Paper Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/AN-ANALYSIS-OF-LEXICAL-ERRORS-IN-THE-EN 👈

1. AN ANALYSIS OF LEXICAL ERRORS IN THE ENGLISH
COMPOSITIONS OF INDONESIAN EFL LEARNERS
Robby Andre
robbandre@rocketmail.com
Airlangga University, Surabaya
Abstract
The role of grammatical aspect in the process of writing a composition becomes the main
focus of many second and foreign language teachers in teaching (writing) composition
(Suetae, 2010). In fact, there are still many ESL / EFL learners who produce various
types of lexical errors in their written compositions. Therefore, the present study aims at
identifying the types of lexical errors and calculating the most frequent lexical error that
occurred in the English descriptive writings produced by the tenth grade students of SMA
Negeri 9 Surabaya. The data was collected from the English descriptive writings of 37
students. Lexical error taxonomy proposed by James (1998) acted as the primary tool in
analyzing and classifying the lexical errors. The analysis of data yielded a total of 303
errors, with an average number of 8.2 errors per descriptive writing. Moreover, ‘suffix
type’ was the most frequent lexical error with a total of 81 errors (26.73% from the total
number of errors), followed by ‘calque’ which accounted to 58 errors (19.14%), and
‘wrong near synonym’ which accounted to 37 errors (12.21%). Furthermore, the findings
of this study showed that almost all of the students have a considerable difficulty in
determining the correct form of words.
Keywords: lexical errors, EFL, descriptive writing
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION
The concentration in learning a foreign language used to be particularly
associated with mastering its grammatical structures (Ridha & Al-Riyahi, 2011, p. 25).
Nevertheless, the role of vocabulary learning and teaching have been restricted in the
field of language acquisition (Laufer, 1990, p. 293; Zimmerman, 1997, p. 5). It is
supported by Suetae (2010) who claims that the role of grammatical aspect in the process
of writing a composition becomes the main focus of many second and foreign language
teachers in teaching (writing) composition. Therefore, the role of vocabulary in language
teaching is being neglected due to the assumption that grammar is the fundamental
component in language learning and mastering the grammatical system is the
responsibility of the learners in order to create an effective communication (Lewis, 2002,
p. 133).
Despite the fact that many second and foreign language teachers more focus on
the grammatical system rather than vocabulary, many scholars argue that vocabulary also
becomes the notable component in the language acquisition. McCarthy (1990, p. 8)
reveals that even the students have mastered the L2 grammatical and sounds system,
without words act as the tool in expressing a wide range of meanings, the communication
in L2 will not occur in any meaningful way. Cameron (1994, p. 34) confirmed that the
basic level category in learning a language seem to be words.
Since the role of vocabulary in language teaching is being undervalued by many
scholars, hence, it becomes an interesting issue to conduct a study in the way the learners

2. construct a language through words. Related to the role of vocabulary in language
teaching, many ESL / EFL learners produce various types of errors in their written
compositions. Among the various types of errors, lexical errors contributed the highest
number in learners’ written compositions (Llach, 2005a; 2005b; Shalaby, Yahya & El-
Komi, 2009; Ander & Yildirim, 2010). Lexical errors also affect the quality of the
learners’ written compositions (Llach, 2005b; 2007). Further, lexical errors are
considered by the native speakers as the most serious problem compared to the other
types of errors (Ridha & Al-Riyahi, 2011).
The incorrect selection of lexical items in written composition provides some
impacts such as the misunderstanding about the content of the text or the problem in
interpreting the text. Ridha & Al-Riyahi (2011) argue that lexical errors might hinder the
effective communication between the writer and the reader. In the same idea, Naba’h
(2011) affirms that lexical errors also make the ESL / EFL learners are unable in
transmitting their ideas as clearly as possible through their text. On the other hand, lexical
errors can be utilized as the quality predictor of the learners’ writing, and the predictor in
determining the learners’ vocabulary progress, lexical proficiency, and general academic
achievement (Llach, 2007, p.3).
