742
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 5
INVESTIGATING INTERLANGUAGE GRAMMAR: THE INFLUENCE OF NATIVE
SYNTAX ON ENGLISH SENTENCE CONSTRUCTION
Otajonova Mahliyo Bahrom kizi
The teacher of History and philology department, Asia International University.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15448810
Abstract. This article explores the phenomenon of interlanguage grammar with a
particular focus on the influence of native syntactic structures on English sentence construction
among second language (L2) learners. It draws on theoretical foundations from second language
acquisition (SLA) and contrastive analysis to examine how native language (L1) syntax
interferes with the development of correct English grammar. By analyzing specific syntactic
patterns and error types among learners, this study highlights how interlanguage forms, though
transitional, are shaped and constrained by the grammatical framework of the learner’s first
language. The findings suggest practical implications for foreign language instruction,
particularly in multilingual classrooms.
Keywords: interlanguage, syntactic interference, sentence construction, second language
acquisition, native language influence, L1 transfer, ESL grammar
Introduction.
When individuals acquire English as a second language, especially after
having internalized the structure of their first language, their developing English grammar is
often influenced by native syntactic rules. This transitional grammar, known as “interlanguage,”
reflects both the learner’s progress and the constraints of their L1. Interlanguage is dynamic and
systematic, but it also includes consistent patterns of errors—particularly in sentence
construction—that stem from structural differences between languages. This process is further
complicated when learners are exposed to multiple foreign languages or when formal instruction
does not sufficiently address syntactic contrasts between L1 and L2. Without targeted support,
learners may carry over deeply ingrained habits from their native syntax, which can lead to
fossilized errors. This article investigates how such influences manifest in learners’ English
syntax and considers effective pedagogical strategies for addressing them.
Materials.
Interlanguage theory, first introduced by Larry Selinker (1972), offers a
framework for understanding how learners create a unique linguistic system influenced by their
L1, the target language input, and their own internal hypotheses. The Contrastive Analysis
Hypothesis (Lado, 1957) similarly suggests that language learners compare new structures to
familiar ones from their native language, often subconsciously. These theoretical models
highlight that learner errors are systematic, not random. For instance, Selinker emphasized that
interlanguage is governed by its own evolving rules, including simplifications, omissions, and
substitutions rooted in L1 patterns. In syntactic terms, this often means incorrect word order,
tense formation, or clause structuring. Exploring this further requires real-world learner data and
contrastive linguistic analysis.
Research and methods.
To explore syntactic interference, this study analyzed English
sentence production by learners whose first languages include Uzbek, Turkish, and Russian. Data
were collected from written compositions and oral tasks completed by undergraduate students.
The goal was to identify patterns of interference in sentence construction, focusing on
issues like auxiliary use, word order, question formation, and clause integration. These samples
were evaluated through qualitative content analysis and cross-linguistic comparison, with special
attention to error consistency and frequency.
743
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 5
Classroom observation and short interviews were also conducted to understand learner
awareness of grammar rules. This mixed-method approach ensured a comprehensive view of
how native syntax influences English learning at multiple levels.
Discussion.
The data revealed several recurring syntactic errors that suggest strong L1
influence. These included:
• Misplacement of adverbs: “He yesterday went to the market.”
• Omission of auxiliary verbs: “What you are doing?”
• Subject-verb disagreement: “She go school every day.”
In many cases, learners transferred word order rules from their native language to
English. Uzbek and Turkish, for instance, permit flexible word order, unlike the relatively rigid
SVO structure of English. The omission of auxiliary verbs, such as “to be” in the present tense
(“He tired” instead of “He is tired”), is common among Turkish and Uzbek speakers, whose
languages use different or fewer auxiliary constructions. Learners also struggled with relative
clauses and passive voice, particularly when their L1 does not include or rarely uses those
structures. These syntactic issues were present even in intermediate learners, suggesting a need
for more focused instruction.
