Entre Lenguas. Vol. 14 Enero - Diciembre 2009 11
Biró, anett
* La Dra.  Biró es Profesora-Investigadora del Departamento de Idiomas Modernos de la Universidad 
de Pannonia, Veszprèm, Hungría.
abstract
The research reported in the article has been carried out in order to find an explanation for the occurrence of  L1 induced lexico-semantic errors in the performance of  Hungarian learners learning EFL in a formal setting. The study examines the proposition that interlingual lexical errors appear due to the special 
organization of  the learners’ mental lexicon, which is characterized by the interrelatedness of  L1 and L2 lexical 
meanings, and by links established between the conceptual-semantic representation, the mother tongue and the 
target language lexical items. The findings indicate that L2 conceptual and semantic representations are connected 
to the first language, and throw light on the lack, incompleteness or incorrectness of  knowledge regarding semantic 
differences between translation equivalent lexical items. The results give reason for the inference that raising 
awareness about differences between L1 and L2 meanings must be achieved in order to improve L2 competence 
in any language teaching situation where language learning takes place in a monolingual setting.
PKaelya bwroarsd csl ave 
interlingual lexical errors: English- Cross-linguistic influence, error, 
Hungarian translation equivalent vocabulary, mental lexicon, meaning
lexical items and their mental 
representations in the context Palabras clave
of  learning English as a foreign Influencia cros-lingüística, error, 
language in Hungary vocabulario, léxicos mentales, significado
resumen
La investigación que se reporta en este conceptual, la lengua materna y la lengua extranjera. artículo se llevó a cabo para encontrar Los hal lazgos indican que representaciones una explicación a la ocurrencia de errores conceptuales y semánticas en la L2, están conectadas 
lexico-semánticos inducidos en una L1, sobre todo a la L1 y sirven de indicadores como aspectos 
en la actuación lingüística de estudiantes húngaros incompletos o incorrectos de conocimiento referente 
que aprenden inglés como lengua extranjera en un a las diferencias semánticas en la traducción de ítems 
contexto formal. El estudio examina la propuesta lexicales equivalentes. Los resultados explican, por 
de que errores lexicales interlinguales aparecen inferencia, que concienzar a los estudiantes acerca 
debido a la organización lexical en la mente de los de las diferencias entre los significados entre la L1 
estudiantes, la cual se caracteriza por la interrelación y la L2 mejoran la competencia lingüístcia en una 
de significados entre la L1 y la L2, y por lazos L2, en cualquier situación donde el aprendizaje de 
establecidos entre la representación semántico- un idioma se efectúa en un contexto monolingüe.
12 Anett  Biro, Interlingual lexical errors...pp. 11-30 Entre Lenguas. Vol. 14 Enero - Diciembre 2009
1. Introduction institutional language learning. Studying 
Mother tongue influence, or – as it cross-linguistic influence can have an 
is currently referred to – cross-linguistic especially important role in a monolingual, 
influence has long been a major concern in formal language learning setting, where the 
foreign language classrooms. A vast array major source of  the limited input is the 
of  research has been carried out into the teacher and the teaching manual. In the 
question of  what kind of  an impact – if  process of  language acquisition data often 
any – the first language exercises on foreign get repeated, and learners check the accuracy 
language learning. Most of  the available of  utterances by observation, so most of  the 
evidence offers support for the existence of  errors committed are developmental, and 
cross-linguistic influence (Gass & Selinker, L1 influence as a factor can be neglected. 
1994; Krashen, 1981; Lightbown & Spada, However, in the case of  institutional, formal 
1999; Odlin, 2003; Skehan, 1989; Sharwood- language learning – because of  the limitation 
Smith, 1994; White, 1989), learners of  a imposed on the intensity of  exposure to 
foreign language tend to make use of  the and contact with the foreign language, and 
implicit knowledge gained from the mother because of  the fact that data do not become 
tongue in the process of  learning a foreign firmly rooted in the mind of  learners due 
language. to the lack of  real life experience – a large 
Besides the fact that the mother tongue proportion of  errors are not developmental 
can facilitate the process of  foreign language in nature, rather directly traceable to the 
learning due to the resemblance of  languages mother tongue. In the classroom the mother 
and to the first language functioning as a tongue has a greater influence on the foreign 
complementer of  incomplete or unknown language, and errors must be given special 
parts of  knowledge, the influence of  the consideration. Thus the systematic analysis 
mother tongue often manifests itself  in the and classification of  errors becomes 
form of  errors. Turning to the similarities, necessary, which involves detecting and 
differences and partial overlaps stemming accounting for them, finding their causes, 
from the comparison of  L1 and L2 linguistic and finally correcting them. 
