D E Y A R T R O P S A N O S A D N A R E H T O M A F O P I H S N O I T A L E R E H T
S ’ M O B L A H C T I M N
I FORONEMOREDAY
ASARJANAPENDIDIKANTHESIS
s t n e m e r i u q e R e h t f o t n e m ll if l u F l a it r a P s a d e t n e s e r P
e h t n i a t b O o
t SarjanaPendidikanDegree n o it a c u d E e g a u g n a L h s il g n E n i
y B i
VekaAprliyaI ntanny 4 2 1 4 1 2 1 5 0 : r e b m u N t n e d u t S
M A R G O R P Y D U T S N O I T A C U D E E G A U G N A L H S I L G N E
N O I T A C U D E S T R A D N A E G A U G N A L F O T N E M T R A P E D
N O I T A C U D E D N A G N I N I A R T S R E H C A E T F O Y T L U C A F
Y T I S R E V I N U A M R A H D A T A N A S
A T R A K A Y G O Y
i
D E Y A R T R O P S A N O S A D N A R E H T O M A F O P I H S N O I T A L E R E H T
S ’ M O B L A H C T I M N
I FORONEMOREDAY
ASARJANAPENDIDIKANTHESIS
s t n e m e r i u q e R e h t f o t n e m ll if l u F l a it r a P s a d e t n e s e r P
e h t n i a t b O o
t SarjanaPendidikanDegree n o it a c u d E e g a u g n a L h s il g n E n i
y B i
VekaAprliyaI ntanny 4 2 1 4 1 2 1 5 0 : r e b m u N t n e d u t S
M A R G O R P Y D U T S N O I T A C U D E E G A U G N A L H S I L G N E
N O I T A C U D E S T R A D N A E G A U G N A L F O T N E M T R A P E D
N O I T A C U D E D N A G N I N I A R T S R E H C A E T F O Y T L U C A F
Y T I S R E V I N U A M R A H D A T A N A S
A T R A K A Y G O Y
v i
’‘
D
o
n
o
t
g
i
v
e
u
p
w
h
e
n
y
o
u
s
t
li
l
h
a
v
e
e
v
i
g
o
t
g
n
i
h
t
e
m
o
s
r
e
v
o
y
ll
a
e
r
s
i
g
n
i
h
t
o
N
g
n
i
y
r
t
p
o
t
s
u
o
y
t
n
e
m
o
m
e
h
t
li
t
n
u
’’
)
s
u
o
m
y
n
o
n
a
(
:
o
t
d
e
t
a
c
i
d
e
d
s
i
s
i
s
e
h
T
s
i
h
T
r
e
h
t
o
M
d
n
a
r
e
h
t
a
F
g
n
i
v
o
L
y
M
r
e
h
t
o
r
B
g
n
i
r
a
C
y
M
l
e
g
n
A
g
n
i
z
a
m
A
y
M
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
I onesltydeclaret hat st hi thesis ,which I havew irtten ,doe sno tcontain t hework k
r o w e h t f o s tr a p r
o o fothe rpeople ,except t hosectied i n t hequotaiton sand t he s
e c n e r e f e
r ,a sas cien itifcpapers hould.
, a tr a k a y g o
Y December ,12 2 101
i v R
E P R A B M E
L NYATAANPERSETUJUANPUBLIKAS IKARYAI LMIAH S
I M E D A K A N A G N I T N E P E K K U T N U
: a m r a h D a t a n a S s a ti s r e v i n U a w s i s a h a m a y a s ,i n i h a w a b i d n a g n a t a d n a tr e b g n a Y
a m a
N :ViekaAprliyaI ntanny i
s a h a M r o m o
N s wa :0512141 42
n a a k a t s u p r e P a d a p e k n a k ir e b m e m a y a s , n a u h a t e g n e p u m li n a g n a b m e g n e p i m e D
:l u d u jr e b g n a y a y a s h a i m li a y r a k a m r a h D a t a n a S s a ti s r e v i n U
D E Y A R T R O P S A N O S A D N A R E H T O M A F O P I H S N O I T A L E R E H T
Y A D E R O M E N O R O F S ’ M O B L A H C T I M N I
a y a s n a i k i m e d n a g n e
D membeirkan kepada Perpustakaan Universtia sSanata , n i a l a i d e m k u t n e b m a l a d n a k h il a g n e m , s a p m i y n e m k u t n u k a h a m r a h D
, s a t a b r e t a r a c e s a y n n a k i s u b ir t s i d n e m , a t a d n a l a k g n a p k u t n e b m a l a d a y n a l o l e g n e m
it n e p e k k u t n u n i a l a i d e m u a t a t e n r e t n i i d a y n n a k i s a k i b u l p m e
m ngan akademi s
a y a s a m a n n a k m u t n a c n e m p a t e t a m a l e s a y a s a d a p e k n ij i a t n i m e m u lr e p a p n a t
.s il u n e p i a g a b e s
. a y n r a n e b e s n a g n e d t a u b a y a s i n i n a a t a y n r e p t a r u s n a i k i m e D
, a tr a k a y g o Y i d t a u b i D
: l a g g n a t a d a
ii v
T C A R T S B A ,
y n n a t n
I Vieka Aprliya .2011 .The Relaitonship o a f Mothe rand a Son a s s
’ m o b l A h c ti M n i d e y a r t r o
P F or One MoreDay. Yogyakatra :Engilsh Language a
r g o r P y d u t S n o it a c u d
E m ,SanataDharmaUniverstiy .
,l e v o n s ’ m o b l A h c ti M s e z y l a n a s i s e h t s i h
T Fo rOne More Day .I ti san
t u o b a s e s s u c s i d t i e c n i s l e v o n g n it s e r e t n
i famliy r elaitonship .Fo rOneMoreDay
a t u o b a s ll e
t s onandhisl ovelymother .Themaincharacte rChalreyi sobsessedt o H
. r e y a l p l l a b e s a b l a n o i s s e f o r p a e
b owever ,he feel sguitly because when hi s n
e h T . r e h d n u o r a t o n s i e h , s e i d r e h t o
m , hedecidest o endhisl fie .Unfo trunately , n
i l u f s s e c c u s n u s i e
h ending hisl fie ,bu thecomes back hometohi sold houseto e
e
s hi sdeadmother . h
T erearethreeproblems formulated discussed i nt hi sthesis :(1 )Howare l
e v o n e h t n i d e b ir c s e d e n il u a P d n a y e lr a h C f o s r e t c a r a h c e h
t ? (2 )How i sthe
n i d e b ir c s e d y e lr a h C d n a e n il u a P n e e w t e b p i h s n o it a l e
r the novel? (3 )How doe s
? r e h t o m s i h h ti w p i h s n o it a l e r s i h n i s t c il f n o c e h t e g a n a m y e lr a h C
y d u t s e h t e c n i
S discusse sabou tthe relaitonship between a son and a ,r
e h t o
m et h psychologica lapproach i sconsidered a sa sutiable one to apply . .
y g o l o d o h t e m a s a y d u t s s i h t n i d e s u s i h c r a e s e r y r a r b il , r e v o e r o M
, l e v o n e h t g n i z y l a n a r e tf
A there are three point stha tcan be concluded . .
y e lr a h C d n a e n il u a P f o s r e t c a r a h c e h t t u o b a s i t n i o p t s ri f e h
T Pauilnei sal oving ,
. r e h t o m s u o r o m u h d n a , e v it c e t o r
p Chalrey si abad-tempered person .Someitme s e
h also act srudely .The second point i sabout t herelaitonship between Chalrey .
