Not a generic list. These are 164 errors taken from marked homework by Polish speakers, each one repaired and then explained by what Polish actually does differently. The heaviest areas here are articles and determiners, collocation, countability. Nothing on this page is behind a sign-up.
An error you can name the cause of is an error you can stop making.
In PolishPolish, Slovak, Russian, Ukrainian and Lithuanian have no article system; definiteness is carried by context and word order.
What English demandsEnglish puts a determiner in front of almost every noun, and its absence is audible to a native ear even when the syntax is perfect.
The error it producesFunction returns pointer to buffer
The repairAt C1+ this is usually the last thing standing. Read your own writing noun by noun and ask which one.
Polish has no articles, so a / an / the are added purely on the English side and slip under speed: half [a] year, [a] team, [the] last few invoices. The rule that covers most of it: a singular countable noun needs a/an on first or 'one-of-many' mention; the marks a specific, identified one. These are tiny words, but they are what a native ear notices first in otherwise flawless professional English, and they remain the single highest-frequency tidy-up in an advanced Polish speaker's English.
The takeawayBefore every singular noun, ask two questions – one of many, or the one we both mean? – and supply a or the accordingly.
Polish has no articles, so a / an / the are added and dropped on the English side alone, and at C2 the errors run in both directions at once. In a single session: uncountables wrongly took a (a time, a luck); a singular countable lost it (fridge); a specific whole lost the (transport industry); and a generic plural kept a the it does not want (the employers). Because all four look like different mistakes, they are easy to treat as four separate problems – they are one. The rule that covers most of the ground is a single three-way sort: uncountable or generic plural → no article; singular countable on first mention → a; specific and identified → the. A one-second check before each noun is the whole discipline.
The takeawayOne check, three outcomes: mass or generic plural → nothing; new singular → a; known and specific → the.
Polish maps one or two verbs onto a range English divides up. Robić covers both make and do – and, crucially, robić zdjęcie ('make a photo') is English take a photo. English fixes these pairings: you take a photo, make a decision, do the work, have a meeting. There is no rule underneath the split, so it is worth a short personal list, since the pairings are unpredictable. The wider point is that where one first-language verb spreads across several English ones, the learner is not making a grammar error at all – the grammar is intact and the pairing is simply the wrong one, which is why it survives into very advanced English.
The takeawayKeep a running list of the English fixed pairs – take a photo, make a decision, do the work, have a meeting – and learn them as units, not as rules.
Polish folds many English prepositions into case endings, so when a Polish speaker builds an English sentence the preposition has to be chosen anew rather than translated. Na południu ('in the south', locative) pulls toward on the south, where English is in the south. The fix is not to reason from the case but to store the high-frequency pairs as fixed units – in the south, at an advanced stage, for a duration, since a starting-point – and to keep a short personal list of the ones that have already gone wrong once. This is a memory task, not a grammar task, which is why it survives to C2 in speakers whose structures are otherwise complete.
The takeawayStore the preposition with the noun as a single chunk – in the south, at a high level – rather than deriving it each time.
Polish aspect (imperfective and perfective) does not line up with the English tense system, and Polish has no morphological perfect at all. So two things drift. First, the imperfective's habitual sense over-applies the English continuous: we are not doing this often, where English wants we don't do this often. Second, the present-perfect boundary wobbles – and it wobbles in both directions. Today it was an under-reach: this year the app works, where English needs this year the app has worked, because this year names a period running up to now. That is the mirror image of the more usual over-reach, where the present perfect is stretched over a finished past. Same seam, opposite side – which is the useful thing to notice, because it means the fix is not 'use the perfect more' or 'use it less' but 'find the boundary'.
The takeawayAsk whether the time frame is finished or still running: finished takes the past simple, still running takes the present perfect.
Polish cases and correlatives do not line up with English one to one, so at an advanced level the most efficient move is to stop deriving and start memorising. Similar takes to (Polish podobny do), never than – the than frame belongs to bigger, faster, cheaper. And motion on your own feet is on foot, the lone exception to the by + transport pattern (Polish pieszo, na piechotę). Neither of these is a rule the learner can reason to from the first language, because the first language routes the same relations through case endings rather than dedicated words. They are units. Learn them whole, keep a short personal list of the ones that have gone wrong once, and check them the way you would check spelling.
The takeawayStore English preposition and comparison phrases as whole units – similar to, on foot, at an advanced stage – rather than assembling them fresh each time.
Polish builds conditionals with the clitic by, and gdyby ('if') already contains it – so 'if' and 'would' feel fused into a single word. Carried into English, the would slips into the if-clause: if they would move. English forbids it – would stays in the result half only, and the if-clause takes a plain past: if they moved, they'd still be miserable. This is pure first-language structure rather than carelessness, which is why it survives in speakers whose conditionals are otherwise flawless: the result clause is usually perfect, and the fault sits entirely in the first half. Naming the cause is most of the cure.
The takeawayOne would per conditional, and it goes in the result clause – never after if.
English lets a preposition hang at the end of a relative clause – the colleague I worked with, the company I work at – and Polish, which keeps that relationship inside the clause with a case ending, gives no habit of leaving it there. So it drops off, and the sentence arrives complete in every other respect: a colleague that I worked in a previous company. The repair is not a rule but a sequence. Build the base phrase first – work with a colleague, work at a company – and then keep the preposition when you relativise. Because the base phrase is already known, the fix is quick and it generalises to every verb that carries a particle.
The takeawaySay the plain phrase to yourself first (work with, work at), then build the relative clause and let the preposition stay behind at the end.
Polish uses full relative clauses with który / która / które, agreeing with the head noun in gender, number and case. Polish does have adjectival participles (systemy zbierające dane; dane zebrane), but they are markedly more formal and much narrower in use than the English reduced relative, so the full clause is what transfers. The default transfer into English is therefore an over-explicit full clause: the data which was collected, the people who are working. English reduces in three ways – present participle for the active (the engineers working remotely), past participle for the passive (the data collected overnight), and apposition in non-defining clauses (dropping who is). All three are rarer and heavier in the first language, so they have to be built deliberately at first; once built, they are one of the fastest routes to a formal written register, because they remove the machinery a Polish sentence is obliged to carry.
The takeawayWherever you have written which is or who are, try deleting both words – if the sentence still stands, the reduced form is better.
Polish is a null-subject language: person is marked on the verb, so a subject pronoun is usually dropped, and impersonal statements have no subject at all. U mnie w domu było 30 stopni is literally 'in my house was 30 degrees' – było ('was') stands on its own and the sentence is complete. English is the opposite: every finite clause needs an overt subject, and where there is no real one, a dummy fills the slot – it for weather and temperature, there for existence. Fronting rearranges the sentence but never removes that requirement, so the fronted version still needs the it: in my house it was 30 degrees. This is why the error appeared inside an otherwise correct advanced structure – the emphatic move was right, and the first language quietly removed something English insists on.
