The Common European Framework in its political and educational context What is the Common European Framework?

particular points and rounding off
with an effective logical structure 
a topical issue giving the advantages
with an appropriate conclusion.
which helps the recipient to notice 
and disadvantages of various options.
and remember significant points.
I can write clear, detailed text on a 
I can express myself in clear, well-
I can write clear, smoothly flowing 
wide range of subjects related to my 
structured text, expressing points 
text in an appropriate style. I can 
interests. I can write an essay or 
of view at some length. I can write
write complex letters, reports or 
report, passing on information or 
about complex subjects in a 
articles which present a case with an 
giving reasons in support of or 
letter, an essay or a report, 
effective logical structure which 
against a particular point of view. I 
underlining what I consider to be 
helps the recipient to notice and 
can write letters highlighting the 
the salient issues. I can select
remember significant points. I can 
personal significance of events and 
style appropriate to the reader 
write summaries and reviews of 
experiences.
in mind.
professional or literary works.

---

T
able 3. 
Common Ref
er
ence Le
vels:
q
ualit
ativ
e aspects of spok
en languag
e use
R
A
N
G
E
A
CCUR
A
C
Y
FLUEN
CY
INTER
A
CTION
C
OHEREN
CE
C2
Sho
ws g
reat flexibility
Maintains consis
tent 
Can express him/herself 
Can int
er
act wit
h ease and
Can creat
e coherent and 
ref
o
rmulating ideas in
g
rammatical control of 
spontaneousl
y at lengt
h wit
h
skill, pic
king up and using
cohesiv
e discourse
dif
fering linguis
tic f
or
ms
com
plex languag
e, e
ven 
a natur
al colloq
uial flo
w
, 
non-v
erbal and int
ona-
making full and appropri-
to conv
e
y finer shades of
while att
ention is ot
her
wise
a
voiding or backtr
ac
king 
tional cues apparentl
y
a
te use of a variety of 
meaning precisel
y, t
o giv
e
eng
ag
ed (e.g. in f
o
rw
ar
d 
around an
y dif
ficulty so 
ef
fo
rtlessl
y. Can int
er
w
e
a
ve
org
anisational patt
er
ns 
em
phasis, t
o dif
fe
rentiat
e
planning, in monit
oring 
smoot
hl
y t
hat t
he 
his/her contribution int
o
and a wide r
ang
e of
and t
o eliminat
e ambiguity
.
o
thers’ reactions).
int
erlocut
or is har
dl
y 
the joint discourse wit
h
connect
ors and ot
her 
Also has a good command
a
w
are of it.
full
y natur
al tur
ntaking, 
cohesiv
e de
vices.
of idiomatic expressions
ref
e
rencing, allusion
and colloq
uialisms.
making, et
c. 
C1
Has a good command of a
Consis
tentl
y maintains a 
Can express him/herself 
Can select a suitable phr
ase
Can produce clear
, 
broad r
ang
e of languag
e
high deg
ree of g
rammatical 
fluentl
y and spontaneousl
y,
from a readil
y a
vailable 
smoot
hl
y flo
wing, w
ell-
allo
wing him/her t
o select a
accur
acy; er
rors are r
are, 
almos
t ef
fo
rtlessl
y. Onl
y a 
rang
e of discourse 
st
ructured speec
h, 
fo
rmulation t
o express him/
dif
ficult t
o spot and 
conceptuall
y dif
fi
cult 
functions t
o pref
ace his 
sho
wing controlled use of 
herself clearl
y in an
g
ener
all
y cor
rect
ed when 
subject can hinder a natur
al,
remark
s in or
der t
o g
et or
org
anisational patt
er
ns, 
appropriat
e s
tyle on a wide
th
e
y do occur
.
smoot
h flo
w of languag
e. 
to k
eep t
he floor and t
o 
connect
ors and cohesiv
e 
rang
e of g
ener
al, academic,
relat
e his/her o
wn 
de
vices.
prof
essional or leisure
contributions skilfull
y t
o 
topics wit
hout ha
ving t
o
those of ot
her speak
ers.
res
trict what he/she w
ants
to
sa
y.
B2+
B2
Has a suf
ficient r
ang
e of
Sho
ws a relativ
el
y high 
Can produce s
tret
c
hes of 
Can initiat
e discourse, tak
e
Can use a limit
ed number 
languag
e t
o be able t
o giv
e
deg
ree of g
rammatical 
languag
e wit
h a f
airl
y e
ven 
his/her tur
n when 
of cohesiv
e de
vices t
o link 
clear descriptions, express
control. Does not mak
e 
te
m
po; alt
hough he/she can
appropriat
e and end 
his/her utt
er
ances int
o 
vie
wpoints on mos
t g
ener
al
er
rors whic
h cause mis-
be hesitant as he/she 
conv
ersation when he/she
clear
, coherent discourse, 
topics, wit
hout muc
h
unders
tanding, and can 
sear
c
hes f
or patt
er
ns and 
needs t
o, t
hough he/she 
though t
here ma
y be 
conspicuous searc
hing f
or
cor
rect mos
t of his/her 
expressions. There are f
e
w
m
a
y not alw
a
y
s do t
his 
some ‘jum
piness’ in a 
w
o
rds, using some com
plex
mis
tak
es.
noticeabl
y long pauses.
eleg
antl
y. Can help t
he 
long contribution.
sent
ence f
or
ms t
o do so.
discussion along on
familiar g
round confir
ming
com
prehension, inviting
ot
hers in, et
c.

