh minimal satu pewatas. Dari dua belas (12) teks terjemahan, ditemukan 1044 frasa nomina. Frasa nomina tersebut diteliti dengan membandingkan struktur dan arti di bahasa asal dan bahasa target untuk mendapatkan kompleksitas sintaksis.

Hasil menunjukkan bahwa kompleksitas sintaksis dalam menerjemahkan frasa nomina dari Bahasa Indonesia ke Bahasa Inggris meliputi tiga bagian utama, yakni kompleksitas nomina utama, kompleksitas modifikasi, serta kompleksitas genetif dan konstruksi of. Dari 1044 data frasa nomina, 406 diterjemahkan dengan benar ke dalam Bahasa Inggris, sedangkan 638 diterjemahkan secara tidak benar oleh karena ketiga masalah utama kompleksitas sintaksis. Kompleksitas tersebut terjadi karena adanya perbedaan struktur frasa nomina antara Bahasa Indonesia dan Bahasa Inggris.

A STUDY ON TRANSLATING NOUN PHRASES FROM

INDONESIAN INTO ENGLISH: SYNTACTIC

COMPLEXITIES

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By

Vincensia Dian Ratna Pratiwi Student number: 101214004

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

i

A STUDY ON TRANSLATING NOUN PHRASES FROM

INDONESIAN INTO ENGLISH: SYNTACTIC

COMPLEXITIES

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By

Vincensia Dian Ratna Pratiwi Student number: 101214004

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

Mama & Bapak

this is

all I can dedicate to them now

Too rarely

I make them smile and laugh. Too frequently

I hurt their hearts.

Through their prayers, trust, smile, and true love they take me

to the gate of the brighter life we hope.

Nothing I could say other than thank them

for their total everlasting love and

sorry

for my mistakes that hurt them

v

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY

I honestly declare that this thesis, which I have written, does not contain the work or parts of the work of other people, except those cited in the quotations and the references, as a scientific paper should.

Yogyakarta, 10 September 2015

The Writer

Vincensia Dian Ratna Pratiwi 101214004

vi

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN

PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS

Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma: Nama : Vincensia Dian Ratna Pratiwi

Nomor Mahasiswa : 101214004

Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:

A STUDY ON TRANSLATING NOUN PHRASES FROM INDONESIAN INTO ENGLISH: SYNTACTIC COMPLEXITIES

beserta perangkat yang diperlukan. Dengan demikian saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpan, mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data, mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikannya di Internet atau media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta ijin dari saya maupun royalti kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis. Demikian pernyataan ini saya buat dengan sebenarnya.

Dibuat di Yogyakarta

Pada tanggal: 10 September 2015

Yang menyatakan

vii ABSTRACT

Pratiwi, Vincensia Dian Ratna. (2015). A Study on Translating Noun Phrases from Indonesian into English: Syntactic Complexities. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Programme, Sanata Dharma University.

A noun phrase is one of the lexicological units in translation that carries meanings. The different structures of noun phrases in Indonesian, as the source language, and English, as the target language, cause syntactic complexities in translating the noun phrases. The mere presence of a modifier already reveals an extra hierarchical level of noun phrase structure. The complexities existed in the translation products of the students of the English Language Education Study Programme batch 2010 in Sanata Dharma University.

The research aimed to investigate the syntactic complexities in translating noun phrases from Indonesian into English. Noun phrases were selected as the focus of the research.

To answer the research question, the researcher used a content analysis. The data were taken from twelve texts of translation from Indonesian into English gained through purposive random sampling. The structure of noun phrases included in the data was limited to noun head modified by minimal one modifier. From twelve texts of translation, 1044 noun phrases were found. The noun phrases were examined by comparing the structure and meaning in the source language and the target language to find the syntactic complexities.

The findings showed that the syntactic complexities in translating noun phrases from Indonesian into English consisted of three major parts, namely the complexity of phrase noun head, the complexity of modification, and the complexity of genitive and of-construction. Of 1044 data of noun phrases, 406 were correctly translated into English, while 638 were incorrectly translated due to the three major cases of syntactic complexities. The complexities occurred because of the difference of noun phrase structures between Indonesian and English.

Keywords: noun phrase, translation, syntactic complexities

viii ABSTRAK

Pratiwi, Vincensia Dian Ratna. (2015). A Study on Translating Noun Phrases from Indonesian into English: Syntactic Complexities. Yogyakarta: Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Frasa nomina adalah salah satu unit leksikologi yang membawa arti dalam terjemahan. Adanya perbedaan struktur frasa nomina antara Bahasa Indonesia, sebagai bahasa asal, dan Bahasa Inggris, sebagai bahasa target, menyebabkan kompleksitas sintaksis dalam penerjemahan frasa nomina. Keberadaan satu pewatas telah menunjukkan adanya tingkat hirarkis tambahan dalam struktur frasa nomina. Kompleksitas ini terdapat di hasil terjemahan mahasiswa Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris angkatan 2010 di Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Penelitian ini bertujuan meneliti kompleksitas sintaksis dalam menerjemahkan frasa nomina dari Bahasa Indonesia ke Bahasa Inggris. Frasa nomina dipilih sebagai fokus dari penelitian.

Untuk menjawab masalah penelitian, peneliti melakukan analisis dokumen. Data diambil dari dua belas (12) teks terjemahan dari Bahasa Indonesia ke Inggris, yang didapat dengan purposeful random sampling. Struktur frasa nomina yang masuk dalam data dibatasi pada nomina utama yang dimodifikasi oleh minimal satu pewatas. Dari dua belas (12) teks terjemahan, ditemukan 1044 frasa nomina. Frasa nomina tersebut diteliti dengan membandingkan struktur dan arti di bahasa asal dan bahasa target untuk mendapatkan kompleksitas sintaksis.

Hasil menunjukkan bahwa kompleksitas sintaksis dalam menerjemahkan frasa nomina dari Bahasa Indonesia ke Bahasa Inggris meliputi tiga bagian utama, yakni kompleksitas nomina utama, kompleksitas modifikasi, serta kompleksitas genetif dan konstruksi of. Dari 1044 data frasa nomina, 406 diterjemahkan dengan benar ke dalam Bahasa Inggris, sedangkan 638 diterjemahkan secara tidak benar oleh karena ketiga masalah utama kompleksitas sintaksis. Kompleksitas tersebut terjadi karena adanya perbedaan struktur frasa nomina antara Bahasa Indonesia dan Bahasa Inggris.

ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to address my gratitude to Jesus Christ. He has created all of the miracles in my life up to now. He is also the one sending His hands through all the great people in my life.

I would like to express my gratefulness and love to my beloved parents, Plasidus Haryoto and Valentina Munarti. Through their endless love, sincerity, prayers, trust, and support, I can grow to reach the dreams and complete this thesis. I send my appreciation and deepest thanks to my aunt, Siwi Prapti Ningsih, who has encouraged me to make the choice and be responsible for my own choice. I also thank her true love, prayers, sincerity and support.

Besides, I am really indebted to Father Kisher, S.J. and Mrs. Dwi Hartiningsih, S.H., who supported me financially during studying in Sanata Dharma University. I truly thank Bandang, for his kindness, support, and great effort to help me make all of these come true. They become His instruments to open the way to reach my dreams.

