Merry Christmas 2011 and Happy New Year 2012

Classroom Activity as Social Activity

The idea of classroom as sociocultural setting comes for the first time from Vygotsky’s (1978) idea that cognitive development originates from social interaction. Since learning is one instrument in achieving cognitive development, classroom as the place of learning can also be considered as sociocultural setting. This theory is well-known as sociocultural theory. In this theory Vygotsky proposed that children cultural development occurs in two planes by saying: 

           Any function in the child’s cultural development appears twice, or in two planes: first, it appears on the 

               social plane, and then on the psychological plane; first it appears between people as an interpsychological 

               category, and then within the child as an intrapsychological category. This is equally true with regard to 

               voluntary attention, logical memory, and the formation of concepts and the development of volition  (p.163). 

         Another theory which shares almost the same idea is social learning theory (Arliss, 1991). According to this theory, in the area of children’s learning of sex appropriateness, teacher is stated as second socializer. Meaning that classroom is social setting to learn how to behave based on sex. Erickson (as cited in Schiffrin 2001:505) states that classroom interaction demonstrates a complex social and cognitive relation. Therefore, it can be concluded that in terms of cognitive development and sex appropriateness learning, classroom is a social setting. And what children learn in classroom can be and will be manifested in other social settings. 

       And for sure, if we see conversely, what being implemented in society happens in classroom. For example, teacher as socializer will treat male and female students based on what he /she understands the appropriate one according to society. Students in classroom behave like people do outside. For instance, girls are taught to behave lady likely, no screaming and no sarcasm like in other social setting outside class. They then apply it in their relation in classroom. Many studies have proved that female students tend to be passive and listen more than talk. This situation happens also outside classroom in mixed-sex conversation that women speak less than men. If we see closer and try to understand, we may find that social issue and classroom activity are like a cycle. Meaning that what happens in society is applied in classroom, and what applied in classroom is also applied in social interaction outside classroom. In conclusion, what we see taking place in classroom highly demonstrates what happens outside or in society.

Man, Female and Oral Language

Male and female are two terms used to signal two different kinds of sex and they are also used as terms for gender. As asserted by Coates (1986: 4), sex refers to biological condition whereas gender refers to socially constructed category based on sex. Sharing almost the same idea with Coates, Arliss (1991: 8) states sex as biologically determined category, and narrows gender as a behaviorally determined category. Indirectly those statements note that society distinguishes male and female by creating such categories. The distinctions between them do not take place only on one or two area but in several and almost all areas of human life. Society through culture drives human to behave things according to category where she or he belongs. These behaviors are learned and then constitute maleness and femaleness, named sex-typed behaviors or gender-specific behaviors (Arliss, 1991: 9). 

In a simple way it can be said that men and women behave according to what is constructed by society. Those factors are still working in daily life, including in the scope of oral language where gender-specific behaviors are also influenced by language. Noted by Weatherall (2002: 97) that through language gender is produced and has its important or meaning as a social category. 

Here are facts about language, men and women. In oral communication with their same sex friends, women tend to talk more but that does not happen when they are talking to men. When they are conversing with men, women tend to listen actively and men dominate the conversation. Based on research conducted by Zimmerman and West (in Coates 1986: 100), conversation is dominated by men looking at the number of interruption and overlap. Women seldom produce overlap because they are concerned not to violate men’s turn. Since men dominate, women have the tendency to fall silent. Zimmerman and West found that the number of silence in same sex conversation is far fewer than in mixed-sex conversation. In same sex conversation both men and women share equal topic control. But in mixed sex conversation, men tend to control the topic by interrupting and delay minimal responses. 

The myth among society that claims women as ones who talk more is countered by several study, for instance according to Swacker (in Coates 1986: 103) it is men who talk more. Based on her research findings, when asked to describe three picture men took on average 13.00 minutes per picture and women took only 3.17 minutes. Not only Swacker, but other researches also present the idea that in mixed-sex conversation men talk more than women. (Eakins & Eakins 1978, Bernard 1972, Soskin & John 1963 and Argyle et. al 1968) 

Besides the facts above, there is another fact that women use more facilitative tag question, and Lakoff’s assumed that. Holmes (in Coates 1986: 105) shows that male speaker use modal tag question 61 per cent to express uncertainty. At the meantime, 59 per cent tag questions used by female speaker are facilitative (express speaker solidarity to the addressee). Linguists also assert that women use more polite language that men. Brown (in Coates 1986: 112) studied Mayan community and found that women use many positive and negative politeness, whereas men’s speech is matter-of-fact. Lakoff (in Arliss 1991: 57) proposed that men are more straightforward than women. 

In case of using expletive (an exclamation, a rude word used when one is angry), men use stronger expletives (Lakoff in Arliss 1991: 53). Lakoff also proposed that women have a big number of color vocabulary and use them in expressing their emotions verbally. In case of using intensifier (in this case means syntactic construction using adverb that heavily emphasized, e.g.: I am sooooo tired), one study reports that during group discussion women use more intensifiers than men (six times more). Men, women and oral language are not separated. Men and women use oral language according to their own way when communicating one another. Their characteristics are constructed by the society yet manifested in social activity as well as in classroom activity.

Contrasting “The Pearl” Movie and Novel

First of all I want to say that I am actually disappointed watching “The Pearl” movie. It is because of none but the story itself that does not reflect the whole core of the novel’s story. Since there are parts in this novel which seem blur and mysterious, there are many additional stuffs in the movie in order to make it clear, easy to understand by viewer, but the effect is that the movie is not better than the novel in bringing the story. Those are small parts of what will be discussed in this paper; I see some contrasts and divide them into three parts below.

