Key aspects of the CEFR for teaching and learning Page 37
The Common Reference Levels are dened in detail by the illustrative descriptors in CEFR 2001 Chapters 4 and
5, but the major characteristics of the levels are summarised briey in CEFR 2001 Section 3.6 (see Appendix 1)
and in the three tables used to introduce the levels in CEFR 2001 Chapter 3:
f CEFR Table 1: a global scale, with one short, summary paragraph per level, is provided in Appendix 1;
f CEFR Table 2: a self-assessment grid, which summarises in a simplied form CEFR descriptors for commu-
nicative language activities in CEFR 2001 Chapter 4. Table 2 is also used in the Language Passport of the
many versions of the ELP and in the EU’s Europass. An expanded version including “Written and online
interaction” and “Mediation” is provided in Appendix 2 of this publication;
f CEFR Table 3: a selective summary of the CEFR descriptors for aspects of communicative language competence
in CEFR 2001 Chapter 5. An expanded version including “Phonology” is given in this publication in Appendix 3.
It should be emphasised that the top level in the CEFR scheme, C2, has no relation whatsoever with what is
sometimes referred to as the performance of an idealised “native speaker”, or a “well-educated native speaker”
or a “near native speaker”. Such concepts were not taken as a point of reference during the development of the
levels or the descriptors. C2, the top level in the CEFR scheme, is introduced in the CEFR as follows:
Level C2, whilst it has been termed “Mastery”, is not intended to imply native-speaker or near native-speaker
competence. What is intended is to characterise the degree of precision, appropriateness and ease with the language
which typies the speech of those who have been highly successful learners. (CEFR 2001 Section 3.6)
Mastery (Trim: “comprehensive mastery”; Wilkins: “Comprehensive Operational Prociency”), corresponds to the top
examination objective in the scheme adopted by ALTE (Association of Language Testers in Europe). It could be extended
to include the more developed intercultural competence above that level which is achieved by many language
professionals. (CEFR 2001 Section 3.2)
A1, the bottom level in the CEFR 2001, is not the lowest imaginable level of prociency in an additional language
either. It is described in the CEFR as follows:
Level A1 (Breakthrough) – is considered the lowest
level of generative language use – the point at which
the learner can interact in a simple way, ask and answer
simple questions about themselves, where they live, people
they know, and things they have, initiate and respond to
simple statements in areas of immediate need or on very
familiar topics, rather than relying purely on a very nite
rehearsed, lexically organised repertoire of situation-
specic phrases. (CEFR 2001 Section 3.6)
Level A1 (Breakthrough) is probably the lowest “level”
of generative language prociency which can be
identied. Before this stage is reached, however, there
may be a range of specic tasks which learners can
perform eectively using a very restricted range of
language and which are relevant to the needs of the
learners concerned. The 1994-5 Swiss National Science
Research Council Survey, which developed and scaled
the illustrative descriptors, identied a band of language
use, limited to the performance of isolated tasks, which
can be presupposed in the denition of Level A1. In
certain contexts, for example with young learners, it
may be appropriate to elaborate such a “milestone”.
Background to the CEFR levels
The six-level scheme is labelled upwards from A to C
precisely because C2 is not the highest imaginable
level for prociency in an additional language. In
fact, a scheme including a seventh level had been
proposed by David Wilkins at an intergovernmental
symposium held in 1977 to discuss a possible European
unit credit scheme. The CEFR Working Party adopted
Wilkins’ rst six levels because Wilkins’ seventh level
is beyond the scope of mainstream education.
In the SNSF research project that empirically
conrmed the levels and developed the CEFR
illustrative descriptors published in 2001, the existence
of this seventh level was conrmed. There were user/
learners studying interpretation and translation at
the University of Lausanne who were clearly above
C2. Indeed, simultaneous interpreters at European
institutions and professional translators operate at
a level well above C2. For instance, C2 is the third of
ve levels for literary translation recently produced
in the PETRA project. In addition many plurilingual
writers display Wilkins’ seventh level of “ambilingual
prociency” without being bilingual from birth.
The following descriptors relate to simple, general tasks, which were scaled below Level A1, but can constitute useful
objectives for beginners:
- can make simple purchases where pointing or other gesture can support the verbal reference;
- can ask and tell day, time of day and date;
- can use some basic greetings;
- can say yes, no, excuse me, please, thank you, sorry;
- can ll in uncomplicated forms with personal details, name, address, nationality, marital status;
- can write a short, simple postcard (CEFR 2001 Section 3.5).