Tri Yulianty Karyaningsih / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
7 No.
Online version available in : http://arbitrer.
JURNAL ARBITRER
| 2339-1162 (Prin.
| 2550-1011 (Onlin.
| Article Possessive Construction in Russian and Indonesian Noun Phrases: Contrastive Analysis and Translation Tri Yulianty Karyaningsih1,2 Doctoral Student of Faculty of Cultural Sciences.
Universitas Gadjah Mada.
Yogyakarta.
Indonesia Russian Department.
Faculty of Cultural Sciences.
Universitas Padjadjaran.
Bandung.
Indonesia ion Track Submi Recieved: January 15, 2020 Final Revision: March 20, 2020 Available Online: April 26, 2020 orre pondence Possessive construction, noun phrase.
Russian and Indonesian, contrastive analysis, translation Phone: 08122006207 E-mail: t.
yulianty@unpad.
A B S T R A C T
This paper aims to discuss the comparison between possessive constructions in Russian and Indonesian noun phrases.
Since both of the languages have different grammatical systems, their possessive constructions may also be different.
The differences are discussed using a contrastive analysis approach.
However, the similarities between them are also taken into consideration following one of the practical purposes of contrastive analysis, namely, to aid the translation process.
The theory employed in this research is eclectic.
The research method employed in this research is descriptive method with contrastive analysis model.
In addition, for translation analysis, word-for-word and literal methods are used here.
The data in this research are collected from the Russian National Corpus and some selected literary works in Russian and Indonesian.
The result suggests that there are some structural differences and similarities between Russian and Indonesian in terms of word order, attributive categories, and grammatical categories of the elements constituting noun phrases.
The results of this comparison can be referred to in the translation of possessive construction of both languages so that the closest equivalent is found following the rules of each language.
INTRODUCTION
Contrastive analysis is a branch of linguistics that compares languages by AUAU focusing on contrast (James, 1980: .
Comparison through contrastive analysis can be applied to certain levels or units of language, including possessive construction.
Possessive construction is a universal phenomenon (Setiawan, 2015: .
found in many languages.
In the era of globalization, cooperation between countries is increasingly open.
Russia and Indonesia have maintained cooperation in various fields and continue to increase.
Even though there have been various technological aids and tools that help overcome a language barrier, language as a means of communication is still relevant in an interaction.
Therefore, being fluent in the Russian language helps support these cooperations.
However, for Indonesians speakers who learn Russian as a foreign language, the most difficult challenge they usually face is the difference between the grammatical systems of the two languages.
This situation is in line with the assumption of contrastive analysis, which views grammatical differences is one of the significant factors in language learning.
DOI: https://doi.
org/10.
25077/ar.
Possessive, narrowly-defined, refers to the semantic relationship of ownership, whereas its broader definition encompasses genitive semantic relationships in general, including partitives, subjective, and objectives (Kobozeva, 2015: 249.
The semantic relationship of possessive can be in the form of predicative and attributive or adnominal constructions (Stassen, 2001, in Wang and Xu, 2013: .
The scope of this research is limited to the discussion on the possessive Under Liscense of Creative Commons Attributioni-NonCommercial 4.
0 International.
Tri Yulianty Karyaningsih / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
7 No.
construction asserting ownership and focused on indicated by the linguistic markers below each RU possessive construction in noun phrases (NP.
or NPs above, pronouns and adjectives correspond in the form of attributive construction.
with their feminine .
gender, singular .
, and Possessive construction in NPs is also found in many nominative .
Grammatical categories languages as reviewed by Grashenkov .
on a that constitute the concordance connection are also cross-language typology of possessive construction related to the word order in that the head is placed and by Helmbrecht .
on Siouan languages.
after the attribute (Krylova & Kavronina, 1988:
However, since every language has a different 33, .
Such a category also does not exist in the grammatical system, possessive construction in Indonesian grammatical system.
In the IN, word every language may vary, including in Russian order generally follows the rules of the modified(RU) and Indonesian (IN).
The following are some modifier rule (DM).
That is another differentiating examples of possessive constructions in RU and IN character between the two languages.
NPs.
Pron.
nom N.
kamar saya room my Pron.
Aomy roomAo Differences between the two languages can be understood as the uniqueness of each language.
Even more.
Russian and Indonesian are genetically, morphologically, and syntactically different.
stated by Karyaningsih .
8: .
, these differences can be a problem when both languages are used simultaneously as in language learning and translation activities.
Although contrastive analysis focuses more on the differences as stated above, but for practical purposes such as translation, contrastive analysis also considers the similarities.
Therefore, this research focuses on the contrastive analysis of possessive construction in RU and IN noun phrases to identify the differences and .
otsova Adj.
nom N.
kamar ayah room father AofatherAos roomAo Based on the examples above, there are differences in terms of attributive categories and word order and how they are determined.
Other than those three, possessive construc-tion in NP has a specific use, which may also involve cultural factors.
For example, the IN personal pronoun saya AoI/myAo in example .
, has a variant, namely aku/-ku, which is usually used in a more intimate conversation.
Such variant does not exist in RU.
