This volume contains:► an explanation of the key aspects of the CEFR for teaching and learning;► a complete set of updated CEFR descriptors that replaces the 2001 set with:- modality-inclusive and gender-neutral descriptors;- added detail on listening and reading;- a new Pre–A1 level, plus enriched description at A1 and C levels;- a replacement scale for phonological competence;- new scales for mediation, online interaction and plurilingual/pluricultural competence;- new scales for sign language competence;► a short report on the four-year development, validation and consultation
processes.
The CEFR Companion volume represents another step in a process of engagement with language education that has been pursued by the Council of Europe
since 1971 and which seeks to:► promote and support the learning and teaching of modern languages;► enhance intercultural dialogue, and thus mutual understanding, social

cohesion and democracy;

EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRACY

www.coe.int/lang-cefr
The Council of Europe is the continent’s leading
human rights organisation. It comprises 47 member
states, including all members of the European Union.
All Council of Europe member states have signed
up to the European Convention on Human Rights,
a treaty designed to protect human rights, democracy
and the rule of law. The European Court of Human Rights
oversees the implementation of the Convention in
the member states.

http://book.coe.int
ISBN 978-92-871-8621-8€29/US$58
9 789287

186218PREMS 058220► protect linguistic and cultural diversity in Europe; and► promote the right to quality education for all.

COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK OF REFERENCE FOR LANGUAGES: LEARNING, TEACHING, ASSESSMENT

The CEFR Companion volume broadens the scope of language education. It reflects academic and societal developments since the publication of the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and updates the 2001
version. It owes much to the contributions of members of the language teachingprofession across Europe and beyond.

COMMON EUROPEAN
FRAMEWORKOF REFERENCE
FOR LANGUAGES:LEARNING, TEACHING,
ASSESSMENT

ENG

Companion volume

COMMON EUROPEAN
FRAMEWORKOF REFERENCE
FOR LANGUAGES:LEARNING, TEACHING, ASSESSMENT
Companion volume

This publication updates the CEFR 2001,
the conceptual framework of which remains valid.
www.coe.int/lang-cefr

Language Policy Programme
Education Policy Division
Education Department
Council of EuropeA preliminary version of this update to the Common European Frameworkof Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment was published
online in English and French in 2018 as “Common European Frameworkof Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment: Companion
Volume with New Descriptors” and “Cadre européen commun de référence
pour les langues: apprendre, enseigner, évaluer : Volume complémentaire
avec de nouveaux descripteurs”, respectively.
This volume presents the key messages of the CEFR in a user-friendly
form and contains all CEFR illustrative descriptors. For pedagogical useof the CEFR for learning, teaching and assessment, teachers and teacher
educators will find it easier to access the CEFR Companion volume as
the updated framework. The Companion volume provides the links andreferences to also consult the chapters of the 2001 edition, where necessary.
Researchers wishing to interrogate the underlying concepts and guidancein CEFR chapters about specific areas should access the 2001 edition,
which remains valid.

French edition:
Cadre européen commun de référence
pour les langues : apprendre, enseigner,évaluer – Volume complémentaire
All rights reserved. No part of thispublication may be translated, reproduced
or transmitted, in any form or by anymeans, electronic (CD-Rom, internet, etc.)
or mechanical, including photocopying,recording or any information storage or
retrieval system, without prior permission
in writing from the Directorate ofCommunication (F-67075 Strasbourg
Cedex or publishing@coe.int).
Cover design and layout: Documents
and Publications Production Department(SPDP), Council of Europe
ISBN 978-92-871-8621-8© Council of Europe, April 2020
Printed at the Council of Europe

Citation reference: Council of Europe(2020), Common European Frameworkof Reference for Languages: Learning,teaching, assessment – Companion volume,
Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg,
available at www.coe.int/lang-cefr.

CONTENTS
FOREWORD

11

PREFACE WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

13

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

211.1. SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO THE ILLUSTRATIVE DESCRIPTORS

24

CHAPTER 2: KEY ASPECTS OF THE CEFR FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING

27

2.1. AIMS OF THE CEFR

28

2.2. IMPLEMENTING THE ACTION-ORIENTED APPROACH

29

2.3. PLURILINGUAL AND PLURICULTURAL COMPETENCE

30

2.4. THE CEFR DESCRIPTIVE SCHEME

31

2.5. MEDIATION

35

2.6. THE CEFR COMMON REFERENCE LEVELS

36

2.7. CEFR PROFILES

38

2.8. THE CEFR ILLUSTRATIVE DESCRIPTORS

41

2.9. USING THE CEFR ILLUSTRATIVE DESCRIPTORS

42

2.10. SOME USEFUL RESOURCES FOR CEFR IMPLEMENTATION

44

2.10.1. WEB RESOURCES

44

2.10.2. BOOKS45

CHAPTER 3: THE CEFR ILLUSTRATIVE DESCRIPTOR SCALES:COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE ACTIVITIES AND STRATEGIES

47

3.1. RECEPTION

47

3.1.1. RECEPTION ACTIVITIES

48

3.1.1.1. ORAL COMPREHENSION48

OVERALL ORAL COMPREHENSION

48

UNDERSTANDING CONVERSATION BETWEEN OTHER PEOPLE

49

UNDERSTANDING AS A MEMBER OF A LIVE AUDIENCE

50

UNDERSTANDING ANNOUNCEMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS

51

UNDERSTANDING AUDIO (OR SIGNED) MEDIA AND RECORDINGS

52

3.1.1.2. AUDIO-VISUAL COMPREHENSION

52

WATCHING TV, FILM AND VIDEO

52

3.1.1.3. READING COMPREHENSION53

OVERALL READING COMPREHENSION54

READING CORRESPONDENCE

54

﻿ Page 5

READING FOR ORIENTATION55

READING FOR INFORMATION AND ARGUMENT

56

READING INSTRUCTIONS58

READING AS A LEISURE ACTIVITY

58

3.1.2. RECEPTION STRATEGIESIDENTIFYING CUES AND INFERRING (SPOKEN, SIGNED AND WRITTEN)

59
60

3.2. PRODUCTION

60

3.2.1. PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES

61

3.2.1.1. ORAL PRODUCTION

61

OVERALL ORAL PRODUCTION62

SUSTAINED MONOLOGUE: DESCRIBING EXPERIENCE62

SUSTAINED MONOLOGUE: GIVING INFORMATION63

SUSTAINED MONOLOGUE: PUTTING A CASE (E.G. IN A DEBATE)

64

PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS

64

ADDRESSING AUDIENCES

65

3.2.1.2. WRITTEN PRODUCTION

66

OVERALL WRITTEN PRODUCTION

66

CREATIVE WRITING67

REPORTS AND ESSAYS

68

3.2.2. PRODUCTION STRATEGIES68

PLANNING

69

COMPENSATING

69

MONITORING AND REPAIR

70

3.3. INTERACTION

70

3.3.1. INTERACTION ACTIVITIES

71

3.3.1.1. ORAL INTERACTION

71

OVERALL ORAL INTERACTION

72

UNDERSTANDING AN INTERLOCUTOR

72

CONVERSATION73

INFORMAL DISCUSSION (WITH FRIENDS)

74

FORMAL DISCUSSION (MEETINGS)

75

GOAL-ORIENTED CO-OPERATION76

OBTAINING GOODS AND SERVICES

77

INFORMATION EXCHANGE

78

INTERVIEWING AND BEING INTERVIEWED80

USING TELECOMMUNICATIONS

81

3.3.1.2. WRITTEN INTERACTION

81

OVERALL WRITTEN INTERACTION

82

CORRESPONDENCE

82

NOTES, MESSAGES AND FORMS

83

3.3.1.3. ONLINE INTERACTION84

ONLINE CONVERSATION AND DISCUSSION

84

Page 6 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

GOAL-ORIENTED ONLINE TRANSACTIONS AND COLLABORATION

3.3.2. INTERACTION STRATEGIES

86

87

TURNTAKING

88

CO-OPERATING88

ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION

89

3.4. MEDIATION

90

3.4.1. MEDIATION ACTIVITIES91OVERALL MEDIATION

91

3.4.1.1. MEDIATING A TEXT

92

RELAYING SPECIFIC INFORMATION

93

EXPLAINING DATA

96

PROCESSING TEXT

98

TRANSLATING A WRITTEN TEXT102

NOTE-TAKING (LECTURES, SEMINARS, MEETINGS, ETC.)

105

EXPRESSING A PERSONAL RESPONSE TO CREATIVE TEXTS (INCLUDING LITERATURE)

106

ANALYSIS AND CRITICISM OF CREATIVE TEXTS (INCLUDING LITERATURE)

107

3.4.1.2. MEDIATING CONCEPTS

108

FACILITATING COLLABORATIVE INTERACTION WITH PEERS

109

COLLABORATING TO CONSTRUCT MEANING109

MANAGING INTERACTION

112

ENCOURAGING CONCEPTUAL TALK

112

3.4.1.3. MEDIATING COMMUNICATION

114

FACILITATING PLURICULTURAL SPACE

114

ACTING AS AN INTERMEDIARY IN INFORMAL SITUATIONS (WITH FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES)115

FACILITATING COMMUNICATION IN DELICATE SITUATIONS AND DISAGREEMENTS

116

3.4.2. MEDIATION STRATEGIES

117

3.4.2.1. STRATEGIES TO EXPLAIN A NEW CONCEPT

118

LINKING TO PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE

118

ADAPTING LANGUAGE

118

BREAKING DOWN COMPLICATED INFORMATION

118

3.4.2.2. STRATEGIES TO SIMPLIFY A TEXT121

AMPLIFYING A DENSE TEXT121

STREAMLINING A TEXT

121

CHAPTER 4: THE CEFR ILLUSTRATIVE DESCRIPTOR SCALES:
PLURILINGUAL AND PLURICULTURAL COMPETENCE

123

BUILDING ON PLURICULTURAL REPERTOIRE

124

PLURILINGUAL COMPREHENSION126

BUILDING ON PLURILINGUAL REPERTOIRE

127

CHAPTER 5: THE CEFR ILLUSTRATIVE DESCRIPTOR SCALES:COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE COMPETENCES

129

5.1. LINGUISTIC COMPETENCE

130

GENERAL LINGUISTIC RANGE

130

﻿ Page 7

VOCABULARY RANGE

131

GRAMMATICAL ACCURACY132

VOCABULARY CONTROL132

PHONOLOGICAL CONTROL

133

ORTHOGRAPHIC CONTROL

136

5.2. SOCIOLINGUISTIC COMPETENCE136

SOCIOLINGUISTIC APPROPRIATENESS

5.3. PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE

136

137

FLEXIBILITY

138

TURNTAKING

139

THEMATIC DEVELOPMENT

139

COHERENCE AND COHESION140PROPOSITIONAL PRECISION141

FLUENCY142

CHAPTER 6: THE CEFR ILLUSTRATIVE DESCRIPTOR SCALES: SIGNING COMPETENCES

143

6.1. LINGUISTIC COMPETENCE

144

SIGN LANGUAGE REPERTOIRE

144

DIAGRAMMATICAL ACCURACY

149

6.2. SOCIOLINGUISTIC COMPETENCESOCIOLINGUISTIC APPROPRIATENESS AND CULTURAL REPERTOIRE

6.3. PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE

153
153

157

SIGN TEXT STRUCTURE

157

SETTING AND PERSPECTIVES

161

LANGUAGE AWARENESS AND INTERPRETATION164

PRESENCE AND EFFECT

166

PROCESSING SPEED167

SIGNING FLUENCY168

APPENDICES171

APPENDIX 1: SALIENT FEATURES OF THE CEFR LEVELS173

APPENDIX 2: SELF-ASSESSMENT GRID
(EXPANDED WITH ONLINE INTERACTION AND MEDIATION)

177

APPENDIX 3: QUALITATIVE FEATURES OF SPOKEN LANGUAGE (EXPANDED WITH PHONOLOGY) 183
APPENDIX 4: WRITTEN ASSESSMENT GRID

187

APPENDIX 5: EXAMPLES OF USE IN DIFFERENT DOMAINS FOR DESCRIPTORS OF ONLINEINTERACTION AND MEDIATION ACTIVITIES191

APPENDIX 6: DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE EXTENDED ILLUSTRATIVE DESCRIPTORS 243
APPENDIX 7: SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO SPECIFIC DESCRIPTORS PUBLISHED IN 2001

257

APPENDIX 8: SUPPLEMENTARY DESCRIPTORS

259

APPENDIX 9: SOURCES FOR NEW DESCRIPTORS

269

APPENDIX 10: ONLINE RESOURCES

273

Page 8 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURESLIST OF FIGURESFIGURE 1 – THE STRUCTURE OF THE CEFR DESCRIPTIVE SCHEME

32

FIGURE 2 – THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RECEPTION, PRODUCTION, INTERACTION AND MEDIATION

34

FIGURE 3 – CEFR COMMON REFERENCE LEVELS

36

FIGURE 4 – A RAINBOW36

FIGURE 5 – THE CONVENTIONAL SIX COLOURS36

FIGURE 6 – A FICTIONAL PROFILE OF NEEDS IN AN ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE – LOWER SECONDARY CLIL

38

FIGURE 7 – A PROFILE OF NEEDS IN AN ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE –POSTGRADUATE NATURAL SCIENCES (FICTIONAL)

39

FIGURE 8 – A PLURILINGUAL PROFICIENCY PROFILE WITH FEWER CATEGORIES40

FIGURE 9 – A PROFICIENCY PROFILE – OVERALL PROFICIENCY IN ONE LANGUAGE

40

FIGURE 10 – A PLURILINGUAL PROFICIENCY PROFILE – ORAL COMPREHENSION ACROSS LANGUAGES40

FIGURE 11 – RECEPTION ACTIVITIES AND STRATEGIES47

FIGURE 12 – PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES AND STRATEGIES61

FIGURE 13 – INTERACTION ACTIVITIES AND STRATEGIES71

FIGURE 14 – MEDIATION ACTIVITIES AND STRATEGIES90

FIGURE 15 – PLURILINGUAL AND PLURICULTURAL COMPETENCE123

FIGURE 16 – COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE COMPETENCES

129

FIGURE 17 – SIGNING COMPETENCES

144

FIGURE 18 – DEVELOPMENT DESIGN OF YOUNG LEARNER PROJECT

244

FIGURE 19 – MULTIMETHOD DEVELOPMENTAL RESEARCH DESIGN

249

FIGURE 20 – THE PHASES OF THE SIGN LANGUAGE PROJECT254

LIST OF TABLESTABLE 1 – THE CEFR DESCRIPTIVE SCHEME AND ILLUSTRATIVE DESCRIPTORS: UPDATES AND ADDITIONS

23

TABLE 2 – SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO THE ILLUSTRATIVE DESCRIPTORS24

TABLE 3 – MACRO-FUNCTIONAL BASIS OF CEFR CATEGORIES FOR COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE ACTIVITIES33TABLE 4 – COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE STRATEGIES IN THE CEFR

35

TABLE 5 – THE DIFFERENT PURPOSES OF DESCRIPTORS

44

﻿ Page 9

FOREWORDThe Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR)1 is one of thebest-known and most used Council of Europe policy instruments. Through the European Cultural Convention
50 European countries commit to encouraging “the study by its own nationals of the languages, history andcivilisation” of other European countries. The CEFR has played and continues to play an important role in making
this vision of Europe a reality.
Since its launch in 2001, the CEFR, together with its related instrument for learners, the European Language
Portfolio (ELP),2 has been a central feature of the Council of Europe’s intergovernmental programmes in the fieldof education, including their initiatives to promote the right to quality education for all. Language education
contributes to Council of Europe’s core mission “to achieve a greater unity between its members” and isfundamental to the effective enjoyment of the right to education and other individual human rights and therights of minorities as well as, more broadly, to developing and maintaining a culture of democracy.
The CEFR is intended to promote quality plurilingual education, facilitate greater social mobility and stimulatereflection and exchange between language professionals for curriculum development and in teacher education.
Furthermore the CEFR provides a metalanguage for discussing the complexity of language proficiency for all
citizens in a multilingual and intercultural Europe, and for education policy makers to reflect on learning objectives
and outcomes that should be coherent and transparent. It has never been the intention that the CEFR should
be used to justify a gate-keeping function of assessment instruments.
The Council of Europe hopes that the development in this publication of areas such as mediation, plurilingual/pluricultural competence and signing competences will contribute to quality inclusive education for all, and to
the promotion of plurilingualism and pluriculturalism.
Snežana Samardžić-Marković
Council of Europe
Director General for Democracy

1.
2.

www.coe.int/lang-cefr.
www.coe.int/en/web/portfolio.

Page 11

PREFACE WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR) was publishedin 2001 (the European Year of Languages) after a comprehensive process of drafting, piloting and consultation.
The CEFR has contributed to the implementation of the Council of Europe’s language education principles,
including the promotion of reflective learning and learner autonomy.
A comprehensive set of resources has been developed around the CEFR since its publication in order to support
implementation and, like the CEFR itself, these resources are presented on the Council of Europe’s CEFR website.3
Building on the success of the CEFR and other projects a number of policy documents and resources thatfurther develop the underlying educational principles and objectives of the CEFR are also available, not only forforeign/second languages but also for the languages of schooling and the development of curricula to promoteplurilingual and intercultural education. Many of these are available on the Platform of resources and references
for plurilingual and intercultural education,4 for example:
f Guide for the development and implementation of curricula for plurilingual and intercultural education;5f A handbook for curriculum development and teacher education: the language dimension in all subjects;6f “From linguistic diversity to plurilingual education: guide for the development of language education
policies in Europe”;7
Others are available separately:f policy guidelines and resources for the linguistic integration of adult migrants;8f guidelines for intercultural education and an autobiography of intercultural encounters;9f Reference framework of competences for democratic culture.10
However, regardless of all this further material provided, the Council of Europe frequently received requests tocontinue to develop aspects of the CEFR, particularly the illustrative descriptors of second/foreign language
proficiency. Requests were made asking the Council of Europe to complement the illustrative scales publishedin 2001 with descriptors for mediation, reactions to literature and online interaction, to produce versions foryoung learners and for signing competences, and to develop more detailed coverage in the descriptors for A1
and C levels.
Much work done by other institutions and professional bodies since the publication of the CEFR has confirmed
the validity of the initial research conducted under a Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) research projectby Brian North and Günther Schneider. To respond to the requests received and in keeping with the open,
dynamic character of the CEFR, the Education Policy Division (Language Policy Programme) therefore resolved
to build on the widespread adoption and use of the CEFR to produce an extended version of the illustrativedescriptors that replaces the ones contained in the body of the CEFR 2001 text. For this purpose, validated andcalibrated descriptors were generously offered to the Council of Europe by a number of institutions in the fieldof language education.
For mediation, an important concept introduced in the CEFR that has assumed even greater importance with
the increasing linguistic and cultural diversity of our societies, however, no validated and calibrated descriptors
existed. The development of descriptors for mediation was, therefore, the longest and most complex part ofthe project. Descriptor scales are here provided for mediating a text, for mediating concepts and for mediating
communication, as well as for the related mediation strategies and plurilingual/pluricultural competences.

3.
4.
5.

www.coe.int/lang-cefr.
www.coe.int/lang-platform.
Beacco J.-C. et al. (2016a), Guide for the development and implementation of curricula for plurilingual and intercultural education, Councilof Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/16806ae621.
6. Beacco J.-C. et al. (2016b), A handbook for curriculum development and teacher education: the language dimension in all subjects, Councilof Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/16806af387.
7. Beacco J.-C. and Byram M. (2007), “From linguistic diversity to plurilingual education: guide for the development of language education
policies in Europe”, Language Policy Division, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/16802fc1c4.
8. www.coe.int/en/web/lang-migrants/officials-texts-and-guidelines.
9. www.coe.int/t/dg4/autobiography/default_en.asp.
10. Council of Europe (2018), Reference framework of competences for democratic culture, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, available
at https://go.coe.int/mWYUH, accessed 6 March 2020.

