KURS ISHI

INTRODUCTION The mastery of complex grammatical structures, particularly the passive voice, remains a critical challenge in English language acquisition and pedagogical practice within Uzbekistan's educational system. Annually, approximately 200,000 students enroll in English language programs across various educational institutions in Uzbekistan, representing a substantial portion of the tertiary education landscape [1]. Despite significant governmental investment, including the allocation of 350 billion soums towards improving foreign language teaching in 2023 [2], the proficiency levels in advanced syntax, such as the nuanced application of the passive voice, often fall short of international benchmarks. For instance, recent assessments indicate that only 45% of English language graduates from non-specialized universities achieve a C1 level or higher in written communication, where accurate and varied use of voice is crucial [3]. The ongoing evolution of linguistic theories, coupled with the increasing availability of large language corpora, presents unprecedented opportunities to revisit and refine our understanding of this complex grammatical phenomenon. While foundational aspects of passive voice are taught at early stages of English language learning, many problems persist concerning its appropriate usage, semantic nuances, and discourse functions, especially for L2 learners. These unresolved issues include the overreliance on active voice in contexts where passive voice would be more felicitous, the misinterpretation of agentivity, and difficulties in distinguishing between various passive constructions (e.g., lexical vs. periphrastic passives). Furthermore, the impact of L1 transfer from languages with different voice systems, such as Uzbek, on the acquisition and application of English passive voice remains an area requiring deeper empirical investigation to inform targeted pedagogical interventions. International scholarship has extensively explored the intricacies of English passive voice. Susan Hunston (2011) demonstrated through corpus linguistic analysis that passive constructions are not merely stylistic variants but serve distinct discourse functions, often highlighting the patient or de-emphasizing the agent [4]. Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum (2002) provided a comprehensive grammatical framework, categorizing passive constructi ...