Jump to content

Talk:Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The French aliance offers now 6 exams

[edit]

The Frencha aliance offers now 6 exams based in this framework (b1, b2, etc...) although the ones mentioned in this page are still availabe. I think they should be included. ____

what does the asteriks behind the german language test mean?

Can someone explain it to mean. Additionally is there any international accepted german language test, like the american Toefl, or british Cambridge certificate.

--217.189.140.26 16:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unicert

[edit]

Is there any other connection between UniCert and the CEF apart from the fact that UniCert is based on the framework? If not, is there any reason to mention UniCert particularly in this article, apart from in the table? Saint|swithin 10:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unicert has already existed before CEF. This mapping is important for people who want to compare old UniCert certificates to CEF certificates and to people who want to enroll for a CEF-based language class but already got a UniCert certificate. -- 79.238.174.32 (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Method of learning

[edit]

At the top of the entry on CEFR, we read, "Its main aim is to provide a method of learning", which is not true. The CEFR promotes, recommends, advocates no method of teaching or study at all. It is method neutral. J27325 (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)J27325[reply]

New Page: Proficiency

[edit]

How do you feel about creating a new page "Proficiency"? I would like to be able to compare different ideas of language proficience, as they vary between European, US, and other standards, and do not feel that either the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages or the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines pages would be sufficient. (Note: I am cross-posting this to both discussion pages) samwaltz 00:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as I am asking around in other discussion pages (Japanese Language Proficiency Test), it makes sense to keep the discussion on one page. Looks like it's off to ACTFL for this thread.samwaltz 00:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELF/DALF

[edit]

Why you didn't put the DELF/DALF in the frame? It is the principal French language certificate. (Diplôme d’Etudes en Langue Française DELF / A1 Diplôme d’Etudes en Langue Française DELF / A2 Diplôme d’Etudes en Langue Française DELF / B1 Diplôme d’Etudes en Langue Française DELF / B2 Diplôme Approfondi de Langue Française DALF / C1 Diplôme Approfondi de Langue Française DALF / C2 )

International Baccalaureate? anyone knows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.192.37 (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LCCI

[edit]

The london Chamber of Commerce and Industry is doing a similar examination. I've done "English for Business - Level 3" and now I have a certificate that allows me to study on every english-speaking university without additional language-testing. I was said that Level 3 of the LCCI was similar to CEFR C1. I'm just not able to find any sources. Maybe somebody can help. Maweki 08:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism ?

[edit]

I noticed that there is not a paragraph about any criticism. Has the CERFL ever been criticized in some way or other that deserves to be mentioned? Onaryc (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German

[edit]

German certificates included. 82.113.121.154 (talk) 07:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are also the test of the Austrian Language Diploma (Österreichisches Sprachdiplom) and some others, but the Gothe exams are the most admitted ones. --Sebbe xy (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TOEFL

[edit]

In the table under Use in language testing scores exceding current top scale scores are mentioned (see TOEFL). Tom Paine (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK/British equivalent

[edit]

I have no idea what NVQ level means, but do understand what GCSE, AS and A level all mean I have tried searching the web but can't find anything to show how CEFR relates to these equivalent qualifications Please can someone add this to the table? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.215.119 (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look up NVQ you will find the approximate academic qualifications according to the LSE (look up LSE if you don't know what that means). The NVQ page is the correct place for this information, not on every single other page that mentions NVQs. If you don't understand something, look it up. 190.55.119.13 (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Robert Jones[reply]