e n il u a P d n
a Therelaitonship between Chalrey and Pau ilne i sa confilcitng eo .n e
c a f y e h
T both inrtapersona land interpersonal confilct sin thei rrelaitonship. l
e b e r a s a d e b ir c s e d s i y e lr a h C h g u o h tl
A ilou sorr udeperson ,actuallyhel ove she r r
e v r e h t o
m y much. Theth ridconclusion concern sChalrey’ sconfilc tmanagemen t n
i h is relaitonship wtih hi smother. In managing the confilct ,Chalrey use sfou r . g n i v l o s d n a , n o it it e p m o c , g n it o o h s , e c n a d i o v a e r a y e h T . s e h c a o r p p a t n e r e f fi
d The
s t c il f n o
c between ChalreyandPau ilnea irsebecauseo fdfiferentf actors .Thef ris t e
s u a c e b s i e n
o Cha lrey and Pauilnehave adfiferen tviewofl fie .Anothe rfacto r e
m o
c s frommisunderstandingbetweent hem. ,
t n i o p l a n if a s
A somesuggesitons aregiven t o futureresearchers .Ast hi s n
o s e s u c o f y d u t
s the relaitonship between a son and a mother ,the future study e
z y l a n a y a
m the relaitonship between a son and a father .Fo rteaching learning f o s t n e d u t s e h t r o f g n it ir W c i s a B h c a e t o t d e il p p a e b n a c l e v o n e h t , s e it i v it c a
it a c u d E h s il g n
x i
T N E M G D E L W O N K C
A S
s u o i c a r g s i H . g n i s s e l b s i H r o f s u s e J d r o L t s e r a e d y m o t l u f e t a r g o s m a I
u o r a e l p o e p y n a m h g u o r h t e m n o s e n i h s e v o
l nd meby whom Ihavebeen given
y r e v y m y a s o t e k il d l u o w I .t n e m i n a p m o c c a d n a , e c n a t s i s s a , t n e m e g a r u o c n e , e r a c
. e l p o e p d e v o l e b e s e h t o t s k n a h t t s e b
, r e h t a f d e v o l e b y m o t s e o g s s e n l u f k n a h t y
M Stevanu sSuyud Jatmiko ,my
g n i v o
l mother ,Lusandair ,and my handsome brother ,Gailh Dw iWratsongko .
o t e k il d l u o w I . s i s e h t s i h t g n i h s il p m o c c a n i n o it a v it o m y m e m o c e b e v a h y e h T
. t n e m i n a p m o c c a d n a , r e y a r p , t n e m e g a r u o c n e , n r e c n o c r i e h t r o f m e h t k n a h t
r o s n o p s r o j a m y m o t s e o g e d u ti t a r g t s e g g i b y
M Drs .L .BambangHenda tro
,.
Y M.Hum., fo rhi sadviceand guidance t hrough t he proces so fwiritng oft hi s
o c o t d n a d a e r o t e m it s i h e m g n i w o d n e r o f ,s i s e h
t rrec t ti ,and fo rhi sfathelry in
. m i h m o r f h c u m o s d e v i e c e r e v a h I , y l b a i n e d n U . e m h ti w e g d e l w o n k s i h g n ir a h s
n e it a p s i
H ce ,firendilness ,and carehavecomfo tred mei n i mproving my w iritng
i s e h t y r e v e h g u o r h
t sconsutlaiton Ihad wtih him. oT all l ecturersi n PB ,I I t hank
. a m r a h D a t a n a S n i y d u t s y m g n ir u d s p l e h d n a , s tr o p p u s , s g n i h c a e t ri e h t r o f m e h
t I
e r c e s s ’ I B P k n a h t o s l
a taira tstaff ,Mbak Dh ka ni and MbakT a irfo ralway sbeing
. e m o t t n e it a p d n a e c i n y r e v
n o d e v o l e b y m k n a h t o t e k il d l u o w
I e ,YohanesDw iJat iPurnamaf o rhi s
. y d u t s y m g n ir u d t r o p p u s d n a e r a c , e v o l s s e l d n
e Iamalso gratefult o al lmy PB I
, s d n e ir
f Charula Wisnu Wardhani ,Ftiiryani ,Caro ilna Tr iDew iTimTim ,and
a ti h u r u P i t s r A a g e V a n e r e
x
r i e h T . e t o r w I s i s e h t e h t d r a w o t s n o it s e g g u s d n a m s i c it ir c r i e h t h ti w y p p a h y r e v
e e b e v a h s n o it s e g g u s d n a m s i c it ir
c n very helpfu lfor t he accompilshmen to fmy
y l d n i k o s e v a h o h w l l a s s e l b o t d r o L s u o i c a r g y m o t r e y a r p y m s i t I . s i s e h t
. e m it s i h t ll a h g u o r h t e m d e r e t s o f d n a d e tr o p p u s
o
T thosewho havebeen helping mei ncompleitngt hist hesi st hat Icould
n o it n e m t o
n here , Iwould ilket ot hankt hemf ort hei reffo trs .
y n n a t n I a y li r p A a k e i V
i x
S T N E T N O C F O E L B A T
e g a P E
L T I
T PAGE………. …… ...…
E G A P L A V O R P P
A S ……….…...……
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … E G A P N O I T A C I D E D
… … … … … … … … … 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 ..………
A Y R A K 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 R A B M E L
H A I M L
I ……….. T
C A R T S B
A ………..……
K A R T S B
A ………..………
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … S T N E M G D E L W O N K C A
F O E L B A
T CONTENTS……….
N O I T C U D O R T N I .I R E T P A H C
.
A Backgroundoft heStudy………..… .
B ProblemFormulaiton………..….………...… .
C Objecitve soft heStudy……….…… … …. .
D Benefti soft heStudy …….……….….… … …. .
E Deifniitono fTerm s……….…………
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
.
A Reviewo fRelatedStudie s………..……….… .
B Reviewo fRelatedTheo ire s………..………..… .
1 C iritca lApproache s………..……….… .
2 Character………..… …… ……… … .
a Deifniitono fCharacter s………..… …… …. …… . .
b Type so fCharacter s………...… …… ……….. .
3 Characteirzaiton………..…………..… ... .
a Deifniitono fCharacteirzaiton………..………… ..… … … . .
b Characte irzaiton………..……… ..… ..… i ii v i
v
i v
ii v
ii i v
x i xi
1 3 4 4 4
ii x
4. Famliy……….………..…………. y
li m a F f o g n i n a e M .
a ………..………
.
b Kind so fFamliy …………..……… …. ..… … …. )
1 Nuclea rFamliy …………..………..………..… ... )
2 ExtendedFamliy …… ………..……… ..… .
5 Relaitonshipi naFamliy …… ……….…… ..… ………. … .
a Mother-SonRelaitonship……….……… … .
b Father-SonRelaitonship………..…………. .
6 Confilct……… … …. … …..………..… … .
a Deifniitono fConfilc t……….… .… … .
b Kind so fConfilct s……….….……… r
e h t o M n i t c il f n o C .
c -SonRelaitonship…….….…… ….… ….… …. .
d Confilcti nFather-SonRelaitonship……… ….. …….…… …
… … … … … … … t n e m e g a n a M t c il f n o C .
e … ……. ……..…………
)
1 BePrepared……….……….…..……….. )
2 BeI nvolved……..………..………..… … )
3 WtihholdQuickReto tr s………..………..…..… )
4 ReviewandSummairze………..…………..……….. …
… … … … … … … … … s n o it u l o s e R t c il f n o C .
f …… ..… …………
)
1 Blake’ sandMounton’ sConfilc tResoluiton………. )
2 Pruti’t sandRubin’ sConfilc tResoluiton…….……… …… … .. )
3 Rusbul’t sandMounton’ sConfilc tResoluiton……… ……… .. .
7 Value……….………. ..… ……..…… .
a D feiniitono fValue………..………….…….…… .
b Impo tran tValueo fLfie………..… ..…….…… )
1 Respect……….………..…………..………..……..….. )
2 dUn erstanding……….………..………… )
3 Discipilne……….………….………..……….….……….. .
ii i x Y G O L O D O H T E M . I I I R E T P A H C
.
A Objec toft heStudy………..………...… .
B Approachoft heStudy……… …… ……… .
C Methodoft heStudy……….………
. V I R E T P A H
C ANALYSIS
.
A TheDescirpitonoft heCharacter s…………..……… .
1 Characteirzaitono fPauilne……… ..…… ……..… . .
2 Characteirzaitono fChalrey……….. .
B T heRelaitonshipo fChalreyandPauilne……… .
1 TheRelaitonshipa saMothe randaCh lid.… ..………..… . .
a BeforeHi sParen’tsDivorce……… …… .... … .
b Afte rHi sParen’tsDivorce……… … .
