Common european framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment

5.2
Communicative language competences
For  the  realisation  of  communicative  intentions,  users/learners  bring  to  bear  their
general capacities as detailed above together with a more specifically language-related
communicative competence. Communicative competence in this narrower sense has the
following components:
•
linguistic competences;
•
sociolinguistic competences;
•
pragmatic competences. 
5.2.1
Linguistic competences
No complete, exhaustive description of any language as a formal system for the expres-
sion of meaning has ever been produced. Language systems are of great complexity and
Users of the Framework may wish to consider and where appropriate state:
•
what study skills learners are encouraged/enabled to use and develop;
•
what heuristic abilities learners are encouraged/enabled to use and develop; 
•
what provision is made for learners to become increasingly independent in their learning
and use of language.
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment
108

the language of a large, diversified, advanced society is never completely mastered by
any  of  its  users.  Nor  could  it  be,  since  every  language  is  in  continuous  evolution  in
response  to  the  exigencies  of  its  use  in  communication.  Most  nation  states  have
attempted  to  establish  a  standard  form  of  the  language,  though  never  in  exhaustive
detail. For its presentation, the model of linguistic description in use for teaching the
corpus is still the same model as was employed for the long-dead classical languages.
This  ‘traditional’  model  was,  however,  repudiated  over  100  years  ago  by  most  profes-
sional linguists, who insisted that languages should be described as they exist in use
rather than as some authority thinks they should be and that the traditional model,
having  been  developed  for  languages  of  a  particular  type,  was  inappropriate  for  the
description of language systems with a very different organisation. However, none of the
many proposals for alternative models has gained general acceptance. Indeed, the pos-
sibility of one universal model of description for all languages has been denied. Recent
work on linguistic universals has not as yet produced results which can be used directly
to facilitate language learning, teaching and assessment. Most descriptive linguists are
now content to codify practice, relating form and meaning, using terminology which
diverges from traditional practice only where it is necessary to deal with phenomena
outside the range of traditional models of description. This is the approach adopted in
Section 4.2. It attempts to identify and classify the main components of linguistic com-
petence defined as knowledge of, and ability to use, the formal resources from which
well-formed, meaningful messages may be assembled and formulated. The scheme that
follows aims only to offer as classificatory tools some parameters and categories which
may be found useful for the description of linguistic content and as a basis for reflec-
tion. Those practitioners who prefer to use a different frame of reference are free, here
as elsewhere, to do so. They should then identify the theory, tradition or practice they
are following. Here, we distinguish:
5.2.1.1
lexical competence;
5.2.1.2
grammatical competence;
5.2.1.3
semantic competence;
5.2.1.4
phonological competence;
5.2.1.5
Orthographic competence;
5.2.1.6
Orthoepic competence.
Progress in the development of a learner’s ability to use linguistic resources can be scaled
and is presented in that form below as appropriate.
The user/learner’s competences
109

GENERAL LINGUISTIC RANGE
C2
Can exploit a comprehensive and reliable mastery of a very wide range of language to formulate
thoughts precisely, give emphasis, differentiate and eliminate ambiguity . . . No signs of having to
restrict what he/she wants to say.
C1
Can select an appropriate formulation from a broad range of language to express him/herself clearly,
without having to restrict what he/she wants to say.
Can express him/herself clearly and without much sign of having to restrict what he/she wants to say.
B2
Has a sufficient range of language to be able to give clear descriptions, express viewpoints and develop
arguments without much conspicuous searching for words, using some complex sentence forms to do so.
Has a sufficient range of language to describe unpredictable situations, explain the main points in an
idea or problem with reasonable precision and express thoughts on abstract or cultural topics such as
music and films.
B1
Has enough language to get by, with sufficient vocabulary to express him/herself with some hesitation
and circumlocutions on topics such as family, hobbies and interests, work, travel, and current events, but
lexical limitations cause repetition and even difficulty with formulation at times.
Has a repertoire of basic language which enables him/her to deal with everyday situations with
predictable content, though he/she will generally have to compromise the message and search for words. 
A2
Can produce brief everyday expressions in order to satisfy simple needs of a concrete type: personal
details, daily routines, wants and needs, requests for information. 
Can use basic sentence patterns and communicate with memorised phrases, groups of a few words and
formulae about themselves and other people, what they do, places, possessions etc.
Has a limited repertoire of short memorised phrases covering predictable survival situations; frequent
breakdowns and misunderstandings occur in non-routine situations.
A1
Has a very basic range of simple expressions about personal details and needs of a concrete type.
5.2.1.1
Lexical  competence,  knowledge  of,  and  ability  to  use,  the  vocabulary  of  a  lan-
guage, consists of lexical elements and grammatical elements.
Lexical elements include:
a)
Fixed expressions, consisting of several words, which are used and learnt as wholes.
Fixed expressions include:
•
sentential formulae, including:
direct exponents of language functions (see section 5.2.3.2) such as greetings, e.g.
How do you do? Good morning! etc.
proverbs, etc. (see section 5.2.2.3)
relict archaisms, e.g. Be off with you!
•
phrasal idioms, often:
semantically opaque, frozen metaphors, e.g.:
He kicked the bucket (i.e. he died).
It’s a long shot (= unlikely to succeed).
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment
110