Someone has decided that mastery in european languages (C2) is equivalent to an AS level (Level 3 NVQ). This is clearly wrong as most foreign language students on their year abroad have only reached B2 or C1 level at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.54.25.55 (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have been copied incorrectly from the given reference, and I've now updated the article to reflect it. Fish-Face (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I do not have a reference with which to back this up, but I have spent ten years living abroad since I was 18, and did pass my GCSE French with a grade A, back in the day. Having studied abroad I also realise the shocking tendency the UK has to consistently hugely overestimate the actual level of British qualifications, and this is another example. There is no way at all that an AS-level is equivalent to level B2. Most tests, like Norsk III, the NT2 Statsexamen (NL) and the SWEDEX one takes to demonstrate proficiency are at level B2, and at least anyone I know with an AS in language or indeed the full A-Level, or A2 or whatever they call them these days, would have been able to pass those kinds of tests... I think someone that showed particular interest, and scored an A in their A2 might have a chance at it, but even that would not be a sure thing. I cannot back that up, but I am not "unqualified" not least because I have done tests like those myself.
This table suggests that if I went to into the lowest "set" for French at a local comprehensive, the kids in there would be able to speak French, at level A2, that is:
Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most immediate relevance (e.g. very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment). Can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar and routine matters. Can describe in simple terms aspects of his/her background, immediate environment and matters in areas of immediate need.
As it is written in this same article. I can tell you, certain-sure, that while one might have described MY French this way, when I had finished my GCSEs, one would already have been generous. The idea that the ones AIMING at a grade "D" at GCSE could be described this way, in my view (especially in the spoken language) is pretty far-fetched, no matter what we WISH were the case. Does anyone actually disagree with me in this, forgetting for a second the wishful thinking?
Princeofdelft (talk)
Please consider the following:

http://www3.open.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/course/l192.htm

"This course will enable you to reach a level of language proficiency comparable to GCSE level (grades A*–C), Scottish standard Grades 1 and 2, and Council of Europe level A2 (see Common European Framework of Reference for Languages for further details). In all other respects – for example, cultural awareness and analytical skills – you will be working towards Level 1 undergraduate outcomes."
In commentary, I have not critically evaluated the above, and personally I think it remains optimistic in practice if anything, however given that the OU is a reputable institution, and that the previous reference number 12 seems to no longer exist, I propose that the equivalences be modified at the very least to show that GCSE higher tier is A2 rather than this being foundation tier, and that AS level is at most B1 level.
Princeofdelft (talk)


It appears my changes have been reversed without countering the above discussion about why the changes were made. Simple statements contradicting these discussions won't do I feel, especially as the practical evidence simply doesn't support the claim that an A-Level (at any grade!) Means fluency, as it clearly does not, while level B2 does seem to imply basic fluency. Given the credible reference I provided, where even a UK institution admits that A-Level is B1 level, I feel this has to be answered. Princeofdelft (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.170.163 (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having inspected other references I will add the following defence of the above:

At the Open University, an accredited and high ranking UK institution, one is expected to be able to get a B.A. in modern languages by attaining level C1 proficiency in two foreign languages, in principle from a "standing start". If we assume, as the OU says, that A-Level qualifications give a maximum level of B1, then one's first year would be effectively plain sailing, on the condition that one had good results from one's A-Levels, in say, French, German, and some other subject. Unlike other European countries, Britain sees fit to award degrees the first year of which is essentially trivial in difficulty, at least when the right A-Levels have been studied (which is generally a requirement). Because, according to the OU, the A2 level, and B1 level courses are a half-semester (30 uk credits, 15 ECTS credits ) each, two languages means one year.

B1 to B2 progression, takes six months. If we assume A-Levels are B2 level, then we are saying that effectively only ONE year of studying beyond A-Level (not two) allows one to claim a degree in languages from a reputable institution in the UK. This is beyond even the UK's abiltity to award degrees easily, and I see it as proof that the A-Level=B2 hypothesis is discredited.

Princeofdelft (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

It seems to have been missed that the table on the Cambridge English website equates the *difficulty* of obtaining their C2 qualification with the difficulty of an A-Level. It does not claim that getting an A-Level indicates C2-level proficiency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.51.148.57 (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the page with a reliable source for GCSE grades, but the AQA AS-/A-Level FAQ explicitly states that they AS-Levels and A-Levels are not mapped to the CEFR.

Copying equivalence table from fr.wikipedia.org was a mistake

[edit]

This article has a table with comparisons of equivalence between the CEFR and other certificats.

The corresponding article on fr.wikipedia.org has a similar table, albeit with less data.

Someone recently copied the fr.w.o table and dumped it into this article.

Having two large tables with the same data is a recipe for problems. Editors will update and expand one or the other, but rarely both, so we'll end up with a mess. The point of a table is to facilitate comparisons, but if the data is in two separate tables, this can't be done.

