INTRODUCTION

The methodology of teaching Russian as a foreign language considers the main purpose of the process as the achievement of a certain level of communicative competence by students, which includes several components. Many researchers mention such components of communicative competence as speech, language, subject, country studies, socio-cultural, sociolinguistic, etc. Among them are Himelfarb (Himelfarb: 2019, pp. 151-163); R.A. Fahrutdinova, I.E.Yarmakeev, R.R. Fakhrutdinov (Fahrutdinova et al.: 2014, pp. 36- 46); M.Yu. Varlamova, T.G. Bochina, A.N. Miftakhova (Varlamova et al.: 2016, pp. 190-194).

The formulation of the learning goal through the concept of communicative competence demands periodic testing, the positive results of which are an objective confirmation of the success of the entire learning process. In addition to control functions, the testing process has several other functions: educational, motivational, research, diagnostic, etc. Diagnostic function, common to all forms of control allows us to determine mistakes and to identify the most typical mistakes after the analysis. This, in turn, makes it possible to diagnose the learning system in which language training was functioning and adjust it accordingly.

Large material is received from the analysis of test results in large groups of students, homogeneous in terms of age, national characteristics, conditions in which the process of learning took place, and which were before the testing process. It allows adjusting the content of training according to the program of a particular level, to coordinate training tactics, as well as to prepare guidelines for the organization of the entire learning process. Much attention was paid to this fact in the works of Abramova (Abramova et al.: 2013, pp. 99-103). The analysis of the most typical mistakes, carried out according to the results of the test, helps to identify both difficulties of a universal nature, and lexical-grammatical and speech material that causes interference, which is of particular difficulty for foreign students.

The understanding of the achieved level of mastering the grammar of the studied language, understanding the mistakes, shortcomings in the work, and new tasks are very important in the process of learning the language by adult students. It was studied in the following work by I.E. Yarmakeev, T.S. Pimenova (Yarmakeev & Pimenova: 2014, pp. 26-35). In other words, test control always has an educational aspect in general meaning.

METHODS

The methods used in the research are descriptive, comparative, lexical, and semantic analysis, and the method of component analysis.

This work aimed to find out the relation between the results of comparative linguistic analysis, the systematization of mistakes in testing, the realization of the intentions set by the standard of a certain level.

The actuality of this work can be explained by the importance of studying the functions of test control, the role of test results studies in the adjustment of training content to the program of a particular level, and training tactics.

RESULTS

The problem of determining foreign language proficiency levels is particularly relevant in connection with the expansion of international cooperation and integration of Russia into the European educational space. The European system of language levels, based on a communicative approach and including all types of speech activity, has been developed for modern languages. It is reflected in the European document published in Strasbourg (Council of Europe: 2001).

Russian language standards, programs, lexical minimums, and control and measurement materials have been created, including six certification levels of Russian language proficiency. The problem was studied inStandards tests for six levels for Russian as a foreign language, for example, we may take (Rasskazova: 2017). Special types of mistakes called "the mistake of the level" appeared. The first certification level involves the knowledge of the use of the nouns and adjectives case system. Accordingly, if the user has not formed this skill, we can say that they have mistaken of the first certification level.

The quality of mistakes and their number in speech, i.e. density, frequency, and so on, also affect the result of the speech product. Qualitative indicators formed the basis for criteria for evaluating the level of training in productive and receptive types of speech activity during testing Russian as a foreign language. This problem was studied in the work by J.V. Kapralova, E.G. Shtyrlina, Y.V. Diaz (Kapralova et al.: 2019).

Various studies are conducted based on mistakes: linguists traditionally use mistakes to research in thefield of comparative linguistics, psychologists – in the field of development of the theory of speech activity in General, methodologists, and psycholinguists – in the field of solving problems related to the content of the learning process and the quality and effectiveness of students ' activities in mastering a foreign language.

The most common basis for classifying mistakes in the speech of foreign students in lingua didactic practice is mistakes related to aspects of the language: - phonetic aspect (phonetic, rhythmic-intonation errors)- grammatical aspect (morphological, word-forming, syntactic errors), - lexical aspect (violation of lexical compatibility, incorrect word usage, misunderstanding of the phenomenon of polysemy, mistakes in the use of synonyms, homonyms, antonyms, paronyms).

Taking into account the priority of communicative competence allows using the language system for perception and reproduction in oral and written forms. It should also be noted about the need to study the entire volume of lexical and grammatical mistakes associated with violations of not only grammatical, but also lexical norms, with violations of accuracy, clarity, logic of word usage, with a misunderstanding of the semantics of the Russian word, lexical compatibility, the polysemy of words, synonyms, antonyms, homonyms, and others.

Analysis of the most frequent mistakes that are found in the test subjects in oral and written speech shows that students often have difficulties in solving certain communication problems. The same difficulties they have when expressing the intentions of a certain standard level. These difficulties may be caused by the following factors: interference of the native language or intermediary language (often English); insufficient training of grammatical forms at the receptive level; lack of certain knowledge about the correspondence of grammatical forms to certain situations where they should be used; the unformed skill of productive oral and written speech, which dramatically increases the number of lexical and grammar mistakes in the most productive speech; lack of choice of language material, which is a result of insufficiently formed skills of the transformation of language units, selection of synonyms, replacement of syntactic constructions with synonymous ones, etc.