items or patterns can serve a diagnostic Cross-linguistic influence can be 
function in the error correction procedure present at different linguistic levels, including 
present in language teaching practices. It can lexis. Interlingual lexical errors – the wrong 
shed light on problematic areas that need selection of  lexical items – often result 
remedial teaching. in misunderstanding, rather than a clear 
The setting in which a language is failure to understand, and may interfere 
being learned significantly influences the with communication.  In order to function 
psychological; psycholinguistic processes adequately in the foreign language, learners 
that take place during learning or acquisition need to develop their lexical competence 
(Krashen, 1981; Marton, 1986; Richards, and acquire the skill of  correct lexical 
1974). Therefore several aspects of  natural selection. The contrastive study of  L1 and 
or naturalistic (first or second) language L2 vocabulary applied in the course of  error 
acquisition differ from the aspects of  analysis may provide useful information 
Anett  Biró , Interlingual lexical errors...pp. 11-30 Entre Lenguas. Vol. 14 Enero - Diciembre 2009 13
about the process of  language teaching and psycholinguistic research carried out into 
learning; and can facilitate the development the field of  the mental lexicon – the mental 
of  learners’ interlanguage, the process to dictionary responsible for the storage of  
move away from the first language and to linguistic signs and their interrelations – 
approximate L2.   there are still uncertainties regarding its 
structure and operation. One of  the reasons 
2. Research objectives is the gradual perfection of  linguistic 
The aim of  the present study is to competence, which results in the constant 
explore the nature of  mother tongue change of  individuals’ mental lexicon. 
influence present in the use of  vocabulary The other is the impossibility of  direct 
by non-native speakers. To this end, errors observation. As a consequence, a diversity 
occurring in the performance of  Hungarian of  ideas and speculations are present in the 
learners learning English as a foreign literature. Research and neurological data 
language have been examined, analyzed and seem to offer support for the hypothesis 
accounted for. The major question to answer of  the integrated system (Coleman, 1998) 
is: Why and in what form do parts of  prior as opposed to the existence of  separated 
knowledge get operated in the course of  L2 systems (dual systems hypothesis). The 
vocabulary learning and use? As an answer widespread assumption holds that different, 
to the question a widely accepted hypothesis language-specific systems operate within one 
is that the learner’s mother tongue provides single, integrated system with interrelated L1 
a key to meanings, i. e., assuming semantic and L2 lexical items (subsystem hypothesis) 
similarities between translation equivalent (Grosjean, 1988; Kroll & Stewart, 1994). The 
lexical items leads to the occurrence of  connections between the lexical items of  the 
errors. The basis for this assumption is the subsystems may, however, differ in quality, 
special organization of  the bilingual mental nature and strength; and reflect the manner 
lexicon, which is characteristic of  the non- of  foreign language learning as well as the 
fluent (Dufour & Kroll, 1995; Heredia, degree of  language proficiency. The existing 
1996) language learner learning the language models (coordinate, compound, subordinate) 
in a formal, institutional setting. Interlingual – composed of  a conceptual store and the 
errors are caused by deficient L2 conceptual linguistic systems – characterize the learner 
representations present in the learner’s at different stages of  linguistic development. 
mind. Thus, within the scope of  vocabulary, According to research findings (De Groot, 
the research concentrates on the study of  1993; Dufour & Kroll, 1995; Heredia, 1996), 
Hungarian language influence at the lexico- L1 serves as a mediator at the elementary 
semantic level of  English sentences with the and intermediate stages of  language learning. 
help of  the analysis of  lexical errors induced Non-fluent language learners develop strong 
by English-Hungarian semantic contrasts. links between L1 and L2 lexical items, and 
create direct associations between the lexical 
3. Theoretical framework: The bilingual representations of  translation equivalent L1 
mental lexicon and L2 words. They are unable to access 
In spite of  the vast number of  the concept belonging to the L2 lexical 
14 Anett  Biro, Interlingual lexical errors...pp. 11-30 Entre Lenguas. Vol. 14 Enero - Diciembre 2009
item, which – in the absence of  a direct wrong lexical selection (or interlingual 
conceptual link – will be connected to the lexico-semantic errors). 
existing semantic content of  the translation The phenomenon lying behind the 
equivalent L1 lexical item (see Figure 1). differences between L1 and L2 semantic 
specifications is the culture- and language-
specific interpretation of  reality. Language 
and particularly lexis is the means of  
expressing meaning, the means of  mediating 
cognitive reality. As a consequence of  the 
differing abstractions of  the same facts, the 
semantic contents belonging to translation 
equivalent lexical items will be different in 
two languages. As Corder (1973, p. 70) put 
Figure 1. Hierarchical Bilingual Model it: “the structure of  a language is often said 
(Kroll & Stewart, 1994) to mirror the structure of  the world as it is 
seen by a particular community.”
This way the meaning of  the L2 lexical 
item becomes subordinated to the meaning 4. Methodology
of  the L1 word. Conceptual representations 4.1 Error analysis
of  the L1 item transfer into the corresponding To gain insight into the nature and 
L2 one “as language learners are forced to characteristics of  L1 influence in respect of  
provide meaning to the word they are about the semantic aspect of  vocabulary, a study 
to learn by associating it to the information of  semantic representations in the learners’ 
they already know” (Heredia, 1996, p. minds has been carried out. 
