IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/eltjnl/v11y2018i11p161.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lexical Errors of Third Year Undergraduate Students

Author

Listed:
  • Wafa Ismail Saud

Abstract

The aim of the study was to examine the lexical errors made by EFL students. The technique for eliciting information employed was an achievement test. A sample of 30 Saudi female students was asked to write essays in English that were assessed by the researcher. The students were all majoring in English in the third year at King Khalid University. James (1998) taxonomy was selected as the most comprehensive framework for the analysis of the lexical errors in the students' writing. A total of 137 lexical errors were identified and analysed. These errors were divided into formal 117 (85.40) and semantic 20 (14.60). Formal mis- selection 54 (39.42) was the most frequent major category of lexical formal errors while mis-formation 15 (10.95) was the least frequent one. Confusion of sense relations 14 (10.22) was the most frequent among lexical semantic errors. At the individual level of lexical formal errors, the most problematic words for students were the vowel based types 24 (17.52) and borrowing and blending were not problematic at all. At the individual level of lexical semantic errors, the most problematic words for students were near synonyms 8 (5.84) and the least problematic words were general terms for specific ones and overtly specific terms 1 (0.73).Pedagogical implications for teaching vocabulary to EFL learners and recommendations for areas for further research were suggested.

Suggested Citation

  • Wafa Ismail Saud, 2018. "Lexical Errors of Third Year Undergraduate Students," English Language Teaching, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(11), pages 161-161, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:ibn:eltjnl:v:11:y:2018:i:11:p:161
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/download/0/0/37233/37419
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/view/0/37233
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:eltjnl:v:11:y:2018:i:11:p:161. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.