One thing that I think has been slightly glossed over is what the level definitions actually mean. Part of the definitions of B2 and above include the ability to handle technical language. The official definition of C2 is:
- Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer clauses and recognise implicit meaning.
- Can express ideas fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions.
- Can use language flexibly and effectively for social, academic and professional purposes.
- Can produce clear, well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects, showing controlled use of organisational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices.
Interestingly, part of the B2 definition is more specific than C1 about this:
Can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete and abstract topics, including technical discussions in their field of specialisation.
We often think of language levels in terms of increasing proficiency in the four skills (reading, writing, speaking, listening), but the CEFR levels are not only about this. I would suggest that the majority of native speakers would struggle to pass a C level exam in their own language, although they will be more fluent than a non-native C1.
The C2 description, however, doesn't even mention technical language. I guess they reckon people will have passed the previous exams, so at this point they can leave technical issues aside and focus on pure proficiency. I remember Cavesa or someone mentioning they found the C2 exam easier than C1, and I would expect that this might be at least part of the reason.
So for myself, I would like to get to B1-B2 with my languages, and then I would like to continue to become a better B1, but I don't expect to actually achieve the technical knowledge described in B2 and C1.
For reference, I used the descriptors on wikipedia (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_European_Framework_of_Reference_for_Languages?scrlybrkr=91f0a7d7), but the official descriptors have a much longer list of "can do's" for each level.