They will be observed in this research in a view to getting a proper comparison model that serves the purpose of contrastive analysis.
For example .
RU possessive constructions moja komnata and otsova komnata are both NP with the noun komnata AoroomAo serving as the head.
Similarly, in the IN translation, the possessive construction is an NP with the noun kamar AoroomAo serving as the head element of the For example .
, both attributive elements in RU .
oja AomyA.
and in IN .
aya AoI/myA.
are pronouns (Pro.
However, in example .
, the attributive element of the RU noun phrase, otsova Ao.
wned b.
father,Ao is an adjective, whereas in the IN translation, it is a noun.
This is one of the differentiating characteristics between RU and IN.
In addition to that, nouns, pronouns, and adjectives (Ad.
in RU have grammatical categories of gender, number, and case, whereas in IN, they do not.
These grammatical categories form a syntactic connection between the nouns as the head and their attributes (Kostomarov & Maksimov, 2010: 482.
Walgina, 2003: .
Comparison model derived from this contrastive analysis is the characteristic of contrastive analysis as AupureAy or theoretical linguistics (James, 1980:
, the result of the analysis can be utilized in the field of translation (Nur, 2016: .
as the application of contrastive analysis (James, 1980: .
Baker .
8, in Sukirmiyadi, 2018: .
states that the relationship between contrastive analysis and translation was bidirectional, i.
, specific pieces from translation result can provide the data for Tri Yulianty Karyaningsih / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
7 No.
contrastive analysis.
Otherwise, contrastive analysis can provide explanations of difficulties encountered in translation.
Williams and Chesterman .
2, in Karyaningsih 2018: .
explain that the comparison model is one of the theoretical models in seeking translation equivalence.
This model also views translation as an alignment problem through the selection of the target language elements that are more equivalent to ones in the source language.
Therefore, this approach is closely related to contrastive analysis.
which can be used in RU-IN translation and vice Furthermore, this research can also be used as a model of language studies through contrastive analysis for other language phenomena, specifically in RU and IN, the results of which can be used for theoretical and practical purposes.
II.
METHODS
The method employed in this research is descriptive The data are collected through reading and writing techniques, as stated by Sudaryanto .
The data are texts derived from the Russian National Corpus .
They are then analyzed using the contrastive analysis method with two main steps, namely description, and comparison (James, 1980: .
In any language, the relation of possessive meaning is usually expressed by more than one construction (Helmbrecht, 2016: .
Different possessive constructions and their various uses can be a problem in translation (Kostadni, 2012: .
In light of that, by making use of the contrastive analysis result of possessive constructions in RU and IN noun phrases, this research will also discuss the translation of that possessive construction in both languages.
At the step of description, possessive construction in NPs of each language is described in detail.
The sentences/clauses in which there are noun phrases with possessive construction are provided as supporting data.
This is carried out to get the proper context related to the NP as a language unit that serves the syntactic function in a clause/ sentence, as well as concerning grammatical categories, particularly in RU.
Therefore, syntactic analysis is carried out in this step of the research with the immediate constituent analysis as the basic technique .
n Sudaryanto, 2015: .
to determine the syntactic function of NP with possessive construction in a clause/sentence, as well as morphological analysis related to grammatical Discussions on possessive constructions are usually found in grammar books, such as conducted by Alwi .
and Kostomarov and Maksimov .
, especially the ones specialized in a syntax such as conducted by Chaer .
and Walgina .
, in the chapter about phrases.
However, very few of them discuss this topic in detail.
There has been some previous relevant research on possessive construction in RU.
Kobozeva .
and Sushkova .
discussed the semantic relations of predicative and attributive possession.
Also.
Kakvaeva .
discussed possessive construction in the comparative study of the genitive meaning in Lak and RU.
IN possessive construction has been discussed by Setiawan in his research .
, in which he described the possessive constructions used in LTEAos in some newspapers in Indonesia.
Salamun .
also made a comparison between the possessive patterns in Ambon dialect IN dan standard IN.
A contrastive analysis of the RU and IN in translating the noun phrase with an adjective as its attribute (Karyaningsih, 2.
These sources are used as references in this study.
In the comparison step, it includes the description of the differences and similarities of possessive constructions in NP of both languages.
At this step, the equivalence method is used with determinant in the form of another language (Sudaryanto, 2015: 15-.
To reach a form that does not exist in IN.
RU is used as the point of departure in the comparison by providing equivalent lingual units in IN to identify the differences and NP with possessive construction that is compared is derived from the data in the form There have not been any specific discussions on of clauses/sentences.
The final stage in this step is the comparison between RU and IN possessive formulating the comparison.
Therefore, this research aims to obtain a more accurate and more detailed description The final step in this research is to translate NP with of the subject in finding the adequate equivalences possessive construction in a RU and IN clause/ Tri Yulianty Karyaningsih / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
7 No.
In translation, the term source language the following data sample.
(SL) and target language (TL) are known.
In this .
Dedova krovatAo stojala research, both RU and IN can be the SL and TL grandfather bed because in this research, observed how possessive Adj.
nom N.
construction on RU noun phrases translated into IN, and vice versa.
