WEEK 11
INTERLANGUAGE
Today is June 2nd, 2025, and this is my third oral journal entry.
I think interlanguage is an amazing topic. It’s
such a sensitive and unique concept because it’s personal to each one of us. We
all have an interlanguage when we are developing or acquiring a second or
foreign language, and it differs depending on our native language(s), accent,
and previous linguistic knowledge.
I find it very fascinating how our brains
create a sort of system to make the process easier. Unlike Creole or Pidgin,
for instance, interlanguage doesn’t have fixed rules. It’s fluid and — most
interestingly — it’s individual.
For example, I remember when I lived with
Chinese speakers, and I noticed they would say “big rain” instead of “it’s
raining heavily,” “it’s raining cats and dogs,” or “it’s pouring.” At the time,
I suspected this was interference from their native language.
Later, when I began studying Chinese, I
realized I was right. Phrases like “下大雨” (xià dà yǔ) literally translate to “fall big rain.” Or
they might say “雨下得很大” (yǔ xià de hěn dà), which means “the rain falls very
big.” That’s how heavy rain is naturally expressed in Mandarin. And this
clearly illustrates Selinker’s theory of interlanguage — how learners build a
temporary linguistic system influenced by both their native language and the
target language.
Sometimes, these features even fossilize, which
I think was the case here. Personally, I find it very easy to recognize a
Chinese speaker not because of their accent or pronunciation, but because of
the way they construct their phrases. And it’s not just my friends — I was
working this weekend with only Chinese speakers, and that’s exactly how they
speak. For example, they say “Brazil people” instead of “Brazilians” because in
Chinese it’s “巴西人” (Bāxī rén), this is because, semantically
speaking, Chinese can be a much simpler language.
So they sometimes fossilize these expressions
because they’re translating directly from Mandarin.
Reflecting on errors in language learning, I
don’t see them as obstacles — I see them as essential opportunities. Like
Corder noted, mistakes are steps in the learning process. I often noticed my
friends’ errors, but I didn’t correct them unless the meaning was unclear or
completely incomprehensible.
This experience also reminds me of Vygotsky’s
sociocultural theory — how learning occurs through social interaction, even
without formal teaching. We’re all learning from each other through exposure
and communication. Even if we’re not in direct contact with native speakers,
we’re still practicing the target language.
Nevertheless, I believe recognizing our own
errors makes language learning much easier. Interlanguage highlights that
making mistakes is a natural and necessary part of the journey.
As a future educator, I really want to create a
space where my students feel encouraged to use their languages without fear of
making mistakes. I want them to understand that their interlanguage is valid,
always evolving, and that their mistakes show real progress. That’s the
kind of space I want to offer.
To better understand the references to Sofia and Carlos, please refer to their case studies available at the following link.
Sofia and Carlos - Case Studies
___________________________________________________________________________________
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! First of all, I want to say
how engaging and thoughtful your reflection was. You communicated your ideas
with clarity, personal insight, and passion — and that really stood out. The
way you described interlanguage as a “sensitive” and
“personal” system unique to each learner was beautifully said. It shows that
you truly value the individuality of each learner’s process, which is such a
powerful mindset for a future teacher.
Your comparison with Creoles and
pidgins was a clever and sophisticated touch. It helped clarify the distinction
that interlanguage is not a fixed system — but rather a dynamic, evolving one
that adapts based on personal linguistic background. That’s a level of analysis
that shows both depth and curiosity.
I especially appreciated the
example you gave from your experience living with Chinese speakers — it was
rich, relevant, and very well explained. You didn’t just describe the “errors,”
you traced their roots back to L1 transfer and even supported it with real
phrases from Mandarin. That kind of observation shows not only strong
intercultural awareness, but also the ability to apply theory (like Selinker’s
interlanguage or Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory) to real-life contexts. That’s
the mark of someone who doesn’t just understand theory but can use it
meaningfully.
Your attitude toward errors was
also really admirable — seeing them as “essential opportunities” and wanting to
build a classroom where students feel safe to take risks is exactly the
kind of mindset learners need from their teachers. Your reference to Vygotsky
also demonstrated strong pedagogical awareness — you’re thinking beyond
language mechanics into how students develop as learners,
socially and cognitively.
One small tip for future entries:
while your ideas are excellent, at times your sentences get a little long or
repetitive (e.g., “the journey necessary part of the journey”). A quick review
or outline beforehand might help tighten your delivery without losing any of
your strong ideas.
Overall, you’ve done an exceptional
job connecting theory, real-life examples, and classroom implications. You’re
clearly reflecting not just as a learner, but as a teacher-in-progress — and
that’s exactly what this task was about. Keep this up, Eri — your future
students are going to be in great hands.
