Newspapers and CEFR

[富士山]

My online language tutors have stated that the “Opinion” and “Editorial” of newspapers such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Financial Times, The Economist, The Guardian that I read are B1 (CEFR) level. They also have stated that the Spanish version of The NY times are clearly B1 level. Do you agree with them? I know I shouldn’t focus too much on CEFR and try to correlate them with newspapers, but I was just wondering...I cannot overestimate my skills, but I cannot underestimate my skills either.

I have not been facing any challenges in reading and fully understanding any of the newspapers aforementioned. Perhaps I got used to the vocabulary over the years. I usually need to use Oxford's dictionary to take a look at one word or two. I can also read as fast as my English speaking colleagues and discuss the topics I have read about, too.

I have asked them what is C2 level, then!? They have said that in order to be C2, you need to virtually understand pretty much everything in your target language. Since this statement was still very vague to me, I asked them to give me more concrete examples. Then, they said that, for instance, one who can understand the deep analysis of a neuroanatomy book (reading), discuss it (listening, speaking) and write about such topics.

I honestly would not understand the deep analysis of NASA related astronomy analysis, but that is because in my perspective, I call it “specific terminology”. I would probably not fully understand what an oncology specialist would talk to another specialist about very specific details. But because I know that an oncologist is a doctor who treats cancer and provides medical care for a person diagnosed with cancer, and that the field of oncology has three major fields such as medical, surgical and radiation, I would grasp the most important information of a meeting.

It is a matter of exposure, isn’t it? Am I missing something or misunderstanding the CEFR system?

And it is important to note that after C2, there are many things to learn. And those things are probably related to your field of specialization or interest.

[Adrianslont]

I don’t know about those editorials because I don’t read those newspapers.

However, I think your tutors are totally wrong about reading science, including medical science.

Reading Science is really hard for native speakers. It’s not really just a matter of learning some specialist vocabulary - “specialist vocabulary” can range from very simple to requiring years of study to understand.

A huge amount of learning sits behind a university neuroanatomy or oncology text. It takes approximately six years of university study to become a doctor where I live - there’s no way a foreign language learner can understand the texts a doctor reads and produces without at least an equivalent amount of scientific/medical study.

I am certain your tutors couldn’t - buts it’s probably not diplomatic to tell them so!

[rdearman]

I am not C2 in anything, but if I had to give a "rule of thumb" for C2 then I would say it is the ability to go about your normal daily life with all the normal interactions in the target language and not even notice that you did the entire day in another language.

[Caromarlyse]

I don't know the answer from the perspective of a teacher of English as a foreign language, but from my experience as an English (UK) native reading newspapers/journals, etc, I distinctly remember that reading The Economist when I was a student at university was hard going. We were encouraged to read it for our general knowledge, and even in my final year, aged 21, I found it tough. I do not find it difficult now, but that is with another 20 years of exposure to high-level English writing (plus increased subject-matter/worldly knowledge), and I'd say I'm a pretty well-educated English native. Even then, The Financial Times requires concentration to read, and if I ever read anything from The New Yorker, I often find 2-3 words per article that I don't understand and need to look up. From what I see I'm expected to read in foreign (to me) languages at different levels, my guess would be to put the publications you've cited at least at the C levels, with some variation perhaps depending on the type of article (a lifestyle piece in The Guardian, for example, is probably "lower-level" language than an opinion piece). B1 seems laughable, though, as I say, EFL is not my field.

[Xenops]

I am not C2 in anything, but if I had to give a "rule of thumb" for C2 then I would say it is the ability to go about your normal daily life with all the normal interactions in the target language and not even notice that you did the entire day in another language.

I'm assuming we are both are at least C2 in our native language (English). To add to that, my guess would be able to follow along with music lyrics (depending on the genre--screamo, I would be impressed), able to follow a phone call/ video with background noise, able to make original jokes/puns, and being able to read a novel rich in vocabulary.

I agree that not everyone would be able to analyze a neuroanatomy book.

