Article published In:
ITL - International Journal of Applied LinguisticsVol. 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
References (26)
Alderson, J.C. (2007). The CEFR and the need for more research. The Modern Language Journal, 911, 659–663. 
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 [URL]
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.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: CUP / Council of Europe.
DeCoo, W. (2011). Systemization in foreign language teaching: Monitoring content progression. New York, NY: Routledge.
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. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale, edited by C. Bally and A. Sechehaye, with the collaboration of A. Riedlinger. Lausanne and Paris: Payot.
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.
Figueras, N. (2012). The impact of the CEFR. ELT Journal, 661, 477–485.
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. London: Academic Press.
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, 511, 1–50.
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.
Hulstijn, J.H. (2007). The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 911, 663–667.
2010). Linking L2 proficiency to L2 acquisition: Opportunities and challenges of profiling research. In Bartning, Martin & Vedder (Eds.), (pp. 233–238). Retrievable from [URL]
2011). Language proficiency in native and nonnative speakers: An agenda for research and suggestions for second-language assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly, 81, 229–249.
2012). The construct of language proficiency in the study of bilingualism from a cognitive perspective. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 151, 422–433.
Levelt, W.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Little, D. (2007). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Perspectives on the making of supranational language education policy. The Modern Language Journal, 911, 645–653.
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.
North, B. (2007). The CEFR illustrative descriptor scales. The Modern Language Journal, 911, 656–659.
North, B., & Schneider, G. (1998). Scaling descriptors for language proficiency scales. Language Testing, 151, 217–262.
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. (1976). The threshold level for modern language learning in schools. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Zipf, G.K. (1935). The psycho-biology of language: An introduction to dynamic philology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Cited by (11)
Cited by 11 other publications
Salvador-Cisneros, Katherine A., Cindy E. Bolanos-Mendoza, Federico X. Dominguez Bonini & Karen A. Yambay de Armijos
2023. Proceedings of the 2023 6th International Conference on Educational Technology Management, ► pp. 1 ff. 
Wagner, Thomas
2023. Implications for the Classroom. In English Interlanguage Morphology, ► pp. 113 ff.
Yasin, Burhanuddin & Faisal Mustafa
2022. Correlation between behavioural management, instructional management, and the English proficiency level of teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL). South African Journal of Education 42:2 ► pp. 1 ff.
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.
Nagai, Noriko, Gregory C. Birch, Jack V. Bower & Maria Gabriela Schmidt
2020. The CEFR and Practical Resources. In CEFR-informed Learning, Teaching and Assessment [Springer Texts in Education, ], ► pp. 1 ff.
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.
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.
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.
Sonea, Ioana-Silvia
2018. The Impact of the CEFR on Teaching and Assessing Romanian as a Second/Foreign Language. Practice and Research. In Foreign Language Teaching in Romanian Higher Education [Multilingual Education, 27], ► pp. 83 ff.
Jaspaert, Koen
2015. Creating quarter for doing things with language. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 3:1 ► pp. 21 ff.
Jaspaert, Koen
2021. Creating Quarter for Doing Things with Language. In Language Policies and the Politics of Language Practices [Language Policy, 28], ► pp. 85 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 january 2025. 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.