Article published in:
ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 165:1 (2014) ► pp. 3–18

The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

A challenge for applied linguistics

| University of Amsterdam
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR, Council of Europe, 2001) currently functions as an instrument for educational policy and practice. The view of language proficiency on which it is based and the six proficiency levels it defines lack empirical support from language-use data. Several issues need to be investigated collaboratively by researchers working in the fields of first and second language acquisition, corpus linguistics and language assessment. These issues are concerned with (i) the CEFR’s failure to consistently distinguish between levels of language proficiency (static aspect) and language development (dynamic aspect), (ii) with the CEFR’s confounding of levels of language proficiency and intellectual abilities, and (iii) the potential problem of mismatches between second-language learners’ communicative and linguistic competences. Furthermore, from a more theoretical perspective, this paper proposes (iv) to investigate which CEFR proficiency levels are attainable by native speakers and (v) to empirically delineate the lexical, morpho-syntactic and pragmatic knowledge shared by all native speakers (called Basic Language Cognition).
Keywords: CEFR, language proficiency
Published online: 06 June 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.165.1.01hul
References

References

Alderson, J.C.. (
2007) The CEFR and the need for more research. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 659–663. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bartning, I., Martin, M., & Vedder, I.. (Eds.).
2010 Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing research. Eurosla Monographs Series, 1. Retrievable from <http://​eurosla​.org​/monographs​/EM01​/EM01home​.html>Google Scholar
Berman, R.. (
2007) Developing linguistic knowledge and language use across adolescence. In E. Hoff & M. Shatz (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of language development (pp. 347–367). Malden, MA: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, L.. (
1933) Language. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Council of Europe
(2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: CUP / Council of Europe.Google Scholar
DeCoo, W.. (
2011) Systemization in foreign language teaching: Monitoring content progression. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
De Jong, J.H.A.L.. (
2004) Comparing the psycholinguistic and the communicative paradigm of language proficiency. Presentation given at international workshop “Psycholinguistic and psychometric aspects of language assessment in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages”. University of Amsterdam, 13-14 February, 2004.Google Scholar
De Saussure, F.. (
1916) Cours de linguistique générale, edited by C. Bally and A. Sechehaye, with the collaboration of A. Riedlinger. Lausanne and Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Ellis, N.C. & Robinson, P.. (
2008) An introduction to cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and language instruction. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 30–24). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Figueras, N.
(2012) The impact of the CEFR. ELT Journal, 66, 477–485. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldman-Eisler, F.. (
1968) Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldschneider, J.M., & DeKeyser, R. M.. (
2001) Explaining the “Natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J.A. & Filipović, L.. (
2012) Critical features in L2 English. Specifying the reference levels of the Common European Framework. English Profile Studies 1. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J.H.. (
2007) The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 663–667. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010) Linking L2 proficiency to L2 acquisition: Opportunities and challenges of profiling research. In Bartning, Martin & Vedder (Eds.), (pp. 233–238). Retrievable from <http://​eurosla​.org​/monographs​/EM01​/EM01home​.html>Google Scholar
2011) Language proficiency in native and nonnative speakers: An agenda for research and suggestions for second-language assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8, 229–249. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012) The construct of language proficiency in the study of bilingualism from a cognitive perspective. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 422–433. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W.J.M.. (
1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Little, D.
(2007) The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Perspectives on the making of supranational language education policy. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 645–653. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nippold, M.A.. (
2006) Language development in school-age children, adolescents, and adults. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
North, B.. (
2007) The CEFR illustrative descriptor scales. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 656–659. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
North, B., & Schneider, G.. (
1998) Scaling descriptors for language proficiency scales. Language Testing, 15, 217–262.Google Scholar
Ortega, L.. (
in press). Trying out theories on interlanguage: Description and explanation over 40 years of L2 negation research. In Z. Han & E. Tarone (Eds.), Interlanguage: 40 years later. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Trim, J.. (
2012) The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and its background: A case study of cultural politics and educational influences. In M. Byram & L. Parmenter (Eds.), The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalisation of language education policy (pp. 14–33). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Van Ek, J.A.. (
1976) The threshold level for modern language learning in schools. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Zipf, G.K.. (
1935) The psycho-biology of language: An introduction to dynamic philology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 6 other publications

Deygers, Bart, Kris Van den Branden & Koen Van Gorp
2018. University entrance language tests: A matter of justice. Language Testing 35:4 ► pp. 449 ff. Crossref logo
Jakobson, Liivi
2018. Teacher written feedback on adult beginners’ writing in a second language. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 169:2 ► pp. 235 ff. Crossref logo
Nagai, Noriko, Gregory C. Birch, Jack V. Bower & Maria Gabriela Schmidt
2020.  In CEFR-informed Learning, Teaching and Assessment [Springer Texts in Education, ], ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Nguyen, Van Huy & M. Obaidul Hamid
2021. The CEFR as a national language policy in Vietnam: insights from a sociogenetic analysis. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 42:7 ► pp. 650 ff. Crossref logo
Sonea, Ioana-Silvia
2018.  In Foreign Language Teaching in Romanian Higher Education [Multilingual Education, 27], ► pp. 83 ff. Crossref logo
Whyte, Shona
2020. Moving with the times: new developments in languages in French higher education contexts. European Journal of Language Policy 12:2 ► pp. 193 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 september 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.