Comparative Analysis of Students' Mistakes Appearance while Working with ESP
Texts
Elena Andronova
1
1
Tashkent Branch of Moscow State Univertsity named after M.V.Lomonosov, Amir Temur prospect 22, Tashkent 100060,
Uzbekistan
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10439524
Keywords
:
ESP Reading, ESP Texts, Comparative Analysis, Target Language, Students’ mistakes and errors.
Abstract:
The article “Comparative Analysis of Students' Mistakes Appearance while Working with ESP Texts”
describes the main factors of comparative issues in linguistics from the methodological point of view while
teaching ESP reading. Moreover, the article shows the author’s results of students’ mistakes analysis
provided with examples taken from ESP texts for the students of psychological faculties suggesting the
ways the comparative analysis results can be helpful for further scientific research and foreign language
teaching methodology as a whole.
1
INTRODUCTION
The comparative study issues of different
languages system have always been of interest not
only to linguists, but also to methodologists who
study the problems of language intervention,
revealing the connection between comparative
linguistics
and
foreign
language
teaching
methodology, taking into account the characteristics
of the target language and the native one.
Furthermore, scientists have been discussing and
identifying a unified approach to comparing
languages for a long time, but there is still no
definite developed system of language comparison.
When comparing systems of different languages, it
is customary to use two approaches:
1. Level approach used to compare genetically
closely related and typologically related languages,
as well as to express the same level in systems of
compared languages;
2. Cross-level approach is used when comparing
systems of genetically distant related languages and
when determining cross level synonyms within the
system of each of the compared languages. In this
approach,
systems
of
genetically
unrelated
languages are compared, since their systems are
characterized by the absence of deep-surface identity
of typological category.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
The purpose of the research is to compare two
languages English and Russian and find out the
mistakes that students make while doing the
reading tasks and to find possible solution to
exclude further students’ mistakes.
Despite the existence of pluralism of
comparing
languages
methods,
there
is
a
unanimous opinion regarding the use of a
“metalanguage” in linguistic typology. This term
was first proposed to be used by B.A. Uspensky,
who proceeds from the concept of comparison of
languages or their systems. When comparing two or
more languages, one of them is taken as a reference
language (metalanguage), taking into account the
possession of wide applicability and universality.
For example, when comparing English and Russian
languages, both Russian and English systems can
be taken as the reference language, depending on
the purpose and task of the comparison. For
example, English can be chosen as a metalanguage
by comparing the categories of certainty and
indefiniteness or forms of plural formation or
temporary grammatical categories, since the
English language system is characterized by the
existence of special markers, such as definite and
indefinite articles. Therefore, the problems of
comparative linguistics and the phenomenon of
"interference", describing the ways of comparing
languages at different linguistic levels and using
various comparison technologies, were studied by
E.D. Polevanov, U.K. Yusupov, V.M. Bildyan,
N.M. Vereshchagin, E.M. Akhunryanov, V.G. Gez,
M.D. Dzhusupov, J.Kh. Buranov, I.A., Kissen M.
Magometova, V.D. Arakin and others. Thus, M.D.
Dzhusupov, U.K. Yusupov, Uzbekistan linguists,
compared languages at different levels. T. Bushui,
F. Ruzikulov considered all levels of the language
(phonetic, lexical, morphological and syntactic),
where a comparative analysis of the structures of
the English and Russian languages is allowed.
Additionally, the phenomenon of interference was
considered by such scientists as W.Weinrakh, S.L.
Rubinstein,
I.A.Winter,
E.M.Akhunzyanov,
defining interference in different ways. Therefore,
S. Rubinshtein described interference as a
phenomenon that makes it difficult to form new
skills or reduce their manifestation [4]. Further-
more, U.Weinrakh interprets interference as a
deviation from the norms of linguistic structures
that occurs in the process of linguistic interaction.
Whereas, E.M.Akhunzyanov describes interference
as “a change in the structure or elements of the
structure of one language under the influence of
another, and it does not matter whether it is a native
or a second language, since interference can occur
in both directions”. I.A. Winter highlights positive
and negative phenomena when using a foreign
language. From the point of view of I.A. Winter,
the elements of language systems influence each
other, forming positive skills - transfer and negative
ones – interference [7]. However, V.M.Mokienko,
explaining the phenomenon of interference, says
that when preparing for classes, the teacher needs to
take into account the native language of students, it
is necessary to eradicate interference by using
positive transfer [5]. According to Bildiyan V.M., a
number of factors characterizing interference are
determined in the scientific and methodological
literature:
- a linguistic factor that determines the degree of
difference between the native and studied
languages;
- social factor, the scope of the language being
studied; - psycholinguistic factor that determines
the type of speech activity;
- a psychological factor showing the level of
language proficiency;
- a methodological factor that determines the way
of language acquisition.
RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH
Thus, after analyzing the scientific and
methodological literature, it can be inferred that the
phenomenon of interference and ways to eradicate
it have not been fully studied yet. Based on the
obtained information about interference, we, using
a comparative analysis of two genetically and
typologically different languages, English and
Russian, determined the nature of the mistakes
made by students during tasks when reading ESP
texts, which are followed by interference from the
Russian language. Overall, the comparison allows
"to identify those linguistic phenomena in the target
language that distinguish it from the native
language of students and generate typical errors"
[1]. We studied the works of the above scientists
and carried out a comparative analysis of Russian
and English languages from the point of view of a
communicative methodology for teaching reading
ESP texts. This analysis helped us to identify those
linguistic phenomena that distinguish the Russian
and English languages we compared, despite the
fact that they belong to different language families.
When comparing, we considered the typological
characteristics of the two languages at the phonetic,
grammatical and morpho-logical levels. The
metalanguage in the comparison was English, as it
is students’ target language. Additionally, when
analyzing the literature, we also found out that
when learning a foreign language, it is necessary to
compare two languages using translation. Though,
the communicative methodology does not imply the
use of translation, but only the target language
vocabulary, however we partially agree with this
issue and believe that at the elementary level a
teacher may use his/her native language when
explaining terminology or grammatical issues. But,
on the contrary, when teaching reading ESP texts, it
is quite essential to develop students’ reading
comprehension skills without translating words and
sentences. However, it is allowed to translate only
key words. Although, we do not deny the fact that
when learning a foreign language, one way or
another, the student draws an analogy with his/her
native language. Taking into account this fact, a
teacher needs to be attentive with the emerging
interference and help students overcome making
mistakes in a foreign language speech [6]. Thus,
from teaching languages methodology point of
view, linguistic comparison is essential to
determine the causes of mistakes in the target
language and the selection of the necessary
methodology to eliminate them. Nevertheless, we
note that making mistakes in both written and oral
speech is a natural process of learning foreign
language speech and culture, since it is not only
about the assimilation of new knowledge, but also
the need to decode the acquired knowledge into
another language system. Furthermore, it is
impossible to exclude learning without mistakes,
but they can be minimized, which is the task of
scientists, methodologists and teachers when
searching and analyzing effective teaching methods
in order not only to correct errors, but also to
anticipate them and prevent their occurrence. When
teaching students foreign languages, which are
different in structure from their native language,
methodologists resort to the help of comparative
typology as an auxiliary material. The methodology
requires the conclusions of comparative typology in
explaining language categories. For example,
explaining the grammatical category Continuous
tenses, which does not exist in Russian: She is
reading. – “Она читает”. What is more, analyzing
students’ mistakes in terms of interference they are
characterized according to the influence of
students’ native language on the target language
system. In the case of constant use of the native
language in teaching a foreign language, students
will retain errors due to the influence of their native
language at all stages of learning. That is the reason
why it is necessary to take into account multiple
factors such as: students’ age, the ability to think
critically, the students’ English level, and the
typological proximity of the native and studied
languages. All these factors are essential when
compiling
textbooks
and
methodological
recommendations, because it is necessary to
proceed from the systemic features of the native
and foreign languages in order to minimize the
mistakes made by students in the process of
learning a foreign language. We have found out that
comparison helps to identify similarities and
differences in the target and native languages, and
when working with ESP texts, students make
mistakes, due to the fact that their native language
differs in structure from the target one. Thus, the
languages we compare are typologically different.
Therefore, English is an analytical language (when
constructing sentences, auxiliary words are used,
such as service parts of speech, auxiliary verbs,
etc.), Russian is synthetic; that is, the structure of
the language in the formation of sentences implies
the use of inflections. When working with texts, we
assessed the errors that occur when students
communicate with each other or when answering
questions orally on the material they read, as well
as assessed the difficulties that arise during the
execution of tasks on the text in English for
psychologists.
We
analyzed
the
following
categories of errors, such as:
-phonetic;
When students performed oral tasks on the
text, we found errors in the pronunciation of words
such as psychology - where students pronounce it
like [ psi ` k ɒ l ǝ d ʒ i] or like [psai ` k ɒ l ǝ gi], the
correct version is [sai ` k ɒ l ǝ d ʒ i]. In the first
case, the reading of all letters in a given word is a
direct interference of the Russian language, in
which all letters in the word are read. In the second
case, incorrect pronunciation indicates that there are
no letter combinations in Russian that are read as
one sound. The solution to this problem is to
explain the reading rules to students, silent
consonant “ps” -[s], and note that “ch” in this word
it is pronounced as [k]. Usually, it leaves no
difficulty in explaining, since in Russian there are
such concepts as silent letters as well. Additionally,
it is necessary to explain to students the correct
pronunciation of such letter combinations as “with
h”, “Sh”.