The takeawayWhenever you front a place or time phrase, check that a subject still follows – a real one, or the dummy it or there.
English splits nouns into countable and uncountable in ways Polish does not. Feedback, documentation, knowledge and progress are uncountable in English: no plural, no a, and much rather than many. Meanwhile the quantifier decides the number of what follows it – a lot of forces a plural (a lot of companies), and this type of forces a singular (this type of team). None of this is derivable from the first language, because Polish draws the mass/count line elsewhere and lets several of these nouns pluralise freely. The practical consequence is that it is worth a dedicated pass in review, alongside the articles – the two categories interact, since an uncountable noun also refuses the article that a countable one demands.
The takeawayKeep a list of the English uncountables you have got wrong once – feedback, progress, knowledge, documentation – and check them the way you check articles.
Polish pluralises and counts many abstract nouns that English treats as a mass – and wyrzuty sumienia ('remorse') is itself plural in form, which makes remorses feel entirely natural and the bare English singular feel incomplete. English keeps the feeling-nouns uncountable: remorse, guilt, regret, advice, knowledge, evidence. The fix is not a rule but a short watch-list, because the category boundary is arbitrary and cannot be derived from meaning: he felt no remorse, without a trace of remorse. A related habit worth naming alongside it is economy of phrasing – Polish can stack near-synonymous nouns for emphasis in a way that reads as redundant in English, where C2 register prizes one precise noun phrase over a doubled one.
The takeawayKeep a short list of abstract uncountables – remorse, guilt, regret, advice, knowledge, evidence – and never pluralise them.
Polish conjugates the verb fully for person, so English's single surviving ending – the third-person -s – feels redundant, and it drops, especially at speed inside a longer clause like a conditional. The important diagnostic point is that this is not a conditional fault at all; it is agreement, and it merely happened to land inside the structure under test. Booking it to the right count is what allows the conditionals to be graded on their own evidence. The anchor is mechanical: he, she, it, and singular nouns like the engine or scope creep, take verb + s – if the engine flags, if scope creep happens, if someone finds it, if he has time. One habit, and most of a sheet like this clears.
The takeawayRun a self-check as you speak: he/she/it, or any singular noun, means verb + s – and the if-clause is no exception.
Unformal is a natural build: Polish nieformalny uses one negative prefix for all such words, so a learner reasoning from the first language will reach for a single English equivalent and apply it everywhere. English splits the job across un-, in-, im-, il- and ir- and assigns them per word: informal, impossible, irregular – but unhappy, unusual. There is no rule underneath the distribution; these are learned as pairs, and they belong in the same personal list as the false friends. The tell that this is first-language reasoning rather than carelessness is that the word produced is perfectly well formed – it is simply the prefix English happens not to use here.
The takeawayTreat negative prefixes as vocabulary, not morphology – store informal, impossible, irregular whole, as you would any other word.
Polish does not backshift. Powiedział, że jest studentem – literally 'he said that he is a student' – is perfectly grammatical, because the embedded clause keeps the tense of the original utterance rather than shifting to match the reporting verb. English does the opposite: in a past frame it carries the past through every finite verb, including inside the subordinate clause. So I had the freedom to do whatever I wanted, not whatever I want. The same mechanism explains reported speech more broadly – he said he was a student – and it is worth naming as one rule rather than two, because the learner who has understood the narrative case has already understood the reporting case.
The takeawayOnce a sentence is set in the past, keep every verb in it past – including the ones inside that-clauses.
Several phrases came straight across from Polish, each perfectly lawful at home and each wearing the wrong English idiom: jak for what (I don't know how they are called, for what they are called); z drewna for made of wood (the house was with wood); w długim okresie for in the long run (in the long period); and got 16 for turned 16. The Polish is grammatical in every case; English simply fixes a different idiom for the same job. This is the highest-value polish at C2, because it is not a gap in understanding – the speaker is fully in control of the structure and only the fixed phrasing is off. The practical move is a personal list of natural phrasings collected as they are corrected, rather than a rule.
The takeawayWhen a phrase is translated directly, pause and ask: is this the English idiom, or the Polish one in English clothes?
Grouped by grammar point, heaviest first. Every line is real.
Articles and determiners 45
Function returns pointer to buffer, so caller must free memory before process exits.
The function returns a pointer to the buffer, so the caller must free the memory before the process exits.
Six determiners missing from one sentence of otherwise near-native syntax. Polish has no article system, so nothing prompts them.
half year ago
half a year ago
Add a to a singular countable noun, and keep the idiom half a year (or simply six months).
WhyPolish has no articles, so they slip even at C2 – every English a and the has to be supplied fresh on the English side.
they were not paying last few invoices
not paying the last few invoices
Add the when the noun is specific and identified: the last few invoices is a known, particular set.
WhyPolish has no article system, so definiteness that Polish carries by context has to be spelled out in English with the.
I don't have team under me
I don't have a team under me
A singular countable noun takes a: a team, a sales team.
WhyPolish has no articles, so a singular countable noun arrives bare unless the speaker adds the article consciously.
you should invest in sales team
invest in a sales team
First-mention singular countable nouns take a, even inside a compound: a sales team.
WhyPolish supplies no article to copy, so the slot stays empty at speed.
the connection between Western side and Eastern side
between the Western side and the Eastern side
Use the for the specific and identifiable – the Western side, the Eastern side.
WhyPolish has no articles, so English supplies them fresh in both directions: under-use where English needs one, over-use where English needs none.
it's very hard topic
it's a very hard topic
A first-mention countable noun takes a, even with adjectives stacked in front of it.
WhyPolish has no a/an/the (brak rodzajników); definiteness rides on context, word order and demonstratives, so the English article slot is simply absent in the first language.
even though Polish president told him
even though the Polish president told him
A unique, identifiable office-holder takes the: the president, the prime minister.
WhyWith no article system in the first language, proper-noun-with-the patterns have to be memorised as lists rather than derived from a rule.
in the Europe
in Europe
No article before a continent: in Europe, in Asia, in Africa.
WhyArticle over-use is the mirror of under-use in a speaker whose first language has no articles at all – once the habit of supplying them starts, it over-applies.
it was already beginning of December
it was already the beginning of December
Fixed time expressions take the: the beginning of December, the end of the month.
WhyPolish has no a/an/the; definiteness is carried by demonstratives, word order and case, so at C2 the residue lives in first-mention countables and fixed time expressions.
we had English client
we had an English client
First-mention countable takes a/an – an English client.