Page 13

As part of the process of further developing the descriptors, an effort was made to make them modality-inclusive.
The adaptation of the descriptors in this way is informed by the ECML’s pioneering PRO-Sign project. In addition,
illustrative descriptor scales specifically for signing competences are provided, again informed by SNSF research
project No. 100015_156592.
First published online in 2018 as the “CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors”, this update to the CEFR
therefore represents another step in a process that has been pursued by the Council of Europe since 1964. In
particular, the descriptors for new areas represent an enrichment of the original descriptive apparatus. Those
responsible for curriculum planning for foreign languages and languages of schooling will find further guidanceon promoting plurilingual and intercultural education in the guides mentioned above. In addition to the extended
illustrative descriptors, this publication contains a user-friendly explanation of the aims and main principles of
the CEFR, which the Council of Europe hopes will help increase awareness of the CEFR’s messages, particularly
in teacher education. For ease of consultation, this publication contains links and references to the 2001 edition,
which remains a valid reference for its detailed chapters.
The fact that this edition of the CEFR descriptors takes them beyond the area of modern language learning toencompass aspects relevant to language education across the curriculum was overwhelmingly welcomed in
the extensive consultation process undertaken in 2016-17. This reflects the increasing awareness of the needfor an integrated approach to language education across the curriculum. Language teaching practitioners
particularly welcomed descriptors concerned with online interaction, collaborative learning and mediatingtext. The consultation also confirmed the importance that policy makers attach to the provision of descriptors
for plurilingualism/pluriculturalism. This is reflected in the Council of Europe’s recent initiative to develop
competences for democratic culture,11 such as valuing cultural diversity and openness to cultural otherness andto other beliefs, worldviews and practices.
This publication owes much to the contributions of members of the language teaching profession acrossEurope and beyond. It was authored by Brian North, Tim Goodier (Eurocentres Foundation) and Enrica Piccardo(University of Toronto/Université Grenoble-Alpes). The chapter on signing competences was produced by Jörg
Keller (Zurich University of Applied Sciences).
Publication has been assisted by a project follow-up advisory group consisting of: Marisa Cavalli, Mirjam Egli
Cuenat, Neus Figueras Casanovas, Francis Goullier, David Little, Günther Schneider and Joseph Sheils.
In order to ensure complete coherence and continuity with the CEFR scales published in 2001, the Council ofEurope asked the Eurocentres Foundation to once again take on responsibility for co-ordinating the further
development of the CEFR descriptors, with Brian North co-ordinating the work. The Council of Europe wishes toexpress its gratitude to Eurocentres for the professionalism and reliability with which the work has been carried out.
The entire process of updating and extending the illustrative descriptors took place in five stages or sub-projects:
Stage 1: Filling gaps in the illustrative descriptor scales published in 2001with materials then available (2014-15)
Authoring Group: Brian North, Tunde Szabo, Tim Goodier (Eurocentres Foundation)
Sounding Board: Gilles Breton, Hanan Khalifa, Christine Tagliante, Sauli Takala
Consultants: Coreen Docherty, Daniela Fasoglio, Neil Jones, Peter Lenz, David Little, Enrica Piccardo,
Günther Schneider, Barbara Spinelli, Maria Stathopoulou, Bertrand Vittecoq
Stage 2: Developing descriptor scales for areas missing in the 2001 set, in particular for mediation (2014-16)
Authoring Group: Brian North, Tim Goodier, Enrica Piccardo, Maria Stathopoulou
Sounding Board: Gilles Breton, Coreen Docherty, Hanan Khalifa, Ángeles Ortega, Christine Tagliante,
Sauli Takala
Consultants (at meetings in June 2014, June 2015 and/or June 2016): Marisa Cavalli, Daniel Coste, Mirjam
Egli Ceunat, Gudrun Erickson, Daniela Fasoglio, Vincent Folny, Manuela Ferreira Pinto, Glyn Jones, Neil
Jones, Peter Lenz, David Little, Gerda Piribauer, Günther Schneider, Joseph Sheils, Belinda Steinhuber,
Barbara Spinelli, Bertrand Vittecoq

11. https://go.coe.int/mWYUHPage 14 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Consultants (at a meeting in June 2016 only): Sarah Breslin, Mike Byram, Michel Candelier, Neus Figueras
Casanovas, Francis Goullier, Hanna Komorowska, Terry Lamb, Nick Saville, Maria Stoicheva, Luca Tomasi
Stage 3: Developing a new scale for phonological control (2015-16)
Authoring Group: Enrica Piccardo, Tim Goodier
Sounding Board: Brian North, Coreen Docherty
Consultants: Sophie Deabreu, Dan Frost, David Horner, Thalia Isaacs, Murray Munro
Stage 4: Developing descriptors for signing competences (2015-19)
Authoring Group: Jörg Keller, Petrea Bürgin, Aline Meili, Dawei Ni
Sounding Board: Brian North, Curtis Gautschi, Jean-Louis Brugeille, Kristin Snoddon
Consultants: Patty Shores, Tobias Haug, Lorraine Leeson, Christian Rathmann, Beppie van den Bogaerde
Stage 5: Collating descriptors for young learners (2014-16)
Authoring Group: Tunde Szabo (Eurocentres Foundation)
Sounding Board: Coreen Docherty, Tim Goodier, Brian North
Consultants: Angela Hasselgreen, Eli Moe
The Council of Europe wishes to thank the following institutions and projects for kindly making their validated
descriptors available:f ALTE (Association of Language Testers in Europe)f AMKKIA project (Finland)f Cambridge Assessment English

f CEFR-J projectf Eaqualsf English Profilef Lingualevel/IEF (Swiss) projectf Pearson Education

Can do statements
Descriptors for grammar and vocabulary
BULATS Summary of Typical Candidate Abilities
Common Scales for Speaking and for Writing
Assessment Scales for Speaking and for Writing
Descriptors for secondary school learners
Eaquals bank of CEFR-related descriptors
Descriptors for the C level
Descriptors for secondary school learners
Global Scale of English (GSE)

The Council of Europe would also like to thank:
Pearson Education for kindly validating some 50 descriptors that were included from non-calibrated sources,
principally from the Eaquals’ bank and the late John Trim’s translation of descriptors for the C levels in Profile
Deutsch.
The Research Centre for Language Teaching, Testing and Assessment, National and Kapodistrian University ofAthens (RCeL) for making available descriptors from the Greek Integrated Foreign Languages Curriculum.
Cambridge Assessment English, in particular Coreen Docherty, for the logistical support offered over a period of
six months to the project, without which large-scale data collection and analysis would not have been feasible.
The Council of Europe also wishes to gratefully acknowledge the support from the institutions listed at the endof this section, who took part in the three phases of validation for the new descriptors, especially all those who
also assisted with piloting them.
Cambridge Assessment English and the European Language Portfolio authors for making their descriptors
available for the collation of descriptors for young learners.
The Swiss National Science Foundation and the Max Bircher Stiftung for funding the research and developmentof the descriptors for signing competences.12

12. SNSF research project 100015_156592: Gemeinsamer Europäischer Referenzrahmen für Gebärdensprachen: Empirie-basierte Grundlagen
für grammatische, pragmatische und soziolinguistische Deskriptoren in Deutschschweizer Gebärdensprache, conducted at the Zurich
University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW, Winterthur). The SNSF provided some €385 000 for this research into signing competences.

Preface with acknowledgements Page 15

The PRO-Sign project team (European Centre for Modern Languages, ECML) for their assistance in finalising thedescriptors for signing competences and in adapting the other descriptors for modality inclusiveness.13
The Department of Deaf Studies and Sign Language Interpreting at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin for undertaking
the translation of the whole document, including all the illustrative descriptors, into International Sign.
The following readers, whose comments on an early version of the text on key aspects of the CEFR for learning,teaching and assessment greatly helped to structure it appropriately for readers with different degrees offamiliarity with the CEFR: Sezen Arslan, Danielle Freitas, Angelica Galante, İsmail Hakkı Mirici, Nurdan Kavalki,
Jean-Claude Lasnier, Laura Muresan, Funda Ölmez.
Organisations, in alphabetical order, that facilitated the recruitment of institutes for the validation of thedescriptors for mediation, online interaction, reactions to literature and plurilingual/pluricultural competence:f Cambridge Assessment English
f CERCLES: European Confederation of Language Centres in Higher Educationf CIEP: Centre international d’études pédagogiques
f EALTA: European Association for Language Testing and Assessment
f Eaquals: Evaluation and Accreditation of Quality in Language Services
f FIPLV: International Federation of Language Teaching Associations
f Instituto Cervantes
f NILE (Norwich Institute for Language Education)f UNIcert
Institutes (organised in alphabetical order by country) that participated between February and November 2015
in the validation of the descriptors for mediation, online interaction, reactions to literature and plurilingual/pluricultural competence, and/or assisted in initial piloting. The Council of Europe also wishes to thank the many
individual participants, all of whose institutes could not be included here.
Algeria
Institut Français d’Alger
Argentina
Academia Argüello, Córdoba
La Asociación de Ex Alumnos del Profesorado en Lenguas
Vivas Juan R. Fernández
National University of Córdoba
Austria
BBS (Berufsbildende Schule), Rohrbach
BG/BRG (Bundesgymnasium/Bundesrealgymnasium),
Hallein
CEBS (Center für berufsbezogene Sprachen des bmbf ),ViennaFederal Institute for Education Research (BIFIE), Vienna
HBLW Linz-Landwiedstraße
HLW (Höhere Lehranstalt für wirtschaftliche Berufe)
Ferrarischule, Innsbruck
Bolivia
Alliance Française de La Paz
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Anglia V Language School, Bijeljina
BrazilAlliance Française
Alliance Française de Curitiba
Bulgaria
AVO Language and Examination Centre, Sofia

St Patrick’s School, Córdoba
Universidad Nacional de La Plata, La Plata

Institut Français d’Autriche-Vienne
International Language Centre of the University of
Innsbruck
LTRGI (Language Testing Research Group Innsbruck),
School of Education, University of Innsbruck
Language Centre of the University of Salzburg
Pädagogische Hochschule Niederösterreich

Institut Français de Bosnie-Herzégovine
Instituto Cervantes do Recife

Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski

13. See www.ecml.at/ECML-Programme/Programme2012-2015/ProSign/tabid/1752/Default.aspx. Project team: Tobias Haug, Lorraine
Leeson, Christian Rathmann, Beppie van den Bogaerde.

Page 16 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Cameroon
Alliance Française de Bamenda
CanadaOISE (Ontario Institute for Studies in Education), Universityof Toronto
Chile
Alliance Française de La Serena
China
Alliance Française de Chine
China Language Assessment, Beijing Foreign Studies
University
Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, School ofInterpreting and Translation Studies
Colombia
Alliance Française de Bogota
Croatia
University of Split
Croatian Defence Academy, Zagreb
CyprusCyprus University of Technology
Czech RepublicCharles University, Prague (Institute for Language andPreparatory Studies)
Masaryk University Language Centre, Brno
EgyptInstitut Français d’Egypt
EstoniaFoundation Innove, Tallinn
Finland
Aalto University
Häme University of Applied Sciences
Language Centre, University of Tampere
Matriculation Examination Board
National Board of Education
FranceAlliance Française
Alliance Française de Nice
Alliance française Paris Ile-de-France
British Council, Lyon
CAVILAM (Centre d’Approches Vivantes des Langues etdes Médias) – Alliance Française
CIDEF (Centre international d’études françaises),
Université catholique de l’Ouest
CIEP (Centre international d’études pédagogiques)
CLV (Centre de langues vivantes), Université
Grenoble-Alpes
Collège International de Cannes
Germany
Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft Englisch an Gesamtschulen
elc-European Language Competence, Frankfurt
Frankfurt School of Finance & Management
Fremdsprachenzentrum der Hochschulen im Land
Bremen, Bremen University
Georg-August-Universität Göttingen (Zentrale Einrichtung
für Sprachen und Schlüsselqualifikationen)
Goethe-Institut München
Institut français d’Allemagne
Language Centre, Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences(HNU)

Institut Français du Cameroun, Yaoundé

Heilongjiang University
The Language Training and Testing Center, Taipei
Tianjin Nankai University

Universidad Surcolombiana
X. Gimnazija “Ivan Supek”
Ministry of Science, Education and Sports
University of Cyprus
National Institute of Education
University of South Bohemia
Instituto Cervantes de El Cairo

Tampere University of Applied Sciences
Turku University
University of Eastern Finland
University of Helsinki Language Centre
University of Jyväskylä
Crea-langues, France
Eurocentres Paris
France Langue
French in Normandy
ILCF (Institut de Langue et de Culture Françaises), Lyon
INFREP (Institute National Formation Recherche Education
Permanente)
International House Nice
ISEFE (Institut Savoisien d’Études Françaises pourÉtrangers)
Université de Franche-Comté
Technische Hochschule Wildau
Technische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina zu
Braunschweig (Sprachenzentrum)
Technische Universität Darmstadt
Technische Universität München (Sprachenzentrum)
telc gGmbH Frankfurt
Universität Freiburg (Sprachlehrinstitut)
Universität Hohenheim (Sprachenzentrum)
Universität Leipzig (Sprachenzentrum)

Preface with acknowledgements Page 17

Instituto Cervantes de Munich
Institut für Qualitätsentwicklung
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
Justus-Liebig Universität Giessen (Zentrum für
fremdsprachliche und berufsfeldorientierte
Kompetenzen)
Pädagogische Hochschule Heidelberg
Pädagogische Hochschule Karlsruhe
Ruhr-Universität Bochum, ZFA (Zentrum für
Fremdsprachenausbildung )Sprachenzentrum, Europa-Universität Viadrina Frankfurt(Oder)
GreeceBourtsoukli Language Centre
Hellenic American University in Athens
Hungary
ELTE ONYC
Eötvös Lorand University
Euroexam
Budapest Business School
Budapest University of Technology and Economics
India
ELT Consultants
Ireland
Alpha College, Dublin
Galway Cultural Institute
Italy
Accento, Martina Franca, Apulia
AISLi (Associazione Italiana Scuola di Lingue)
Alliance Française
Bennett Languages, Civitavecchia
British School of Trieste
British School of Udine
Centro Lingue Estere Arma dei Carabinieri
Centro Linguistio di Ateneo – Università di Bologna
Centro Linguistico di Ateneo di Trieste
CVCL (Centro per la Valutazione e le Certificazioni
linguistiche) – Università per Stranieri di Perugia
Free University of Bolzano, Language Study Unit
Globally Speaking, Rome
Institut Français de Milan
Institute for Educational Research/LUMSA University,
Rome
Japan
Alliance Française du Japon
Institut Français du Japon
LatviaBaltic International Academy, Department of Translation
and Interpreting
LebanonInstitut Français du Liban
Lithuania
Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences
Ministry of Education and Science
Luxembourg
Ministry of Education, Children and Youth
MexicoUniversity of Guadalajara

Page 18 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Universität Passau (Sprachenzentrum)
Universität Regensburg (Zentrum für Sprache und
Kommunikation)
Universität Rostock (Sprachenzentrum)
Universität des Saarlandes (Sprachenzentrum)
University Language Centers in Berlin and Brandenburg
VHS Siegburg

RCeL: National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Vagionia Junior High School, Crete
ECL Examinations, University of Pécs
Tanárok Európai Egyyesülete, AEDE
University of Debrecen
University of Pannonia

Fluency Center, Coimbatore
NUI Galway
Trinity College Dublin
International House, Palermo
Istituto Comprensivo di Campli
Istituto Monti, Asti
Liceo Scientifico “Giorgio Spezia”, Domodossola
Padova University Language Centre
Pisa University Language Centre
Servizio Linguistico di Ateneo, Università Cattolica delSacro Cuore, Milano
Università degli Studi Roma Tre
Università degli Studi di Napoli “Parthenope”/I.C. “NinoCortese”, Casoria, Naples
Università degli Studi di Parma
University of Bologna
Centro Linguistico di Ateneo, Università della Calabria
University of Brescia
Università per Stranieri di Siena

Japan School of Foreign Studies, Osaka University
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Japan
University of Latvia

Vilnius University

University of Luxembourg

Morocco
Institut Français de Maroc
Netherlands
Institut Français des Pays-Bas
Cito
New Zealand
LSI (Language Studies International)
North Macedonia
AAB University
Elokventa Language Centre
NorwayDepartment of Teacher Education and School Research,
University of Oslo
University of Bergen
Peru
Alliance Française au Peru
PolandBritish Council, Warsaw
Educational Research Institute, Warsaw
Gama College, Kraków
Instituto Cervantes, Kraków
Portugal
British Council, LisbonCamões, Instituto da Cooperação e da Língua
FCSH, NOVA University of Lisbon
Romania
ASE (Academia de Studii Economice din Bucuresti)
Institut Français de Roumanie
LINGUA Language Centre of Babeș-Bolyai,
University Cluj-Napoca
RussiaGlobus International Language Centres
Lomonosov Moscow State University
MGIMO (Moscow State Institute of International Relations)
National Research University Higher Schools of
Economics, Moscow
Saudi Arabia
ELC (English Language Center ), Taibah University,
MadinahSenegalInstitut Français de Dakar
SerbiaCentre Jules Verne
Institut Français de Belgrade
Slovakia
Trnava University
SloveniaDržavni izpitni center
Spain
Alliance Française en Espagne
British Council, Madrid
British Institute of SevilleCentro de Lenguas, Universitat Politècnica de València
Consejería de Educación de la Junta de Andalucía
Departament d’Ensenyament- Generalitat de Catalunya

SLO (Netherlands Institute for curriculum development)
University of Groningen, Language Centre
Worldwide School of English
Language Center, South East European University
MAQS (Macedonian Association for Quality Language
Services), Queen Language School
Vox – Norwegian Agency for Lifelong Learning

USIL (Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola)
Jagiellonian Language Center, Jagiellonian University,
Kraków
LANG LTC Teacher Training Centre, Warsaw
Poznan University of Technology, Poland
SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities,
PolandIPG (Instituto Politécnico da Guarda)
ISCAP – Instituto Superior de Contabilidade eAdministração do Porto, Instituto Politécnico do Porto
University of Aveiro
Petroleum-Gas University of Ploiesti
Universitatea Aurel Vlaicu din Arad

Nizhny Novgorod Linguistics University
Samara State University
St Petersburg State University

National Center for Assessment in Higher Education,
RiyadhUniversity of Belgrade

EOI de Villanueva-Don Benito, Extremadura
ILM (Instituto de Lenguas Modernas), Caceres
Institut Français d’Espagne
Instituto Britanico de Sevilla S.A.
Instituto de Lenguas Modernas de la Universidad deExtremadura
Lacunza International House, San Sebastián

Preface with acknowledgements Page 19

EOI de Albacete
EOI de Badajoz, Extremadura
EOI de Catalunya
EOI de Granada
EOI de La Coruña, Galicia
EOI de Málaga, Málaga
EOI de Santa Cruz de Tenerife
EOI de Santander
EOI de Santiago de Compostela, Galicia
EOI (Escola Oficial de Idiomas) de Vigo
SwedenInstituto Cervantes Stockholm
Switzerland
Bell Switzerland
Eurocentres LausanneSprachenzentrum der Universität BaselTLC (The Language Company) Internationa House
Zurich-Baden
Thailand
Alliance Française Bangkok
TurkeyÇağ University, Mersin
Ege University
Hacettepe University, Ankara
UgandaAlliance Française de Kampala
UkraineInstitute of Philology, Taras Shevchenko National
University of Kyiv
Odessa National Mechnikov University
United Arab Emirates
Higher Colleges of Technology
United Kingdom
Anglia Examinations, Chichester College
Cambridge Assessment English
Eurocentres, Bournemouth
Eurocentres, Brighton
Eurocentres, London
Experience English
Instituto Cervantes de Mánchester
International Study and Language Institute, University ofReading
Kaplan International College, London
NILE (Norwich Institute for Language Education)
United States of America
Alliance Française de Porto Rico
Cambridge Michigan Language Assessments
Columbia University, New York
Eastern Michigan University
Uruguay
Centro Educativo Rowan, Montevideo

Page 20 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Net Languages, Barcelona
Universidad Antonio de Nebrija
Universidad Europea de Madrid
Universidad Internacional de La Rioja
Universidad Católica de València
Universidad de Cantabria
Universidad de Jaén
Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Sevilla
Universidad Ramon Llull, Barcelona
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
University of Gothenburg
UNIL (Université de Lausanne), EPFL (École polytechnique
fédérale de Lausanne)
Universität Fribourg
ZHAW (Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte
Wissenschaften), Winterthu

ID Bilkent University, Ankara
Middle East Technical University, Ankara
Sabancı University, Istanbul

Sumy State University, Institute for Business Technologies
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv

Pearson Education
School of Modern Languages and Culture, University of
Warwick
Southampton Solent University, School of Business andLaw
St Giles International London Central
Trinity College London
University of Exeter
University of Hull
University of Liverpool
University of Westminster
Westminster Professional Language Centre
ETS (Educational Testing Service)Purdue University
University of Michigan

Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR)14 is part of
the Council of Europe’s continuing work to ensure quality inclusive education as a right of all citizens. This updateto the CEFR, first published online in 2018 in English and French as the “CEFR Companion Volume with New
Descriptors”, updates and extends the CEFR, which was published as a book in 2001 and which is available in
40 languages at the time of writing. With this new, user-friendly version, the Council of Europe responds to themany comments that the 2001 edition was a very complex document that many language professionals founddifficult to access. The key aspects of the CEFR vision are therefore explained in Chapter 2, which elaborates the
key notions of the CEFR as a vehicle for promoting quality in second/foreign language teaching and learning
as well as in plurilingual and intercultural education. The updated and extended version of the CEFR illustrativedescriptors contained in this publication replaces the 2001 version of them.
Teacher educators and researchers will find it worthwhile to follow links and/or references given in Chapter 2“Key aspects of the CEFR for teaching and learning” in order to also consult the chapters of the 2001 edition on,
for example, full details of the descriptive scheme (CEFR 2001, Chapters 4 and 5). The updated and extended
illustrative descriptors include all those from the CEFR 2001. The descriptor scales are organised according to
the categories of the CEFR descriptive scheme. It is important to note that the changes and additions in thispublication do not affect the construct described in the CEFR, or its Common Reference Levels.
The CEFR in fact consists of far more than a set of common reference levels. As explained in Chapter 2, the CEFR
broadens the perspective of language education in a number of ways, not least by its vision of the user/learneras a social agent, co-constructing meaning in interaction, and by the notions of mediation and plurilingual/pluricultural competences. The CEFR has proved successful precisely because it encompasses educational values,
a clear model of language-related competences and language use, and practical tools, in the form of illustrativedescriptors, to facilitate the development of curricula and orientation of teaching and learning.

14. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (2001), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
available at https://rm.coe.int/1680459f97.