In comparison with the number of phonetic
mistakes appeared in the text, grammatical ones are
made much more often, the reason for the
appearance of such a number of errors is the
difference in the expression of various grammatical
categories in the native and target languages. For
example, the most common mistake made is the use
of plurality. For instance: The difference between
psychologist and psychiatrist are, instead of is. This
error lies in the improper notion of the subject and,
accordingly, an error occurs in choosing wrong
plurality of a verb form.
The next type of error is the incorrect use of
the ending - s: Psychologists treat s less severe
conditions; psychiatrists treat more complex mental
health disorders. In this sentence, the verb is
misused in the third person plural. Students transfer
from the Russian language the use of the ending “-
ат”: “Психологи лечат...”. This type of error
manifests itself mechanically, as students translate
sentences according to their native language system:
-lexical;
Lexical errors in the speech of students, both
when performing tasks and when reading ESP
material, are formed due to a number of factors:
a) The name and number of parts of speech in
Russian and English do not match.
b) with the coincidence of the main characteristics of
the parts of speech in Russian and English, they still
have some distinctive features;
c) the grammatical characteristics of words may
differ. Such as the absence of articles in Russian;
d) the ways of word formation and the structure of
words are different;
e) the words denoting the plural do not coincide with
the concepts of the plural;
f) different ways of word formation;
g) words with several meanings do not match each
other in meaning when translated;
h) words that have a similar pronunciation in both
Russian and English, but have completely different
meanings, in other words, these are “false friends”
[2], [3].
- errors that occur when performing tasks when
working with text.
While working with the text, performing
pre - text (pre - reading), text while - reading and
after text (post - reading) tasks, students have a
number of errors associated with understanding what
they read, as well as highlighting the main idea of
the text, its subsequent orally or in writing. We
would like to note that when working with ESP text,
it is especially difficult to isolate the main idea from
the content of what has been read, since it is
necessary to under-stand the entire text. One of the
reasons why students cannot understand the meaning
of the material they read is a lack of terminology
understanding and encountering unfamiliar words.
While reading an unfamiliar text, students actively
use the dictionary without trying to guess the
meaning of the word from the context. Thus, when
reading, searching for words takes a lot of time and
students' attention is scattered. Moreover, the reason
for making mistakes when compiling a summary of
the materials lies in the fact that students just copy
sentences from the text or memorize them when
retelling instead of writing or telling using their own
words. Therefore, the meaning of the text is either
distorted or incomplete.
CONCLUSIONS
Having analyzed all types of students'
mistakes while working with texts on psychology
in English, we came to the conclusion that when
working with texts, teachers, methodologists need
to take into account the cause and frequency of
errors when choosing a foreign language teaching
methodology for special purposes, so that keep
them to a minimum.
Furthermore, the analysis of frequency and
types of students' mistakes made when working
with ESP texts in psychology will help teachers
and methodologists to developing a set of lexical
and grammatical exercises aimed at improving
the foreign language lexical competence of
students learning a language.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are grateful to the higher institutions of
Uzbekistan as Navoi State Pedagogical Institute,
Bukhara
State
University,
Samarkand
State
University, National University of Uzbekistan
named after Mirzo Ulugbek, and Karshi State
University for providing an opportunity for us to
conduct our research concerning the research aims
and goals.
REFERENCES
[1]
Akhmedova L.T. (2012) Theory and practice of
teaching professional Russian speech to students-
philologists.: Dis . ... dr ped .n auk . - T., , 108.
[2]
Arbekova T.I.(1990) English without errors / - M.
Higher School, 220.
[3]
Philol K. Panin V.V.(2013) Persistent lexical and
grammatical errors in the process of learning English
and ways to correct them. Retrived from www.
confcontact.com /2013_06
[4]
Rubinshtein S.L.(2015) Fundamentals of General
Psychology.St. Petersburg.713.
[5]
Sternin I.A. (2006) Contrastive Linguistics. M: East-
West.206.
[6]
Sternin I.A. (2015)Comparison as a linguistic
methodology. Comparative studies 2015.-Voronezh:
"Origins".3-11.
[7]
Winter
I.A.
(2008)
Pedagogical
psychology:
Textbook for universities. Second ed., addi-tional,
corrected and revised . - M .: Universitetskaya kniga,
LOGOS.384.