The method applied in this v perednem uglu, .
translation is a word-for-word translation method, in front corner then a literal translation method to reach the nearest Adv grammatical equivalences .
ee Newmark, 1988:
(Maksim Gorky.
Detstvo.
In Russian National 45-.
The data as an example of the translation Corpu.
material derived from the Russian and Indonesian AoAoGrandfatherAos bed was in the front corner, literary works.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Contrastive Analysis of Possessive Construction in Russian and Indonesian NPs I on poel v kuhnju, nadejasAo and he went to kitchen hoping nayti tam maminu sumku.
find there mother bag Adj.
ac N.
P Adv (V.
Panova.
Pro Mityu i Nastyu.
In Russian National Corpu.
AoAnd he went into the kitchen, hoping to find motherAos bag there.
Ao Semantic relation in possessive construction, both in RU and IN, is generally a possessum .
relationship with the possessor (Kobozeva, 2015:
Setiawan, 2015: .
In NP, the possessum as the head is a noun, while the possessor can be certain On the data .
it seems that the function of the syntactic subject (S) filled by NP with possessive Possessive Construction in Russian NPs construction dedova krovat AograndfatherAos bedAo.
Possessive construction stating the meaning of The attributive adjective dedova is formed from ownership in RU NPs can be realized through the noun ded AograndfatherAo by adding suffix and relation of meaning between the head noun with adjectival flexion as the marker of grammatical adjectives, pronouns, and nouns as attributes of the categories of gender, number and case.
Similarly, in phrase (Sushkova, 2007: .
, the NP maminu sumku AomamaAos bagAo is a possessive construction, in which the adjective NP with adjectives as attributes maminu is formed from noun Mama AomamaAo.
Adjectives are categories that are generally used as However, the syntactic function of that possessive an attribute on the NP because of its main function construction is object (O).
The syntactic functions in characterizing objects.
In general, adjectives can also be seen through the grammatical category are categorized into three types: .
qualitative of cases, namely nominative to S, accusative .
adjectives that directly characterize objects such for O.
Besides, as shown in the linguistic markers as krasivyj AobeautifulAo, sinij AoblueAo.
relative listed under these phrases, the head corresponds to adjectives that indirectly characterize objects, the attribute in terms of grammatical categories of employing their relation to something else such gender, number and case, thus form a concordance as material .
irpicnaja stena Aobrick wallA.
, time relation.
Therefore, the nounAos position is behind .
trennij spektaklAo Aomorning performanceA.
and the attributive adjective so that the pattern of the .
possessive adjectives asserting ownership by possessive construction is Adj N.
a person or animal (Kostomarov & Maksimov, 2010: 483-.
Of the three types, possessive .
NP with pronouns as attributes adjectives are particularly used to express the Pronouns are classified into nine different types.
possessive meaning.
Possessive adjectives are One of them is possessive pronoun AoprityazatelAonye formed morphologically from nouns by adding mestoimeniyaAo, which in its combination with suffixes and adjectival flexion, as can be seen in nouns in an NP expresses the meaning of Tri Yulianty Karyaningsih / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
7 No.
ownership (Kostomarov & Maksimov, 2010: .
of property by someone or something.
As well as personal pronouns, possessive pronouns also refer to 1st, 2nd, 3rd person, singular, and plural .
However, they are different in forms, namely ja AoI,Ao ty AoyouAo, on/ona/ono Aohe/she/it.
/f/.
Ao, my AoweAo, vy AoyouAo, and oni AotheyAo.
These forms are classified as personal pronouns, whereas moj AomyAo, tvoj AoyourAo, ego/ejo Aohis/herAo, na AoourAo, va AoyourAo, ih AotheirAo are possessive pronouns.
Moreover, the possessive pronoun svoj AoownAo used in a sentence/clause refers to a personAos own self, for example.
Nina ubrala svoju komnatu.
AoNina cleaned her own roomAo.
The possessive pronoun has the grammatical categories of gender, number, and case, which in combination with the noun, indicates the concordance relation through the flexion .
xcept the third perso.
Therefore, the noun head is placed behind the attribute (Pron N).
Here are examples of possessive constructions in NP with a possessive pronoun as .
Moj ros krasivym brother grew handsome Pron.
nom N.
NP with Nouns as Attributes Nouns are also used to express the possessive construction in the NP.
The attributive noun is standing in the genitive .
form of grammatical categories as the possessor (Sushkova, 2007: .
, and morphologically differentiator of the head The syntactic relation between these phraseAos elements is government relation, i.
, the attribute takes the form of certain cases due to the head demands (Kostomarov & Maksimov, 2010: .
In related phrases such, the head is placed in front of the attribute.
It can be said that the possessive construction in NPs is patterned N N.
Here are some examples of sentences with NP as the possessive construction.
podrostkom zapadnoevropejskogo West Europe (Sergey Dovlatov.
Nashi.
In Russian National Corpu.
AoMy brother grew up as a handsome teenager of the West European type.
Kaetsja, ja ljublju
its seems I love
S P
syna, .
Pron.
ac N.
(Galina Shcherbakova.
MalAocik i Devocka.