Page 21

This publication is the product of a project of the Education Policy Division of the Council of Europe. The focus
in that project was to update the CEFR’s illustrative descriptors by:f highlighting certain innovative areas of the CEFR for which no descriptor scales had been provided in theset of descriptors published in 2001, but which have become increasingly relevant over the past 20 years,
especially mediation and plurilingual/pluricultural competence;f building on the successful implementation and further development of the CEFR, for example by more
fully defining “plus levels” and a new “Pre-A1” level;f responding to demands for more elaborate descriptions of listening and reading in existing scales, andfor descriptors for other communicative activities such as online interaction, using telecommunications,and expressing reactions to creative texts (including literature);f enriching description at A1, and at the C levels, particularly C2;
f adapting the descriptors to make them gender-neutral and “modality-inclusive” (and so applicable also tosign languages), sometimes by changing verbs and sometimes by offering the alternatives “speaker/signer”.
In relation to the final point above, the term “oral” is generally understood by the deaf community to include
signing. However, it is important to acknowledge that signing can transmit text that is closer to written thanoral text in many scenarios. Therefore, users of the CEFR are invited to make use of the descriptors for written
reception, production and interaction also for sign languages, as appropriate. And for this reason, the full set of
illustrative descriptors has been adapted with modality-inclusive formulations.
There are plans to make the full set of illustrative descriptors available in International Sign. Meanwhile, the ECML’s
PRO-Sign project15 makes available videos in International Sign of many of the descriptors published in 2001.
This CEFR Companion volume presents an extended version of the illustrative descriptors:
f newly developed illustrative descriptor scales are introduced alongside existing ones;
f schematic tables are provided, which group together scales belonging to the same category (communicative language activities or aspects of competence);f a short rationale is presented for each scale, explaining the thinking behind the categorisation;f descriptors that were developed and validated in the project, but not subsequently included in the illustrative descriptors, are presented in Appendix 8.
Small changes to formulations have been made to the descriptors to ensure that they are gender-neutral andmodality-inclusive. Any substantive changes made to descriptors published in 2001 are listed in Appendix 7.
The 2001 scales have been expanded with a selection of validated, calibrated descriptors from the institutions
listed in the preface and by descriptors developed, validated, calibrated and piloted during a 2014-17 project
to develop descriptors for mediation. The approach taken – both to the update of the descriptors publishedin 2001 and in the mediation project – is described in Appendix 6. Examples of contexts of use for the newillustrative descriptors for online interaction and for mediation activities, for the public, personal, occupationaland educational domains, are provided in Appendix 5.
In addition to the descriptors in this publication, a new collation of descriptors relevant for young learners,16 put
together by the Eurocentres Foundation, is also available to assist with course planning and self-assessment.
Here, a different approach was adopted: descriptors in the extended illustrative descriptors that are relevant
for two age groups (7-1017 and 11-1518) were selected. Then a collation was made of the adaptations of thesedescriptors relevant to young learners, descriptors that appeared in the ELPs, complemented by assessment
descriptors for young learners generously offered by Cambridge Assessment English.
The relationship between the CEFR descriptive scheme, the illustrative descriptors published in 2001 and the
updates and additions provided in this publication is shown in Table 1. As can be seen, the descriptor scales
for reception are presented before those for production, although the latter appear first in the 2001 CEFR text.

15. www.ecml.at/ECML-Programme/Programme2012-2015/ProSign/tabid/1752/Default.aspx. PRO-Sign adaptations of CEFR descriptors
are available in Czech, English, Estonian, German, Icelandic and Slovenian.
16. Bank of supplementary descriptors, available at www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/
bank-of-supplementary-descriptors.
17. Goodier T. (ed.) (2018), “Collated representative samples of descriptors of language competences developed for young learners – Resourcefor educators, Volume 1: Ages 7-10”, Education Policy Division, Council of Europe, available at https://rm.coe.int/16808b1688.
18. Goodier T. (ed.) (2018), “Collated representative samples of descriptors of language competences developed for young learners – Resourcefor educators, Volume 2: Ages 11-15”, Education Policy Division, Council of Europe, available at https://rm.coe.int/16808b1689.

Page 22 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Table 1 – The CEFR descriptive scheme and illustrative descriptors: updates and additions

In the 2001
descriptive
schemeIn the2001
descriptor
scalesDescriptor
scalesupdatedin thispublication

Oral comprehension

√

√

√

Reading comprehension

√

√

√

Oral production

√

√

√

Written production

√

√

√

Oral interaction

√

√

√

Written interaction

√

√

√

Descriptor
scalesaddedin thispublication

Communicative language activities
Reception

Production

Interaction√

Online interaction
MediationMediating a text√√

Mediating concepts√√

Mediating communication√√

Communicative language strategies
Reception√√√

Production

√

√

√

Interaction

√

√

√

Mediation√

Plurilingual and pluriculturalcompetence
Building on pluricultural repertoire√√

Plurilingual comprehension√√

Building on plurilingual repertoire√√

Communicative language
competences
Linguistic competence

√

√

√

Sociolinguistic competence

√

√

√

Pragmatic competence

√

√

√

√
(Phonology)

Signing competences
Linguistic competence√Sociolinguistic competence√

Pragmatic competence√

Introduction Page 23

1.1. SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO THE ILLUSTRATIVE DESCRIPTORS
Table 2 summarises the changes to the CEFR illustrative descriptors and also the rationale for these changes. A
short description of the development project is given in Appendix 6, with a more complete version available in
the paper by Brian North and Enrica Piccardo: “Developing illustrative descriptors of aspects of mediation for
the CEFR”.19
Table 2 – Summary of changes to the illustrative descriptors
What isaddressed inthis publication

Comments

Pre-A1

Descriptors for this band of proficiency that is halfway to A1, mentioned at the beginning of
CEFR 2001 Section 3.5, are provided for many scales, including for online interaction.

Changes to
descriptors
publishedin 2001

A list of substantive changes to existing descriptors appearing in CEFR 2001 Chapter 4 forcommunicative language activities and strategies, and in CEFR 2001 Chapter 5 for aspectsof communicative language, is provided in Appendix 7. Various other small changes toformulations have been made in order to ensure that the descriptors are gender-neutral andmodality-inclusive.

Changes to C2
descriptors

Many of the changes proposed in the list in Appendix 7 concern C2 descriptors included in the2001 set. Some instances of highly absolute statements have been adjusted to better reflect thecompetence of C2 user/learners.

Changes
to A1-C1
descriptors

A few changes are proposed to other descriptors. It was decided not to “update” descriptors
merely because of changes in technology (e.g. references to postcards or public telephones).
The scale for “Phonological control” has been replaced (see below). The main changes
result from making the descriptors modality-inclusive, to make them equally applicableto sign languages. Changes are also proposed to certain descriptors that refer to linguistic
accommodation (or not) by “native speakers”, because this term has become controversial since
the CEFR was first published.

Plus levels

The description for plus levels (e.g. = B1+, B1.2) has been strengthened. Please see Appendix 1
and CEFR 2001 Sections 3.5 and 3.6 for discussion of the plus levels.

Phonology

The scale for “Phonological control” has been redeveloped, with a focus on “Sound articulation”
and “Prosodic features”.

Mediation

The approach taken to mediation is broader than that presented in the CEFR 2001. In addition
to a focus on activities to mediate a text, scales are provided for mediating concepts andfor mediating communication, giving a total of 19 scales for mediation activities. Mediation
strategies (5 scales) are concerned with strategies employed during the mediation process,rather than in preparation for it.

Pluricultural

The scale “Building on pluricultural repertoire” describes the use of pluricultural competences
in a communicative situation. Thus, it is skills rather than knowledge or attitudes that are
the focus. The scale shows a high degree of coherence with the existing CEFR 2001 scale“Sociolinguistic appropriateness”, although it was developed independently.

Plurilingual

The level of each descriptor in the scale “Building on plurilingual repertoire” is the functional
level of the weaker language in the combination. Users may wish to indicate explicitly which
languages are involved.

Specificationof languages
involved

It is recommended that, as part of the adaptation of the descriptors for practical use in aparticular context, the relevant languages should be specified in relation to:- cross-linguistic mediation (particularly scales for mediating a text);- plurilingual comprehension;- building on plurilingual repertoire.

19. North B. and Piccardo E (2016), “Developing illustrative descriptors of aspects of mediation for the CEFR”, Education Policy Division,Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/168073ff31.

Page 24 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

What isaddressed inthis publication

Comments

Literature

There are three new scales relevant to creative text and literature:- reading as a leisure activity (the purely receptive process; descriptors taken from other sets of
CEFR-based descriptors);- expressing a personal response to creative texts (less intellectual, lower levels);- analysis and criticism of creative texts (more intellectual, higher levels).

OnlineThere are two new scales for the following categories:- online conversation and discussion;- goal-oriented online transactions and collaboration.
Both these scales concern the multimodal activity typical of web use, including just checking
or exchanging responses, spoken interaction and longer production in live link-ups, using
chat (written spoken language), longer blogging or written contributions to discussion, andembedding other media.

Other newdescriptor scales

New scales are provided for the following categories that were missing in the 2001 set, withdescriptors taken from other sets of CEFR-based descriptors:- using telecommunications;- giving information.

New descriptors
are calibrated to
the CEFR levels
Sign languages

The new descriptor scales have been formally validated and calibrated to the mathematicalscale from the original research that underlies the CEFR levels and descriptor scales.

Descriptors have been rendered modality-inclusive. In addition, 14 scales specifically forsigning competence are included. These were developed in a research project conducted in
Switzerland.

Parallel project

Young learners

Two collations of descriptors for young learners from the European Language Portfolios (ELPs)
are provided: for the 7-10 and 11-15 age groups respectively. At the moment, no young learnerdescriptors have been related to descriptors on the new scales, but the relevance for young
learners is indicated.

In addition to Chapter 2 “Key aspects of the CEFR for teaching and learning”, and the extended illustrative descriptors
included in this publication, users may wish to consult the following two fundamental policy documents related
to plurilingual, intercultural and inclusive education:f Guide for the development and implementation of curricula for plurilingual and intercultural education (Beacco
et al. 2016a), which constitutes an operationalisation and further development of CEFR 2001 Chapter 8 on
language diversification and the curriculum;f Reference framework of competences for democratic culture (Council of Europe 2018), the sources for which
inspired some of the new descriptors for mediation included in this publication.
Users concerned with school education may also wish to consult the paper “Education, mobility, otherness – The
mediation functions of schools”,20 which helped the conceptualisation of mediation in the descriptor development
project.

20. Coste D. and Cavalli M. (2015) “Education, mobility, otherness – The mediation functions of schools”, Language Policy Unit, Council ofEurope, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/16807367ee.

Introduction Page 25

Chapter 2
KEY ASPECTS OF THE CEFR FOR
TEACHING AND LEARNINGThe Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR)
presents a comprehensive descriptive schemeof language proficiency and a set of Common
Reference Levels (A1 to C2) defined in illustrativedescriptor scales, plus options for curriculum design
promoting plurilingual and intercultural education,
further elaborated in the Guide for the development
and implementation of curricula for plurilingual andintercultural education (Beacco et al. 2016a).
One of the main principles of the CEFR is the promotionof the positive formulation of educational aims andoutcomes at all levels. Its “can do” definition of aspects
of proficiency provides a clear, shared roadmap forlearning, and a far more nuanced instrument to gauge
progress than an exclusive focus on scores in tests andexaminations. This principle is based on the CEFR viewof language as a vehicle for opportunity and successin social, educational and professional domains. This
key feature contributes to the Council of Europe’s
goal of quality inclusive education as a right of all
citizens. The Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers
recommends the “use of the CEFR as a tool for coherent,
transparent and effective plurilingual education in sucha way as to promote democratic citizenship, social
cohesion and intercultural dialogue”.21

Background to the CEFR
The CEFR was developed as a continuationof the Council of Europe’s work in language
education during the 1970s and 1980s. The
CEFR “action-oriented approach” builds on andgoes beyond the communicative approach
proposed in the mid-1970s in the publication“The Threshold Level”, the first functional/
notional specification of language needs.
The CEFR and the related European Language
Portfolio (ELP) that accompanied it wererecommended by an intergovernmental
symposium held in Switzerland in 1991. As
its subtitle suggests, the CEFR is concerned
principally with learning and teaching. It aims tofacilitate transparency and coherence between
the curriculum, teaching and assessment
within an institution and transparency
and coherence between institutions,educational sectors, regions and countries.
The CEFR was piloted in provisional versions
in 1996 and 1998 before being publishedin English (Cambridge University Press).

As well as being used as a reference tool by almost all member states of the Council of Europe and the European
Union, the CEFR has also had – and continues to have – considerable influence beyond Europe. In fact, the
CEFR is being used not only to provide transparency and clear reference points for assessment purposes but
also, increasingly, to inform curriculum reform and pedagogy. This development reflects the forward-looking
conceptual underpinning of the CEFR and has paved the way for a new phase of work around the CEFR, leading to
the extension of the illustrative descriptors published in this edition. Before presenting the illustrative descriptors,
however, a reminder of the purpose and nature of the CEFR is outlined. First, we consider the aims of the CEFR,
its descriptive scheme and the action-oriented approach, then the Common Reference Levels and creation of
profiles in relation to them, plus the illustrative descriptors themselves, and finally the concepts of plurilingualism/
pluriculturalism and mediation that were introduced to language education by the CEFR.

21. Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)7 of the Committee of Ministers on the use of the Council of Europe’s Common European Frameworkof Reference for Languages (CEFR) and the promotion of plurilingualism, available at https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.
aspx?ObjectId=09000016805d2fb1.

Page 27

2.1. AIMS OF THE CEFR
The CEFR seeks to continue the impetus that Councilof Europe projects have given to educational reform.
The CEFR aims to help language professionals further
improve the quality and effectiveness of language
learning and teaching. The CEFR is not focused on
assessment, as the word order in its subtitle – Learning,teaching, assessment – makes clear.
In addition to promoting the teaching and learningof languages as a means of communication, the CEFR
brings a new, empowering vision of the learner. The
CEFR presents the language user/learner as a “social
agent”, acting in the social world and exerting agency inthe learning process. This implies a real paradigm shift
in both course planning and teaching by promoting
learner engagement and autonomy.
The CEFR’s action-oriented approach represents a shift
away from syllabuses based on a linear progression
through language structures, or a pre-determined
set of notions and functions, towards syllabuses
based on needs analysis, oriented towards real-lifetasks and constructed around purposefully selected
notions and functions. This promotes a “proficiency”
perspective guided by “can do” descriptors rather thana “deficiency” perspective focusing on what the learners
have not yet acquired. The idea is to design curriculaand courses based on real-world communicative needs,organised around real-life tasks and accompaniedby “can do” descriptors that communicate aims tolearners. Fundamentally, the CEFR is a tool to assist
the planning of curricula, courses and examinations
by working backwards from what the users/learners
need to be able to do in the language. The provisionof a comprehensive descriptive scheme containing
illustrative “can do” descriptor scales for as many aspectsof the scheme as proves feasible (CEFR 2001 Chapters 4
and 5), plus associated content specifications publishedseparately for different languages (Reference Level
Descriptions – RLDs)22 is intended to provide a basis
for such planning.

Priorities of the CEFR
The provision of common reference points is
subsidiary to the CEFR’s main aim of facilitating
quality in language education and promoting a
Europe of open-minded plurilingual citizens. Thiswas clearly confirmed at the Intergovernmental
Language Policy Forum that reviewed progresswith the CEFR in 2007, as well as in several
recommendations from the Committee of
Ministers. This main focus is emphasised yet
again in the Guide for the development andimplementation of curricula for plurilingual andintercultural education (Beacco et al. 2016a).
However, the Language Policy Forum also
underlined the need for responsible use of the
CEFR levels and exploitation of the methodologies
and resources provided for developing
examinations, and then relating them to the CEFR.
As the subtitle “learning, teaching, assessment”
makes clear, the CEFR is not just an assessment
project. CEFR 2001 Chapter 9 outlines manydifferent approaches to assessment, most ofwhich are alternatives to standardised tests.
It explains ways in which the CEFR in general,and its illustrative descriptors in particular, canbe helpful to the teacher in the assessment
process, but there is no focus on language
testing and no mention at all of test items.
In general, the Language Policy Forum emphasised
the need for international networking andexchange of expertise in relation to the CEFR
through bodies such as the Association of
Language Testers in Europe (ALTE) (www.alte.org),
the European Association for Language Testingand Assessment (EALTA) (www.ealta.eu.org)
and Evaluation and Accreditation of Quality in
Language Services (Eaquals) (www.eaquals.org).

These aims were expressed in the CEFR 2001 as follows:
The stated aims of the CEFR are to:f promote and facilitate co-operation among educational institutions in different countries;
f provide a sound basis for the mutual recognition of language qualifications;f assist learners, teachers, course designers, examining bodies and educational administrators to situateand co-ordinate their efforts.
(CEFR 2001 Section 1.4)
To further promote and facilitate co-operation, the CEFR also provides Common Reference Levels A1 to C2,
defined by the illustrative descriptors. The Common Reference Levels were introduced in CEFR 2001 Chapter 3
and used for the descriptor scales distributed throughout CEFR 2001 Chapters 4 and 5. The provision of a common
descriptive scheme, Common Reference Levels, and illustrative descriptors defining aspects of the scheme at

22. www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/reference-level-descriptions.

Page 28 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

the different levels, is intended to provide a common metalanguage for the language education profession inorder to facilitate communication, networking, mobility and the recognition of courses taken and examinations
passed. In relation to examinations, the Council of Europe’s Language Policy Division has published a manual
for relating language examinations to the CEFR,23 now accompanied by a toolkit of accompanying material anda volume of case studies published by Cambridge University Press, together with a manual for language testdevelopment and examining.24 The Council of Europe’s ECML has also produced Relating language examinations
to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR) – Highlightsfrom the Manual25 and provides capacity building to member states through its RELANG initiative.26
However, it is important to underline once again that the CEFR is a tool to facilitate educational reform projects,
not a standardisation tool. Equally, there is no body monitoring or even co-ordinating its use. The CEFR itself
states right at the very beginning:
One thing should be made clear right away. We have NOT set out to tell practitioners what to do, or how to do it. We
are raising questions, not answering them. It is not the function of the Common European Framework to lay down theobjectives that users should pursue or the methods they should employ. (CEFR 2001, Notes to the User)

2.2. IMPLEMENTING THE ACTION-ORIENTED APPROACH
The CEFR sets out to be comprehensive, in the sense that it is possible to find the main approaches to language
education in it, and neutral, in the sense that it raises questions rather than answering them and does notprescribe any particular pedagogic approach. There is, for example, no suggestion that one should stop teachinggrammar or literature. There is no “right answer” given to the question of how best to assess a learner’s progress.
Nevertheless, the CEFR takes an innovative stance in seeing learners as language users and social agents, andthus seeing language as a vehicle for communication rather than as a subject to study. In so doing, it proposes
an analysis of learners’ needs and the use of “can do” descriptors and communicative tasks, on which there is awhole chapter: CEFR 2001 Chapter 7.
The methodological message of the CEFR is that
language learning should be directed towards
enabling learners to act in real-life situations,expressing themselves and accomplishing tasks ofdifferent natures. Thus, the criterion suggested forassessment is communicative ability in real life, in
relation to a continuum of ability (Levels A1-C2). Thisis the original and fundamental meaning of “criterion”
in the expression “criterion-referenced assessment”.
Descriptors from CEFR 2001 Chapters 4 and 5 provide
a basis for the transparent definition of curriculum
aims and of standards and criteria for assessment,with Chapter 4 focusing on activities (“the what”) and
Chapter 5 focusing on competences (“the how”). This is
not educationally neutral. It implies that the teaching
and learning process is driven by action, that it is actionoriented. It also clearly suggests planning backwards
from learners’ real-life communicative needs, withconsequent alignment between curriculum, teaching
and assessment.

A reminder of CEFR 2001 chapters
Chapter 1: The Common European Frameworkin its political and educational context
Chapter 2: Approach adopted
Chapter 3: Common Reference Levels
Chapter 4: Language use and thelanguage user/learner
Chapter 5: The user/learner’s competences
Chapter 6: Language learning and teaching
Chapter 7: Tasks and their role in language teaching
Chapter 8: Linguistic diversificationand the curriculum
Chapter 9: Assessment

23. Council of Europe (2009), “Relating Language Examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR) – A Manual”, Language Policy Division, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/1680667a2d.
24. ALTE (2011), “Manual for language test development and examining – For use with the CEFR”, Language Policy Division, Council ofEurope, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/1680667a2b.
25. Noijons J., Bérešová J., Breton G. et al. (2011), Relating language examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR) – Highlights from the Manual, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, available at:www.ecml.at/tabid/277/PublicationID/67/Default.aspx.
26. Relating language curricula, tests and examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference (RELANG): https://relang.ecml.at/.

Key aspects of the CEFR for teaching and learning Page 29

At the classroom level, there are several implications of implementing the action-oriented approach. Seeing
learners as social agents implies involving them in the learning process, possibly with descriptors as a means ofcommunication. It also implies recognising the social nature of language learning and language use, namely theinteraction between the social and the individual in the process of learning. Seeing learners as language users
implies extensive use of the target language in the classroom – learning to use the language rather than justlearning about the language (as a subject). Seeing learners as plurilingual, pluricultural beings means allowing
them to use all their linguistic resources when necessary, encouraging them to see similarities and regularities aswell as differences between languages and cultures. Above all, the action-oriented approach implies purposeful,collaborative tasks in the classroom, the primary focus of which is not language. If the primary focus of a task is
not language, then there must be some other product or outcome (such as planning an outing, making a poster,
creating a blog, designing a festival or choosing a candidate). Descriptors can be used to help design such tasks
and also to observe and, if desired, to (self-)assess the language use of learners during the task.
Both the CEFR descriptive scheme and the action-oriented approach put the co-construction of meaning (throughinteraction) at the centre of the learning and teaching process. This has clear implications for the classroom. At
times, this interaction will be between teacher and learner(s), but at times, it will be of a collaborative nature,
between learners themselves. The precise balance between teacher-centred instruction and such collaborativeinteraction between learners in small groups is likely to reflect the context, the pedagogic tradition in that
context and the proficiency level of the learners concerned. In the reality of today’s increasingly diverse societies,
the construction of meaning may take place across languages and draw upon user/learners’ plurilingual andpluricultural repertoires.

2.3. PLURILINGUAL AND PLURICULTURAL COMPETENCEThe CEFR distinguishes between multilingualism (the coexistence of different languages at the social or individuallevel) and plurilingualism (the dynamic and developing linguistic repertoire of an individual user/learner).
Plurilingualism is presented in the CEFR as an uneven and changing competence, in which the user/learner’s
resources in one language or variety may be very different in nature from their resources in another. However,the fundamental point is that plurilinguals have a single, interrelated, repertoire that they combine with theirgeneral competences and various strategies in order to accomplish tasks (CEFR 2001 Section 6.1.3.2).
Plurilingual competence as explained in the CEFR 2001
Section 1.3 involves the ability to call flexibly uponan interrelated, uneven, plurilinguistic repertoire to:f switch from one language or dialect (or variety)to another;f express oneself in one language (or dialect, or variety) and understand a person speaking another;f call upon the knowledge of a number of languages (or dialects, or varieties) to make senseof a text;
f recognise words from a common international
store in a new guise;f mediate between individuals with no common
language (or dialect, or variety), even if possessing only a slight knowledge oneself;
f bring the whole of one’s linguistic equipment
into play, experimenting with alternative formsof expression;
f exploit paralinguistics (mime, gesture, facial expression, etc.).