It is really an honor for me to thank all PBI lecturers, who have taught me and shared their knowledge and life stories. I send my gratitude to my advisor, Carla Sih Prabandari, S.Pd., M.Hum., for her patience, advice, trust and support during the completion of this thesis. My deepest gratitude also goes to my academic advisor, Caecilia Tutyandari, S.Pd., M.Pd., for her sincerity, trust, and encouragement. I also thank my lecturer, Drs. Barli Bram, M.Ed., Ph.D., who has inspired me in finishing my thesis. Besides, I address my gratefulness to Laurentia Sumarni, S.Pd., M.Trans.St., for permitting me to get the printed translation projects in her class for conducting my research.

Furthermore, I really thank all of my friends in the ELESP USD, particularly my dearest Caroline and Priska, for always being there to share the ups and downs together, and also Mona, Monic, Duma, Venta, Galuh, and Tere, for their sincerity and continuous support for me in completing the thesis. Thank them for the sharing and wonderful experiences during the college years in Sanata Dharma University.

x

I express my gratitude to those that I cannot mention one by one. It has been a great opportunity to study and experience a lot in Sanata Dharma University. May God always bless them all.

xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TITLE PAGE ... i

APPROVAL PAGES ... ii

DEDICATION PAGE ... iv

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ... v

PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ... vi

ABSTRACT ... vii

ABSTRAK ... viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... xi

LIST OF TABLES ... xiv

LIST OF FIGURES ... xv

LIST OF APPENDICES ... xvi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ... xvii

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ... 1

A.Research Background ... 1

B.Problem Formulation ... 4

C.Problem Limitation ... 4

D.Research Objective ... 5

E.Research Benefits ... 5

F. Definition of Terms ... 6

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ... 8

A.Theoretical Description ... 8

1. Components of Noun Phrase in Indonesian ... 8

a. Premodifiers ... 8

1). Quantifiers ... 8

xii

b. Postmodifiers ... 10

1). Demonstratives ... 10

2). Modifying Nouns ... 12

3). Possessors ... 14

4). Adjectives ... 15

5). Relative Clauses ... 16

c. The Order of Postmodifiers in Indonesian NP ... 17

d. Nominalised Predicate by –nya ... 17

2. Components of English Noun Phrase ... 19

a. Determiner ... 19

b. Postmodifiers of the English Noun Phrase ... 20

1). Nominal Postmodifier ... 21

2). Relative Clause ... 24

a). Restrictive Relative Clause ... 24

b). Nonrestrictive Relative Clause ... 25

c. Multiple Postmodification ... 26

d. Premodifiers of the English Noun Phrase ... 28

1). Nominal Premodifier ... 28

2). Adjectival Premodifier ... 31

e. Multiple Premodification in English Noun Phrase ... 32

3. Prenominal Genitive ‘s versus Postnominal of-construction ... 33

4. Syntactic Complexities in Translating Noun Phrases ... 38

5. Review of Previous Studies ... 41

B.Theoretical Framework ... 42

CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 44

A.Research Method ... 44

B.Research Setting ... 45

C.Research Participant or Subjects ... 46

xiii

E.Data Analysis Technique ... 47

F. Research Procedure ... 49

CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ... 51

A. Overview of the Translation Products ... 51

B. Correct Translation ... 52

C. Complexity of Phrase Noun Head ... 56

1. Incorrect Headword ... 56

2. Predicate Nominalization by –nya ... 64

D. Complexity of Modification ... 68

1. Incorrect Modification ... 69

2. Passive-Active Form ... 73

3. Change of Modification ... 78

E. Complexity of Genitive and of-construction ... 82

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ... 88

A.Conclusions ... 88

B.Implications ... 90

REFERENCES ... 93

xiv

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

Table 3.1 Table of data analysis ... 48

Table 4.1 Number of case occurrence ... 51

Table 4.2 Correct translation of NP modified by demonstrative ... 53

Table 4.3 Correct translation of NP modified by relative clause and modifying noun ... 53

Table 4.4 Correct translation of possessive expression ... 55

Table 4.5 Incorrect noun head in simple modification ... 57

Table 4.6 Incorrect noun head in complex modification ... 59

Table 4.7 Complexity in translating NP with predicate nominalization by –nya ... 65

Table 4.8 Wrong modification by adjunct and complement ... 69

Table 4.9 Incorrect modification in coordinated modifiers ... 71

Table 4.10 Passive verb in Indonesian changes into active in English ... 74

Table 4.11 Indonesian postmodifier changes into English premodifier ... 79

Table 4.12 of-construction in postmodified possessor ... 83

xv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

Figure 2.1 ADJ modifies modifying noun ... 13

Figure 2.2 ADJ modifies Head + Modifying Noun ... 13

Figure 2.3 Noun Head + Adjunct ... 22

Figure 2.4 Noun Head + Complement ... 23

Figure 2.5 Multiple Postmodification ... 27

Figure 2.6 Complement + Noun Head ... 32

Figure 2.7 Attribute + Noun Head ... 32

Figure 2.8 2-level hierarchy ... 38

Figure 2.9 Hierarchical levels in NP ... 40

Figure 4.1 Correct translation of Determiner + Adjunct + Head + Complement ... 54

Figure 4.2 Determiner + Adjunct + Head ... 57

Figure 4.3 Correct translation of Determiner + Head + Complement ... 58

Figure 4.4 Head + Attributive NP ... 59

Figure 4.5 Head + Adjunct ... 60

Figure 4.6 Head + Attributive Nouns + PP + Demonstrative ... 60

Figure 4.7 Wrong noun head ... 62

Figure 4.8 Determiner + Head + Complement PP + Adjunct PP ... 63

Figure 4.9 Determiner + Attribute + Head + Complement ... 70

Figure 4.10 Postmodifier in coordinated nouns ... 72

xvi

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

Appendix 1 Correct Translation of Noun Phrases ... 95

Appendix 2 Complexity of Phrase Noun Head ... 112

Appendix 3 Complexity of Modification ... 126

Appendix 4 Complexity of Genitive and of-phrase ... 141

xvii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ADJ : Adjective

ADJ RC : Adjectival Relative Clause

ENP : English Noun Phrase

N : Noun

NP : Noun Phrase

Noun Head + minimal 1 Mod. : A Noun Head modified by minimal one modifier

PP : Prepositional Phrase

INP : Indonesian Noun Phrase

1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

This section provides the introduction of the study. It is divided into several parts, namely the research background, research problem, problem limitation, research objectives, research benefits, and definition of terms.

A. Research Background

Translation is not merely changing words from one language into another. Larson (1984) defines translation as transferring the meaning of the source language into the target language using the natural form of the target language. The meaning is carried by the unit of translation. Vinay and Darbelnet (as cited in Hatim and Munday, 2004) define the unit of translation as “the smallest segment of the utterance whose signs are linked in such a way that they should not be translated individually” (p. 18). It is, then, called the lexicological unit; lexical elements grouped together to form a single element of thought.

In this study, the lexicological unit being investigated is noun phrases. The source language is Indonesian, while the target language is English. Translating noun phrases from Indonesian into English involves different structures of these two distinct languages. A good comprehension about the structures of the languages is highly required, in order to produce a good translation as natural as possible in English. Otherwise, the translation produced will be unnatural.

