—

[SGP]

C2: not equal to a native speaker, but pretty close. no more trouble with accents or dialects most of the time. near perfect production. full comprehension of everything read, like 98%.

Your description reminds me of something.

Somewhere else on the Internet, a language learner was (a bit jokingly, but still) talking about that there could be a C3 level, too. Because there are so many terms that even C2 speakers usually wouldn't know. They aren't necessary, and they can be understood by context in many cases. This is similar to what you also indicated by "full comprehension of everything read, like 98%".

But sometimes knowing a few of them could still be useful. And they don't all belong to any specific jargon.

I used to list my level as A1, then A2, then B1... but I felt increasingly uncomfortable with those assumptions, especially on a website filled with language-learners. So now I use the tag "intermediate" -- it gives me a lot of room, while giving others a general idea of my capabilities. I think of A-levels as beginner, B1 as intermediate, B2 as upper-intermediate, and C1+ as advanced/very proficient.

This approach being used by zjones does have its advantages too, I'd say. It is about providing some leeway, without having to think too much about the specific CEFR levels. For some people, this could even make language learning itself increasingly easier. Why? Because we of course aren't all the same. Some of us could be slightly distracted maybe when trying to fit into any particular Scheme of Levels. And as soon as this micro-distraction (or nano-distraction even) would be gone, there could be a few more resources available.

[emer1ca]

Personally I decided to pass a test for every language I learned, this year will be Russian.

[Cavesa]

I find zKing's and eido's descriptions of the levels intriguing. In general, they seem to be good ideas.

but I think you both underestimate A1. The present and one past tense are not enough, that level includes stuff like imperatives, construction of sentences and questions (and not just prememorised phrases) and so on. A good A1 coursebook actually presents a lot of material and the student is supposed to understand how to use it, even though without too much detail. Tarzan speak is more or less ok, but just parroting phrases is not the desired result at that level. I blame many publishers for this myth, who often confuse a touristy phrasebook with an A1 course on the cover. And also many teachers teaching through memorisation of phrases instead of explanations of the way the language works.

And I think you may be overestimating the higher levels. At B2 (confirmed by an exam at that time, with a solid note of reading), I was definitely not able to read books comfortably. I was able to read some books but not too comfortably. And C1 and C2 speakers can still make mistakes, the mistakes are just supposed not to be systematic. But making a mistake out of fatigue or lack of focus or due to being nervous, that doesn't mean you are not at the level (I did at least one pretty stupid mistake during my C2 DALF and still got a high speaking score, I think my ability to fix it and more importantly not let it destabilise me was important). At A2, you definitely don't know all the tenses. I am not saying it is right (not at all) but some French courses present subjonctif (!) in a B1 coursebook, and I could come up with more examples. Some of the choices are more logical, some less, but it is the reality.

I think the language learners would profit immensely from more exams like SIELE, placing the learner to the level in each skill instead of confirming whether you have guessed one overall level right. And from lower prices of those. Especially when it comes to computer based exams, with just a part being corrected by people. Halving the prices could bring much more than twice that many customers, people wouldn't mind taking the exam repeatedly, and the profit might be much bigger. Spreading such exams to the language learners' population would be a huge boost to the community and its usefulness for the individual members.

I think saying "Comfortable" is very fitting for me because I'm not even bound to the implied all-around competence of "Advanced." It takes very little effort for me to speak in Mandarin, German, or Indonesian when talking about most things, and my comprehension of all three also pretty much covers my needs (though Mandarin literacy is still elusive). Living in China does expose me to quite a few holes in my Mandarin ability, but the fact remains that most of what I need to do during the day can be accomplished without thinking. I frequently listen to other languages on public transport and then take out my headphones and speak Mandarin with no preparation. By virtue of not speaking them every day, I don't have quite the same feeling with German and Indonesian, but each time I reach for them they're right there.

"Rusty" implies the opposite: it takes concerted effort on my part to produce any Spanish, French, or Russian, though I can read and understand Spanish without much trouble. My French has a lot of holes in it from being "picked up" instead of studied, and I'm not very confident with Russian grammar. After I made these categories I did a lot more listening in these three languages and they feel less "rusty" now and just more "not needed."