2 TheRelaitonshipasaMothe randanAdul t……….…..…… .
a TheRelaitonshipBeforeCha lreyi sMarired……..….……… .
b TheRelaitonshipAfte rChalreyi sMarired……… …… …. .
C Chalrey’ sConfilc tManagemen tinHi sRelaitonshipwtihH i s r
e h t o
M ………...
.
1 A saMothe randaChlid……… .. …… … ……….. .
a BeforeHi sMother’ sDivorce……….……….. .
b Afte rHi sMother’ sDivorce……… …… ………. .
2 A saMothe randanAdul t……….… .…………. .
a Confilc tManagemen tBeforeCha lreyi sMarired……….. .
b Confilc tManagemen tA tfe rChalreyi sMarired………
V R E T P A H
C .CONCLUSIONSANDSUGGESTIONS .
A Conclusions……… .
B Suggesitons .………... .
1 Suggesitonf o rFutureStudy……… .
2 Suggesitonf o rTeachingLearningAcitviite sUsingLtierary
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … k r o
W .
28 30 30
32 34 36 37 37 37 1 4 43 43 45
47 48 48 0 5 52 52 54
57 58 9 5
v i x S
E C N E R E F E
R ……….………
S E C I D N E P P
A …… ………
0 6
v x
S E C I D N E P P A F O T S I L
Page
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … r e v o C s e c i d n e p p
A ………..……. .
L . 1 x i d n e p p
A essonPlano fBasicWiritng……… … … … … … … … . . … … … g n it ir W c i s a B f o l a ir e t a M g n i h c a e T . 2 x i d n e p p A
x i d n e p p
A 3 .TheSummaryo fFo rOneMoreDay………..…… x
i d n e p p
A 4 .TheCove ro fMtichAlbom’ sFo rOneMoreDay………….………... p
p
A endix5 .Lis to fWorks…..………...
1 R E T P A H
C I
N O I T C U D O R T N I
Thi schapte rpresent s ifvepatrs .Thefris tpatri sbackground of t hestudy .I t
, l e v o n s ’ m o b l A h c ti M g n i s o o h c r o f n o s a e r e h t s n i a l p x
e Fo rOne More Day .The
d n o c e
s par ti sproblem formulaiton which concern sthe problem stha tlead to the
. y d u t s e h t f o s i s y l a n
a The t hrid patr i st heobjecitve sof t he study .The fou trh par t
t r a p t s a l e h T . d e t a t s e r a y d u t s e h t g n it c u d n o c f o s m i a e h t , y d u t s e h t f o s ti f e n e b s e t a t s
.s i s e h t s i h t n i d e s u s m r e t f o n o it i n if e d s i
.
A Backgroundoft heStudy
Amotheri san i mpo tran t ifgurei n ourl fie .Amothe rplay sani mpo trantr ole
e w e c n i s s u r o f r e v i g e r a c y r a m ir p e h t s i e h S . n e r d li h c e h t f o e r a c g n i k a t d n a g n i s i a r n i
e h t s e v i g e h s , e r o m r e h tr u F . n e r d li h c r e h f o l l a r o f e v o l t a e r g a s a h r e h t o m A . n r o b e r a
i h
c ldren love ,atteniton ,and care .Freud (1990 )stated tha trelaitonship between
( e n o e u q i n u e h t s i n e r d li h c d n a r e h t o
m p .320) .Therei sas rtongemo itona loccurirng
n I . r e t h g u a d d n a n o s r e h r o f n o s r e p t s e s o l c e h t s e m o c e b e h s , e r o f e r e h T . n e e w t e b n i
t s a rt n o
c ,adaughte rmayhavecloserr elaitonshipt oherf athe rwhlieas oni sclosert o
a e li h w , e fi l s i h n i t h g if o t n o s a r o f e r u g if t n a tr o p m i n a s a h r e h t a f A . r e h t o m s i h
o t y ll a i c e p s e e c n a h c a s a h r e h t o m A . tr a e h s i h m o r f k n i h t o t n o s a s e h c a e t r e h t o m
a h c a e
t sonhowt o rtea tagilr .Thi swli lbehelpfulf o rhimespeciallyt ohaveabette r
. e r u t u f e h t n i p i h s n o it a l e
r
o t g n i d r o c c
A Freud (1990) ,al lmother swan tto be queen sto he rson s(p .
A . ) 7 2
o t n i s r e t n
e hisl fieetihe ra sagrifl irend o ra sawfie .Int hi sstage ,amothe rwillf ee l
. l u f r a e f s e m o c e b d n a e r u c e s n
i Shehast osharet hel ovewtih someoneelsewho i sa s
. e fi l s ’ n o s r e h s a t n a tr o p m
i He rposiiton ast heonlywomeni n he rson’sl fiewli lbe
. n a m o w r e h t o n a y b n o o s d e c a l p e
r I ti s itme to understand each other ,a mothe r
e fi l n w o r i e h t e v a h n o o s l li w n o s r e h t a h t e z il a e r d l u o h
s andsheshouldno tholdhe r
. e m it e h t ll a n o
s When a son l eave shi smother t o seek successi n l fie ,hedoe sno t
l e e f ll i w r e h t o m a t a h t w o n k t o n s e o d n o s A . l u f n i a p r e h t o m e h t s e k a m t i t a h t w o n k
y a w a g n i o g s i h t t a l u ft r u
h . I tha sbeen known t ha tamotherand a ns o someitme s
e v a
h as pecia lbond ,bu ttidoe sno tmeant ha tmothersl ovet heris on smoret hant hei r
u a
d ghters .
r e h t o m
A -son relaitonship can also be porrtayed in a nove l il ke Fo rOne
y a D e r o
M . tI i sone o fthe ltierary work sand that pictures the wo lrd we ilve .
) 9 9 9 1 ( a i o i G d n a y d e n n e
K notedtha ta noveli sapictureofr eall fieandmanner sand
t f
o he itme in which i twa sw irtten ( .p 266). tI deal swtih a human character in a
l a i c o
s stiuaiton. We wli l ifnd human character si n Fo rOne More Day namely
e n il u a
P ast hemothe rand ChalreyBenetto ast heson wtih t hei rsocia lstiuaiton t hey
e c a f .
n i d e w o h s s i t
I thi snove ltha ta mother ha seterna llove to he rson. He r
t s e t a e r
g lovet o he rson i st heonly t hing which can forgivehe rson .Fo rOneMore
y a
D i sa famliy story .The main character Chalrey “Chick” Benetto i stold by hi s
y o b s ’ a m a m a e b n a c u o Y “ , r e h t a
f o radaddy’ sboy ,bu tyou can’ tbeboth.”So he
y o b s ’ y d d a d a e b o t s e d i c e
d . Chalrey ilves happliywtihhisf amliy ,bu tyear satfe rh si
t n e r a
p sfaceconitnuou sproblems in t hei rmarirage .Thecilmaxo ftheseproblemsi s
t n e r a p s i h f o e c r o v i d e h
e h , r e tf a s r a e Y . r e t s i s r e g n u o
y leaveshi smotherandhisf amliyuntlis hepasse saway
. y l d e t c e p x e n
u Chalreyfeelsguitlyto hi smothe rbecausewhenhi smothe rdies ,hei s
F . r e h d n u o r a n i t o
n inally he becomes desperate and leaves hi swfie and chlidren .
d e m o
S ecadesl ater ,Chalrey i sabrokenman .Hisl fieha sbeencrumbled byalcoho l
y li m a f s i h s e v a e l e H . b o j s i h s e s o l e H . t e r g e r d n
a and hedecidest o kli lhimsefl. He
. n w o t e m o h l l a m s s i h o t e d ir t h g i n d i m a s e k a
m Het irest oendhisl fiebycrashinghi s
m o r f g n i p m u j d n a k c u rt o t r a
c a wate rtower .Unfo trunately ,he i sunsuccessfu lto
e fi l s i h d n
e ,but eh comebackt ohi soldhouse .He ifnds an amazin gdiscoveryinhi s
e s u o h d l
o .Hi smothe,rwhodieseigh tyear sago ,stli l ilvesthere da n greetswelcome
n e p p a h r e v e g n i h t o n f i s a e m o h m i
h s.
e h
T famliy relaitonship between mothe rand son a sporrtayed in Mtich
s ’ m o b l
A Fo rOne More Day i sinteresitng to discuss .Thi si san interesitng and
p i h s n o it a l e r d o o g a d li u b o t e v a h e W . p i h s n o it a l e r y li m a f t u o b a y r o t s g n i h c u o t
r e b m e m e h t g n o m
a s o fthe famliy .T shis i the main reason why Iwill discus sthe
d n a , r e h t o m s i h d n a r e t c a r a h c n i a m e h t n e e w t e b p i h s n o it a l e
r laso abou ttheway t o
. p i h s n o it a l e r e h t n i a t n i a m
.