A noun phrase is a group of words functioning the same as a noun (Sneddon et al., 2010, p. 131). In other words, a noun phrase consists of a noun

2 head and one or more modifiers. The types and position of modifiers between INPs and ENPs are not the same. In INPs, the modifiers mostly come after the noun head, while in ENPs, it can either precede or follow the noun head. The types of premodifiers and postmodifiers in the ENP are more varied compared to the INP. Due to these different syntactic structures between Indonesian and English NPs, syntactic complexities in translating the NPs exist. This is shown in the translation products of the students of the English Language Education Study Programme (ELESP) of Sanata Dharma University. As an example, ketinggian rata-rata is translated into „the height average‟, instead of „the average height‟. The noun headword in the INP is ketinggian, but in the English version is „average‟. This occurrence shows that the translation fails to convey the meaning of the source language.

Syntactic complexities in an NP exist due to the presence of modifiers. The presence of one modifier modifying Determiner + Noun Head already reveals the existence of an extra hierarchical level (Givón, 2001, p. 2), such as „the blue table‟. The complexities become higher when several modifiers cluster within the same noun head or when the modifiers modify another modifier. The complexity already exists in NPs of one language. The current study involves NPs in two languages, Indonesian and English. Based on the background discussed, this research attempts to investigate the syntactic complexities in translating NPs from Indonesian into English.

Some previous studies on the similar topic of translating NPs had been conducted by several researchers. As an example, Sutanti (2002) conducted a

3 research about problems in translating complex NPs from English into Indonesian and factors that caused the problems. The findings showed that the problems in translating complex NPs consisted of grammatical interference, lexical interference, and semantic interference. Besides, the factors influencing the problems came from the students‟ unawareness in translating the NPs. However, the problems were not further discussed syntactically.

Another similar research on translating NPs was done by Marihartanto (1979). He proposed some suggestions in translating complex NPs from English into Indonesian. The findings showed that in translating English modification into Indonesian, yang is required, with the exception for translating PPs, genitives, infinitive clauses, and appositions. Other than using yang, changing the structure of modification is possible. In addition, the research found that the English premodification should change into the Indonesian postmodification, regarding that the Indonesian premodification is limited to certain classes, such as numbers.

Although the studies on translating NPs had been conducted many times, there are still some issues related to the topic. One of them is the syntactic complexities in translating NPs. While the previous research focused on the translation of ENPs into INPs, the current study focuses on that of INPs into ENPs. In the case of ELESP, although translating NPs is included as one of the lessons in Translation class, the syntactic complexities in translating NPs, particularly from Indonesian into English, is not discussed specifically in the class. Therefore, the study on such an issue is still necessary, in order to analyse the syntactic complexities in translating NPs from Indonesian into English. For

4 the data collection, the study uses a content analysis, without any experiment tests on translation. Specifically, the focus of the research is NPs containing a noun head and at least one modifier. This study can be means of enrichment for the English teachers and learners about the syntactic complexities of NPs in Indonesian and English. Therefore, it is expected that they can implement the findings in the study of English language, especially in translating INPs into ENPs.

B. Research Problem

Based on the background, the formulated research question is: “What are the syntactic complexities faced by the ELESP students batch 2010 in translating noun phrases from Indonesian into English?”

C. Problem Limitation

The research focuses on the syntactic complexities in translating NPs from Indonesian into English. The structure of NPs being the focus of the research is the noun headword modified by minimal one modifier and the English translations. Although a single noun can be called the simplest noun phrase (Sneddon et al., 2010), it is excluded from the research. The data is taken from the available translation products of batch 2010 students of the ELESP at Sanata Dharma University who took translation subject in the sixth semester, 2012/2013 academic year. Therefore, there is not any particular experiments conducted for this research.

5 D. Research Objective

The objective of the research is to investigate the syntactic complexities faced by the ELESP students batch 2010 in translating noun phrases from Indonesian into English.

E. Research Benefits

The results of the research are expected to be beneficial to the language teaching, particularly for students of the English Language Education Study Programme, English teachers, and future researchers.

1. Students of the English Language Education Study Programme

It is expected that this research can help students of the English Language Education Study Programme enrich their knowledge about the structure of Indonesian and English NPs and the syntactic complexities in translating the NPs. They can implement the findings of the research, in order to create a good translation.

2. English teachers

The findings can also aid English teachers, particularly in Translation subject, in discussing the topic of NP structures in Indonesian and English and the syntactic complexities in translating the NPs.

3. Future researchers

For future researchers, this study can be the reference or information to conduct the next research on similar topics. As an example, the next researchers can examine the complexities in other elements of languages.

6 F. Definition of Terms

In order to avoid misinterpretation, some specific terms used in the research are defined as follows.

1. Noun Phrase

A noun phrase is defined as a group of words which function the same as a noun (Sneddon et al., 2010). Kolln and Funk (2012) also underline a phrase as “a word or group of words that functions as a unit within the sentence” (p. 18). The head of a noun phrase is a noun, and in English, it is usually signaled by a determiner. Since the current research studies translation, there are two types of noun phrases, namely INPs and ENPs. The NPs in the source language studied in this research contain noun heads modified by at least one modifier, while that in the target language is the English translations.

2. Syntactic Complexity

Givón (2009) underlines a complexity as “a property of organized entities, of organisms, or of systems” (p. 1). In this research, the complexity refers to the organization of NPs. The syntactic complexity occurs due to the presence of an extra hierarchical level (Givón, 2001, p. 2). It is identified by the existence of modifiers within an NP. The modifiers may modify the noun head or other modifiers within the NP. The more modifiers appear, the more complexities exist. The syntactic complexities are investigated in the INPs consisting of noun heads modified by minimal one modifier and the English translations.

7 3. Translation Products of batch 2010 students of the ELESP

Translation is defined by Larson (1984) as transferring the meaning of the source language into the target language by changing the form as natural as possible in the target language. Translation is one of the subjects in the English Language Education Study Programme in Sanata Dharma University. One of the projects in this class is translating 1000-word texts from Indonesian into English. In the current study, the translation products of batch 2010 students of the ELESP are Indonesian into English texts and the focus of the research is NPs found in the translation products.

8 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter presents the theoretical description and theoretical framework. The theoretical description discusses the theories about NP structures in Indonesian and English. All of the discussed theories are used to answer the research question theoretically in the second part, namely theoretical framework.

A. Theoretical Description

1. Components of Noun Phrase in Indonesian

A noun phrase is defined by Sneddon et al. (2010) as “a sequence of words which functions in the same way as a noun” (p. 131). The head of an NP is obviously a noun. The constituents of the INP are almost the same as the ENP, however their syntactic structures are different. In this section, the constituents of the INP are discussed as the following.

a. Premodifiers 1). Quantifiers

The premodifiers of INPs are restricted to certain classes of words, namely quantifiers and classifiers. Quantifiers include definite and indefinite numbers. The definite numbers consist of cardinal and ordinal numbers. Cardinal numbers precede the count noun to indicate the number of things being referred to (Sneddon et al., 2010, p. 136).

9 By contrast, cardinal numbers coming after an N indicate the position of things in a series. It occurs with the things commonly distinguished by the position in a series (Sneddon et al., 2010).

(1.b) halaman tiga ‘page three’

However, to refer to something that is not commonly distinguished by their order in a sequence, ordinal numbers are used.

(1.c) orang ketiga ‘the third person’ Ordinal numbers can be preceded by yang.