"Comfortable" is a good word, I like it. Even though difficult to use in the context of all the vague terms floating around.

Let's not forget that the CEFR scale may be harder to apply to the non-european languages like Mandarin or Indonesian. I realise how little I know about the amount of knowledge necessary for each level in those languages (and the equivalency between HSK and CEFR and similar controversial subjects on the internet). Using the CEFR for such languages could downplay the amount of experience and efforts and time invested. And that is one of the main reasons, for which we write our levels to our profiles. Plus I've seen an otherwise excellent looking Mandarin course, that was sorting both the Beginner and Intermediate part in 6 levels each, named A1-C2. I think the CEFR might be much more obscured by the language teaching industry in Asia than it is in Europe.

The main problem with the non CEFR (or non HSK, non JLPT etc) terminology is the vagueness. My rusty is extremely different from most people I've heard using the term (it is usually the difference between a rusty better level and their rusty one unit of a coursebook).

The main problem of the CEFR are the learners not fitting in the grid. For example those learning for very specific purposes (communication with their clients about a very small amount of subjects) without caring at all about the rest. They are not even A1, but it somehow doesn't feel right to lable them as not having any level, since they are working in the language and that's what many higher level learners are unable to do.

Somewhere else on the Internet, a language learner was (a bit jokingly, but still) talking about that there could be a C3 level, too. Because there are so many terms that even C2 speakers usually wouldn't know. They aren't necessary, and they can be understood by context in many cases. This is similar to what you also indicated by "full comprehension of everything read, like 98%".

But sometimes knowing a few of them could still be useful. And they don't all belong to any specific jargon.

I am one of the people repeatedly speaking of the limits of the C2 level and the necessity of the life long learning. The issue with the imaginary C3 level would be how individual it is. The levels C1 and C2 are a gateway to free personalisation of the language toolkit in our brains.

I would indicate C2 reading as "not noticing whether it is my native language or not for the vast majority of the reading time". The same would apply to listening. Perhaps to some active skills too, but the definition would be more complex there.

And when it comes to vocab learning, we learn new stuff in our native languages all the time as well, so why should we expect our second languages to be easier in this aspect.

I used to list my level as A1, then A2, then B1... but I felt increasingly uncomfortable with those assumptions, especially on a website filled with language-learners. So now I use the tag "intermediate" -- it gives me a lot of room, while giving others a general idea of my capabilities. I think of A-levels as beginner, B1 as intermediate, B2 as upper-intermediate, and C1+ as advanced/very proficient.

This approach being used by zjones does have its advantages too, I'd say. It is about providing some leeway, without having to think too much about the specific CEFR levels. For some people, this could even make language learning itself increasingly easier. Why? Because we of course aren't all the same. Some of us could be slightly distracted maybe when trying to fit into any particular Scheme of Levels. And as soon as this micro-distraction (or nano-distraction even) would be gone, there could be a few more resources available.

Of course this approach has advantages. But the main disadvantage: the term "intermediate" is being used by tons of people from those having gone through the first half of a beginner coursebook up (around A1, sometimes not even that) to the less confident C1 learners.

The problem of distracting oneself with too much self-assessment is not caused by the CEFR. It is about the learner's attitude, not the scale used. People can self-analyse whether they are intermediate, conversational, passively proficient, or whatever ad nauseam. Let's just remember all those horrible and heated discussions about the meaning of "fluency" all over the language learning internet. Even if diminition of those was the only gift from the creators of the CEFR, I would already be grateful

Personally I decided to pass a test for every language I learned, this year will be Russian.

That's the spirit!
It is one of my goals too, it just requires free time for preparation, self assessment before signing up, and money. If the exams were cheaper, I would be more willing to take risks and use them more as my personal guidance and feedback. Or at least if the exams were more often like Siele, with the guarantee of not losing your money entirely by failing, just partially by not achieving the desired result.