WhyWith no article system to copy, the article has to be added consciously; at C2 these are best drilled as memorised pairs rather than rules.
it was company connected with transportation
it was a company connected with transport
First-mention countable takes a – a company. (British English: transport, not transportation.)
WhyPolish carries definiteness by demonstratives, word order and case, so the English article slot arrives empty.
connected with manufacture of cotton
connected with the manufacture of cotton
A process or activity specified by an of-phrase takes the: the manufacture of cotton, the production of steel – the of-phrase makes it definite.
WhyPolish has no a/an/the; definiteness is carried by context, word order and demonstratives, so shared-reference definites have to be supplied consciously in English.
the beginning of 19th century
the beginning of the 19th century
Centuries always take the: the 19th century, the 1800s, the Middle Ages.
WhyWith no article system in the first language, conventionalised definites like centuries and named eras have to be memorised rather than derived.
it's very underestimated country
it's a very underestimated country
A first-mention singular countable noun takes a/an, however many adjectives come between.
WhyPolish has no articles, so first-mention singular countables lose their a – specificity in Polish rides on demonstratives, word order and case instead.
I think language barrier would be very hard
I think the language barrier would be very hard
An identifiable, shared-reference noun takes the – the one we are both thinking of.
WhyWith no article system in the first language, the definite article on shared reference is the last and most persistent slot to fill.
it's good moment in life to travel
it's a good moment
First-mention countable singulars take a – a good moment, a family, a free evening.
WhyPolish has no articles at all, so there is no habit to lean on; at C2 the fix is memory, not rule – collect the fixed phrases and drill them as chunks.
if you have the family
if you have a family
For 'a family of your own', English wants a family – the definite article would point to a particular, already-known family.
WhyWhere the first language has no articles, over-use is as common as under-use once the speaker starts supplying them.
even though it's very close to city centre
close to the city centre
The city centre takes the – there is one, and we both know which.
WhyPolish carries definiteness by context rather than by an article, so shared-reference nouns arrive bare in English.
if you have free evening
if you have a free evening
A free evening – one of many, first mention, so a.
us buying house
us buying a house
A first-mention, countable, singular noun always takes a.
WhyPolish has none, so every English a and the is built from nothing rather than translated.
it's really nice office
it's a really nice office
Adjectives do not fill the article slot – a really nice office.
it's sport-fashion company
it's a sports-fashion company
A first-mention countable takes a – and the modifier is sports, not sport (sports car, sports centre).
from the another company
from another company
Another already contains its article – it is literally an + other – so the another is a double article.
WhyA speaker whose first language has no articles has no feel for which words already carry one, so a fixed trap like another attracts a second determiner.
chatting with colleague
chatting with a colleague
First-mention singular countable takes a/an.
WhyPolish has no a/an/the, so English articles are added rather than translated; at C2 the volume is low but the discipline is everything.
when I was child
when I was a child
A singular countable noun after was takes an article – a child.
WhyWith no article system to copy, the noun after the copula reads as a label and the article slot stays empty.
we creating a standards
we are creating standards
A generic plural takes no article – a can never sit on a plural. (And a continuous needs its auxiliary: we are creating.)
WhyThis is the mirror error of article omission: once a speaker whose first language has no articles starts supplying them, they land where English wants none.
having a technology knowledge
having technological knowledge
Uncountables take no a: knowledge, progress. (And the adjective is technological.)
WhyPolish has no a/an or the; definiteness is carried by demonstratives, word order and case, so English's constant article decision has nothing to map onto – which is why it stays the dominant category from B2 right through C2.
in my opinion company never innovate
in my opinion a company never innovates
A generic singular countable still needs its article – a company – and the third-person -s follows.
WhyWith no article system in the first language, the article has to be added consciously on every noun rather than copied.
one of challenges was lack of knowledge
one of the challenges was a lack of knowledge
A specific, identifiable set takes the – one of the challenges – and a lack is a singular countable.
WhyPolish carries definiteness by context rather than by an article, so a defined group arrives without the marker English requires.
making a progress
making progress
Progress is uncountable – make progress, never a progress.
WhyEnglish splits nouns into countable and uncountable in ways Polish does not, so an unwanted article attaches to mass nouns.
if used in inefficient way
if used in an inefficient way
In a/an + adjective + way is a fixed frame – in an inefficient way, in an inappropriate way.
if someone is underperformer
if someone is an underperformer
A role named after the copula takes an article on first mention – an underperformer.
WhyPolish has no articles at all, so the noun after is reads as a label and the article slot stays empty.
so better experience
for a better experience
A better X is a fixed pair – the comparative does not remove the article.
I have couple of them
I have a couple of them
A couple of is fixed and always carries its article.
it was first in my family
it was the first one in my family
Ordinals and one-anaphora are always the: the first one, the previous one.
WhyPolish has no article system; specificity rides on demonstratives (ten / ta / to), word order and case, so at C2 the residue clusters on the predicate nominal – the noun after IS or WAS, where it reads as a label and the article gets dropped.
it was offline game
it was an offline game
Every singular countable noun after IS or WAS takes a/an on first mention.
WhyWith no article system in the first language, the noun after the copula feels like a label rather than a thing, and the article is dropped.
it was even previous one
it was even the previous one
One-anaphora takes the – the previous one, the second one.
it's tricky question
it's a tricky question
After the copula the article is not optional: a tricky question.
they have fridge with beers
they have a fridge with beer
A singular countable takes a (a fridge); a mass noun takes none (beer) – beers only if you mean bottles.
WhyWith no Polish article system, both the missing a and the wrongly pluralised mass noun surface in the same phrase.
I like transportation industry
I like the transport industry
A specific whole takes THE: the transport industry. (British English says transport, not transportation.)
WhyPolish has no articles, so the definite article on a specific whole has to be supplied by hand.
you are more attractive for the employers
attractive to employers
Drop THE from a generic plural – employers in general. And the fixed pairing is attractive to, not for.
WhyPolish marks the relation with case, so the English preposition is chosen freshly and the generic plural keeps a determiner English does not want.
they have good reputation
they have a good reputation
A singular countable noun on first mention takes a/an – and the modifier does not remove the need: a good reputation, not good reputation.
WhyPolish has no a/an/the, so English articles are added by hand; the high-frequency case is the first-mention singular countable that loses its a, including when a modifier sits in front of it.
they have simpler way to do it
they have a simpler way to do it
First-mention singular countable → a/an. A one-second article check before each noun is the whole fix.
WhyNo Polish article system, so nothing in the first language prompts the determiner.
kind of addition to the current companies
kind of an addition
An addition is a singular countable on first mention, so it takes an.