In Russian National Corpu.
AoI think I love your son,.
Ao Komnata otsa stojala pustaja, father stood empty nom N.
P Comp (D.
Likhachev.
Vospominaniya.
In Russian National Corpu.
AoFatherAos room was empty,.
Valja razveivaet na verevocke Valya hangs on string
ADV
postirannoe belAoje Ae rubaku washed clothes shirt the syntactic function of the subject.
While in .
NP with possessive construction tvoego syna Aoyour sonAo has a syntactic function as an object.
It can be seen from the accusative case.
As in .
, pronoun as the attribute of NP in .
shows the concordance relation in gender, number, and case with the noun.
Therefore, its position is in front of the head (Pron N).
In example .
, moj brat, as the subject of the sentence, is the NP, which possessive pronoun moj AomyAo as its attribute.
The flexion -oj is a grammatical categoryAos marker of masculine .
, singular, and nominative case, which shows the concordance relation with the head noun brat AobrotherAo.
Hence, the position of the head is after the attribute.
Except that, through nominative case can be determined by Sergeja i dve mayki.
Sergei and two T-shirt (A.
Arbuzov.
Irkutskaya Istoriya.
Russian National Corpu.
AoOn the line.
Valya hangs the washed clothes Ae SergejAos shirt and two T-shirt.
Ao In sentence .
, komnata otsa AofatherAos room,Ao as the subject, and rubaku Sergeja AoSergeiAos shirtAo, as an object, are NP with otsa AofatherAo and Sergeja AoSergeiAo as the attributive nouns.
The Tri Yulianty Karyaningsih / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
7 No.
with the insertion of the word milik Aobelong toAo or dari AofromAo as a relator (Chaer, 2015: .
The following are some examples in which there is NP with possessive construction.
flexion of a genetive case on the attributive noun, , a or -ja, can express the possessive meaning The establishment of an attributive noun, in this case, forms the head noun demands that the syntactic relation of which is government.
In such relation, the head positioned in front of the attribute, as shown in .
, so that the pattern of possessive constructions in this phrase is N The syntactic function of phrases can be viewed through the flexion of the head noun cases.
In .
, -a .
omnata AoroomA.
is a marker of the nominative case that shows the function of the subject.
In .
, -u .
ubaku AoshirtA.
is a marker of the accusative case that shows the function of the object.
Rumah Maria agak jauh dari house Maria rather far from kampus, di sebelah selatan kota.
campus on side south city (Damono.
2015: .
AoMariaAos house is rather a distance from the campus, in the south of the city.
Ao .
Di kantor polisi ia diterima in office police he received baik-baik karena menyatakan well because bahwa ia kakak Rusdi.
that he brother Rusdi Possessive construction patterned N N such as komnata otsa AoDadAos roomAo synonymous with .
Adj N pattern such data .
above, namely otsova komnata AoDadAos roomAo (Walgina, 2003: .
However, such a possessive construction used in colloquial (Kostomarov & Maksimov, 2010: .
Possessive constructions patterned N N can be expanded as additional explanatory of other elements, such as komnata otsa AoDadAos roomAo becomes komnata moego otsa AoMy dadAos room,Ao but possessive constructions patterned Adj N can not be expanded to *moja otsova komnata.
(Damono.
2015: .
AoAt the police station, he was well received because he said that he was RusdiAos Ao Possessive Construction in Indonesian NPs In sentence .
NPs rumah Maria AoMariaAos houseAo and kakak Rusdi AoRusdiAos brotherAo are constructed with nouns (Maria and Rusd.
as the attributes.
The attributive noun phrases are determined by its placement behind the head noun (DM patter.
is fixed.
This can be seen in repositions of the phrase elements, which will bring the nongrammatical form (*Maria rumah, *Rusdi kaka.
The possessive meaning in that both phrases can be made explicit with the insertion of the word milik Aobelong toAo or dari AofromAo .
umah milik Maria, kakak dari Rusd.
NP serves the syntactic function in a sentence and in IN is generally determined by word order.
Shown in .
, rumah Maria is a subject in the sentence and the position is in front of the In .
, kakak Rusdi is a predicate, which the position is behind the subject of the sentence.
Possessive construction of IN can be realized by NPs with nouns and pronouns as its attributes (Setiawan, 2015: .
NPs with nouns as attributes The grammatical meaning of ownership to the NP has a pattern of N N (Chaer, 2015: .
with N, who plays behind an attribute as the owner (Wijana, 1991: .
Chaer .
5: .
said that the first N has a meaning component ( possessed object.
, and the second N is ( huma.
or ( institutio.
McGregor .
9, in Setiawan, 2015: .
and Wijana .
adds that the second N might also not human beings, but animals.
Word order as a pointer of the relation between phraseAos elements is generally patterned DM .
odified-modifie.
(Salamun, 2018: .
and applies strictly, so changing the word order in a phrase can significantly change the meaning or even bring a non-grammatical form.
Therefore, word order in this NP with possessive construction cannot be exchanged.