[angel]

I do have to say I do not read newspapers that much, even in my mother tongue (I definitely should start reading them more often or at least watch news or something to be more informed). But I believe it would depend on the topic and how familiar you are with it. I assume an article about an event that happened in a city in certain country would be easier to understand than a discussion about the situation of politics or economics in a particular country. I guess the best way for someone that is interested in reading newspapers would be to start reading them when you reach intermediate level and see which articles are easier and which are much more difficult to understand and than work your way up. The problem with that is that if you decide to put a newspaper down and come back to it a couple of months later when you're more proficient at a language, those articles will be old news. So if you're someone that wants to read newspapers not just to learn a language but also to get familiar with what's currently happening around the world, it would be better to pick a recent newspaper or browse recent articles online and see how easy they are to understand. Read what is not frustrating to read (or in other words, does not contain too many unknown words) and what interests you personally and don't worry too much about CEFR levels.

From the official website of Council of Europe, this is the definition of a C2 level:

Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read. Can summarise information from different spoken and written sources, reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation. Can express him/herself spontaneously, very fluently and precisely, differentiating finer shades of meaning even in more complex situations.

The fact is, the higher you go on CEFR levels, the more words you have to know, the more grammar points, being able to also produce the language (writing, speaking) fluently. Not only being able to express your thoughts and opinions on a basic level, but with more details and being able to use multiple synonyms and idioms. It would probably also include words from professional fields (so if you're a doctor, knowing medical vocabulary in your target language to be able to work and interact with your colleagues and patients in a foreign country would also fall into this category). I think rdearman is right in the sense that you can go immediately live in a country where your target language is spoken and have absolutely no difficulty living and working there.

For myself personally I believe my English was much better when I was still at uni and regularly reading scientific papers in English. I could also express myself and my thoughts in a much more elaborate way back then, now I tend to stick to basic vocabulary that works to express what I want to express but it's not nearly as flowery and beautiful as some native English speaking members have on here. I have read a couple of posts from Montmorency, Cainntear, rdearman and Iversen (not sure if he's a native English speaker or not, but his English is so, so good) and I can really tell how much more advanced their ability to express themselves in English is compared to mine. I should probably read more of their posts, maybe their English will rub off on me.

[PeterMollenburg]

Many native speakers cannot pass a C2. It's not simply a matter of language level.

In short drawing on my experience in sitting and failing the French C2, it is not a matter of going about all everyday tasks involving all activities (reading, speaking, listening, writing) and having absolute ease with the language.

And yes doctors go through years of training, but this does not mean you have to be a medical doctor to understand medical text books or research papers. I used such content in my nursing undergraduate studies. Its not that much of a stretch for such content to be dealt with at the C2 level, but I agree it might be getting slightly too specialised, depending on the topic. Nevertheless, C2 language users should be able to drop into a highly specialised subject and discern meaning and still be able to participate in a discussion, writing piece or reading on such topics. I mean let's face it, much medical terminology can be inferred relatively easily provided its not extremely intricate.

From the Dalf C2 perspective, much of one's ability weighs on specialised very particular writing techniques which no amount of language mastery, vocabulary acquisition or ease with the language will help you pass if you have not learned these techniques thoroughly which are expected of you at the (French) C2 level. All those other elements absolutely help, but if you have no clue on writing techniques, you're done.

Put it this way, as a native English speaker, were I to sit an English C2 exam but let's pretend they used the French format with all the writing techniques, and I was unfamiliar with those techniques, no amount of ease with the language and advanced vocab would save me from utterly screwing up the construction of my writing pieces = fail.

[gsbod]

I don't think it's possible to pick up any single text and claim that it is C2 level. For me, the most important aspect of C1+ reading comprehension is the range of texts you are comfortable with. So, for example, in the case of a quality newspaper, I would expect to be pretty comfortable reading it from cover to cover, not just the editorials (acknowledging that not everything would be of interest). I would also expect to be comfortable with most fiction, business correspondence (either in my own technical field, or the more general personal admin that everyone has to deal with), and any technical texts relevant to my own career or personal interests.