WhyNo Polish article system; the determiner has to be supplied consciously in English.
Collocation 34
make a photo of yourself
take a photo of yourself
English fixes this verb as take – take a photo, take a picture – and the wider split is take a photo, make a decision, do the work, have a meeting.
WhyPolish robić zdjęcie is literally 'make/do a photo', so the Polish light verb rides across into English where English insists on take.
if this situation prolongs
if this situation continues / drags on
Prolong is transitive – you prolong something – so for the intransitive 'to go on' sense use continues, drags on, or is prolonged.
they are doing things very fast, very efficient
very fast, very efficiently
Use the adverb to say how something is done: efficiently, parallel with fast.
there are new ways to possess energy
new ways to generate (or produce) energy
Energy is generated or produced, not possessed.
it was in a high level stage
it was at an advanced stage
The fixed pairings are at an advanced stage and at a high level – the preposition and the adjective travel together.
it's used when someone is putting an argument to the topic
it's used when someone brings up something irrelevant – English: what's that got to do with anything?
Idioms rarely translate word-for-word – you swap the whole phrase, not the words.
WhyCo ma piernik do wiatraka? is a vivid, ordinary Polish idiom, but the image (gingerbread, windmill) is Polish-specific, so explaining its function word-by-word produces something no English speaker says.
we were doing some changes there
we were making some changes
You make changes, a decision, a mistake; you do business, research, homework.
WhyRobiliśmy zmiany – Polish robić is both DO and MAKE, so 'doing changes' is the literal read; English splits the two verbs and changes belongs to MAKE.
first of all, people like to migrate at all.
people like to migrate (drop 'at all')
At all only works in negatives and questions – not at all, do you ... at all? In a positive sentence it is simply dropped.
once a couple of years
once every couple of years
Frequency needs every: once every couple of years, once every few months.
to be in contrary just to earn more money
on the contrary
The fixed phrase is on the contrary, and it takes no to after it; the version that does take to is contrary to what people think.
WhyPolish's case system maps prepositions differently, so English set phrases arrive a shade off and are best memorised as collocations.
living here by their choice
living here by choice
By choice is the set form – no possessive: they live here by choice.
I did some mistakes for sure
I made some mistakes
There is no rule that sorts do from make – it is memorised pairs: make a mistake, make a decision, make money, make friends; do business, do research, do the homework.
WhyPolish robić covers both English do and make – one word where English insists on two – so zrobić błąd ('do/make a mistake') comes out as do a mistake.
do something from the wood
make something from wood
Make is create or produce a result; do is perform an activity – and the pairs are learned, not derived.
WhyZrobić coś z drewna ('do/make something from wood') is one Polish verb doing both jobs; English forces a choice with nothing underneath it.
we are not telling that we are from another company
we're not saying that we are from another company
You tell someone (a person), but you say that ... (a fact). With no listener in the slot, the verb is say.
WhyPolish mówić and powiedzieć cover both English verbs, so the split has to be learned as a frame rather than a meaning.
it looks quite well
it looks quite good
Well is about health or how something is done; a thing that pleases the eye looks good. Looks well would mean it has recovered from illness.
we don't have a flag product
a flagship product
A company's best, lead product is its flagship.
it works as a whispering advertisement that they are telling about us
it works by word of mouth, with people telling others about us
The English idiom is word of mouth – it works by word of mouth, or it spreads through word-of-mouth recommendation.
it was like in cooker
like being in an oven
A cooker is a hob or stove; the hot enclosed box is an oven.
WhyA false friend: Polish piekarnik is the oven, and cooker looks like the obvious English match but names a different appliance.
air condition
air conditioning
Air conditioning is the system – air condition is not a noun.
taking response for decisions
taking responsibility for decisions
Response is the reply; the noun for duty is responsibility and the adjective is responsible.
WhyPolish odpowiedzialność and odpowiedzialny both trace to one root, so English forces a choice the first language does not have to make.
the team is response for AI
the team is responsible for AI
Be responsible for; take responsibility for – the adjective and the noun are different words.
it's very hot to work
it's too hot to work
Too, not very, carries the 'excessive, and therefore a problem' meaning: too hot to work means so hot that working is hard.
unformal
informal
English negates this one with in-. The un-/in-/im-/il-/ir- choice is lexical and learned word by word: unhappy but informal, impossible, irregular.
WhyPolish nieformalny uses one negative prefix for everything, so a single English prefix is generalised across words that each take their own.
by their own
on their own
On their own means independently – or by themselves. Not by their own.
analyse in deep
analyse in depth
You analyse something in depth – the noun depth, not the adjective deep.
people keep telling that AI will replace us
people keep saying that AI will replace us
TELL takes a person object (tell someone something); SAY does not (say something, say that...). When there is no listener in the slot, the verb is SAY.
WhyPolish mówić and powiedzieć cover both English verbs, so the split has to be memorised as a frame rather than a meaning.
you have to tell what you do
you have to say what you do (or tell people what you do)
Tell needs its person: tell people what you do. With no person named, use say.
WhyOne Polish verb pair covers both English verbs, so the frame – not the meaning – is what has to be learned.
it started to be given the mass
it started to be released to the public
The idea was right, the collocation was not: released to the public, or given to the masses.
I don't know how they are called in English
what they are called in English
English asks what something is called, not how.
WhyPolish jak ('how') stands in for English what in this frame.
the house was with wood
the house was made of wood
English fixes material as made of.
WhyPolish z drewna ('of/from wood') was rendered literally as with.
after he got 16 and could work there
after he turned 16
In English you turn an age, you do not get it.
WhyThe Polish phrasing translates straight across; the Polish is grammatical, English simply fixes a different verb.
in the long period it should
in the long run it should
The English fixed expression for 'eventually' is in the long run (or in the long term).
WhyPolish w długim okresie was carried across literally as in the long period.
he got from zero level
he started from nothing / from scratch
The English idioms are start from nothing and start from scratch.
it was a slated ending of the whole play
the play was slated (by critics) / it was an understated ending
Slated means savaged by the critics – a close synonym of panned – so it describes the reception, not a feature of the work: the play was slated, not a slated ending. If the ending was quiet and restrained, the word is understated; if it was disappointing, anticlimactic or flat.
WhyThe review register is one English builds with fixed collocations that do not translate word-for-word from Polish theatre criticism.
Countability 19
lots of this kind of cases
lots of these kinds of cases
This kind of case (singular) or these kinds of cases (plural) – the demonstrative, the noun kind and the following noun all move together.
besides quite a big heat
quite a lot of heat
Heat is uncountable – a lot of heat, not a big heat.
our salesmens were at the event
our salesmen were at the event
Salesmen is already the plural of salesman – no second -s. The -man/-men pattern: one salesman, two salesmen.
it comes in pair
they come in pairs
The fixed phrase is in pairs – always plural, like in twos, in groups, in numbers.