B ProblemFormula iton
s a d e t a l u m r o f e r a s m e l b o r p e h t , d n u o r g k c a b e h t f o n o it a l u m r o f e h t n o d e s a B
: s w o ll o f
.
1 Howaret hecharacter sofChalreyandPauilnedescirbedi nt henovel?
.
2 How i s the relaitonship between Pau ilne and Chalrey descirbed in Mtich
s ’ m o b l
A Fo rOneMoreDay?
.
.
C Objecitve soft heStudy
o t d e d n e t n i s i l a r e n e g n i s i s e h t s i h
T descirbet hecharacteirsitc so fPau ilnea s
d n a r e h t o m
a Chalrey a sa son in thi snovel .Fu trhermore ,the analysi so fthe
. d e s s u c s i d e b o s l a l li w y e lr a h C d n a e n il u a P n e e w t e b p i h s n o it a l e
r Researcher wli l
e z y l a n
a Chalrey’ sconfilc tmanagemen tto solvet heconfilc tin hisr elaitonship wtih
. e n il u a
P
.
D Beneftis fo theStudy h c r a e s e r s i h
T i sexpected to give valuable contirbuiton fo rthe fo llowing
l p o e
p e .The fris ti saddressed to the reader .They can ge tthe understanding o f
l li w y e h T . l e v o n s i h t n i t n e m e l e t n a tr o p m i n a s i ti s a l e v o n e h t f o n o it a z ir e t c a r a h c
e g o s l
a tsome messages through the nove ltha twe mus tmaintain ou rrelaitonship
. r e h t o m h ti w y ll a i c e p s e s t n e r a p r u o h ti w
y d u t S n o it a c u d E e g a u g n a L h s il g n E f o r e h c a e t e h t o t d e s s e r d d a s i d n o c e s e h T
c n i a tr e c y l p p a n a c y e h T . m a r g o r P y d u t S r e tt e L h s il g n E d n a m a r g o r
P hapte roft hi s
t n e d u t s h c a e t o t l e v o
n ,f o rexampleinr eadingclassandanswers omequesiton sbased
. l e v o n t a h t n o
.
E De ifniitono fTerms
y e h T . g n i d n a t s r e d n u s i m d i o v a o t g n i y fi r a l c d e e n s m e ti e m o
S a re:
.
1 Relaitonship
A Comprehensive Dicitonary o fPsychologica land Psychoanalyitca lTerms
e n if e
d s relaitonship ast hef ac to fanykind ofr elation between personst hati sbased
. t n e c e d n o m m o c n o p
u According to Horace & Ava (1970) ,relaitonship usually
o h t s a p i h s n o it a l e r d e z i n g o c e r y ll a i c o s e s o l c h c u s s e d u l c n
n o it p o d
a ( .p 248 .) In thi sstudy ,the relaitonship between a mothe rand a son i s
. d e s u c o
f Ther elaitonshipo fChalreyandPauilnei saf amliyr elaitonship .Threeyear s
a r e h e v i g d o G y ll a n i F . y l d a b m i h s t n a w y ll a e r e n il u a P , d e ir r a m r e tf
a son named
. n o s a d n a r e h t o m a s a r e h t o h c a e h ti w e t a c i n u m m o c d n a t c a r e t n i y e h T . y e lr a h C
.
2 MaternalRelaitonship
. p i h s n o it a l e r l a n r e t a m m o r f t n e r e f fi d s i p i h s n o it a l e r l a n r e t a
P Mothe rand
. n e r d li h c r i e h t h ti w p i h s n o it a l e r e h t n i s e l y t s t n e r e f fi d e v a h r e h t a
f Int hebooken itlted
p i h s n o it a l e R y li m a F n i n o it a c i n u m m o
C by Nolle rand Ftizpatirck (1993) ,‘Mother
-e h t f o n o it r o p o r p r e t a e r g h ti w , g n i k a t e r a c y b d e t a n i m o d e b o t d n e t s n o it c a r e t n i d li h c
s e it i v it c a e s e h t n o t n e p s g n i e b n e r d li h c r i e h t h ti w d n e p s s r e h t o m e m
it . ’’ (p .206) . In
, n o it i d d
a Nolle rand Ftizpatirck (1993 )noted tha to hn t e othe rhand ,father-ch lid
s n o it c a r e t n i ri e h t f o n o it r o p o r p r e t a e r g h c u m h ti w y a l p y b d e t a n i m o d s i p i h s n o it a l e r
y a l p n o d e s u c o f g n i e b n e r d li h c r i e h t h ti
w ( .p 206 .) We can ifnd in the nove ltha t
s i h e li h W . y e lr a h C o t n o it n e tt a d n a n o it c e f f a g n i v i g n i n o it n e tt a e r o m s a h e n il u a P
s d n e p s r e h t a
f moreoft he itmeavaliablei nplayacitviite silkebaseball .
.
3 Famliy
e k c o L d n a s s e g r u
B (1975 )descirbedtha tfamliya sagroup o fperson suntied
y
b ite so fblood ,marirage o radop iton ;consttiuitng a single household interacitng
d n a d n a b s u h f o s e l o r l a i c o s e v it c e p s e r r i e h t n i r e h t o h c a e h ti w g n it a c i n u m m o c d n a
d n a g n it a e r c d n a , r e t s i s d n a r e h t o r b , r e t h g u a d d n a n o s , r e h t a f d n a r e h t o m , e fi w
g n i n i a t n i a
m acommoncutlure( .p )8 . Int hebooken itltedCommunicaitoni nFamliy
p i h s n o it a l e
R , the f rist clas s o f famliy de ifniiton i s based on famliy srtucture .
r e ll o N o t g n i d r o c c
A and Ftizpat irck( 1993) ,‘’Mos to fu suset het erm f amliyi nt wo
e h w ) a ( : s y a w n o m m o
s n i s u o c d n a , s t n u a , s t n e r a p d n a r g , s g n il b i s s a h c u s e g a ir r a m r o d o o l b y b s e v it a l e
r ’ ’
( .p1 9 .)
o tt e n e B y e lr a h C d n a e n il u a P n e e w t e b p i h s n o it a l e r e h t , y r o e h t t a h t n o d e s a B
tI . p i h s n o it a l e r y li m a f o t s g n o l e
b i sbecausePauilneandBenetto areuntiedby ite so f
a s a r e h t o h c a e h ti w e t a c i n u m m o c d n a t c a r e t n i y e h T . n o s a d n a r e h t o m a s a d o o l b
n o s a d n a r e h t o
m .Ch lidren statr t o l earn anything i n afamliy .Pau ilnea sa mothe r
n u g n i h t e l p m i s a m o r f o tt e n e B s e h c a e
t tlit hebig t hing i n hisl fie ,even t hough tii s
r e h t a f a h ti w e n o d y l n o m m o
c .
.
