Lexical Errors Produced by High And Low Proficiency Learners of Writing 2 Classes

Authors

  • Ellara Yusea Ananda Petra Christian University, Jl. Siwalankerto No.121-131, Siwalankerto, Wonocolo, Surabaya
  • Henny Putri Saking Wijaya Petra Christian University, Jl. Siwalankerto No.121-131, Siwalankerto, Wonocolo, Surabaya

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.9744/katakita.9.2.180-186

Keywords:

strategi pemasaran, bauran pemasaran, kosmetik, model STP

Abstract

This study was conducted to find out the types of lexical errors that high and low proficiency learners produced in their writing, and find the differences and similarities from the production of the two groups. To answer the research questions, the writers used the theory by James (2013) about lexical error classification. This study was a qualitative study. The sources of the data of this study were the lexical errors from 32 writing drafts. The writers divided the students into two groups: eight students from high proficiency level and eight students from low proficiency level. The findings showed that the high proficiency learners produced five types of formal errors and four types of semantic errors, while the low proficiency learners produced two types of formal errors and six types of semantic errors. In conclusion, the high and the low proficiency learners’ lexical error productions are due to the learners’ lack of knowledge in sense relation and collocation, and the learners’ wrong terms of near-synonyms production.

Keywords: lexical errors, high proficiency learners, low proficiency learners, error analysis

Author Biographies

  • Ellara Yusea Ananda, Petra Christian University, Jl. Siwalankerto No.121-131, Siwalankerto, Wonocolo, Surabaya
    English Department
  • Henny Putri Saking Wijaya, Petra Christian University, Jl. Siwalankerto No.121-131, Siwalankerto, Wonocolo, Surabaya

    English Department

References

Andre, R. & Jurianto. (2015). An analysis of lexical errors in the English narrative writing produced by the tenth grade students of SMA Negeri 9 Surabaya in EFL classroom. Anglicist, 4(2), 69-76.

English Department. (2016). English Department catalog 2017-2018 [Exhibition catalogue]. Petra Christian University.

Hemchua S. & Schmitt, N. (2006). An analysis of lexical errors in the English compositions of Thai learners. Prospect, (21)3, 2-25. https://www.researchonline.mq.edu.au/

James, C. (2013). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. Routledge.

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Saud, W. I. (2018). Lexical errors of third year undergraduate students. English Langugae Teaching, 11(11), 161-168. http://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v11n11p161

Downloads

Published

2021-10-30

Issue

Vol. 9 No. 2 (2021)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. 
    2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal. 
    3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).