Page 30 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

The linked concepts of plurilingualism/
pluriculturalism and partial competenceswere introduced to language education
for the first time in the second provisionalversion of the CEFR in 1996.
They were developed as a form of dynamic,
creative process of “languaging” acrossthe boundaries of language varieties, as amethodology and as language policy aims. The
background to this development was a series ofstudies in bilingualism in the early 1990s at the
research centre CREDIF (Centre de recherche etd’étude pour la diffusion du français) in Paris.
The curriculum examples given in CEFR 2001
Chapter 8 consciously promoted the conceptsof plurilingual and pluricultural competence.
These two concepts appeared in a moreelaborated form in 1997 in the paper“Plurilingual and pluricultural competence”.

By a curious coincidence, 1996 was also theyear in which the term “translanguaging” wasfirst recorded (in relation to bilingual teachingin Wales). Translanguaging is an action
undertaken by plurilingual persons, wheremore than one language may be involved. A
host of similar expressions now exist, but all
are encompassed by the term plurilingualism.
Plurilingualism can in fact be consideredfrom various perspectives: as a sociologicalor historical fact, as a personal characteristic
or ambition, as an educational philosophy
or approach, or – fundamentally – as thesociopolitical aim of preserving linguistic
diversity. All these perspectives are
increasingly common across Europe.

Mediation between individuals with no common
language is one of the activities in the list above.
Because of the plurilingual nature of such mediation,
descriptors were also developed and validated for theother points in the above list during the 2014-17 project
to develop descriptors for mediation. This was successful
except in respect of the last point (paralinguistics):
unfortunately, informants could not agree on its
relevance or interpret descriptors consistently.
At the time that the CEFR 2001 was published, theconcepts discussed in this section, especially the ideaof a holistic, interrelated plurilingual repertoire, were
innovative. However, that idea has since been supportedby psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic researchin relation to both people who learn an additional
language early in life and those who learn later, withstronger integration for the former. Plurilingualism has
also been shown to result in a number of cognitive
advantages, due to an enhanced executive control
system in the brain (that is the ability to divert attention
from distractors in task performance).

Most of the references to plurilingualism in the CEFR are to “plurilingual and pluricultural competence”. This isbecause the two aspects usually go hand-in-hand. Having said that, one form of unevenness may actually be that
one aspect (for example, pluricultural competence) is much stronger than the other (for example, plurilingualcompetence; see CEFR 2001 Section 6.1.3.1).
One of the reasons for promoting the development of plurilingualism and pluriculturalism is that experienceof them:f “exploits pre-existing sociolinguistic and pragmatic competences which in turn develops them further;f leads to a better perception of what is general and what is specific concerning the linguistic organisationof different languages (form of metalinguistic, interlinguistic or so to speak “hyperlinguistic” awareness);
f by its nature refines knowledge of how to learn and the capacity to enter into relations with others andnew situations.
It may, therefore, to some degree accelerate subsequent learning in the linguistic and cultural areas.” (CEFR 2001
Section 6.1.3.3)
Neither pluriculturalism nor the notion of intercultural competence – referred to briefly in CEFR 2001 Sections
5.1.1.3 and 5.1.2.2 – is highly developed in the CEFR book. The implications of plurilingualism and interculturalcompetence for curriculum design in relation to the CEFR are outlined in the Guide for the development andimplementation of curricula for plurilingual and intercultural education (Beacco et al. 2016a). In addition, a detailed
taxonomy of aspects of plurilingual and pluricultural competence relevant to pluralistic approaches is available
in the ECML’s Framework of reference for pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures (FREPA/CARAP).27

2.4. THE CEFR DESCRIPTIVE SCHEME
In this section, we outline the descriptive scheme of the CEFR and point out which elements were further developedin the 2014-17 project. As mentioned above, a core aim of the CEFR is to provide a common descriptive metalanguage
to talk about language proficiency. Figure 1 presents the structure of the CEFR descriptive scheme diagrammatically.
After an introduction to relevant key concepts (CEFR 2001 Chapter 1), the CEFR approach is introduced in the very
short CEFR 2001 Chapter 2. In any communicative situation, general competences (for example, knowledge of
the world, sociocultural competence, intercultural competence, professional experience if any: CEFR 2001 Section
5.1) are always combined with communicative language competences (linguistic, sociolinguistic and pragmaticcompetences: CEFR 2001 Section 5.2) and strategies (some general, some communicative language strategies)

27. http://carap.ecml.at/Accueil/tabid/3577/language/en-GB/Default.aspx.

Key aspects of the CEFR for teaching and learning Page 31

in order to complete a task (CEFR 2001 Chapter 7). Tasks often require some collaboration with others – hence
the need for language. The example chosen in CEFR 2001 Chapter 2 to introduce this idea – moving – is one inwhich the use of language is only contingent on the task. In moving a wardrobe, some communication, preferably
through language, is clearly advisable, but language is not the focus of the task. Similarly, tasks demanding
greater sophistication of communication, such as agreeing on the preferred solution to an ethical problem, or
holding a project meeting, focus on the task outcomes rather than the language used to achieve them.
The overall approach of the CEFR is summarised in a single paragraph:
Language use, embracing language learning, comprises the actions performed by persons who as individuals and associal agents develop a range of competences, both general and in particular communicative language competences.
They draw on the competences at their disposal in various contexts under various conditions and under various
constraints to engage in language activities involving language processes to produce and/or receive texts in relation
to themes in specific domains, activating those strategies which seem most appropriate for carrying out the tasks
to be accomplished. The monitoring of these actions by the participants leads to the reinforcement or modificationof their competences. (CEFR 2001 Section 2.1)

Thus, in performing tasks, competences and strategies are mobilised in the performance and in turn further
developed through that experience. In an “action-oriented approach”, which translates the CEFR descriptive
scheme into practice, some collaborative tasks in the language classroom are therefore essential. This is why
the CEFR 2001 includes a chapter on tasks. CEFR 2001 Chapter 7 discusses real-life tasks and pedagogic tasks,
possibilities for compromise between the two, factors that make tasks simple or complex from a language pointof view, conditions and constraints. The precise form that tasks in the classroom may take, and the dominancethat they should have in the programme, is for users of the CEFR to decide. CEFR 2001 Chapter 6 surveys language
teaching methodologies, pointing out that different approaches may be appropriate for different contexts. Asa matter of fact, the CEFR scheme is highly compatible with several recent approaches to second language
learning, including the task-based approach, the ecological approach and in general all approaches informedby sociocultural and socio-constructivist theories. Starting from a discussion of the place of plurilingualism inlanguage education, CEFR 2001 Chapter 8 outlines alternative options for curriculum design, a process taken
further in the Guide for the development and implementation of curricula for plurilingual and intercultural education(Beacco et al. 2016a). No matter what perspective is adopted, it is implicit that tasks in the language classroom
should involve communicative language activities and strategies (CEFR 2001 Section 4.4) that also occur in thereal world, like those listed in the CEFR descriptive scheme.
Figure 1 – The structure of the CEFR descriptive scheme28
Overall language
proficiency

General competences

Communicative
language competences

Communicative
language activities

Communicative
language strategies

SavoirLinguistic

Reception

Reception

Savoir-faireSociolinguistic

Production

Production

Savoir-être

Pragmatic

Interaction

Interaction

MediationMediation

Savoir apprendre

28. From the ECEP project publication: Piccardo E. et al. (2011), Pathways through assessing, learning and teaching in the CEFR, Council ofEurope Publishing, Strasbourg, available at http://ecep.ecml.at/Portals/26/training-kit/files/2011_08_29_ECEP_EN.pdf.

Page 32 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

With its communicative language activities and strategies, the CEFR replaces the traditional model of the four
skills (listening, speaking, reading, writing), which has increasingly proved inadequate in capturing the complex
reality of communication. Moreover, organisation by the four skills does not lend itself to any consideration of
purpose or macro-function. The organisation proposed by the CEFR is closer to real-life language use, whichis grounded in interaction in which meaning is co-constructed. Activities are presented under four modes ofcommunication: reception, production, interaction and mediation.
The development of the CEFR categories for communicative activities was considerably influenced by thedistinction between transaction and interpersonal language use, and between interpersonal and ideational
language use (development of ideas). This can be seen in Table 3.
Table 3 – Macro-functional basis of CEFR categories for communicative language activities
Reception

Production

Interaction

Mediation

Creative,interpersonallanguage use

e.g. Reading as aleisure activity

e.g. Sustainedmonologue: describing
experiencee.g. Conversation

Mediatingcommunication

Transactional
language use

e.g. Reading for
information andargument

e.g. Sustainedmonologue: giving
information

Evaluative,
problemsolving
language use(merged with Readingfor information andargument)

e.g. Sustainedmonologue: presenting
a case (e.g. in a debate)e.g. Obtaining goods
and services

Mediating a text

Information exchangee.g. Discussion

Mediatingconcepts

With regard to the approach to language activities set out in Table 3, the following list of advantages of such adevelopment beyond the four skills is taken from one of the preparatory studies written in the lead-up to thedevelopment of the CEFR:29
f the proposed categories (reception, production, interaction, mediation) make sense not just for insiders but
also for users: such categories better reflect the way people actually use the language than the four skills do;f since these are the types of categories used in language training for the world of work, a link between
general purpose language and language for specific purposes (LSP) would be facilitated;
f pedagogic tasks involving collaborative small group interaction in the classroom, project work, pen friend
correspondence and language examination interviews would be easier to situate with this model;
f organisation in terms of transparent activities in specific contexts of use would facilitate the recording andprofiling of the “slices of life” that make up the language learner’s experience;f such an approach based on genre encourages the activation of content schemata and acquisition of theformal schemata (discourse organisation) appropriate to the genre;f categories that highlight interpersonal and sustained self-expression are central by A2 and may help
counterbalance the pervasive transmission metaphor that sees language as information transfer;f a move away from the matrix of four skills and three elements (grammatical structure, vocabulary, phonology/graphology) may promote communicative criteria for quality of performance;f the distinction “reception, interaction, production” recalls classifications used for learning and performance
strategies and may well facilitate a broader concept of strategic competence;f the distinction “reception, interaction, production, mediation” actually marks a progression of difficulty
and so might aid the development of the concept of partial qualifications;f such relatively concrete contexts of use (tending towards supra-genres/speech events rather than abstract
skills or functions) make the link to realistic assessment tasks in examinations easier to establish, and should
help facilitate the provision of more concrete descriptors.

29. North B. (1994) “Perspectives on language proficiency and aspects of competence: a reference paper defining categories and levels”,
CC-LANG Vol. 94, No. 20, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg.

Key aspects of the CEFR for teaching and learning Page 33

One of the areas in which the CEFR has been most influential is in the recognition, in course aims and in the
structure of oral examinations, of the fundamental distinction between production (= sustained monologue;long turns) and interaction (= conversational dialogue; short turns). When the CEFR 2001 was published, splitting
writing in the same way by distinguishing between written production and written interaction did not meetwith much public recognition. Indeed, the original version of CEFR Table 2 (self-assessment grid) was amended
to merge written interaction and written production back into “writing”, giving rise to the widespread but false
notion that the CEFR promotes a model of five skills.
The development of e-mail, texting and social media since then shows that, as in many other areas, the CEFR wasvery forward-looking for its time. The fourth mode, mediation, was developed during the work of the original
CEFR Authoring Group.30
Figure 2, which appeared in the 1996 and 1998 provisional versions of the CEFR, shows the relationship between
the four modes. Reception and production, divided into spoken and written, give the traditional four skills.
Interaction involves both reception and production, but is more than the sum of those parts, and mediation
involves both reception and production plus, frequently, interaction.
The CEFR introduces the concept of mediation as follows:
In both the receptive and productive modes, the written and/or oral activities of mediation make communication
possible between persons who are unable, for whatever reason, to communicate with each other directly. Translation
or interpretation, a paraphrase, summary or record, provides for a third party a (re)formulation of a source text to which
this third party does not have direct access. Mediation language activities – (re)processing an existing text – occupy
an important place in the normal linguistic functioning of our societies. (CEFR 2001 Section 2.1.3)

Figure 2 – The relationship between reception, production, interaction and mediation
RECEPTION

INTERACTION

MEDIATION

PRODUCTION
As with many other aspects mentioned in the CEFR, the concepts of interaction and mediation are not greatly
developed in the text. This is one disadvantage of covering so much ground in 250 pages. In consequence, theinterpretation of mediation in the CEFR has tended to be reduced to interpretation and translation. It is for thisreason that the 2014-17 project to develop descriptors for mediation was set up. That project emphasised awider view of mediation, as outlined in Appendix 6 and explained in detail in “Developing illustrative descriptorsof aspects of mediation for the CEFR” (North and Piccardo 2016).
The CEFR represents a departure from the traditional distinction made in applied linguistics between theChomskyan concepts of (hidden) “competence” and (visible) “performance” – with “proficiency” normally defined as
the glimpse of someone’s underlying competence derived from a specific performance. In the CEFR, “proficiency”
encompasses the ability to perform communicative language activities (“can do …”) while drawing upon bothgeneral and communicative language competences (linguistic, sociolinguistic and pragmatic) and activating
appropriate communicative strategies.
The acquisition of proficiency is in fact seen as a circular process: by performing activities, the user/learner develops
competences and acquires strategies. This approach embraces a view of competence as only existing whenenacted in language use, reflecting both (a) the broader view of competence as action from applied psychology,
particularly in relation to the world of work and professional training, and (b) the view taken nowadays in thesociocultural approach to learning. The CEFR “can do” descriptors epitomise this philosophy.

30. The original CEFR Authoring Group was John Trim, Daniel Coste, Brian North and Joseph Sheils.

Page 34 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

“Can do” descriptors as competence
The idea of scientifically calibrating “cando” descriptors to a scale of levels comesoriginally from the field of professional
training for nurses. Tests were not very helpful
in assessing a trainee nurse’s competence;
what was needed was a systematic, informed
observation by an expert nurse, guided by short
descriptions of typical nursing competence
at different levels of achievement.
This “can do” approach was transferred tolanguage teaching and learning in the workof the Council of Europe in the late 1970s.
This happened through three channels: (a)needs-based language training for the worldof work; (b) an interest in teacher assessment
based on defined, communicative criteria, and(c) experimentation with self-assessment using“can do” descriptors as a way of increasing
learner reflection and motivation. Nowadays “cando” descriptors are applied to more and moredisciplines in many countries in what is often
referred to as a competence-based approach.

Communicative language strategies are thus seen in
the CEFR as a kind of hinge between communicative
language competences and communicative language
activities and are attached to the latter in CEFR 2001
Section 4.4. The development of the descriptors forstrategic competence was influenced by the model:plan, execute, monitor and repair. However, as canbe seen from Table 4, descriptor scales were notdeveloped for all categories. The categories in italics
were also considered at the time of developing the
CEFR descriptors published in 2001, but no descriptors
were produced. For mediation, in the 2014-17 project,a decision was taken to develop descriptors only forexecution strategies.

Table 4 – Communicative language strategies in the CEFR
Planning
Execution

Reception

Production

Interaction

Framing
Inferring

Planning
Compensating

N/A
Turntaking
Co-operating

Mediation
Linking to previous
knowledge
Adapting language
Breaking down
complicated information
Amplifying a dense text
Streamlining a text

Evaluation
and Repair

Monitoring

Monitoring andself-correction

Asking for clarification
Communication repair

2.5. MEDIATIONAs mentioned in discussing the CEFR descriptive scheme above, mediation was introduced to language teaching
and learning in the CEFR in the move away from the four skills, as one of the four modes of communication,
namely reception, production, interaction and mediation (see Figure 2). Very often when we use a language,
several activities are involved; mediation combines reception, production and interaction. Also, in many cases,
when we use language it is not just to communicate a message, but rather to develop an idea through what
is often called “languaging” (talking the idea through and hence articulating the thoughts) or to facilitate
understanding and communication.
Treatment of mediation in the CEFR 2001 is not limited to cross-linguistic mediation (passing on information inanother language) as can be seen from the following extracts:f Section 2.1.3: “make communication possible between persons who are unable, for whatever reason, tocommunicate with each other directly”;
f Section 4.4.4: “act as an intermediary between interlocutors who are unable to understand each otherdirectly – normally (but not exclusively) speakers of different languages”;
f Section 4.6.4: “Both input and output texts may be spoken or written and in L1 or L2.” (Note: This does not
say that one is in L1 and one is in L2; it states they could both be in L1 or in L2).

Key aspects of the CEFR for teaching and learning Page 35

Although the CEFR 2001 does not develop the concept of mediation to its full potential, it emphasises
the two key notions of co-construction of meaning in interaction and constant movement between theindividual and social level in language learning, mainly through its vision of the user/learner as a social
agent. In addition, an emphasis on the mediator as an intermediary between interlocutors underlines
the social vision of the CEFR. In this way, although it is not stated explicitly in the 2001 text, the CEFR
descriptive scheme de facto gives mediation a key position in the action-oriented approach, similar
to the role that a number of scholars now give it when they discuss the language learning process.
The approach taken to mediation in the 2014-17 project to extend the CEFR illustrative descriptors is thus wider
than considering only cross-linguistic mediation. In addition to cross-linguistic mediation, it also encompasses
mediation related to communication and learning as well as social and cultural mediation. This wider approachhas been taken because of its relevance in increasingly diverse classrooms, in relation to the spread of CLIL
(Content and Language Integrated Learning), and because mediation is increasingly seen as a part of all learning,but especially of all language learning.
The mediation descriptors are particularly relevant for the classroom in connection with small group, collaborative
tasks. The tasks can be organised in such a way that learners have to share different inputs, explaining their information
and working together in order to achieve a goal. They are even more relevant when this is undertaken in a CLIL context.

2.6. THE CEFR COMMON REFERENCE LEVELSThe CEFR has two axes: a horizontal axis of categories for describing different activities and aspects of competence,
which were outlined above, and a vertical axis representing progress in proficiency in those categories. To
facilitate the organisation of courses and to describe progress, the CEFR presents the six Common Reference
Levels shown in Figure 3. This arrangement provides a roadmap that allows user/learners to engage with relevant
aspects of the descriptive scheme in a progressive way. However, the six levels are not intended to be absolute.
Firstly, they can be grouped into three broad categories: Basic user (A1 and A2), Independent user (B1 and B2)
and Proficient user (C1 and C2). Secondly, the six reference levels, which represent very broad bands of language
proficiency, are very often subdivided.
Figure 3 – CEFR Common Reference Levels
C2
C1
B2
B1
A2
A1
All categories in the humanities and liberal arts are in any case conventional, socially constructed concepts. Like
the colours of the rainbow, language proficiency is actually a continuum. Yet, as with the rainbow, despite thefuzziness of the boundaries between colours, we tend to see some colours more than others, as in Figure 4. Yet,to communicate, we simplify and focus on six main colours, as in Figure 5.
Figure 4 – A rainbow

Page 36 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Figure 5 – The conventional six colours

The Common Reference Levels are defined in detail by the illustrative descriptors in CEFR 2001 Chapters 4 and5, but the major characteristics of the levels are summarised briefly in CEFR 2001 Section 3.6 (see Appendix 1)
and in the three tables used to introduce the levels in CEFR 2001 Chapter 3:
f CEFR Table 1: a global scale, with one short, summary paragraph per level, is provided in Appendix 1;f CEFR Table 2: a self-assessment grid, which summarises in a simplified form CEFR descriptors for communicative language activities in CEFR 2001 Chapter 4. Table 2 is also used in the Language Passport of themany versions of the ELP and in the EU’s Europass. An expanded version including “Written and online
interaction” and “Mediation” is provided in Appendix 2 of this publication;f CEFR Table 3: a selective summary of the CEFR descriptors for aspects of communicative language competencein CEFR 2001 Chapter 5. An expanded version including “Phonology” is given in this publication in Appendix 3.
It should be emphasised that the top level in the CEFR scheme, C2, has no relation whatsoever with what issometimes referred to as the performance of an idealised “native speaker”, or a “well-educated native speaker”
or a “near native speaker”. Such concepts were not taken as a point of reference during the development of thelevels or the descriptors. C2, the top level in the CEFR scheme, is introduced in the CEFR as follows:
Level C2, whilst it has been termed “Mastery”, is not intended to imply native-speaker or near native-speakercompetence. 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. (CEFR 2001 Section 3.6)
Mastery (Trim: “comprehensive mastery”; Wilkins: “Comprehensive Operational Proficiency”), corresponds to the top
examination objective in the scheme adopted by ALTE (Association of Language Testers in Europe). It could be extended
to include the more developed intercultural competence above that level which is achieved by many language
professionals. (CEFR 2001 Section 3.2)

A1, the bottom level in the CEFR 2001, is not the lowest imaginable level of proficiency in an additional language
either. It is described in the CEFR as follows:
Level A1 (Breakthrough) – is considered the lowest
level of generative language use – the point at which
the learner can interact in a simple way, ask and answer
simple questions about themselves, where they live, people
they know, and things they have, initiate and respond tosimple statements in areas of immediate need or on very
familiar topics, rather than relying purely on a very finite
rehearsed, lexically organised repertoire of situationspecific phrases. (CEFR 2001 Section 3.6)
Level A1 (Breakthrough) is probably the lowest “level”
of generative language proficiency which can be
identified. Before this stage is reached, however, there
may be a range of specific tasks which learners canperform effectively using a very restricted range oflanguage and which are relevant to the needs of thelearners concerned. The 1994-5 Swiss National Science
Research Council Survey, which developed and scaled
the illustrative descriptors, identified a band of languageuse, limited to the performance of isolated tasks, which
can be presupposed in the definition of Level A1. In
certain contexts, for example with young learners, it
may be appropriate to elaborate such a “milestone”.