The relation of possessive meaning in NP can be made explicit NPs with pronouns as attributes Attributes of the NPs with the possessive meaning can be realized by personal pronouns and can also be enclitic as its variant forms, such as -ku AomyAo.
Tri Yulianty Karyaningsih / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
7 No.
-mu AoyourAo, -nya Aohis/herAo, -kau AoyourAo (Wijana, 1991: .
Attributive pronouns in these FNs are positioned behind the head noun or patterned DM (Salamun, 2019: .
The 1st, 2nd, 3rd person, singular and plural of personal pronouns can have more than one form, such as saya/aku AoIAo, kamu/ engkau/Anda AoyouAo, ia/dia/beliau Aohe/sheAo, the use of which related to the formality, social relationships such as age, social status, and familiarity.
Also, the 1st plural person, there are two forms, namely kami .
and kita .
on the 2nd plural person there are kalian AoyouAo, kamu sekalian, anda sekalian Aoyou allAo which also the use is related to age and social status (Alwi et al, 2003: 249-.
The following are examples of the noun phrase with possessive construction in a sentence.
plural person .
, which is positioned after the head noun (DM patter.
The exchange of that position can cause grammatical errors (*saya nasi.
or change the structure of the phrase into a sentence/clause or change the attributive structure into predicative .
orang tua Aothey are parentsAo, mereka .
anak-anak Aothey are childrenA.
The positioning of the pronouns after the head can be argued as a possessive marker in both of the sentences above.
In order to make the possessive meaning more explicit, one can insert the word milik/dari .
asib milik/dari saya, orang tua/ anak-anak dari merek.
Like phrases in general, this NP construction is a single unit with one syntactic function in a sentence and generally can be determined by the word order.
In the sentences above, nasib saya, orang tua mereka, anak-anak mereka are noun phrases that serve as the subjects and are placed before the predicates.
Saya sungguh tidak tahu apakah not know whether segalanya itu menunjukkan bahwa everything that shows nasib saya telah menjadi fate my has become Comparison of Possessive Construction in Russian and Indonesian Noun Phrases Based on the description in the previous section, the following is the comparison of possessive construction in RU and IN NPs.
The RU possessive constructions, which are classified by attributive categories, are used as the point of departure in this following discussion.
Each lingual unit in the IN possessive construction counterparts is compared N Pron.
korban takdir manusia.
victim destiny human Comp (Damono.
2015: .
AoI do not know whether everything shows that my fate has fallen victim to human Ao NPs with adjectives as attributes For example, the RU noun phrase in .
dedova krovatAo AograndfatherAos bedAo suggests possessive ItAos similar to the same lingual unit in IN noun phrase in .
, rumah Maria AoMariaAos houseAo.
The phrases above are compared as follows.
Orang tua mereka merasa bangga parents their feel proud Pron.
anak-anak mereka ikut berjuang,.
children their join struggle Russian dedova krovatAo Pron.
grandfather bed Adj.
nom N.
(Damono.
2015: .
AoTheir parents feel proud that their children join in the struggle.
Ao AograndfatherAos bedAo In the sentences above.
NPs nasib saya Aomy fateAo in .
and orang tua mereka Aotheir parentsAo and anak-anak mereka Aotheir childrenAo in .
are the possessive construc-tions.
The attributive personal pronouns are a 1st singular person .
and 3rd Indonesian rumah .
Maria house.
elongs t.
Maria AoMariaAos house.
Ao It can be seen that in the RU possessive construction, the attribute is expressed by adjective, whereas IN uses noun to express possessive.
In RU, this attribute is placed in front of the head related with the grammatical categories of gender, number, and Through these grammatical categories, this phrase shows the syntactic relation of concordance Tri Yulianty Karyaningsih / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
7 No.
between noun and adjective, namely masculine, singular, and nominative case.
On the other hand, such grammatical categories do not exist in the IN.
The relation between phrase elements is determined by word order, in that attribute is placed after the head, following the rule of IN.
Possessive meaning in the RU noun phrase can be seen from the possessive adjective implying ownership.
relator is required.
On the other hand, possessive meaning in the IN noun phrase is implicit in that a relator can be inserted between the phrase elements.
AomyAo, serving as the attribute.
Like an adjective, a pronoun is placed before the noun related to the grammatical categories of gender, number, and case, so that the syntactic relation between phrase elements is a concordance.
As seen in the linguistic markers of the NP above, the grammatical category it is masculine, singular, and nominative.
Possessive meaning is explicitly expressed morphologically by the possessive pronoun that inherently expresses the meaning of ownership.
While the counterpart in the IN, the possessive construction in NP is attributed Based on the above description, the formula to a personal pronoun with a position behind the of comparison between RU and IN possessive noun (DM rul.
It also applies as the revealer of a possessive relation.
There are variants of this construction can be argued as follows:
possessive form so that the possessive construction Indonesian can also have variants, namely personal pronoun Russian saya .
asib saya Aomy fateA.
and enclitic -ku AomyAo A The pattern A The pattern which derived from aku .
asibku, nasib aku Aomy of possessive of possessive fateA.
The use of both variants must be observed construction in NP construction in NP related to the social status, age, or proximity, i.
with attributive with attributive nouns adjectives is Adj N.
is N N.
aku further demonstrates familiarity.