In spite of the rate of the occurrence and importance of lexical errors, study in the
production of lexical errors in the ESL / EFL learners’ written compositions, remains
under-researched, in comparison with study which examines different problems in
writing such as phonological or syntactic errors. Further, many scholars point to this fact
such as Llach (2005a), Hemchua & Schmitt (2006), Shalaby, Yahya & El-Komi (2009),
and Naba’h (2011). Thus, the present study was conducted to fill the gap in the studies of
lexical errors.
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Studies on lexical errors have been conducted on ESL / EFL learners from various
language backgrounds. Among the studies that have been undertaken in this area,
Hemchua & Schmitt (2006) scrutinized lexical errors produced by 20 undergraduate Thai
students who studied English in their third year. The subjects were asked to write an
argumentative composition of about 300 – 350 words. Hemchua & Schmitt (2006) found
that lexical errors produced by the subjects of the study were mostly derived from ‘near
synonyms’ (for instance, you will get up <wake up> in the morning because of the sound
of birds). Besides, most of the subjects have a problem in semantics rather than the form
of words.
Shalaby, Yahya & El-Komi (2009) conducted a study on female students in a
prep-year program at Thabiah University. The subjects’ native language is Arabic and the
data were collected from 96 essays which were selected randomly from 563 writing exam
papers. The findings of the study are congruent with Hemchua & Schmitt’s study in
which semantic errors became the most numerous errors found in the students’ writings.
Moreover, the findings of the study showed that more advanced learners tended to
produce errors in meaning-based associations.
Suetae (2010) examined lexical errors made by 50 fourth-year students from
Prince of Songkla University, majoring English language. The data of the study were
gathered from the narrative and argumentative compositions of the students. The results
of the study revealed that the highest percentage of errors that occurred in the students
writings is attributed to ‘direct translation’ which is derived from interlingual error.
Ridha (2012) investigated the interference of Arabic in the English written
compositions of Iraqi undergraduate students. The results showed that the negative
transfer of Arabic linguistic structures affect the English written compositions of Iraqi

3. undergraduate students on grammatical, lexical or semantic, mechanics, and word order
errors.
However, there is a similarity among those previous studies. They mainly focused
in scrutinizing lexical errors produced by students at university level. Hence, the present
study, by contrast, utilizes the tenth grade students of senior high school as the subjects of
this study to examine lexical errors that occurred in the English descriptive writings.
Further, in order to gain more insight into the various types of lexical errors and their
frequencies, the present study aims at identifying the types of lexical errors and
calculating the most frequent lexical error that occurred in the English descriptive
writings produced by the tenth grade students of SMA Negeri 9 Surabaya.
Lexical Errors Classification
Previous studies in lexical errors have utilized various classification of errors
where some of the errors classification only carried a limited number of classes. For
instance, Ridha (2012) only utilized one of the major types in lexical errors namely
semantic errors. Due to the complexity of lexis, the use of compact classification in
expounding the learners’ errors is inappropriate because it can result in incomprehensible
boundaries and arbitrary classifications (Hemchua & Schmitt, 2006, p. 8). Therefore, the
present study adopted lexical errors taxonomy proposed by James (1998) which provides
two major classes of lexical errors namely formal and semantic errors. Moreover, the
classification of lexical errors proposed by James (1998) are described below in some
detail.
Formal Errors
James (1998) classifies formal errors into three classes: formal misselection,
formal misformations and distortions. Furthermore, he divides each class of formal
errors into several sub-classes which are presented below:
1. Formal Misselection
Formal misselection contains two similar lexical forms which consist of visual and
sound similarity. James (1998) classifies formal misselection into four sub-classes as
follow:
1.1. Suffix Type (for instance, it is one of her greatest accomplishes
[accomplishment]).