Result
. The analysis confirms that interlanguage grammar is deeply shaped by native
syntactic systems. The learners displayed repeated sentence-level errors aligned with their L1
grammar, demonstrating that interference from native structures is both predictable and
persistent. This supports the utility of contrastive analysis in identifying grammar teaching
priorities. For example, instructors can anticipate that Uzbek-speaking students may omit linking
verbs or struggle with fixed word order. Targeted instruction that directly compares L1 and L2
structures proved effective. In fact, learners who received grammar exercises designed with this
comparison in mind showed improved accuracy in constructing English sentences. These
findings emphasize the need for diagnostic tools that assess syntactic awareness and provide
corrective feedback early in the learning process.
Conclusion.
Understanding the role of native syntax in shaping interlanguage grammar is
vital for improving English language instruction. Teachers can significantly reduce learner errors
by highlighting key syntactic differences between English and students’ L1. Early exposure to
correct sentence models, combined with contrastive grammar instruction, helps build syntactic
awareness and fluency. Additionally, leveraging technology—such as grammar analysis software
or learner corpora—can assist educators in identifying common interference patterns and
tailoring instruction accordingly. Further research could examine how specific syntactic errors
evolve over time and which ones are most susceptible to fossilization. Addressing these
challenges will enable language learners to achieve more accurate, native-like English usage.
REFERENCES
1.
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press.
2.
Trudgill, P. (2000). Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. Penguin
Books.
3.
Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Social Motivations for Codeswitching: Evidence from Africa.
Oxford University Press.
4.
Holmes, J. (2013). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Routledge.
744
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 5
5.
Bafoeva,
R.
(2025).
FRAGMENTATION
IN
AMERICAN
AND
UZBEK
POSTMODERN LITERATURE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS.
Modern Science and
Research
,
4
(4), 514-520.
6.
Rohila, B., & Malika, D. (2024). The benefits of learning English as a second language.
In
Formation and Development of Pedagogical Creativity: International Scientific-
Practical Conference (Belgium)
(Vol. 5, pp. 10-13).
7.
Bafoeva, R. (2025). Stages and History of the Development of the American Postmodern
Literary Movement.
Spanish Journal of Innovation and Integrity
,
40
, 22-31.
8.
Bafoeva, R. (2025). Comparative Analyses of Fragmentation in American and Uzbek
Literature.
Spanish Journal of Innovation and Integrity
,
39
, 118-122.
9.
Bafoeva, R. (2025). Characteristics of postmodern literature: Playfulness, Fragmentation,
Metafiction, Intertextuality in literary works of Thomas Pynchon and Ulug’bek
Hamdam.
Spanish Journal of Innovation and Integrity
,
38
, 36-40.
10.
Bafoeva, R. (2024). The Developing Stages of American Postmodern Literature and its
Importance.
Miasto Przyszłości
,
55
, 538-540.
11.
Bafoeva, R. (2024). Stages of Development and History of the English (Western)
Postmodern Literary Movement.
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INNOVATION IN
NONFORMAL EDUCATION
,
4
(11), 25-29.
12.
Vаlijоnоvnа, B. R. (2024). Pоstmоdеrnistic Idеаs in Ulugbеk Hаmdаm's Nоvеl" Sаbо
Аnd Sаmаndаr" and thеir Аnаlysis.
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INNOVATION IN
NONFORMAL EDUCATION
,
4
(10), 76-80.
13.
Bafoeva, R. (2024). Characteristics of Postmodern Literature: Fragmentation,
Intertextuality,
Black
Humor.
EUROPEAN JOURNAL
OF INNOVATION
IN
NONFORMAL EDUCATION
,
4
(9), 28-32.
14.
Bafoeva,
R.
(2024).
IMPORTANCE
OF
READING
AND
READING
STRATEGIES.
TA'LIM VA RIVOJLANISH TAHLILI ONLAYN ILMIY JURNALI
,
4
(6),
108-114.
15.