Background to the CEFR levels
The six-level scheme is labelled upwards from A to C
precisely because C2 is not the highest imaginablelevel for proficiency in an additional language. In
fact, a scheme including a seventh level had been
proposed by David Wilkins at an intergovernmental
symposium held in 1977 to discuss a possible European
unit credit scheme. The CEFR Working Party adopted
Wilkins’ first six levels because Wilkins’ seventh levelis beyond the scope of mainstream education.
In the SNSF research project that empiricallyconfirmed the levels and developed the CEFR
illustrative descriptors published in 2001, the existenceof this seventh level was confirmed. There were user/
learners studying interpretation and translation at
the University of Lausanne who were clearly above
C2. Indeed, simultaneous interpreters at European
institutions and professional translators operate at
a level well above C2. For instance, C2 is the third of
five levels for literary translation recently producedin the PETRA project. In addition many plurilingual
writers display Wilkins’ seventh level of “ambilingual
proficiency” without being bilingual from birth.

The following descriptors relate to simple, general tasks, which were scaled below Level A1, but can constitute usefulobjectives for beginners:-

can make simple purchases where pointing or other gesture can support the verbal reference;
can ask and tell day, time of day and date;can use some basic greetings;
can say yes, no, excuse me, please, thank you, sorry;can fill in uncomplicated forms with personal details, name, address, nationality, marital status;
can write a short, simple postcard (CEFR 2001 Section 3.5).

Key aspects of the CEFR for teaching and learning Page 37

In the updated and extended set of descriptors in this document, the level referred to above has been labelled
Pre-A1 and developed further on the basis of descriptors from the Swiss Lingualevel project and the Japanese
CEFR-J project, both targeted at primary and lower secondary school.
The CEFR stresses that the levels are reference levels and that, in any given context, users may well want to
subdivide them, illustrating ways in which this might be done in different contexts (CEFR 2001 Section 3.5). In
the same section, the CEFR introduced the idea of the plus levels.
In the illustrative descriptors a distinction is made between the “criterion levels” (for example A2 or A2.1) andthe “plus levels” (for example A2+ or A2.2). The latter are distinguished from the former by a horizontal line, as
in this example for “Overall oral comprehension”.
Can understand enough to be able to meet needs of a concrete type, provided people articulate clearly andslowly.

A2

Can understand phrases and expressions related to areas of most immediate priority (e.g. very basic
personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment), provided people articulate
clearly and slowly.

Plus levels represent a very strong competence at a level that does not yet reach the minimum standard for the
next criterion level. Generally, features of the level above are starting to appear. Descriptors from the “plus levels”
are not included in the three tables that introduce the CEFR levels in CEFR 2001 Chapter 3 (CEFR Tables 1, 2 and 3).

2.7. CEFR PROFILES
Levels are a necessary simplification. We need levels in order to organise learning, track progress and answer questions
like“How good is your French?”or“What proficiency should we require from candidates?”However, any simple answer likeB2 – or even B2 receptive, B1 productive – hides a complex profile. The reason the CEFR includes so many descriptor scales
is to encourage users to develop differentiated profiles. Descriptor scales can be used firstly to identify which language
activities are relevant for a particular group of learners and, secondly, to establish which level those learners need to achievein those activities in order to accomplish their goals. This can be illustrated with the two fictional examples of individual
language profiles shown in Figures 6 and 7. In each case, the four shapes in Figures 6 and 7 show the desired profile forreception, interaction, production and mediation respectively. The labels around the edge of the circle are the descriptor
scales that are considered to be relevant, and the proficiency level deemed to be desirable on each descriptor scale isindicated by the shading. Notice that the descriptor scales included in the two diagrams are not identical. Only those activities
considered to be relevant would be included. Profiles like Figures 6 and 7 may be produced for individuals in the context
of very intensive LSP training, but the technique is also very useful for analysing the needs of particular groups of learners.
Figure 6 – A fictional profile of needs in an additional language – lower secondary CLIL
Understanding conversation between other speakers
Understanding audio or signed media recordings
Watching TV, film and video

Expressing a personal response to creative texts(including literature)

Reading for information and argument

Relaying specific information in writing

Reading instructions

Processing text in speech or sign

Reading as a leisure activity

RE
C

ME

EP

TI
ON

Relaying specific information in speech or sign

DIA

Collaborating to construct meaning

TIO

N

A1

Facilitating collaborative interaction with peers

TIO
OD

TE

RA

CT

IO

N

Conversation

PR

B2

UC

B1

Understanding an interlocutor

IN

N

A2

Reports and essays

Creative writing
Sustained monologue: giving information
Sustained monologue: describing experience

Page 38 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Informal discussion (with friends)
Goal-oriented co-operation
Information exchange
Online conversation and discussion
Goal-oriented online transactions and collaboration

The profile shown in Figure 6 has “plus levels” between the Common Reference Levels. It sets a relatively high priority (B1)on reception – including reading as a leisure activity – on goal-oriented co-operation, facilitating collaborative interaction
and oral production. The highest priority, though, is on understanding the interlocutor (B2), in this case CLIL, presumably
the teacher. The profile shown in Figure 7 (postgraduate science student) also puts an emphasis on reception (C1) andon certain aspects of mediation: collaborating to construct meaning, explaining data and processing text. Profiles can becreated for various groups, particularly in professional or in specialised educational areas. Stakeholders can be consulted ina two-step process: first to establish the relevant descriptor scales and secondly to determine realistic goals for each one.
Graphic profiles such as those shown in Figures 6 and 7 can also be used to describe the current language
proficiency of a user/learner. One can see the development of individual proficiency as a gain of space overtime: a gain in relevant terrain.31 A realistic graphic profile of any individual’s proficiency would be more like theuneven Figures 6 and 7 than the more abstract perfection levels shown as concentric circles in Figure 3.
Figure 7 – A profile of needs in an additional language – postgraduate natural sciences (fictional)

Understanding conversation between otherspeakers
Understanding as a member of a live audience
Note-taking (lectures, seminars, meetings, etc.)
Processing text in writing
Reading for orientation

Explaining data (graphs, diagrams, etc.)

Reading for information and argument

CE

ME

DIA

C2

Understanding an interlocutor

IN

A1

TE

TIO

N

A2

UC

C1

B2

B1

N

OD

Facilitating pluricultural space

TIO

RA

CT

IO

N

Informal discussion (with friends)
Formal discussion (meetings)

PR

Facilitating collaborative interaction with peers

RE

Collaborating to construct meaning

PT

IO

N

Encouraging conceptual talk

Goal-oriented co-operation

Reports and essays
Addressing audiences
Sustained monologue: putting a case
Sustained monologue: giving information

Information exchange
Goal-oriented online transactions andcollaboration

However, for a personal profile of proficiency, working with fewer categories is probably desirable in mostcircumstances. Figures 6 and 7 worked with the descriptor scales for different, detailed types of activities. A
simpler alternative is to use only the seven overall scales (“Overall oral comprehension”,32 etc.). On the other
hand, there is no reason why the profile should be confined to one language.
One can take things a stage further and create graphic plurilingual profiles for individual user/learners. Figure 8
shows a plurilingual profile inspired by a model developed in a Canadian project.33 Profiles for different languages
are superimposed on each other in the same graphic. The figure shows a profile of “partial competences” notatypical of an adult user/learner: far stronger in reading in all languages.
Such a profile can show the way in which the proficiency of any user/learner is almost always going to be uneven, partial.
It will be influenced by home background, by the needs of the situation in which the person has found themselves,and by their experience, including transversal competences acquired in general education, in using other languages,
in professional life. The profiles of any two user/learners at the same level are thus unlikely to be absolutely identical

31. The 1996 and 1998 provisional versions of the CEFR contained a diagram like Figures 6 and 7 to illustrate this analogy of language
proficiency profiles as spatial, territorial; in the working group the particular diagram was referred to as “Antarctica” because of its
shape. It was considered too complicated a concept for the time and was dropped from the published version.
32. Oral comprehension, oral production and oral interaction are each taken to include both spoken and signed modalities, as appropriate
in the context.
33. LINCDIRE: LINguistic & Cultural DIversity REinvented, available at www.lincdireproject.org/.

Key aspects of the CEFR for teaching and learning Page 39

since they reflect the life experience of the person concerned as well as their inherent abilities, what the CEFR 2001
(Section 5.2) describes as their “general competences”.
Figure 8 – A plurilingual proficiency profile with fewer categories
GermanFrenchSpanishItalian

Listening

Writtenproduction
C2

Reading
C1

B2

B1

A2

A1

Writteninteraction

Oralinteraction

Oral production

In practice, there is a tendency to use more linear diagrams to profile an individual’s CEFR language proficiency.
Figure 9 shows proficiency in one language in relation to the CEFR “overall” descriptor scales, and Figure 10
shows a profile across languages for oral comprehension. Graphics similar to these appear in versions of the ELP.
Earlier ELPs profiled ability in one language after another (as in the example in Figure 9), while some later ones
show the plurilingual profile for overall proficiency in each communicative language activity (as in Figure 10).
Figure 9 – A proficiency profile – overall proficiency in one language
SpanishPre-A1

A1

A2

A2+

B1

B1+

B2

B2+

C1

Oral comprehension
Reading comprehension
Oral interaction
Written interaction
Oral production
Written production
Mediation

Graphic profiles have been associated with the CEFR and the ELP since their earliest versions in the late 1990s.
Nowadays, it is of course far easier to produce them from a spreadsheet (for example, Excel) and with the many
web tools available. However, such graphic profiles only have meaning if one can assume a familiarity with thelevels and categories concerned on the part of the reader. The CEFR illustrative descriptors can bring that familiarity.
Figure 10 – A plurilingual proficiency profile – Oral comprehension across languages
Pre-A1A1EnglishGermanFrenchSpanishItalianPage 40 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

A2

A2+

B1

B1+

B2

B2+

C1

C2

Above C2

2.8. THE CEFR ILLUSTRATIVE DESCRIPTORS
The illustrative descriptors are presented within descriptor scales. Each descriptor scale provides examples oftypical language use in a particular area that have been calibrated at different levels. Each individual descriptor
has been developed and calibrated separately from the other descriptors on the scale, so that each individual
descriptor provides an independent criterion statement that can be used on its own, without the context of thescale. In fact, the descriptors are mainly used in that way: independently of the scale that presents them. The
aim of the descriptors is to provide input for curriculum development.
The descriptors are presented in levels for ease of use. Descriptors for the same level from several scales tend to
be exploited in adapted form in checklists of descriptors for curriculum or module aims and for self-assessment(as in the ELPs). However, the association of a descriptor with a specific level should not be seen as exclusive or
mandatory. The descriptors appear at the first level at which a user/learner is most likely to be able to performthe task described. This is the level at which the descriptor is most likely to be relevant as a curriculum aim: itis the level at which it is reasonable to develop the ability to do what is described. That descriptor would be achallenging, but by no means impossible, aim for user/learners at the level below. Indeed, for some types oflearners, with a particular talent, experience or motivation in the area described, it could well be a fully appropriate
goal. This emphasises the importance of thinking in terms of profiles (see Figures 6 to 10) as well as levels. Users
may find it useful to read CEFR 2001 Section 3.7, “How to read the scales of illustrative descriptors” (p. 36), andSection 3.8 (p. 37), “How to use the scales of descriptors of language proficiency”.
The scales of illustrative descriptors consist of independent, stand-alone descriptors and are not primarily
intended for assessment. They are not assessment scales in the sense in which the term is generally used inlanguage assessment. They do not attempt to cover each relevant aspect at every level in the way that scales forassessing a performance conventionally do. They are illustrative, not just in the sense that they are presented as
non-mandatory examples, but also in the sense that they provide only illustrations of competence in the area
concerned at different levels. They focus on aspects that are new and salient; they do not attempt to describe
everything relevant in a comprehensive manner. They are open-ended and incomplete.
CEFR descriptor research project
The illustrative descriptors published in the CEFR 2001 were based on results from a Swiss National Science
Foundation research project set up to develop and validate descriptors for the CEFR and the ELP and to give a
picture of the development of language proficiency reached at the end of different school years in the Swiss
educational system. The project described in this document, to develop an extended set of illustrative descriptors,
replicated the approach taken in this Swiss project, which took place from 1993 to 1997. The methodology used inthat original project, and described briefly in CEFR 2001 Appendix B, comprised three phases:
Intuitive phase: Detailed analysis of existing descriptor scales and authoring of new descriptors.
Qualitative phase: 32 face-to-face workshops with groups of 4 to 12 teachers, focusing on (a) sorting
descriptors into the categories they purported to describe; (b) evaluating the clarity, accuracy andrelevance of the descriptors; and (c) sorting descriptors into bands of proficiency.
Quantitative phase: Rasch scaling analysis of the way 250 teachers interpreted the difficulty of thedescriptors when each teacher assessed 10 learners, forming a structured sample of two of their classes
at the end of the school year. These evaluations with descriptors took place when the (approximately 80%
secondary school) teachers were awarding grades for the school year.
The illustrative descriptors are one source for the development of standards appropriate to the context concerned;
they are not in themselves offered as standards. They are a basis for reflection, discussion and further action. The
aim is to open new possibilities, not to pre-empt decisions. The CEFR itself makes this point very clearly, statingthat the descriptors are presented as recommendations and are not in any way mandatory.
As a user, you are invited to use the scaling system and associated descriptors critically. The Modern Languages Sectionof the Council of Europe will be glad to receive a report of your experience in putting them into use. Please note alsothat scales are provided not only for a global proficiency, but for many of the parameters of language proficiency
detailed in Chapters 4 and 5. This makes it possible to specify differentiated profiles for particular learners or groupsof learners (CEFR 2001, Notes for the user: xiii-xiv).

The descriptor scales are thus reference tools. They are not intended to be used as assessment instruments,
though they can be a source for the development of such instruments. These might take the form of a checklist
at one level, or a grid defining several categories at different levels. Users may find it helpful to refer to CEFR
2001 Section 9.2.2, “The criteria for the attainment of a learning objective”.

Key aspects of the CEFR for teaching and learning Page 41

Each descriptor scale is now accompanied by a short rationale, which highlights key concepts represented in
the descriptors as one progresses up the scale. The scales do not always provide a descriptor for every level. The
absence of a descriptor does not imply the impossibility of writing one. For example, at C2 the entry is sometimes:“No descriptors available: see C1”. In such cases, the user is invited to consider whether they can formulate forthe context concerned a descriptor representing a more demanding version of the definition given for C1.
In CEFR 2001 Section 3.4, the claim made for the validity of the illustrative descriptors is that they:f draw, in their formulation, on the experience of many institutions active in the field of defining levels of
proficiency;
f have been developed in tandem with the descriptive scheme presented in CEFR 2001 Chapters 4 and 5
through an interaction between (a) the theoretical work of the Authoring Group; (b) the analysis of existing
scales of proficiency; and (c) the practical workshops with teachers;
f have been matched to the set of Common Reference Levels A1, A2, B1, B2, C1 and C2;
f meet the criteria outlined in CEFR 2001 Appendix A for effective descriptors in that each is brief (up to 25
words), clear and transparent, positively formulated, describes something definite, and has independent,
stand-alone integrity, not relying on the formulation of other descriptors for its interpretation;f have been found transparent, useful and relevant by groups of non-native and native-speaker teachers from avariety of educational sectors with very different profiles in terms of linguistic training and teaching experience;
f are relevant to the description of actual learner achievement in lower and upper secondary, vocational
and adult education, and could thus represent realistic objectives;f have been “objectively calibrated” to a common scale. This means that the position of the vast majority ofthe descriptors on the scale is the product of how they have been interpreted to assess the achievementof learners, rather than just the opinion of the authors;
f provide a bank of criterion statements about the continuum of foreign language proficiency that can be
exploited flexibly for the development of criterion-referenced assessment. They can be matched to existing
local systems, elaborated by local experience and/or used to develop new sets of objectives.
As a result, the set of illustrative descriptors published in 2001 met with wide acceptance and they have beentranslated into 40 languages. However, the illustrative descriptors were referred to in the CEFR 2001 as a “descriptorbank” because the idea was that, as with a test item bank, they might later be extended once users developed
and validated more descriptors – as has now happened with this update.
The descriptors are intended to provide a common metalanguage to facilitate networking and the developmentof communities of practice by groups of teachers. Users of the CEFR are invited to select the CEFR levels andillustrative descriptors that they consider to be appropriate for their learners’ needs, to adapt the formulationof the latter, in order to better suit the specific context concerned, and to supplement them with their own
descriptors where they deem it necessary. This is the way that descriptors have been adapted for ELPs.

2.9. USING THE CEFR ILLUSTRATIVE DESCRIPTORS
The main function of descriptors is to help align curriculum,
teaching and assessment. Educators can select CEFR
descriptors according to their relevance to the particular
context, adapting them in the process if necessary. In thisway descriptors can provide a detailed, flexible resource for:f relating learning aims to real-world language use,thus providing a framework for action-oriented
learning;
f providing transparent “signposting” to learners,
parents or sponsors;
f offering a “menu” to negotiate priorities with adultlearners in a process of ongoing needs analysis;
f suggesting classroom tasks to teachers that will
involve activities described in several descriptors;
f introducing criterion-referenced assessment with
criteria relating to an external framework (herethe CEFR).

Page 42 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Defining curriculum aims from a needs profile
Step 1: Select the descriptor scales that are relevantto the needs of the group of learners concerned(see Figures 6 and 7). Clearly this is best undertaken
in consultation with stakeholders, including
teachers and, in the case of adult learners, thelearners themselves. Stakeholders can also be asked
what other communicative activities are relevant.
Step 2: Determine with the stakeholders, foreach relevant descriptor scale, the level that thelearners should reach.
Step 3: Collate the descriptors for the target level(s)from all the relevant scales into a list. This provides
the very first draft of a set of communicative aims.
Step 4: Refine the list, possibly in discussion withthe stakeholders.

An alternative approach is to:
Step 1: Determine a global target level for the course.
Step 2: Collate all the descriptors for that level.
Step 3: Identify the descriptors that are relevant, in consultation with stakeholders, and delete the rest.
Very often, CEFR descriptors are referred to for inspiration in adapting or making explicit the aims of an existingcourse. In such a case, descriptors from particular scales are selected, adapted to the local context and added
to an existing curricular document.
However, CEFR descriptors can also be used to develop a set of learning aims from scratch. In doing so, one
should ideally start by creating a needs profile, such as those shown graphically in Figures 6 and 7. In practice, ashort cut is often taken by starting from the checklists of CEFR-adapted descriptors already available for different
levels in the Language Biography section of the many versions of the ELP.
Whichever approach is taken, any resulting list of descriptors needs to be slimmed down to a reasonable length
by removing repetition and aspects that appear less relevant in the particular context. It is usually at this pointthat descriptors are adapted, shortened, simplified, merged with existing communicative aims and supplemented
by other educational aims. What is a “reasonable” length for a list depends on the precise purpose. A list can belong (for example 60 to 80 descriptors) in designing a curriculum for an entire level, but experience suggests thatany list used as an instrument for teacher assessment or self-assessment is more effective if it is much shorter(for example, 10 to 20 descriptors) and focused on activities of relevance in a particular section or module ofthe course.
In using the descriptors to make a list of learning objectives, one should bear in mind that the descriptors fromdifferent scales complement one another. One may wish to broaden the scope of a particular descriptor bypresenting it linked to descriptors from one or two complementary scales that are relevant to the intended
scope of the learning activity. For example, at B1, one might wish to create a broader educational objective forengaging with a text by associating the following descriptors from three different scales:f Can follow the plot of stories, simple novels and comics with a clear linear storyline and high frequency
everyday language, given regular use of a dictionary (Reading as a leisure activity).
f Can explain briefly the feelings and opinions that a work provoked in them (Expressing a personal responseto creative texts (including literature)).
f Can discuss in simple terms the way in which things that may look “strange” to them in another sociocultural context may well be “normal” for the other people concerned (Building on pluricultural repertoire).
Descriptors can also be useful as a starting point for providing transparent criteria for assessment. CEFR 2001
Chapter 9 outlines different forms of assessment and ways in which descriptors can be useful in relation to them.
In discussing the exploitation of descriptors in assessment, the CEFR makes the following point:
In discussing the use of descriptors it is essential to make a distinction between:
1. Descriptors of communicative activities, which are located in Chapter 4.
2. Descriptors of aspects of proficiency related to particular competences, which are located in Chapter 5.
The former are very suitable for teacher- or self-assessment with regard to real-world tasks. Such teacher- or selfassessments are made on the basis of a detailed picture of the learner’s language ability built up during the course
concerned. They are attractive because they can help to focus both learners and teachers on an action-oriented
approach. (CEFR 2001 Section 9.2.2)

The latter, descriptors of aspects of competences (CEFR 2001 Chapter 5), can be a useful source for developing
assessment criteria for how well user/learners are able to perform a particular task: to assess the quality of theirproduction. This is opposed to “the what”: the communicative activities they “can do” (CEFR 2001 Chapter 4).
The relationship between the two types of illustrative descriptors is shown in Table 5. Each type (what; how)
can take two forms: simpler, for “outsiders”, and more elaborated, for “insiders” (usually teachers). Simple forms
of descriptors about what the learner can do are often used to report results to the user/learners themselves
and other stakeholders (user-oriented); more elaborated, “insider” forms help teachers or testers to constructa programme and specific tasks in it (constructor-oriented). Simpler versions of descriptors for how a learnerperforms in a language are used in assessment grids, which usually restrict themselves to four or five assessment
criteria; in a spirit of transparency these can be shared with user/learners (assessor-oriented). More elaborated,“insider” forms, usually for a longer list of aspects of quality, can be used as a checklist to diagnose strengths
and weaknesses (diagnostic-oriented). Users may wish to follow up on this point in CEFR 2001 Sections 3.8 and9.2.2, which explain these different orientations.