1.2. Prefix Type (for instance, her behavior is really inmature [immature]).
1.3. Vowel-Based Type (for instance, the number of Anna’s sit [seat] is 12A).
1.4. Consonant-Based Type (for instance, Anthony won a price [prize] from raffle).
2. Formal Misformations
According to James (1998) formal misformations are the errors that can be created
by the learner from the resources of the target language or in the mother tongue.
There are three classifications of formal misformations which are discussed below:
2.1. Borrowing (for instance, after the Shubuh [dawn], the farmers are usually go to
the paddy field).
2.2. Coinage (for instance, drugging can be very nocive [dangerous] to our health).
2.3. Calque (for instance, I go to [am going to] school by motorcycle).
3. Distortions
The results of distortions generally are non-existent forms in the target language.
James (1998) classifies distortions into four sub-classes as follow:
3.1. Omission (for instance, this can be happend [happened] because of your
mistake).

4. 3.2. Overinclusion (for instance, Jane is the most dilligent [diligent] student in her
class).
3.3. Misselection (for instance, Jack’s behavior really made me anger [angry]).
3.4. Misordering (for instance, Sally will continue her study aboard [abroad]).
Semantic Errors
James (1998) classifies semantic error into two classes: confusion of sense
relations and collocational errors. Here are the sub-classes and examples of each sub-
class:
1. Confusion in Sense Relations
Hemchua & Schmitt (2006) stated that the meaning of vocabulary generally
necessitates concepts and their relations in lexical field (for instance, the words man
and boy belong to the lexical field of ‘gender’). Below are the sub-classes of
confusion of sense relations and their examples:
1.1. Using a Superonym for a Hyponym (for instance, could you please call the
craftsman [electrician] to fix our electricity?).
1.2. Using a Hyponym for a Superonym (for instance, your will smash [break] that
window if you close it too roughly).
1.3. Using Inappropriate Co-Hyponyms (for instance, Kenneth gives his girlfriend a
beautiful vermilion [scarlet] rose).
1.4. Using Wrong Near Synonym (for instance, my sister is an excellent [brilliant]
scientist).
2. Collocational Errors
According to James (1998) collocation is a pair of words which is high-frequently
used together and it is accepted by the native speakers. Moreover, James (1998)
classifies collocations error into three sub-classes as follow:
2.1. Semantically Determined Selection (for instance, crooked stick instead of
crooked year).
2.2. Statistically Weighted Preferences (for instance, this movie is totally cool
[totally awesome is more preferable]).
2.3. Arbitrary Combination and Irreversible Binomials (for instance, chips and fish
instead of fish and chips)
Specifically, the present lexical errors classification consists of two major classes:
formal and semantic errors. A summary of the present lexical errors classification is
illustrated below in Figure 1:
Lexical Errors Classification
A. Formal Errors
1. Formal Misselection
1.1. Suffix Type
1.2. Prefix Type
1.3. Vowel-Based Type
1.4. Consonant-Based Type
2. Formal Misformations
2.1. Borrowing
2.2. Coinage
2.3. Calque
3. Distortions
3.1. Omission
3.2. Overinclusion
3.3. Misselection
3.4. Misordering
B. Semantic Errors
1. Confusion of Sense Relations

5. 1.1. Using a Superonym for a Hyponym
1.2. Using a Hyponym for a Superonym
1.3. Using Inappropriate Co-Hyponyms
1.4. Using Wrong Near Synonym
2. Collocational Errors
2.1. Semantically Determined Selection
2.2. Statistically Weighted Preferences
2.3.Arbitrary Combinations and Irreversible Binomials
Figure 1: Lexical errors classification proposed by James (1998)
METHODOLOGY
The data was gathered from the 37 English descriptive writings of the tenth grade
students of SMA Negeri 9 Surabaya. These subjects were similar in age, their age were
ranged from 16 to 17 years old. Besides, these students were studying at the same class
which was selected randomly from the total number of classes in the tenth grade of SMA
Negeri 9 Surabaya (they were divided into nine different classes, each class consists of 37
to 40 students). Moreover, these students were asked to write a descriptive writing with
the minimum length of words is 200 words, without using a dictionary, and within one
hour with concentrating on one topic from four topics (My Favourite TV Programme, My
Favourite Tourism Spot, Learning English as an International Language, and The
Advantages of Internet) which were provided by the writer.