A There are grammatical A No grammatical categories of gender.
Word number, and case order follows the forming concordance general formal rules relation related to of modified-modifier word order.
(DM).
A Relator is not inserted A A relator can be among the elements inserted .
of the phrase.
The to make possessive relation of meaning meaning explicit.
can be determined through the basic lexical meaning of the possessive adjective.
Based on the descriptions of possessive constructions in NPs with attributive pronouns, the following is the formulations of the comparative Russian A The pattern of possessive construction in NP with attributive .
pronouns is Pron N.
A No variations.
Indonesian A The pattern of possessive construction in NP with attributive .
pronouns is N Pron.
A There are variations associated with formality, social status, age, familiarity.
A There are grammatical A There is no grammatcategories of gender, ical category.
Word number, and case order follows the forming concordance general formal rules relation related to word of modifier-modified (DM).
NPs with pronouns as attributes Following is the comparison of possessive construction in NPs with the attributive pronouns in RU and IN.
Russian NP in example .
and Indonesian NP in example .
, are used here as an example.
Russian Pron.
nom N.
Aomy brotherAo NPs with nouns as attributes Indonesian nasib saya The following example is the possessive construction in NP derived from the RU data .
, as well as a comparable lingual unit in IN derived from the data .
Pron.
Aomy fate.
Ao It can be seen that the RU possessive construction is constituted by a noun serving as the head and a possessive pronoun, i.
1st singular person moj Tri Yulianty Karyaningsih / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
7 No.
Russian rubaku Sergeja shirt Sergei ac N.
AoSergeiAos shirtAo .
Cerez mesjas ejo selang bulan dia after month her Indonesian rumah .
Maria house.
elongs t.
Maria AoMariaAos houseAo mamenAoka Pron.
m N.
Adv u moej tesej .
become has my mother-in-law For example .
, attributive noun is placed behind the head noun.
It appears that the noun has Pron.
ins N.
grammatical categories of gender, number and Comp case, but this does not form a concordance relation (Chekov.
IspovedA.
to the NP.
Relation between phrase elements is the government relation, which is the head noun demanding attributive noun standing in the genitive In data .
there are two possessive constructions This case can explicitly express the possessive in the NP, namely:
Therefore, the attribute is placed mamenAoka and behind the head.
At comparable in IN, possessive construction in the NP .
is also attributed by noun with the position behind the head.
This word order Pron.
nom N.
tends to be strict with DM rule.
Possessive meaning tesej can be made explicit with the insertion of the word milik Aobelong toAo .
umah milik Mari Aohouse belong mother-in-law to Mari.
as an optional relator.
Pron.
ins N.
Referring to the explanation, the comparison of The possessive constructions are built from nouns possessive construction in NPs with attributive serving as the head and possessive pronouns serving noun can be formulated as follows.
as the attributes which are positioned in front of the Russian Indonesian In the linguistic markers under Russian NPs, grammatical categories can be related to the word A The pattern of A The pattern of order based on the syntactic relation of concordance possessive construction possessive construction in NP with attributive in NP with attributive between the head noun and the attributive pronoun.
nouns is N N.
nouns is N N.
In the translation into IN, possessive constructions A Attributive noun A There is no grammatical in both of the above phrases can also be expressed standing in the genitive category of cases.
by the third person of persoal pronoun, namely case form due to the Word order follows the enclitic -nya Aohis/herAo instead dia Aohe/she-his/herAo, syntactic relation of general formal rules and the first person, i.
saya AoI/myAo or enclitic -ku government, which of modified-modifier AomyAo used when showing intimacy.
The absence of is related to the word (DM).
The relator can grammatical categories of gender, number and case order and making be inserted to make the in Indonesian grammar led to a relation of phrase possessive meaning possessive meaning elements is based on the word order in general, that the attribute is follow the head (DM rul.
So, possessive constructions in the NP in IN are:
Translation of Possessive Construction AoibunyaAo and Aomertua saya/-kuAo mother her mother-in-law my Translation from Russian to Indonesian Here are some examples of the RU clause in which N Pron.
Pron.
there are possessive constructions in the NP to be translated into IN.
The data are taken from the short Syntactic function in the RU can be seen through story by Anton Chekhov entitled Ispoved Ao and Na a grammatical category of cases.
NP possessive constructions in the data .
, ejo mamenka Gvozde.
Aoher motherAo stands in the nominative case as a pointer function of the subject, while the phrase moej tesej Aomy mother-in-lawAo stands in the Tri Yulianty Karyaningsih / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
7 No.
instrumental case .
that in the clause serves as a complement (Com.
predicate byla uz Aohas becomeAo.
Meanwhile, the syntactic function of words in IN is based on the pattern of word order in sentences that generally puts the subject in front of the predicate and complement accompanying Based on this, the RU clause .
can be translated into IN becomes Sebulan kemudian ibunya sudah menjadi mertua saya: .
or Sebulan kemudian ibunya sudah menjadi mertuaku: .
AoA month later her mother became my mother-in-lawAo.