Key aspects of the CEFR for teaching and learning Page 43

Table 5 – The different purposes of descriptors
WHAT the user/learner cando (CEFR 2001 Chapter 4)

HOW WELL the user/
learner performs (CEFR
2001 Chapter 5)

Morecomplexdescriptors

Constructor-oriented curriculum
descriptors

Diagnostic-oriented assessment
descriptors

Curriculum designers

Simpler
descriptors

User-oriented learning aims and“can do” learning outcomes

Self-assessment-oriented
assessment descriptors

Learners

Of relevance toTeachers

Parents/employers, etc.

As mentioned, the primary function of descriptors is to facilitate the provision of transparent and coherentalignment between curriculum, teaching and assessment, particularly teacher assessment, and above all between
the “language classroom world” and the real world. Real-world needs will relate to the main domains of language
use: the public domain, the private domain, the occupational domain and the educational domain (CEFR 2001
Section 4.1.1; CEFR 2001 Table 5). These domains are illustrated in Appendix 5 with examples for the new scales
for online and mediation activities.
The educational domain is clearly as much a real-world domain as the other three domains. Indeed, both needs
profiles shown earlier concerned the educational domain (Figure 6 for CLIL; Figure 7 for university study). It isparticularly evident in cases such as the language of schooling for children with an immigrant background and
CLIL that teacher-learner(s) interaction and collaborative interaction between learners have mediating functions:f that of organising collective work and the relationships between participants;
f that of facilitating access to, and the construction of, knowledge.
As diversity has increased at both the social and educational level since the CEFR was published, it has become
increasingly important to make space for this diversity. This calls for a broader view of mediation, as taken in
the 2014-17 project, together with a positive focus on user/learners’ diverse linguistic and cultural repertoires.
Classrooms can become a place for raising awareness of and further developing learners’ plurilingual/pluricultural
profiles. We very much hope that the provision of CEFR descriptors for mediating text, mediating concepts,
mediating communication and for plurilingual/pluricultural competence will help to broaden the types of tasks
carried out in language classrooms and to value all the developing language resources that user/learners bring.

2.10. SOME USEFUL RESOURCES FOR CEFR IMPLEMENTATIONThe Council of Europe’s website contains links to many resources and articles relating to the CEFR, including
a bank of supplementary descriptors, samples of performance (videos and scripts) and calibrated assessment
tasks. In addition, materials from a number of CEFR-related projects are available through the ECML website.
The following list of web resources and books includes some of the most practical guidance in how to exploit
the CEFR for language teaching and learning.

2.10.1. Web resources“Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – A Guide for Users”,34 available
in English and French.
“From communicative to action-oriented: a research pathway”,35 available in English and French.
A quality assurance matrix for CEFR use36 (CEFR QualiMatrix), available in English and French.
CEFTrain (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages in Teacher Training).37

34. Trim J. (ed.) (2001), “Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – A Guide for Users”,
Langauge Policy Division, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/1680697848.
35. Piccardo E. (2014), “From communicative to action-oriented: a research pathway”.
36. Available at www.ecml.at/CEFRqualitymatrix.
37. www.helsinki.fi/project/ceftrain/index.php.35.html.

Page 44 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Council of Europe tools for language teaching – Common European framework and portfolios,38 available in English and French.
Equals “Practical resources for language teaching”.39
Guide for the development and implementation of curricula for plurilingual and intercultural education (Beacco et al. 2016a),
available in English and French.
Pathways through assessing, learning and teaching in the CEFR (Piccardo et al. 2011), available in English and French.
PRO-Sign: Promoting Excellence in Sign Language Instruction.40

2.10.2. Books
Bourguignon C. (2010), Pour enseigner les langues avec les CERCL – Clés et conseils, Delagrave, Paris.
Lions-Olivieri M-L. and Liria P. (eds) (2009), L’approche actionnelle dans l’enseignement des langues. Douze articles pour mieux
comprendre et faire le point, Difusión-Maison des langues, Paris.
North B. (2014), The CEFR in practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
North B., Angelova M. and Rossner R. (2018), Language course planning, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Piccardo E. and North B. (2019), The action-oriented approach: a dynamic vision of language education, Multilingual Matters,
Bristol.
Rosen É. and Reinhardt C. (eds) (2010), Le point sur le Cadre européen commun de référence pour les langues, Clé international, Paris.

38. Goullier F. (2007), Council of Europe tools for language teaching – Common European framework and portfolios, Les Editions Didier/Council of Europe, Paris/Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/168069ce6e.
39. Equals “Practical resources for language teaching”, available at www.eaquals.org/our-expertise/cefr/our-work-practical-resourcesfor-language-teaching/.
40. www.ecml.at/ECML-Programme/Programme2016-2019/SignLanguageInstruction/tabid/1856/Default.aspx.

Key aspects of the CEFR for teaching and learning Page 45

Chapter 3
THE CEFR ILLUSTRATIVE DESCRIPTORSCALES: COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE
ACTIVITIES AND STRATEGIES
Figure 11 – Reception activities and strategies
Reception

Reception activities

Reception strategies

Oral comprehension

Audio-visualcomprehension

Readingcomprehension

Overall oral
comprehension

Watching TV, film
and video

Overall reading
comprehension

Understanding
conversation between
other people

Reading
correspondence

Understanding
as a member of alive audience

Reading for orientation

Understanding
announcements
and instructions

Reading for information
and argument

Understanding audio(or signed) media
and recordings

Reading instructions

Identifying cues
and inferring

Reading as aleisure activity

3.1. RECEPTION
Reception involves receiving and processing input: activating what are thought to be appropriate schemata inorder to build up a representation of the meaning being expressed and a hypothesis as to the communicative
intention behind it. Incoming co-textual and contextual cues are checked to see if they “fit” the activatedschema – or suggest that an alternative hypothesis is necessary. In “oral reception”, the language user receives
and processes live or recorded input produced by one or more other people. In “visual reception” (reading andwatching) activities the user receives and processes as input written and signed texts produced by one or more
people. In “audio-visual comprehension”, for which one scale (watching TV and film) is provided, the user watches
TV, video or a film and uses multimedia, with or without subtitles, voiceovers or signing.

Page 47

3.1.1. Reception activities
3.1.1.1. Oral comprehension
The expression “oral comprehension” covers comprehension in live, face-to-face communication and its remote and/or recorded equivalent. It thus includes visuo-gestural and audio-vocal modalities. The aspects of oral comprehension
included here under reception are different kinds of one-way comprehension, excluding “Understanding aninterlocutor” (as a participant in interaction), which is included under interaction. The approach is strongly influenced
by the metaphor of concentric circles as one moves out from a role as participant in an interaction towards a oneway role of an overhearer or bystander, to being a member of a live audience, to being a member of an audienceat a distance – via media. Scales are provided for “Understanding conversation between other people” (as an
overhearer) and for “Understanding as a member of a live audience”. To these scales particular media are added, with
“Understanding announcements and instructions”, and “Understanding audio (or signed) media and recordings.”
There is also a separate scale for “Watching TV, film and video” included under audio-visual comprehension.

Overall oral comprehension
Overall oral comprehension
C2

Can understand with ease virtually any kind of language, whether live or broadcast, delivered at fast
natural speed.
Can understand enough to follow extended discourse on abstract and complex topics beyond theirown field, though they may need to confirm occasional details, especially if the variety is unfamiliar.

C1

Can recognise a wide range of idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms, appreciating register shifts.
Can follow extended discourse even when it is not clearly structured and when relationships are only
implied and not signalled explicitly.
Can understand standard language or a familiar variety, live or broadcast, on both familiar andunfamiliar topics normally encountered in personal, social, academic or vocational life. Only extreme[auditory/visual] background noise, inadequate discourse structure and/or idiomatic usage influence
the ability to understand.

B2

Can understand the main ideas of propositionally and linguistically complex discourse on both concrete
and abstract topics delivered in standard language or a familiar variety, including technical discussions
in their field of specialisation.
Can follow extended discourse and complex lines of argument, provided the topic is reasonably
familiar, and the direction of the argument is signposted by explicit markers.

B1

Can understand straightforward factual information about common everyday or job-related topics,
identifying both general messages and specific details, provided people articulate clearly in a generallyfamiliar variety.
Can understand the main points made in clear standard language or a familiar variety on familiar
matters regularly encountered at work, school, leisure, etc., including short narratives.
Can understand enough to be able to meet needs of a concrete type, provided people articulate clearlyand slowly.

A2

A1

Can understand phrases and expressions related to areas of most immediate priority (e.g. very basic
personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment), provided people articulate
clearly and slowly.
Can follow language which is very slow and carefully articulated, with long pauses for them toassimilate meaning.
Can recognise concrete information (e.g. places and times) on familiar topics encountered in everyday
life, provided it is delivered slowly and clearly.
Can understand short, very simple questions and statements, provided they are delivered slowly andclearly and accompanied by visuals or manual gestures to support understanding and repeated if
necessary.

Pre-A1

Can recognise everyday, familiar words/signs, provided they are delivered clearly and slowly in a clearly
defined, familiar everyday context.
Can recognise numbers, prices, dates and days of the week, provided they are delivered slowly andclearly in a defined, familiar everyday context.

Page 48 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Understanding conversation between other people
This scale concerns two main situations: the first is when other participants in a group interaction talk/sign acrossthe user/learner to each other, so that the user/learner is no longer directly addressed. The second situation
is when the user/learner is an overhearer to a conversation between other people nearby. Both situations are
noticeably more difficult than when the user/learner is directly addressed, firstly because there is no elementof accommodation to them and because the speakers/signers may have shared assumptions, experiences theyrefer to and even variants in usage, and secondly because the user/learner, not being an addressee, has no“right” to ask for clarification, repetition, etc. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f picking up and connecting words/signs, phrases, etc.;
f catching enough to identify the topic, and changes of topic;
f identifying chronological progression, for example a story;
f identifying when people agree and disagree, and points made for and against an issue;
f identifying attitudes and sociocultural implications (C levels).
Understanding conversation between other people
C2

C1

Can identify the sociocultural implications of most of the language used in colloquial discussions thattake place at a natural speed.
Can easily follow complex interactions between third parties in group discussion and debate, even on
abstract, complex, unfamiliar topics.
Can identify the attitude of each participant in an animated discussion characterised by overlapping
turns, digressions and colloquialisms that is delivered at a natural speed in varieties that are familiar.
Can keep up with an animated conversation between proficient users of the target language.

B2

Can with some effort catch much of what is said around them, but may find it difficult to participate
effectively in discussion with several users of the target language who do not modify their language inany way.
Can identify the main reasons for and against an argument or idea in a discussion conducted in clear
standard language or a familiar variety.
Can follow chronological sequence in extended informal discourse, e.g. in a story or anecdote.
Can follow much of everyday conversation and discussion, provided it is clearly articulated in standard
language or in a familiar variety.

B1
Can generally follow the main points of extended discussion around them, provided it is clearly
articulated in standard language or a familiar variety.
Can generally identify the topic of discussion around them when it is conducted slowly and clearly.

A2

Can recognise when people agree and disagree in a conversation conducted slowly and clearly.
Can follow in outline short, simple social exchanges, conducted very slowly and clearly.

A1

Pre-A1

Can understand some expressions when people are discussing them, family, school, hobbies orsurroundings, provided the delivery is slow and clear.
Can understand words/signs and short sentences in a simple conversation (e.g. between a customer anda salesperson in a shop), provided people communicate very slowly and very clearly.
No descriptors available

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 49

Understanding as a member of a live audience
This scale concerns understanding a speaker addressing an audience, for example in a meeting or seminar, at aconference or lecture, on a guided tour, or at a wedding or other celebration. Understanding the speaker/signer asa member of an audience is in fact usually easier than “Understanding conversation between other people”, eventhough the user/learner is even further away from being a participant in the discourse. This is firstly because the morestructured nature of a monologue means that it is easier to bridge over sections that one does not understand andpick up the thread again. Secondly, the speaker/signer is more likely to be using a neutral register and projecting wellso as to maximise the ability of the audience to follow. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f following a talk accompanying real artefacts (for example on a guided tour) and visual aids (for example
PowerPoint);
f the degree of accommodation to the audience (speed of delivery, extent to which usage is simplified);f familiarity of the situation and subject matter;f following a line of argument, distinguishing main points, etc.
Understanding as a member of a live audience

C2

Can follow specialised lectures and presentations employing colloquialism, regional usage or unfamiliar
terminology.
Can make appropriate inferences when links or implications are not made explicit.
Can get the point of jokes or allusions in a presentation.

C1

Can follow most lectures, discussions and debates with relative ease.
Can follow the essentials of lectures, talks and reports and other forms of academic/professionalpresentation which are propositionally and linguistically complex.
Can understand the point of view expressed on topics that are of current interest or that relate to their
specialised field, provided the talk is delivered in standard language or a familiar variety.

B2

Can follow complex lines of argument in a clearly articulated lecture, provided the topic is reasonably
familiar.
Can distinguish main themes from asides, provided the lecture or talk is delivered in standard language ora familiar variety.
Can recognise the point of view expressed and distinguish this from facts being reporting.
Can follow a lecture or talk within their own field, provided the subject matter is familiar and thepresentation straightforward and clearly structured.
Can distinguish between main ideas and supporting details in standard lectures on familiar subjects,
provided these are delivered in clearly articulated standard language or a familiar variety.

B1

Can follow in outline straightforward short talks on familiar topics, provided these are delivered in clearly
articulated standard language or a familiar variety.
Can follow a straightforward conference presentation or demonstration with visual support (e.g. slides,
handouts) on a topic or product within their field, understanding explanations given.
Can understand the main points of what is said in a straightforward monologue (e.g. a guided tour),provided the delivery is clear and relatively slow.
Can follow the general outline of a demonstration or presentation on a familiar or predictable topic, where
the message is expressed slowly and clearly in simple language and there is visual support (e.g. slides,
handouts).

A2

Can follow a very simple, well-structured presentation or demonstration, provided it is illustrated withslides, concrete examples or diagrams, it is delivered slowly and clearly with repetition, and the topic isfamiliar.
Can understand the outline of simple information given in a predictable situation, such as on a guided tour
(e.g. “This is where the President lives”).

Page 50 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Understanding as a member of a live audience
A1
Pre-A1

Can understand in outline very simple information being explained in a predictable situation like a guided
tour, provided the delivery is very slow and clear and that there are long pauses from time to time.
No descriptors available

Understanding announcements and instructions
This scale involves a different type of extremely focused comprehension in which the aim is to catch specificinformation. The situation is complicated by the fact that the announcement or instructions may well be deliveredby a (possibly faulty) public address system, or called out/signed some considerable distance away. Key concepts
operationalised in the scale include the following:f understanding directions and detailed instructions;f catching the main point of announcements;
f degree of clarity, from slow and clear to normal speed with audio and/or visual distortion.
Understanding announcements and instructions
C2

C1

B2

No descriptors available; see C1
Can extract specific information from poor quality, [audibly and/or visually] distorted publicannouncements, e.g. in a station or sports stadium, or on an old recording.
Can understand complex technical information, such as operating instructions or specifications for familiar
products and services.
Can understand announcements and messages on concrete and abstract topics delivered in standard
language or a familiar variety at normal speed.
Can understand detailed instructions well enough to be able to follow them successfully.
Can understand simple technical information, such as operating instructions for everyday equipment.

B1

Can follow detailed directions.
Can understand public announcements at airports, stations and on planes, buses and trains, provided
these are clearly articulated with minimum interference from [auditory/visual] background noise.
Can understand and follow a series of instructions for familiar everyday activities such as sports, cooking,etc., provided they are delivered slowly and clearly.
Can understand straightforward announcements (e.g. of a cinema programme or sports event, that a train
has been delayed), provided the delivery is slow and clear.

A2

Can catch the main point in short, clear, simple messages and announcements.
Can understand simple directions on how to get from X to Y, by foot or public transport.
Can understand basic instructions on times, dates and numbers, etc., and on routine tasks and assignments
to be carried out.
Can understand instructions addressed carefully and slowly to them and follow short, simple directions.

A1

Can understand when someone tells them slowly and clearly where something is, provided the object is in
the immediate environment.
Can understand figures, prices and times given slowly and clearly in an announcement by loudspeaker, e.g.
at a railway station or in a shop.

Pre-A1

Can understand short, simple instructions for actions such as “Stop”, “Close the door”, etc., provided they aredelivered slowly face-to-face, accompanied by pictures or manual gestures and repeated if necessary.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 51

Understanding audio (or signed) media and recordings
This scale involves broadcast audio and signed media and recorded materials unaccompanied by video, including
messages, weather forecasts, narrated stories, news bulletins, interviews and documentaries. Key concepts
operationalised in the scale include the following:f picking out concrete information;f understanding main points, essential information;
f catching important information;f identifying speaker mood, attitudes and viewpoints.
Understanding audio (or signed) media and recordings
C2

No descriptors available; see C1

C1

Can understand a wide range of recorded and broadcast material, including some non-standard usage,and identify finer points of detail including implicit attitudes and relationships between people.

B2

Can understand recordings in the standard form of the language likely to be encountered in social,professional or academic life and identify viewpoints and attitudes as well as the information content.
Can understand most documentaries and most other recorded or broadcast material delivered in thestandard form of the language and can identify mood, attitude, etc.
Can understand the information content of the majority of recorded or broadcast material on topics of
personal interest delivered in clear standard language.

B1

Can understand the main points of news bulletins and simpler recorded material about familiar subjects
delivered relatively slowly and clearly.
Can understand the main points and important details in stories and other narratives (e.g. a description ofa holiday), provided the delivery is slow and clear.
Can understand the most important information contained in short commercials concerning goods andservices of interest (e.g. CDs, video games, travel).
Can understand in an interview what people say they do in their free time, what they particularly like doing
and what they do not like doing, provided they speak slowly and clearly.

A2

Can understand and extract the essential information from short, recorded passages dealing withpredictable everyday matters which are delivered slowly and clearly.
Can extract important information from short broadcasts (e.g. the weather forecast, concert
announcements, sports results), provided people talk clearly.
Can understand the important points of a story and manage to follow the plot, provided the story is told
slowly and clearly.

A1
Pre-A1

Can pick out concrete information (e.g. places and times) from short recordings on familiar everyday topics,
provided they are delivered very slowly and clearly.
Can recognise words/signs, names and numbers that they already know in simple, short recordings,
provided these are delivered very slowly and clearly.

3.1.1.2. Audio-visual comprehension
Watching TV, film and video
This scale includes live and recorded video material plus, at higher levels, film. Key concepts operationalised in
the scale include the following:f following changes of topic and identifying main points;
f identifying details, nuances and implied meaning (C levels);
f delivery: from slow, clear standard usage to the ability to handle slang and idiomatic usage.

Page 52 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Watching TV, film and video
C2

No descriptors available; see C1
Can follow films employing a considerable degree of slang and idiomatic usage.

C1

Can understand in detail the arguments presented in demanding television broadcasts such as current
affairs programmes, interviews, discussion programmes and chat shows.
Can understand nuances and implied meaning in most films, plays and TV programmes, provided these aredelivered in standard language or a familiar variety.
Can extract the main points from the arguments and discussions in news and current affairs programmes.

B2

Can understand most TV news and current affairs programmes.
Can understand documentaries, live interviews, talk shows, plays and the majority of films in the standard
form of the language or a familiar variety.
Can understand a large part of many TV programmes on topics of personal interest such as interviews,
short lectures and news reports when the delivery is relatively slow and clear.

B1

Can follow many films in which visuals and action carry much of the storyline, and which are delivered
clearly in straightforward language.
Can catch the main points in TV programmes on familiar topics when the delivery is relatively slow andclear.
Can identify the main point of TV news items reporting events, accidents, etc. where the visuals support
the commentary.

A2

Can follow a TV commercial or a trailer for or scene from a film, understanding what topic(s) are concerned,
provided the images are a great help in understanding and the delivery is clear and relatively slow.
Can follow changes of topic of factual TV news items, and form an idea of the main content.

A1

Can recognise familiar words/signs and phrases and identify the topics in headline news summaries andmany of the products in advertisements, by exploiting visual information and general knowledge.

Pre-A1

Can identify the subject of a video document on the basis of visual information and previous knowledge.

3.1.1.3. Reading comprehension
Reading comprehension is taken to include both written and signed texts. The categories for reading are a
mixture between reading purpose and reading particular genres with specific functions. In terms of reading
purpose, there is a fundamental difference between “Reading for orientation” and “Reading for information andargument”. The former is sometimes called search reading and mainly takes two forms: firstly, reading a text
“diagonally” at speed in order to decide whether to read (parts of ) it properly (= “skimming”), and secondly,
looking quickly through a text, searching for something specific – usually a piece of information (= “scanning”).
The latter is the way one reads artefacts like bus or train timetables, but sometimes one searches through along prose text looking for something in particular. Then there is a fundamental difference between “Readingfor information and argument” and “Reading as a leisure activity”. The latter may well involve non-fiction, but
not necessarily literature. It will also encompass magazines and newspapers, vlogs/blogs, biographies, etc. –and possibly even texts that another person would read only for work or study purposes, depending on one’s
interests. Finally, there are texts that one reads in a particular way – like “Reading instructions”, a specialised
form of reading for information. “Reading correspondence” is different again, and this is offered first since thescales start in each category with interpersonal language use. “Reading as a leisure activity” is listed last purely
because it was added in 2018.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 53

Overall reading comprehension
Overall reading comprehension

C2

Can understand virtually all types of texts including abstract, structurally complex, or highly colloquial
literary and non-literary writings.
Can understand a wide range of long and complex texts, appreciating subtle distinctions of style andimplicit as well as explicit meaning.
Can understand in detail lengthy, complex texts, whether or not these relate to their own area of speciality,
provided they can reread difficult sections.

C1

Can understand a wide variety of texts including literary writings, newspaper or magazine articles, andspecialised academic or professional publications, provided there are opportunities for rereading and they
have access to reference tools.