2). Thus the structure and operation of  In the first phase, a thorough 
language learners’ mental lexicon is highly investigation of  145 L1 induced lexical 
influenced by their L1, which exercises an errors present in learners’ interlanguage was 
impact on target language performance. The undertaken; and differences were identified 
interrelatedness of  L1 and L2 lexical items with the help of  English-Hungarian lexical 
leads to interaction and carries the possibility contrastive analysis.
of  lexico-semantic transfer. Language The data used to analyze English lexical 
learners apply the equivalence hypothesis, errors committed by Hungarian learners 
and approach vocabulary learning and were provided partly by answers found in 
use in the target language communication written exams and other test papers taken at 
primarily as a translation process. They the Department of  Foreign Languages of  the 
establish translation links regardless of  the University of  Pannonia, and partly by a test 
actual conceptual/semantic correspondence paper containing 50 sentences and done by 
or non-correspondence between the two 103 university students having intermediate 
languages (Budai, 2006). This, in some level language skills (see Appendix I). 
cases (especially when there are differences The process of  selection regarding 
between L1 and L2 meanings), results in the 50-sentence test paper was helped by 
Anett  Biró , Interlingual lexical errors...pp. 11-30 Entre Lenguas. Vol. 14 Enero - Diciembre 2009 15
word frequency lists and a collection of  In the course of  the English-Hungarian 
errors based on teaching experience (Budai, lexical contrastive analysis the starting point 
2002). The 100 lexical items (50 English to compare lexical items was provided by 
word pairs causing confusion for Hungarian translation equivalence, the basis of  which 
learners) were chosen from the pre-selected is external reality and its interpretation by 
vocabulary in the book; and except for 15 these languages (Krzeszowski, 1984). As 
items they were among the most frequent the differences between lexical items can 
2000 English words. Studying the 2000-3000 be expressed with the help of  semantic 
high frequency words is supported by the fact components (Kiefer, 2000), the description 
that knowing them allows for satisfactory of  meanings, which functions as an aid to 
functioning in the target language; teaching explain semantic errors, was based on the 
and learning them is essential to form the detection of  the differences between semantic 
learners’ lexical competence (Nation, 1993), components constituting corresponding L1 
and this amount of  lexical items can be and L2 lexical items. The components, the 
expected of  learners having 6-7 years of  differences of  which can be interpreted as 
language learning experience on average. the explanation of  interlingual errors, were 
In the case of  errors stemming from other identified with the help of  the definitions 
sources even the subjective principles of  the Longman Dictionary of  Contemporary 
of  selection had to be ignored. These English and A Dictionary of  the Hungarian 
errors occurred in the learners’ sentences Language (Magyar értelmező kéziszótár). 
independently of  any kind of  elicitation or The results of  the error analysis 
influence.  procedure served as a basis of  the study 
Taking into consideration the above concerning the mental representations 
mentioned facts, and that the vocabulary of  semantic content and the nature of  L1 
of  a language can reach a volume of  influence. A self-account survey aimed 
hundred thousands, the study can be said to detect if  the learners knew or had 
to be highly selective. At the same time, encountered the 50 lexical item pairs selected, 
however, it gives a relatively accurate picture and a test paper (Appendix II) which looked 
of  the typical lexical errors committed by for the answer to the question whether the 
intermediate learners since – as a result of  learners were able to give an account of  the 
the homogenizing effect of  sources and differences between translation equivalent L1 
teaching materials used in the teaching and L2 lexical items were expected to verify 
practice of  Hungary – lexical competence in the hypothesis (see Research objectives).
the given population is characterized by the Parallel to taking the vocabulary test 
knowledge of  roughly the same vocabulary. (Appendix I), the learners were asked to 
In order to ease the recognition of  declare the knowledge or non-knowledge 
lexical errors, lexical items in the 50-sentence of  the selected lexical items. Also, a smaller 
test paper were elicited by providing L1 group of  learners (51 learners having 
and L2 contexts. Findings in connection intermediate language exams accredited in 
with meaning have also been formulated by Hungary) took a test designed to test the 
taking the contexts into consideration. knowledge of  differing semantic contents 
16 Anett  Biro, Interlingual lexical errors...pp. 11-30 Entre Lenguas. Vol. 14 Enero - Diciembre 2009
belonging to corresponding lexical items in Conceivably, the reason for the difference 
the two languages with the help of  20 lexical is that answers concerning the knowledge 
item pairs randomly selected from the errors of  the lexical items in question were based 
detected in the first phase of  the study. In on only one aspect of  knowing a word, 
this test the learners were first asked to namely the learners’ ability to connect L1 
identify identical and differing meanings; translation equivalents to L2 lexical items. 
and then to provide the main differences The results of  the test seem to highlight 
between the lexical items of  the pairs by deficiencies in the knowledge of  lexical 
giving definitions (Appendix II). items. The errors show the inadequate depth 
 of  vocabulary knowledge; and indicate 
5. Results missing or unsatisfactory knowledge of  
Different theories account for the semantic components, or difficulties in the 
existence of  L1 influence, which can take the recall and application of  known semantic 
form of  interference (the result of  proactive components responsible for the differences 
inhibition), strategic language use or wrong between meanings. These correspond with 
hypothesis formation. the definition of  strategic language use 
According to the findings revealed by although the findings of  the survey reveal 
the self-account survey, a large proportion that some aspects characterizing the strategic 
of  the learners declared the selected lexical use of  languages (e.g., consciousness and 
items to be known. [The learners marked recognized difficulty) do not seem to appear. 