The analysis began with the identification of errors by highlighting the words
which are indicated as lexical errors based on lexical errors classification provided by
James (1998). After that, lexical errors which are found in the students’ descriptive
writings were classified into lexical errors sheet based on lexical errors classification
proposed by James (1998). Then, the calculation of lexical errors’ occurrences and
frequencies is conducted in order to figure out the most frequent lexical error that
occurred in the students’ descriptive writings (as noted in Table 1). Afterwards, the
discussion about the most frequent lexical errors that occurred in the students’ descriptive
writings is provided by the writer in order to identify the possible reason which triggered
the students to produce lexical errors.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
According to the data of this study, the writer found 2 major classes of lexical
errors that consist of 10 sub-classes of formal errors and 3 sub-classes of semantic errors.
The total number of lexical errors that occurred in the English descriptive writings of the
tenth grade students of SMA Negeri 9 Surabaya is 303 lexical errors. They are 93 errors
of formal misselection, 81 errors of formal misformations, 78 errors of distortions, 37
errors in confusion of sense relations, and 14 errors of collocation. Besides, the average
number of lexical errors in each student writing is 8.2 errors. Hence, the following table
provides the total number for each error type and its frequency.
Table 1: Frequency of lexical errors
Error Types
Total Errors
(Total=303)
%
Papers containing
the errors (N=37)
%
A. Formal Errors
1. Formal Misselection
1.1. Suffix Type 81 26.73 30 81.08
1.2. Prefix Type 0 0.00 0 0.00
1.3. Vowel-Based Type 11 3.63 6 16.21
1.4. Consonant-Based Type 1 0.33 1 2.70
2. Formal Misformations
2.1. Borrowing 18 5.94 6 16.21

6. 2.2. Coinage 5 1.65 3 8.10
2.3. Calque 58 19.14 24 64.86
3. Distortions
3.1. Omission 34 11.22 11 29.72
3.2. Overinclusion 13 4.29 3 8.10
3.3. Misselection 29 9.57 9 24.32
3.4. Misordering 2 0.66 2 5.40
B. Semantic Errors
1. Confusion of Sense Relations
1.1. Superonym for Hyponym 0 0.00 0 0.00
1.2. Hyponym for Superonym 0 0.00 0 0.00
1.3. Inappropriate Co-Hyponyms 0 0.00 0 0.00
1.4. Wrong Near Synonyms 37 12.21 13 35.13
2. Collocational Errors
2.1. Semantically Determined Selection 9 2.97 2 5.40
2.2. Statistically Weighted Preferences 5 1.65 4 10.81
2.3. Arbitrary Combinations and
Irreversible Binomials
0 0.00 0 0.00
As presented in Table 1, formal errors are the most problematic errors that
occurred in the students’ writings compared to the occurrences of semantic errors (83.2%
versus 16.8%). This finding proposes that formal errors which composed of formal
misselection (30.69%), formal misformations (26.73%), and distortions (25.74% of all
errors) remain as a serious problem that confronted by the EFL Indonesian students due
to the similarity in form and lexical categories such as verbs, nouns, adjectives, et cetera.
Moreover, the finding of this study in the term of formal errors’ occurrences
contradict the findings of the other studies such as Hemchua & Schmitt (2006) and
Shalaby, Yahya & El-Komi (2009). This may be attributable to the difference of the
language proficiency of the participants. In this study, the writer involved the students in
senior high school especially in the tenth grade to become the participants where the other
studies involved the students in the university level.