The need to develop the skills of grammatically correct use of statements, both in receptive form and in reproductive and productive forms, requires constant systematic work. These skills are the basis of any type of speech activity in a foreign language. Developing these skills and controlling their degree of development are two inextricably linked aspects of learning. Awareness of the achieved level of mastering the grammar of a new language, understanding their mistakes, shortcomings in the work, and new tasks are considered obligatory in the process of learning the language by adult students. In other words, test control has always educational character in a broad sense.

Therefore, there is a need to collect and study information about the typical and most frequent mistakesin the speech of foreigners who master the Russian language. This kind of work helps to identify areas of potential mistakes and find ways to prevent them (Zubkov: 2019, pp. 51-56). The methodology of teaching Russian as a foreign language considers the main goal of training as the achievement of a certain level of communicative competence by students, and this includes several components. There are such components of communicative competence as speech, language, subject, country studies, socio-cultural, sociolinguistic, and discursive competence. Much attention is paid to this problem in Scientific and methodological essays inthe Terminological dictionary (Dolzhikova et al.: 2015, p. 93) and in the work of M.Y. Varlamova, T.G. Bochina, Sh.K. Zharkynbekova (Varlamova et al.: 2017, pp. 2502-2507).

The formulation of the learning goal through the concept of communicative competence entails periodic testing, the positive results of which are an objective confirmation of the success of the entire learning process.

Besides the control function, testing has several other functions: motivational, research, diagnostic, and so on. The diagnostic function which can be found in all types of control is shown in the fact that the control results allow us to determine the mistakes, to study them, to identify the most typical. This, in turn, makes it possible to diagnose the system of education in which the language training was conducted, and adjust it accordingly (Yüce: 2019, pp. 75-86).

A large amount of material is provided by processing test results of large groups of students who are homogeneous in terms of age, national characteristics, and learning conditions that precede the testing process. It allows you to adjust the content of training about the program of a particular level, training tactics, as well as to prepare methodological recommendations for the organization of the entire learning process. The analysis and systematization of the most typical mistakes carried out based on test results, help to identify both difficulties that have a universal character, and lexical-grammatical and speech material that causes interference, i.e., particularly difficult for foreign students from this country. Such work is extremely useful and has a positive impact on the results of subsequent testing.

The analysis of the most frequent mistakes found in the test subjects in oral and written speech shows that students often have difficulties in solving certain communication tasks and in expressing the intentions of a certain level standard. Very often difficulties are found if it is necessary to express negation, often problems are found when there is a communicative need to express the presence of something. Many mistakes occur when expressing modality (desires, opportunities, and ought) when there is a need to express the place and the direction. When it is necessary to express time, students make mistakes and do not use correctly perfect and imperfect verbs, especially in the future tense of verbs of motion. In this case, it is advisable to offer students a special test aimed at training skills of expressing intentions in which the use of this grammar must be used.

Traditionally, there are also problems when students must use numerals. They also prefer not to use the imperative forms of verbs. Students often find it difficult to express the request, advice, or invitation. That is why it may be recommended to repeat the imperative forms of all the verbs included in the lexical minimum, followed by active use of them in speech situations. It is important to create situations in which they cannot avoid the forms of the expression of requests, advice, and invitation.

Often students find it difficult to express their assessment. In this case, mistakes are caused both by incorrect use of lexical units (including the lack of the necessary lexical unit in the student's dictionary) and by unformed grammatical skills, the fact that the corresponding models of a simple sentence were not mastered. Problems with the use of verbs of motion are often caused by both the difficulty of choosing the correct verb itself and the lack of knowledge on how to use it in combination with nouns (sometimes both at the same time).

It should be noted that mistakes related to verbal (as well as nominal) management are among the most common in the oral and written speech of students. Of course, during the educational process, new vocabulary is introduced in the sequence that is determined by the solved communicative tasks, but sometimes it is advisable to make groups of lexical units according to common management to systematize grammatical material. Positive results can be achieved much faster if lists of words (verbs, nouns, adverbs, prepositions) requiring one, and the same case is offered to students. Often students demonstrate the insufficient formation of lexical skills, for example, they cannot clearly distinguish the use of reflexive and transitive verbs of the same stem.

DISCUSSION

The formulation of the learning goal through the concept of communicative competence entails periodic testing, the positive results of which are an objective confirmation of the success of the entire learning process.

Besides the control function, testing has several other functions: motivational, research, diagnostic, and so on. The diagnostic function which can be found in all types of control is shown in the fact that the control results allow us to determine the mistakes, to study them, to identify the most typical. This, in turn, makes it possible to diagnose the system of education.

The skills of grammatically correct use of statements, both in receptive form and in reproductive and productive forms, require constant systematic work. These skills are the basis of any type of speech activity in a foreign language.