The first part is about additional small stories/scenes and characters. In the novel, the story begins with the description of situation in brush houses when Kino awakens.  While in the movie there is little Kino and Juan Thomas scene, where Juan Thomas speaks to little Kino as an older brother giving knowledge and advice on a canoe in the middle of a sea. This story later is followed by the story of Kino and Juana in their childhood and their youth where they fall in love. Stories that actually do not exist in the novel. Another additional story, when Kino and Juana go to a “dukun” (indigenous medical practitioner) to treat Coyotito. This affects the character of Juana and it will be discussed later. Moreover Kino is pictured as a man who always has bad dream that signs something. A dream of someone killing some people using a riffle. Juan Thomas also gets part in additional story, where he got a big pearl but because the price is low in the hand of the pearl buyers, he gives it to the priest. After that he and his wife go to priest to take it back but they do not succeed.

Not just additional small stories occurring in the movie but also additional characters. For sure it is done by intention but in my accordance it is better not have those. There is, first, an old man who is willing to show Kino the nearest way to the capital, a man who later being murdered. What is the use to have him? In fact, Kino and his family still go through the desert and hills. The second additional character that appears is the doctor servant’s wife. I think the director wants to amplify the bad attitude of the doctor, because in the scene the servant’s wife exists, the doctor appears to have an affair or at least to make use of her. This supports the statement that the doctor has also one in France. The third additional character is the “dukun” as stated above.

The second part talks about the changes of some part of stories. This part begins with the existence of a “dukun”. The novel says that after Kino and Juana are rejected by the doctor, Juana has a role of Coyotito treatment, it is said that Juana takes some seaweed and applies those to Coyotito’s shoulder. In vise versa, the movie says that Kino and Juana later go to a “dukun”. The second change is about the finding of the Pearl of the World. Steinbeck tells Kino opens the oyster while he is with Juana and Coyotito on his canoe. But the scene writer of “The Pearl” movie create a new scene, Kino opens it at the seashore while there is brush houses community looking at him. The third change touches the existence of the person Kino kills at the shore, when Juana takes the pearl to throw it to the sea. Steinbeck only need a person as the victim of Kino’s murder at that time, but it seems that the director of the movie needs more people so that he pays three people to be the victims. And the last that I put my attention on is when Kino's house is burned, it is Juana who takes Coyotito, but the movie shows the person is Apolonia. Those in my opinion do not influence greatly the story, but disturb enough. 

Above are changes which are not too influential, here I want to discuss the very influential ones (in my opinion). First of all, Coyotito is not dead. I do not eagerly want a death of an innocent baby but (only in this case) this contributes great impact to the story. Again in my opinion the death of Coyotito is not just for the sake of being exist by Steinbeck. It has a big role. Let us try to remember the movie. When Kino and his family are in a cave, Kino found something that signs his tribe. It is skulls or stick if I am not mistaken. There Kino remembers the dream he always has since he was a child. In fact the dream wants to tell that the white killed his people, and Kino gets the evidence in that cave… No gun shoots in the cave as what Steinbeck’s ink puts the words on his papers. It seems that Kino murders the tracker because of the fact he already knows (that his people had once been killed by the white), not because he is totally furious hearing a gun shoots toward the place where his wife and child hide (like in the novel). It seems that Coyotito’s role decreases a lot in the movie. If this child is the main reason for Kino in doing anything in the novel, then in the movie this child shares his role with tribes’ war. And the reason (in the novel) why Kino throws the pearl back to the sea is because Coyotito is not alive. One whom Kino struggling for is dead, so the pearl is useless. Now, in the movie Coyotito is alive, so why must Kino throw the pearl? He can continue his journey to the capital. But why must he back? The movie shows that Kino and his family are back to the brush houses riding a horse, and speak to the community about the fact that their people has been killed by the white using a riffle. It is not about the pearl, but the tribe!!!! It is very unclear.

The second influential change is the fact that the doctor stands behind all these mess. I try to think why Steinbeck does not picture clearly the tracker or the people who attack Kino in his novel. It seems that Steinbeck does not want to focus on the attacker or the tracker, because the main point is that Coyotio will be dead and Kino loses his hope and plans, and finally throw back the pearl. A lesson for Kino and all the brush houses people, about punishment they will gain if they break the wall or walk outside the structure. But it seems that the scene writer or the director has -again- other thought. They apparently try to show the tribe war between the white and the Indian stimulated with the doctor’s greedy to have the pearl. What a sad fact happens to the novel.

The third part in this paper is about the character. In the movie, Juana seems weaker comparing to the novel. Like what I have written above. After she and her husband being rejected by the doctor, they go to “dukun”. Not like the in the novel. Other thing also in the movie that shows the weakness of Juana, is when he decides and tells Kino to find a doctor for Coyotito. Juana cries, while in the novel Steinbeck says that she is like a lioness. Juana cries while begging to Kino to call the doctor, while in the novel Steinbeck says that Juana directly takes a shawl and having Coyotito she makes her way to the doctor, in fact the people follow her. How strong she is in the novel, but not in the movie. Another thing about the character, Kino is not so bad in the movie especially when they are in the cave. Steinbeck pictures him as a machine, cold and deadly as steel. But I did not find it in the movie. After watching the movie I finally think that it is going to be OK, fine, alright or even so much better if there is no “The Pearl” movie. Unless the director or scene writer has excellent explanation or defence about it.