Lexical Errors’ Frequency
Table 2 illustrates the rank-order of the 18 sub-classes of lexical errors in terms
of frequency. As can be seen from the following table, ‘suffix type’ was the most
frequent lexical error (26.73% of the total errors) and it also had the most papers
containing this error (81.08% of the total). The second and third most frequent lexical
errors were ‘calque’ and ‘wrong near synonyms’, which calculated to 19.14% and
12.21% of the total respectively. Further, in the following discussion, the writer discusses
about the most frequent lexical errors that occurred in the students’ descriptive writings
and what are the possible reasons that can explain the occurrences of these errors.
Table 2: Rank-order of lexical errors’ frequency
Num. Error Types
Total
Errors
(Total=303)
%
Papers
containing
the errors
(N=37)
%
1. Suffix Type 81 26.73 30 81.08
2. Calque 58 19.14 24 64.86
3. Wrong Near Synonyms 37 12.21 13 35.13
4. Omission 34 11.22 11 29.72
5. Misselection 29 9.57 9 24.32
6. Borrowing 18 5.94 6 16.21
7. Vowel-Based Type 11 3.63 6 16.21
8. Statistically Weighted Preferences 5 1.65 4 10.81

7. 9. Overinclusion 13 4.29 3 8.10
10. Coinage 5 1.65 3 8.10
11. Semantically Determined Selection 9 2.97 2 5.40
12. Misordering 2 0.66 2 5.40
13. Consonant-Based Type 1 0.33 1 2.70
14. Prefix Type 0 0.00 0 0.00
15. Superonym for Hyponym 0 0.00 0 0.00
16. Hyponym for Superonym 0 0.00 0 0.00
17. Inappropriate Co-Hyponyms 0 0.00 0 0.00
18. Arbitrary Combinations and Irreversible
Binomials
0 0.00 0 0.00
Suffix Type
The incorrect suffixation or suffix error is one of the sub-classes in formal
misselection that consists of synforms (Hemchua & Schmitt, 2006, p. 19). Essentially,
synform is categorized into two types: a) the same word class with similar form (for
instance, we can play an educator <education> game), and b) the inappropriate use of a
particular word class (for instance, traditional musical instruments performed
<performance> is being held). According to the data of this study, the writer found 58
out of 81 suffix errors that occurred in the students’ writings due to the confusion of the
same word class with similar form, while 23 errors attributed to the misselection of a
particular word class. This finding suggests that the students have a more serious problem
in selecting the correct word class which owing similar forms rather than the proper use
of derivative forms in words. Besides, the occurrences of suffix errors as the highest
frequent errors coincide with findings in another study. For example, Shalaby, Yahya &
El-Komi (2009), they found that ‘suffix error’ was the most frequent errors occurred in
the participants’ essays, moreover, this error accounted to 17,83% from the total number
of errors. Further, this finding also congruent with Laufer’s (1991) argument where FL
learners are usually confused in determining the correct suffix which should be placed on
the final position of word. Therefore, the possible reason which can explain why the
students have a more serious problem in the selection of suffixes is due to the inadequate
knowledge of words in lexical categories as suggested by Schmitt & Meara (1997) and
Schmitt & Zimmerman (2002).
Calque
As noted above, calque was the second most frequent lexical errors that occurred
in the students’ writings, which accounted to 19.14% from the total number of errors.
James (1998) affirms that calque is the result of literal translation due to the influence of
first language. The occurrences of calque as the second most frequent lexical errors
concur the findings in another study such as Zughoul (1991) who reports that calque
occurred 82 times out of a total 691 errors (11.8%). Moreover, calque can be grouped into
two cases as follows:
1. Literal translation from L1 on the word level. For instance, walking <take a walk>
along Malioboro street makes me happy (berjalan – jalan sepanjang jalan Malioboro
membuat saya senang). In this case, the word ‘walking’ is the result of literal
translation from the word ‘berjalan – jalan’ in Indonesian. Perhaps, the students who
produced this error did not realize the occurrence of the word ‘walking’ in that
sentence is quite odd. Thus, the writer suggests ‘take a walk’ as the alternative
translation for the word ‘walking’ which is more acceptable according to the context
of the sentence above.