4 Character
s m a r b
A (1981 )explaine dtha tcharacteri stheperson spresentedi nadramaitc
s i h c i h w , k r o w e v it a r r a n r
o interpreted byt hereader sa sbeing endowed wtih mora l
d d n
a isposiitona lquailitest ha tareexpressedi nwhatt heys ay-thedialogu -esandwha t
o d y e h
t -the aciton ( .p 2 . 0) In a novel ,acharacte rmay remain essenitally stable o r
. s e g n a h
c There aret wo character st hat wli lbe analyzed i n t hi sstudy, Pau ilne a sa
e h t o
m rand Charilea sason .Both character shavei mpo trantr olei n astory .Pauilne
m o r f y r o t s e h t n i t u o e m o c s y a w l a y e h T . y r o t s e h t f o e rt n e c e h t s e m o c e b y e lr a h C d n a
y r o t s e h t f o d n e e h t li t n u g n i n n i g e b e h
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
d e t a l e r f o w e i v e r a t u o b a s i tr a p t s ri f e h T . s tr a p r u o f f o s t s i s n o c r e t p a h c s i h T
y d a e rl a s e i d u t
s conducted that discus sthe same novel .The second par ti sabou t
ti r c f o y r o e h t e h t f o s t s i s n o c t a h t w e i v e r l a c it e r o e h
t ica lapproaches ,theory o f
d e t a l e r f o w e i v e r e h t s i tr a p d ri h t e h T . n o it a z ir e t c a r a h c f o y r o e h t e h t d n a , r e t c a r a h c
r e h t o m f o y r o e h t e h t , y li m a f f o y r o e h t e h t : r u o f o t n i d e d i v i d s i d n a y r o e h
t -son
r e h t a f f o y r o e h t e h t , p i h s n o it a l e
r -son relaitonship ,and the theory o fconfilct .The
. k r o w e m a r f l a c it e r o e h t e h t s i e n o t s a l
.
A Reviewo fRelatedStudies y a D e r o M e n O r o
F i sanove lw irtten by Mtich Albom . tIt ell sabou tason
s i h h ti w p i h s n o it a l e r s i h n i a t n i a m o t r e h t o m d e v o l e b s i h y b e c n a h c a n e v i g s i o h w
y B . r e h t o
m readingt hi snove,lt hewrtie rwould ilket o shareaboutt hemeaningo f
y lr a e e h t s i e h S . n e r d li h c r e h r o f e v o l s s e l d n e s a h o h w r e h t o m a y ll a i c e p s e , y li m a f
r e v i g e r a
c fo rhe rchlidren .A mothe rgive satten iton ,careand l ove t o he rchlidren
p e c n o c e h t e c n i
s itonuntlit heendoft heril fie .Event houghhe rch lidrenmakesome
. m e h t e v i g r o f s y a w l a l li w r e h t o m a , e fi l ri e h t n i s e k a t s i m
s ’ m o b l A h c ti
M Fo rOneMore Day is i nteresitng t o discuss .Therearet wo
s a w e n o t s ri f e h T .l e v o n s i h t h ti w d e t a l e r e n o d s e i d u t
s wirtten by Dian Prawesiti n
s i y d u t s r e h f o e lt it e h T . 9 0 0
2 TheI nlfuenceo fBenetto’sI ntrapersona lConfilct son
y a D e r o M e n O r o F s ’ m o b l A h c ti M n i d e t c e lf e R s a e fi L l a n o s r e P s i
h .I tmainly
r e p a rt n i s i h d n a r e t c a r a h c s ’ o tt e n e B y e lr a h C t u o b a s e s s u c s i
s i h
t thesis ,Prawest ifocuse son Chalrey Benetto’ sinrtapersona lconfilcts wtih hi s
t a h t s e d u l c n o c i t s e w a r P . r e h t a
f Chalrey Benetto face s ifve majo rinrtapersona l
, e r o m r e h tr u F . s t c il f n o
c Chalrey Benetto’ s inrtapersona l confilc t give s negaitve
s t c e f f
e onhi sbehaviorwhich ifnallydesrtoyhi sownpersonall fie .
d n o c e s e h
T study i sw irtten by Est iDewant ienitlted A Study o fChick
. y a D e r o M e n O r o F s ’ m o b l A h c ti M n i n e e s s a s t c il f n o C s ’ o tt e n e
B Thist hesi sw as
s i d y l n i a m d n a 9 0 0 2 n i n e tt ir
w cusse s Chalrey Benetto’ scharacteirsitcs ,Chalrey
t c il f n o c s ’ o tt e n e
B s and the resoluiton to hi sconfilcts .Dewant iconcludes tha t
y e lr a h
C Benetto faces t wo t ype so fconfilct ,namely i nterna lconfilc tand externa l
s e t a t s o s l a i t n a w e D , n o it i d d a n I .t c il f n o
c tha tChalrey Benettouse saccommodaiton
t c il f n o c s i h e v l o s o t s e p y t g n i d i o v a d n
a s .
e s o h t n o d e s a
B studies, i tcanbeconcluded t ha tChalrey Benetto facestwo
s i t c il f n o c l a n r e t n I . t c il f n o c l a n r e t x e d n a l a n r e t n i y l e m a n e fi l s i h n i s t c il f n o c n i a m
e d e h n e h
w al swtih hi smind .The externa lconfilct i swhen Chalrey Benetto ha s
s i h , r e h t o m s i h , r e h t a f s i h s a h c u s s r e t c a r a h c r e h t o h ti w w e i v f o t n i o p t n e r e f fi d
e s o h t o t g n ir e d i s n o C . c t e , e fi w s i h , r e t s i
s studies, t hi sstudy wli lanalyze how the
n e e w t e b p i h s n o it a l e
r Pauilne and Chalrey Benetto and how Chalrey Benetto
s e g a n a
m ther elaitonshipwtih Pauilne.I temphasizes on t her elaitonship betweena
. n o s a d n a r e h t o
m T his covers the characteirsitc so fChalrey Benetto and Pauilne ,
e c a f y e h t t c il f n o c t a h
w int herir elationship ,andhowt heys olvet heconfilct.
.
B Reviewo fRelatedTheories
f o y r o e h t , h c a o r p p a l a c it ir c f o y r o e h t e r a s e ir o e h t e s o h T . l e v o n e h t g n i z y l a n a
c a r a h c f o y r o e h t d n a , r e t c a r a h
c teirzaiton.
.
1 Criitca lApproaches
According to Rohrberge r and Wood s J r (1971) in thei r book enitlted
e r u t a r e ti L t u o b a g n it i r W d n a g n i d a e
R ,thereare ifveapproachest o analyzeanove l
( .p )6 . Thefris tapproach i st he formails tapproach .Thi sapproach focuse son t he
t I . k r o w s i h n i s e s u r o h t u a e h t t a h t e r u t c u rt s d n a s e u q i n h c e
t only examines the
e c a l p s ti o t r o k r o w e h t f o e r n e g , e fi l s ’ r o h t u a e h t o t e c n e r e f e r t u o h ti w k r o w y r a r e ti l
o t e c n e r e f e r t u o h ti w d n a y r o t s i h y r a r e ti l n i r o k r o w e h t f o t n e m p o l e v e d e h t n
i sti
l a i c o
s env rionment .Second approach i sthe biographica lapproach .Thi sapproach
f o e c e i p e n o e z y l a n a o t t n i o p t n a tr o p m i n a s i r o h t u a e h t f o e fi l e h t t a h t s e v e il e b
d n a e fi l e h t t u o b a n a c y e h t s a h c u m s a n r a e l o t s t p m e tt a t I . k r o w y r a r e ti l
o t n e m p o l e v e
d f the autho r and to apply thi s knowledge in thei r attempt s to
. s g n it ir w s i h d n a t s r e d n u
s i h c a o r p p a d ri h t e h
T the sociocutlural-histo irca lApproach .Thi sapproach
t a h t n o it a z il i v i c e h t o t e c n e r e f e r n i s i k r o w l a e r e h t e t a c o l o t y a w y l n o e h t t a h t s t s i s n i
r
p oduced ti . Based on sociocutlural-histo ircal approach , society and histo irca l
y r a r e ti l a d n a t s r e d n u o t r e d r o n i d e z y l a n a e b o t s g n i h t l a i c u r c e h t e r a d n u o r g k c a b
s i h c a o r p p a t x e N . k r o
w the mythopoeic approach .The aim o fthi sapproach i sto
n i a tr e c r e v o c s i
d universally recurren t pattern s i f human though t which the
n i d n u o f t a h t e s o h t o t d e t a l e r s i s n r e tt a p t n e r r u c e R . s i t r a f o s k r o w t n a c if i n g i s
e v a h y e h t t a h t t h g u o h t n a m u h o t c i s a b o s e r a d n a s e ti r s k l o f d n a s h t y m t n e i c n a
a o r p p a t s a l e h T . n e m l l a r o f g n i n a e
t I .s n r e tt a p t n e r r u c e r n i a tr e c e t a rt s n o m e d d n a e t a c o l o t tr o f f e e h t s e v l o v n i h c a o r p p a
n i n e tt ir w s n r e tt a p r o i v a h e b d n a y ti l a n o s r e p , n o it a v it o m n a m u h o t d e t a l e r y ll a u s u s i
. s t c e j b o y r a r e ti l
.