three (0-18) lexical items on average as Thus the strategic use of  L1 (which is a 
unknown; markings concerned altogether means to compensate for the lack of  target 
38 % of  the lexical items; and 10.78 % language linguistic competence by turning 
of  the total number of  lexical items were consciously to the relevant structures or 
unknown for more than 10 % of  the 103 items of  the mother tongue) can be excluded 
learners]. The figures (see Table 1) give as an explanation for the occurrence of  L1 
reason for the inference that the lexical induced errors.
items in question did not trigger difficulties Similarly, interference as a possible 
causing strategic language use to take place. explanation can be abandoned, as according 
However, the answers given by the learners to the findings (see Tables 2 and 3) learners 
in the 50 sentence test paper run counter have deficient knowledge concerning L2 
to the findings of  the self-account survey, lexical items. This means that the inhibitory 
as there seems to be a significant difference nature of  L1 cannot operate by definition, 
between the number of  rightly selected since the condition for interference to take 
lexical items and the answers concerning place is the knowledge of  rules concerning 
the knowledge of  them (see Table 1). linguistic structures or items.
Anett  Biró , Interlingual lexical errors...pp. 11-30 Entre Lenguas. Vol. 14 Enero - Diciembre 2009 17
Table 1. Data concerning the knowledge of  the lexical items
Lexical item The proportion of  learners Right lexical  Wrong lexical 
declaring the lexical item selection (%) selection (%)
to be known (%)
1. vivid 58 - 3
2. shade 75 3 -
3. bathe 77 7 -
4. cuisine 80 22 -
5. fee 82 21 -
6. pitch 83 18 -
7. interval 83 6 -
8. tournament 86 8 -
9. custom (1) 88 - 4
10. custom (2) 88 12 -
11. opportunity 88 30 -
12. wear 90 - 11
13. toe 90 21 -
14. court 91 - 17
15. competition 91 - 29
16. expect 92 8 -
17. injured (1) 92 - 4
18. injured (2) 92 32 -
19. reason 92 - 34
20. explore 93 10 -
21. last 93 22 -
22. bank 93 - 4
23. damaged (1) 94 27 -
24. damaged (2) 94 - 1
25. silent 95 - 19
26. bake 95 - 26
27. shadow 95 - 72
28. carry (1) 95 16 -
29. carry (2) 95 37 -
30. habit (1) 95 52 -
31. habit (2) 95 - 34
32. roast 97 7 -
33. journey 97 61 -
34. lively 97 20 -
35. prize 97 - 7
36. act 97 23 -
37. coast 97 31 -
38. step 97 16 -
39. ground 98 - 9
18 Anett  Biro, Interlingual lexical errors...pp. 11-30 Entre Lenguas. Vol. 14 Enero - Diciembre 2009
40. race 98 20 -
41. countryside 98 2 -
42. job 100 72 -
43. work 100 - 26
44. bath 100 - 53
45. leave (1) 100 59 -
46. start 100 - 31
47. take (1) 100 - 32
48. take (2) 100 - 26
49. boil 100 44 -
50. cook 100 - 49
51. correct 100 65 -
52. repair 100 - 3
53. discover 100 - 62
54. keep (1) 100 - 8
55. keep (2) 100 - 14
56. hold 100 54 -
57. leave (2) 100 16 -
58. finish 100 - 57
59. play 100 - 70
60. watch 100 52 -
61. look 100 - 3
62. wait 100 - 76
63. study 100 76 -
64. learn 100 - 18
65. break (1) 100 53 -
66. break (2) 100 - 34
67. pause (2) 100 - 27
68. building 100 25 -
69. house 100 - 54
70. cause 100 27 -
71. championship 100 - 55
72. relation 100 6 -
73. relationship 100 - 49
74. dish 100 45 -
75. food 100 - 36
76. clothes 100 83 -
77. dress 100 - 10
78. finger 100 - 54
79. floor 100 68 -
80. kitchen 100 - 25
81. wood 100 47 -
82. tree 100 - 28
Anett  Biró , Interlingual lexical errors...pp. 11-30 Entre Lenguas. Vol. 14 Enero - Diciembre 2009 19
83. foot 100 29 -
84. leg 100 - 17
85. error 100 6 -
86. mistake 100 - 38
87. nature 100 - 83
88. room 100 8 -
89. place 100 - 72
90. possibility 100 - 11
91. stair 100 - 48
92. road 100 39 -
93. street 100 - 1
94. way 100 - 47
95. travel 100 - 13
96. great 100 63 -
97. big 100 - 12
98. clear 100 58 -
99. clean 100 - 17
100. high 100 55 -
101. tall 100 - 29
102. quiet 100 21 -
As neither interference nor strategic item, thus indirectly conceptual and semantic 
language use can serve as an explanation for representations associated with the L2 item 
the emergence of  L1 induced lexical errors, get connected to the L1 as well (Kroll, 1993; 
a third alternative should be considered. Potter & Kroll, 1987; Snodgrass, 1984). 