B2

Can read with a large degree of independence, adapting style and speed of reading to different texts andpurposes, and using appropriate reference sources selectively. Has a broad active reading vocabulary, but
may experience some difficulty with low-frequency idioms.

B1

Can read straightforward factual texts on subjects related to their field of interest with a satisfactory levelof comprehension.
Can understand short, simple texts on familiar matters of a concrete type which consist of high frequency
everyday or job-related language.

A2
Can understand short, simple texts containing the highest frequency vocabulary, including a proportion ofshared international vocabulary items.

A1
Pre-A1

Can understand very short, simple texts a single phrase at a time, picking up familiar names, words andbasic phrases and rereading as required.
Can recognise familiar words/signs accompanied by pictures, such as a fast-food restaurant menu
illustrated with photos or a picture book using familiar vocabulary.

Reading correspondenceThis scale encompasses reading both personal and formal correspondence. Key concepts operationalised in
the scale include the following:f length and complexity/simplicity of message;
f concreteness of information, whether it follows a routine format;
f the extent to which language is standard, colloquial, idiomatic;f the extent to which the subject is an everyday one, or if it is related to interests, or specialised.
Reading correspondence
C2

Can understand specialised, formal correspondence on a complex topic.
Can understand any correspondence given the occasional use of a dictionary.

C1

Can understand implicit as well as explicit attitudes, emotions and opinions expressed in e-mails,
discussion forums, vlogs/blogs, etc., provided there are opportunities for rereading and they have access toreference tools.
Can understand slang, idiomatic expressions and jokes in private correspondence.

B2

Can read correspondence relating to their field of interest and readily grasp the essential meaning.
Can understand what is said in a personal e-mail or posting even where some colloquial language is used.

Page 54 3 CEFR –­Companion volumeReading correspondence
Can understand formal correspondence on less familiar subjects well enough to redirect it to someone
else.

B1

Can understand the description of events, feelings and wishes in personal letters well enough tocorrespond regularly with a pen friend.
Can understand straightforward personal letters, e-mails or postings giving a relatively detailed account of
events and experiences.
Can understand standard formal correspondence and online postings in their area of professional interest.
Can understand a simple personal letter, e-mail or post in which the person writing is talking about familiar
subjects (such as friends or family) or asking questions on these subjects.

A2

Can understand basic types of standard routine letters and faxes (enquiries, orders, letters of confirmation,etc.) on familiar topics.
Can understand short, simple personal letters.
Can understand very simple formal e-mails and letters (e.g. confirmation of a booking or online purchase).
Can understand short, simple messages on postcards.

A1

Pre-A1

Can understand short, simple messages sent via social media or e-mail (e.g. proposing what to do, when
and where to meet).
Can understand from a letter, card or e-mail the event to which they are being invited and the information
given about day, time and location.
Can recognise times and places in very simple notes and text messages from friends or colleagues (e.g.
“Back at 4 o’clock” or “In the meeting room”), provided there are no abbreviations.

Reading for orientation
Reading for orientation – search reading – involves “skimming”: reading at speed in order to judge relevance and“scanning”: searching for specific information. In relation to signed texts, both functions are achieved by putting
the video into “fast forward”. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f the types of text (from notices, leaflets, etc. to articles and books);
f picking out concrete information like times and prices from texts that are visual artefacts, rather than prose
text, with helpful layout;f identifying important information;f scanning prose text for relevance;
f speed, mentioned in B2.
Reading for orientation
C2

No descriptors available; see B2

C1

No descriptors available; see B2
Can scan quickly through several sources (articles, reports, websites, books, etc.) in parallel, in both theirown field and in related fields, and can identify the relevance and usefulness of particular sections for thetask at hand.

B2

Can scan quickly through long and complex texts, locating relevant details.
Can quickly identify the content and relevance of news items, articles and reports on a wide range ofprofessional topics, deciding whether closer study is worthwhile.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 55

Reading for orientation
Can scan longer texts in order to locate desired information, and gather information from different parts ofa text, or from different texts in order to fulfil a specific task.
Can scan through straightforward, factual texts in magazines, brochures or on the web, identify what they
are about and decide whether they contain information that might be of practical use.

B1

Can find and understand relevant information in everyday material, such as letters, brochures and short
official documents.
Can pick out important information about preparation and usage on the labels on foodstuff and medicine.
Can assess whether an article, report or review is on the required topic.
Can understand the important information in simple, clearly drafted adverts in newspapers or magazines,
provided there are not too many abbreviations.
Can find specific information in practical, concrete, predictable texts (e.g. travel guidebooks, recipes),
provided they are produced in simple language.
Can understand the main information in short and simple descriptions of goods in brochures and websites(e.g. portable digital devices, cameras).

A2

Can find specific, predictable information in simple everyday material such as advertisements,
prospectuses, menus, reference lists and timetables.
Can locate specific information in lists and isolate the information required (e.g. use the Yellow Pages tofind a service or tradesman).
Can understand everyday signs and notices, etc. in public places, such as streets, restaurants, railway
stations; in workplaces, such as directions, instructions, hazard warnings.
Can recognise familiar names, words/signs and very basic phrases on simple notices in the most common
everyday situations.

A1

Can understand store guides (information on which floors departments are on) and directions (e.g. whereto find lifts).
Can understand basic hotel information (e.g. times when meals are served).
Can find and understand simple, important information in advertisements, programmes for special events,
leaflets and brochures (e.g. what is proposed, costs, the date and place of the event, departure times).

Pre-A1

Can understand simple everyday signs such as “Parking”, “Station”, “Dining room”, “No smoking”, etc.
Can find information about places, times and prices on posters, flyers and notices.

Reading for information and argument
Reading for information and argument – detailed reading – involves careful study of a written or signed textthat one has judged to be relevant for a purpose at hand. It is often associated with study and professional life.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f types of text, from simple, short, illustrated informational material to complex reports and articles;
f subjects of text, from familiar everyday subjects of personal interest to topics outside their area of interest;
f depth of understanding, from getting an idea of the content to understanding the finer points andimplications.
Reading for information and argument
C2

Can understand the finer points and implications of a complex report or article even outside their area ofspecialisation.

C1

Can understand in detail a wide range of lengthy, complex texts likely to be encountered in social,professional or academic life, identifying finer points of detail including attitudes and implied as well asstated opinions.

Page 56 3 CEFR –­Companion volumeReading for information and argument
Can obtain information, ideas and opinions from highly specialised sources within their field.
Can understand specialised articles outside their field, provided they can use a dictionary occasionally toconfirm their interpretation of terminology.

B2

Can understand articles and reports concerned with contemporary problems in which particular stances orviewpoints are adopted.
Can recognise when a text provides factual information and when it seeks to convince readers ofsomething.
Can recognise different structures in discursive text: contrasting arguments, problem–solution
presentation and cause–effect relationships.
Can understand straightforward, factual texts on subjects relating to their interests or studies.
Can understand short texts on subjects that are familiar or of current interest, in which people give theirpoints of view (e.g. critical contributions to an online discussion forum or readers’ letters to the editor).
Can identify the main conclusions in clearly signalled argumentative texts.

B1

Can recognise the line of argument in the treatment of the issue presented, though not necessarily in detail.
Can recognise significant points in straightforward news articles on familiar subjects.
Can understand most factual information that they are likely to come across on familiar subjects of interest,
provided they have sufficient time for rereading.
Can understand the main points in descriptive notes such as those on museum exhibits and explanatoryboards in exhibitions.
Can identify specific information in simpler material they encounter such as letters, brochures and shortnews articles describing events.
Can follow the general outline of a news report on a familiar type of event, provided the contents arefamiliar and predictable.
Can pick out the main information in short news reports or simple articles in which figures, names,
illustrations and titles play a prominent role and support the meaning of the text.
Can understand the main points of short texts dealing with everyday topics (e.g. lifestyle, hobbies, sports,
weather).

A2
Can understand texts describing people, places, everyday life and culture, etc., provided they use simple
language.
Can understand information given in illustrated brochures and maps (e.g. the principal attractions of a city).
Can understand the main points in short news items on subjects of personal interest (e.g. sport, celebrities).
Can understand a short factual description or report within their own field, provided simple language isused and that it does not contain unpredictable detail.
Can understand most of what people say about themselves in a personal ad or post and what they say they
like in other people.

A1

Pre-A1

Can get an idea of the content of simpler informational material and short, simple descriptions, especially ifthere is visual support.
Can understand short texts on subjects of personal interest (e.g. news flashes about sports, music, travel orstories) composed in very simple language and supported by illustrations and pictures.
Can understand the simplest informational material such as a fast-food restaurant menu illustrated withphotos or an illustrated story formulated in very simple everyday words/signs.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 57

Reading instructions
Reading instructions is a specialised form of reading for information, and again concerns written or signed text.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
f topic of instructions, from routine prohibitions on simple notices and simple directions to detailed conditions and complex instructions on something unfamiliar, possibly outside their area of expertise;f degree of contextualisation and familiarity;f length, from a few words/signs to detailed and lengthy, complex instructions in continuous text.
Reading instructions
C2

No descriptors available; see C1

C1

Can understand in detail lengthy, complex instructions on a new machine or procedure, whether or not the
instructions relate to their own area of speciality, provided they can reread difficult sections.

B2

Can understand lengthy, complex instructions in their field, including details on conditions and warnings,
provided they can reread difficult sections.
Can understand instructions and procedures in the form of a continuous text, for instance in a manual,
provided they are familiar with the type of process or product concerned.

B1

Can understand clearly expressed, straightforward instructions for a piece of equipment.
Can follow simple instructions given on packaging (e.g. cooking instructions).
Can understand most short safety instructions, (e.g. on public transport or in manuals for the use ofelectrical equipment).
Can understand regulations, for example safety, when expressed in simple language.
Can understand short instructions illustrated step by step (e.g. for installing new technology).

A2

Can understand simple instructions on equipment encountered in everyday life – such as a public
telephone.
Can understand simple, brief instructions, provided they are illustrated and not presented in continuous text.
Can understand instructions on medicine labels expressed as a simple command (e.g. “Take before meals”
or “Do not take if driving”).
Can follow a simple recipe, especially if there are pictures to illustrate the most important steps.

A1
Pre-A1Can follow short, simple directions (e.g. to go from X to Y).
Can understand very short, simple, instructions used in familiar everyday contexts (e.g. “No parking”, “No
food or drink”), especially if there are illustrations.

Reading as a leisure activity
This scale involves both fiction and non-fiction written and signed texts. These may include creative texts,
different forms of literature, magazine and newspaper articles, blogs or biographies, among other types oftext – depending on one’s interests. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f length, variety of texts and whether there are illustrations;f types of text, from simple descriptions of people and places, through different types of narrative text, tocontemporary and classical writings in different genres;f topics, from everyday topics (for example hobbies, sports, leisure activities, animals) and concrete situations
to a full range of abstract and literary topics;
f type of language: from simple to stylistically complex;
f ease of reading: from guessing with the help of images, through reading with a large degree of independence to appreciating the variety of texts;
f depth of understanding: from understanding in outline/the main points to understanding implicit as well
as explicit meaning.

Page 58 3 CEFR –­Companion volumeReading as a leisure activity
C2

C1

B2

Can read virtually all forms of texts including classical or colloquial literary and non-literary texts indifferent genres, appreciating subtle distinctions of style and implicit as well as explicit meaning.
Can read and appreciate a variety of literary texts, provided they can reread certain sections and that they
can access reference tools if they wish.
Can read contemporary literary texts and non-fiction produced in the standard form of the language or afamiliar variety with little difficulty and with appreciation of implicit meanings and ideas.
Can read for pleasure with a large degree of independence, adapting style and speed of reading todifferent texts (e.g. magazines, more straightforward novels, history books, biographies, travelogues,
guides, lyrics, poems), using appropriate reference sources selectively.
Can read novels with a strong, narrative plot and that use straightforward, unelaborated language,
provided they can take their time and use a dictionary.
Can read newspaper/magazine accounts of films, books, concerts, etc. produced for a wider audience andunderstand the main points.
Can understand simple poems and song lyrics provided these employ straightforward language and style.

B1

Can understand descriptions of places, events, explicitly expressed feelings and perspectives in narratives,
guides and magazine articles that employ high frequency everyday language.
Can understand a travel diary mainly describing the events of a journey and the experiences anddiscoveries of the writer.
Can follow the plot of stories, simple novels and comics with a clear linear storyline and high frequency
everyday language, given regular use of a dictionary.
Can understand enough to read short, simple stories and comic strips involving familiar, concrete
situations described in high frequency everyday language.
Can understand the main points made in short magazine reports or guide entries that deal with concrete
everyday topics (e.g. hobbies, sports, leisure activities, animals).

A2

Can understand short narratives and descriptions of someone’s life composed in simple language.
Can understand what is happening in a photo story (e.g. in a lifestyle magazine) and form an impression ofwhat the characters are like.
Can understand much of the information provided in a short description of a person (e.g. a celebrity).
Can understand the main point of a short article reporting an event that follows a predictable pattern (e.g.
the Oscars), provided it is composed clearly in simple language.
Can understand short, illustrated narratives about everyday activities described in simple words.

A1

Pre-A1

Can understand in outline short texts in illustrated stories, provided the images help them to guess at a lotof the content.
No descriptors available

3.1.2. Reception strategies
In reception, understanding progresses through a combination of bottom-up/top-down processing and theuse of content and formal schemata in inferencing. One scale is provided for the inferencing strategies that thisinvolves. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f exploiting illustrations, formatting, headings, subtitles, position in the text, etc.;
f deducing meaning from the co-text and linguistic context;
f exploiting linguistic clues: from numbers and proper nouns, through word/sign roots, prefixes and suffixes,
temporal connectors and logical connectors, to skilled use of a variety of strategies.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 59

Identifying cues and inferring (spoken, signed and written)
Identifying cues and inferring (spoken, signed and written)
C2

No descriptors available; see C1

C1

Is skilled at using contextual, grammatical and lexical cues to infer attitude, mood and intentions andanticipate what will come next.

B2

Can use a variety of strategies to achieve comprehension, including watching out for main points andchecking comprehension by using contextual clues.
Can exploit different types of connectors (numerical, temporal, logical) and the role of key paragraphs in
the overall organisation in order to better understand the argumentation in a text.
Can extrapolate the meaning of a section of a text by taking into account the text as a whole.
Can identify the meaning of unfamiliar words/signs from the context on topics related to their field andinterests.

B1

Can extrapolate the meaning of occasional unknown words/signs from the context and deduce sentence
meaning, provided the topic discussed is familiar.
Can make basic inferences or predictions about text content from headings, titles or headlines.
Can watch or listen to a short narrative and predict what will happen next.
Can follow a line of argumentation or the sequence of events in a story, by focusing on common logicalconnectors (e.g. however, because) and temporal connectors (e.g. after that, beforehand).
Can deduce the probable meaning of unknown words/signs in a text by identifying their constituent parts(e.g. identifying roots, lexical elements, suffixes and prefixes).
Can use an idea of the overall meaning of short texts and utterances on everyday topics of a concrete typeto derive the probable meaning of unknown words/signs from the context.
Can exploit their recognition of known words/signs to deduce the meaning of unfamiliar words/signs inshort expressions used in routine everyday contexts.

A2

Can exploit format, appearance and typographic features in order to identify the type of text: news story,
promotional text, article, textbook, chat or forum, etc.
Can exploit numbers, dates, names, proper nouns, etc. to identify the topic of a text.
Can deduce the meaning and function of unknown formulaic expressions from their position in a text (e.g.
at the beginning or end of a letter).

A1

Pre-A1Can deduce the meaning of an unknown word/sign for a concrete action or object, provided thesurrounding text is very simple, and on a familiar everyday subject.
Can guess the probable meaning of an unknown word/sign that is similar to one in the language theynormally use.
Can deduce the meaning of a word/sign from an accompanying picture or icon.

3.2. PRODUCTION
Production includes speaking, signing and writing activities. Oral production is a “long turn”, which may involvea short description or anecdote, or may imply a longer, more formal presentation. Productive activities have an
important function in many academic and professional fields (for example oral presentations, written studies
and reports – that may be transmitted in sign) and particular social value is attached to them. Judgments are
made about the linguistic quality of what has been submitted in writing or in a signed video, and about the

Page 60 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

fluency and articulateness of expression in real time, especially when addressing an audience. Ability in this moreformal production is not acquired naturally; it is a product of literacy learnt through education and experience. It
involves learning the expectations and conventions of the genre concerned. Production strategies are employed
to improve the quality of both informal and formal production. “Planning” is obviously more associated with formal
genres, but “Monitoring and compensating” for gaps in vocabulary or terminology are also quasi-automatedprocesses in natural language production.
Figure 12 – Production activities and strategies

Production

Production activities

Production strategies

Oral
production

Writtenproduction

Overall oral
production

Overall written
production

Planning

Sustained monologue:
describing experience

Creative writing

Compensating

Sustained monologue:
giving information

Reports and essays

Monitoring
and repair

Sustained monologue:
putting a casePublic announcements

Addressing audiences

3.2.1. Production activities
3.2.1.1. Oral production
The categories for oral production are organised in terms of three macro-functions (interpersonal, transactional,
evaluative), with two more specialised genres: “Addressing audiences” and “Public announcements”. “Sustainedmonologue: describing experience” focuses mainly on descriptions and narratives while “Sustained monologue:
putting a case (e.g. in a debate)” describes the ability to sustain an argument, which may well be made in a long
turn in the context of normal conversation and discussion. “Sustained monologue: giving information” is a new2018 scale, created by transferring certain descriptors from the scale for “Information exchange” that impliedmonologue rather than dialogue.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 61

Overall oral production
Overall oral production
C2

Can produce clear, smoothly flowing, well-structured discourse with an effective logical structure whichhelps the recipient to notice and remember significant points.

C1

Can give clear, detailed descriptions and presentations on complex subjects, integrating sub-themes,
developing particular points and rounding off with an appropriate conclusion.

B2

Can give clear, systematically developed descriptions and presentations, with appropriate highlighting ofsignificant points, and relevant supporting detail.
Can give clear, detailed descriptions and presentations on a wide range of subjects related to their field ofinterest, expanding and supporting ideas with subsidiary points and relevant examples.

B1

Can reasonably fluently sustain a straightforward description of one of a variety of subjects within theirfield of interest, presenting it as a linear sequence of points.

A2

Can give a simple description or presentation of people, living or working conditions, daily routines. likes/
dislikes, etc. as a short series of simple phrases and sentences linked into a list.

A1

Can produce simple, mainly isolated phrases about people and places.

Pre-A1

Can produce short phrases about themselves, giving basic personal information (e.g. name, address, family,
nationality).

Sustained monologue: describing experience
This scale concerns narrative and description. It has many short descriptors from A1 to B1 reflecting a relatively
direct link between communicative functions and the language used to express them. There is little or no
information about quality of language, for which one needs to consult the scales for communicative language
competences, which are relevant to spoken, signed and written modalities. Key concepts operationalised in thescale include the following:f aspects described, from simple everyday information (describe themselves, what they do and where theylive), through classic functions (for example, describe plans and arrangements, habits and routines, past
activities and personal experiences) and a wide range of subjects related to fields of interest, to detailed
descriptions of complex subjects;
f complexity of discourse: from simple words/signs, formulaic expressions and simple sentences or shortparagraphs, through relating as a sequence of points, to integrating sub-themes and developing particularpoints in a smoothly flowing description.
Sustained monologue: describing experience
C2

Can give clear, smoothly flowing, elaborate and often memorable descriptions.

C1

Can give clear, detailed descriptions of complex subjects.
Can give elaborate descriptions and narratives, integrating sub-themes, developing particular points androunding them off with an appropriate conclusion.

B2

Can give clear, detailed descriptions on a wide range of subjects related to their field of interest.
Can describe the personal significance of events and experiences in detail.
Can clearly express feelings about something experienced and give reasons to explain those feelings.

B1

Can give straightforward descriptions on a variety of familiar subjects within their field of interest.
Can reasonably fluently relate a straightforward narrative or description as a sequence of points.
Can give detailed accounts of experiences, describing feelings and reactions.
Can relate details of unpredictable occurrences, e.g. an accident.
Can relate the plot of a book or film and describe their reactions.
Can describe dreams, hopes and ambitions.
Can describe events, real or imagined.
Can narrate a story.

Page 62 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Sustained monologue: describing experience

A2

Can tell a story or describe something in a simple list of points.
Can describe everyday aspects of their environment, e.g. people, places, a job or study experience.
Can give short, basic descriptions of events and activities.
Can describe plans and arrangements, habits and routines, past activities and personal experiences.
Can use simple descriptive language to make brief statements about and compare objects andpossessions.
Can explain what they like or dislike about something.
Can describe their family, living conditions, educational background, present or most recent job.
Can describe people, places and possessions in simple terms.
Can express what they are good at and not so good at (e.g. sports, games, skills, subjects).
Can briefly describe what they plan to do at the weekend or during the holidays.

A1

Pre-A1Can describe themselves, what they do and where they live.
Can describe simple aspects of their everyday life in a series of simple sentences, using simple words/signs
and basic phrases, provided they can prepare in advance.
Can describe themselves (e.g. name, age, family), using simple words/signs and formulaic expressions,provided they can prepare in advance.
Can express how they are feeling using simple adjectives like “happy” or “tired”, accompanied by bodylanguage.

Sustained monologue: giving information
Sustained monologue: giving information is a new scale concerned with explaining information to a recipient
in a long turn. Although the recipient may well interrupt to ask for repetition and clarification, the information
is clearly unidirectional; it is not an exchange. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f type of information: from a simple description of an object, or directions, through straightforward factual
information on a familiar topic, to complex professional or academic procedures;f degree of precision: from simple descriptions, through explaining the main points with reasonable precisionand communicating detailed information reliably, to making clear distinctions between ideas, concepts
and things that closely resemble one another.
Sustained monologue: giving information
C2

No descriptors available; see C1

C1

Can communicate clearly detailed distinctions between ideas, concepts and things that closely resemble
one other.
Can give instructions on carrying out a series of complex professional or academic procedures.