---

B1+
B1
Has enough languag
e t
o g
et
Uses reasonabl
y accur
at
el
y a
Can k
eep going 
Can initiat
e, maintain and
Can link a series of 
b
y, wit
h suf
ficient
reper
toire of freq
uentl
y used
com
prehensibl
y, e
ven t
hough
close sim
ple f
ace-t
o-f
ace 
shor
te
r, discret
e sim
ple 
vocabular
y t
o express him/
‘routines’ and patt
er
ns 
pausing f
or g
rammatical and
conv
ersation on t
opics t
hat
elements int
o a 
herself wit
h some hesitation
associat
ed wit
h more 
lexical planning and repair is
are f
amiliar or of personal
connect
ed, linear 
and circumlocutions on
predictable situations.
ve
ry
e
vident, especiall
y in
int
eres
t. Can repeat bac
k
seq
uence of points.
topics such as f
amil
y,
long
er s
tret
c
hes of free 
par
t of what someone has
hobbies and int
eres
ts, w
ork,
production. 
said t
o confir
m mutual
tr
a
vel, and cur
rent e
vents.
unders
tanding.
A2+
A2
Uses basic sent
ence patt
er
ns
Uses some sim
ple s
tr
uctures
Can mak
e him/herself 
Can answ
er q
ues
tions and
Can link g
roups of w
or
ds 
wit
h memorised phr
ases,
cor
rectl
y, but s
till 
unders
tood in v
er
y shor
t 
respond t
o sim
ple 
wit
h sim
ple connect
ors 
g
roups of a f
e
w w
or
ds and
sys
tematicall
y mak
es basic 
utt
er
ances, e
ven t
hough 
st
at
ements. Can indicat
e 
lik
e ‘and’, ‘but’ and 
fo
rmulae in or
der t
o
m
is
tak
es. 
pauses, f
alse s
tar
ts and 
when he/she is f
ollo
wing 
‘because’.
communicat
e limit
ed
ref
o
rmulation are v
er
y 
but is r
arel
y able t
o 
inf
or
mation in sim
ple
e
vident.
unders
tand enough t
o k
eep
e
ver
yda
y situations.
conv
ersation going of
his/her o
wn accor
d.
A1
Has a v
er
y basic reper
toire
Sho
ws onl
y limit
ed control 
Can manag
e v
er
y shor
t, 
Can ask and answ
er 
Can link w
or
ds or g
roups 
of w
or
ds and sim
ple phr
ases
of a f
e
w
sim
ple g
rammatical
isolat
ed, mainl
y pre-
q
ues
tions about personal 
of w
or
ds wit
h v
er
y basic 
relat
ed t
o personal details
st
ructures and sent
ence 
packag
ed utt
er
ances, wit
h 
details. Can int
er
act in a 
linear connect
ors lik
e 
and par
ticular concret
e
patt
er
ns in a memorised 
much pausing t
o searc
h f
or 
sim
ple w
a
y but 
‘and’ or ‘t
hen’.
situations.
reper
toire.
expressions, t
o ar
ticulat
e less
communication is t
otall
y 
familiar w
or
ds, and t
o repair
dependent on repetition, 
communication.
rephr
asing and repair
.