He drove hell for leather (i.e. very fast). 
intensifiers. Their use is often contextually and stylistically restricted, e.g. as white
as snow (= ‘pure’), as against as white as a sheet (= ‘pallid’).
•
fixed frames, learnt and used as unanalysed wholes, into which words or phrases
are inserted to form meaningful sentences, e.g.: ‘Please may I have . . .’.
•
other fixed phrases, such as: 
phrasal verbs, e.g. to put up with, to make do (with);
compound prepositions, e.g. in front of.
•
fixed  collocations,  consisting  of  words  regularly  used  together,  e.g.  to  make  a
speech/mistake.
b)
Single word forms. A particular single word form may have several distinct meanings
(polysemy), e.g. tank, a liquid container or an armoured armed vehicle. Single word
forms  include  members  of  the  open  word  classes:  noun,  verb,  adjective,  adverb,
though these may include closed lexical sets (e.g. days of the week, months of the
year, weights and measures, etc.). Other lexical sets may also be established for gram-
matical and semantic purposes (see below).
Grammatical elements belong to closed word classes, e.g. (in English):
articles
(a, the)
quantifiers
(some, all, many, etc.)
demonstratives
(this, that, these, those)
personal pronouns
(I, we, he, she, it, they, me, you, etc.)
question words and
relatives
(who, what, which, where, how, etc.)
possessives
(my, your, his, her, its, etc.)
prepositions
(in, at, by, with, of, etc.)
auxiliary verbs
(be, do, have, modals)
conjunctions
(and, but, if, although)
particles
(e.g. in German: ja, wohl, aber, doch, etc.)
Illustrative scales are available for the range of vocabulary knowledge, and the ability to
control that knowledge.
The user/learner’s competences
111

VOCABULARY RANGE
C2
Has a good command of a very broad lexical repertoire including idiomatic expressions and
colloquialisms; shows awareness of connotative levels of meaning.
C1
Has a good command of a broad lexical repertoire allowing gaps to be readily overcome with
circumlocutions; little obvious searching for expressions or avoidance strategies. Good command of
idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms.
B2
Has a good range of vocabulary for matters connected to his/her field and most general topics. Can
vary formulation to avoid frequent repetition, but lexical gaps can still cause hesitation and
circumlocution.
B1
Has a sufficient vocabulary to express him/herself with some circumlocutions on most topics pertinent to
his/her everyday life such as family, hobbies and interests, work, travel, and current events. 
Has sufficient vocabulary to conduct routine, everyday transactions involving familiar situations and
topics. 
A2
Has a sufficient vocabulary for the expression of basic communicative needs.
Has a sufficient vocabulary for coping with simple survival needs.
A1
Has a basic vocabulary repertoire of isolated words and phrases related to particular concrete
situations.
VOCABULARY CONTROL
C2
Consistently correct and appropriate use of vocabulary.
C1
Occasional minor slips, but no significant vocabulary errors.
B2
Lexical accuracy is generally high, though some confusion and incorrect word choice does occur without
hindering communication.
B1
Shows good control of elementary vocabulary but major errors still occur when expressing more complex
thoughts or handling unfamiliar topics and situations. 
A2
Can control a narrow repertoire dealing with concrete everyday needs.
A1
No descriptor available
5.2.1.2
Grammatical competence
Grammatical competence may be defined as knowledge of, and ability to use, the gramm-
atical resources of a language.
Formally, the grammar of a language may be seen as the set of principles governing
Users of the Framework may wish to consider and where appropriate state:
•
which lexical elements (fixed expressions and single word forms) the learner will need/be
equipped/be required to recognise and/or use;
•
how they are selected and ordered.
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment
112