Bafoeva, R. (2024). LITERARY WORKS IN POSTMODERNISM PERIOD.
TA'LIM VA
RIVOJLANISH TAHLILI ONLAYN ILMIY JURNALI
,
4
(4), 339-343.
16.
Bafoeva, R. (2024). FEATURES AND WRITERS OF POSTMODERNISM IN
LITERATURE.
TA'LIM VA RIVOJLANISH TAHLILI ONLAYN ILMIY JURNALI
,
4
(4),
104-110.
17.
Bafoeva, R. (2024). POSTMODERNISM IN LITERATURE.
TA'LIM VA RIVOJLANISH
TAHLILI ONLAYN ILMIY JURNALI
,
4
(3), 86-90.
18.
Bafoeva, R. (2024). POSTMODERNISM IN LITERATURE.
TA'LIM VA RIVOJLANISH
TAHLILI ONLAYN ILMIY JURNALI
,
4
(3), 86-90.
19.
Bafoeva, R. (2023). INGLIZ VA O'ZBEK MAQOLLARIDA TA'LIM TUSHUNCHASI.
20.
Bafoeva, R. (2023). XORIJIY TILLARNI O'QITISHNING YANGICHA USULLARI.
21.
Bafoeva, R. (2024). THE IMPORTANCE OF PROVERBS IN ENGLISH, RUSSIAN,
UZBEK LANGUAGES.
Modern Science and Research
,
3
(1), 33-38.
22.
Bafoeva, R. (2023). The concept of family in English, Russian and Uzbek
proverbs.
American Journal of Language, Literacy and Learning in STEM Education
(2993-2769)
,
1
(10),
651–654.
Retrieved
from
745
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 5
23.
Rokhila Bafoeva 2023. The Concept of Education in English and Uzbek
Proverbs.
American Journal of Language, Literacy and Learning in STEM Education
(2993-2769)
. 1, 9 (Nov. 2023), 292–296.
24.
Bafoeva, R. (2023). NEW METHODS OF TEACHING FOREIGN LANGUAGES.
Modern Science and Research, 2(10), 58-63.
25.
Pirmanovna, N. G., & Bafoeva, R. (2022). NATIONAL AND CULTURAL PROVERBS
IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK LANGUAGES AND THEIR UNIVERSAL FEATURES.
Новости образования: исследование в XXI веке, 1(4), 500-503.
26.
Pirmanovna, N. G., & Bafoeva, R. (2023). O’ZBEK VA INGLIZ MAQOLLARINING
JAMIYATDAGI
TUTGAN
O’RNI
VA
ULARNING
O’RGANILGANLIK
DARAJASI.
SCIENTIFIC
APPROACH
TO
THE
MODERN
EDUCATION
SYSTEM
,
2
(14), 74-76.
27.
Bafoeva, R. (2023). INGLIZ VA O’ZBEK MAQOLLARINING SHAKLLANISH VA
O’RGANILISH MASALALARI. Научный Фокус, 1(3), 29-31.
28.
Bafoeva, R. (2023). INGLIZ VA O’ZBEK MAQOLLARINING KOGNITIV
TAHLILIIngliz vа ozbek mаqollаri tizimlаri hаqidа gаp ketgаndа ulаrning mohiyаti bir-
biridаn аjrаlib turishi аniq bo'lаdi, chunki ulаr turli xil tаrixiy, ijtimoiy va iqtisodiy
shаroitlаrdа rivojlаngаn, vа bu mаqoll. World of Science, 6(6), 207-211.
29.
Pirmanovna, N. G., & Bafoeva, R. (2023). LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL ANALYSIS
OF ENGLISH AND UZBEK PROVERBS. Finland International Scientific Journal of
Education, Social Science & Humanities, 11(4), 227-230.
30.
Bafoeva, R. (2023). THE IMPORTANCE OF INTERACTIVE GAMES IN LEARNING
FOREIGN LANGUAGES PROCESS.
Modern Science and Research
,
2
(10), 510-512.
