Oral Journal Entry 2

WEEK 10
SOUND, STRUCTURE, AND STRUGGLE

Today is June 2nd, and this is my second Oral Journal Entry

Reading about the Contrastive Approach, Error Analysis, and Interlanguage Theory felt like putting together the final pieces of a puzzle I’ve been working on for some time. It’s fascinating to see how academic understandings of second language acquisition have evolved, moving from a rigid view of errors to a much more dynamic and learner-centred perspective. These frameworks don’t just exist in theory; they explain so much of what I have experienced as a learner and observed as a teacher.

The journey starts with the Contrastive Approach, which is based on the idea that we can predict difficulties by comparing a learner's L1 and L2. On the surface, this seems perfectly logical. I always like to bring in real examples: for instance, my Colombian friends speaking English consistently pronounce "Y" as [ʝ], saying Djiutube instead of YouTube — a predictable challenge based on their native phonetics. In Colombian Spanish, the "Y" sound is much more marked and stronger than in other Spanish dialects. Or even my Spanish-speaking students, who often struggle to produce the difference between the S [s] and Z [z] sounds in Portuguese — a predictable challenge, since in many Spanish dialects, these two sounds are not contrastive and are often both pronounced as [s]. However, the theory has its limits, as it over-focuses on L1 transfer and can’t predict every mistake a learner will make.

This is where Error Analysis reshapes our understanding. I’ve always believed that errors aren't failures, but rather signs that the brain is actively working to figure out a new system. Corder’s argument that errors are "crucial indicators" of a learner’s progress really resonates with me. The distinction between interlingual errors (resulting from L1 influence) and intralingual errors (stemming from misunderstanding or overgeneralising L2 rules) is particularly insightful. It reminds me of my own Spanish learning journey: when I repeatedly omitted the "a" in voy a caminar, I was over-applying a Portuguese grammar rule — a classic interlingual error.

Another example I’ve mentioned in previous journal entries is when I used to say roompido instead of roto. At first glance, it could seem like an intralingual error, as if I were over-applying a Spanish rule I had just learned. However, it was actually another case of Interlanguage, since in Portuguese, the past participle rompido is a valid and commonly used form, so I was transferring it directly into Spanish.

Building on this deeper understanding of errors, Interlanguage Theory offers an even broader lens on how learners create meaning as they move between languages. Selinker’s theory captures that evolving, in-between system every learner develops. It blends features of L1 and L2 — a linguistic space of experimentation and growth. It’s the space where we test hypotheses, make creative mistakes, and forge our own path toward proficiency. The text also introduced "fossilisation" — the phenomenon where certain errors become deeply ingrained. I’ve observed this before, identifying recurring patterns in my students as fossilised errors — ones that are hard to correct even when the learner is aware of them.

In the end, these three theories feel less like competing models and more like a narrative of progress in linguistic thought. We’ve moved from simply predicting errors to analysing them, and ultimately, to appreciating the learner’s entire unique linguistic system. This progression reinforces my belief that, as teachers, our role is to create a space where learners feel safe to take risks and see errors as opportunities for growth. Language learning isn’t about avoiding mistakes; it’s about embracing them, making connections, and celebrating the beautifully complex journey of our evolving interlanguage.

Reflecting on these theories not only informs my teaching — it reminds me that language learning is deeply human, full of struggle, creativity, and growth.

___________________________________________________________________________________

The text above is a transcribed and revised version of my original oral journal entry, based on the suggestions provided. The feedback for the original version is presented below

Hi Eri! Wow—this is an exceptional journal entry! Listening to your reflection felt like hearing the arc of a mini-lecture delivered with genuine personal insight and pedagogical depth. Your ability to connect theory with real classroom and life experiences is one of your biggest strengths, and this entry shows it beautifully. 

I was especially impressed by how you presented the progression from contrastive analysis to error analysis and finally to interlanguage theory—it flowed like a narrative, not just a summary. That metaphor of "putting together the final pieces of a puzzle" was so fitting, and it framed your reflection in a very engaging way.

Your use of authentic examples—like your Colombian friend’s pronunciation or your own experiences learning Spanish—adds richness and credibility. These anecdotes don’t just illustrate the theory; they embody it, and that’s powerful. Your explanation of interlingual vs. intralingual errors was especially clear and compelling, and the “rompido” vs. “roto” story was an excellent touch that shows deep metalinguistic awareness.

Your conclusion was just as strong as your analysis. I loved the way you framed the theories not as competing models but as stages in the evolution of our understanding of learner language. That’s a sophisticated insight that shows how much you’ve internalized both the content and the mindset of a reflective language teacher. 

Some small suggestions for next time:

Fluency and clarity: While your message came through very clearly, there were occasional moments of hesitation or repetition (e.g., “inter interlanguage error,” “bringing real examples I’ve seen...”). Practicing your delivery aloud once before recording might help streamline your ideas even more.

Pacing: Your ideas are dense (in a good way!), so pausing slightly between sections could help your audience absorb all the richness you’re offering.

Pronunciation note: A minor point—when you said “efficient” toward the end, you likely meant “proficient.” A small slip, but one worth noting for future entries.

In short, Eri, you are showing an advanced ability to synthesize theory, reflect critically, and position yourself as a thoughtful, learner-sensitive educator. Keep embracing your curiosity, your analytical mind, and your voice. You’re building something really special.