Cinovnye eludki salisAo perut mengerut stomach constrict Adj.
nom N.
ot gorja: golod ne tetka, .
karena derita lapar bukan main because suffer hungry extreme Adv (Chekov.
IspovedA.
Therefore, to express the meaning of the plural in the IN can be realized among others through lexical reduplication or by adding a word with the plural Therefore, the RU phrase in IN becomes:
Aoperut para pegawaiAo stomach clerks Grammatical categories of cases in RU can be the marker of syntactic functions, namely nominative case as the marker function of the subject.
While the syntactic function of words in IN, as well as the word order in a phrase, referring to pattern of the word order, which is the subject generally precedes the predicate.
Therefore, the RU clause in .
can be translated into IN becomes Perut para pegawai mengerut karena menderita: lapar bukan main.
AoThe clerkAos stomachs constricted because of suffering: extremely hungry .
Ao .
, vsjo pereportila karAoera semua merusak karier everything ruined Struckova! Struchkkov (Chekov.
Na Gvozd.
Possessive construction in data .
eludki Adj.
nom N.
Attribute in NP above, cinovnye, is a possessive adjective formed from noun cinovnik AoclerkAo by adding suffix and adjektival flexion -ye.
The linguistic markers under the NP show that between phrase elements appears the syntactic relation of concordance.
This relation can determined through the grammatical categories that can be related to the word order in a phrase, that is the attribute is positioned in front of the head.
In there translation into IN, possessive construction on that NP embodied by the noun serving as attribute.
The absence of grammatical categories in IN makes the relation between phrase elements based only on the word order in general, that the attribute is behind the head (DM rul.
Therefore, possessive construction in the NP in IN is:
In clause .
, the possessive construction is:
karAoera Struckova karier Struchkkov Struchkov A seen above.
NP is constructed of a head with a noun as an attribute to the position behind the The linguistic markers show that there are grammatical categories in the RU phrase that can be related to the word order based on the syntactic relation between the phrase elements.
In .
NP forms a government relation, which is the head noun demands the attributive noun standing in the genitive case.
This case inherently can also contain the grammatical meaning of possession.
their translation into IN, possessive construction in the NP is also expressed by a noun that is also positioned behind the head.
However, this position is not related to the grammatical category that Aoperut pegawaiAo stomach clerk s N.
However, the adjektival flexion of -ye and nominal flexion -i in the RU noun phrase show the plural.
Tri Yulianty Karyaningsih / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
7 No.
does not exist in the IN grammar.
It is based on the general rules of the word order in IN phrase, which is the attribute is behind the head (DM rul.
Therefore, the possessive construction such as RU in IN are:
in an IN phrase, which is patterned DM.
While the translation into RU, possessive pronoun serves as the attribute on this phrase, but with the position in front of the head.
It is because of having the grammatical categories which is it must conform to the grammatical categories of noun or forming a syntactic relation of concordance.
Therefore, the possessive construction in RU is:
Aokarier StruchkovAo career Struchkov vesAo Pron.
nom N.
NP syntactic function can be seen from the grammatical category of noun cases in the head In .
, the head noun karAoera AocareerAo stands in the nominative case, so this syntactic function of NP is subject, although the NP position after the predicate in that sentence.
While the syntactic function of words in the IN can be viewed through the word order in a sentence, which is usually the subject is placed before the predicate.
Therefore, the clause RU in data .
can be translated into IN: .
, karier Struchkov telah merusak segalanya! AoStruchkovAos career has ruined everything.
Ao or can be expressed in passive: .
, semua telah dirusak oleh karier Struchkov.
AoEverything has been ruined by StruchkovAos career.
Ao However, because between the noun and pronoun is connected by the concordance relation, the pronoun must adjust to the grammatical categories of the noun.
The head noun in the IN phrase, namely barang-barang AobelongingsAo, indicating the plural, then the translation in RU morphologically manifested through flexion of the plural marker.
Thus.
IN possessive construction is translated to the RU becomes:
vesi Pron.
nom N.
Translation from Indonesian to Russian HereAos an example of a sentence that included a possessive construction in IN noun phrase, which translates into RU.
Sentence of this data is taken from the novel of Sapardi Djoko Damono entitled Trilogi Soekram .
Syntactic functions in IN sentence are generally determined by the word order in a sentence, while in RU syntactic functions can be seen from the grammatical categories of cases so that the word order is not the primary determinant.
, the syntactic function of possessive construction is the object, which in IN generally stands after the predicate.
While the RU, the object function is expressed by the accusative Because the form of the accusative case of the unanimate nouns .
arang AobelongingA.
equal to the form of the nominative case, then the NP structure above can be used.
Therefore.
IN sentence in .
is translated into RU: I ty ved Ao uze prodal tvoi vesi.
AoAnd youAove already sold your belongings to go homeAo.
However, please note that the sentence contained personal pronoun kamu/ty AoyouAo as subject or agent.
In such sentences in the RU, the existence of a possessive pronoun usually refers to the subject/agent so used the possessive pronoun svoj AoownAo.
Thus.
IN sentence in .
is usually translated into RU becomes: AoI ty vedAo ue prodal svoi vesi.