(1.d) anak yang kedua ‘the second child’

Besides, ordinal numbers function as collective numbers, which occur before the noun head. The N they refer to is always definite, so it is always followed by a demonstrative or a possessor (Sneddon et al., 2010, p.137).

(1.e) Saya sudah membaca keempat buku itu. ‘I have read those four books.’

For indefinite numbers, the quantifiers of INPs are semua „all‟, banyak „many‟, and para. The quantifiers semua and banyak can be used with all types of Ns. An exception is that para is used only to refer to humans in a particular group. In other words, para indicates people having the same characteristic in common. Therefore, para does not occur with generic nouns such as orang, anak, and manusia. (Sneddon et al., 2010, p.194; Sneddon, 1996)

(1.f) 1. Semua pelajar belajar dengan giat. ‘All students study diligently.’ 2. Jenazah para korban dibawa ke rumah sakit. ‘The bodies of the

victims were taken to the hospital.’

3. Para guru itu datang dari Yogya. ‘The teachers come from Yogya.’

10 2). Classifiers

The second premodifier of INPs is classifiers. Classifiers precede a count noun to place it in a particular noun class (Sneddon et al., 2010, p. 138). It is always preceded by a number. The most frequent classifiers in use are orang, buah, and ekor. The structure of the NP consisting of a classifier is Number + Classifier + Noun. A noun preceded by a classifier is always indefinite; it does not refer to any specific things. Therefore, classifiers will never occur with demonstratives or possessors (Sneddon et al., 2010, p. 139).

(1.g) 1. seorang guru ‘a teacher’ 2. *seorang guru itu 3. *seorang guru saya

b. Postmodifiers

INPs are mostly postmodified. The postmodifiers consist of demonstratives, modifying or attributive nouns, possessors, ADJs, and RCs. Each of them is discussed as follows.

1). Demonstratives

The demonstratives in the INP are ini „this‟ and itu „that‟, functioning in both singular and plural nouns. They follow the noun head.

(2.a) 1. majalah ini „this magazine‟

2. kedua majalah ini „these two magazine‟

Both ini and itu can refer to someone or something previously mentioned, but not now present (Sneddon et al., 2010, p. 133) as in (2.b).

(2.b) Bagaimana rumah itu?

11 The demonstrative itu is sometimes equated with „the‟ in English. However, their usage is different. The definite article in English obligatorily refers to something unique, but itu, in certain context, cannot (Sneddon et al., 2010).

(2.c) matahari „the sun‟ *matahari itu

Sometimes, something is considered unique in one context, but not in the other context.

(2.d) 1. Perdana Menteri sudah pulang. „The Prime Minister has returned home.‟

2. Kedua perdana menteri itu bersalaman. „The two prime ministers greeted each other.‟

The words perdana menteri in (2d.1) refer to someone unique in the discussion of a particular country. In this context, itu cannot occur. However, it is not unique in example (2d.2) when the discussion is among several countries. In this context, itu can occur because referring to something not unique (Sneddon et al., 2010, p. 135). In other words, the state of something to be unique or not is indicated by the context.

The demonstrative itu marks something to be definite. Sneddon et al. (2010) mention that itu marks something definite for a non-unique N which is already mentioned and if there is nothing else in the phrase which indicates that it refers back to something already mentioned (p. 135).

(2.e) 1. Orang itu teman saya. ‘That person is my friend.’ 2. *Orang teman saya.

The word orang cannot occur alone as in (2e.2), since there is nothing to indicate that it refers back to someone previously mentioned. Therefore, itu makes it definite in (2e.1) and obviously orang is already mentioned.

12 2). Modifying Nouns

The next component of INPs is modifying nouns. It functions to give specific information about the noun head, particularly to indicate what the noun head is made of, where it comes from, what it is used for, etc (Sneddon et al., 2010, p. 147).

(3.a) 1. toko buku „book shop‟

2. guru bahasa „language teacher‟ 3. kain batik „batik cloth‟

A noun head modified by modifying nouns can take any modifiers. The modifiers following the modifying nouns refer to the noun head and not to the modifying nouns as in (3.b).

(3.b) 1. [toko buku] yang besar ‘a big bookshop’ 2. [guru sekolah] itu ‘that school teacher’

In addition, Macdonald (1976) mentions that “if the head is postmodified by a noun, the ADJ will follow the modifying noun” (p. 88). However, the presence of modifying nouns results in the meaning ambiguity. The ambiguity, as in (3c), occurs whether the modifier modifies the noun head or the modifying noun.

(3.c) buku sejarah lama It can be interpreted as:

(3.d) 1. buku [sejarah lama] „the book of ancient history‟ (as in Figure 2.1) 2. [buku sejarah] lama „an old history book‟ (as in Figure 2.2)

13

Figure 2.1 ADJ modifies Modifying Noun

Figure 2.2 ADJ modifies Head + Modifying Noun

In example (3c), the ADJ lama modifies the modifying noun, since it stands the nearest to the noun sejarah (Macdonald, 1976). Therefore, the meaning must be „the book of ancient history‟, as in (3d.1). In order to make the meaning clear, yang and tentang can be inserted to show the difference (Macdonald, 1976).

(3.e) 1. buku [tentang sejarah lama] 2. [buku sejarah] yang lama

In addition to modification by modifying nouns, Loewen (2011) states that attributive nouns, another name of modifying nouns as she calls, come the closest to the noun head, with respect to demonstratives and PPs (p. 27). As an example, Amerika may be interpreted to modify sejarah or buku.

(3.f) 1. buku [sejarah Amerika] ~ buku sejarah tentang Amerika 2. [buku sejarah] Amerika ~ buku sejarah milik Amerika

However, it is finally argued that the rule is not absolute with modification by Ns and ADJs. She underlines that “Indonesian does not place a restriction on the ordering of Ns and ADJs, but rather a linear order is free subject to an available and plausible semantic interpretation” (Loewen, 2011, p.35).

(3.g) 1. foto [gereja batu besar] 2. [foto besar] gereja batu

14 3). Possessors

In INPs, possessors always follow the noun head (Sneddon et al., 2010). Possessors can be nouns or pronouns.

(4.a) 1. buku Andi ‘Andi’s book’

2. nama negeri itu ‘the name of that country’

Possessive nouns differ from modifying nouns. Possessive nouns can be the noun head of an NP within which it occurs (Sneddon et al., 2010).

(4.b) nama anak perempuan itu ‘the name of that girl’

The head of the entire NP is nama. Nama is modified by a possessive noun anak, then the possessive noun takes a modifier perempuan; the NP anak perempuan is modified again by the demonstrative itu. Within the NP anak perempuan itu, the noun head is anak. By this way, possessive nouns can be the head of the NP within which it occurs.

Nonetheless, an ambiguity appears in examples (4b.1-2), whether the N functions as a modifier or a possessive noun.

(4.b) 1. Budi sopir bis. ‘Budi is a bus driver.’

2. Sopir bis itu Ali. ‘The driver of the bus is Ali.’

In example (4b.1), bis functions as the modifying noun of the word sopir. It provides specific information about what type of driver Budi is; a driver of a particular means of transformation, namely bus. However, in (4b.2) the relation between sopir and bis is possession (Sneddon et al., 2010). The phrase bis itu is the possessor of the word sopir.

Furthermore, a possessor can be preceded by a modifying noun that particularly specifies the relation between the possessor and the noun head.