WhyEnglish fixes some phrases in the plural regardless of a singular idea; Polish does not, so this is an English-surface tidy-up rather than a conceptual gap.
those rains are so heavy
the rain is so heavy
Rain is uncountable – no plural, singular verb. For several separate downpours, the showers are heavy.
it was above 40 degree
above 40 degrees
A number above one takes the plural – 40 degrees, two options.
two option
two options
Count nouns take -s after a number.
we had to deep dive in many documentation
deep dive into much documentation
Dive into – and documentation is uncountable, so much, not many.
a lot of tech company
a lot of tech companies
A lot of takes a plural.
this type of teams
this type of team
This type of takes a singular.
faster feedbacks from market
faster feedback from the market
Feedback is uncountable – no plural, ever – and the market is a specific, identifiable one.
WhyEnglish draws the count/mass line differently from Polish, so feedback, documentation, knowledge and progress attract an unwanted plural.
it took me 3 hour
it took me 3 hours
After a number, count nouns take -s.
my leaderships goes wrong
my leadership goes wrong
Leadership is uncountable – no plural.
WhyPolish draws the count/mass line differently, so English uncountables attract an unwanted plural – the same pattern that produced feedbacks earlier in the record.
if interest rate will move tomorrow
if interest rates move tomorrow
Interest rates is normally plural – and no will in the if-clause.
we didn't have a time to go
we didn't have time to go
Uncountables drop the a: time, luck and beer are mass nouns – have time, have luck.
WhyPolish has no articles, so a / an / the are added and dropped on the English side alone, and the errors run in both directions.
doesn't have any bus
doesn't have any buses
Any + a countable noun takes the plural: any buses.
WhyEnglish sorts nouns hard into count and mass in a way Polish does not, so the plural marking has to be added on the English side.
to increase morales amongst soldiers
to increase morale amongst soldiers
Morale is uncountable and never pluralises – like advice, information, luggage, feedback.
WhyPolish counts a number of abstract nouns that English keeps as a mass, so the plural feels natural.
most of Poles agree with that
most Poles agree with that
For a generic group use most + a bare plural (most Poles, most companies); keep most of for a specific set with the (most of the tickets).
WhyThe generic/specific split is marked differently in Polish, and this most of slip is shared right across the Slavic cohort.
have no remorses
have no remorse
Remorse is uncountable – an abstract feeling, like regret or guilt – so it takes no plural: he felt no remorse, without a trace of remorse.
WhyPolish counts many abstract nouns English keeps as a mass, and wyrzuty sumienia ('remorse') is itself plural in form, which makes remorses feel natural and the English singular feel incomplete.
Prepositions 14
the things you are searching
the things you are searching for
Search for and look for need their preposition to complete the verb.
there are people on the south that work in coal mines
people in the south who work in coal mines
Regions take in – in the south, in the north – and who is cleaner than that for people.
WhyPolish folds many English prepositions into case endings, so the preposition is chosen anew each time: na południu ('in the south', locative) pulls toward on the south.
on the last possible moment
at the last possible moment
At the last possible moment is a fixed preposition pairing – store it whole.
going everywhere by foot
going everywhere on foot
English goes on foot – the one exception to the by car / by bus / by train pattern.
WhyPolish uses pieszo or na piechotę, neither of which supplies the English preposition, so the by-pattern generalises across.
we'll be living a little bit further away the city centre
further away from the city centre
Further away needs from before the place.
WhyPolish routes these relations through case endings rather than dedicated prepositions, so the English particle drifts or drops.
since four years
for four years
For plus a length of time (for four years); since plus a starting point (since 2022).
WhyPolish od covers both, so one preposition has to be split into two in English.
in work
at work
You are at work – the place or state takes at, not in.
WhyPolish routes these relations through case endings rather than dedicated prepositions, so fixed English pairs transfer unevenly.
it was focused to deliver
focused on delivering
English pairs each verb with a fixed preposition and, after it, an -ing form rather than a to-infinitive: focus on, be involved in, dive into.
WhyPolish routes 'on / in / into' through case endings rather than dedicated prepositions, so the verb-plus-preposition pair has to be learned as a unit.
the team was involved to create
involved in creating
Be involved in + -ing – bank the preposition and the following form together.
I played a lot in that computer
I played a lot on that computer
In English you play on a computer or console, not in it – the device is a surface, not a container.
WhyPolish na covers ON and AT and w covers IN, and the device-as-surface metaphor goes the other way, so in is selected where English takes on.
I've been coding since many years
I've been coding for many years
FOR plus a duration; SINCE plus a starting point.
WhyPolish od covers both English words, so the two have to be split by hand.
I had to change for a different transportation company
...change to a different transport company
You change TO a company, not for one.
WhyPolish encodes some relations as case, so the English preposition is chosen freshly and occasionally wrongly.
in my age
at my age
English says at my age, at the age of 40.
WhyPolish w moim wieku is literally 'in my age', so the w transfers as in.
I have some trust to the booking company
I have some trust in the booking company
You place trust IN someone or something.
WhySome collocations fix a preposition English will not swap, and Polish case-marking gives no clue which one it is.
Subject-verb agreement 13
those kind of metrics works in big corporate
those kinds of metrics work in big corporations
Match the demonstrative to the noun – this kind of case, these kinds of cases – then agree the verb with the real head noun (kinds... work). Corporation is the noun; corporate is the adjective.
WhyPolish agreement is rich but distributed differently, so the English demonstrative-noun match and the true-head-noun agreement have to be checked by hand.
the economic are based on coal mining
the economy is based on coal mining
Economic is the adjective; the noun is the economy – and it is singular, so the economy is.
the beginning were connected
the beginning was connected
The beginning is singular, so was – a plural noun sitting nearby does not change the subject.
one of them are
one of them is
One of them is grammatically singular – the subject is one, so one of them is. The same trap catches each of and either of.
the latter approach also have benefits
the latter approach also has benefits
A singular subject takes has and was.
WhyPolish packs person onto the verb ending, so the English -s inflection is the one that goes missing under speed.
if engine flag a transaction
if the engine flags a transaction
In a zero or first conditional, the present-tense verb after a singular subject always carries -s.
WhyPolish conjugates the verb fully for person, so English's single surviving ending – the third-person -s – feels redundant and drops, especially at speed inside a longer clause like a conditional.
if scope creep happen
if scope creep happens
He, she, it and singular nouns take verb + s – even inside an if-clause.
