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.
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 isall 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
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.
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,
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 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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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).
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.’
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?
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
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:
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). 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
(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).
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 dooris 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
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.‟
(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.‟
(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
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
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‟.
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
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).
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
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.
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
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).
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
(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).
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
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:
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
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
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).
