Literary Reviews LITERARY REVIEW, CONCEPTS, THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
or relative clause and to describe their syntactic function. The main theory used in analyzing the data was a theory which was proposed by Quirk et al 1985 in their
book A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Besides that, some supporting theories were also used in analyzing the data, such as: A University
English Grammar by Randolph Quirk 1973 and a theory by A.J. Thomson and
A.V. Martinet 1986 Partical English Grammar.Moreover, tree diagram was alsoused in describing the function of relative clause. His study is relevant with
thisstudy since both analyze the types of relative clause and also use the same theory, Quirk et al
’s theory 1985, in analyzing it. The differences are: first his study and this study were used different data source which cause a different result,
secondhisstudy analyzed the syntactic function of relative clause, whereas this study analyzed the syntactic structure of relative clause.
The third study was a n undergraduate thesis “The Analysis of Syntactic
Structure in the Relative Clause with Reference to Steinbeck’s The Pearl” by Marlyn Ariesta 2014 which aims to identify the patterns, analyzed the structure
and classified the types of relative clause fou nd in the novel “The Pearl” by
Steinbeck. Chomsky’s theory 1971 and promoted by Murphy’s argument 1985 was usedin identifying the pattern of relative clause found in the data source,
whereas, in analyzing the syntactic structure Chomsky’s theory 1971 Generative
Transformation in his book Syntactic Structure was used and Radford’s theory in
his book Transformational Syntax: A Student Guide to Chomsky’s Extended
Theory 1988 was also used in analyzing the types of relative. Besides of those
theories, some other theories were also used, those are: the theory proposed by Brown and Miller 1994: 17 in the concept of tree diagram, Chomsky’s theory
1982 about the feature of relative clause, Murphy 1985 about kinds of relative pronoun and etc. The result of her study was presented qualitatively and
descriptively each of the patterns found from the data were explained clearly. The tree diagram which was used in indicating the constituent structure of the relative
clause also drew clearly which made the analysis understandable. In the end of her studywere also provided appendices of the list of relative clauses found in the data
source. Her study is relevant with this study, since both identified the types and analyzed structure of relative clause. The differences are: first, from the theory
used to analyze the types of relative clause, in which her study used Radford’s
theory 1988 in analyzing the types of the relative clause whereas this study used Quirk et al
’s theory 1985 and also in analyzing the structure of relative clause her study
used Chomsky’s theory 1971 Generative Transformation in his book Syntactic Structure
, whereas this study used a phrase structure rule theory by Wekker and Haegeman 1985 in their book entitled A Modern Course in English
Syntax and a supporting theory, Wh-movement by Haegamen 1994 in her book
Introduction to Government Binding Theory 2
nd
Edition . Other differences, her
study analyzed the pattern which was not analyzed in this study. The fourth study was an international journal article entitled Discourse
Structure and Relative Clause Processing which was written by Mak, Vonk, and
Schriefers 2006. This article discussed about two experiments: first, about relative clauses with a personal pronoun in the relative clause, and the second
experiment was about the discourse status of the NP in the relative clause was manipulated: either it was not present in the preceding context, or it was the
discourse topic. From the first experiment, they obtained a preference for object-
relative clauses, in line with the assumption that personal pronouns refer to a discourse topic and are thus topicworthy. And their second experiment showed
that when the NP in the relative clause refers to the discourse topic, the difficulty of object-relative clauses is reduced, in comparison with relative clauses with an
NP that is new in the discourse, even in the absence of any explicit cue in the relative clause itself. Those experiments show that discourse factors guide
processing at the sentence level. This article is relevant with this study even though this article is about discourse, however, it also discussed about relative
clause. The last study was a journal entitledNordic Journal of linguistic. In this
journal, there was an article which was written by Bianchi 2002 which is relevant to this study, the article entitled Headed Relative Clause in Generative
Syntax Part II. This article concerned about the way in which the relative clause
is syntactically related with the modified phrase. In the conclusion of her study, she stated that relative clause constitute an extremely intriguing empirical domain,
both because of the complexity of the data and of the theoretical relevance of the construction especially with the respect to the syntactic-semantic interference.
This article is relevant tothis study since the writer in this article also discussed about relative clause and also the relation between generative clause and relative
clause. This study aims to identify the types of relative clause found in the data
source and also analyzed the syntactic structure of relative clause which was introduced by relative pronoun who, which, whom, whose, that, zero or by a
phrase which contains a relative pronoun such as: for which, to whom, etc. which
were found in the data source. The data source in this study was different from the previous studies. This study used a novel by John Green entitled Looking for
Alaska , which first published on March, 2005, as the data source. This study used
some theories, those are: phrase structure rules by Wekker and Haegman in their book A Modern Course in English Syntax 1985, Wh-movement theory by
Haegeman 1994 in her book Introduction to Government Binding Theory 2
nd
Edition as asupporting theory, and a theory about relative clause by Quirk et al
1985 in their book A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language.