---

Communicative language competences 
Scaled descriptors are provided for aspects of linguistic competence and pragmatic com-
petence, and for sociolinguistic competence. Certain aspects of competence do not seem
to be amenable to definition at all levels; distinctions have been made where they have
been shown to be meaningful.
Descriptors need to remain holistic in order to give an overview; detailed lists of micro-
functions, grammatical forms and vocabulary are presented in language specifications
for particular languages (e.g. Threshold Level 1990). An analysis of the functions, notions,
grammar and vocabulary necessary to perform the communicative tasks described on
the scales could be part of the process of developing new sets of language specifications.
General competences implied by such a module (e.g. Knowledge of the World, Cognitive
skills) could be listed in similar fashion.
The descriptors juxtaposed with the text in Chapters 4 and 5:
•
Draw, in their formulation, upon the experience of many bodies active in the field of
defining levels of proficiency.
•
Have been developed in tandem with the development of the model presented in
Chapters 4 and 5 through an interaction between (a) the theoretical work of the
authoring group, (b) the analysis of existing scales of proficiency and (c) the practical
workshops with teachers. Whilst not providing fully comprehensive coverage of the
categories presented in Chapters 4 and 5, the set gives an indication of the possible
appearance of a set of descriptors which would do so.
•
Have been matched to the set of Common Reference Levels: A1 (Breakthrough), A2
(Waystage), B1 (Threshold), B2 (Vantage), C1 (Effective Operational Proficiency) and C2
(Mastery).
•
Meet the criteria outlined in Appendix A for effective descriptors in that each is brief,
is clear and transparent, is positively formulated, describes something definite and
has independent, stand-alone integrity – not relying on the formulation of other
descriptors for its interpretation.
•
Have been found transparent, useful and relevant by groups of non-native and native-
speaker teachers from a variety of educational sectors with very different profiles in
terms of linguistic training and teaching experience. Teachers appear to understand
the descriptors in the set, which has been refined in workshops with them from an
initial pool of some thousands of examples.
•
Are relevant to the description of actual learner achievement in lower and upper sec-
ondary, vocational and adult education, and could thus represent realistic objec-
tives.
•
Have been (with noted exceptions) ‘objectively calibrated’ to a common scale. This
means that the position of the vast majority of the descriptors on the scale is the
product of the way in which they have been interpreted to assess the achievement of
learners, and not just on the basis of the opinion of the authors.
•
Provide a bank of criterion statements about the continuum of foreign language pro-
ficiency which can be exploited flexibly for the development of criterion-referenced
assessment. They can be matched to existing local systems, elaborated by local experi-
ence and/or used to develop new sets of objectives.
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment
30

---

The set as a whole, whilst not being fully comprehensive and having been scaled in one
(admittedly multi-lingual, multi-sector) context of foreign language learning in instruc-
tional settings:
•
is flexible. The same set of descriptors can be organised – as here – into the set of
broad ‘conventional levels’ identified at the Rüschlikon Symposium, used by the
European Commission’s DIALANG Project (see Appendix C), as well as by ALTE (The
Association of Language Testers in Europe) (see Appendix D). They can also be pre-
sented as narrower ‘pedagogic levels’.
•
is coherent from the point of view of content. Similar or identical elements which
were included in different descriptors proved to have very similar scale values. These
scale values also, to a very large extent, confirm the intentions of authors of the scales
of language proficiency used as sources. They also appear to relate coherently to the
content of Council of Europe specifications, as well as the levels being proposed by
DIALANG and ALTE.