Luckily, no one added any information to the duplicate table, so fixing this problem doesn't require any work to transfer any data from one table to the other. Some people did do the work of translating the French words of the dumped-in table to English, unfortunately, they were translating a duplicate, so there's nothing to salvage from that work.

I've moved the French table (now translated to English) to here (below). If anyone has a use for it, do remember that the version on fr.wikipedai.org might have been updated since this snapshot was taken.

Note: The long format is better than the wide format. If there's an emacs user or anyone else with good text manipulation skills in the audience, it would be helpful if they would convert the wide format table that is currently in the article to the long format. Gronky (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Test Language(s) A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2
Zertifikat Deutsch[citation needed] German Elementare Sprachverwendung Elementare Sprachverwendung Zertifikat Deutsch Zertifikat Deutsch plus Goethe-Zertifikat C1 Goethe-Zertifikat C2
PTE General de Pearson (ex LTE)[citation needed] English level A1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
PTE Academic de Pearson[citation needed] English - - 43+ 59+ 76+ 85+
TOEIC (Test Of English for International Communication)[1] English TOEIC Bridge : 92+ pts TOEIC Bridge : 134+ pts TOEIC 550+ pts et TOEIC Bridge 170+ pts 785+ pts 945+ pts corresponds to C1, except for written comprehension, which corresponds to B2[2]) -
TOEFL (Test Of English as a Foreign Language)[citation needed] English - - 57 pts + 87 pts + 110 pts + -
Cambridge ESOL [3] English - KET PET, BEC Business English Certificate Preliminary (Cambridge) FCE, BEC Business English Certificate, Vantage (Cambridge) CAE, BEC Business English Certificate, Higher (Cambridge) CPE
HSK [4] Chinois (Mandarin) HSK 1 HSK 2 HSK 3 HSK 4 HSK 5 HSK 6
DELE[5] Spanish - - «Nivel inicial» «Nivel intermedio» - «Nivel superior»
ELTE-ITK

[6]

Esperanto - - B1 B2 C1 -
HABE[7] (Helduen Alfabetatze eta Berreuskalduntzerako Erakundea) Basque - - 1. maila 2. maila 3. maila (EGA) 4. maila
CIEP (Alliance française)[citation needed] French DELF A1 DELF A2 / CEFP 1 DELF B1 / CEFP 2 DELF B2 / DL DALF C1 / DSLCF DALF C2 / DHEF
CILS[citation needed] Italian CILS A1 CILS A2 CILS UNO CILS DUE CILS TRE CILS QUATTRO
CELI[citation needed] Italian CELI-Impatto CELI 1 CELI 2 CELI 3 CELI 4 CELI 5
PLIDA[citation needed] Italian PLIDA A1 PLIDA A2 PLIDA B1 PLIDA B2 PLIDA C1 PLIDA C2
CNaVT[8] Dutch - PTIT et PTPB PMT PPT et PTHO PAT -
BULATS[citation needed] 4 languages (EN, DE, ES, FR) 0-10 20-39 40-59 60-74 75-89 90-100
DCL[citation needed] German, English, Arabic, Breton, Mandarin, Spanish, Italian, Occitan, Portuguese, Russian,
French Sign Language,
French as a Foreign Language 		- Degré 1 Degré 3 et 2 Degré 4 Degré 5 -
CLES[citation needed] 9 languages - - CLES 1 CLES 2 CLES 3 -
UNIcert[citation needed] ? - - UNIcert I UNIcert II UNIcert III UNIcert IV

References

  1. ^ Educational Testing Service (2007). "Positionnement des tests TOEIC® et TOEIC® BridgeTM sur le Cadre Européen Commun de Référence pour les Langues (CECRL)" (PDF).
  2. ^ http://www.fr.toeic.eu/fileadmin/free_resources/French%20website/Etude_CECR_TOEIC_06_-_FR.pdf - voir page 2 « Résultats »
  3. ^ Cambridge ESOL:CEFR
  4. ^ "Introduction on New HSK Test". Retrieved 26 July 2010. The direct comparison between the new HSK test and Chinese Language Proficiency Scales for Speakers of Other Languages and The Common European Framework Reference for Language， CEF） is as follows: [...] HSK- Level 6 [...] C2 [...] HSK- Level 1 [...] A1
  5. ^ Los Diplomas de Español como Lengua Extranjera (DELE):Descripción
  6. ^ (in Esperanto) Esperanto-ekzamenoj
  7. ^ Euskara - Eusko Jaurlaritza - Euskadi.net - Euskara tituluak: EGA, EGAtik beherako agiriak, Hizkuntza-eskola ofizialak, hizkuntza eskakizunak
  8. ^ PTIT, PTPB, PMT, PPT, PTHO, PAT