the  assembly  of  elements  into  meaningful  labelled  and  bracketed  strings  (sentences).
Grammatical competence is the ability to understand and express meaning by produc-
ing and recognising well-formed phrases and sentences in accordance with these princi-
ples (as opposed to memorising and reproducing them as fixed formulae). The grammar
of any language in this sense is highly complex and so far defies definitive or exhaustive
treatment. There are a number of competing theories and models for the organisation
of words into sentences. It is not the function of the Framework to judge between them
or to advocate the use of any one, but rather to encourage users to state which they have
chosen to follow and what consequences their choice has for their practice. Here we limit
ourselves to identifying some parameters and categories which have been widely used in
grammatical description.
The description of grammatical organisation involves the specification of:
•
elements, e.g.:
morphs
morphemes-roots and affixes 
words
•
categories, e.g.:
number, case, gender 
concrete/abstract, countable/uncountable 
(in)transitive, active/passive voice
past/present/future tense
progressive, (im)perfect aspect
•
classes, e.g.:
conjugations
declensions
open  word  classes:  nouns,  verbs,  adjectives,  adverbs,  closed  word
classes (grammatical elements – see section 5.2.1.1)
•
structures, e.g.:
compound and complex words 
phrases: (noun phrase, verb phrase, etc.) 
clauses: (main, subordinate, co-ordinate) 
sentences: (simple, compound, complex)
•
processes (descriptive), e.g.:
nominalisation
affixation
suppletion
gradation
transposition
transformation
•
relations, e.g.:
government
concord
valency
An illustrative scale is available for grammatical accuracy. This scale should be seen in
relation to the scale for general linguistic range shown at the beginning of this section.
It is not considered possible to produce a scale for progression in respect of grammatical
structure which would be applicable across all languages.
The user/learner’s competences
113

GRAMMATICAL ACCURACY
C2
Maintains consistent grammatical control of complex language, even while attention is otherwise
engaged (e.g. in forward planning, in monitoring others’ reactions).
C1
Consistently maintains a high degree of grammatical accuracy; errors are rare and difficult to 
spot. 
Good grammatical control; occasional ‘slips’ or non-systematic errors and minor flaws in sentence
structure may still occur, but they are rare and can often be corrected in retrospect. 
B2
Shows a relatively high degree of grammatical control. Does not make mistakes which lead to
misunderstanding.
Communicates with reasonable accuracy in familiar contexts; generally good control though with
noticeable mother tongue influence. Errors occur, but it is clear what he/she is trying to express.
B1
Uses reasonably accurately a repertoire of frequently used ‘routines’ and patterns associated with more
predictable situations.
A2
Uses some simple structures correctly, but still systematically makes basic mistakes – for example tends
to mix up tenses and forget to mark agreement; nevertheless, it is usually clear what he/she is trying to
say.
A1
Shows only limited control of a few simple grammatical structures and sentence patterns in a learnt
repertoire.
A distinction is traditionally drawn between morphology and syntax.
Morphology deals with the internal organisation of words. Words may be analysed into
morphemes, classed as:
•
roots, or stems;
•
affixes (prefixes, suffixes, infixes), including:
word-forming affixes (e.g. re-, un-, -ly, -ness);
inflexional affixes (e.g. s, -ed, -ing).
Word-formation:
Words may be classified into: 
•
simple words (root only, e.g. six, tree, break);
•
complex words (root + affixes, e.g. unbrokenly, sixes);
•
compound words (containing more than one root, e.g. sixpence, breakdown, oak-tree,
evening dress).
Users of the Framework may wish to consider and where appropriate state:
•
on which theory of grammar they have based their work;
•
which grammatical elements, categories, classes, structures, processes and relations are
learners, etc. equipped/required to handle.
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment
114