2 Character .
a De ifniitono fCharacters
k o o b s i h n i s m a r b A y b n e v i g s i r e t c a r a h c f o n o it i n if e d
A Glossary o f
s m r e T y r a r e ti
L .Abrams( 1981 )explained tha tcharacter saretheperson spresented
g n i e b s a s r e d a e r e h t y b d e t e r p r e t n i e r a o h w , k r o w e v it a r r a n r o c it a m a r d a n i
l a r o m h ti w d e w o d n
e anddisposiitona lquailitest ha tareexpressedi nwhatt heysay-
s e u g o l a i d e h
t - and wha ttheydo- theaciton( p .2 . 0) Anothe rdeifniitono fcharacte r
: n o it c i F k o o b s i h n i s b o c a J d n a s tr e b o R y b n e v i g s
i AnI ntroducitont o Readingand
g n it i r
W .Robetr sandJ acobs(1989 )stated thatt hecharacter sareanextendedverba l
d n a h c e e p s , s t h g u o h t s e n i m r e t e d t a h t fl e s r e n n i e h t , g n i e b n a m u h a f o n o it a t n e s e r p e r
v a h e
b io r(p .143). Based on tha ttheory ,i tcan be concluded tha tcharacte ri sa
r a n r o c it a m a r d a n i n o s r e
p raitve work who i salso a representaiton o fa human
. g n i e b
.
b Type so fCharacters e
l k n e
H (1977) stated tha tthere are two kind so fcharacter sbased on the
e t c a r a h c r o n i m d n a r o j a m : e c n a tr o p m
i r (s p .86 .) Amajo rcharacteri sacen rteoft he
n a s a h t I . y r o t
s impo trantr olei nas tory .Ther eade rwli lpaymos toft heatten itont o
e w , y r o t s e h t d n a t s r e d n u o t r e d r o n I . r e t c a r a h c r o n i m n a h t r e h t a r r e t c a r a h c r o j a m
n i o p t n a tr o p m i s s e
l tin a story rathe rthan majo rcharacter .I tha s ilmtied role o f
f o t n e m p o l e v e d e h t n i r e tr o p p u s a s a e l o r a s a h r e t c a r a h c r o n i M . y r o t s a n i n o it c a
.r e t c a r a h c r o j a m
. M .
E Forste r(1974 )divided charactersi nto lfa tandr ound character ( .p 4 . 6)
r a h c t a lf
A acter can also be called a type o rtwo-dimensional .I ti sconsrtucted
. li a t e d g n i z il a u d i v i d n i h c u m t u o h ti w d e t n e s e r p s i d n a y ti l a u q r o a e d i e l g n i s a d n u o r a
a n i y r o t s e h t f o d n e e h t li t n u g n i n n i g e b e h t m o r f d e c u d o rt n i y ll a u s u s r e t c a r a h c t a l F
p ir c s e d e l b a t
s iton .Forste r add ssome advantage so f lfa tcharacters. The grea t
e h t y b y l n o t o n d e z i n g o c e r y li s a e e r a y e h t t a h t s i s r e t c a r a h c t a lf f o e g a t n a v d a
s i e g a t n a v d a d n o c e s A . e y e l a n o it o m e s ’ r e d a e r e h t y b o s l a t u b e y e l a u s i v s ’ r e d a e r
i s a e e r a s r e t c a r a h c t a lf t a h
t lyr ememberedbyt her eade rsince lfa tcharacter sareno t
e h t li t n u g n i n n i g e b e h t m o r f e m a s e h t e b o t n i a m e r s r e t c a r a h c t a l F . e g n a h c y li s a e
s i tI . n o it a v it o m d n a t n e m a r e p m e t n i x e l p m o c s i r e t c a r a h c d n u o r A . y r o t s e h t f o d n e
s r e t c a r a h c d n u o r e s u a c e b c i m a n y
d can have capablitiy to change .I tcan change
e k a m n a c s r e t c a r a h c d n u o r f o g n i g n a h c e h T . n o it i d n o c d n a n o it a u ti s e h t n o d e s a b
. e s ir p r u s r e d a e r e h t
.
3 Characteriza iton .
a De ifniitono fCharacteriza iton s d o o W d n a r e g r e b r h o
R (1971 )deifned characteirzaiton a sthe proces sby
c i h
w h an autho rcreate sacharacte r(p .20) .In addiiton ,according t o Robetr sand
s b o c a
J (1989 )characteirzaiton i sthe way that an autho ruse sto give informaiton
s r e t c a r a h c e h t t u o b
r o h t u a n a s p l e h n o it a z ir e t c a r a h C . r e h t o n a e n o m o r f m e h t h s i u g n it s i d t a h t s e t u b ir tt a
l a e r m r o f s n a rt o
t -lfiepeoplei ntocharacteri n ifciton .
.
b Characteriza iton
s d o o W d n a r e g r e b r h o
R (1971) s aid tha tthere are two p irncipa lway sa
r e t c a r a h
c can be characteirzed ( .p 2 . 0) F rist ,he can use d riec tmean sto descirbe
e h t h g u o r h t r e t c a r a h c e b ir c s e d n a c e h , r e v o e r o M . r e t c a r a h c a f o e c n a r a e p p a l a c i s y h p
r e h e c a l p d n a s n a e m c it a m a r d e s u n a c e h , d n o c e S . s e t u b ir tt a l a r o m d n a l a u t c e ll e t n i
s t a h w w o h s o t n o it a u ti s n
i he i sby the way she behave so rspeaks .Then the
. n o it a u ti s e h t n o d e s a b y a w r a l u c it r a p a n i t c a e r ll i w r e t c a r a h c
n o t n a t
S (1965 )stated tha tthey are fou rway sin creaitng the characters
( .p )1 . 7 Frislty ,the autho rgive sname sto the characters .Secondly, the autho r
e h t g n it a e r c s i t x e N . s r e t c a r a h c e h t n o p u s t n e m m o c d n a y lt i c il p x e s e b ir c s e d
e h T . s r e t c a r a h c r o j a m e h t s d r a w o t e d u ti tt a ’ s r e t c a r a h c r o n i m e h t h g u o r h t s r e t c a r a h c
d n a h c e e p s n w o r i e h t h g u o r h t e r a s r e t c a r a h c e h t t a h w s w o h s r o h t u a e h t , e n o t s a l
a h e
b vior .
, n o it i d d a n
I MJ. . Murphy (1972 ) in hi s book Understanding Unseens
w o h
s e d nine way show the autho rmake sthe reader sunderstand the character
( .p161) . Fris t way i s called persona l descirpiton . The autho r can descirbe a
e c n a r a e p p a l a c i s y h p s ’ r e t c a r a h
c , t heclothe sand also patr so fbody i n detalis .The
a s e b ir c s e d r o h t u a e h T . r e h t o n a y b n e e s s a r e t c a r a h c e h t d e ll a c s i y a w d n o c e s
m i h g n i b ir c s e d f o d a e t s n i s e y e d n a s n o i n i p o s ’ r e t c a r a h c r e h t o n a h g u o r h t r e t c a r a h c
t u a e h t , e r e H . h c e e p s s i y a w t x e N . y lt c e ri
d ho rgivesi nformaiton abou tacharacte r
c i n u m m o c o t w o h d n a , t a
e atewtihotherf romt herif amliy .Aparen twillt eachand
. e r u t u f ri e h t r o f e r a p e r p d n a l l e w w o r g n a c y e h t t a h t o s n e r d li h c r i e h t e t a c u d e
c o L d n a s s e g r u
B k (e 1975 )also add fou rmain characteirsitcs o fa famliy
( .p )7 .The fris tcharacter i s t ha tafamliy consists o fperson sun tied by t he ite so f
. n o it p o d a r o d o o l b , e g a ir r a
m In thi scharacter ,blood descirbe sthe relaitonship
. n o it p o d a r o e g a ir r a m m o r f e m o c y a m n e r d li h C . n e r d li h c r i e h t d n a t n e r a p n e e w t e b
s u h a f o p i h s n o it a l e r e h t s e b ir c s e d d n o b , e r o m r e h tr u
F band and hi swfie .Second
d n a f o o r e n o r e d n u r e h t e g o t e v il y ll a u s u y li m a f e h t f o s r e b m e m e h t t a h t s i r e t c a r a h c
s e t u ti t s n o
c asinglehousehold.Theparen tandt hei rch lidrent endt o ilvet ogetheri n
o t e v a h y e h t n e h w l u f p l e h y r e v e b l li w t I . e s u o h e m a s e h
t communicateeach other .