According to this alternative the presence Target language meanings are subordinated 
of  L1 influence in L2 sentences and to L1 meanings. The formation of  this kind 
utterances is explicable with the help of  of  special organization is enhanced by several 
the organization of  the learner’s mental factors. One of  them is the monolingual 
lexicon, which is highly influenced by language learning setting, which makes it 
the setting in which the language is being difficult for the learner to grasp language-
learned. In accordance with the hierarchical specific conceptual representations and 
bilingual model by Kroll and Stewart (1994), meanings belonging to L2 lexical items. The 
which characterizes particularly non-fluent others are certain features of  the language 
(Dufour & Kroll, 1995; Heredia, 1996) learning and teaching practice, such as 
learners learning the foreign language in an defining meaning with the help of  translation 
instructed, institutionalized, formal setting, equivalence and forming lexical competence 
special links are established between the by memorizing bilingual word pairs. As the 
conceptual-semantic representations, the learner does not get sufficient information 
mother tongue and the target language about the meaning of  the L2 lexical item 
lexical items. The learner connects the L2 (Nation, 1993), L2 conceptual and semantic 
lexical item to the corresponding L1 lexical representations remain deficient or wrong.
20 Anett  Biro, Interlingual lexical errors...pp. 11-30 Entre Lenguas. Vol. 14 Enero - Diciembre 2009
On the basis of  the abovementioned The findings reflect the correctness 
hypothesis the following assumptions of  the hypothesis. The data show that – 
can be made: errors arise as a result of  although regarding certain lexical items 
associations made between an L1 conceptual (see Table 2) the learners are aware of  the 
representation (and by this means, between differences – in the case of  numerous lexical 
the semantic components of  an L1 lexical items a large proportion of  the learners 
item) and a L2 lexical item, i.e., the learner presume the lexical-semantic identity of  
presumes semantic equivalence and cannot the translation equivalent lexical item pairs, 
give an account of  the differences because which indicates that L2 conceptual and 
of  the lack or deficiency of  direct L2 semantic representations are linked to the 
conceptual and semantic representations. first language.
Table 2. Hungarian-English translation equivalent lexical item pairs selected on the basis of  an 
error analysis procedure, and the knowledge of  the differences between their meanings 
Hungarian-English The proportion of  The proportion Missing 
translation equivalent lexical learners assuming of  learners answer (%)
item pairs semantic equivalence (%) recognizing 
difference (%)
1. süt – fry 2 98 0
2. néz – watch 31 59 10
3. ház – house 90 8 2
4. verseny – race 14 80 6
5. étel – dish 21 75 4
6. ujj – finger 57 43 0
7. föld – floor 4 96 0
8. ruha – dress 10 82 8
9. láb – leg 61 33 6
10. pálya – court 25 57 18
11. tiszta – clear 43 47 10
12. lépcső – stairs 53 35 12
13. javít – repair 45 51 4
14. hely – place 61 16 23
15. busz – bus 67 31 2
16. asztal – table 69 23 8
17. vőlegény – bridegroom 77 21 2
18. zenekar – band 29 59 12
19. nagy – great 8 82 10
20. virág – plant 2 94 4
Anett  Biró , Interlingual lexical errors...pp. 11-30 Entre Lenguas. Vol. 14 Enero - Diciembre 2009 21
The semantic difference between the imperfect L2 representations in the learners’ 
Hungarian-English translation equivalent minds, and on the lack, incompleteness 
lexical items introduced in Table 2 is the fact or incorrectness of  knowledge regarding 
that the English lexical items are semantically semantic components responsible for 
more complex with several restrictive semantic differences. In a number of  
semantic components; while the Hungarian cases, learners able to recognize differences 
lexical items are semantically indefinite, have between the meanings of  translation 
more underspecified, underdifferentiated equivalent lexical items were incapable of  
meanings, and cover a more extended defining differing semantic components, and 
domain of  reference. accounting for the nature of  the difference. 
A further analysis of  the data was This verifies the hypothesis according to 
aimed at detecting the awareness about the which interlingual errors are induced by 
nature and characteristics of  the differences. incomplete L2 lexical representations in the 
The results threw light on the existence of  learner’s mind (see Table 3).
Table 3. Hungarian-English translation equivalent lexical item pairs selected on the basis of  an 
error analysis procedure, and the knowledge of  L2 semantic components responsible for the 
differences between their meanings
Hungarian-English Semantic component 1 Semantic component 2
translation equivalent The proportion of  learners The proportion of  learners knowing 
lexical item pairs knowing the semantic component the semantic component responsible 
responsible for the difference (%) for the difference (%)
1. süt – fry  [in hot fat or oil] [small pieces]
94 0
2. néz – watch [happening]
0
3. ház – house [used by one family]
0
4. verseny – race [speed]
29
5. étel – dish [food cooked or prepared in a 
particular way]
57
6. ujj – finger [hand] [not thumb]
55 0
22 Anett  Biro, Interlingual lexical errors...pp. 11-30 Entre Lenguas. Vol. 14 Enero - Diciembre 2009
7. föld – floor [indoors]
67
8. ruha – dress [worn by a woman or a girl] [from shoulder to somewhere on 
the leg]
63 41
9. láb – leg [long part of  the body that feet 
are joined to]
10
10. pálya – court [certain sports] [e.g. tennis, squash]
18 20
11. tiszta – clear [air, water] [clean and fresh]
0 2
12. lépcső – stairs [indoors]
18
13. javít – repair [tangible object] [damaged, broken or not working 
properly]
24 10
14. hely – place [a particular point in space] [for a particular purpose]
2 2
15. busz – bus [not long journey]
27
16. asztal – table [for a particular purpose: e.g. 