15 (4.c) kue buatan Bu Mur „the cake made by Bu Mur‟

Thus, in example (4.c), buatan specifies that the cake is made by Bu Mur, rather than owned by Bu Mur.

4). Adjectives

An NP can be modified by ADJs following directly the noun head. Sneddon et al. (2010) explain that a noun followed by ADJs is a close unit expressing a single unit without any emphasis on the ADJs. However, when the noun head and ADJs are separated by yang, it gives emphasis to the ADJs for a contrast (p. 151). When ADJs are preceded by yang, the structure will be Head + Possessor + yang + ADJ + Demonstrative (Alwi et al., 2014, p. 253).

(5.a) 1. Mereka tinggal di rumah kecil. ‘They live in a small house.’ 2. Mereka tinggal di rumah yang kecil, bukan yang besar itu. ‘They

live in the small house, not the big one.’

When several ADJs modify an N, the first comes directly after the noun head, while the second is preceded by yang forming an ADJ RC (Sneddon et al., 2010).

(5.b) [tubuh tua] yang ringkih ‘a frail old body’

In relation to the ADJ RC, Macdonald (1976) adds that ADJs which take a modifier do not usually modify the noun head directly. Instead, it is expressed as an ADJ RC. Therefore, yang is obligatory to precede the modified ADJ, as in (5.c).

16 5). Relative Clauses

Another way to give additional information to the noun head is by adding an RC. This type of clause is called the defining RC (Sneddon, 1996). In INPs, RCs are always preceded by yang. However, the corresponding relative pronoun of yang in English, such as „who‟ or „that‟, can be omitted (Sneddon et al., 2010, p. 295). An RC derives from a basic clause whose subject corresponds to the noun head of the NP in which the RC occurs (Sneddon, 1996, p. 113).

Basic clause:

(6.a) Laki-laki itu berdiri di dekat pintu. Laki-laki itu ayahku. „The man is standing next door. The man is my father.‟

The two clauses in example (6a) can be combined by nominalising the first clause to be the subject of the combined clause.

Nominalised predicate by yang:

(6.b) Laki-laki yang berdiri di dekat pintu itu ayahku. „The man standing next door is my father.‟

The relationship between the noun head and the RC is shown by the verb within the RC. Sneddon et al. (2010) add that when the relation is that of actor, the verb is active. However, when the relation is that of patient, the verb is passive. A certain difficulty exists when translating INPs modified by RCs, particularly when the relation is that of patient and the verb must be passive in ENPs. Passive verb following the noun head functioning as a patient does not always occur in the ENPs. The passive verb in INPs changes into active in English (Sneddon et al., 2010, p. 296).

(6.c) Rumah yang dibangun Pak Beni tidak begitu besar. „The house Pak Beni built is not very big.‟

17 In addition, RCs by yang can also be followed by ADJs and prepositions (Macdonald, 1976).

(6.d) 1. anak yang seperti Andi „a child who is similar to Andi‟ 2. gadis yang di sini tadi „thewoman who was here‟

c. The Order of Postmodifiers in Indonesian NP

Based on the discussion, it is clear that INPs tend to be postmodified. According to Sneddon et al. (2010), the order of the postmodifiers is modifying nouns, ADJs, possessors, RCs, and demonstratives (p. 160). Modifying nouns come directly after the noun head followed by ADJs and possessors.

(7.a) 1. toko buku baru saya „my new bookshop‟ RCs preceded by yang follow the possessor.

(7.a) 2. sikap ibu saya yang tegas „my mother‟s firm attitude‟

Finally, the demonstratives follow all other constituents of the NP, which indicate the end of the NP.

(7.b) baju jaitan ibu saya ini „this clothes sewed by my mother‟

d. Nominalised Predicate by –nya

Predicates and ADJs can be nominalised by adding –nya to them (Sneddon, 1996, p. 136). When the predicate is nominalised by –nya, the subject of the original clause becomes a possessor (Sneddon, 1996). The nominalisation is shown in the examples (8a-b).

Basic clause:

(8.a) Beberapa jalan ditutup. „Several roads are closed.‟ Nominalised predicate clause:

18 (8.b) ditutupnya beberapa jalan

„the closure of several roads‟ ADJs can also be nominalised as in (8c-d). Basic clause:

(8.c) Orang itu tinggi. „That person is tall.‟ Nominalised ADJ:

(8.d) tingginya orang itu „that person‟s height‟

The ADJ tall turns into height when the ADJ is nominalised. Translating nominalised predicates or ADJs needs certain consideration. Sometimes, a literal translation is not appropriate in translating INPs containing nominalised predicates by -nya (Sneddon, 1996). It is further illustrated in examples (8e-f).

(8.e) Pengaruh dialek Jakarta dalam bahasa Indonesia makin besar. „The influence of Jakarta dialect on Indonesian is increasingly great.‟

Then, the ADJ is nominalised into:

(8.f) makin besarnya pengaruh dialek Jakarta dalam bahasa Indonesia „the increasing extent of the influence of Jakarta dialect on Indonesian‟

It is explained by Sneddon (1996) that “if there is another component of the predicate before the verb or ADJ, a literal translation into English is often difficult, requiring a paraphrase to be used” (p. 137). Therefore, the literal translation in example (8.g) sounds unnatural in English.

(8.g) Dia mengeluh tentang terlalu jauhnya rumahnya dari pusat pertokoan.

„She complained about the too-farness of his house from the shopping centre.‟

19 (8.h) „She complained about the house being too far from the shopping

centre.‟

2. Components of English Noun Phrase

A phrase is defined by Kolln and Funk (2012) as “a word or a group of words which functions as a unit within a sentence” (p. 18). Given the definition, a noun phrase is defined as a noun or a group of nouns that functions as a unit within a sentence. Syntactically, Kolln and Funk (2012) identify a noun as “a word which can be made plural and/or possessive and is signaled by a determiner”. As a unit, an NP consists of some components presented as follows.

a. Determiner

As mentioned by Kolln and Funk (2012), an ENP is usually signaled by a determiner. The class of determiners consists of articles, possessive nouns, possessive pronouns, numbers, and demonstrative pronouns (Kolln and Funk, 2012, p. 130). According to Quirk et al. (1985), determiners function to “determine what kind of reference a noun phrase has, for example definite („the‟) or indefinite („a‟ or „an‟)” (p. 64). The structure of the phrase is Determiner + Head.

(9.a) 1. a story 2. the story

The indefinite article as shown in example (9a.1) is functioned when the noun is mentioned first in the context. However, the definite article „the‟ in example (9a.2) is used to refer to something previously mentioned. According to Quirk et al. (1972), the definite article is used to introduce something as definite, or to refer

20 to “something which can be identified uniquely in the contextual or general knowledge shared by the speaker and hearer” (p. 265).

Other forms of determiners are demonstrative pronouns, „this/these‟ and

‘that/those‟, as shown in examples (9b). (9.b) 1. that house

2. this house

According to Quirk et al. (1985, p. 372), demonstratives have definite meanings and their reference depends on the context shared by the speaker and hearer. It can show anaphoric reference (coreference to an earlier part of the discourse), cataphoric reference (coreference to a later part of the discourse) and situational reference (reference to the extralinguistic situation, such as distant or near reference). The demonstratives „this/these‟ are used for either anaphoric and cataphoric references, while „that/those‟ are only for anaphoric references (Quirk et al., 1985, p. 375).