WhyBecause Polish marks person richly on the verb, the lone English inflection carries no information the speaker feels is needed, and it is the first thing lost under pressure.
if someone find a potential data breach
if someone finds a potential data breach
Someone, everyone and anyone are singular – someone finds.
if he have another offer
if he has another offer
Have becomes has in the third-person singular.
it really make me powerful
it really makes me powerful
Third-person singular takes -s.
WhyPolish marks person and number on the verb richly but in a different system, so the English -s is the one ending that goes missing under speed.
many people drinks at work
many people drink at work
People is plural and takes a plural verb.
there is a lot of intermediaries that
there are a lot of intermediaries
The existential there is/are agrees with what follows it: a lot of + a plural noun is plural, so there are a lot of intermediaries. The verb agrees with intermediaries, not with a lot.
WhyPolish agreement works differently around such quantifiers, so the singular verb transfers. The fix is to look past a lot / most to the real, plural noun.
most of the tickets is sold by this platform
most of the tickets are sold by this platform
With most of / a lot of / some of, the verb agrees with the noun after of.
WhyPolish quantifier agreement follows a different pattern, so the singular verb carries across.
Present simple vs continuous 6
airports like that are generating massive income
airports like that generate massive income
A general truth takes the present simple – things that are simply, always true are not in progress.
WhyPolish verbs carry aspect morphologically (pisać imperfective / napisać perfective), and the imperfective covers both habitual and continuous – so a general truth can come out in the English continuous.
this is something we are not doing very often
this is something we don't do very often
For a habit or a general truth English uses the simple, not the continuous.
WhyThe Polish imperfective covers both habitual and continuous meanings in one form, so the English continuous over-applies to habits.
they are making this in June every year
they do this in June every year
Every year is a habitual marker, and habits take the simple present – and an event is held, run or organised, not made.
WhyRobią to co roku – robić again, plus the imperfective, which covers habit and so invites the English continuous.
we are sometimes auditing those
we sometimes audit them
Sometimes is a habitual marker, and habits take the simple present. Keep the continuous for what is happening at this very moment.
WhyPolish has one imperfective form covering both 'I am doing (right now)' and 'I do (usually)' – the imperfective audytujemy covers both readings, and English splits them.
most of the time I'm getting positive feedback
most of the time I get positive feedback
The trigger words tell you which tense: sometimes, usually, most of the time, every day take the simple present; right now, at the moment, currently take the continuous.
WhyOne Polish imperfective form covers habit and progress alike, so the habitual markers do not force the choice they force in English.
a bunch of talented individuals are not making a team
a bunch of talented individuals do not make a team
For a general truth English uses the simple present; the continuous would imply 'right now'.
WhyA single Polish imperfective form covers habitual and continuous alike, so the English continuous over-applies to timeless statements.
Word order 6
how those measurements were accurate
how accurate those measurements were
In an embedded question the adjective stays with how and the clause returns to statement order: how accurate those measurements were.
what could be future problems
what the future problems could be
In an embedded question the word order goes back to normal statement order – subject, then verb – once the question is tucked inside a larger sentence.
in my house was 30 degrees
in my house it was 30 degrees
English keeps a subject in every finite clause, even when there is nothing real to be the subject – the dummy it for weather and temperature, the dummy there for existence. Fronting an adverbial changes the word order but never licenses dropping the subject.
WhyPolish is a null-subject language: person is marked on the verb, and impersonal statements have no subject at all – u mnie w domu było 30 stopni is literally 'in my house was 30 degrees', and było stands on its own.
make easy to use for our employees
make it easy to use for our employees
English will not drop the object of make before an adjective: make it easy to use.
what it's called in English?
what's it called in English?
A direct question inverts; the statement order what it's belongs inside a bigger clause – I forget what it's called.
to see how our processes looks like
to see what our processes look like
The fixed frame is what X looks like; how pairs with an adjective (how they look), what pairs with look like – and a plural subject takes look.
Conditionals 4
you don't stand out as much as you would if there was not people from other countries
if there weren't people from other countries
In the second conditional the if-clause takes a plain past, and a plural subject takes weren't – the would lives only in the other half.
WhyPolish builds its conditional with the particle by, and gdyby ('if') already contains it – literally 'if-would' – which fuses the two halves and lets would leak into the English if-clause.
If they would move the other place
If they moved (to another place)
No would in the if-clause: if they moved, they would ... And a direction needs to – move to another place, one of many rather than a specific one.
WhyBecause gdyby fuses 'if' and 'would' into a single Polish word, English's rule that they must be split across the two clauses runs against a deep habit.
if this product will be bad
if this product is bad
The golden conditional rule: no will in the if-clause – the will goes in the main clause.
if we would see the previous years, each year is something new
if we look at the previous years, each year is something new
English keeps would out of the if-clause: if + present for a real condition, or if + past with would in the main clause for an unreal one. (And see becomes look at for deliberate inspection.)
WhyPolish puts the conditional marker by on both clauses (jeśli byśmy zobaczyli...), so would leaks into the English if-clause.
Perfect tenses 4
will have take the flights from other big airports in the Europe
will have taken the flights ... in Europe
After have, always the third form: will have taken, will have brought.
WhyPolish has no morphological perfect, so the have + third form frame is built from scratch and the participle is the part that slips.
it will have bring a lot of income
it will have brought a lot of income
The future perfect is will have + past participle – the auxiliary was right, only the participle slipped.
this year this app works great
this year this app has worked really well
This year names a period running up to now, so it wants the present perfect – and great is an adjective; as an adverb, really well.
WhyPolish has no morphological perfect at all, so the present-perfect boundary wobbles in both directions – here an under-reach, the mirror of the more usual over-reach.
I went to Asia
I've been to Asia
For life experience – at some point in my life, up to now – English uses the present perfect. I went to Asia is fine only with a finished time: I went to Asia in 2019.
WhyPolish marks aspect (perfective and imperfective), not an English-style perfect, so the perfect-versus-past line is the one tense area that still shows at C2.
Modal verbs 3
next summer it cames again
next summer it will come again
Come is irregular – come / came / come, never cames – and a future prediction takes will come.
you feeling you could did it better
you feel you could have done it better
The modal-perfect is could/would/should have + past participle – drill it as a fixed shape.
WhyThe modal-perfect has no direct Polish template, so it flattens to could did.
I thought we could went through some vocabulary
I thought we could go through some vocabulary
Modals take the bare infinitive: could go, never could went. The modal carries the tense and the main verb stays in its base form.
WhyPolish expresses ability and possibility with a modal-like verb plus an infinitive, and the infinitive does not carry tense – English is the same in principle, so this is a slip rather than a gap.
