Cavesa wrote: 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.
I think we're on the same page about the CEFR and assumptions from it. As a European and someone who's taken several CEFR exams, used CEFR books, etc, you're far more knowledgeable about what CEFR really means culturally and in terms of competence than I am.
I feel almost ashamed to say that there are B1 Mandarin things I have trouble with because my mental representation of B1 is someone who is not as comfortable in the language as I am, plus I've been studying and using it for almost four years, nearly two in a Mandarin speaking environment. I would certainly snap-judge someone who claims B2 Mandarin and think "that's not very high" even though they may be better at communicating and understanding than I am.
I have only played around with HSK and CEFR sample tests. The German C1 test seemed to measure real-world knowledge of and use of the language better than the HSK 5 did. Both were challenging for me but for different reasons. A monolingual speaker of something with few cognates in either would certainly find the German reading to be at a higher level than the HSK5 reading.
What does basic mean for me?
I actually compared my Vietnamese ability to the A2 criteria recently and would definitely not self-assess at A2. It's still relatively difficult for me to match up vocabulary in the dual subtitles of Easy Vietnamese, for instance. I also have almost no writing ability and quite a few phrasebook situations (giving directions, telling time and date) are still hard.
Two and a half years ago (the last time I interacted in Vietnamese) I could introduce myself, ask about prices, read menus, ask what things were called, and say what I liked and disliked. I recall saying such things as "I already moved" (playing chess), "there's no electricity" (at the hotel), and "No helmet, no ride" (to a motorcycle taxi driver). I haven't put it to the test but in these last years of studying I've internalized the tense markers much more, improved my listening for more textbook dialogue situations, and expanded my vocabulary by about 100 more words.
So that's what I mean when I say basic:
Able to ask prices and be understood. Likely unable to compare two objects outside of size, price, and color.
Able to say what is and isn't present in a place. Likely unable to explain why.
Able to give name, age, and nationality. Likely unable to describe specifics of a country.
Able to express preference for something. Likely unable to make a specific request for something that would fit needs or wants.
Able to understand and respond to direct questions about the above as well as questions about immediate intended plans. Likely unable to understand more than snatches of native conversation on any topic.
Able to recognize and read aloud written names of places and food. Likely unable to read more than a few isolated words in advertisements or warning labels (assuming a language with an unfamiliar script and few cognates).
That's enough to be a pretty good tourist (which is what I learn languages for). To be an outstanding tourist I would expect all those "Likely unable"s to turn into "Able"s at minimum.