Canadian Equivalents

[edit]

The Public Service of Canada "A, B, C" system may not be correctly represented in the table. I could not find a reference to the actual equivalencies in the links cited. But there is a PowerPoint on-line that has different "estimated equivalencies".

Captain labrador (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The report by Vandergrift is clear on this. See Appendix C of that report. I've reverted the change. You can include a sourced, separate table, but you can't present your equivalencies as being taken from the report by Vandergrift. 96.46.204.126 (talk) 10:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IELTS and CEFR

[edit]

According to all websites of testing centres, universities, immigration services:

  • A1...1.0 to 2.5
  • A2...3.0 to 3.5
  • B1...4.0 to 4.5-5.0
  • B2...5.5 to 6.0-6.5
  • C1...6.5-7.0 to 8.0
  • C2...8.5 to 9.0

While there no other references these are supposed to be correct.--Divega (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Descriptions" Table

[edit]

This is hard to read, and frankly quite ugly. The table clearly needs to be rotated code-wise to be horizontal instead. 03:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Reading/Listening/Speaking

[edit]

I am a little puzzled about the usage of levels that do not distinguish between reading, listening, and speaking. For example, I read well French and Spanish, but even if I have a medium proficiency in listening, I am quite bad in speaking them. I think that we should AT LEAT distinguish between: - reading - listening/understanding - speaking/writing IMHO--Dejudicibus (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The table does make these distinctions, and if you look closely it acknowledges that passive proficiency is always ahead of active proficiency.

Speaking takes a special place. It is at once the most natural way for humans to produce language and the most pressing need (asking for directions versus reading the masterworks of literature), but also the last thing a learner will be able to perfect. Also, ambitious language learners have a tendency to do a lot of reading, which is good of course, but tends to widen this passive/active gap and thereby any feelings of frustration. Another qualitative difference is that levels A1, A2 can be mastered via the classic classroom approach, whereas B1, B2 require a more informal classroom approach combined with intensive self-study. Finally C1, C2 can only be attained by speaking to the natives for many hundreds of hours, sounding like a complete idiot for most of that time. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:58A9:2815:19B4:F531 (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

STANAG 6001

[edit]

Has anyone considered doing a crosswalk between CEFL and the NATO Standardized Agreement (STANAG) 6001 "Language Proficiency Levels"? As both frameworks are heavily oriented on Europe and apply across most European countries, establishing equivalencies between the two systems should be useful. STANAG 6001 has been around for decades so is a well-established benchmark for language testing. Latest version is at http://www.ncia.nato.int/Opportunities/BizOppRefDoc/Stanag_6001_vers_4.pdf . I've tested across half a dozen languages against STANAG 6001 but CEFL is new to me, so I'm not the one to try to do it. Any takers? Bilhartz (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese

[edit]

How about adding JLPT equivalents?Kdammers (talk)

It looks like someone did, but I am very suspicious of the results. It lists N1 as being equivalent to a C1, but I know from experience that the test is even more advanced than the old "1kyu" level, which contained grammar and vocabulary that even native Japanese speakers sometimes had trouble with. A test of Shakespearian English would certainly not fall into the C1 category, and I suspect the same to hold true with the JLPT. Can't investigate where they got their information, though, since there's no citation listed. 27.140.141.100 (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)AMW[reply]

  • which contained grammar and vocabulary that even native Japanese speakers sometimes had trouble with—I don't know how you could say this. I passed the JLPT Level 1 in 2008, and I encountered nothing I could imagine a native Japanese high school student struggling with. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity College London exams

[edit]

Suggested corrections and clarification to the 'Rest of the world' section of this page:

1. ISE 0 to read ISE Foundation - [1] 2. SEW 1 to read SEW B1 - [2] 3. SEW 2 to read SEW B2 - [3] 4. SEW 3 to read SEW B2+ - [4] 5. SEW 4 to read SEW C1 - [5] 6. The three Trinity exams (ISE, GESE, SEW) that currently share one row in the table could be separated into three rows, each with its respective citation number, rather than three together with three citations. This would also be clearer as the column heading is 'Certificate' (not 'Organisation'). 7. All references to GESE grades should contain the word ‘Grade’ – eg ‘GESE Grade 2’ not 'GESE 2'. eg [6]

Mark Hunter - Trinity College London 13:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkRetnuh (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ http://www.trinitycollege.com/site/?id=3193
  2. ^ http://www.trinitycollege.com/site/?id=1521
  3. ^ http://www.trinitycollege.com/site/?id=1521
  4. ^ http://www.trinitycollege.com/site/?id=1521
  5. ^ http://www.trinitycollege.com/site/?id=1521
  6. ^ http://www.trinitycollege.com/site/?id=3106

CEFR and HSK

[edit]

It's complicated. See Hanyu Shuiping Kaoshi # Estimates of equivalent CEFR levels (2 September 2015). Since Hanban apparently does not uphold its original claims, the German (and French) estimates remain. --Gregor Kneussel (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"other applications"

[edit]

This section appears to exist for the sole purpose of referencing an online handout expressing a private idea. Very creative for sure, but I doubt that it should be referenced from a Wikipedia page. Bansp (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


why?

[edit]

Why does this link Frantastique Certification lead to a page on Gymglish? 108.18.136.147 (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Validity of Japanese equivalencies in table?

[edit]

The table gives the A1–C1 equivalencies of the Japanese Language Proficiency Test, but this is misleading in that (a) it's unsourced; and (b) there are no speaking or writing components on the JLPT. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalence table

[edit]

Following up on the above thread: perhaps tests should be included in the table only when they've been developed in compliance with CEFR? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Learning hours

[edit]

1. Although the hours it takes to learn E, F, & D are sourced, they are simplistic. For example, a Dutch speaker can learn English much faster than a Hungarian or Finnish speaker, to say nothing of a Japanese speaker. 2. The hours given are cumulative. That should be explicitly stated. 3. There is an unexplained reference to two subdivisions (2.1 & 2.2).Kdammers (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does "... is the margin" mean?

[edit]

What does "... is the margin" mean with respect to IELTS. I am a college-educated native speaker of English, and this pretty much baffles me. 5.34.85.197 (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: https://www.luenglish.co.uk/learn-english-online/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Native speakers

[edit]

Hey- I think something we really need to see on this page is a discussion about the linguistic ability of native speakers. For instance, some native speakers can't write their language- does that mean they can't achieve C1 in their own language? If we took a look at the population of literate or semiliterate Americans, what percentage of Americans would be level B1 or B2 in English, their mother tongue? What percentage would be C2 in English? Are native speakers reaching C2 in some languages more common by percentage of population than native speakers reaching C2 in other languages? Are there any populations speaking their native language who don't have very many people reaching C2?

On a related note, I would definitely love to see research on the SAT's Reading and Writing sections and how scores on those tests correspond to CEFR levels. Same with the PSC test in Mainland China- what CEFR level corresponds to Level 3B or Level 1A? Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, C2 is considered fluent, most probably more fluent than some of their less educated native speakers. In fact, B2 is the required level to enter a university, and C1-C2 levels are for specialized use (e.g., in the professional world, advanced literature)."

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-C2-level-of-the-CEFR-scale-equal-or-closer-to-the-fluency-level-of-the-native-speaker?share=1

Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an opinion from the opposite side, which takes the view that C2 is still sub-native:

"Level C2, whilst it has been termed ‘Mastery’, is not intended to imply native-speaker or near native-speaker competence. What is intended is to characterise the degree of precision, appropriateness and ease with the language which typifies the speech of those who have been highly successful learners."

http://www.delfdalf.fr/level-c2-cefr-common-european-framework-of-reference-for-languages.html

Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the percentage of native speakers that reach C2 level in a language losing speakers to competing languages like in the case of Taiwanese Hokkien where some parents had refused to speak the language with their children, and many only have a knowledge of the oral component of the language? Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that there should be something about native speakers. Besides, the scale can be used as a measure for the difficulty of written publications. Dutch civil servants are being stimulated to use this scale to judge if their own writing is comprehensible for the general public or individual recipients. Bever (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of JLPT one-to-one equivalence

[edit]

This is to provide some extra information on the removal of JLPT one-to-one equivalence from the Language-specific scales table.