r o ti n o m o t e m it h c u m e v a h l li w t n e r a p e h
T thedevelopmen to fthei rchlidren .The
t t a h t s i r e t c a r a h c d ri h
t he famliy i sauntiy of i nteracitng and i ntercommunicaitng
s n o s r e
p toperformthesocialr ole so fhusbandandwfie ,mothe randfather ,sonand
r e t h g u a
d ,brothe rands iste.rThereares omer olest ha texisti nours ocietyconnected
, e fi w d n a d n a b s u h f o e l o r l a i c o s e h t e b n a c t I . y li m a f a n i p i h s n o it a l e r e h t h ti w
r e t s i s d n a r e h t o r b r o r e t h g u a d d n a n o s , r e h t a f d n a r e h t o
m .Thel as tcharacte rist ha t
the famliy maintain sa common cutlure ,deirved mainly from the genera lcutlure ,
n i t u
b acomplexsocietypossessings omedisitncitvef eaturesf o reachf amliy .When
r e h t o h c a e o t e r u tl u c t n e r e f fi d g n ir b l li w y e h t , d e ir r a m s t e g e l p u o c
a based no thei r
y li m a f n w
o .Thesed fiferen tcutlureswli lmakesome unique featuresi n t hei rnew
. y li m a f
k c ir t a p z ti F d n a r e ll o N , n o it i d d a n
I (1993 )stated tha tthef ris tclas soff amliy
n o it i n if e
d i sbasedonf amliys rtucture ( .p 1 .9) Mos to fu suset het ermf amliyi nt wo
s y a w n o m m o
T . n o it a e r c o r p f o y li m a f d e ll a
c hesecond wayi swhen wemean relaitve sby blood
a , s t n u a , s t n e r a p d n a r g , s g n il b i s s a h c u s e g a ir r a m r
o nd cousins called famliy o f
g ir
o i .n Famliy o fo irgin i sachlidwhich comesf rom amarirageo facouplewhere
. n i e fi l s i h s n i g e b d li h c s i h
t Every person mus thave a mothe r and a father .
s i h T . e r o m y n a m d n a , s n i s u o c , t n u a , r e h t o r b r o r e t s i s e v a h y a m y e h t s e m it e m o S
f o d n i
k relaitonshipi susuallycalledfamliyo fprocreaiton.
.
b Kind so fFamliy
d e lt it n e k o o b e h t o t g n i d r o c c
A Sociology o fFamliy Lfie w irtten by David
l a e h
C (2002) ,the srtucture o fa famliy can be divided into nuclea rfamliy and
y li m a f d e d n e t x
e (p .172).
)
1 NuclearFamliy r o c c
A dingt oCheal (2002) ,nuclearf amliyi scomposedo fal egallymarired
e l p u o
c and t hei rchlidren,f o rasl ongast hel atte r ilved a thome( p .4) .There si no
y n a m d n a , t n u a , e l c n u , r e h t o m d n a r g , r e h t a f d n a r g s a h c u s y li m a f f o r e b m e m r e h t o
o h t a s e v il o h w e r o
m me .Thereareonly t heparen tand t hei rchlidren. In addiiton ,
k c ir t a p z ti F d n a r e ll o
N (1993 ) in the book enitlted Communica iton in Famliy
p i h s n o it a l e
R statet ha tnuclearf amliyi sr estirctedt o t hose ilving i nt hesamehouse
( .p 3 .) In t hi skind o ffamliy, the paren tand t hei rch lidren ilveseparated from t he
w e n r i e h t h ti w e v il d n a d e ir r a m n e r d li h c r i e h t y ll a n if l it n u e s u o h e n o n i y li m a f r e h t o
. y li m a
f Nuclea rfamliy i sestabilshed atfert he Wo lrd Wa rI Iand becomet hei dea l
t y t e i c o s r u o n i y li m a f f o l e d o
m oday .
)
2 ExtendedFamliy
. y li m a f d e d n e t x e d e ll a c s i y li m a f r a e l c u n f o e ti s o p p o e h
T According to
l a e h
C (2002) ,extended famliy consist so fa numbe ro fhousehold swhose male
( r o t s e c n a e l a m n o m m o c a m o r f t n e c s e d y b r e h t o n a e n o o t d e k n il e r e w s d a e
P n
I alesitne ,extendedf amliyi salsocalledhamula .Hamulai nPalesitneconsist so f
. e g a ll i v e m a s e h t n i e v il o h w s d l o h e s u o h l a r e v e
s Usually,t hehead o fthehamulai s
. e g a ll i v e h t n i n a m t s e d l o e h
t Today ,extendedf amliyi sarleadyspread outi nmany
ir t n u o
c es .Onef amliycan ilvewtiht herir elaitve ssuch a sgrandparent ,uncle ,aunt ,
. f o o r e n o n i r e h t e g o t e v il y e h T . c t e
.
5 Rela itonshipinaFamliy
r e h t o m f o g n i n a e m e h t : s tr a p o w t f o s t s i s n o c t r a p s i h
T -son r elaitonship and
r e h t o m n i t c il f n o c f o y r o e h t e h
t -son relaitonship .In t hefris tpar,t i tconsist soft he
n o d e s a b r e h t o m a f o e l o r t n a tr o p m
i Cheal .
.
a Mother-SonRela itonship l
a e h
C (2002 ) stated tha t motheirng i s a gendered identtiy which ha s
f o s e v il e h t n o s t c e f f e d n u o f o r
p women (p .102 .) Motheirng i sa kind o fsocia l
. s e it i v it c
a Thi skind o facitvtiystatr ssincehe rbabyi sborn untlit heendo fherl fie .
s a h r e h t o m
A dominatedrolesincet hebeginningo fhe rchlidren’sl fiebecauseshe
. s e o d r e h t a f a n a h t e r o m n e r d li h c f o e r a c e h t e v i
g tI i sno tonly raising achlid bu t
. ll e w p u w o r g l li w y e h t t a h t o s n e r d li h c g n ir a c d n a g n ir u tr u n s e v l o v n i t i o s l
a A
r e h t o
m interac tmoret ohe rchlidrenr athert hanaf ather .Shecanobserveandwatch
li h c r e h h ti w e m it e r o m s d n e p s e h s e s u a c e b n e r d li h c r e h f o t n e m p o l e v e d e h
t dren
. r e h t a f a n a h
t A motheri san i mpo tran t ifgurei n ch lidren’sl fie .She enjoy scairng
r i e h t o t g n i d n o p s e r d n a t n e m p o l e v e d s ’ n e r d li h c e h t g n i h c t a w y b n e r d li h c e h t r o f
t n e g r
u needs .Ther oleo fmothe rha sauniqueposiitonespeciallyi ni n lfuencingt he
r e tt e b a e v a h o t y ll a i c e p s e m i h r o f l u f p l e h e b l li w s i h T . lr i g a t a e rt o t w o h n o s
. e r u t u f e h t n i p i h s n o it a l e r
d u e r F o t g n i d r o c c
A (1990) ,al lmother swan tto be queen sto he rson s
( .p327 .)Amotheri st hef ris twomanf o rasonandi tcannotber eplaced byanyone .