[aaleks]

To be honest I couldn't decide what my level is. With Italian it was easy though since it's a new language for me, but I can't decide what level I have in English. I don't understand the CEFR levels. In the beginning when I just learned about them I saw a C2 level as some ideal, near-native level, a level I would never reach (and I probably won't). But when my own level became a bit better, and I stopped looking at people who could string two words together like they were some kind of rock stars I realized that not everyone passed a C2 exam really so good. Different people - different real levels of English no matter what the certificate says. If I can't undrestand what C2 means (in real life) I can't place myself somewhere on the scale. Besides, my speaking barely exists. I can say a couple of words but won't be able to give a talk in English. So eventually I gave up and decided to put "?" instead of any levels. And if I ever go beyond the beginner stage in Italian (can read books and watch tv more or less comfortable) I'll probably change "beginner" to "low-intermediate" or "intermediate". No CEFR levels .

[tarvos]

I don't care that much for specific terminology. I let other people decide what my level is as I am pretty sure of what I can and can't do in a language and it varies immensely from one to the next. In Spanish I am pretty sure I am nearly as functional as in English because I've got experiences that prove it. In Chinese I know I'm good but I know I lack a lot of knowledge. And I only know basics in Japanese, but that's still more than enough for simple stuff.

So you tell me what levels my Spanish, Mandarin, and Japanese are at. I put expert for languages that I know I have used professionally or otherwise and have substantial experience using in tight situations (for example, I could go to a therapist in Spanish and be totally fine, because this is something I have actually done), advanced for languages I have substantial experience with but don't have full competence in yet (Mandarin is a good example), Intermediate for languages I have studied and know a lot of the grammar and basic ideas of, but can only speak a limited amount of (Icelandic is a good example, as is Hebrew), and basic for languages such as Japanese where I only know basic things like ordering food and describing where I come from.

Like I said, if you've ever heard me speak any of my languages, you'll be able to tell.

[Axon]

Let's not forget that the CEFR scale may be harder to apply to the non-european languages like Mandarin or Indonesian. I realise how little I know about the amount of knowledge necessary for each level in those languages (and the equivalency between HSK and CEFR and similar controversial subjects on the internet). Using the CEFR for such languages could downplay the amount of experience and efforts and time invested. And that is one of the main reasons, for which we write our levels to our profiles. Plus I've seen an otherwise excellent looking Mandarin course, that was sorting both the Beginner and Intermediate part in 6 levels each, named A1-C2. I think the CEFR might be much more obscured by the language teaching industry in Asia than it is in Europe.

The main problem with the non CEFR (or non HSK, non JLPT etc) terminology is the vagueness. My rusty is extremely different from most people I've heard using the term (it is usually the difference between a rusty better level and their rusty one unit of a coursebook).

In theory, the CEFR shouldn't be harder to apply. This is a great list of can-do statements for different CEFR levels, in case anyone hasn't seen it (PDF link).

There's nothing about the Mandarin language itself that makes a sustained monologue difficult to produce, and yet that's by far my weakest area. According to that chart, I should be able to easily do that if I'm B2. If I'm expressing a complex idea for the first time or laying out a detailed description of my point of view, I constantly correct myself and probably organize my thoughts in an incoherent manner. For instance I recently related a story of a guy I saw who tried to drive away while getting a parking ticket. I could feel that I was speaking in a very broad and colloquial way instead of describing the scene as a native speaker would.

I also absolutely cannot "follow live talk shows and most films" except perhaps if they're subtitled in Mandarin. These and other things I can't do just take a long time for native English speakers to learn. So as much as I don't like to admit it, maybe my Mandarin really is just B1/B2, though I certainly know a lot of very specific immersion words many more fluent speakers might not (linguistics terminology, medicines, verbs about preparing food, etc). Perhaps a low B2 is all you need to live and work in a new country.

Although it is infinitely easier for you to learn Slovak than French, the CEFR just measures what you can do and not how long it took you to get there.

I also very much agree that language testing should follow the IELTS/SIELE model and just place a learner in whatever level is earned. And it should be cheaper!

I'm curious what people mean when they say "basic." If you hear me say "I can speak basic Vietnamese" what are some things you assume I can and can't do?

[SGP]

I'm curious what people mean when they say "basic."

Some Real-World Based Explicatory Examples below. Because as you noticed, that basic word isn't very vielsagend.