1. There is a newer, more reliable source

[edit]

In the section Language-specific scales, the JLPT table entry since May 2019 cited a one page summary [1] of a report [2] for a small trial survey conducted by the Japan Foundation (JF) in 2012.

Key figures of the trial survey:

  • 96 subjects
  • that participated in a JF language course in 2011
  • that took the JLPT during the time of aforementioned language course(s)
    • i.e. in 2011
    • i.e. in Japan
  • none of the participants were Chinese or Korean native speakers

Based on above trial survey, the JF conducted a larger survey [3] with the following key figures:

  • 967 subjects
  • that took the JLPT between 2013 and 2016
  • either in Japan or aborad

For the report of this survey the JF, again, provides a summary page with part of the findings [4] and this time even an English version of the summary page [5].

2. According the newer, more reliable source

[edit]
  • there is a "moderate relation between JFS-based evaluation [CEFR levels] and JLPT pass or fail" [5]
  • "One-to-one correspondence between particular levels was not observed" [5]

Looking at the graph presented in [5] (also [4] and page 8 in [3]), we can see, that participants deemed to be CEFR A2, passed:

  • JLPT N2 with a likelyhood of 65.2%
  • JLPT N3 with a likelyhood of 44.6%
  • JLPT N4 with a likelyhood of 60.9%

This makes, at first glance, obviously no sense. N2 is harder than N3 and N4, but for these 221 survey subjects (that were rated CEFR A2 and took one of N2, N3, N4) N2 shows the highest passing rate. A possible explanation is given in [3], section 4.4 ②: 

   "(A2、N2)の調査対象者では、海外の大学で日本語を主専攻として学ぶ漢字圏母語話者の学習者比率が高かった。一方、(A2、N3)の調査対象者ではそのような学習者の比率は低く、その差は全セル間で最大であった。"
   -> A large portion of the 69 A2 rated N2 takers were people whose native language uses Kanji. Of the 65 A2 rated N3 takers, only a small portion were people whose native language uses Kanji. In fact, the difference in "portion of people whose native language uses Kanji" is the highest overall between cells (A2,N2) and (A2,N3).

3. Simply put

[edit]

Because two thirds of the JLPT is reading comprehension, an overall A2 level learner from China or Taiwan is more likely than not to pass N2 and has a fair chance of passing N1. In contrast, if your native language doesn't use Kanji, you might pass N3 as an overall A2, but are probably better of with N4 or even N5.

--IllDepence (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "JF日本語教育スタンダードに基づいたパフォーマンス評価と日本語能力試験の合否判定との関係 国際交流基金研修参加者を対象とした試行調査" (PDF). The Japan Foundation. August 2012. Retrieved 2019-10-05.
  2. ^ "JF日本語教育スタンダードに基づいたパフォーマンス評価と日本語能力試験の合否判定との関係 国際交流基金研修参加者を対象とした試行調査" (PDF). The Japan Foundation. August 2012. Retrieved 2019-10-05.
  3. ^ a b c "JF日本語教育スタンダードに基づいた評価と日本語能力試験の合否判定との関係 最終報告書" (PDF). The Japan Foundation. April 2017. Retrieved 2019-10-05.
  4. ^ a b "JF日本語教育スタンダードに基づいた評価と日本語能力試験の合否判定との関係" (PDF). The Japan Foundation. April 2017. Retrieved 2019-10-05.
  5. ^ a b c d "Relation between JFS-based evaluation and JLPT pass or fail determination" (PDF). The Japan Foundation. April 2017. Retrieved 2019-10-05.

Sign languages

[edit]

No sign language is added yet. --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation - the New Companion Volume from 2018.

[edit]

Way back in 2008 someone asked here about criticism, and unfortunately this was never followed up on. It would be nice if some of the difficulties, limitations and problems arising were looked at in a section.