eating]
22
17. vőlegény – [on the day of  the wedding]
bridegroom 18
18. zenekar – band [smaller group of  musicians] [popular music]
6 22
19. nagy – great [very good, excellent]
71
20. virág – plant [houseplant]
55
Anett  Biró , Interlingual lexical errors...pp. 11-30 Entre Lenguas. Vol. 14 Enero - Diciembre 2009 23
Besides the semantic components and L2 translation equivalent lexical items 
identified in the course of  error analysis and provided a number of  wrong semantic 
introduced in Table 3, learners recognizing components as explanations for the 
the differences between the meanings of  L1 differences (see Table 4).
Table 4. Wrong semantic components provided by the learners, and the proportion of  learners 
unable to explain the differences between L1 and L2 meanings
English lexical items Wrong semantic components (total %) Missing answer (%)
1. fry 2
[deliberately]
[indirectly]
2. watch [for a longer period of  time] 25
[attentively]
[a particular object] 18
3. house [apartment block] 6 0
[several people]
[several teams]
4. race 2
[people]
[rarely mental] 10
[used for serving food]
5. dish 0
[dish] 24
6. finger [human] 2 2
[corridor]
7. floor [level in a building] 0
[earth] 29
[evening]
8. dress [swimming] 12
[doing sports] 8
[animate]
[human]
9. leg [chair] 12
[concrete, definite]
[from the knee] 20
24 Anett  Biro, Interlingual lexical errors...pp. 11-30 Entre Lenguas. Vol. 14 Enero - Diciembre 2009
[golf]
[law]
[outdoor ballgame]
10. court 0
[car race]
[competition]
[game] 31
11. clear
[in a physical sense] 4 8
[one of  a set]
[indoors or outdoors]
12. stairs 8
[level of  a building]
[part of  a building] 16
13. repair [not with tools] 2 4
14. place [room] 6
[open space]
[empty area] 8
15. bus 4
16. table 2
17. bridegroom 29
18. band [instrumental] 4
[not necessarily instrumental] 4
19. great 4
20. plant 2
6. Conclusions lexical meanings. L2 lexical knowledge is 
The results gained from the tests unsatisfactory and characterized by the lack 
seem to verify the hypothesis that non- of  a separate, language-specific semantic 
fluent learners of  Hungarian mother tongue system. L2 lexical items are stored in the 
learning English as a foreign language in a mental lexicon with L1 meanings, which 
formal, monolingual setting are not aware are the source, cause, and explanation of  
of  the differences between L1 and L2 interlingual lexical errors (Kroll, 1993). 
Anett  Biró , Interlingual lexical errors...pp. 11-30 Entre Lenguas. Vol. 14 Enero - Diciembre 2009 25
Learners employing the one-to-one- (pp. 353-366). Veszprém: Veszprémi 
correspondence hypothesis consider the Egyetemi Kiadó. 
mother tongue to be the basis of  hypothesis 
formation, and – without adequate ways Coleman, J. (1998). Cognitive reality and the 
of  raising awareness regarding lexico- phonological lexicon: A review. Journal 
semantic differences – they are unable to of  Neurolinguistics, 11 (3), 295-320.
form complete L2 mental representations, 
which increase the chance of  fossilization. Corder, S. P. (1973). Introducing applied 
Raising awareness by focusing on lexical linguistics. England: Penguin.
contrasts can also help improve the lexical 
competence of  learners who recognize De Groot, A. B. M. (1993). Word type 
semantic differences, as according to the effects in bilingual processing tasks 
findings the basis to distinguish language- (support for a mixed-representational 
specific meanings is unstable, and stems system). In R. Schreuder & B. Weltens 
from a number of  false hypotheses. (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp. 27-52). 
In conclusion, the findings draw Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 
attention to the necessity of  a more 
effective control of  learning, which can Dufour, R., & Kroll, J. F. (1995). Matching 
be made feasible with the help of  raising words to concepts in two languages: A 
awareness regarding semantic contrasts test of  the concept mediation model 
between the two languages. In order to of  bilingual representation. Memory and 
achieve an improvement in L2 lexical Cognition, 23, 166-180.
competence, differences between semantic 
components comprising L1 and L2 lexical Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (1994). Second 
items must be highlighted and emphasized. language acquisition. London: Lawrence 
Otherwise, learners will be trapped in their Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
own associations stemming from the first 
language, and erroneous utterances will Grosjean, F. (1988). Exploring the 
characterize their L2 performance. recognition of  guest words in bilingual 
speech. Language and Cognitive Processes, 
E-mail: biroannet@freemail.hu 3, 233-274.