Morphology also deals with other ways of modifying word forms, e.g.:
•
vowel alteration
(sing/sang/sung, mouse/mice) 
•
consonant modification
(lend/lent)
•
irregular forms
(bring/brought, catch/caught)
•
suppletion
(go/went)
•
zero forms
(sheep/sheep, cut/cut/cut)
Morphophonology  deals  with  the  phonetically  conditioned  variation  of  morphemes
(e.g. English s/z/iz in walks, lies, rises; t/d/id in laughed, cried, shouted), and their morph-
ologically  conditioned  phonetic  variation  (e.g.  i:/e  in  creep/crept,  mean/meant,  weep/
wept).
Syntax deals with the organisation of words into sentences in terms of the categories,
elements,  classes,  structures,  processes  and  relations  involved,  often  presented  in  the
form of a set of rules. The syntax of the language of a mature native speaker is highly
complex and largely unconscious. The ability to organise sentences to convey meaning
is a central aspect of communicative competence.
5.2.1.3
Semantic competence 
deals with the learner’s awareness and control of the organisation of meaning.
Lexical semantics deals with questions of word meaning, e.g.:
•
relation of word to general context:
reference;
connotation;
exponence of general specific notions;
•
interlexical relations, such as:
synonymy/antonymy;
hyponymy;
collocation;
part-whole relations;
componential analysis;
translation equivalence.
Users of the Framework may wish to consider and where appropriate state:
•
what grammatical elements, categories, classes, structures, processes and relations
learners will need/be equipped/required to handle.
Users of the Framework may wish to consider and where appropriate state:
•
what morphological elements and processes the learner will need/be equipped/required to
handle.
The user/learner’s competences
115

Grammatical  semantics deals  with  the  meaning  of  grammatical  elements,  categories,
structures and processes (see section 5.2.1.2).
Pragmatic  semantics deals  with  logical  relations  such  as  entailment,  presupposition,
implicature, etc.
Questions of meaning are of course central to communication and are treated passim in
this Framework (see particularly section 5.1.1.1).
Linguistic  competence  is  treated  here  in  a  formal  sense.  From  the  point  of  view  of
theoretical  or  descriptive  linguistics,  a  language  is  a  highly  complex  symbolic  system.
When an attempt is made, as here, to separate out the many different components of com-
municative competence, knowledge (largely unconscious) of and ability to handle formal
structure is legitimately identifiable as one of those components. How much, if indeed
any, of this formal analysis should enter into language learning or teaching is a different
matter. The functional/notional approach adopted in the Council of Europe publications
Waystage 1990, Threshold Level 1990 and Vantage Level offers an alternative to the treatment
of linguistic competence in Section 5.2.1–3. Instead of starting from language forms and
their meanings, it starts from a systematic classification of communicative functions and
of notions, divided into general and specific, and secondarily deals with forms, lexical and
grammatical,  as  their  exponents.  The  approaches  are  complementary  ways  of  dealing
with  the  ‘double  articulation’  of  language.  Languages  are  based  on  an  organisation  of
form and an organisation of meaning. The two kinds of organisation cut across each other
in  a  largely  arbitrary  fashion.  A  description  based  on  the  organisation  of  the  forms  of
expression atomises meaning, and that based on the organisation of meaning atomises
form.  Which  is  to  be  preferred  by  the  user  will  depend  on  the  purpose  for  which  the
description is produced. The success of the Threshold Level approach indicates that many
practitioners find it more advantageous to go from meaning to form rather than the more
traditional practice of organising progression in purely formal terms. On the other hand,
some may prefer to use a ‘communicative grammar’, as for example, in Un niveau-seuil.
What is clear is that a language learner has to acquire both forms and meanings.
5.2.1.4
Phonological competence 
involves a knowledge of, and skill in the perception and production of:
•
the sound-units (phonemes) of the language and their realisation in particular con-
texts (allophones);
•
the phonetic features which distinguish phonemes (distinctive features, e.g. voicing,
rounding, nasality, plosion);
•
the phonetic composition of words (syllable structure, the sequence of phonemes, word
stress, word tones); 
•
sentence phonetics (prosody)
•
sentence stress and rhythm
•
intonation;
Users of the Framework may wish to consider and where appropriate state:
•
what kinds of semantic relation learners are equipped/required to build up/demonstrate.
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment
116

•
phonetic reduction
•
vowel reduction
•
strong and weak forms
•
assimilation
•
elision.
PHONOLOGICAL CONTROL
C2
As C1
C1
Can vary intonation and place sentence stress correctly in order to express finer shades of meaning.