One limitation that has already been addressed by the Council of Europe is the unnecessary focus on the individual user, rather than co-operatve production of meaning - above all in what language experts call mediation. We either need a section on the 2018 Companion volume,which has already sent major waves through the leanguage teaching/testing world, or a separate article on it. (Surprisingly, Wikipedia doesn't even have an article on Mediation in the linguistics/language learning sense - that would help too.)

Perhaps, rather than a section on the 2018 companion volume, it would be enough to have a new section of the CEFR article called "Legacy and continuing developments" or similar?

Northtowner (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of C levels.

[edit]

Hello, I don't understand, how could anybody have C2 in any language. I am studying PHD in chemistry. I don't understand many of the concepts I study (regardless on the language used). How could anybody "understand virtually any concept", without hunderds of years of studying of all science fields? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vks (talk • contribs) 10:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of notional levels is poetry. Actual C2 levels are high, often higher than most native speakers in some dimensions, and much lower in others (such as the language of the street.) Knotaholic (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is implied to be followed with “, when it is explained to him”. Having common sense is a clear advantage. ^^ 2A0A:A546:CA8C:1:4799:23C7:AFCC:D39 (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spam by Speexx Language Assessment Center

[edit]

In the table of bodies that assess language levels, for several languages, a company called "Speexx Language Assessment Center" has added themselves.

It makes absolutely no sense. - For Spanish there is Instituto Cervantes, that's it, anything else is irrelevant. - For Italian there is cert.it by Roma Tre which is not on the page (along with CELI, CILS and PLIDA), it is not big but it is real, as opposed to Speexx Language Assessment Center. Knotaholic (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ICAO

[edit]

I believe it would be of public value to also include a comparison of CEFRL to ICAO Levels for the English language (the ICAO scale is used for international pilots and air traffic controllers English assesment). I tried to look such a comparison up on the Internet, however to no avail, none is available here in the major language versions of this article either. There are 6 or 7 ICAO language levels, the threshold is Level 4 (minimum for international operations).

While I'm unable to produce this "mapping", I hope there would be editors who could include this in the article over time.

77.85.6.55 (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CEFL for programming languages??

[edit]

As a programmer with 30 years of experience, who has taught others… that is, at best, ridiculous, and at worst, actively malevolent abuse of the framework. None of the listed criteria (e.g. for C2) can be applied in to programming in a way that isn’t either useless for determining programming skills, or has nothing to do with the CEFL anymore. …
Programming is not communication. It is engineering. Applying the CEFL to it makes as much sense as applying it to the ability to construct of a car.
The whole thing sounds more like a business consultant firm came up with it to scam PHBs into paying money for a “certification”.
We need someone to look at this section of the article with a sharp eye and experience in weeding out pseudo-science or business esotericism.
— 2A0A:A546:CA8C:1:4799:23C7:AFCC:D39 (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian General Election

[edit]

General elections are scheduled to be held in Indonesia on 14 February 2024 to elect the President, Vice President, People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) which consists of the House of Representatives (DPR) and the Senate (DPD). The newly elected members of the MPR will be sworn in on 1 October 2024, while the elected President and Vice President will be sworn in on 20 October 2024. Incumbent President Joko Widodo is ineligible to run for a third term due to the term limits established by the Indonesian constitution. 

       The previous election was regulated by Law No. 7 of 2017. The General Elections Commission (KPU), a legally independent government body was responsible for organizing the election. In addition, the vote is monitored by the General Election Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu), which also has the authority to rule on violations of election rules (e.g. administrative errors, vote-buying, etc.). Any ethical violations committed by either Bawaslu or the KPU were to be handled by the Elections Organiser Honours Council (DKPP), which consists of one member from each body and five others recommended by the government. The same system and regulations are expected to be applied in 2024.

       Voters will be given three ballot papers: one for the presidential candidates and their running mate, one for the Regional Representative Council (DPD) and one for House of Representatives. Voters use a nail to poke a hole in the ballot paper indicating which party or candidate they wish to vote for, and then dip their fingers in ink as a precaution against voter fraud. 103.247.13.79 (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Common_European_Framework_of_Reference_for_Languages&oldid=1237443269"