2. Literal translation from L1 on the phrase level. For instance, beauty in harmony with
the people warm and friendly <the warm and friendly people> (keindahan dalam

8. keselarasan dengan orangnya yang hangat dan ramah). In this example, the student
who produced this error misplaced the position between the words ‘warm’, ‘friendly’
and ‘people’. Besides, this student may not know that the word ‘people’ as a noun
should be preceded by ‘warm’ and ‘friendly’ which act as the adjectives that describe
the noun.
Further, among these two cases in calque, literal translation from L1 on the phrase
level (47 errors) was the most frequent, while the errors in word level (11 errors)
occurred less frequently. This indicated that the students seem to depend on L1’s
linguistic knowledge in order to produce some words or phrases in English.
Wrong Near Synonyms
‘Wrong Near synonyms’ was the next in frequency of occurrences. However, it
occurred at a much lower rate than either ‘suffix type’ or ‘calque’, occurring only 37
times at a rate of 12.21% of the total number of errors. This finding is consistent with
Shalaby, Yahya & El-Komi’s (2009) finding in which wrong near synonyms was the
third most frequent errors occurred in the students’ essays (5.15% of the total errors). The
following are the examples of this error which can be grouped into two cases as follows:
1. Using informal words for formal words. For instance, … and communicate quickly
<instantly> with no restriction area, space, and time. ‘communicate quickly’ is not
entirely incorrect, but the use of ‘quickly’ is more appropriate to be used in informal
writing.
2. Two words were close in meaning but were different in usage. For instance, Internet
can also be used to expand <broaden> our knowledge. The use of ‘expand’ is
improper since it has a meaning ‘to become greater in size’ and the following noun is
categorized as an uncountable noun, thus, ‘broaden’ (to increase our experience,
knowledge) is more appropriate to be used in the context of this sentence.
This finding suggests that most of ‘wrong near synonyms’ occurred as the result
of intralingual error (28 out of 37 errors). However, there is also a relatively minor effect
from L1’s influence (9 out of 37 errors). Besides, in writing, some of the students seem to
apply their linguistic knowledge of Indonesian to produce English synonymous in which
the meaning of these words are not exactly the same, for instance, we will get <gain>
new knowledge.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
The findings of this study suggest that the students had considerable difficulty in
selecting the correct form of words (incorrect suffixation and calque). Jiang (2000) points
out that the students’ awareness about morphological specifications are not automatically
built, hence, the classroom teaching should be designed to raise the students’ awareness
toward this issue. Moreover, in order to broaden the students’ knowledge about the
differences of words in lexical categories, the teacher should provide the information
about the morphological structure of words to the students as suggested by Shalaby,
Yahya & El-Komi (2009).
Apart from incorrect suffixation and calque, the students also had a problem in
the selection of near synonyms. This may be attributable to the inadequate knowledge of
the students in differentiating the use of a certain word which affects the intended
meaning. Therefore, the teacher can provide some important information to eliminate the
students’ problem in synonym such as 1) identify the stylistic styles (formal or informal,
colloquial or slang), 2) give the word most common collocate, 3) provide the examples
about the word’s usage in sentence, and 4) supply the additional information about

9. semantic distinctions (hyponym or superonym, animate or inanimate) as suggested by
Martin (1984, cited in Hemchua & Schmitt, 2006, p. 21).