(9.c) 1. Anaphoric:

I read his latest novel, and that was so interesting. 2. Cataphoric:

He told the story like this: “Once upon a time …”

Indefinite pronouns like „some‟, „many‟, „both‟, „every‟ are of the examples of determiners (Kolln and Funk, 2012).

(9.d) 1. Maria’s house 2. some books

b. Postmodifiers of the English Noun Phrase

An ENP can be modified by premodifiers and postmodifiers. The function of modifiers is to give descriptive information to the noun head, or often to restrict

21 the reference of head (Quirk et al., 1985, p. 65). Premodifiers function as attributes or complements preceding the noun head, whereas postmodifiers function as adjuncts or complements following the head. To begin with, the following section discusses the types of postmodifiers in the ENP.

1). Nominal Postmodifier

Nouns can modify an NP. This type of modifier is called postnominal modifiers (Radford, 1988). Postnominal modifiers function as adjuncts and complements. According to Radford (1988), the difference between the two is that “adjuncts expand N-bar into N-bar, whereas complements expand N into N-bar” (p. 176). In other words, complements come closer to the noun head than adjuncts. Structurally, it is written as Head + Complement + Adjunct.

(10.a) 1. a student of Biology 2. a student in the corner

The PP „of Biology‟, in example (10a.1), specifies what the student is studying. The NP „a student of Biology‟ can be paraphrased by the corresponding sentence as in (10b).

(10.b) 1. He is a student of Biology. 2. He is studying Biology.

The word „Biology‟ becomes the complement of the verb „study‟. It complements the student. Therefore, the PP „of Biology‟ functions as the complement of the noun head „student‟. By contrast, the NP „a student in the corner‟ does not have any corresponding sentences like the previous NP, in which „in the corner‟ functions as a complement of the verb „study‟.

22 2. *He is studying the corner.

The PP „in the corner‟ does not specify what the student is studying, it just gives additional information about the student. It happens that the student stays in the corner. Therefore, the PP „in the corner‟ functions as an adjunct (Radford, 1988). In addition, Radford (1988) mentions that complements come closer to the noun head than adjuncts. Therefore, the combination of the PP „of Biology‟ and „in the corner‟ is shown in (10d).

(10.d) 1. a student of Biology in the corner 2. *a student in the corner of Biology

The next difference between complements and adjuncts is that adjuncts can be stacked on top of each other, whereas complements cannot (Radford, 1988, p. 189).

(10.e) 1. a student in the corner with long dress 2. *a student of Biology of Mathematics

As mentioned that adjuncts expand N-bar into N-bar, the noun head „student‟ in the NP „a student in the corner‟ is an N-bar.

Figure 2.3 Noun Head + Adjunct

Besides being an N-bar, the noun head „students‟ functions as an N. By contrast, in the NP „a student of Biology‟, the head only has a position as an N, as Figure 2.4 shows.

23

Figure 2.4 Noun Head + Complement

In conclusion, a noun head modified by an adjunct has two positions, as both N and N-bar, whereas that which is modified by a complement has a position only as an N. It is as what Radford (1988) states that “a noun which has an overt complement is simply an N, whereas a noun which lacks a complement has the status of N-bar (as well as N)” (p.187).

Radford (1988) also adds that N-bar can be proformed by the pro-N-bar, one. An NP in which the noun head is modified by adjuncts, both the head and Head + Adjunct have the position of N-bar. Therefore, they can be proformed by the pro-N-bar, one. However, in an NP whose noun head is modified by complements, it is only Head + Complement, which can be proformed by the pro-N-bar, one. The N-bar is Head + Complement. Hence, the NP „a student in the corner‟ can be proformed by one as:

(10.f) 1. Which student? The one in the corner. 2. Which student in the corner? This one.

By contrast, the NP „a student of Biology‟ can only be proformed as (10g.2). (10.g) 1. *Which student? The one of Biology?

24 2). Relative Clause

The postmodification provides greater explicitness compared to the premodification as mentioned by Quirk et al. (1985). The NP „an intelligent graduate student‟ can be clearly interpreted with postmodification by an RC as „a student who is intelligent and who is studying at a graduate school‟. Quirk et al. (1985) also add that explicitness in postmodification is greater in the finite RC than non-finite clause.

Based on the semantic relation between the RCs and noun head, RCs consist of restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses. Quirk et al. (1985) note that “restrictive relative clauses are closely connected to their antecedent or head prosodically, and denote a limitation on the reference of the antecedent” (p. 366). The connection is shown in example (11a).

(11.a) I get the book that you told me yesterday.

In comparison to RCs, Quirk et al. (1985) mention that “nonrestrictive clauses are parenthetic comments, which usually describe, but do not further define, the antecedent” (p. 366).

(11.b) I spoke to Melda, whom I met in the conference.

In short, restrictive RCs limit the noun head, but nonrestrictive clauses just give additional information about the noun head.

a). Restrictive Relative Clause

One of the factors in selecting relative pronoun is the function of relative pronoun as subject or object. Quirk et al. (1985) explain that “when the antecedent

25 is personal and the pronoun is the subject of the relative clause, who is favored” (p. 1250).

(12.a) People who lived in the new house.

However, zero cannot replace the subject in the RC (Quirk et al., 1985), such as: (12.b) *People ( ) lived in the new house.

The use of that and which as relative pronouns are different. When the antecedent of the RC is nonpersonal and the structure is simple or no more complex than Deteminer + Head, that is more preferable to which or zero (Quirk et al., 1985, p. 1252).

(12.c) We come to the discussion that most English language learners are interested in.

However, when the subject of the RC is a personal pronoun, zero is preferred to which or that, especially when the RC is short and simple (Quirk et al., 1985).

(12.d) I like the book ( ) you gave to me.

b). Nonrestrictive Relative Clause

The choice of relative pronoun in the nonrestrictive clause is more limited compared to the restrictive clause. Who and which are used as subjects of RCs (Quirk et al., 1972, p.871).

(13.a) She is Anna, who presents her paper in the conference. However, as an object of verb or preposition, whom and which are used.

26 According to Quirk et al. (1972), RCs are also called nonrestrictive or restrictive modifiers of NPs. Because of that, RCs have correspondences to attributive ADJs, as shown in (13.c).

(13.c) 1. people who speak English 2. English-speaking people

c. Multiple Postmodification

Multiple postmodification exists in three conditions (Quirk et al., 1985, p.1276):

a. More than one modification is applied to a single noun head. (14.a) the man in the corner talking to John

The second modifier „talking to John‟ modifies the whole NP „the man in the corner‟.

b. A modification is applied to more than one noun head.

(14.b) 1. the man in the corner and the woman in the corner 2. the man and woman in the corner

The modifier „in the corner‟ modifies two noun heads, „the man‟ and „the woman‟.

c. The combination of the structure a) and b).

(14.c) the man and the woman in the corner talking to John The syntactic structure of the NP is shown in Figure 2.5.

27

Figure 2.5 Multiple Postmodification The head of the modifying phrase can be further modified, such as:

(14.d) 1. the man in the corner 2. the corner nearest the door

3. the man in the corner nearest the door As a result, the combination of structure a), b), and c) will be:

(14.e) [the [man and woman] [in the corner [nearest the door]]] talking to John]]

The order of the NP modifiers relates to the meaning of the NP. Hence, Quirk et al. (1985) suggest that “careful ordering of constituents in an NP is essential to communicate one‟s intention” (p. 1298). Different meanings are resulted in examples (14f.1-2) due to the order of the modifiers.