h c a e t n a c r e h t o m A . tr a e h s i h m o r f k n i h t o t w o h n r a e l n a c n o s a , r e h t o m a h g u o r h T
. n a m e lt n e g a e b n a c e h t a h t o s l l e w l ri g a t a e rt o t w o h n o s
a A ciritca lphaseo fa
r e h t o
m -son r elaitonship come swhen anothe rwoman entersi ntohisl fieetihe ra sa
o t n i e m o c n a m o w r e h t o n a n e h w l u f r a e f l e e f l li w r e h t o m A . e fi w a s a r o d n e ir fl ri g
. e fi l s ’ n o s r e
h Shehast o sharet hel ovewtih someoneelse who i sasi mpo tran ta s
s ’ n o s r e
h lfie .Shef eelsworryi fhe rson willf orge the randl eaveher .Int hi sstage ,
d l u o h s r e h t o m A . n o s r e h o s l a d n a r e h t o m a m o r f g n i d n a t s r e d n u n a e b t s u m e r e h t
h ti w e fi l w e n s i h t r a t s d l u o h s e H . r e h h ti w e v il r e g n o l o n e b l li w n o s r e h t a h t e z il a e r
e m o w r e h t
o n t ha thel oves .Fu trhermore ,ason mus talso understandt ha t tii svery
o t r e h t o m a r o f d r a
h le the rsongof o rhi snewl fie . tIi sitmef o rasont oconveyhi s
t a h t r e h t o
m event houghhearleadyha sanewf amliy ,hewli lnotf orge the randhe r
l li w e v o
l n otber eplacedbyanyoneelse .
.
b Father-SonRela itonship tr e b o R o t g n i d r o c c
A (1982),f ather-sonr elaitonshipha samajori mpac tona
( t n e m p o l e v e d l a c i g o l o h c y s p s ’ n a
m p .187 .) A father-son relaitonship could help a
h t a f A . y ti n il u c s a m y h tl a e h a p o l e v e d y o
b e rcan help hi s son to develop hi s
o t n o it n e tt a y a p d l u o c r e h t a f A . n o s s i h o t n o it n e tt a l a i c e p s g n i v i g y b y ti n il u c s a m
a n i t i h a g n it t e g , m a x e d o o g a g n i n r a e : s e it i v it c a g n i w o ll o f e s e h t y b n o s e h t
t g n i o d y B . t c e j o r p k r o w a n o l l e w g n i o d r o , e m a g l l a b e s a
e fi l y li m a f f o t r a p e l b a ti v e n i n a s i p i h s n o it a l e r y li m a f n i t c il f n o
c (p .99).I naddiiton ,
r e ll o
N and Ftizpatirck (1993)stated thatt heconfilc toccur swhen famliy member s
( s e v il r i e h t n i n o it a u ti s r o t n e v e t u o b a e e r g a t o n o
d p .9 9 .) Fo rexample i sthe
n i y ll a i c e p s e e l o r t n a n i m o d a s a h r e h t a f A . s k s a t y li m a f r a l u c it r a p t u o b a n o i s i c e d
. r e k a m n o i s i c e
d Hemaydecidewhoshoulddoaparitcularf amliyt ask .Someitmes ,
. n o s s i h s d r a w o t y li s a e d e t p e c c a t o n s i n o i s i c e d s i h t
d e lt it n e k o o b e h t n
I Communicaitoni nFamliyRelaitonshipw irttenbyNole r
n e t o p n i a m e e r h t e r a e r e h t t a h t d e t a t s s i t i , k c ir t a p z ti F d n
a ita lreason sin famliy
( t c il f n o
c p .100) .Thefris tonei saboutt heagreementabou tsexr olest odecidewho
e h t e b d l u o h s n a m a t a h t n o m m o c s i ti , o g a s r a e y y tr o f r o y tr i h T . t a h w o d d l u o h s
m h t o b , s y a d a w o N . s k s a t y li m a f o d d l u o h s n a m o w a e li h w r e n n i w d a e r
b an and
. r e h t e g o t s k s a t y li m a f o d d n a y li m a f r i e h t r o f r e n n i w d a e r b e h t e b n a c n a m o w
n o i s i c e d a s i e r e h t n e h W . s e l o r f o y ti li b a e g n a h c r e t n i r e t a e r g e h t s i n o s a e r d n o c e S
r o F . d e t c e p x e s i y ti li b i x e lf n e h w e m it a e b t s u m e r e h t ,t a h w o d d l u o h s o h w t u o b a
, e l p m a x
e whenonef amliymemberi ssick, t heothe rmembe roff amliyi sexpected
s i s r e b m e m y li m a f n e e w t e b e l o r y ti li b i x e lf A . s k s a t y li m a f g n i h s i n if n i p l e h o t
n i e g n a h c e h t s i n o s a e r t s a l e h T . t n e m o m l a i c u r c a n i y ll a i c e p s e d e t c e p x e
o i s i c e d y li m a f t u o b a n o it p m u s s
a n .I ti sconcern abou thow to make i tand who
. ti e k a m d l u o h s
.
b Kind so fConfilcts r e p o o C d n a l e h c r o
W (1979 )in the book enitlted Understanding Socia l
y g o l o h c y s
P stated thatt herearet wo t ype so fconfilct ,namelyi nrtapersona lconfilc t
o c l a n o s r e p r e t n i d n
a nfilct ( .p 460). Inrtapersona lconfilc tusually occur swhen a
. s e v it a n r e tl a e r o m r o o w t n e e w t e b e c i o h c a s e c a f n o s r e
r e p o o
C (1979) ,there are fou rkind so finrtapersona lconfilct s(p .461 .) They are
h c a o r p p
a -approach , avoidance- va oidance , approach-avoidance , and double
h c a o r p p
a -avoidance .
h c a o r p p
A -approach i st hesimples tkind ofi nrtapersona lconfilct .This t ype
t u b s l a o g e v it i s o p o w t h c a o r p p a o t d e t a v it o m s i n o s r e p a n e h w s tl u s e r t c il f n o c f o
lf n o c s i h T . l a o g e n o y l n o e v e i h c a n a
c icti seasy t o resolve .Theclose ra person t o
s i e p y t d n o c e s e h T . l a o g t a h t d r a w o t e v ir d e h t e b l li w r e g n o rt s e h t , l a o g e h t
e c n a d i o v
a -avoidance .Thi sconfilc toccur swhenapersonmus tchoosebetweent wo
t c il f n o c f o e p y t s i h T . s l a o g e v it c a rt t a n u y ll a u q
e i sdfiifcul tto resolve .When a
. e s a e r c n i ll i w l a o g t a h t d i o v a o t e v ir d e h t ,l a o g e v it a g e n e n o o t r e s o l c s t e g n o s r e p
h c a o r p p a s i e p y t d ri h t e h
T -avoidance .Thist ypeo fconfilcti nvolve sonly onegoal .
s e it il a u q e v it c a rt t a n u d n a e v it c a rt t a h t o b s a h l a o g e h
T associated wtih t heconfilct .
e h T .t c il f n o c n i m i h p a rt t i m o r f e p a c s e d n a l a o g e h t n i a t b o o t s e ri s e d s ’ n o s r e p e h T
h c a o r p p a e l b u o d s i e p y t t s a
l -avoidance .Thist ypeo fconfilc tcan i nvolvehavingt o
v it i s o p s a h s l a o g e h t f o h c a E . s l a o g o w t n e e w t e b e s o o h
c eandnegaitveaspects .
r e p o o C d n a l e h c r o W o t g n i d r o c c
A (1979) , interpersona l confilc t exist s
( n o s r e p e r o m r o o w t n e e w t e
b p .462 .) Therearet wo majo rclasse sofi nterpersona l
o r e z y l e m a n , t c il f n o
c -sum confilc t and non- oz -er sum confilc t o r mix-moitve
u ti
s aiton .Zero-sumconfilcti s rtuecompeititon .Whenonepatrywinst hegoalt hen
n o N . s s o l ll i w s e it r a p r e h t o e h
t - oz -er sumconfilc thast woi mpo trantt hings .Thef ris t
s e v l o v n i t i , e n o d n o c e s e h T . e s o o l s ’ r e h t o e h t t o n s i g n i n n i w s ’ e n o s i e n o
n a n o it a r e p o o