- "Aisee, naweza kusema kwa Kiswahili kidogo tu. Bila shaka, mimi si mwalimu ya lughah."
(I say, I can only speak a bit of Swahili. Without any doubt, I am not a language teacher)

- "I can tell you what I want to buy. But I can't tell you why."

- "Ich spreche ein wenig Deutsch. Aber Sätze mit vielen Kommas sind schwer für mich."

If you hear me say "I can speak basic Vietnamese" what are some things you assume I can and can't do?

Nothing in particular . Because some saying it would know simple greetings. Others wouldn't necessarily know most of them (if they aren't at all into smalltalk), but would be able to really communicate with shop clerks and snack bar employees, or anything else.

[Cavesa]

In theory, the CEFR shouldn't be harder to apply. This is a great list of can-do statements for different CEFR levels, in case anyone hasn't seen it (PDF link).

There's nothing about the Mandarin language itself that makes a sustained monologue difficult to produce, and yet that's by far my weakest area. According to that chart, I should be able to easily do that if I'm B2. If I'm expressing a complex idea for the first time or laying out a detailed description of my point of view, I constantly correct myself and probably organize my thoughts in an incoherent manner. For instance I recently related a story of a guy I saw who tried to drive away while getting a parking ticket. I could feel that I was speaking in a very broad and colloquial way instead of describing the scene as a native speaker would.

I also absolutely cannot "follow live talk shows and most films" except perhaps if they're subtitled in Mandarin. These and other things I can't do just take a long time for native English speakers to learn. So as much as I don't like to admit it, maybe my Mandarin really is just B1/B2, though I certainly know a lot of very specific immersion words many more fluent speakers might not (linguistics terminology, medicines, verbs about preparing food, etc). Perhaps a low B2 is all you need to live and work in a new country.

Although it is infinitely easier for you to learn Slovak than French, the CEFR just measures what you can do and not how long it took you to get there.

I also very much agree that language testing should follow the IELTS/SIELE model and just place a learner in whatever level is earned. And it should be cheaper!

I may have expressed myself wrong. The amount of effort or time is not a measured parameter in the CEFR indeed, but using CEFR in some contexts leads to wrong assumptions about these two variables. And they are important in some contexts, for example the internet platforms and their users may judge learners just by CEFR, not by experience.

And the CEFR-HSK problem, or rather my perception of it, comes from reading about the changes of the system and learners generally judging that the highest level of the new HSK is about B2, while the testing authorities claim it to be higher. It is just an impression of an outside though. Plus having seen that online course of good reputation offering beginner A1-C2 and intermediate A1-C2 courses is also a weird sign. The CEFR doesn't seem to be well rooted in Mandarin teaching, please correct me if I am wrong.

A low B2 is definitely enough for living and working in a new country at certain positions. Growing from there is a different matter. Some jobs require more though. Either practically or oficially or both.

I don't think all the testing should follow the IELTS/SIELE model, I just think this kind of testing is heavily underepresented. The one exam per level system does have advantages too, I just think the two should be more equally spread. More equally recognized (for example the medical exam in Spain requires DELE C1, not DELE or SIELE C1), both should be available in the testing centers, and both should be offered as equally valuable alternatives, just each suiting some learners' goals better than the other. In some languages, the One Test to Sort Them All doesn't even exist.

And they are definitely overpriced. Considering the fact that employers often complain about people overestimating (or lying about) their language skills in their CV, while the CVs have been one of the main purposes of the CEFR, the exams should be better priced. They are usually organised by government owned testing center networks, as part of their PR and soft power. The exam formats are being digitalised, that should be cheaper. And the price keeps people from paying for several exams as time goes, including trying and retaking the exam.

So, I find it illogical that the prices are so elevated. One of the very good and cheap solutions could be opening the mostly good testing for the Erasmus students to the wider public for a reasonable fee. That would solve a large part of the self-assessment problem for everyone wishing to use the CEFR scale instead of another method. But it would have to be an EU project, as it would change the language testing business and some organisations might not like that.

I'm curious what people mean when they say "basic." If you hear me say "I can speak basic Vietnamese" what are some things you assume I can and can't do?

