v i
,
Y
L
I
M
A
F
D
E
V
O
L
E
B
Y
M
O
T
S
I
S
E
H
T
S
I
H
T
E
T
A
C
I
D
E
D
I
v
Y T I L A N I G I R O S ’ K R O W F O T N E M E T A T S
h c i h w , s i s e h t s i h t t a h t e r a l c e d y lt s e n o h
I Ihavew irtten ,doe sno tcontain t hework e h t d n a s n o it a t o u q e h t n i d e ti c e s o h t t p e c x e , e l p o e p r e h t o f o k r o w e h t f o s tr a p r o
s a , s e c n e r e f e
r a scien itifcpapers hould.
, a tr a k a y g o
Y 7J une2013 r e ti r W e h T
it u t s a y d i W e n il u a P
4 1 2 1 8
x i E L W O N K C
A DGEMENTS
ti m d a o t e v a h
I tha tthe compleiton o fthi sthesi si sbecause o fothers ’ y
a r p d n a t r o p p u
s er .Therefore ,now Iexpres smy greates tgrattiude t o al lpeople y
a r p , tr o p p u s ri e h t n e v i g e v a h o h
w er ,andmo itvaitont ometo ifnisht hist hesis . I
,l l a f o t s ri
F would ilket oexpres smygreates tgrattiudet om ySavio rand ,
n a i d r a u
G Jesu sChrist ,whoalway sgive sHi sblessingtomet hroughou tmylfie . i
u g o t d e ri t s l e e f r e v e n e
H demetopas severysingledaywtihou tanyobstacle .He s
i alwayst herewhenI needHim .Wtihou tHim,t hist hesi scanno tbecompleted. Ialso dedicatemy special grattiude t o m y famliy in Magelang who have
h ti a f ri e h t n e v i
g ,paitence ,andsuppo trt o em .It hankmyfather ,BambangS .W,. ir
u d t r o p p u s l a i c n a n if s i h r o
f ng my study i n college . Ialso t hank my mother ,C . ,
. H i r T i t k e b u
S fo r he r advice , suppo tr , and prayer . I also thank he r fo r g
n i g a r u o c n
e em to ifnish my thesis I . also t hank rh e ltiltesister ,C .Wiendasari , e
t a m m o o r y m s e m o c e b o s l a o h
w .
I would ilket ot hankmyadvisor ,HennyHerawa it ,S.Pd. ,M.Hum. ,who i
g s a
h ven mehe rpreciou s itmet o guidemet o go t hrough t hecompleiton oft hi s i
s e h
t .s I t hankhe rwliilngnesst ocheck,t or ead ,andt ogivepreciousf eedbackf o r I
t a h t o s e
m canmoveonwtiht hist hesi .s I alsot hankal lPBIl ecturerswhohave e
m t h g u a
t al o tof t hing sand given me al o to fexpeirences . Ialso t hank Adest i i
r a s a l a m o
K ,S.Pd. ,M.A. ,f orbecomingmyproofreade randsupporitngm . e I would also ilket ot hankal lo fmy classmatesi nPB I2008 .It hank them
i m o c e b r o
x ,
g n a li G , i d A , n a u Y , a li
M Andrew ,Yohana ,Ptia ,Ra ith, Prisca ,Astri ,Liza, Andre ,Damas ,Pandu and the other stha t Icanno tmeniton . Ithank them fo r
d n a n o it a r e p o o c r i e h
t warm f irendship du irng t hehard itmei n doing t het asks . I k
n a h t o s l
a Angga fo rhi skindness t o become my proofreader .I thank Selvi rfo il
li w r e
h ngnesst ocheckandr echeckmythesis’ gramma,rl anguage ,anddiciton .I k
n a h t o s l
a Tiya sTiyus rf o he rsuppor tand he radvicefo r ifnishing t his t hesis. I k
n a h t o s l
a Anggi fo rbecoming my bes tfirend since senio rhigh school ,fo rt he f
o e m it t s e t a e r
g togetherness ,and fo rherwliilngness t o be my colleague ,group o
c d n a , e t a
m -worke rdu irng t hestudy i nPBI . Ialso would ilket o t hank Sesa fo r il
li w s i
h ngnesst obecomemy proofreade randhelpingmetogatherideasfort hi s i
s e h
t s . Ialsot hankLeo rfo becomingmytoughboyf irendandgivingmesuppo tr , n
o it a v it o m , s n o it s e g g u
s fo rno tgivingupi n ifnishingmythesi .s s
a
L tly,I wouldl iket o t hankal lpeoplet ha thavesuppo tredmethroughou t r
a e y e g e ll o c s i h
t whom Ihaveno tmenitone dy et .
y d i W e n il u a
i x
S T N E T N O C F O E L B A T T
I
T LEPAGE……… i
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … S E G A P L A V O R P P
A ii
I T A C I D E
D ONPAGE……….. i v
… … … … … … … … … … Y T I L A N I G I R O S ’ K R O W F O T N E M E T A T
S v
I S A K I L B U P N A U J U T E S R E P N A A T A Y N R E
P ……… v i
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … T C A R T S B
A . v ii
B
A STRAK……… vi ii
S T N E M E G D E L W O N K C
A ……….. i x
S T N E T N O C F O E L B A
T ………... ix
N O I T C U D O R T N I I R E T P A H
C 1
.
A Backgroundoft heStudy……… 1 .
B ProblemFormulaiton……….. 3 .
C Objecitve soft heStudy……….. 4 .
D Benefti soft heStudy……….. 4 .
E Deifniitono fTerms………. 5
E R U T A R E T I L D E T A L E R F O W E I V E R I I R E T P A H
C 7
.
A Reviewo fRelatedStudies………. 7 .
B Review Ro f elatedTheo ires……… 8 .
1 Psychologica lApproach………... 8 .
2 Theoryo fCharacter……….. 9 .
3 Theoryo fCharacteirzaiton……… 01 .
ii x .
5 Theoryo fConfilc tResoluiton……….. 31 .
C Theoreitca lFramework………... 16
Y G O L O D O H T E M I I I R E T P A H
C 1 7
.
A Objec toftheStudy………. 71 .
B Approachoft heStudy……… 81 .
C Methodo ftheStudy………... 91
S I S Y L A N A V I R E T P A H
C 2 1
.
A TheDescirp itono fAnna’ sCharacter……….. 12 .
1 C iritca landThoughftul………. 2 4 .
2 CairngandLovingtoHe r y
li m a
F ……… 2 6 .
B Inrtapersona lConfilct sFacedbyAnna………... 29 .
1 Agreeingo rRefusingKidneyDonaitonf o rHe rSister………. 29 .
2 Doub itngHe rExistenceandHe rRolei nt heFamliy………… 3 5 .
3 Decidingt oConitnueo rWtihdrawt heT iral………. 4 0
V R E T P A H
C CONCLUSIONS ANDSUGGESTIONS 45
.
A Conclusions……….. 45 .
B Suggesitons……….. 47
S E C N E R E F E
R ……….. 5 0
P
1
I R E T P A H C
N O I T C U D O R T N I
s i n o it c e s t s ri f e h T . s n o it c e s e v if f o s t s i s n o c r e t p a h c s i h
T thebackground o f
n i a l p x e h c i h w y d u t s e h
t s the reason why the wrtier oc o eh s s My Si tser’ sKeeper
h T . l e v o
n es econdi stheproblemf ormulaitonwhichgivest hegenerali nformaiton
s i d ri h t e h T . y d u t s s i h t n i d e s s u c s i d s i t a h w t u o b
a the objecitve so fthe study
n o it a l u m r o f m e l b o r p e h t s r e w s n a h c i h
w s stated in thi sstudy .The fou trh i sthe
ti f e n e
b s oft hes tudy ,andt hel as tonei st hedeifniitonof mter s usedi nt hiss tudy.
.