Heredia, R. R. (1996). Bilingual memory: A 
References re-revised version of  the hierarchical 
model of  bilingual memeory. CRL 
Budai, L. (2002). Angol hibaigazító. Budapest: Newsletter, 10 (3). [On-line] Available: 
Corvina. http://crl.ucsd.edu/newsletter/10-3/
Budai L. (2006). The key role of  semanticizing Juhász, J., Szőke, I., Nagy, G., & Kovalovszky, 
in foreign language teaching. In J. M. (Eds.) (1982). Magyar értelmező 
Bárdos (Ed.), HUSSE Papers 2005 kéziszótár. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
26 Anett  Biro, Interlingual lexical errors...pp. 11-30 Entre Lenguas. Vol. 14 Enero - Diciembre 2009
Kiefer, F. (2000). Jelentéselmélet. Budapest: Nation, P. (1993). Vocabulary size, growth 
Corvina. and use. In R. Schreuder & B. Weltens 
(Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp. 115-
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition 134). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John 
and second language learning. Oxford: Benjamins. 
Pergamon Press.
Odlin, T. (2003). Cross-linguistic influence. 
Kroll, J. (1993). Accessing conceptual In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.) 
representation for words in second The handbook of  second language acquisition 
language. In R. Schreuder & B. Weltens (pp. 436-486). Oxford: Blackwell. 
(Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp. 53-
82). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Potter, M. C., & Kroll, J. F. (1987). The 
Benjamins. conceptual representation of  pictures 
and words: A reply to Clark. Journal of  
Kroll, J., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category Experimental Psychology, 116, 310-311.
interference in translation and picture 
naming: Evidence for assymetric Richards, J. (Ed.) (1974). Error analysis. 
connections between bilingual memory London: Longman.
representations. Journal of  Memory and 
Language, 33, 149-174. Sharwood-Smith, M. (1994). Second language 
learning: Theoretical foundations. London: 
Krzeszowski, P. T. (1984). Tertium Longman.
comparationis. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), 
Contrastive linguistics: prospects and Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second 
problems (pp. 301-13). Berlin, New language learning. London: Edward 
York, Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyer. Arnold.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). How Snodgrass, J. G. (1984). Concepts and their 
languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford surface representations. Journal of  
University Press. Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 23, 
23-38.
Longman Dictionary of  Contemporary English. 
(1995). 3rd edition. London: Longman. White, L. (1989). Universal grammar and 
second language acquisition. Amsterdam, 
Marton, W. (1986). Language learner’s errors Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
in a pedagogical perspective. In D. 
Kastovsky & A. Szwedek (Eds.), Trends 
in linguistics. Linguistics across historical and 
geographical boundaries. Vol. 2.: Descriptive Este artículo fue presentado a Entre Lenguas en junio 
and applied linguistics (pp. 1357-1376). de 2008, revisado en septiembre de 2008 y aprobado 
Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: definitivamente para su publicación en diciembre de 
Mouton de Gruyer. 2008.
Anett  Biró , Interlingual lexical errors...pp. 11-30 Entre Lenguas. Vol. 14 Enero - Diciembre 2009 27
Appendix I
A 50-sentence test paper providing errors for the EA procedure
FELADAT (TASK): A magyar mondatnak megfelelően egészítse ki az angol mondatot a 
megfelelő angol szóval! (Complete the English sentences with the English equivalents of  
the Hungarian words in italics.)
1. Az lesz a munkája, hogy könyveket ad el egy boltban. Her ……………. will be selling 
books in a shop.
2. Meleg napokon gyakran fürdünk a folyóban. On hot days we often …………. in the river.
3. A vonat 7-kor indul. The train ………………. at 7 o’clock.
4. Mindig hordott esernyőt. She always ………………. an umbrella.
5. A teve 400 fontnyi súlyt tud vinni. A camel can ………………… as much as 400 pounds.
6. Tudod, hogy kell tojást főzni? Do you know how to ……………. an egg?
7. Húst süt a sütőben. She is ………………… meat in the oven.
8. A tanár fogalmazásokat javít. The teacher is ………… essays.
9. John Skóciában van, hogy felfedezze. John is in Scotland ………………. it.
10. A tél hat hosszú hónapig fog tartani. Winter will ……………. six long months.
11. Egy könyvet tart a kezében. She is …………….. a book in her hands.
12. A fia jövőre fejezi be az iskolát. His son will ………… school next year.
13. Nagyszerűen játszott a filmben. She …………… superbly in the film.
14. Elmentünk megnézni a focimeccset. We went to ………………. the football match.
15. Vacsorára fogjuk őket várni. We will …………….. them for dinner.
16. A Gordon Egyetemen tanul. She is ………………. at Gordon University.
17. 24 órát dolgoztunk szünet nélkül. We have worked 24 hours without a ……………….. .
18. Az első felvonás után volt egy szünet. There was a/an ……………… after the first act.
19. Egy nagy ház harmadik emeletén lakom. I live on the third floor of  a tall ………………. .
20. A tűz oka gázszivárgás volt. The …….. of/ ………… for the fire was a gas leak.
21. Mindig részt vesz a teniszbajnokságban. He always takes part in the tennis ……………. 
22. A gaelt Skócia nyugati partján beszélik. Gaelic is spoken on the West ………… of  Scotland.
23. Sok pénzt költ lóversenyre. She spends a lot of  money on horse ……………………… .
24. Magyarországnak jó a kapcsolata Franciaországgal. Hungary has a good …….. with France.
28 Anett  Biro, Interlingual lexical errors...pp. 11-30 Entre Lenguas. Vol. 14 Enero - Diciembre 2009
25. Fizetnie kell különböző díjakat és a kiadásait. He has to pay different ……………. and his 
living expenses.