Furthermore, the role of error correction during the classroom activities can be
optimized by the teacher, since it remains as the important element which can reduce the
production of errors in the students’ written compositions. In this case, the teacher can
provide some important information as already mentioned above which acts as the tool in
assisting the students to revise or reject the incorrect rule they are operating with when
they are producing some oral or written utterances (this term is called remediation,
proposed by James, 1998, pp. 236-237). The goal of remediation is to help the students in
revising their mental representation about the linguistic rule they were operating with, so
that the students can understand their oral or written utterances as errors, and hopefully
these errors will not be repeated again. Thus, by giving an error correction during the
teaching – learning process may act as the effective tool in eliminating the number of
lexical errors occurred in the students’ written compositions.
REFERENCES
Ander, S., & Yildirim, Ö. (2010). Lexical Errors in Elementary Level EFL Learners’
Compositions. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 5299–5303.
Cameron, L. (1994). Organizing The Word: Children's Concept and Categories, and
Implications for The Teaching of English. English Language Teaching Journal,
48(1), 28-39.
Hemchua, S., & Schmitt, N. (2006). An Analysis of Lexical Errors in the English
Compositions of Thai Learners. Prospect, 21(3), 3-25.
Hornby, A. S. (2010). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (8th ed.). London: Oxford
University Press.
James, C. (1998). Errors in Language Learning and Use: Exploring Error Analysis
(Applied Linguistics & Language Study). London: Longman.
Jiang, N. (2000). Lexical Representation and Development in a Second Language.
Applied Linguistics, 21, 47-77.
Laufer, B. (1990). Why Are Some Words More Difficult than Others? - Some Intralexical
Factors that Affect the Learning of Words. IRAL, 4, 293-307.
Laufer, B. (1991). Some Properties of The Foreign Language Learner’s Lexicon as
Evidenced by Lexical Confusions. International Review of Applied Linguistics,
29, 317-330.
Lewis, M. (2002). The Lexical Approach: The State of ELT and A Way Forward. London:
Commercial Colour Press.
Llach, A. P. (2005a). A Critical Review of The Terminology and Taxonomies Used in
The Literature on Lexical Errors. Journal of English and American Studies,
31(1), 11-24.
Llach, A. P. (2005b). The Relationship of Lexical Error and Their Types to The Quality
of ESL Compositions: An Empirical Study. Porta Linguarum, 3(1), 45-57.
Llach, A. P. (2007). Lexical Errors As Writing Quality Predictors. Studia Linguistica,
61(1), 1-19.
McCarthy, M. (1990). Vocabulary. New York: Oxford.

10. Naba'h, A. A. (2011). Lexical Errors Made by In- Service English Language Teachers in
Jordan. Damascus University Journal, 27(1+2), 49-75.
Ridha, A. S. (2012). The Effect of EFL Learners' Mother Tongue on their Writings in
English: An Error Analysis Study. Journal of the College of Arts. University of
Basrah, 60(1), 22-45.
Ridha, A. S., & Al-Riyahi, A. A. (2011). Lexical Collocational Errors in the Writings.
Journal of the College of Arts. University of Basrah, 1(58), 24-51.
Schmitt, N., & Meara, P. (1997). Researching Vocabulary Through a Word Knowledge
Framework: Word Associations and Verbal Suffixes. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 20, 17-36.
Schmitt, N., & Zimmerman, B. C. (2002). Derivative Word Forms: What Do Learners
Know? TESOL QUARTERLY, 36(2), 145-171.
Shalaby, A. N., Yahya, N., & El-Komi, M. (2009). Analysis of Lexical Errors in Saudi
College Students’ Compositions. Journal of the Saudi Association of Languages
and Translation, 2(3), 65-93.
Suetae, J. (2010). Lexical Errors in the Written Compositions of Thai EFL Students.
Master Thesis. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya.
Zimmerman, B. C. (1997). Historical Trends in Second Language Vocabulary
Instruction. In J. Coaday, & T. Hockin, Second Language Vocabulary
Acquisition: A Rationale for Pedagogy (pp. 5-19). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Zughoul, M. R. (1991). Lexical Choice: Towards Writing Problematic Word Lists. IRAL,
29(1), 45-60.