The Lexical Errors Committed by Undergraduate English Learning Students in the University of Mali and Mari State University (Russia)

Authors

  • Mohamed Lamine Mariko , Kazan Federal University Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61841/qdg8gv87

Keywords:

English as a Second Language (ESL),, Formal Errors, written Communication,, Semantic Errors

Abstract

This study is limited to the incorrect lexical selections, which are hindering the quality of the students’ written communication. The limitation is designed to be such because the written communicative quality of English being learned as a second language (ESL) is evidence of how successful the learning, if not, the teaching is proceeding. The justification of the choice of this scope is because of the importance of lexical selections, when they are wrong, this phenomenon will be harmful not only to the message in its content. The taxonomy by James (1998), Hemchua and Schmitt (2006) was used to detect and categorize the irrelevant lexical errors among the participants. As such, the most frequent errors the students face in their French-English translation are formal errors (namely, borrowing: 22, 81%; coinage: 14, 58%) and semantic errors (under specification: 48%; semantic word selection:

35%).

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Carter, R. (1998) Vocabulary: Applied linguistics perspectives (2nd ed.). London: (p. 336) Routledge.

[2] Hemchua S. & Schmitt N. (2006). An analysis of lexical errors in the English compositions of Thai learners: Prospect. 21 (3). 3-25.

[3] James C. (1998) Errors in Language Learning and Use: Exploring Error Analysis. London: (pp. 1998-320) Longman.

[4] Leech, G. (1981). Pragmatics and сconversational rhetoric: (pp. 413-421) Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics–Amsterdam John Benjamins.

[5] Richards, J. (1974) Error Analysis. London: (p.228) Longman Press.

[6] Zughoul, M. R. (2003). Translational Collocational Strategies of Arab Learners of English, a Study in Lexical Semantics (pp. 59-81). Babel.

[7] Solnyshkina M., Gabitov A., Vishnyakova O. Elzara V. Gafiyatova English textbooks for russian students: Problems and specific features // Journal of Social Studies Education Research. — 2017. — Vol. 8, no. 3.

[8] Batrova, N.I. & Salyekova, L.L. Bilingual teaching high school students of information communication technologies by means of the Russian and English Languages at schools of Tatarstan. The Social Sciences, 10(5), 604-609

[9] Solnyshkina M.I., Harkova E.V., Kiselnikov A.S. Comparative Coh-Metrix Analysis of Reading Comprehension Texts: Unified (Russian) State Exam in English vs Cambridge First Certificate in English // English Language Teaching. Canada. Canadian Center of Science and Education. 2014. Vol.7, No. 12. P. 65-76.

[10] Gafiyatova E., Pomortseva N. The Role of Background Knowledge in Building the Translating/Interpreting Competence of the Linguist // Indian Journal of Science and Technology. - 2016. - Vol 9(16). - P. 2-11.

Downloads

Published

30.06.2020

How to Cite

Mariko, M. L. (2020). The Lexical Errors Committed by Undergraduate English Learning Students in the University of Mali and Mari State University (Russia). International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 24(4), 7018-7031. https://doi.org/10.61841/qdg8gv87