The other thing that I think is important moving from C1 to C2 is the ease of comprehension. I think this is something impossible to test, but it's something I've definitely noticed as my German comprehension has progressed to C1 and then beyond. From B1 onwards, as I started to use more native materials, I found myself developing strategies to deal with gaps in my comprehension. For example, developing the ability to hang on to the thread of an argument even if all the details are not clear, or developing ways of making accurate educated guesses at the meaning of unknown words or phrases. These strategies were really important to get to C1. But moving towards C2, they start to become less important as there are simply fewer gaps in my comprehension. I've also noticed that where there are gaps, I tend to resolve them subconsciously rather than consciously now, much as I do in my native language. So I don't think there has been much of a difference in terms of the complexity of texts I can read now compared to when I was a low C1, it's just that maybe my reading speed is a bit quicker.

[s_allard]

Many native speakers cannot pass a C2. It's not simply a matter of language level.

In short drawing on my experience in sitting and failing the French C2, it is not a matter of going about all everyday tasks involving all activities (reading, speaking, listening, writing) and having absolute ease with the language.
...
From the Dalf C2 perspective, much of one's ability weighs on specialised very particular writing techniques which no amount of language mastery, vocabulary acquisition or ease with the language will help you pass if you have not learned these techniques thoroughly which are expected of you at the (French) C2 level. All those other elements absolutely help, but if you have no clue on writing techniques, you're done.

Put it this way, as a native English speaker, were I to sit an English C2 exam but let's pretend they used the French format with all the writing techniques, and I was unfamiliar with those techniques, no amount of ease with the language and advanced vocab would save me from utterly screwing up the construction of my writing pieces = fail.

This post is right on. Having passed both the Spanish C2 and the German B2 exams at first go, I would say that exam results and real-word proficiency are two different things. Like most language tests, there is a strong bias towards the formal language in written and spoken form. This is not a test of your ability to chat like a native in a local pub.

I don't think one has to be concerned about knowing a lot of sophisticated technical or scientific vocabulary. You're not being tested on how much you know about a given topic but rather how can you talk about or write a very short essay on it. What you have to demonstrate is mastery of the language.

Good vocabulary is obviously important but so are appropriate sentence construction, good grammar, proper morphology, lack of grammar mistakes, nuances and shades of meaning and, very importantly at the C2 level, use of idiomatic expressions.

In the speaking test, for example, you may be given a choice between two topics and 20 minutes to prepare a 5-minute presentation followed by a 20-minute discussion with the examiner(s). The examiner will not count your vocabulary. The examiner is not an engineer, a doctor, a biologist, an economist, etc. They are a language teacher and want to see how you can use the language. I believe that the examiner has a good idea of your speaking level after the first minute or two of your talking. Although you may need to warm up a bit, you will speak at a certain level and you're not going to improve noticeably after five or fifteen minutes.

So let's say you choose a topic that you really don't know much about but you start off saying the equivalent of "I'm going to be up front with you, I don't have a clue about this subject, but I'm going to give it my best shot." That's a great start and the examiner will be very impressed.

I really wouldn't be concerned about what material is specifically C2. Any high-quality newspaper such as the New York Times, Le monde, El país or Der Spiegel is fine. But one must study and practice to the test. This means for example doing, let's say, 10 practice presentations or essays that you go over in detail with your tutor.

Edit: correct "too" to "two"

[Kraut]

Here is what they claim about the new Cambridge Proficiency Test that supposedly equals the European C2:

https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/exams-and-tests/proficiency/
A C2 Proficiency qualification shows that you can:

study demanding subjects at the highest level, including postgraduate and PhD programmes
negotiate and persuade effectively at senior management level in international business settings
understand the main ideas of complex pieces of writing
talk about complex or sensitive issues, and deal confidently with difficult questions.

and the reality of what happens in the oral part. I do have the old Cambridge Certificate of Proficiency and it was a bit like this:

C2 Proficiency speaking test - Derk and Annick

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Bx_x-gvLw0

https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/images ... and_annick