AoAnd youAove already sold your Ao.
Dan kau kan sudah menjual i ty vedAo ue prodal barang- barangmu .
vesAo Pron.
(Damono, 2015: .
Possessive construction in sentence .
barang-barangmu vesAo tvoj belonging your p Pron.
Attribute of the NP above provided by pronoun are prepared by the enclitic -mu AoyourAo as shortening of kamu Aoyou/yourAo.
Attribute stands behind the head corresponding general rule of the word order Tri Yulianty Karyaningsih / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
7 No.
phrase elements, namely the government relation, which is the noun head demands the form of the attributive case, such as the genitive as a marker of the possessive meaning.
While the combination of noun and pronoun also form a possessive meaning, pronoun are placed in front of the noun.
Therefore, the 2nd IN possessive construction of .
in RU patterned N NP (Pron N), with the 2nd N, matAo AomotherAo, stands in the genitive case becames As an attribute, possessive pronoun ego AohisAo is the 3rd singular person, masculine, which is refers to Soekram (SoekramAos/his mothe.
So, this second IN possessive construction in the RU Possessive constructions in the sentence on the becomes:
suara Soekram and khayalan ibunya khayalan -nya golos Sukram matAo ego daydreams his voice Sukram daydreams mother his nom Pron3s.
m N.
s Pron3s Syntactic functions of phrases in IN are determined The first possessive construction is a combination by the word order in a sentence, which is generally of head noun with the noun as the attribute standing subject precedes predicate and an object behind the behind the head according to the rule of the word predicate.
While in RU, syntactic function in the order in an IN phrase, which is patterned DM.
The sentence is related to the grammatical category of possessive meaning in this NP is implicit.
In their cases in the head noun.
Since both the NP in IN translation into RU, possessive construction in this sentence occupy the function of subject and object, phrase can be noun as the attribute with a position the head noun in translation in the RU must stand in behind the head.
However, this placement is related the nominative case .
and accusative case to the syntactic relation between phrase elements, .
thatAos unanimate nouns of the same form namely the government, which is the head demands with the nominative case.
Therefore.
IN sentence the form of the attributive noun cases.
It also deals in .
, can be translated into RU becomes Golos with the relation of meaning.
The meaning of Sukrama ostanovil grezy ego materi.
AoSukramAos possession in the RU can be made explicit by a voice stopped her motherAos daydreams.
Ao genitive grammatical category through the flexion -a as a marker of the masculine, singular.
So, this IN possessive construction in the RU is:
IV.
CONCLUSION
Suara Soekram menghentikan golos Sukram voice Sukram khayalan ibunya.
materi ego daydreams mother his s Pron3s (Damono, 2015: .
Sukrama Soekram Sukram nom N.
Possessive construction in RU and IN noun phrases show the differences, that is, in word order, attributive categories, and grammatical categories, which relate to each other in the RU.
Grammatical categories can be related to make possessive meaning explicit and the syntactic relation between phrase elements that affect the word order.
So, the syntactic function of the phrase in the sentence, which can be seen from the grammatical category of cases.
While the system of grammatical category does not exist in IN, the relation between phrase elements is indicated through the word order.
It is generally patterned DM strictly so that the relation of meaning to the phrase is more implicit.
Similarly.
Meanwhile, the construction of the 2nd NP is contained of the head noun and the combination of noun and pronoun.
The pattern of this phrase is N NP (N Pro.
, with enclitics pronoun -nya Aoher/ hisAo.
This pattern corresponding general rule of the word order in an IN phrase, which is patterned DM.
In their translation into RU, possessive construction with the noun head in front of the attributive noun is also combined with possessive pronoun.
This word order is related to the syntactic relation between Tri Yulianty Karyaningsih / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
7 No.
the syntactic function in the sentence is determined by word order.
While the similarities are in the construction of NP with the noun head attributed by a noun and the word order (N N).
However, this is merely due to the nature of language itself, not because of their similarity in grammatical.
in the RU, which does not exist in IN.
While the translation of possessive constructions with the pronoun serving as an attribute of IN to RU, should be examined variants that may be related to social distance, formality, and intimacy.
In this study, the semantic aspect of possessive relations is not discussed thoroughly.
Also, there are different forms, but synonymous.
It can be traced through the semantic features of the phrase elements so that various types of semantic relations of possessiveness can be specified, and the forms of synonym can be distinguished.
In contrast, differences in the two languages related to the possessive construction are due to the differences in grammatical.
This can be seen as the difference of language typology, i.
, the RU is an inflected type, whereas IN is an agglutinative one.
The formulation of the comparison results showed these contrasts could help in the translation of the possessive constructions in both languages, so we get an adequate translation following the rules of each language.
RU translation of IN to more grammatically complex, because it is not only the categories and word order can be different, but it should also be observed grammatical categories Acknowledgments Some material of this article has been written as part of the authorAos ongoing dissertation project.
For that, the authors would like to thank Prof.
Dr.
I Dewa Putu Wijana.
and Dr.
Amir MaAoRuf.
Hum.
as the promoter and co-promoter.
REFERENCES