140
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 9
MORPHOSYNTACTIC ERRORS IN ENGLISH WRITING BY UZBEK LEARNERS: A
CORPUS-BASED INVESTIGATION
Ulviya Dilshodbek qizi Rustamova
https://doi.org/
10.5281/zenodo.17087764
Abstract.
The present study investigates morphosyntactic errors in the English writing of
Uzbek learners using a corpus-based approach. A learner corpus of essays written by Uzbek
university students was compiled and analyzed to identify error patterns in tense usage, subject-
verb agreement, article application, plural forms, and word order. The findings reveal that the
majority of errors stem from cross-linguistic influence of Uzbek and inadequate mastery of
English grammatical rules. This study not only contributes to the theoretical understanding of
error analysis but also provides empirical evidence for improving EFL pedagogy in Uzbekistan.
1. Introduction
The accurate use of grammar, particularly morphosyntactic structures, plays a crucial role
in second language (L2) writing proficiency. Despite years of English instruction, Uzbek
learners frequently produce systematic grammatical errors in academic and non-academic
writing. Such errors, if not identified and analyzed, may hinder learners’ communicative
competence and academic success.
Error analysis, initiated by Corder (1967), remains a fundamental field in applied
linguistics. With the advancement of corpus linguistics, error studies have become more data-
driven, reliable, and generalizable. However, research on Uzbek EFL learners is scarce, and little
is known about the morphosyntactic error patterns specific to this group.
This study aims to fill the gap by conducting a corpus-based investigation of
morphosyntactic errors in English writing by Uzbek learners.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Error Analysis in SLA
Error analysis emerged in the 1960s as a response to the limitations of contrastive
analysis (Corder, 1967). Unlike contrastive analysis, which predicted errors based on language
differences, error analysis focused on the actual language produced by learners. Subsequent
studies (Ellis, 1994; Dulay, Burt & Krashen, 1982) highlighted that errors are not merely
mistakes but evidence of interlanguage development.
2.2. Corpus Linguistics in Error Studies
The introduction of learner corpora such as the
International Corpus of Learner
English (ICLE)
and the
Cambridge Learner Corpus (CLC)
has revolutionized second
language acquisition research. Corpus-based error analysis enables large-scale, systematic
identification of frequent error types, their contexts, and linguistic causes (Granger, 2009).
2.3. Morphosyntactic Errors in EFL Learners
Studies across various linguistic backgrounds report persistent errors in subject-verb
agreement, tense consistency, article usage, and word order (Izumi, 2003; Dagneaux, Denness &
Granger, 1998). Research on Turkic languages such as Turkish and Kazakh EFL learners shows
similar patterns (Demir, 2017), suggesting that agglutinative language backgrounds may
influence English morphosyntax acquisition. However, there is a noticeable gap in empirical
research on Uzbek learners.
3. Research Objectives and Questions
Objectives:
141
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 9
1.
To identify the most frequent morphosyntactic errors in English writing by Uzbek
learners.
2.
To classify these errors systematically using corpus-based methods.
3.
To analyze the linguistic causes of these errors, particularly cross-linguistic influence
from Uzbek.
Research Questions:
1.
What are the most common morphosyntactic errors made by Uzbek learners in English
writing?
2.
How can these errors be classified and quantified using corpus-based analysis?
3.
What linguistic factors account for these errors?
4. Methodology
4.1. Corpus Compilation
A learner corpus consisting of 120 essays (approx. 60,000 words) was compiled from
undergraduate students majoring in English Philology at Uzbek universities. The essays covered
academic topics such as culture, education, and technology.
4.2. Error Identification and Annotation
Errors were identified manually and cross-verified by two trained annotators. Error tags
were adapted from the
Error Tagging System of the Louvain International Database of
Errors (LINDSEI)
.
4.3. Data Analysis
Quantitative analysis was conducted using AntConc software. Errors were categorized
into the following subgroups:
-
Tense and aspect errors
-
Subject-verb agreement errors
-
Article misuse (a, an, the)
-
Plural and countability errors
- Word order errors
5. Results and Discussion
5.1. Frequency of Error Types
- Tense and aspect errors:
34% (e.g.,
“Yesterday I go to school”
).
- Subject-verb agreement:
25% (e.g.,
“He go to class every day”
).
- Article misuse:
18% (e.g.,
“She bought book”
).
- Plural errors:
12% (e.g.,
“two student”
).
- Word order errors:
11% (e.g.,
“Always I study at night”
).
5.2. Causes of Errors
- Transfer from Uzbek:
Lack of articles in Uzbek explains article omission; flexible word
order in Uzbek explains misplacement in English.
- Developmental factors:
Overgeneralization of L2 rules (e.g., adding
-s
where
unnecessary).
- Instructional gaps:
Insufficient focus on writing accuracy in the Uzbek EFL curriculum.
5.3. Comparative Insights
Findings are consistent with research on other agglutinative language learners (Demir,
2017), but unique to Uzbek learners is the
high frequency of article omission
and
word order
interference
, reflecting Uzbek’s typological features.
6. Conclusion
142
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 9
This study provides empirical evidence of morphosyntactic error patterns in the English
writing of Uzbek learners, using a learner corpus as the primary data source. The results
demonstrate that tense errors, subject-verb agreement, and article misuse are the most prevalent
error types, largely attributable to cross-linguistic interference from Uzbek.
Theoretical Implications:
The findings enrich error analysis literature by highlighting
unique patterns in agglutinative language contexts.
Practical Implications:
The results can guide curriculum designers and teachers to
address the most persistent error areas in EFL writing instruction.
References
1.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors.
International Review of Applied
Linguistics
, 5(4), 161–170.
2.
Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982).
Language two
. Oxford University Press.
3.
Ellis, R. (1994).
The study of second language acquisition
. Oxford University Press.
4.
Granger, S. (2009). The contribution of learner corpora to second language acquisition
and foreign language teaching.
Corpora and Language Teaching
5.
Dagneaux, E., Denness, S., & Granger, S. (1998). Computer-aided error analysis.
System
,
26(2), 163–174.
6.
Izumi, E. (2003). Automatic error detection in the Japanese learners’ English spoken
data.
Companion Volume to Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the ACL
, 145–
148.
7.
Demir, Y. (2017). Error analysis of Turkish EFL learners: A corpus-based study.
Journal
of Language Teaching and Research
, 8(1), 16–26.
