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
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
Alderson, J.C.. (
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>
Berman, R.. (
Council of Europe
DeCoo, W.. (
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.
De Saussure, F.. (
Ellis, N.C. & Robinson, P.. (
Goldman-Eisler, F.. (
Goldschneider, J.M., & DeKeyser, R. M.. (
Hawkins, J.A. & Filipović, L.. (
Hulstijn, J.H.. (
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>
Nippold, M.A.. (
North, B.. (
North, B., & Schneider, G.. (
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.
Van Ek, J.A.. (
Cited by 6 other publications
Deygers, Bart, Kris Van den Branden & Koen Van Gorp
Nagai, Noriko, Gregory C. Birch, Jack V. Bower & Maria Gabriela Schmidt
Nguyen, Van Huy & M. Obaidul Hamid
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.