26. A gulyás híres magyar étel. Goulash is a famous Hungarian ……………. .
27. Vett néhány új ruhát. He has bought some new ……………….. .
28. Megsértettem a bal lábam egy ujját. I hurt a ……………. of  my left foot.
29. Amikor beléptem a szobába, láttam egy kést a földön. When I entered the room, I saw a 
knife on the …………. .
30. Hazudni rossz szokás. Telling lies is a bad …………… .
31. A kínaiaknak furcsa szokásaik vannak. The Chinese have strange …………… .
32. Szeretem a thai konyhát. I like Thai ……………. .
33. A fiúk fát aprítanak. The boys are chopping ………… .
34. A falu a domb lábánál helyezkedik el. The village is situated at the ………… of  the hill.
35. A balesetet emberi hiba okozta. The accident was the result of  human …………… .
36. Nagyszerű a természetben sétálni. It is wonderful to go for a walk in the …………….. .
37. Van elég hely számomra az autóban? Is there enough …………. for me in the car?
38. Az iskolánknak van egy futballpályája. Our school has a football ……………… .
39. Ezúttal elszalasztottad a lehetőséget. You’ve let the …………… slip this time.
40. A múzeum lépcsőjén fogunk velük találkozni. We will meet them on the …………. of  the 
museum.
41. Az erdőbe vezető út hosszú és kanyargós. The …………. to the woods is long and winding.
42. A hőmérő 40 fokot mutat árnyékban. The thermometer gives 40° in the ……………. .
43. Milyen hosszú volt az utazás? How long was your …………….?
44. Napoleon nagy ember volt. Napoleon was a …………. man.
45. Az ég tiszta volt. The sky was ………….. .
46. Milyen magas az a hegy? How ………… is that mountain?
47. Csendes életet éltek. They led a ………… life.
48. Az autó megsérült a balesetben. The car was ……………. in the accident.
49. John megsérült a balesetben. John was ………….. in the accident.
50. Ő egy nagyon élénk lány. She is a very ……………. girl.
Anett  Biró , Interlingual lexical errors...pp. 11-30 Entre Lenguas. Vol. 14 Enero - Diciembre 2009 29
Appendix II
A test designed to test the knowledge of  the differing semantic components of  
selected translation equivalent lexical items
FELADAT (TASK): A következő 20 magyar-angol szópár mindkét tagjához írjon magyar 
nyelven rövid definíciót, majd döntse el a két szó jelentése megegyezik-e a két nyelvben vagy 
eltér! Amennyiben Ön szerint a két szó jelentése valamilyen tekintetben különbözik, fogalmazza 
meg az eltérés lényegét! (Please, give a short Hungarian definition of  each member of  the 
following 20 lexical item pairs, and decide whether the two lexical items have identical or 
different meanings in the two languages. In the latter case, please, explain the difference.)
Pl. (e. g.)
templom: istentisztelet számára fenntartott church: istentisztelet számára fenntartott épület 
épület (a building where people go to (a building where people go to worship)
worship)
A két jelentés (the meanings are) egyezik (the same) / eltér (different)  
Eltérés (Difference): church: keresztény vallás (where Christians go)
1. süt:
A két jelentés egyezik / eltér  Eltérés: fry:
2. néz: watch:
A két jelentés egyezik / eltér  Eltérés:
3. ház:
A két jelentés egyezik / eltér  Eltérés: house:
4. verseny:
A két jelentés egyezik / eltér  Eltérés: race:
5. étel:
A két jelentés egyezik / eltér  Eltérés: dish:
6. ujj:
A két jelentés egyezik / eltér  Eltérés: finger:
30 Anett  Biro, Interlingual lexical errors...pp. 11-30 Entre Lenguas. Vol. 14 Enero - Diciembre 2009
7. föld:
A két jelentés egyezik / eltér  Eltérés: floor:
8. ruha:
A két jelentés egyezik / eltér  Eltérés: dress:
9. láb:
A két jelentés egyezik / eltér  Eltérés: leg:
10. pálya:
A két jelentés egyezik / eltér  Eltérés: court:
11. tiszta: clear:
A két jelentés egyezik / eltér  Eltérés:
12. lépcső: stairs:
A két jelentés egyezik / eltér  Eltérés:
13. javít: repair:
A két jelentés egyezik / eltér  Eltérés:
14. hely: place:
A két jelentés egyezik / eltér  Eltérés:
15. busz: bus:
A két jelentés egyezik / eltér  Eltérés:
16. asztal:
A két jelentés egyezik / eltér  Eltérés: table:
17. vőlegény:A két jelentés egyezik / eltér 
 Eltérés: bridegroom:
18. zenekar:
A két jelentés egyezik / eltér  Eltérés: band:
19. nagy: great:
A két jelentés egyezik / eltér  Eltérés:
20. virág:
A két jelentés egyezik / eltér  Eltérés: plant: