































Global Partners in Education Journal – Special Edition  January 2025, Vol. 11, No. 1 
http://www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 
 

 35 

Linguistic Mistakes or a Distinct Variety? How L2 Speakers Influence English in 
International Contexts.  

Mateusz Urbaniak 

State University of Applied Sciences, Krosno, Poland 

Abstract 

The study aims to examine the development of localised varieties of English within the 
Expanding Circle of World Englishes, as defined by Kachru (1992), based on an 
example of the Polish speech community. Employing a questionnaire consisting of 
translation and phonological items, the research explores how native Polish influences 
manifest themselves in L2 English language use. The translation task revealed 
common patterns of linguistic interference, such as calques and grammatical 
structures imported from the participants’ native language, while the rhyming task 
highlighted phonological deficiency in distinguishing vowel length differences. Results 
indicate that Polish speakers tend to employ non-standard linguistic forms due to 
cognitive influences from their native language, suggesting that these recurring 
patterns, if properly identified, could potentially evolve into distinct features of a Polish 
variety of English. The findings underscore the need to adapt teaching methodologies 
to better address the specific challenges faced by learners. The study concludes that 
while the emergence of a Polish English variety remains speculative, acknowledging 
and addressing such linguistic interference could enhance both our understanding of 
language evolution and language instruction practices. Future research should 
incorporate more interactive tasks and larger samples to further investigate these 
phenomena and compare findings across different linguistic contexts. 

Keywords: World Englishes, varieties of English, Expanding Circle, linguistic 
interference, L2 English, native language influence 

Introduction 

The global proliferation of the English language as observed over the course of the 
past century has created demand for a standardised framework categorising its usage 
depending on a variety of geographical and sociolinguistic factors. According to Crystal 
(2007), there are currently over 75 territories worldwide where English is spoken either 
as a first language (L1) or as an institutionalised or unofficial second language (L2) in 
key fields such as education, law and government, with new varieties constantly 
emerging and being discovered. Kachru’s (1992) ‘Three Circles of English’ model 
provides a better understanding of this linguistic diversity, classifying English-speaking 
populations into one of the three geographically-based concentric circles, i.e. the Inner 
Circle, which refers to countries where English is spoken as a primary langue by the 
majority of population (e.g. the UK, Australia); the Outer Circle, encompassing largely, 
but not exclusively, members of the British Commonwealth where it serves as a lingua 
franca for communication between multiple speech communities (e.g. India, Nigeria, 
Papua New Guinea); and the Expanding Circle, including countries where English has 
no official status and is widely taught as a foreign language (e.g. Poland, Italy). 
Countries of the first two circles can be described as ‘norm-providing’ and ‘norm-
developing’ respectively, meaning that they either establish linguistic standards that 
are recognised and adopted globally (the UK, United States) or develop distinct 
national varieties of English by adapting the language to local cultural influences (India, 

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal – Special Edition  January 2025, Vol. 11, No. 1 
http://www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 
 

 36 

Nigeria). The Expanding Circle on the other hand is, in principle, ‘norm-dependent’, as 
it relies entirely on the standards set by native speakers from the Inner Circle (Jenkins, 
2009). As a consequence, countries of the Inner and Outer circles develop their own 
national varieties of English (i.e. British English, American English, Indian English, 
etc.), whilst learners in the Expanding Circle are taught according to frameworks for 
teaching English as a foreign language, which are based on an existing national 
standard – predominantly British or American. 

The theoretical expectation is that speakers within the Expanding Circle will infallibly 
adhere to the externally-imposed linguistic norms without developing their own distinct 
varieties of the language (Matsuda, 2003). However, the reality of teaching English as 
a foreign language does not seem to corroborate this presumption, with several studies 
arguing that localised varieties of English can and do emerge within the Expanding 
Circle, despite its lack of official status or widespread native use (Seidlhofer, 2011). It 
could be argued, that irrespective of the organised efforts to teach English in a uniform 
way across different countries, certain linguistic features and patterns can be observed 
among members of a single speech community in their effort to speak standard 
English. These include calques and grammatical structures imported from their native 
languages, as well as common mispronunciations of sounds that are absent in their 
own vernacular. The current paper seeks to investigate the emergence of localised 
varieties of English outside of the Inner and Outer Circles as well as the discrepancy 
between global language standards and local linguistic practices based on an example 
of native speakers of Polish. It will deliberately construe the most frequent grammatical, 
syntactic and phonetic errors committed by an average member of the Polish speech 
community not as linguistic mistakes per se, but as observable features of a potential 
‘Polish variety’ of English. It will also argue, that repeated non-standard speech 
patterns among L2 speakers occur as a result of linguistic choices that are suggested 
by one’s native language at a subliminal level, and as such should be examined 
through the lens of the categories whereby a speaker of a particular language 
formulates and verbalises their thoughts. 

Methodology 

For the purpose of the research, a group of 34 first-year English philology students 
from a Polish university (ages 18-20), accessible at the time of the study and taught in 
accordance with the British standard of the language, were requested to complete an 
online questionnaire comprising a selection of 12 contextually unrelated Polish 
sentences to be translated into English without contemplating grammatical and 
vocabulary choices. The participants were instructed to translate the sentences as 
naturally as possible, without delaying the answer in search for the optimal linguistic 
solutions. To elicit instinctive rather than deliberate responses, a 5-minute time 
constraint was applied, discouraging pauses between questionnaire items or 
backtracking in order to correct the original input. The choice of Polish sentences was 
designed to include components that are partially translatable, with their optimal 
English renditions using similar expressions that differ by a single element. These 
components include, among others: collocations that employ a different verb (e.g., EN: 
‘to make sense’ – PL: ‘mieć sens’ [to have sense]); fixed prepositional phrases that 
employ a different preposition (e.g., EN: ‘at first sight’ – PL: ‘od pierwszego wejrzenia’ 
[from first sight]); and nouns that are plural in English but singular in Polish (e.g., EN: 
‘the police are’ – PL: [the police is]). Additionally, several items included elements 
requiring revised syntax or unintuitive vocabulary choices to be correctly translated. 

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal – Special Edition  January 2025, Vol. 11, No. 1 
http://www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 
 

 37 

The latter includes presence of lexical pairs that exhibit similar orthographic and 
phonological forms but diverge in meaning (i.e. false friends), e.g. PL: ‘aktualny’ [up-
to-date] and EN: ‘actual’; and a phenomenon called lexical asymmetry, which refers to 
a situation where two different words in one language are rendered by the same word 
in another, e.g. EN: ‘lend’ and ‘borrow’ = PL: ‘pożyczyć’. The purpose of this task was 
to observe patterns in the way the participants translate certain problematic linguistic 
items into English, as well as to record the frequency of common grammatical and 
lexical errors within a sample whose common denominator is the native use of the 
Polish language. 

The questionnaire also featured a rhyming task consisting of 20 pairs of English words 
of varying degrees of similarity arranged in a random order, with the participants being 
required to mark those which according to their judgement rhymed perfectly (i.e. had 
identical vowel and consonant sounds in their final stressed syllables). The set of word 
pairs contained 5 perfect rhymes (e.g. snail – whale, dutiful – beautiful) and 5 slant 
rhymes, i.e. pairs which rhymed except for the vowel length (e.g. bit – beat, slip – 
sleep), with the remaining 10 pairs having entirely different vowel sounds (e.g. scratch 
– sketch, lemon – demon). To facilitate answers true to one’s individual understanding 
of what constitutes a rhyme, the quantity of perfect rhymes included in the task had not 
been specified prior to its completion. The procedure was designed to elicit responses 
that demonstrate the degree to which each participant perceived short and long 
English vowels as separate sounds. A potential repeated misconstruction of vowel 
length differences, which is considerably more likely to occur in speakers of a language 
where such a distinction is absent, could indicate regularities in the way speakers of 
Polish mispronounce certain sounds and entire words based on their spelling. 

Results 

For the translation task, each of the 34 responses was processed on an individual 
basis and analysed in terms of unique solutions to the linguistic problems contained in 
each question. For each item the focus was placed on specific translation challenges, 
disregarding any non-standard responses in areas in which they had not been 
anticipated by the questionnaire’s design. The results are represented as the 
percentage of occurrences of the optimal solution and the most frequent non-standard 
solution to each sentence’s focus problem. The research indicates varying degrees of 
grammatical and lexical compliance of the responses with standard English, with the 
non-standard response being predominant in 4 out of 12 items. Below is a summary of 
selected questionnaire items that are particularly relevant to the subsequent 
discussion. Structures and expressions that were the focus of each sentence were 
underlined. For the complete set of results, please refer to Appendix 1. 

Question 2 – Collocations Employing a Different Verb 

PL: Uważam, że Twój pomysł nie ma sensu. 

EN: I think your idea makes no sense. 

Literally: [I think that your idea does not have sense.] 

The majority of participants (19 responses, 56%) correctly used the collocation ‘to 
make sense’ in their translations. However, there was a notable tendency (14 
responses, 41%) to translate the phrase as ‘to have sense’, a clear calque of the Polish 
expression ‘mieć sens’. The remaining one participant employed an alternative 

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal – Special Edition  January 2025, Vol. 11, No. 1 
http://www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 
 

 38 

approach, replacing the collocation with a copular construction with an adjective, 
translating it as ‘to be senseless’.  

 

Question 3 – Prepositional Phrases Employing a Different Preposition 

PL: To była miłość od pierwszego wejrzenia. 

EN: It was love at first sight. 

Literally: [It was love from first sight.] 

Item 3 saw the majority of the participants (20 responses, 59%) providing a literal 
translation of the Polish phrase ‘od pierwszego wejrzenia’ (‘from first sight’) as opposed 

make sense
56%

have sense
41%

senseless
3%

Question 2: Uważam, że Twój pomysł nie ma sensu.
EN: I think your idea makes no sense.

make sense have sense senseless

at first sight
26%

from first sight
59%

other
15%

Question 3: To była miłość od pierwszego wejrzenia.
It was love at first sight.

at first sight from first sight other

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal – Special Edition  January 2025, Vol. 11, No. 1 
http://www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 
 

 39 

to the standard expression ‘at first sight’. The latter response was the preferred one 
among only 9 of the respondents, amounting to 26% of the sample. Alternative 
solutions (5 answers, 15%) included the use of other prepositions and the replacement 
of the prepositional phrase with the predicative use of a noun phrase (‘first-sight love’). 

Question 6 – Singular-Plural Asymmetry 

PL: Od wczoraj policja poszukuje przestępcy. 

EN: The police have been looking for the criminal since yesterday. 

Literally: [Since yesterday the police is looking for the criminal.] 

The noun ‘police’, which in English requires plural verb conjugation when used 
collectively, is exclusively singular in the Polish language. This has been reflected by 
the results obtained in item 6, which sees as many as 22 respondents (65%) using the 
singular form of the phrasal verb ‘to look for’, with only 8 of them (23%) employing the 
plural. The remaining 4 participants (12%) provided answers that did not ascribe any 
grammatical number to the word ‘police’. 

Question 9 – Lexical Interference 

PL: Jak wygląda Twój pokój? 

EN: What does your room look like? 

Literally: [How looks your room?] 

The original sentence in question 9 can be rendered in two ways in standard English, 
either as ‘What does your room look like?’ or ‘How does your room look?’. The Polish 
equivalent begins with the interrogative adverb ‘jak’ (‘how’), to which the language 
offers no alternative solution. The results indicate that an overwhelming majority of the 
participants began their translated sentences with the word ‘how’ (26 responses, 77%) 
with only 8 respondents opting otherwise (23%). However, it is worth noting that only 

plural
23%

singular
65%

undetermined
12%

Question 6: Od wczoraj policja poszukuje przestępcy.
The police have been looking for the criminal since yesterday.

plural singular undetermined

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal – Special Edition  January 2025, Vol. 11, No. 1 
http://www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 
 

 40 

5 of those 26 responses (15%) used the correct syntax (‘How does your room look?’), 
with as many as 21 participants (62%) providing the non-standard ‘How does your 
room look like?’. If one assumes that the primary choice in this sentence was in fact 
between the syntax employing the final ‘look’ and the one ending with ‘look like’, the 
‘How does your room look like?’ response could be explained as a result of lexical 

interference, i.e. subconscious replacement of ‘what’ with ‘how’ in the sentence ‘What 
does your room look like?’, dictated by the original Polish structure.  

Question 11 – Lexical asymmetry 

PL: Wczoraj pożyczył mi pieniądze. 

EN: He lent me money yesterday. 

What … look like
23%

How … look
15%

How … look like
62%

Question 9: Jak wygląda Twój pokój?
What does your room look like? / How does your room look?

What … look like How … look How … look like

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal – Special Edition  January 2025, Vol. 11, No. 1 
http://www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 
 

 41 

Literally: [Yesterday he lent/borrowed me money.] 

The Polish verb ‘pożyczyć’ is an illustration of lexical asymmetry, with its meaning 
encompassing that of both English verbs ‘to lend’ and ‘to borrow’. It was therefore 
reasonable to expect the linguistic interference to result in a roughly equal distribution 
of participants opting for either verb in their translations. The obtained results however 
do not align with this assumption, as 27 of the respondents (79%) correctly translated 
the original verb as ‘to lend’, with only 6 of them choosing ‘to borrow’ (18%). Whereas 
the latter choice can well be attributed to the effect of interference, other factors, 
including insufficient language proficiency, cannot be ruled out. 

Rhyming task – Phonological Interference 

The results of the rhyming task indicate a significant tendency to disregard the 
differences between short and long vowels in English, with all but one pair of slant 
rhymes having been marked as perfect rhymes by over a half of the respondents (from 
41% for bit - beat to 82% for glitch - beach). A significant majority of the participants 
correctly recognised all 5 pairs of perfect rhymes, with results varying between 70% 
(beautiful - dutiful; snail - whale) and 97% (rabbit - habit; dog - frog). 9 out of 10 pairs 
of words which do not rhyme due to divergent vowel sounds were correctly construed 
as non-rhymes by a vast majority of the respondents, with results ranging from 26% 
(trick - track) to 0% (bright - bread). The only remarkable exception within this group 
was the pair lemon - demon, which was marked as a perfect rhyme by as many as 24 
participants (71%). The latter is a case of phonological interference, as the Polish 
equivalent of the noun ‘demon’ is pronounced with a short /e/, which does rhyme with 
the English ‘lemon’. It could be argued, however, that this effect may have been 
amplified by the two vowel sounds being graphically represented by the same 

lent
79%

borrowed
18%

neither
3%

Question 11: Wczoraj pożyczył mi pieniądze.
He lent me money yesterday.

lent borrowed neither

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal – Special Edition  January 2025, Vol. 11, No. 1 
http://www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 
 

 42 

character ‘e’, which given the scarcity of time available to complete the task, may have 
acted as a distracting visual cue. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion 

The research conducted for the purpose of this paper sought to provide an insight into 
how members of the same speech community tend to commit similar, and in many 
cases identical linguistic errors when speaking English, even when instructed in one of 
its standard varieties at an academic level. This presumptive tendency was particularly 
visible in the results of the rhyming task, which revealed a reasonably uniform 
perception of Polish speakers with regard to the distinction between long and short 
vowels in English, a feature that has been absent in the Polish language for several 

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal – Special Edition  January 2025, Vol. 11, No. 1 
http://www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 
 

 43 

centuries. The participants’ consistent disregard of this phonological aspect suggests 
that native use of Polish not only impairs the speaker’s ability to discern between 
sounds which in many cases determine meanings of words, but also causes them to 
mispronounce certain sounds in a predictable way. This finding points to one of the 
potential causes of reduced mutual intelligibility between L1 and L2 speakers of 
English, particularly those with little prior exposure to the native use of the language.  

In as much as the translation task proposed in the questionnaire may not entirely 
replicate the settings in which participants are able to produce purposeful utterances 
of speech typical of a casual conversation, it does provide an understanding of the 
thought process behind the linguistic choices they make as they verbalise their 
thoughts. Not only does a large proportion of them apply non-standard solutions to the 
translation problems they encounter, but they also exhibit a strong tendency to solve 
them in a similar fashion. This is reflected in an overall low number of unique ways of 
translating the same linguistic items recorded for the entire sample. In the majority of 
cases, the participants were split between those who translated certain phrases and 
expressions according to the standard and a considerable fraction of those who opted 
for one single common non-standard alternative. Notably, they did so despite operating 
on a strict time limit and without conferring their answers among themselves. 

While this phenomenon may be interpreted as a result of a varying degree of command 
of the language within the sample, undermining the validity of carrying out similar 
research in this specific context, an insufficient knowledge of English among the 
participants helps to shed some light on the mechanism of the emergence of common 
linguistic mistakes and their subsequent fossilisation in everyday speech. Proficiency 
gaps in an L2 English speaker require them to seek alternative ways to convey their 
intended meaning. If a missing portion of information cannot be swiftly paraphrased or 
substituted by a synonymous standard English phrase, the speaker may, more or less 
consciously, resort to means of expression known from their own native language. This 
semi-intuitive approach is also additionally reinforced in case of languages belonging 
to the same language family, which tend to share a substantial amount of translatable 
and partially translatable expressions between one another, of which speakers are, 
more often than not, fully aware. 

Given the limited time allowed for the completion of the research questionnaire and 
other measures applied to elicit instinctive responses to consecutive questions, the 
participants could only rely, apart from their English skills and their ability to quickly 
rephrase their utterances using limited lexical means, on automated responses 
suggested by native language patterns. Since virtually no L2 speaker of English is 
immune to this effect, especially when producing speech under conditions where the 
pressure factor is present, complete eradication of thus created ‘common errors’ 
appears impossible on multiple levels. Assuming that the frequency of errors resulting 
from the interference of Polish is inversely proportional to one’s proficiency in a foreign 
language, it appears reasonable to expect that an L2 speaker, irrespective of their 
degree of mastery in English, is considerably more subject to exposure to other L2 
speakers using a set of non-standard expressions typical to members of the Polish 
speech community, than to the native use of the language. This in turn provides a 
partial explanation as to how non-standard expressions enter and become entrenched 
in the mainstream language. It also explains how communities which historically 
underwent a shift from the Expanding into the Inner Circle, as per Kachru’s model, 

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal – Special Edition  January 2025, Vol. 11, No. 1 
http://www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 
 

 44 

developed their own idiomatic expressions and linguistic structures unique to their 
variety of English. 

The magnitude of the effect observed in the sample allows for a speculation about the 
potential for a distinct ‘Polish variety’ of English to develop, with the most common 
structures and calques from Polish serving as its core element. Whereas the current 
study did by no means attempt to compile a definitive list of features characterising this 
speculative variety, it endeavoured to demonstrate several speech patterns caused by 
linguistic interference which circulate among Polish speakers of English, and which 
could in certain, albeit unlikely circumstances become codified and institutionalised as 
the official national standard. Identifying the source of many linguistic errors committed 
by L2 speakers as a function of uncontrollable cognitive factors amplified by a number 
of individuals of average English proficiency contributing to the proliferation of non-
standard structures and expressions, may call for a redefinition of what constitutes an 
error, or even for introducing a separate category to classify terms which originated in 
the Expanding Circle and which are in circulation within a particular local variety. This 
approach, though unorthodox and arguably lenient towards errors from the perspective 
of classical linguistics, could help identify areas for improvement for English teaching 
methodology by tailoring it to the unique needs of learners speaking a specific native 
language. 

Conclusion 

The research presented in this paper provides an insight into the phenomenon of 
linguistic interference and its fundamental role in shaping non-standard forms of 
English among L2 speakers. Through examining the specific grammatical, syntactic 
and phonetic patterns that emerge when Polish speakers translate and pronounce 
English, the study outlines how certain recurring linguistic errors ought to be construed 
as more than merely isolated mistakes, and that they reflect deeper cognitive 
processes influenced by one’s native language. These observations challenge the 
conventional expectation that speakers from the Expanding Circle, as defined by 
Kachru’s model, will strictly adhere to linguistic norms without developing their own 
variations of the language. In fact, the evidence suggests that even within this group 
there is potential for the development of distinct localised varieties of English. The 
implications of these findings are significant for both linguistic theory and language 
teaching practices. On the one hand, they suggest the need to reconsider what 
constitutes an error in the context of L2 English, particularly when such errors are 
widespread and consistent within a speech community. On the other hand, they point 
to the necessity of adapting English teaching methodologies to better address the 
specific challenges and needs of learners from different linguistic backgrounds. This 
may involve acknowledging and incorporating elements of the learners' native 
languages into the curriculum, rather than striving for an unattainable ideal of perfect 
conformity to native speaker norms. 

While the emergence of a full-fledged Polish variety of English remains speculative, 
the study provides circumstantial evidence that linguistic interference can lead to the 
development of unique patterns and structures within L2 English. Acknowledging and 
addressing them not only enhances our understanding of language evolution but also 
releases the potential to improve language instruction in a way that is more responsive 
to the realities of global English usage. The current study, albeit informative within the 
context of linguistic interference, is not without its limitations, as the questionnaire 

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal – Special Edition  January 2025, Vol. 11, No. 1 
http://www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 
 

 45 

design based on rigid translations may not fully capture the complexities of actual 
spoken language use. To more effectively reflect natural speech patterns, future 
research could incorporate more realistic and interactive tasks, such as dynamic 
conversation simulations or multi-dimensional studies tracing language development 
over time. It should also focus on identifying a more robust and definitive set of 
characteristic features of L2 English among speakers of Polish, to be attained through 
larger and more diversified samples as well as adopting a contrastive approach to 
ascertaining the most challenging differences between the two languages from the 
learner’s perspective. Comparing new findings with similar studies conducted in the 
context of other speech communities could provide a better understanding of how 
localised varieties of English develop and differ across various linguistic backgrounds. 

References 

Crystal, D. (2007). English as a Global Language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University 
Press. 

Jenkins, J. (2009). World Englishes: A Resource Book for Students (2nd ed.). 
Routledge. 

Kachru, B. B. (1992). The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures (2nd ed.). University 
of Illinois Press. 

Matsuda, A. (2003). The Ownership of English in Japanese Secondary Schools. World 
Englishes, 22(4), 483-496. 

Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford University 
Press. 

 

Appendices 

 

Appendix 1. 
I Translation task 
 
1. Czy mógłby mi Pan zrobić zdjęcie?  Could you take a photo of me? 
take a photo 29 85,29%   
make a photo 3 8,82%   
do a photo 2 5,88%   
      
2. Uważam, że Twój pomysł nie ma sensu.  I think your idea makes no sense. 
make sense 19 55,88%   
have sense 14 41,18%   
senseless  1 2,94%   
      
3. To była miłość od pierwszego wejrzenia.  It was love at first sight. 
at first sight 9 26,47%   
from first sight 20 58,82%   
other  5 14,71%   
      

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal – Special Edition  January 2025, Vol. 11, No. 1 
http://www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 
 

 46 

4. W tej chwili piszę zadanie domowe.  I am doing homework right now. 
do homework 23 67,65%   
write homework 11 32,35%   
      
5. Muszę porozmawiać z menadżerem.  I need to speak to the manager. 
to  20 58,82%   
with  13 38,24%   
other  1 2,94%   
      

6. Od wczoraj policja poszukuje przestępcy. 
The police have been looking for the criminal since 
yesterday. 

plural  8 23,53%   
singular  22 64,71%   
undetermined 4 11,76%   
      
7. Bardzo lubię pływać.   I like swimming a lot. 
really like / enjoy 22 64,71%   
… very much 7 20,59%   
very much like 1 2,94%   
very like  1 2,94%   
avoided altogether 3 8,82%   
      
8. Jutrzejsze zajęcia zostały odwołane.  Tomorrow's classes have been cancelled. 
tomorrow's 24 70,59%   
tomorrow  10 29,41%   
      
9. Jak wygląda Twój pokój?   What does your room look like? 
What … look like 8 23,53%   
How … look 5 14,71%   
How … look like 21 61,76%   
      
10. Ten harmonogram nie jest aktualny.  This schedule is not up-to-date. 
actual  3 8,82%   
is not  23 67,65%   
      
11. Wczoraj pożyczył mi pieniądze.  He lent me money yesterday. 
lent  27 79,41%   
borrowed  6 17,65%   
neither  1 2,94%   
      
12. Wiadomości w telewizji były nudne.  The news on TV was boring. 
singular  11 32,35%   
plural  23 67,65%   
on  7 20,59%   
in  17 50,00%   
tv news  7 20,59%   
news  3 8,82%   
      

http://www.gpejournal.org/


Global Partners in Education Journal – Special Edition  January 2025, Vol. 11, No. 1 
http://www.gpejournal.org   ISSN 2163-758X 
 
 

 47 

II Rhyming task      
Perfect rhymes:      
dog – frog  33 97,06%   
rabbit – habit 33 97,06%   
leather – feather 31 91,18%   
beautiful - dutiful 24 70,59%   
snail - whale 24 70,59%   
 
 
 
Slant rhymes:      
glitch - beach 28 82,35%   
quiz - squeeze 26 76,47%   
ship - sheep 18 52,94%   
slip - sleep 18 52,94%   
bit - beat  14 41,18%   
 
Non-rhymes:      
lemon - demon 24 70,59%   
trick - track 9 26,47%   
bell - rail  8 23,53%   
knit - knight 4 11,76%   
scratch - sketch 3 8,82%   
skip - stop  3 8,82%   
latch - ledge 2 5,88%   
climb - clamp 1 2,94%   
drum - dream 1 2,94%   
bright - bread 0 0,00%   

 

Author Notes 

Mateusz Urbaniak is an undergraduate student of English Philology and Translation 
Studies at the State University of Applied Sciences in Krosno, Poland. His primary 
areas of interest include translation of classical literary works and the problem of 
translatability of idiomatic expressions and proverbs. His academic endeavours 
revolve around English, German, Polish and Portuguese languages, in which he 
demonstrates varying levels of proficiency. He also aspires to explore the work of a 
translator from multiple perspectives and to establish himself in a field that is being 
increasingly menaced by advancements in AI technology. 

http://www.gpejournal.org/