Relative clauses 3
a colleague of mine that I was working in a previous company
a colleague that I worked with at a previous company
English strands the preposition at the end of a relative clause – build the base phrase first (work with a colleague) and keep the preposition when you relativise.
WhyPolish keeps that relationship inside the clause with a case ending, so there is no habit of leaving a preposition hanging at the end – and it drops off.
I switched to this one I'm working now
the one I'm working at now
Work at a company – so the relative clause keeps its stranded at: the company I'm working at.
the systems which collecting the data
the systems which collect the data
A relative clause needs a finite verb – the systems which collect – or reduce it properly to the systems collecting the data. Never which collecting.
WhyPolish default is a full który clause, agreeing with the head noun in gender, number and case. Polish does have adjectival participles (systemy zbierające dane, 'systems collecting data'; dane zebrane, 'data collected'), but they are markedly more formal and far narrower in use than the English reduced relative, so the full clause is what transfers – and the half-reduced English form is a natural mid-point that English does not allow.
Adverbs 2
very fastly
very fast
Fast is its own adverb – there is no fastly. Fast, hard and well are the irregulars to memorise.
expand fastly
expand fast (quickly)
Fast is already its own adverb – there is no fastly. The -ly forms exist for most adjectives, but fast, hard and well are the irregulars.
Comparatives 2
it has similar architecture than Polish cities
similar architecture to Polish cities
Similar takes to, never than.
WhyPolish podobny do is literally 'similar to' – the do is 'to', so this is a slip toward the English comparative frame rather than a deep calque.
he's younger two years
he's two years younger
In a comparison the measure goes before the adjective: two years younger, ten per cent faster.
Past simple 2
I was visiting her a few times
I visited her a few times
A few times is a bounded, countable set of completed events, so English wants the simple past.
WhyThe Polish imperfective covers both habitual and continuous in one form, which nudges the speaker toward the English past continuous where a counted set of past events needs the simple past.
my father change it and give it to us
my father changed it and gave it to us
Once the frame is past, every finite verb stays past: changed, gave.
WhyPolish marks completion through aspect (perfective and imperfective stems), not through an English-style past-tense ending, so the bare or present stem transfers where English needs a marked past.
Quantifiers 2
it will have changed much
it will have changed a lot (or significantly)
In an affirmative statement much reads as stilted – use a lot or significantly, and reserve much for negatives and questions (not much, how much).
some of other capitals
some other capitals (or some of the other capitals)
Some other capitals takes no of; with of you need the definite article – some of the other capitals.
Cohesion 1
a reason and event sequence of events
a sequence of events / a cause and a sequence of events
The phrase doubles back on itself. At C2 the value is in pruning the redundancy, not adding words: one precise noun phrase over a doubled one.
WhyPolish can stack near-synonymous nouns for emphasis in a way that reads as redundant in English.
The passive 1
what family do you born in
what family were you born in
Be born is a passive in English, so the question needs the BE auxiliary: where were you born.
WhyPolish uses an active reflexive construction here, so the English passive auxiliary has no counterpart to translate.
Phrasal verbs 1
maybe I will be back to the aviation
maybe I'll go back to aviation
You go back or return to a field. Be back to describes a state, not the move – and a field of work takes no article.
WhyA direct translation of the Polish phrasing, which does not distinguish the state from the movement here.
Reported speech 1
freedom to do whatever I want
the freedom to do whatever I wanted
In a past frame English carries the past through every finite verb, including inside the subordinate clause.
WhyPolish does not backshift – powiedział, że jest studentem ('he said that he is a student') is perfectly grammatical – so the embedded present survives into English narration.
Purpose, reason and time clauses 1
they do this every year that everyone could participate
they do this every year so that everyone can participate
For purpose English uses so that + can/could, or to + infinitive – never a bare that. Keep the tense consistent with the main clause (present do, so can).
These are the Polish corrections only. The full archive holds every language side by side, filterable by grammar point and level: the marking archive. Other languages: Ukrainian, Russian, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Turkish.
A rule earns its place by being produced correctly and unprompted, not by being explained once.
The three-question article check
Three questions before any noun. Specific and known? Then the. First mention, countable, one of many? Then a/an. A continent, a generic, an uncountable? Then nothing.
CautionAt C2 the residue is mostly fixed expressions and proper-noun-with-the, so the most efficient route is memorised lists rather than the rule – and watch the over-use direction too (in Europe, not in the Europe).
The shared-reference rule for the
If you and your listener both know which one, it takes the. In practice that means a noun made specific by what follows it, or by convention.
CautionIt does not extend to generic mass nouns – cotton was cheap, software is complex take no article at all; the definite article marks the specific process or industry, not the substance.
The one-would rule
English allows would in one half of a conditional only – the result. In the if-clause it must be a plain past.
CautionThe trap is not carelessness but structure: where the first language fuses 'if' and 'would' into one word, the English split has to be made deliberately – one would, result side only.
The predicate-nominal article rule
Every singular countable noun after IS or WAS takes A/AN if it is a first mention, or THE if it is identifiable. After the copula the article is not optional – and ordinals and one-anaphora are always THE.
CautionThis is the slot where a speaker with no article system in the first language over-relies on intuition, because the noun feels like a label rather than a thing – so drill it as a mechanical surface rule, not as meaning.
Reception words vs style words
The critical register splits into two families that do different jobs. Reception words describe how critics received a work; style words describe what the work itself is like. A word from one family cannot be used to modify a feature of the work belonging to the other.
CautionSlated and panned are the trap, because they sound like descriptions of the work: they are not. A slated ending is impossible – only the reception can be slated.
Take a photo, not make. DO / MAKE / TAKE / HAVE: do the work, make a decision, take a photo, have a meeting.
Singular countable, one of many, first mention: a. Specific and known to us both: the.
The verb agrees with the real subject: those kinds of metrics work – find the true head noun first.
General truth = present simple. Airports like that generate income – things that are simply, always true are not in progress.
Will have + the third form: will have taken, will have brought. After have, always the third form.
Idioms: swap the phrase, not the words.
This year = present perfect. The app has worked well this year.
Purpose is SO THAT or TO: so that everyone can participate.
Similar TO, never similar than.
On foot – the exception to by car, by bus, by train.
Bounded past goes to the simple past: visited a few times, not was visiting.
No WOULD in the if-clause: if they moved, not if they would move.
Life experience takes the present perfect: I've been to Asia. A finished time takes the past: I went in 2019.
Robić = do AND make. English splits them – learn the pairs: make a mistake, make a decision, make money; do business, do research.
Tell a person, say a fact: say that..., tell someone.
Another = an + other. There is no the another.
Habitual goes to the simple present (we audit them sometimes); right now goes to the continuous (I'm auditing it).