That's exactly the problem. I cannot assume anything just by that statement.

Knowing you a bit as a member of this community, I would assume you are somewhere around A2, perhaps even B1, able to get by just in Vietnamese, solve not too complicated situations, to be understood and to understand, if the other person is patient and attentive.

But for the general population, I would assume they've gone through two or three units of a basic coursebook, or a part of the Duolingo course. I would assume they have memorised and could successfully use some basic touristy phrases, but I wouldn't bet on them understanding the responses from the natives.

But there are also people, who consider basic to be more like B2, and they hold themselves up to really high standard and may be lacking confidence to talk about their success or even to use their skills in the real life.

[garyb]

C1: virtually no verbal or written mistakes. only rare words throw you when interacting with the language. dialects and slang pose less of a problem because the dialect you've chosen to work with has exposed you to most of the common ones. but the Busan dialect? you didn't study that, so you have no idea what they're saying, much less when they go fast.

C2: not equal to a native speaker, but pretty close. no more trouble with accents or dialects most of the time. near perfect production. full comprehension of everything read, like 98%.

Maybe I'm too optimistic.

I think so! You'd be extremely hard-pressed to find a C2 speaker who makes "virtually no mistakes", never mind a C1, and despite what checklists may say it seems that mistakes aren't very important to an examiner as long as you can complete the tasks and make yourself clear. Which is after all the main point of the CEFR: it's about what you can do more than how correctly you can do it.

I've seen written French from posters here, one claiming an "expert" level and one having a C2 certificate, and to be absolutely blunt both were full of mistakes that I'd consider fairly elementary. And I'd find it hard to believe that these mistakes and more aren't also present in speaking, since speaking gives less time to think and self-correct than writing. But I've realised that that's just me projecting based on my own perfectionism and strengths and weaknesses (I'm far better at accuracy than fluency, although that doesn't mean I don't also make my share of basic mistakes when speaking!) and that, mistakes aside, these people are no doubt far better at actually using the language in real-life situations than I am and so their level is justified. I might be a little more grammatically accurate, but I'm quite sure that I'm nowhere near good enough at explaining myself to use the language professionally or defend my points a C-level exam. After all, sitting at home with a grammar book is easier than going out and living in the language, and the former gives diminishing returns towards the latter once you have the basics down.

For my own levels, I try to judge based on my weakest skill (invariably speaking) rather than just by receptive ones as I feel it's the only way to be honest, but I'm quite aware that not everyone does, so my "advanced" Italian is different from that of someone who's read a novel or two and can write a weird Romance-and-Latin-hybrid that an Italian is likely to understand. I prefer the more vague terms of beginner/advanced/intermediate to the CEFR ones for a couple of reasons: I don't think the CEFR self-assessment guidelines match the examiner's criteria and so a self-assessed C1 speaker is quite different than an examined one (probably more accurate with their usage but less capable of speaking and writing in academic formats), and more importantly just that the higher ones cover so much ground. I believe I was B2 in Italian after two years, and I still am B2 now after another five or six years of relatively serious study and practice. My level is obviously far higher now in every way, but I still don't think my productive skills are close to the very demanding C1 criteria. B2 to C1 is just several times longer than zero to B2, and I think it's fair to say that the lower end of B2 is intermediate and the higher is advanced, so by using "advanced" I'm giving a clearer assessment as well as making myself feel better . I know that some use things like B2+, which I like, and language schools often divide up levels like B2.1, B2.2, etc., but I don't know if there's a standard.

Of course if I did truly reach the C levels in a language I'd need to choose a higher term than "advanced", but I doubt I'll ever have to worry about that...

[Cavesa]

I think so! You'd be extremely hard-pressed to find a C2 speaker who makes "virtually no mistakes", never mind a C1, and despite what checklists may say it seems that mistakes aren't very important to an examiner as long as you can complete the tasks and make yourself clear. Which is after all the main point of the CEFR: it's about what you can do more than how correctly you can do it.

