THE INFLUENCE OF L1 IN LEARNING ENGLISH LANGUEAGE FOR UZBEK STUDENTS
Keywords:
L1 influence; Uzbek learners; English pronunciation; phonological interference; second language acquisition; cross-linguistic transfer; language teaching methodology.Abstract
This article analyses the influence of the Uzbek language (L1) on the acquisition of the English language as a foreign language. The interference of Uzbek pronunciation frequently can lead some mistakes to mispronunciation. This research mainly focuses on the problems with the mispronunciation among Uzbek students during their study. The interference of Uzbek phonological features frequently leads to systematic mispronunciations that effects students’ communicative competence and intelligibility. This article explores how the structural and phonetic characteristics of the L1 influence the pronunciation of English sounds, and how these cross-linguistic effects manifest in classroom activities. The study employs both qualitative and quantitative methods, including classroom observation, recorded pronunciation tasks, and interviews with students and teachers at the tertiary level. By comparing learners’ production of selected English sounds with native norms, the research identifies recurring patterns of L1 interference. The results indicate that several phonetic features of Uzbek, such as vowel harmony, the absence of diphthongs, limited consonant clusters, and differences in stress and intonation patterns, contribute significantly to Uzbek learners’ difficulties in mastering English pronunciation. In addition, the influence of orthography and learners’ reliance on Uzbek phoneme–grapheme correspondence were observed as key factors affecting pronunciation accuracy. The findings emphasize the importance of phonological awareness and explicit pronunciation instruction in English language teaching for Uzbek students. The study argues that incorporating contrastive analysis and targeted pronunciation practice into the curriculum can reduce negative transfer from L1 and promote more native-like pronunciation. Furthermore, it provides pedagogical recommendations for teachers to integrate pronunciation-focused activities, technological tools, and individualized feedback in language classrooms. Overall, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of L1 influence in second language phonology and offers practical implications for improving English language education in Uzbekistan.
References
Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 402–423.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222–251.
Dmitrova, M. (2015). Challenges in acquiring English grammar: A comparative study of Turkic and Indo-European speakers. Journal of Language Education, 12(4), 89–102.
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33(2), 209–224.
Flege, J. E. (1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 233–277). Timonium, MD: York Press.
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Johanson, L. (1998). The structure of Turkic languages: Syntax and phonology. Oxford University Press.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. University of Michigan Press.
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge University Press.
Taylan, E. (2001). The phonology of Turkish and its implications for English pronunciation teaching. Linguistic Journal, 7(3), 45–63.