Analysis and systematization of students ' mistakes in testing allow to detect the absence of a particular component of communicative competence and help to intensify the preparation of students for testing, make the learning process more effective, increases the motivation of students, and improve test results.

Students’ typical mistakes represent the actual material which helps to determine an adequate strategyin the process of language learning. The results of comparative linguistic analysis serve as a scientifically lingua didactic basis for teaching a foreign language, including Russian as a foreign language. As we can see, test control always has an educational aspect in a broad sense.

CONCLUSION

Thus, we have concluded that there is a great need for pedagogical reflection in the process of collecting and processing objective information about typical and most frequent mistakes in the speech of students who master the Russian language, and it makes it possible to identify areas of potential mistakes and determine ways to prevent them.

It has been found out that there is the relation between the results of comparative linguistic analysis, the systematization of mistakes in testing and the achievement of the main purpose of training - mastery of a certain level of communicative competence for the realization of the intentions set by the standard of the certain level.

BIODATA

O.V. STAROSTINA: Olga Vyacheslavovna Starostina, Born in 1984. K. Phil. In 2006 she graduated from the philological faculty of KSU named after IN AND. Ulyanov-Lenin. Specialty: Philologist, teacher. Qualification: Teacher of Russian language and literature. She defended her thesis “The Functioning of LSG Water Units in Silver Age Poetry” in 2017. Senior Lecturer, Department of Russian as a Foreign Language, IFMK, KFU. Research interests: lexicology, semantics, Russian as a foreign language.

G.V. CHUMAKOVA: Galina Valentinovna Chumakova, Born in 1959. In 1982 she graduated from the faculty of foreign languages of KSPU. Specialty: English, German. Qualification: Teacher of English, German. Senior Lecturer, Department of Humanities, Preparatory Faculty for Foreign Students, KFU. Research interests: a typology of languages, Russian as a foreign language, translation problems, technology.

S.M. PETROVA: Svetlana Maksimovna Petrova, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences In 1967 she graduated from Yakutsk State University, Specialty: Philologist. Qualification: Teacher of Russian language and literature. She defended her doctoral dissertation “Interconnected study of Russian, native, foreign literature in the Yakut school” in 1996. Professor, Head of the Department of Russian as a Foreign Language, NEFU M.K. Amosova. Research interests: Features of the study of foreign literature in a national school; Actual problems of the interrelated study of literature in high school and school; problems of vocational training of a language teacher at a national university; the place of literature in the system of teaching Russian as a foreign language; graphic- symbolic analysis of a work of art in high school and school as innovative educational technology.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABRAMOVA, I, ANANYINA, A, & SHISHMOLINA, E (2013). “Challenges in teaching Russian students to speak English”. American Journal of Educational Research, 1(3), pp. 99-103.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE. Council for Cultural Co-operation. Education Committee. Modern Languages Division (2001). “Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment”. Cambridge University Press.

DOLZHIKOVA, AV, KURILENKO, VB, IVANOVA, AS, POMORTSEVA, NV, & KULIKOVA, EY (2015).“Russian as a foreign language interview test for Russian Federation citizenship applicants: Structure and content”. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(4), p. 93.

FAHRUTDINOVA, RA, YARMAKEEV, IE, & FAKHRUTDINOV, RR (2014). “The Formation of Students'Foreign Language Communicative Competence during the Learning Process of the English Language throughInteractive Learning Technologies (The Study based on Kazan Federal University)”. English Language Teaching, 7(12), pp. 36-46.

HIMELFARB, I (2019). “A primer on standardized testing: History, measurement, classical test theory, item response theory, and equating”. Journal of Chiropractic Education, 33(2), pp. 151-163.

KAPRALOVA, J, SHTYRLINA, E, & DÍAZ, Y (2019). “The use of digital space in teaching Russian as a foreign language to “Digital natives””. SCOPUS-2019-11-8-SID85071031268.

RASSKAZOVA, T, MUZAFAROVA, A, DAMINOVA, J, & OKHOTNIKOVA, A (2017). “Assessing Russianuniversity students’ foreign language competence: challenges and prospects”. In INTED (11th annual International Technology, Education and Development Conference).

VARLAMOVA, MY, BOCHINA, TG, & MIFTAKHOVA, AN (2016). “Interactivity in teaching a foreign language”. J. Lang. Lit, 7(3), pp. 190-194.

VARLAMOVA, MY, BOCHINA, TG, & ZHARKYNBEKOVA, SK (2017). “Courses of open education in the system of foreign language teaching”. Revista QUID, (1), pp. 2502-2507.

YARMAKEEV, IE, & PIMENOVA, TS (2014). “The Formation of Students' National Self-Awareness in EFL Class”. English Language Teaching, 7(12), pp. 26-35.

YÜCE, E (2019). “Possible problems in online foreign language teaching at a university context”. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 11(2), pp. 75-86.

ZUBKOV, A (2019). “Integration MOOC on creativity and entrepreneurship into tertiary foreign language teaching”. Economic and Social Development: Book of Proceedings, pp. 51-56.