A Backgroundoft heStudy
t c e p s a t n a tr o p m i n a s i y li m a
F i n mos tpeople’ slfie since i tbecomes the
e r e h w e c a l
p mos tpeoplel ook f o racomfo trableplacet or eleaset het ension atfe r
n i v a
h g a l o to facitviites .Fo rpeople, f amliy i sconsidered a sHomeSwee tHome
s e m o c e b t i e s u a c e
b the place where they can share theri burdens ,tel lthei rbad
e c n e ir e p x
e ,and express al lthei remoitons .The olde rfamliy member sshould
e d i v o r
p proteciton and securtiy t o t heyounge rones. I n t hi scase ,ch lidren should
y li m a f e h t n i d e r u c e s d n a d e t c e t o r p e
b (“Funcitono fFamliy” ,2012).
e v a h o t s m a e r d y li m a f y r e v E . y li m a f e h t f o s r e b m e m e h t f o e n o s i d li h C
m a f e h t n i d li h
c liy .Wtiht het echnologyexisitngint hi sera ,acouple’ sproblemo f
e v a h o t e l b a g n i e b t o
n ababycanbesolved .A“designe rbaby”hasexistedi nt he
p o l e v e
d e d coun rty . A “designe r baby” i s creaitng a baby wtih a perfec t
s a c it s ir e t c a r a h
c wanted .Thi stechnology reduce sthe irsk o fhaving a disabled
r o d li h
t u b o g a e m it g n o l a d e r r u c c o s a h t n e m p o l e v e d y g o l o n h c e t s i h
T i ti sstli l
l a i s r e v o rt n o c f o t o l a g n i v a
h arguments .Someoft hemmay f orbid o rban human
e k il g n i n o l
c i ti sdone by designe rbaby bu tsome may need tha tfor medica l
.s e s o p r u
p I fadesigne rbabyborn t o bet hechlidoft hef amliy,i twli lno tbecome
o t l a e d g i b
a explain t he fac tto the chlid .The parent swli lno thave some
t n e r e f fi d e b l li w t I . d li h c e h t o t n o it n e tt a e h t e v i g d n a e r a c e k a t o t s m e l b o r
p i fa
l li w w o h e r a s n o it s e u q e h T . s e s o p r u p l a c i d e m r o f y b a b r e n g i s e d a g n i v a h s i y li m a f
e h t t a e rt y e h t o D ? d li h c r i e h t t a e rt s t n e r a p e h t ll i w w o H ? d li h c r i e h t ll e t s t n e r a p e h t
r e n g i s e
d chlid ilket heothe rchlid?
r e n g i s e d e h t g n i v a h e r a o h w s t n e r a p e h t f
I chlidren fo rmedica lpurpose s
n a c ) n e r d li h c r e h t o g n i v a s
( no tmaintain thei rattenitont obeequalf o ral lchlidren
t u o b a s t c il f n o c e m o s g n i v a h n e r d li h c r e n g i s e d e h t e k a m l li w y e h t , e v a h y e h t
, y k s v o n r a D ( y li m a f e h t n i e l o r d n a y ti t n e d i l a e r r e h g n i n o it s e u
q 2000 .)
s ’t l u o c i P i d o J n
I MySister’ sKeeper,t hereaderi ss ervedwtihacompilcated
n o it a u ti
s where famliy become s a burden f ro someone . Famliy become s
g n i h t e m o
s , which make ssomeone afraid o fenteirng the house and a d gvoi i on t
l e v o n s i h T . e c it o
n serve svairousconfilct swtihinonef amliy wherei twasstatred
e h t n e h
w motherf ace sas tiuaitonwhereshehast osustainherf ris tdaughter’sl fie
f o e s u a c e
b illness .Thi sstiuaitonmakest hisf amliy decides to haveanothe rch lid
o
t keepherf ris tdaughte railve .
e h
T Ftizgerald’ s famliy show sal lthe confilct samong each other such a s
A s ’ e t a
K cute Promyelocyitc Leukemia since the age o ftwo tha tmake she r
e m o c e
d i a r f
a ofl osingKate .Sheandhe rhusband decidet ohaveanothe rbabyt hrougha
e
t chnology o fmixing the chromosome to ge tthe perfec tmatch o fDNA .Anna
n r o b s a
w and shedonate ssome patr so fhe rbody such as umbiilca lcord blood ,
d n a , w o r r a m e n o
b he rkidney to suppo tr he rsister’ slfie .A sthe itme goe sby ,
d e ri t g n it t e g s i a n n
A fo donaitng patrs o fhe rbody .She statr sdoubitng he r
r e h t u o b a f l e s r e h g n i n o it s e u q s i e h S . d li h c a s a y li m a f e h t n i e l o r d n a e c n e t s i x e
n n A s e k a m n o it a u ti s s i h T . y li m a f d l a r e g z ti F e h t e d i s n i e c n e t s i x
e a confused and
.s t c il f n o c l a n o s r e p a rt n i e m o s g n i c a f r e h s e k a m
a n n A y b d e c a f s t c il f n o c l a n o s r e p a rt n i e h t s e s s u c s i d y d u t s s i h
T i en t h
d l a r e g z ti
F ’ s famliy. Thi sstudy discusse swha thappened inside Anna’ sthough t
h s l it n
u edecidest oprosecutehe rparentst ostopt hedonaitono fhe rown bodyt o
. r e t s i s r e
h In order t o analyze t he i nrtapersona lconfilc,t t hi sstudy discusses t he
r e t c a r a h
c isitcs o f Anna Ftizgerald porrtayed in the novel . Thi s study also
s e s s u c s i
d k s ind o fconfilctr esoluitonchosen byAnnat os o lvehe rconfilct .s
.
B ProblemFormula iton
s m e l b o r p e m o s e r a e r e h t , y d u t s e h t f o d n u o r g k c a b e h t g n i v a h y B
. d e t a l u m r o
f Theproblem sare:
.
1 HowareAnnaFtizgerald’ scharacterisitcs descirbedi nt henovel?
.
2 Wha tarethei nrtapersona lconfilct sfacedbyAnnaint henovel?
.
.
C Objecitve soft heStudy
e h
T f rist objecitveoft hestudy i st o ifnd ou tthecharacterisitcs descirpiton
A f
o nnaFtizgeraldi nt henovel .Thisdesc irp itonabou tAnnahelpst oanalyzehow
s e c a f a n n
A h r e inrtapersona lconfilcts sa sti i showedint henovel. tI alsogivest he
n o it a m r o f n i l a r e n e
g on why she has those inrtapersona lconfilcts .A tfe r ifnding
r e h t u
o inrtapersona lconfilcts ,the nex tobjecitve i sto analyze the way Anna
e v l o
s s heri nrtapersona lconfilct .s
.
D Benefti soft heStudy
s i y d u t s s i h
T conductedtogiveapicturet ot her eader so ftheconfilctsf aced
f o d li h c e h t s a a n n A y
b the Ftizgerald’ s famliy and the stiuaiton existed in the
d l a r e g z ti
F ’ sfamliy .Thi spredicamentsi nsidet heFtizgerald’ sfamliycausedAnna
s t c il f n o c l a n o s r e p a rt n i e c n e ir e p x e o
t .Thi sstudy si also conducted t o i nform t he
w o h r e d a e
r Annai sporrtayed in t henove land whati nterpretaiton t hatt hewrtie r
b a s a
h ou tAnna.
ti f e n e b t s ri f e h
T si intended f o rthewrtie rand t her eaders .Thewrtie r ifnd s
y d u t s s i h t g n it c u d n o c y b t a h
t , thewrtie rsharpenedananalyitcalt hinkingt or evea l
. s k r o w y r a r e ti
l Thewrtie ralso ifnd somemora lvalues such a showt o beagood
,r e t h g u a d r o r e h t o
m chlidren irghts ,and how to ifgh tfo rthe irght swhich are
d e t a l o i
v . The wrtie r also ifnd s tha t relaitonship among famliy members si
. y li m a f a n i t n a tr o p m i
s i ti f e n e b d n o c e s e h
T intended t ot hef uturer esearcher swho wli lconduc ta
m e h t s p l e h y d u t s s i h T . l e v o n e m a s e h t n i y d u t
s to be reference o rguidance to
e z y l a n
.l e v o n e h t o t d e t a l e
r Beside ,st hi sstudyhelpst hemt oen ircht hei rviewt oanalyze
.l e v o n e m a s e h t
s i t if e n e b d ri h t e h
T intended to Pendidikan Bahasa Inggri sstudent so f
y ti s r e v i n U a m r a h D a t a n a
S ,thi sstudy can be thei rguide to conduc ta ltierature
. y d u t
s Thi sstudy i sexpectedt o givet hePB Istudent sonhow t o i nterpre tltierary
s l e v o n y ll a i c e p s e s k r o
w da n guidethemhowt oanalyzet hedfiferentnoveli nt he
l e v o n e m a s e h t e z y l a n a o t w o h r o c i p o t e m a
s in adfiferen tpoin to fview .Beside ,
thi sstudy also give sthem reference show to implemen ta ltierary work sinto a
h c a e
t i -ng learningmateirals.
.
E De ifniitono fTerm .
1 Character
1 8 9 1 ( s m a r b
A )say sacharacteri saporrtaya lo faperson i n t henove lwhich
s e u g o l a i d r i e h t n i d e s s e r p x e l a r o m r i e h t g n i e e s h g u o r h t r e d a e r e h t y b d e t e r p r e t n i s i
s n o it c a r i e h t n i r
o (p .20). In thi sstudy the characte ri sAnna Ftizgerald a sthe
l e v o n e h t n i r e t c a r a h c n i a
m . In thi sstudy ,Anna Ftizgerald i sa porrtaya lo fa
l e v o n e h t n i n o s r e
p .
.
2 Confilct
s
I enhar tand Spangle (2000 )state tha tconfilc tcan involve two d fiferen t
g u rt s r o s e c i o h
c glef o rpowe.r Deifning confilc tcanbeadfiifcu tlt askbecausei t
r o t c a f l a r e v e s r o f s e m o
c s comei n t hesame itmeand wemayno tbesureenough
7 I I R E T P A H C
E R U T A R E T I L D E T A L E R F O W E I V E R
e r a e r e h
T three seciton sin thi schapter .The fris ti sa review o frelated
a s i d n o c e s e h t , s e i d u t
s review o frelated theo ires ,the thrid i sa review on
h t d n a , d n u o r g k c a b l a c i g o l o h c y s
p e las ti stheoreitca lframework .Some theo ire s
o t d e t a l e
r t his study are psychologica lapproach ,theory o fcharacter ,theory o f
t c il f n o c f o y r o e h t s i t s a l e h t d n a , t c il f n o c l a n o s r e p a rt n i f o y r o e h t , n o it a z ir e t c a r a h c
n o it u l o s e
r .
.
A Reviewo fRelatedStudies o
w t e r a e r e h
T previou sstudie swhichhavebeenconductedusing thi snovel .
d e lt it s i e n o t s ri f e h
T TheMeaning o faMother’ sLovet o He rDyingDaughte ra s s
’t l u o c i P i d o J n i n e e
S My Sister’ sKeeper .Thi sstudy wa sconducted by one o f e
h
t seniors in Engilsh Language Educaiton Study Program , Sanata Dharma
. i n a it s ir K i t k e B , y ti s r e v i n
U Thi sstudy focuse son t he meaning o fSara’sl ove to
. e t a K , r e t h g u a d g n i y d r e h
i n a it s ir K , y d u t s r e h n
I (2010)statedt ha,tfo rSara,l ovemeanss acir ifce .Sara
it r e h s e c if ir c a
s me t o bespen tfo rlooking a tfer Kate; Sara i swliilng t o replace
n i a p s ’ e t a
K ; Sara sac irifce she rfeeilng .Love fo rKate a lso mean scare and
y ti li b i s n o p s e
r ,s rtuggle,ands uppo tr( pp .5 -6 7 2 .)
s e s u c o f y d u t s r e h t o n
A on Anna’ smoitvaitonto stop herorgan donaiton f o r
t s i s r e
h er .Thi sstudy wa salso conducted by one o fthe seniors in Engilsh
u
K sumaDwi .Thi sstudy focuse son Anna’ smoitvaiton swhich encourageher t o
e h t p o t
s organ donaiton fo rhe rsiste.r Before analyzing Anna’ smoitvaiton, t hi s
y d u t
s f rist reveals t he characteirsitc so fAnna Ftizgerald porrtayed in the novel .
a n n A f o l a y a rt r o p s i h
T help sthe wrtie rto know why Anna ha stha tkind o f
. n o it a v it o m
s l a e v e r r e h c r a e s e r s u o i v e r p s i h
T Anna’ sintirnsic moitvaiton sto stop he r
d l u o h s l ri g l a m r o n a e k il e v il o t m o d e e r f r e h r o f e l g g u rt s o t d n a n o it a n o d n a g r o
s i n o it a v it o m r e h t o n A . e v
il anext irnsicmoitvaiton ,whichi stohelphe rsiste rend
( y r e s i m r e
h pp .3 -6 4 8 .)
.
B Reviewo fRelatedTheorie s .
1 PsychologicalApproach
. y d u t s s i h t e z y l a n a o t d e s u s i t a h t h c a o r p p a e h t s i h c a o r p p a l a c i g o l o h c y s P
e b n a c t a h t s e h c a o r p p a e v if e r a e r e h t . r J , s d o o W d n a r e g r e b r h o R o t g n i d r o c c A
t d e s
u o analyze the nove l (1971) , they are: the formails t approach , the
l a r u tl u c o i c o s e h t , h c a o r p p a l a c i h p a r g o i
b -histo irca l approach , the mythopoeic
h c a o r p p
a , da n the psychologica lapproach .T hispsychologicalapproach use sthe
y a m t a h t r o i v a h e b n a m u h d n a n o it a v it o m n a m u h w o n k o t y g o l o h c y s p f o y r o e h t
il a n o s r e p s ’ e n o e m o s t c e f f
a tyw irtteni nt hel tierarywork ( .p 6- )p 1 . 5
h c a o r p p a l a c i g o l o h c y s p , e r o m r e h tr u
F reveal sthe unconsciou saspect so f
n o it c a e m o s r o f n o it c a e r a g n i v i g n i g n i e b n a m u
h s .The reaciton taken by a
e v i g r e t c a r a h
c shint sto the wrtie rto reveal the descirpiton abou tthe main
. l e v o n e h t n i r e t c a r a h
e h s / e h n o it c a e r f o n r e tt a
p i s taken wli l lead to an interpretaiton to a rea l
r e d a e r e h t f o e c n e ir e p x
e ( .p 1 . 4)
.
2 Theoryo fCharacter r
e d r o n
I to ifnd to u and revea lthe characterisitcs descirpiton o fAnna
d e y a rt r o p d l a r e g z ti
F int henovel ,thewrtie ralso usest het heory o fcharacte rand
. n o it a z ir e t c a r a h
c According to Abram s(1981) ,character sare the ifgure o fa
e r p e l p o e p r o n o s r e
p sented i nt henovelo rothe rdramaitcandnarraitveworkand
b d e n i g a m
i y t hereadert hrough t hei rdialoguei n t henove lort hei racitonsi n t he
l e v o
n ( .p 2 . 0) A characte rcan be a stable character ,which b irngs t he reade ran
n o it a t e r p r e t n
i tha the ro shedoe sno tundergo changes through the story .On t he
, d n a h r e h t
o acharacte rcanalsobeachangeablecharacte rwhichmakesther eader
r o e h t a h t s t e r p r e t n
i she ha s gone through severa l change s unde r ce train
. y r o t s e h t n i s e c n a t s m u c ri
c Whethe r tii sstableo rchangeablecharacter ,reailsitc
t c a y l n e d d u s t o n d l u o h s r e t c a r a h c e h t s n a e m h c i h w y c n e t s i s n o c d e e n s k r o w
w o n k y d a e rl a e v a h s r e d a e r e h t e s u a c e b y l g n i c n i v n o c n
u n ti( p .20.)
o F n o d e s a
B rster’ sAspect so fthe Nove l(1974 )there are two type so f e
r a y e h t , s r e t c a r a h
c lfa tand round characters .A lfa tcharacte ri sa characte r
d e t a c il p m o c a g n i v a h t u o h ti w l e v o n e h t n i d e t n e s e r
p descirpiton in some
s e c n e t n e s r o s e u g o l a i
d and tiwli lbeclealrydescirbedinones entenceo rdialogue .
, n o it i d d a n
I a round characte r i s a character t hat ha s a very complex and
i n o it p ir c s e d d e t a c il p m o
c n some sentence so rdialogues .A round characte ri s
y a w g n i c n i v n o c a n i g n i s ir p r u s e l b a p a c y ll a u s
.
3 Theoryo fCharacterizaiton 1
8 9 1 ( s m a r b
A )says tha ta characteirzaiton i sthe proces sto make the
. r o h t u a e h t y b r e t c a r a h
c Characteirzaiton i sabou thow the autho rdescirbe sthe
t r e t c a r a h
c hrough adialog .Fromt hedialog, t heautho rmakest he charactert alk ,
t c
a andlett her eaderst hinkwha tmoitvation ile sbehindt hecharacter’ saciton( pp .
0 2 - )2 . 1
n i ) 2 7 9 1 ( y h p r u M n o d e s a
B Understanding Unseens :An Introduciton to ,s
t n e d u t S s a e s r e v O r o f l e v o N h s il g n E e h t d n a y r t e o P h s il g n
E understandi ng the
s i l e v o n a n i n o s r e p a f o s e it il a n o s r e p e h t d n a s r e t c a r a h
c obtained from
w o h g n it e r p r e t n
i the wrtie rporrtay sthe characte rin the novel .He also stated
e m o
s wayst ha tsomeauthorst ired t o makehi scharacte runderstandableandr ea l
r e d a e r s i h o
t ( .p 1p 1 -6 173). Here are some way swhich Murphy propose sto
:l e v o n e h t n i s e it il a n o s r e p d n a s r e t c a r a h c e h t e z y l a n a d n a d n a t s r e d n u
.
a Persona lDescirpiton
d n a s e c n a r a e p p a e h t g n i b ir c s e d y b r e t c a r a h c e h t e b ir c s e d n a c r o h t u a e h T
, n o it p ir c s e d l a n o s r e p e h t n I . s e h t o l
c the autho r descirbe s characte r through
s e c n a r a e p p
a sucha shi sbulid ,hisf ace ,hi shari ,o rhi sarm .s
.
b Characte ra sSeenbyAnother
The author someitmes doe s no t desc irbe the characte r drieclty bu t he
. w e i v f o t n i o p ’ s r e t c a r a h c r e h t o e h t h g u o r h t m i h s e b ir c s e
d Theautho rgives t he
r e h t o e h t h g u o r h t r e t c a r a h c e h t t u o b a n o it p ir c s e
d character’ seyeso rpoin to fview
.
c Speech
g o s l a n a c r o h t u a e h
T iveapicturet ot her eade ro fonecharactert hroughhi s
g n i k a e p
s .The characte rwli lbe idenitifed by sh i word so rphrases when he i s
l a
t kingt oothe rcharactersi nt henovel.
.
d Pas tLfie
r e d a e r e h t s e v i g r o h t u a e h
T a chance to learn a person’ spas tlfie .By
e v i g r o h t u a e h t , e fi l t s a p s ’ n o s r e p e h t g n i w o n
k s a clue about some event s
h c i h w d e n e p p a
h buitl ih scharacter .Theperson’ spastl fiecanbeseent hroughhi s
a s r e v n o
c iton ort hrough anothe rperson’ sconversaiton and driec tcommen tfrom
. r o h t u a e h t
.
e Conversaitono fOthers
r e h t o h g u o r h t n o it p ir c s e d s ’ r e t c a r a h c a t u o b a e u l c a s e v i g o s l a r o h t u a e h T
e l p o e
p ’ sconversait aon bou thimo rher .Bys eeingwha tothe rcharacterssayabou t
m i
h o rher,t her eader swli lknowhiso rhercharacterisitcs.
.f Reacitons
e u l c e h t o s l a e r a s t n e v e d n a s n o it a u ti s n i a tr e c o t n o s r e p a f o n o it c a e r e h T
. r e d a e r e h t o t r o h t u a e h t y b n e v i
g How a person react sto something o rsome
if e d l li w s m e l b o r
p newha tkindo fcharacterisitcs eh sh . a
.
g Driec tComment
a s e v i g r o h t u a e h
T driec tdescirpiton sand comment saboutt hecharacteri n
.l e v o n e h
t Commonly , ti i sclealry stated i n someparagraph sand t hereader sdo
.
h Thought
e u l c t c e ri d s e v i g r o h t u a e h
T s abou t the character through what eh si
. g n i h t e m o s t u o b a s k n i h t n o s r e p a t a h w w o n k o t e l b a e r a e w , l e v o n e h t n I . g n i k n i h t
t a h w w o n k d n a e z y l a n a n a c e w d n i m s i h n i n o g n i o g s i t a h w g n i w o n k y
B hi s
c it s ir e t c a r a h
c s . are
.i Manneirsm
a h c s ’ r e t c a r a h c e h t s e b ir c s e d s e m it e m o s r o h t u a e h
T racteirsitc s by a
r e
p son’ smanneirsm ,habtis ,or i diosyncrasie sw irtten. Those wli lbe t hecluefo r
.s c it s ir e t c a r a h c s ’ r e t c a r a h c e h t e z y l a n a o t r e d a e r e h t
.
4 TheoryofI ntrapersona lConfilct g
n i d r o c c
A to Lewin ,(1935 )a sctied i nWorche l& Coope r(1979 )the way
s e s n o p s e r e h t y fi t n e d i n a c e w , t c il f n o c l a n o s r e p a rt n i f o s e p y t e h t e z ir o g e t a c o t
. e v i g y lt s o m r e t c a r a h c e h t h c i h
w “Those moitvaitng the individua lto approach o
t m i h g n i v ir d e s o h t d n a l a o g e h
t avoidi.t”( p .461) e n if e d e h s , s e v it o m o w t e s o h t n o d e s a
B s fourt ype sofi nrtapersona lconfilct
l e b d e n i a l p x e s i ti s
a o : w
)
1 Approach-ApproachConfilct
t c il f n o c s i h
T o rstiuaiton occurred when an individua lfaced two posiitve
. m e h t f o e n o e s o o h c y l n o n a c e h t u b s l a o
g Fo rexample ,adonkey which starved
o t tl u c if fi d t i d n if d n a y a h f o s e l a b e v it c a rt t a y ll a u q e o w t y b d e r e f f o d n a h t a e d o t
. e s o o h
c This t ypeo fconfilc ti seasy t o resolve .Theory o fconfilc tsayst hatt he
t a h t e n
)
2 Avoidance-AvoidanceConfilct
e v it c a rt t a n u o w t y b d e c a f l a u d i v i d n i n a n e h w d e r r u c c o t c il f n o c f o e p y t s i h T
l a o
g s .Thebes twayt or esolvei s ot escapef romt hestiuaitonf aced.I ftheescape
o d o t e l b i s s o p m i s
i ,thi sconfilc twli lbe dfi ifcul tto be resolved .Fo rexample ,
s e g a t s o
h a reoffered by t hei nmatest o dieby aknfieo rby being clubbed.I nt hi s
e c n a d i o v a s e c a f s e g a t s o h e h t n o it a u ti
s -avoidanceconfilc.t
)
3 Approach-AvoidanceConfilct
e d u l c n i t c il f n o c s i h
T s only one goal , which ha s both atrtacitve and
. ti h ti w d e t a i c o s s a s e it il a u q e v it c a rt t a n
u Thei ndividua’l sdesriet o both obtaint he
s p a rt t i m o r f e p a c s e d n a l a o
g him i n aconfilct .Fo rexample ,aperson who i s i n
s i , d o o f e ti r o v a f s i h h ti w f l e s m i h s t c ir t s e r d n a t e i d s i
h offered byhisf avortiemea l
n i d e p p a rt m i h s e k a m n o it a u ti s s i h T . m i h f o t n o r f n
i aconfusion .
)
4 DoubleApproach-Avoidance
. s l a o g o w t n e e w t e b e s o o h c o t s a h l a u d i v i d n i n a s e k a m t c il f n o c f o e p y t s i h T
. s t c e p s a e v it a g e n d n a e v it i s o p s a h m e h t f o h c a
E “Themoreatrtacitvet hegoa,lt he
. ) 1 6 4 . p ( ” .t c il f n o c e h t r e t a e r
g Fo rexample,t hegoa lo faperson ow sh i thristyi s
e r o f e r e h T . r e t a w e m o s k n ir d o
t , shei offered by t wotype sofwatert od irnk .The
r e t a w h s e r f f o d n o p a s i e n o r e h t o e h t d n a r e t a w t l a s f o d n o p a s i e n o t s ri f
. s e k a n s e lt t a r y b d e d n u o r r u s
.
5 Theoryo fConfilc tResolu iton r
a h n e s
I tandSpangle( 2000)sayst ha taconfilc tmakess omeonel oseal o to f
s g n i h
t c e t o r p d n
a thei rrelaitonship. Thi snegoitaiton approache sconfilc ta sa join t
y b t c il f n o c e h t s e v l o s t I . e r u t n e
v having a nw -i win soluiton: understanding both
t u o h ti w s e it r a
p being fallen down .Distirbuitve negoitaiton o rcan be called a sa
d n i m t n e r e f fi d a h ti w t c il f n o c s e h c a o r p p a n o it a it o g e n s i h T . h c a o r p p a g n i n i a g r a
b
f o t e
s a confilc tresolu iton .I tsee sa oc nfilc tby using a narrow perspecitve
t i e s u a c e
b seek sadvantages andgoals tor esolvet heconfilct .Ther elaitonshipand
s i s t s e r e t n
i no tconsidered a san impo tran taspec tin resolving the confilc tand
s e v l o
s theconfilc tbywin-loses oluiton
n o it a i d e m s i h c a o r p p a d n o c e s e h
T . Thi sconfilc tresolu iton occurs when
o t y tr a p d ri h t t e g y e h t d n a t c il f n o c e h t g n i v l o s e r n i ll e w k r o w t o n s e o d n o it a it o g e n
t o n o d y e h t d n a l a rt u e n e b d l u o h s y tr a p d ri h t s i h T . t c il f n o c r i e h t e v l o s e r m e h t p l e h
t h g ir y n a e v a
h s to give arguments ,decisions ,outcomes ,o rinterferen ces in the
d e ll a c s i y tr a p d ri h t e h T . n o i s s u c s i
d a smediato rwho r esponsiblet o ilstent o both
e t u p s i
d parites and give some informaiton which may lead to an agreemen tto
h t o
b disputeparites.
. n o it a ti li c a f s i h c a o r p p a d ri h t e h
T Thi sapproach appileswhen t hecomplex
t c il f n o
c occurred in abigge rorl arge rgroup .Thi sapproach also needsthe t hrid
r o t a ti li c a f a s a y tr a
p ow h faclitiate sacollaboraitvediscussion.
. n o it a rt i b r a s i h c a o r p p a h tr u o f e h
T Thi sconfilc tresoluiton app iles when
n o it a i d e m d n a n o it a it o g e
n do not come ou twtih a good soluiton .Thi sconfilc t
d e e n n o it u l o s e
r s thrid patrya san arbirtator .Anarbirtatori schosen byt hequarre l
e h T . g n i v l o s m e l b o r p l a m r o f n i n a s i n o it a rt i b r A . m e h t r o f n o i s i c e d a e k a m o t y tr a p
e l u
s i h c a o r p p a h tf if e h
T a judicia lprocess . tI i s t hecombinaiton of l ega land
t s a l s i h T . tr u o c a s i y tr a p d ri h t e h t n o it u l o s e r t c il f n o c s i h t n I .s e r u d e c o r p l a g e l n o n
l l e w k r o w t o n o d s e h c a o r p p a h tr u o f e h t n e h w s e c i o h c t s a l e h t s e m o c e b h c a o r p p a
n
i a confilctr esoluiton.
.
C Theore itca lFramework
e z y l a n a o t d e il p p a e r a s e ir o e h t e m o
S My Ssiter’ sKeeper novel .They are theoryo fpsychologica lapproach,t heory o fcharacte,rt heory of characte irzaiton ,
t c il f n o c l a n o s r e p a rt n i f o y r o e h
t ,andt heoryo fconfilctresoluiton.
m e l b o r p t s ri f e h
T i s analyzed using the theory o f characte r and
n o it a z ir e t c a r a h
c and also r eferirngt o t her eview ofr elated studi .es Analyzing the
r e t c a r a h
c isitcsdescirpiton o fAnnaFtizgerald i n t henovelhelp t hewrtiert o ifnd
t u
o how shedeal swtih t heconfilct sshehas .Thecharacterisitcs o fAnna can be
y b d e if it n e d
i analyzing he rpersona ldescirpiton ,he rdialog and i nteraciton wtih
n o it c a r e h , e l p o e p r e h t
o and reaciton , he rresponses ,he r thoughts , and he r
e d u ti tt
a s.
e p a rt n i f o y r o e h
T rsona l confilc t i s appiled to ifnd out the type o f
y b d e c a f s t c il f n o c l a n o s r e p a rt n
i Anna. hI t elpst hewrtier t o dfiferen itate t hefou r
s t c il f n o c l a n o s r e p a rt n i f o s e p y
t and selec tthe inrtapersona lconfilc tfaced by
a n n A .
d n if r e tf
A i ng ou t Anna’ s inrtapersona l confilct ,s theory o f confilc t
n o it u l o s e
r i susedt oanalyzewha tkindofr esoluitonshet ake sdu irnghe rd fiifcul t
17 I I I R E T P A H C
Y G O L O D O H T E M
e r e h
T a re three seciton sin thi schapter .The fris tone i san objec to fthe ,
y d u t
s which r evealst henovel tisefl .Thesecondcontainstheapproach, whichi s t
s a l e h T . y d u t s s i h t n i t c e j b u s e h t e z y l a n a o t d e s
u par tdiscusse sthemethodt shati .
y d u t s e h t n i d e s u
.
A Objec toft heStudy
s ’t l u o c i P i d o
J My Si tser’ sKeepe rbecome sthe object o fthi sstudy .Jod i u
o c i
P l tha sbecome an internaitonal bestselilng autho rbecause o fhe rstunning .
s l e v o
n Mos to fhe rnovel sare abou ta rtagedy tha thappen sin a famliy .Thi s 4
0 0 2 n i s k o o B a ir t A y b d e h s il b u p s a w h c i h w l e v o n e h t s e s u y d u t
s .I tconsist so f
e d n a s e g a p 0 0
5 achchapteri sdesc irbedusingt hef ris tpersonpoin to fview . e
h t s i d l a r e g z ti F a n n
A younges tchlid ofFtizgerald famliy .Anna’ spresence n
i theFtizgerald’ sfamliyi si ntendedt of uflli lhe rparen’t swliilngnesst osavehe r H
. e fi l s ’ r e t s i
s e rparent sforce Annat o donatehe rorgan t o Kate ,he rsister ,who (
L P A s a
h AcutePromyelocyitcLeukemia.) n
i e c n e s e r p r e
H theFtizgerald’ sfamliyha sas peci ifcandclea rpurpose .Wha t t
n a w s t n e r a p r e
h from he ri sto stop complaining abouthe rsister .I tmean ,s she d
e e n e t a K h c i h w g n i h t y n a e v i g d l u o h
s s to suppor tKate’s lfie .She ha sto be f
o t r a p y r e v e e t a n o d o t g n il li
w he rbody to Kate, he rsister .H er fris t itme o f s
i g n it a n o
s t n e r a p s ’ a n n
A think tha tatfert he umbiilca lcord blood donaiton, t herewill . g n o r w e r a s t h g u o h t r i e h T . e fi l s ’ e t a K f o e k a s e h t r o f n o it a n o d r e h t o n a e b t o n
d r o c l a c il i b m u e h t r e tf
A blood donaiton ,Kate i shaving anothe rcompilcaiton o f g
r u s r e h t o n a e c a f o t s a h a n n A . y d o b r e
h ery .Anna ha sto give he rLeukocytes , n
a , ll e c m e t
s d bonemarrow .O tfen ,Annaget ssomebruiseson he rback because .
w o r r a m e n o b f o g n it s e v r a h e h t f
o
e r u li a f s y e n d i k m o r f s r e f f u s e t a K , y l n e d d u
S in the age o fsixteen and need
s a h o h w a n n A e b t s u m t i , y l n o d n a e n o e h T . r e h r o f y e n d i k a e t a n o d o t e n o e m o s
e h
t geneitcmatch wtih Kate. Anna ,onceagain ,hast o bewliilng t o givepar to f y
d o b r e
h to suppor the rsister’ slfie .A tthi s itme ,Anna feel s ilke she doe sno t e
v a
h the irgh tto own he rown body .Finally ,she h rie san attorney to have a .
n o it a p i c n a m e l a c i d e
m He rmothe rdecidedt obecomet heattorneyf o rherf amliy . r
e h k c a b l l u p l li w a n n A , n o o s t a h t s e v e il e b e h
S claim .Every itmeAnnai svistied s
y a w l a a r a S , a il u J r o l l e b p m a C y
b saysthatt hi scasewli lnots tandf o ral ong itme .
k c a b t i e k a t ll i w a n n A e s u a c e
b However ,Anna ye twtihstand she rclaim t o t he tr
u o
c .In hert hitreenyear sold ,Annahast ostandagains the rmotheri nt hecou tr . t l u c if fi d e r a h c i h w s t c il f n o c l a n o s r e p a rt n i e m o s e c a f o t a n n A s d a e l n o i s i c e d s i h T
. d e v l o s e b o t
.
B Approachoft heStudy
n i l e v o n e h t e z y l a n a o t t s e b t if t a h t h c a o r p p a n a s i h c a o r p p a l a c i g o l o h c y s P
y d u t s s i h
t . Thi sapproach si u d se toanalyzemoreabou tthei nrtapersona lconfilct s .
a n n A y b d e c a
c a o r p p a l a c i g o l o h c y s
p h i sused to analyze the in rtapersona lconfilct sand the n
o it u l o s e r t c il f n o
c s aret akenbyher. h
c y s
P ologica lapproach discusse son aperson’ sbehavior .Thi sapproach i s h
ti w r a li m i s t s o m l
a thepsychologyo fahumanbeing .Asar esul,tt hi sapproachi s d e c a f t c il f n o c l a n o s r e p a rt n i e h t g n i w o n k n i g n i d n a t s r e d n u r e tt e b a t e g o t d e il p p a
. a n n A y b
.
C Methodoft heStudy
y g o l o d o h t e m e h
T usedint hi sstudy si ilbraryresearch andi tusedbooks ,e -e
, s k o o
b -aritcle,j ournals ,and previou sstudies .Thewrtie rgatheredthedataf rom d
n a y d u t s e h t f o t c e j b o e h t o t d e t a l e r s k o o
b searchedf or someaddiitona lbookst o g
n ir e h t a g p l e
h addiitona tl daa .The main source o fthi sstudy i sthe nove lMy r
e p e e K s ’ r e t s i
S tisefl .Fris,t t hewrtie rread and reread My Sister’ sKeepernove l d
n
a chosethet opict o beanalyzed .Sinceconfilct saresigni ifcancei nMySister’ s r
e p e e
K nove,l t hewrtie rdecided to analyze t he i n rtapersona lconfilc twtihin t he
. a n n A , l e v o n e h t n i r e t c a r a h c s ’ n i a
m tI took much itme fo r the wrtie r to d
n a t s r e d n
u completely et h inrtapersona lconfilct existed i n t he novel .Atfert hat, r
e ti r w e h
t noted down some i mpo tran tpoints about themain charactert ha tmay .
y d u t s e h t tr o p p u s
r e tf
A reading t henovel ,thewrtierstatre d tosearch fo rsomesource sin t he e
h t p l e h y a m t a h t y r a r b
il wrtie rtowrtiet heproblemf ormulaitonand t odeifne the t
s e h t f o s e v it c e j b
o udy .Atfert heproblemformulaitonhadbeenformed, thewrtier tr
a t
h c a e f o s n o it i n if e d e h t , y d u t s e h t tr o p p u s t a h t s e ir o e h t e h t ,s e h c a o r p p
a aspect ,and
s t n e m e l e d e t a l e r r e h t o e h
t . There were some supporitng book s containi ng s
e h c a o r p p a e r u t a r e ti
l used in the study ,namely ,the theory o fcharacte rand n
o it a z ir e t c a r a h
c ,theoryofi nrtapersona lconfilct ,theoryo fconfilctr esoluiton ,and .
y d u t s e h t p l e h y a m t a h t s e c r u o s r e h t
o
, t a h t r e tf
A thewrtie rgathered theanalysi sand arranged them i nto a mind .
a t a d e h t g n ir e h t a g n i r e i s a e r e ti r w e h t e k a m o t p a
m The wrtie rgathered the
l a it n e s s
e datat hatt hewrtie rneeded .Thewrtierquotedsomei mpo tran tsentence s s
d r o w r
o fromt henove lrelatedt othef ocu soft hiss tudy . r
e tf
A wards, thewrtierdrewaconclusionbased ont heanalysi sdiscussed i n .
y d u t s e h
t Thel as tone, t hewrtie rprovided suggesiton forf uturer esearcher sand s
r e h c a e t h s il g n
21 V I R E T P A H C
S I S Y L A N A
. n o it a l u m r o f m e l b o r p e h t n i d e t a t s s n o it s e u q e h t s r e w s n a r e t p a h c s i h
T Thi s
.s tr a p o w t f o s t s i s n o c r e t p a h
c Thefris tpatr of t hi schapte rdiscusse sand reveal s
e h
t characte irsitc sdescirpitonoft hemaincharacter ,AnnaFtizgerald .Thesecond
e h s w o h d n a a n n A y b d e c a f s t c il f n o c l a n o s r e p a rt n i e h t s e s s u c s i d t r a
p resolveshe r
.s t c il f n o c
.
A TheDescrip itono fAnna’ sCharacterisitcs
o t g n i d r o c c
A Henkel( 1977)themajo rcharacte rhast hecomplex tiy oft he
d n a n o it a z ir e t c a r a h
c becomesthef ocu soft heatten iton(p .87). Annai st hemajo r
e h t s e m o c e b d n a n o it a z ir e t c a r a h c e h t f o y ti x e l p m o c e h t s a h e h s e c n i s r e t c a r a h c
v o n e h t n i e l p o e p e h t f o n o it n e tt a e h t f o s u c o
f el .Besides ,Anna also play s
l e v o n e h t n i e l o r e c n a c if i n g i
s since Anna in lfuences many aspect so fthe othe r
e fi l s r e t c a r a h
c .
a r o r e t c a r a h c e l b a t s a e b n a c r e t c a r a h c a t a h t d e t a t s o s l a ) 1 8 9 1 ( s m a r b A
. r e t c a r a h c e l b a e g n a h
c A characte rcan also be a changeable characte rthrough
. ) 0 2 . p ( s i s ir c e m o s f o t l u s e r a s a r o t n e m p o l e v e d e m o
s In t he novel ,Anna i sa
r e t c a r a h c e l b a e g n a h
c because she ha sexpeirenced some medica l rteatment sand
s e s s e c o r
p caused by he rsister’s i llnes sand he rmother’ sindriec tforce (Picoutl ,
2 6 . p
e h S . r e h t o m r e h o t s u o il l e b e
r decides to sue he rparent sto make the medica l
r e v o s e s s e c o r p d n a s t n e m t a e
rt (Picou tl ,pp .59- )6 . 0
r e p e e K s ’ r e t s i S y
M wirtten i n frist-person poin to fview which ha sseven
t s ri f e h t s a y r o t s e h t l l e t o t n o it r o p n w o r i e h t s a h m e h t f o h c a e d n a s r e t c a r a h c
.l e v o n e h t n i n o s r e
p They are Anna , Kate , Jesse , Sara , B iran, Alexande r
a il u J d n a , ll e b p m a
C .Themaincharactert oanalyzei nt hiss tudyi sAnna.
t s e g n u o y e h t s a n r o b s a w a n n
A ch lidi ntheFtizgerald’ sfamliy .Herf ather,
n a ir
B , i saf rie ifghte randhei st heonlybackboneoft hef amliy .He rmother, Sara ,
ti u q s a
h from herj ob a sal awye rsinceKatesuffer sAPL (Acute Promyelocyitc
o l b a , ) a i m i k u e
L odcancer .Katei sdyingand t heonly r easonAnnaexisted i n t he
s i d lr o
w to hea lKate’s i llnes .s Annaalso ha sone olde rbrothe rwho someitme s
t r e h s p l e
h o solve he rproblem .In the othe rside ,Jesse ha sa very annoying
a n d n a c il o h o c l a n a s i e H . e d u ti tt
a rcoitc.
e d i v o r p o t n r o b s a w a n n
A thelfiesuppo trf orKate .SinceAnnawa sborn ,
y d o b r e h e t a n o d o t s a h e h
s par t(umbiilca lcord blood) to he rsister .Before she
o t s e d i c e
d sue he r paren t fo r the medica l emancipaiton , she undergoe s
s t c il f n o c l a n o s r e p a rt n
i . Atfert hepeititoni ss entt oSara ,Sarabecome sangry .Sara
n a n o it it e p r e h k c a b e k a t o t a n n A s e d a u s r e
p d make she r rtapped in et h othe r
a n n A . s t c il f n o c l a n o s r e p a rt n
i become sconfused in deailng wtih t hestiuaitont ha t
t u b g n i y d s i r e t s i s r e
h she sitll aw nt sto ifgh tfo rhe r irght sto protec the rown
y d o b .
p s i h
T ar tanalyzest heporrtaya lo fAnnagiven by t heauthorin t henovel .
h c i h w h c r a e s e r e h
i e m a
s tem s wtih thi s study ha s revealed xs i point s of Anna’ s characte r
descirp itons .The fris tpoin,t the wrtie ranalyze sAnna by the descirpiton of
e m a n s ’ a n n
A . By referirng to he rfather’s ,B iran ,descirpiton about he ro irgin
e m a
n , eth wrtier ifnd s tha t Anna’ s rea l name i s taken from Andromeda .
i a d e m o r d n
A staken from a history o fP irnces sAndromeda which represents
n e e s e t a f s ’ a n n
A byherf ather’ spoin to fview( .p 2 . 7)
s ti a rt l a n o s r e p r e h s i e n o d n o c e s e h
T .In t his study ,Dw i(2011) ifnd ssix
t n a c if i n g i
s persona l rtatis .They are smar tand well-developed ,cheerful ,mature
, t n e d n e p e d n i d n
a a tnd ough .Anna si considereda sasmar tgilri nhe ragebecause
r e h f
o wayt odea lwtihhe rproblems .Thisi scausedbyhe rpas texpe irences when
d e c a f e h
s some medical rteatment stha tmade he rmemo irze every single word
n o it a r e p o r e h t u o b
a ( .p 2 . 8) Thewrtie roft hepreviousr esearch ifndst ha tAnnai s
s e e s a n n A . lr i g l a c it ir c
a problems no tonlyf romt hes urfacebu talsof rom ti score .
h t u o b a y ti s o ir u c a s a h o s l a a n n
A ow a baby i smade ,why they were born ,and
. r o f t a h
w Anna’ smenta ldevelopmenti salsogoodandhasaposiitvedevelopmen t
a n n A e c n i
s know how to dea lwtih law sui t(p .2 9 .) From tha tanalysi sshe
s e d u l c n o
c tha tAnnai sas mar tandwell-developedgri l( .pp 2 - )8 2 . 9
s i a n n A t a h t s d n if o s l a r e h c r a e s e r e h t , h c r a e s e r s u o i v e r p e h t n
I acheerfu l
s g n ir b a n n A . lr i
g dfiferences in the Ftizgerald’ s famliy .Anna b irng sthe joy
through he ratttiude .Anna’ spresence in theFtizgerald’ sfamliy makest hemf ee l
( d e n i a tr e t n
e pp .3 -0 31) .
e r a s ti a rt l a n o s r e p r e h t o e h
T matureandi ndependen.t I n t het hi treen year s
d l
( , n i w e L o t g n i d r o c c
A 1935 )a sctied i n Worchel& Coope r(1979) ,Anna
s e c a
f adoubleapproach-avoidancei nrtapersona lconfilct .Thist ypeo fconfilc tha s
t f o h c a e d n a s l a o g o w
t hemha sequa lposiitveandnegaitve saspects .Annaf ace sa
s l a o g o w t h ti w t c il f n o
c thef risti st o agreewtihkidney donaiton f o rKate .Being
e l b a e e r g
a todonatet hekidney t o Katei sconsidered a saverywisedecision asi t
n r o b s a w e h s n o s a e r e h t o s l a s i ti d n a y t u d s ’ a n n A s
i .In addiiton ,Annaand Kate
d n a l u ft r u h e r a e s o h t e s u a c e b e r o m y n a s t n e m t a e rt l a c i d e m e m o s o d o t t n a w t o n o d
y k s
ir . Annaalsoconsider stha thavingonlyonekidneymeanst ha tshehast o ilve
s k s ir e h t h ti
w .On t heothe rhand, i fAnnarefuse sto donatehe rkidney ,Annawli l
e h S . s e r u d e c o r p d n a s t n e m t a e rt l a c i d e m y n a m o r f e e r f e
b doe sno thave t o dea l
r o s t n e m t a e rt l a c i d e m f o k s ir y n a h ti
w to have one kidney .Anna wli lge the r
t u o h ti w y d o b r e h n w o d n a l o rt n o c o t t h g ir e h t e v a h d n a d e t n a w e h s s a e fi l l a m r o n
e h g n ir e d i s n o
c rexistence a san allogeneic donor .On t he othe rhand ,Anna wli l
d l a r e g z ti F e h T . r e t s i s r e h e s o l y l n i a tr e
c ’ sfamliy hast o beready ofl osing oneo f
i w a n n A . s r e b m e m y li m a f e h
t l lalsobei naverydeepguitlofl osinghers ister .
b i s s o p e h t ll a s w o n k a n n
A iilite sand t he irsk so feach of t hegoal .Fort he
b , e m it t s ri
f asedont het heoryo fconfilctr esoluitons tatedbyI senhar tandSpangle
) 0 0 0 2
( ,Anna choose savoiding style to approach he rconfilcts .Anna doe sno t
o c o t t n a
w ncern abou tthe existence o fher confilct .A tferward ,Anna choose s
g n i s i m o r p m o
c to r esolvehe rconfilct .According t o I senhar tand Spangle( 2000) ,
e m o s e c if ir c a s o t s a h n o s r e p e h
t fo hi so rheri nterestt or esolvet heconfilct .Anna
o t s e ir
t compromisewtih heri nrtapersona lconfilct .Annaalso t irest o acceptt ha t
s e c a f a n n
A avoidance-avoidance confilct .According to Lewin (1935 )a s
a , ) 9 7 9 1 ( r e p o o C & l e h c r o W n i d e ti
c n avoidance-avoidanceconfilc toccur swhen
e v it c a rt t a n u o w t s e c a f a n n A . s l a o g e v it c a rt t a n u o w t s e c a f e n o e m o
s goals:staying
y b y li m a f e h t n i e c n e t s i x e r e h g n i w o h s r o e t a K r o f r o n o d c i e n e g o ll a e m o c e b o t
e s o h t f o h t o B . r o n o d c i e n e g o ll a n a s a e t a f r e h g n i y n e
d goal s have some
n
u atrtacitve quailite sfo rAnna .I fAnna decide stha tshe i s an allogeneic donor,
tr a p e m o s e t a n o d o t d e k s a e b l li w e h
s s o fhe rbody t o Kate .Sara’ sauthortiairan
l li w a n n A . s k s a r e h t o m r e h h c i h w r e d r o y r e v e w o ll o f o t a n n A d a e l l li w r e w o p
. e m it d o o h d li h c r e h o s l a t u b y b b o h r e h d n a e fi l l o o h c s r e h y l n o t o n e c if ir c a s
e d i s e
B s ,Annahast odea lwtihmanymedica lrteatment satlhoughshei sno tsick .
.s e g a t n a v d a y n a a n n A e v i g t o n l li w l a o g s i h T
Ont heothe rhand,i fAnnachoosest oshowof fhe rexistencei nt hef amliy
a n n A h ti w y r o t c i d a rt n o c e b l li w t
i ’ spersona l rtatis .Anna i snot t heperson who
o h s o t s t n a
w wof fhe rexistence .Shet endst os avet hi sproblemonlyf o rher .
a n n
A wantsherf amliyto noitcehe rexistence .Shedoe sno twanttoaccep t
t a h t t c a f e h
t ther easono fhe rexistencei sonlybecauseKate’si llness .Annawant s
e h e b o
t ard andnoitced byhe rmother .Ont heothe rside ,Annahast oacceptt ha t
r e p o o C & l e h c r o W s A . s s e n ll i s ’ e t a K e s u a c e b s i e c n e t s i x e r e
h (1979) stated ,an
e c n a d i o v
a -avoidanceconfilcti sdfi ifcutlt o be solved .Thebes tway o fresolving
r e h e v l o s e r o t s e s o o h c a n n A . s n o it a u ti s e s o h t m o r f g n i p a c s e s i m e l b o r p s i h t
y b t c il f n o
c accommodaitonstyle .Basedont het heoryo fconfilctr esoluitonstated
y
e c if ir c a s o t s a h n o s r e p e h
t al lofheri nterests fo rother’si nterests .Annasacir ifce s
. y p p a h e t a K e k a m o t r e d r o n i e t a K r o f g n i h t y r e v e
, e d i s r e h t o e h t n
I Annasomeitmes t ell she rproblem t o Kateand t heothe r
t u o b a s n o i n i p o d n a , s e ir o t s , s t n e m u g r a s ’ e t a K . d n u o r a y a
w h er rteatment smake
a n n
A decide to do anything fo rKate .Anna choose sto devote he rlfie fo rKate
a n n A n o s a e r y l n o e h t e s u a c e
b exist si sKate .Thi sdoe sno tmean that she i s
tr a p e t a n o d o t g n il li
w s o fhe rbody .Thi sdecisionmake sAnnaf uflli lKate’ sdesrie
.s t n e m t a e rt l a c i d e m r e h d n a y r e s i m r e h l l a d n e o
t
.
3 DecidingtoConitnueorWtihdrawtheTrial
a e d a m s a h a n n
A decision to refuse donaitng he rkidney fo rKate ,he r
a n n A s d a e l o s l a n o i s i c e d s i h T . r e t s i
s ot suehe rparent sandwork wtiht hel awsuti .
r o
F a thitreen year sold gi lr ,working wtih the lawsui ti sno teasy .Someadu tl s
it p m u s s a e h t e v a h l li
w on tha tAnna i sno tse irou sin working wtih the lawsuti .
ll e b p m a
C may underesitmate Anna’ seffo trs to ge ta medica lemancipaiton by
tl u o c i P ( e m it t s ri f e h t r o f m i h g n i n i a t e
r ,pp . 91 - )2 .4 However ,Annaprovesi tby
k s ir a g n i k a
t t o refusetodonatehe rkidney t o Kate .Annadeal swtihthef actt ha t
y d a e r e b o t s a h e h
s f or Kate’ sdeath ,shehas t o stand agains the rmother i n t he
, tr u o
c andshehast ober eadyt obecomethewtinessi nt hecou tr.
Thi sdecision also l ead sAnnat of acea on theri nrtapersona lconfilct .Anna
h ti w s l a e
d a confilc twhether she has to conitnue o rwtihdraw he rmedica l
t a h t s y a s w a l e h T . l a ir t s ’ n o it a p i c n a m
e Anna canno trertea to rwtihdraw he r
f i n o it a p i c n a m e l a c i d e m t e g o t n o it it e
k n i h t o t a n n A s t n a w o s l a o v l a S e D e g d u J . e c n e u lf n i s ’ a r a S d i o v a o t d e d n e t n i
h ti w y lr a e l
c ou tany i n lfuencefrom everyone .He decides t o send amoiton fo ra
a r a S o t r e d r o g n i n i a rt s e r y r a r o p m e
t , which mean sSara i skicked ou tfrom the
tl u o c i P ( a n n A t c a t n o c o t d e w o ll a t o n d n a e s u o
h , 7pp.2 -1 218 .)
t e g o t l a ir t e h t s e u n it n o c l li t s a n n A f i d e t n i o p p a s i d e b l li w r e h t o m s ’ a n n A
l a c i d e m e h
t emancipaiton .Sara put sa very big hope i n Anna fo rsaving Kate’ s
e p o h a r a S . e fi
l sAnnacans uppor tKate’sl fiebyprovidingt hepar to fhe rbodyf o r
a S n i u r l li w l a ir t e h t e u n it n o c o t n o i s i c e d e h T . e t a
K ra’ shope which i slaid in
. a n n A
On t heothe rside, i fAnnadecidest o wtihdrawthet iral ,Annawli ldonate
m o r f d e v i v r u s e b l li w e t a K s n a e m h c i h w e t a K o t y e n d i k r e
h rh e kidneyf aliureand
. e v il
a eT h Ftizgerald’ s famliy should notl ose any famliy member sand t hey can
y li p p a h e v
il .
…
“ Because Anna hersel fwill con itnue to be par to fthe intac tfamliy by s ti f o e n o t s o l s ’t a h t y li m a f a n a h t r e h t a r , fl e s r e h s e n if e d e h s h c i h w
( ” .s r e b m e
m p .433 .)
o t s e d i c e d e h s f i s k s ir e m o s e c a f o s l a l li w a n n
A wtihdraw the t iral .Anna
d e r e d i s n o c e b l li
w a scommon t eenagers .Annawli lbeconsidered a sagri lwtih
, ll e b p m a C e k il r e h d n u o r r u s e l p o e p y b e c n a t s o
n Juila ,o rJudge De Salvo .
, e r o f e b d e t a t s s a , s e d i s e
B Annawli lonlyhaveonekidneyand ilvewtih t he irsks .
n o it a r e p o l a c i d e m e m o s o d l li w e t a K d n a a n n A h t o
B s again to do the kidney
h ti w s l a e d a n n
A a double approach-avoidance confilct .According to the
h c a o r p p a e l b u o d , t c il f n o c l a n o s r e p a rt n i f o y r o e h
t -avoidance confilcti saconfilc t
n i c a f s i e n o e m o s n e h
w g two goal swtih equa lposiitve and negaitve quailites
e r a t c il f n o c s ’ a n n A f o s l a o g e h T . n i h ti
w ot con itnue ro s topthet iral .Bothoft hose
e h t e v a h s l a o
g posiitveand negaitvequailite .sI nordert osolvet heconfilc tAnna
s e s o o h
c theth ridpatryt o help her .Thist hrid patryi sherl awsui twho i sworking
s e v i g l l e b p m a C . r e h r o
f the rule i on d gi n a tiral .Campbell oa ls b irng sAnna to
e v i g e h d n a o v l a S e D e g d u
J s anadvicet ha tAnnai sno tachlidanymore.I tmean s
e k a m o t s e d i c e d n e h t o v l a S e D e g d u J . m e l b o r p s u o ir e s a s i w a l e h t h ti w g n i k r o w
a n n
A a nd he rmothert onott o ilvet ogether .Finally ,Anna ilve swtihherf atheri n
h t o m r e h h g u o h t n e v e l a ir t e h t o d o t s e u n it n o c d n a e c if f o s i
h e rstli lt ires to
5 4
R E T P A H
C V
S N O I T S E G G U S D N A S N O I S U L C N O C
t s ri f e h T . s tr a p o w t f o s t s i s n o c r e t p a h c s i h
T p satr i conclusion swhich s n o it s e g g u s s i tr a p d n o c e s e h T . s i s y l a n a e h t m o r f s n o i s u l c n o c e h t t n e s e r
p which
h c r a e s e r r e h tr u f r o f s n o it s e g g u s e m o s t n e s e r
p ers .In the same pa tr ,there i san o
f n o it a t n e m e l p m
i rt eaching andl earningacitviitesusingal tieraryworkf romMy r
e p e e K s ’ r e t s i
S nove.l
.
A Conclusions
I r e t p a h C n i d e t a t s s n o it a l u m r o f m e l b o r p e h
T a reanswered i nt heanalysis . r
e t c a r a h c s ’ a n n A t u o b a s i e n o t s ri f e h
T isitcs descirpiton .The previou sstudy y
b d e t c u d n o c s i h c i h
w Agne sRatnaKusumaDwi( 2011)hasf ound seven point s n
o it p ir c s e d r e t c a r a h c s ’ a n n A f
o s .Thef ris tpointist hedescirpitono fAnna’ sname s
s e c n ir P a d e m o r d n A f o y r o t s i h e h t m o r f n e k a
t whichr epresent sAnna’ sexistence y
li m a f e h t n
i .Theothe rsix point sareAnna’ spersona l rtati sfound i n t henovel . Theyares mar tandwell-developed ,cheerful ,matureandi ndependent ,andt hel as t
e n
o ist ough.
g n i d n if l a n o it i d d a s r e f f o y d u t s s i h
T s onAnna’ spersona lrtati .sThef ris tone s
i a n n
A a ciritca land t hough ftu lgilr .I talso can beseen by he rreaciton t oward k
n i h t s y a w l a e h S . n e p p a h g n i h t e m o
s s forward on how to solve the problem o r o
t w o
y li m a f r e
h . tI i sproved by he rdaliy l fiewtih he rfamliy .Shealway sp iro iritzes .s
d e e n n w o r e h e r o f e b s d e e n y li m a f r e h
n if r e ti r w e h T . s t c il f n o c l a n o s r e p a rt n i s ’ a n n A s i d n o c e s e h
T d s three
t s ri f e h T . y r o t s e h t t u o h g u o r h t a n n A y b d e c a f s t c il f n o c l a n o s r e p a rt n
i si nAn aha s
e d i c e d o
t whethe rto agree o rrefuse kidney donaiton fo rhe rsister which i s e
l b u o d a s a d e z ir o g e t a
c -approach inrtapersona lconfilct .The second i sAnna i s g
n i c a
f confusion abou the rexistenceand role i n t he Ftizgerald’ sfamliywhich i s e
c n a d i o v a n a s a d e z ir o g e t a
c -avoidancei nrtapersona lconfilct .And t hel ast ,Anna e
d i c e d o t s a
h whethe rtoconitnuet het ira lagains the rmothe ro rwtihdraw thet ira l ir
o g e t a c s i h c i h
w zeda sadoubleapproach-avoidancei nrtapersona lconfilc.t . s t c il f n o c l a n o s r e p a rt n i r e h s e v l o s a n n A w o h s i d ri h t e h
T Anna’ sfris t
s i t c il f n o c l a n o s r e p a rt n
i deciding whetherto agreeo rrefusehe rkidney donaiton .
e t a K , r e t s i s r e h o
t Att hef ris titme ,Annadoe sno tconsidert ha ta saconfilct .She ,
n e h t t u B . s e l y t s g n i d i o v a s e s o o h
c Annachoose scompromisingtor esolveherf rist t
c il f n o
c thati sby sacirifcing some o fhers and Kate’ sinterests t o achieve some t
n e m e e r g
a s. Thedecisiont or efusekidneydonaitonl ead sherr etainingal awyert o l
a h e b s ’ a n n A e m o c e
b f .Thesecond i nrtapersona lconfilct i sAnna’ sconfusion fo e
c n e t s i x e r e h d n a e l o r r e
h .Sher esolve she rconfilc tby choosingaccommodaiton y
b s i t a h
t sacirifcing Anna’s i nterests fo rKate’s i nterests .The l asti nrtapersona l g
n i d i c e d s i t c il f n o
c whethe rtoconitnueo rwtihdraw hert iral .Annaalsousest hrid t
c il f n o c l a n o s r e p a rt n i s i h t e v l o s e r o t y tr a
p thati sby ilsteningt o Campbel la she r l
a ir t e h t e u n it n o c d n a r e y w a
a s e ir o t
s nd poems .Nove lcan be t he othe rsource o fteaching-learning mateiral s h
c i h
w canbeuseda sal tierarywork smateiral . g n i h c a e t n i s ll i k s r u o f e r a e r e h
T a language .They are reading ,wiritng , .
g n i n e t s il d n a , g n i k a e p
s Thewrtie rsuggestsusingMySister’ sKeepernove last he r
o f g n i d a e r g n i h c a e t n i l a ir e t a
m language study program grade XII fo a senio r l
o o h c s h g i
h fo rEngilsh teachers .In using the nove la sreading mateiral ,the e
s o o h c y a m r e h c a e
t somepatri nt henove lasr eadingmateiralf ort hes tudents . d
i v i d n i e n o d e b l li w y ti v it c a g n i d a e r s i h
T ually .The reading passage shad .s
s a l c e h t e r o f e b k e e w a d e t u b ir t s i d n e e
b Thestudent shavet or ead andstudy t he .s
s a l c e h t e r o f e b e g a s s a
p Thet eache rhast o explain whatt hey wli ldoi n t henex t t
a h w d n a g n it e e
m the students’ t ask sare .Someprocedure sfor t eaching reading :
e r a s s a l c
.
a P -relearningacitviites: )
1 Thet eacherdist irbutedt hemateira laweekbeforet heclas .s )
2 The teache r and the student s discus s and answe r the pre-reading .s
s a l c e h t n i s n o it s e u q )
3 T heteache rexplain sb irelfyaboutt hepassage. )
4 The teache rdistirbute sthe handout sabou thow to analyze ltierary s
t n e d u t s e h t o t s k r o
w .
.
b Whlist-acitviites: )
5 Thet eache rexplainst hehandoutst ot hes tudents. )
6 Thet eache raskst hestudentst or eread t heexcerp tand ilstt hedfiifcul t t
e e h s k r o w e h t n i s e ir a l u b a c o
)
7 Theteache raskst hes tudentst of orm agroupconsist so f4-5member .s )
8 The teache rask sthe student sto answe rthe quesiton sprovided and .s
p u o r g n i s s u c s i d )
9 The teache r and the student s discus s the answe r to the quesiton s .r
e h t e g o t d e d i v o r p .
c P -ostacitviites: )
0
1 Thet eache raskst hes tudentst or eviset hework. )
1
1 Thet eache raskst hes tudentst os ubmtit hework. )
2
