The Use of Passive Voice in English And Karakalpak Languages

Аннотация

This article presents a comparative analysis of the use of the passive voice in English and Karakalpak languages. Although both languages feature passive constructions, they differ significantly in terms of grammatical structure, frequency of use, and communicative function. English forms the passive voice analytically using auxiliary verbs and past participles, allowing a wide range of tenses and modal expressions. In contrast, Karakalpak constructs the passive voice morphologically through verb suffixation, with limited tense variation and context-driven interpretation. Furthermore, English tends to use the passive voice extensively in academic and formal contexts, while Karakalpak favors active voice in writing but employs the passive more in oral storytelling and culturally sensitive situations. The study highlights the structural and functional implications of these differences and suggests their relevance for translation studies, second-language teaching, and cross-linguistic research. Keywords: Passive voice, English grammar, Karakalpak grammar, comparative linguistics, verb morphology, auxiliary verbs, tense and aspect, language structure, syntax, language teaching. the passive voice in various tenses, such as: Introduction: The concept of voice in grammar reflects how the relationship between the subject and the Present Simple: The letter is written. action is expressed in a sentence. Among various types Past Simple: The letter was written. of grammatical voices, the passive voice is one of the Present Continuous: The letter is being written. most widely used across many languages [3, 12]. In both English and Karakalpak, the passive voice plays a Present Perfect: The letter has been written. functional role in focusing attention on the action or Future Simple: The letter will be written [1, 9-24]. the object rather than the doer. However, the ways in On the other hand, Karakalpak forms the passive voice which passive constructions are formed and used in morphologically by attaching specific suffixes to the these languages differ considerably, both structurally verb root, such as -l, -n, or -il, depending on the verb. and contextually. For example: To begin with, English constructs the passive voice Kitap oqıldı – The book was read. analytically, meaning it requires auxiliary (helping) Úy salındı – The house was built. verbs along with the past participle of the main verb. For instance: Xat jazıldı – The letter was written. The book was read by the student. As illustrated above, there is no auxiliary verb equivalent to "to be" in Karakalpak passive The house is being built. constructions. The verb itself carries the passive The project will be completed by next week. meaning through its suffix. Moreover, the tense is often In each case, a form of the verb to be (was, is being, will understood from context or time expressions, rather be) is followed by the past participle (read, built, than being explicitly marked. completed). This structure enables English to express For example: American Journal Of Philological Sciences 32 https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN – 2771-2273) Xat jazıladı – The letter is written / will be written in structure, are functionally rich in storytelling and (depending on context) culturally significant contexts. Understanding these differences not only enhances translation accuracy and Jumıs tamamlandı – The work was completed. language teaching but also deepens our appreciation of Lekciya oqılmağan – The lecture has not been read [5]. the unique linguistic identity of each language. In addition, English and Karakalpak differ in how often