(14.f) 1. the man in black talking to the girl 2. the man talking to the girl in black

The first NP means that it is the man who is in black clothes, but the second means that the girl wears black clothes. The of-phrase is preferred to the genitive, in order to avoid ambiguity (Quirk et al., 1985), as shown in example (14.g).

(14.g) 1. the ears of the man in the deckchair 2. *the man‟s ears in the deckchair

28 d. Premodifiers of the English Noun Phrase

The most common premodifiers are Ns and ADJs. In this section, the premodifiers of ENPs are described as follows.

1). Nominal Premodifier

The first premodifier of an ENP is Ns. Radford (1988) calls this type of modifiers as nominal premodifiers or prenominal modifiers. Almost the same as postnominal modifiers, prenominal modifiers have two functions, namely attributes and complements. The structural properties of NPs modified by nominal premodifiers consist of determiners, attributes, and complements. Radford (1988) describes the functions of these three different structural properties of premodifiers as:

determiners expand N-bar into N-double bar attributes expand N-bar into N-bar

complements expand N into N-bar (pp. 196-197)

Because complements expand an N into N-bar, it comes closer to the noun head than attributes (Radford, 1988, p. 214). The structure is written as Attributes + Complements + Noun Head. Attributes in the premodifier function the same as adjuncts in the postmodifier. To analyse the distinction between attributes and complements, example (15a) is presented.

(15.a) a [high quality] [Physics] student

The phrase can be paraphrased into two parts by postmodifiers, as in (15b). (15.b) 1. a student of Physics

2. a student with high quality or completely interpreted as:

29 (15.c) a student of Physics who has high quality

The phrase in (15b.1) has a clausal construction as shown in (15.d). (15.d) 1. He is a student of Physics

2. He is studying Physics.

„Physics‟ becomes the complement of the verb study; it specifies what the student is studying. So, the PP „of physics‟ is the complement of the noun head „student‟. Different from the PP „of Physics‟, the PP „with high quality‟ cannot be a complement of the verb „study‟. If the PP „with high quality‟ functions as a complement, the sentence becomes ungrammatical.

(16.e) 1. He is a student with high quality. 2. *He is studying high quality.

The PP „with high quality‟ is an adjunct in the postmodifier; it gives additional information that the student happens to have high quality. Based on the analysis, it can be concluded that the N „Physics‟ functions as a complement, but the NP „high quality‟ becomes an attribute in the premodifier.

Since adjuncts can be stacked on top of each other, attributes can be the same.

(16.f) a high quality middle class student However, complements cannot be stacked.

(16.g) *a Physics Mathematics student

Complements can only be coordinated with complements by a conjunction, as shown in (16h).

30 An N-bar can be replaced by the pro-N-bar, one, as shown in the NPs consisting of Attribute + Head.

(16.i) 1. Which student? The high quality one. 2. Which high quality student? This one.

However, in Complement + Head, the proformed one can only occur as (16j.1). (16.j) 1. Which Physics student? That one.

2. *Which student? The Physics one.

In addition, Radford (1988) explains that prenominal NPs have close relation to postnominal PPs (p. 204). Postnominal PP complements in 1) have prenominal NP complement counterparts as shown in the examples (2).

(16.k) 1. the ban on pornography 2. the pornography ban (16.l) 1. damage to the brain

2. brain damage

(Radford, 1988, p. 204-205) The relation also occurs between postnominal PP adjuncts and prenominal NP attributes. It is presented below.

(16.m) 1. the shop on the corner 2. the corner shop

(16.n) 1. the bridge over the river 2. the river bridge

(Radford, 1988, p. 205) In addition to nominal premodifiers and postmodifiers, Radford (1988) states that they have an important difference. The NP in the postmodifier can be positioned to precede the head in the premodifier, as shown in (16o).

(16.o) 1. a lover of classical music 2. a classical music lover

31 However, the rule cannot exist in an NP in which both the N head and the N in the PP postmodifier by of employ determiners, as shown in (16p).

(16.p) 1. a lover of the opera 2. *a the opera lover

Example (16p.2) is not grammatical due to the use of indefinite and definite articles at the same time in the determiner position. The possible and correct alternative of premodification of example (16p.1) will be „an opera lover‟.

2). Adjectival Premodifier

Besides being modified by nominal premodifiers, an NP is modified by adjectival premodifiers. Adjectives function as attributes in an NP. Because attributes can be stacked on top of each other, an NP can be modified by some APs, as examples in (17a) show.

(17.a) 1. a beautiful girl 2. a tall beautiful girl 3. a slim tall beautiful girl

Each of the NP can be proformed by the pro-N-bar, one, as presented below. (17.b) 1. Which girl? The beautiful one.

2. Which beautiful girl? The tall one. 3. Which tall beautiful girl? The slim one. 4. Which slim tall beautiful girl? This one.

Sometimes ambiguity occurs in an NP, shown by example (17c), in which the modifier may function as an NP or AP.

(17.c) an English teacher It can be interpreted as:

(17.d) 1. someone who teaches English (English as N) 2. a teacher who is English (English as ADJ)

32 In order to see the distinction of „English‟ functioning as an N and an ADJ, the phrase can be expanded as the following.

(17.e) 1. an [Old English] teacher 2. a [very English] teacher

It is clear that „English‟ can function as either an N or an ADJ. When it functions as an N, it becomes a complement, while as an ADJ, it becomes an adjunct.

Figure 2.6 Complement + Noun Head

Figure 2.7 Attribute + Noun Head

e. Multiple Premodification in English Noun Phrase

The multiple modification also exists in a premodification. An ADJ or an N premodifier can be premodified by other ADJs or Ns.

(18.a) 1. income tax office furniture

2. overseas income tax office furniture

3. expensive overseas income tax office furniture

The same premodifier in different NPs can result different meanings to the whole NPs.

(18.b) 1. the food price rise warning system 2. the voluntary price rise warning system

The premodifiers „food‟ and „voluntary‟ give different meanings to the two NPs, although structurally they look the same. The NP in (18b.1) means a system for warning against rises in the price of food. By contrast, the second NP in (18b.2)

33 means a system that is voluntary for warning against rises in prices (Quirk et al., 1985, p. 1343). In short, the word „voluntary‟ modify the noun head „system‟, but the word „food‟ directly modifies the premodifier „price‟.

3. Prenominal Genitive ‘s versus Postnominal of-construction

There are two syntactic devices in ENPs to indicate possession. One is by the genitive inflection ‘s, or known as a Saxon genitive, and the other one is by the of-phrase. Although they share the same meaning, Quirk et al. (1985) explain the difference between the two constructions. The genitive construction consists of two NPs. The first NP shows the genitive case by the inflection ‘s, while the second is the superordinate phrase in which the genitive NP is embedded with a determinative function. The determinative function means that the genitive NP, by inflection ‘s, functions the same as the determiners, like the (p. 1276).

(19.a) 1. the book

2. the student’s book

Compared to the genitive construction, the superordinate phrase in the of-construction precedes the NP that is introduced by of. Structurally, the difference between the genitive and of-construction, in which N2 is the superordinate phrase or the noun head, is shown as:

Genitive: N1‘s N2 of-phrase: N2 of N1

(19.b) 1. the first grade student‟s English book 2. the English book of the first grade student

Quirk et al. (1985) also explain five factors influencing the choice between the genitive and of-phrase constructions. Those are lexical factors, relational

34 factors, syntactic factors, objective and subjective relations, and communicative factors. In this research, the first four factors are discussed.

Lexical factors including the use of names or personal nouns influence the choice of genitive construction. The genitive by ‘s is favoured with personal names, personal nouns, and noun with personal characteristics (Quirk et al., 1985, p. 1277)

(19.c) 1. Patrice‟s car; *the car of Patrice

2. the dog‟s collar; *the collar of the dog

The theory is supported by Haegeman and Guéron‟s argument (2004) that “proper names preferentially appear as pre-nominal Saxon genitives” (p. 413).

(19.d) 1. Bill‟s arm 2. *the arm of Bill

Quirk et al. (1985) also add that with inanimate or concrete nouns, the of-construction is required. In their previous book, A Grammar of Contemporary English, Quirk et al. (1972) emphasize that the main factor in choosing the genitive instead of of-phrase construction is the animate or rather personal quality of the modifying nouns (p. 198).

(19.e) 1. the roof of this house 2. *this house‟s roof

However, a group of inanimate nouns, particularly geographical nouns, nouns denoting location and time, can use both genitive and of-phrase (Quirk et al., 1985, p. 1277).

(19.f) 1. Indonesia‟s population ~ the population of Indonesia 2. the world‟s economy ~ the economy of the world 3. last year‟s profit ~ the profit for last year

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 N2 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 friend‟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.

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).

41 5. Review of Previous Studies

Some previous studies on the similar topic of translating NPs had been conducted by several researchers. As an example, Sutanti (2002) conducted a research about problems in translating complex NPs from English into Indonesian and factors that caused the problems. Survey research was carried out by an experiment test on translation to 40 ELESP students in the seventh semester. The findings revealed that the problems encountered in translating complex NPs consisted of grammatical interference, lexical interference, and semantic interference. The more complex the modifiers, the more difficult it was to translate. Besides, it found that the factors influencing the problems came from the students‟ unawareness in translating the NPs. The limitation of the research is that it did not discuss the syntactic structure of the NPs which caused the problems.

Another similar research on translating NPs was done by Marihartanto (1979). He proposed some suggestions in translating complex NPs from English into Indonesian. The findings showed that in translating English modification, yang is required, with the exception for translating prepositional phrases, genitives, infinitive clauses, and appositions. Other than using yang, changing the structure of modification is possible. In addition, the research found that English premodification should change into Indonesian postmodification, regarding that Indonesian premodification is limited to certain items, such as numbers. The previous research focused on investigating the problems in translating complex

42 NPs from English into Indonesian. Meanwhile, the current study focuses on the syntactic complexities in translating NPs from Indonesian into English.

B. Theoretical Framework

This section tries to answer the research question theoretically using the discussed theories. The syntactic complexities in translating INPs into ENPs consist of several cases.

The first complexity is in determining the headword of the INP. Before translating an INP into English, what should be determined primarily is the noun head of the INP. The theories used in this case are those written by Sneddon (1996), Sneddon et al. (2010), Macdonald (1976), Loewen (2011), and Alwi et al. (2014). The noun heads of the INPs and the ENPs should be consistent, although the positions are different.

The next is the modification structures in both languages. INPs tend to be postmodified, while ENPs can be both premodified and postmodified. The choice of these modifications is based on the theories of NP modification by Quirk et al. (1985 & 1972), Radford (1988), Macdonald (1976), Loewen (2011), Givón (2001 & 2009) and Haegeman and Guéron (2004).

Furthermore, the syntactic complexity appears in the choice of prenominal genitive and postnominal of-construction. The choice of the two structures is based on the theories by Quirk et al. (1985 & 1972), Keizer (2007), and Haegeman and Guéron (2004). In addition, the theories written by Larson (1984), Munday (2009), and Hatim and Munday (2004) are used to relate the syntactic complexities of NPs in Indonesian and English and the basis of translation. All of

43 the discussed theories are also functioned to determine the NPs in the Indonesian original texts and English translation texts in the first stage of the data analysis.

44 CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the methodology in conducting the research. It consists of the research method, research setting, research participants, instruments and data gathering technique, data analysis technique, and research procedure.

A. Research Method

The current research aimed at analyzing the syntactic complexities faced by the ELESP students batch 2010 in translating NPs from Indonesian into English. To answer the research question, a content analysis was conducted. Krippendorff (2004) defines a content analysis as “a research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from texts (other meaningful matter) to the

contexts of their use” (p. 18). It becomes a technique for the researcher to gain new insights and understanding about particular phenomena. The findings should also be replicable, meaning that with the same technique, the results can be the same under different circumstances. Besides, the results must be valid and upheld based on the independent evidence (Krippendorff, 2004, p. 19).

In addition, Patton (2002) states that a content analysis usually refers to analyzing texts. More generally, he notes that “content analysis is used to refer to any qualitative data reduction and sense-making effort that takes a volume of

qualitative material and attempts to identify core consistencies and meanings”

45 the ELESP students batch 2010 at Sanata Dharma University. Specifically, the translations were Indonesian into English texts. The pattern investigated in the translations was NPs, particularly the syntactic complexities in translating INPs into ENPs. An inductive analysis was functioned in analyzing the data. It is one of the characteristics of a qualitative research (Patton, 2002). The analysis involves

discovering patterns, themes, and categories in one’s data (Patton, 2002, p. 453). The pattern found was the syntactic complexities in translating NPs from Indonesian into English.

Creswell (2007) also adds that qualitative researchers collect data in the natural setting where the participants experience the issue or problem under the study (p. 37). The research uses the translation products of the ELESP students, which they did in May 2013. The researcher did not do any experimental projects or distribute any instruments to the individual to complete. Therefore, the study was completely a qualitative research by a content analysis as the method.

B. Research Setting

The data of the current research were obtained from the translation products of the ELESP students batch 2010. Translation is one of the obligatory subjects at the English Language Education Study Programme of Sanata Dharma University. The prerequisite subject to join this class was Structure 4. Besides, Morpho-syntax subject was offered in the previous semester, where English NPs were studied comprehensively. Therefore, it was required that the ELESP students batch 2010 were able to master the English structure well before they took the Translation class. One of the projects in the Translation class was translating

No Source Text Target Text Comment

10 -The appropriate term to

translate petani is grower, as mentioned in the beginning of the story.

-sebanyak is best translated into “a number” rather than “the number”, which means

jumlah.

Sample B

No Source Text Target Text Comment

1

-Jaring besarnya belongs to Mr. Spider, so it should be changed in English as “his big spider web”. The use of “the” does not explain the possessor of the spider web. -The word choice “Womb” to translate

Cacing is not correct. Womb means rahim. It should be “worm”.

No Source Text Target Text Comment should be “the village of insect”

2

The translation “oneof his feet” has different meaning from the original version sebuah kakinya. In Indonesian, the translation means salah satu kakinya. It should be “one foot”.

No Source Text Target Text Comment 3

Udara can refer to direction and location. In this context, it refers to direction. It is correctly translated into “skyward”.

No Source Text Target Text

No Source Text Target Text 5

No Source Text Target Text 7

No Source Text Target Text 9