Fronting keeps the subject: In my house IT was 30 degrees.
Dummy IT for weather and temperature; dummy THERE for existence. Every finite clause needs a subject.
No WILL in the if-clause: if this product is bad, we will...
FOR plus a duration, SINCE plus a starting point: for four years, since 2022.
Uncountable takes no a: make progress, have knowledge, much feedback.
Focus ON, be involved IN, dive INTO – and each takes -ing after it: focused on delivering.
The former and the latter: of two things, the first and the second.
He, she, it means verb + s – even inside 'if'. If scope creep happens, not happen.
Could have done, not could did: could / would / should have + past participle.
Reduced relative, active: the engineers working remotely. Passive: the data collected overnight.
THAT cannot be non-defining – never that after a comma.
SAY a thing, TELL a person: say that..., tell someone that...
Article after IS or WAS: it was a game, the first computer, a tricky question.
Uncountable, no A: have time, have luck. Singular countable, A: a fridge. Specific whole, THE: the transport industry. Generic plural, nothing: attractive to employers.
There IS/ARE agrees with the noun that follows: there are a lot of companies. Look past a lot / most to the real plural noun.
Generic group takes MOST plus a bare plural – most Poles. A specific set takes MOST OF THE – most of the tickets.
FAST is its own adverb – expand fast, never fastly. Hard and well are irregular too: work hard, sells well.
Reception versus style – keep them apart. How it was received, or what it is like.
Modal plus bare infinitive: could go, not could went. The modal carries the tense.
A report that only lists faults teaches you nothing about what to keep.
It was getting less and less popular
CreditedA lovely, idiomatic use of the comparative of gradual change – less and less, more and more, bigger and bigger. At C2 the report is as much about confirming these as correcting anything, and this one is firmly the student's own.
We do research every quarter to plan the roadmap.
CreditedPlanted in an error hunt as the one perfect sentence, and it earns it three times over: do research is right (this is the do side of robić, already owned), the habitual simple present is right, and the infinitive of purpose is clean. That is the standard the student is working at.
the vendor we work with
CreditedThe stranded preposition survived into a relative clause – the exact structure that dropped elsewhere in the same session. Polish keeps the relation inside the clause with a case ending, so leaving with hanging at the end is a genuinely English instinct rather than a translated one.
the latter approach also ...
CreditedThe latter – pointing back to the second of two things – is a genuinely advanced cohesive device, and it was used naturally rather than reached for. The agreement inside the phrase slipped separately, but the referencing itself was right, which is exactly the distinction a good error count preserves.
models answering that you should walk
CreditedA present-participle reduced relative, produced spontaneously where the first language offers no template for it: Polish builds relatives with the inflected pronoun który / która / które and reserves its adjectival participles for markedly formal register, far narrower in use than the English reduced relative, so the default transfer would have been a full which/that clause. Dropping the which is and going straight to the participle is native instinct.
This is the marking talking to itself. It is here because it is the honest evidence that the rest of the page came from somewhere.
A fluent, wide-ranging conversation with no target structure. Twelve items logged, all C2 refinements: articles ×4 (dominant), collocation and word choice ×2, number and agreement ×4, plus three smaller fixes.
A free conversation has no single structure to mark, so there is nothing to grade as absorbed or otherwise. At C2 the gains are the small, high-frequency words and pairings that make professional English sound effortless – so the report grades nothing and logs everything. Precedent: the same student's own earlier free-conversation session, also N/A.
Twelve items across five counts with no grammar focus: articles in both directions, lexis, two participle slips, an aspect note and an agreement.
Free conversation with naturalness as the aim, so there is no specific structure to test or absorb. At C2 this is the right shape of lesson – the work is register, collocation and idiom, not rules – so the report treats the twelve slips as the material rather than manufacturing a grammar verdict out of them. Precedents cited from the same student's own record and from another student's file.
The student took on a genuine Polish idiom – Co ma piernik do wiatraka? ('what has the gingerbread got to do with the windmill?') – and got the sense across, but the English came out calqued: it's used when someone is putting an argument to the topic, rather than the ready-made English phrase.
Reaching for a real idiom and being understood is the win, so this is not NOT ABSORBED. But the landing is the whole skill: the sense was translated word-by-word where English has its own phrase, so it is not ABSORBED either. The mapping is emerging rather than complete – which is exactly what PARTIALLY ABSORBED records. Notable as the first assessable verdict after a long run of naturalness sessions graded N/A.
Four items only across an hour of fluent, wide-ranging talk: articles ×2 and agreement and number ×2. One production explicitly logged as right: it was getting less and less popular.
A naturalness session sets no target structure, so there is no Count I verdict to give – and a four-error sheet is not evidence of absorption of anything in particular, so it is not graded as one. The report instead records what the four errors have in common (the definite article on shared reference) and confirms the strong production, which is the honest reading of a clean session.
Fifteen items logged across an hour of talk: collocation and lexis ×6 (dominant), articles ×4, verb aspect ×2, preposition and relative attachment ×2, number, uncountable and word order ×3. Almost none of them is grammar.
With no target grammar set there is nothing to mark as absorbed – this was talk, not a topic. The milestone verdict is therefore a happy one rather than an empty one: an hour of free conversation surfaced only word-choice and article polish, the things native speakers themselves argue about, which is itself the evidence that there is no structure left to fix.
The adverbial was fronted cleanly but the obligatory subject went with it: in my house was 30 degrees, for in my house it was 30 degrees. Cleft and inversion produced no errors at all, and where an emphatic complement did surface (...create an environment for growth) it was cleanly built.
Three emphatic structures, three different readings – so the verdict is graded per structure rather than averaged into one. Fronting showed a crack and is recorded as partially absorbed; cleft and inversion produced nothing to correct and are read as absorbed by absence, held provisionally because the conversation did not stress-test them. Averaging the three would have hidden both the specific fault and the specific strength.
Knowing the pattern your first language produces is most of the work. Knowing which of them you are still making takes someone reading your writing.
Every lesson comes with a written report: the marking line by line, the criteria, and one priority for next time. A worked example shows exactly what comes back. Lessons are £20 for fifty minutes, one to one, in proper British English; the first lesson doubles as a full assessment.
The book of the method
The Proper English Grammar Guide to IELTS Speaking
The method this site drills for free, written down properly: five response frameworks, thirteen grammatical structures taken to automation, vocabulary by band, pronunciation with audio demonstrations one scan away, and first-language guidance for eight language families. 614 pages, built from more than two thousand documented one-to-one lessons. Most guides teach every candidate the same English; this one starts from what your first language makes you do.
Paperback on Amazon →Kindle edition →The free 79-page companion →