True, but making too many or too stupid mistakes definitely gets noticed. It does get judged during the CEFR exams and it matters in the real life too

I've seen written French from posters here, one claiming an "expert" level and one having a C2 certificate, and to be absolutely blunt both were full of mistakes that I'd consider fairly elementary. And I'd find it hard to believe that these mistakes and more aren't also present in speaking, since speaking gives less time to think and self-correct than writing. But I've realised that that's just me projecting based on my own perfectionism and strengths and weaknesses (I'm far better at accuracy than fluency, although that doesn't mean I don't also make my share of basic mistakes when speaking!) and that, mistakes aside, these people are no doubt far better at actually using the language in real-life situations than I am and so their level is justified. I might be a little more grammatically accurate, but I'm quite sure that I'm nowhere near good enough at explaining myself to use the language professionally or defend my points a C-level exam. After all, sitting at home with a grammar book is easier than going out and living in the language, and the former gives diminishing returns towards the latter once you have the basics down.

Am I the one with the C2 certificate and writing mistakes? It is definitely possible.
-My French speaking is significantly better than my writing (which is my worst skill). Nope, the opportunity to self-correct doesn't matter at all in my case. Actually, not thinking too much while speaking helps a lot and is one of the main reasons of the disparity. My trained "instinct" simply works better than spending a lot of time on each sentence and paragraph. It is partially a psychological issue, just like speaking being the biggest problem for many others.
-Even the exam results reflect that. 16 points for reading/writing is not too much, despite being an acceptable result for the exam (minimum required was 10). 42 points for listening/speaking is an extraordinary result, as I've been told.
-Stuff like getting rusty matters. Also, I write much worse in any language between 3 am and 9 am than from 4 pm to 2 am.

So no, my French writing on its own may often not look like a typical C2 product. But my overall skills are. Speaking is not everyone's invariable worst skill.

And that is a clear example of another issue of self-assessment: the imbalance between the individual skills. In some of my languages, the difference between the best and worst skill is three CEFR levels. But this is a weakness common to all the assessment scales. That's why people write those weird things like "passively fluent".

For my own levels, I try to judge based on my weakest skill (invariably speaking) rather than just by receptive ones as I feel it's the only way to be honest, but I'm quite aware that not everyone does, so my "advanced" Italian is different from that of someone who's read a novel or two and can write a weird Romance-and-Latin-hybrid that an Italian is likely to understand. I prefer the more vague terms of beginner/advanced/intermediate to the CEFR ones for a couple of reasons: I don't think the CEFR self-assessment guidelines match the examiner's criteria and so a self-assessed C1 speaker is quite different than an examined one (probably more accurate with their usage but less capable of speaking and writing in academic formats), and more importantly just that the higher ones cover so much ground. I believe I was B2 in Italian after two years, and I still am B2 now after another five or six years of relatively serious study and practice. My level is obviously far higher now in every way, but I still don't think my productive skills are close to the very demanding C1 criteria. B2 to C1 is just several times longer than zero to B2, and I think it's fair to say that the lower end of B2 is intermediate and the higher is advanced, so by using "advanced" I'm giving a clearer assessment as well as making myself feel better . I know that some use things like B2+, which I like, and language schools often divide up levels like B2.1, B2.2, etc., but I don't know if there's a standard.

Of course if I did truly reach the C levels in a language I'd need to choose a higher term than "advanced", but I doubt I'll ever have to worry about that...

I think you underestimate yourself.
But I'd agree telling others the level of the lowest skill, when self-assessing, is a good course of action.

I completely agree that the higher levels cover a lot of ground. But I cannot see, how that could be fixed for the purpose of self-assessment or more precise and still brief presentation of ourselves. Some language schools solve that (and also make people pay for more semesters) by chopping the levels in several, true. Like B2.1, B2.2, B2.3, B2.4, but they base the distinction on the quarters of the coursebook studied in each sublevel. I am not sure that would work for learners in general, especially people on this forum, as we mostly use a more diversified approach and create for ourselves less linear learning paths.

It is interesting, how diversely we perceive the terminology, based on our personal experience. The word "Advanced" makes me feel worse, as I know that so many people and schools and publishers mean very low levels by that. They choose to teach the biggest crowds=the beginners only, and they have to call their top students (A2, B1) "advanced" to not look so bad.