B2

B1

Can communicate complex information and advice on the full range of matters related to theiroccupational role.
Can communicate detailed information reliably.
Can give a clear, detailed description of how to carry out a procedure.
Can explain the main points in an idea or problem with reasonable precision.
Can describe how to do something, giving detailed instructions.
Can report straightforward factual information on a familiar topic, for example to indicate the nature of aproblem or to give detailed directions, provided they can prepare beforehand.

A2

Can give simple directions on how to get from X to Y, using basic expressions such as “turn right” and “gostraight”, along with sequential connectors such as “first”, “then” and “next”.

A1

Can name an object and indicate its shape and colour while showing it to others using basic words/signs,
phrases and formulaic expressions, provided they can prepare in advance.

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 63

Sustained monologue: putting a case (e.g. in a debate)
This scale describes the ability to sustain an argument. The descriptors published in 2001 were bunched at
B2, where this ability is a salient concept. Descriptors have now been added for more levels. Key concepts
operationalised in the scale include the following:
f topics: from what they like or dislike about something, through opinions on subjects relating to everyday
life, to topical issues and complex issues;f manner of arguing: from making simple, direct comparisons, through expanding and supporting viewpoints
at some length while developing an argument systematically, to taking into account the interlocutor’s
perspective and employing emphasis effectively;
f manner of formulation: from presenting an idea in simple terms to highlighting significant points appropriately and formulating points precisely in well-structured language.
Sustained monologue: putting a case (e.g. in a debate)
C2

No descriptors available; see C1

C1

Can argue a case on a complex issue, formulating points precisely and employing emphasis effectively.
Can develop an argument systematically in well-structured language, taking into account the interlocutor’s
perspective, highlighting significant points with supporting examples and concluding appropriately.
Can develop an argument systematically with appropriate highlighting of significant points, and relevant
supporting detail.

B2

Can develop a clear argument, expanding and supporting their points of view at some length withsubsidiary points and relevant examples.
Can construct a chain of reasoned argument.
Can explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options.
Can develop an argument well enough to be followed without difficulty most of the time.
Can give simple reasons to justify a viewpoint on a familiar topic.

B1

A2

Can express opinions on subjects relating to everyday life, using simple expressions.
Can briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions, plans and actions.
Can explain whether or not they approve of what someone has done and give reasons to justify thisopinion.
Can explain what they like or dislike about something, why they prefer one thing to another, making
simple, direct comparisons.
Can present their opinion in simple terms, provided interlocutors are patient.

A1

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Public announcements
Public announcements are a very specialised way of passing important information to a group of people, perhaps
in a private capacity (for example at a wedding), perhaps while organising an event or outing, or in the mannerof air cabin staff. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f type of content: from predictable, learnt content to announcements on a range of topics;
f intelligibility: from a delivery that recipients will have to concentrate on to follow, to effective use of prosodic cues41 in order to convey finer shades of meaning precisely;
f need for preparation: from very short, rehearsed announcements to spontaneous and almost effortless fluency.

41. Prosodic cues are, for example, stress and intonation for spoken languages, and non-manual elements for sign languages.

Page 64 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Public announcements
C2

No descriptors available; see C1

C1

Can deliver announcements fluently, almost effortlessly, using stress and intonation to convey finer shadesof meaning precisely.

B2

Can deliver announcements on most general topics with a degree of clarity, fluency and spontaneity whichcauses no strain or inconvenience to the recipient.

B1

Can deliver short, rehearsed announcements on a topic pertinent to everyday occurrences in their field
which, despite possible problems with stress and intonation (= non-manuals in a sign language), arenevertheless clearly intelligible.

A2

Can deliver very short, rehearsed announcements of predictable, learnt content which are intelligible torecipients who are prepared to concentrate.

A1

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Addressing audiences
This scale involves giving an oral presentation at a public event, in a meeting, seminar or class. Although thetalk is clearly prepared, it is not usually read word for word/sign for sign. Nowadays it is conventional to use
visual aids like PowerPoint, but this need not be the case. After a presentation, it is customary to take questions
spontaneously, answering in a short monologue, so this is included in the descriptors as well. Key concepts
operationalised in the scale include the following:f type of address: from a very short, rehearsed statement, through a prepared, straightforward presentation
on a familiar topic within their field, to a well-structured presentation on a complex subject given to an
audience unfamiliar with it;
f consideration of the audience: there is no comment at the A levels, but from B1 the progression goes frombeing clear enough to be followed without difficulty most of the time, to structuring and adapting the talkflexibly to meet the needs of the audience;f ability to handle questions: from answering straightforward questions with some help, through taking aseries of follow-up questions fluently and spontaneously, to handling difficult and even hostile questioning.
Addressing audiences
C2

Can present a complex topic confidently and articulately to an audience unfamiliar with it, structuring andadapting the talk flexibly to meet the audience’s needs.
Can handle difficult and even hostile questioning.
Can give a clear, well-structured presentation on a complex subject, expanding and supporting points ofview at some length with subsidiary points, reasons and relevant examples.

C1

Can structure a longer presentation appropriately in order to help the audience follow the sequence ofideas and understand the overall argumentation.
Can speculate or hypothesise in presenting a complex subject, comparing and evaluating alternative
proposals and arguments.
Can handle interjections well, responding spontaneously and almost effortlessly.
Can give a clear, systematically developed presentation, with highlighting of significant points, andrelevant supporting detail.

B2

Can depart spontaneously from a prepared text and follow up interesting points raised by members of theaudience, often showing remarkable fluency and ease of expression.
Can give a clear, prepared presentation, giving reasons in support of or against a particular point of viewand giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options.
Can take a series of follow-up questions with a degree of fluency and spontaneity which poses no strain for
either themselves or the audience.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 65

Addressing audiences
Can give a prepared presentation on a familiar topic within their field, outlining similarities and differences(e.g. between products, countries/regions, plans).

B1

Can give a prepared straightforward presentation on a familiar topic within their field which is clear
enough to be followed without difficulty most of the time, and in which the main points are explained withreasonable precision.
Can take follow-up questions, but may have to ask for repetition if the delivery is rapid.
Can give a short, rehearsed presentation on a topic pertinent to their everyday life, and briefly give reasonsand explanations for opinions, plans and actions.

A2

Can cope with a limited number of straightforward follow-up questions.
Can give a short, rehearsed, basic presentation on a familiar subject.
Can answer straightforward follow-up questions if they can ask for repetition and if some help with theformulation of their reply is possible.

A1
Pre-A1

Can use a very short prepared text to deliver a rehearsed statement (e.g. to formally introduce someone, topropose a toast).
No descriptors available

3.2.1.2. Written production
In the categories for written production, the macro-functions “transactional language use” and “evaluative languageuse” are not separated because they are normally interwoven (“Reading for information and argument” also
combined these two aspects). “Creative writing” is the equivalent of “Sustained monologue: describing experience”,
and focuses on description and narrative. As an alternative to writing, signers sometimes produce and send a video.42

Overall written production
Overall written production
C2

Can produce clear, smoothly flowing, complex texts in an appropriate and effective style and a logicalstructure which helps the reader identify significant points.

C1

Can produce clear, well-structured texts of complex subjects, underlining the relevant salient issues,
expanding and supporting points of view at some length with subsidiary points, reasons and relevant
examples, and rounding off with an appropriate conclusion.
Can employ the structure and conventions of a variety of genres, varying the tone, style and register
according to addressee, text type and theme.

B2

Can produce clear, detailed texts on a variety of subjects related to their field of interest, synthesising andevaluating information and arguments from a number of sources.

B1

Can produce straightforward connected texts on a range of familiar subjects within their field of interest,by linking a series of shorter discrete elements into a linear sequence.

A2

Can produce a series of simple phrases and sentences linked with simple connectors like “and”, “but” and“because”.

A1

Can give information about matters of personal relevance (e.g. likes and dislikes, family, pets) using simple
words/signs and basic expressions.
Can produce simple isolated phrases and sentences.

Pre-A1

Can give basic personal information (e.g. name, address, nationality), perhaps with the use of a dictionary.

42. The production of formal, signed texts on video is becoming increasingly common. The number of students in the primary, secondary
and tertiary education who submit video-recorded assignments in a sign language has been rising rapidly. There are nowadays anumber of MA and doctoral dissertations as well as other publications in various genres (e.g. storybooks, textbooks) produced in sign
languages. Videoed statements, press releases and public announcements in sign are also increasingly common.

Page 66 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Creative writing
This scale involves personal, imaginative expression in a variety of text types in written and signed modalities.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f aspects described, from simple everyday information, through a variety of subjects related to fields ofinterest, to engaging stories and descriptions of experience;f types of text: from diary entries and short, imaginary biographies and simple poems to well-structured
and developed descriptions and imaginative texts;
f complexity of discourse: from simple words/signs and phrases, through clear connected text, to following
established conventions of the genre concerned in clear, well-structured, smoothly flowing text;
f use of language: from basic vocabulary and simple sentences to an assured, personal, natural style appropriate to both the genre adopted and the reader.

Creative writing
C2

Can relate clear, smoothly flowing and engaging stories and descriptions of experience in a style
appropriate to the genre adopted.
Can exploit idiom and humour appropriately to enhance the impact of the text.

C1

Can produce clear, detailed, well-structured and developed descriptions and imaginative texts in anassured, personal, natural style appropriate to the reader in mind.
Can incorporate idiom and humour, though use of the latter is not always appropriate.
Can give a detailed critical review of cultural events (e.g. plays, films, concerts) or literary works.

B2

Can give clear, detailed descriptions of real or imaginary events and experiences marking the relationshipbetween ideas in clear connected text, and following established conventions of the genre concerned.
Can give clear, detailed descriptions on a variety of subjects related to their field of interest.
Can give a review of a film, book or play.
Can clearly signal chronological sequence in narrative text.
Can give a simple review of a film, book or TV programme using a limited range of language.

B1

Can give straightforward, detailed descriptions on a range of familiar subjects within their field of interest.
Can give accounts of experiences, describing feelings and reactions in simple, connected text.
Can give a description of an event, a recent trip – real or imagined.
Can narrate a story.
Can describe everyday aspects of their environment e.g. people, places, a job or study experience in linked
sentences.
Can give very short, basic descriptions of events, past activities and personal experiences.
Can tell a simple story (e.g. about events on a holiday or about life in the distant future).

A2

A1

Pre-A1

Can produce a series of simple phrases and sentences about their family, living conditions, educational
background, or present or most recent job.
Can create short, simple imaginary biographies and simple poems about people.
Can create diary entries that describe activities (e.g. daily routine, outings, sports, hobbies), people andplaces, using basic, concrete vocabulary and simple phrases and sentences with simple connectives like“and”, “but” and “because”.
Can compose an introduction to a story or continue a story, provided they can consult a dictionary andreferences (e.g. tables of verb tenses in a course book).
Can produce simple phrases and sentences about themselves and imaginary people, where they live andwhat they do.
Can describe in very simple language what a room looks like.
Can use simple words/signs and phrases to describe certain everyday objects (e.g. the colour of a car,whether it is big or small).
No descriptors available

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 67

Reports and essays
This scale covers more formal types of transactional and evaluative writing and signed production. Key concepts
operationalised in the scale include the following:
f content: from familiar subjects of interest and routine factual information to complex academic and professional topics, distinguishing one’s own viewpoints from those in the sources;
f types of text: from short reports and posters to complex texts that present a case, or provide critical appreciation of proposals or literary works;
f complexity of discourse: from linking sentences with simple connectors to smoothly flowing expositions
with effective logical structure.
Reports and essays
Can produce clear, smoothly flowing, complex reports, articles or essays which present a case, or givecritical appreciation of proposals or literary works.

C2

Can provide an appropriate and effective logical structure which helps the reader identify significant
points.
Can set out multiple perspectives on complex academic or professional topics, clearly distinguishing theirown ideas and opinions from those in the sources.
Can produce clear, well-structured expositions of complex subjects, underlining the relevant salient issues.

C1

Can expand and support points of view at some length with subsidiary points, reasons and relevant
examples.
Can produce a suitable introduction and conclusion to a longer report, article or dissertation on acomplex academic or professional topic provided the topic is within their field of interest and there areopportunities for redrafting and revision.
Can produce an essay or report which develops an argument systematically with appropriate highlightingof significant points and relevant supporting detail.
Can produce a detailed description of a complex process.

B2

Can evaluate different ideas or solutions to a problem.
Can produce an essay or report which develops an argument, giving reasons in support of or against aparticular point of view and explaining the advantages and disadvantages of various options.
Can synthesise information and arguments from a number of sources.
Can produce short, simple essays on topics of interest.
Can produce a text on a topical subject of personal interest, using simple language to list advantages anddisadvantages, and give and justify their opinion.

B1

Can summarise, report and give their opinion about accumulated factual information on familiar routine
and non-routine matters within their field with some confidence.
Can produce very brief reports in a standard conventionalised format, which pass on routine factual
information and state reasons for actions.
Can present a topic in a short report or poster, using photographs and short blocks of text.

A2

Can produce simple texts on familiar subjects of interest, linking sentences with connectors like “and”,“because” or “then”.
Can give their impressions and opinions about topics of personal interest (e.g. lifestyles and culture,
stories), using basic everyday vocabulary and expressions.

A1

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

3.2.2. Production strategies
Communication strategies are presented in the CEFR in relation to the classic approach to strategies in interlanguage
communication: planning, execution, monitoring and repair. For production strategies, the execution strategy forwhich an illustrative scale is offered is “Compensating”. Before the appearance of the CEFR, this tended to be themain communication strategy taken into consideration. Monitoring and repair are then combined into one scale.

Page 68 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

PlanningThis scale is concerned with mental preparation before speaking, signing or writing. It can involve thinking
consciously about what to say and how to formulate it; it can also involve rehearsal or the preparation of drafts.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f working out how to express the point that needs to be transmitted, and perhaps rehearsing expression;f considering how recipients may react to what is said.
Planning
C2

No descriptors available; see C1

C1

Can, when preparing a more formal text, consciously adopt the conventions linked to the particular type oftext concerned (e.g. structure, level of formality).

B2

Can, in preparing for a potentially complicated or awkward situation, plan what to say in the event ofdifferent reactions, reflecting on what expression would be appropriate.
Can plan what is to be said and the means to say it, considering the effect on the recipient(s).
Can rehearse and try out new combinations and expressions, inviting feedback.

B1

Can work out how to communicate the main point(s) they want to get across, exploiting any resources
available and limiting the message to what they can recall or find the means to express.

A2

Can recall and rehearse an appropriate set of phrases from their repertoire.

A1

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Compensating
Compensating is a strategy for maintaining communication when one cannot think of the appropriate expression.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f accompanying gestures to support language;
f deliberately using a “wrong” word/sign and qualifying it;
f defining the missing concept;
f paraphrase (circumlocution) and the extent to which such paraphrasing is evident.
Compensating
C2

Can substitute an equivalent term for a word/sign they can’t recall, so smoothly that it is scarcely
noticeable.

C1

Can exploit their range of vocabulary options creatively so as to readily and effectively use circumlocution
in almost all situations.

B2

Can use circumlocution and paraphrase to cover gaps in vocabulary and structure.
Can address most communication problems by using circumlocution, or by avoiding difficult expressions.
Can define the features of something concrete for which they can’t remember the word/sign.
Can convey meaning by qualifying a word/sign meaning something similar (e.g. a truck for people = bus).

B1

A2
A1
Pre-A1

Can use a simple word/sign meaning something similar to the concept they want to convey and invite“correction”.
Can “foreignise” word/signs in their first language and ask for confirmation.
Can use an inadequate word/sign from their repertoire and use gestures to clarify what they mean.
Can identify what they mean by pointing to it (e.g. “I’d like this, please”).
Can use gestures to support simple words/signs in expressing a need.
Can point to something and ask what it is.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 69

Monitoring and repair
This scale covers both (a) the spontaneous realisation that one has made a slip or run into a problem and (b)the more conscious and perhaps planned process of going back over what has been said and checking it forcorrectness and appropriateness. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f changing tack and using a different tactic – very obviously at A levels, very smoothly at C levels;
f self-correcting slips, errors and “favourite mistakes”;
f the extent to which a communication problem must be evident before repair is undertaken.
Monitoring and repair
C2

Can backtrack and restructure around a difficulty so smoothly that the interlocutor is hardly aware of it.

C1

Can backtrack when they encounter a difficulty and reformulate what they want to say without fullyinterrupting the flow of language.
Can self-correct with a high degree of effectiveness.
Can often retrospectively self-correct their occasional “slips” or non-systematic errors and minor flaws insentence structure.

B2
Can correct slips and errors that they become conscious of, or that have led to misunderstandings.
Can make a note of their recurring mistakes and consciously monitor for them.
Can correct mix-ups with the marking of time or expressions that lead to misunderstandings, provided theinterlocutor indicates there is a problem.

B1
Can ask for confirmation that a form used is correct.
Can start again using a different tactic when communication breaks down.

A2

No descriptors available

A1

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

3.3. INTERACTION
Interaction, which involves two or more parties co-constructing discourse, is central in the CEFR scheme oflanguage use summarised at the start of this document. Interpersonal interaction is considered to be the originof language, with interpersonal, collaborative and transactional functions. Production in the form of storytelling
can be considered a further development in oracy and eventually literacy.
Interaction is also fundamental in learning. The CEFR scales for interaction strategies reflect this with scales forturntaking, co-operating (= collaborative strategies) and asking for clarification. These basic interaction strategies
are as important in collaborative learning as they are in real-world communication. The majority of the scales
for interaction concern oral interaction. When the CEFR was developed, the notion of written interaction did
not meet with universal recognition and was not highly developed as a result. With hindsight, one can see thatwritten interaction (= writing much as you would speak, in a slowed-down dialogue) has taken an increasingly
significant role over the past 20 years. Rather than further develop that category, however, the new category of
online interaction has been developed.

Page 70 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Figure 13 – Interaction activities and strategies
Interaction

Interaction
activities

Interaction
strategies

Oralinteraction

Writteninteraction

Onlineinteraction

Overall oralinteraction

Overall written
interaction

Online conversationand discussion

Turntaking

Understanding
an interlocutor

Correspondence

Goal-oriented onlinetransactions andcollaboration

Co-operating

Conversation

Notes, messages
and forms

Asking for clarification

Informal discussion

Formal discussion
Goal-oriented
co-operation
Obtaining goods
and services
Information exchangeInterviewing andbeing interviewed
Using
telecommunications

3.3.1. Interaction activities
3.3.1.1. Oral interaction
Oral interaction is understood to include both spoken interaction and live, face-to-face signing. The scales areonce again organised by the three macro-functions “interpersonal”, “transactional” and “evaluative”, with certain
specialised genres added on. The scales begin with “Understanding an interlocutor”. “Interlocutor” is a somewhat
technical term that means the person with whom one is conversing directly in a dialogue. As mentioned before,
the metaphor behind the scales for oral comprehension is that of a series of concentric circles. Here we are at
the centre of those circles: the user/learner is actively involved in an interaction with the interlocutor.
The other scales then follow:
f interpersonal: “Conversation”;
f evaluative: “Informal discussion (with friends)”; “Formal discussion (meetings)”, “Goal-oriented collaboration”;
f transactional: “Information exchange”, “Obtaining goods and services”, “Interviewing and being interviewed”,
and “Using telecommunications”.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 71

Overall oral interaction
Overall oral interaction

C2

Has a good command of idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms with awareness of connotative levels of
meaning. Can convey finer shades of meaning precisely by using, with reasonable accuracy, a wide rangeof modification devices. Can backtrack and restructure around a difficulty so smoothly that the interlocutor
is hardly aware of it.

C1

Can express themselves fluently and spontaneously, almost effortlessly. Has a good command of a broad
lexical repertoire allowing gaps to be readily overcome with circumlocutions. There is little obvious
searching for expressions or avoidance strategies; only a conceptually difficult subject can hinder a natural,
smooth flow of language.
Can use the language fluently, accurately and effectively on a wide range of general, academic, vocationalor leisure topics, marking clearly the relationships between ideas. Can communicate spontaneously withgood grammatical control without much sign of having to restrict what they want to say, adopting a levelof formality appropriate to the circumstances.

B2
Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction, and sustained
relationships with users of the target language, quite possible without imposing strain on either party. Can
highlight the personal significance of events and experiences, and account for and sustain views clearly byproviding relevant explanations and arguments.
Can communicate with some confidence on familiar routine and non-routine matters related to theirinterests and professional field. Can exchange, check and confirm information, deal with less routine
situations and explain why something is a problem. Can express thoughts on more abstract, cultural topics
such as films, books, music, etc.

B1
Can exploit a wide range of simple language to deal with most situations likely to arise while travelling.
Can enter unprepared into conversation on familiar topics, and express personal opinions and exchange
information on topics that are familiar, of personal interest or pertinent to everyday life (e.g. family,
hobbies, work, travel and current events).

A2

Can interact with reasonable ease in structured situations and short conversations, provided the otherperson helps if necessary. Can manage simple, routine exchanges without undue effort; can ask andanswer questions and exchange ideas and information on familiar topics in predictable everyday
situations.
Can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on
familiar and routine matters to do with work and free time. Can handle very short social exchanges but israrely able to understand enough to keep conversation going of their own accord.

A1

Can interact in a simple way but communication is totally dependent on repetition at a slower rate,
rephrasing and repair. Can ask and answer simple questions, initiate and respond to simple statements inareas of immediate need or on very familiar topics.

Pre-A1

Can ask and answer questions about themselves and daily routines, using short, formulaic expressions andrelying on gestures to reinforce the information.

Understanding an interlocutor
This scale concerns understanding a person with whom you are conversing directly in an interaction, with thepossibility of negotiating meaning. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
f topic and setting: from personal details and everyday needs to complex and abstract topics of a specialist
nature;f type of delivery by the interlocutor: from careful and slow to standard language and less familiar varieties;
f degree of accommodation by the interlocutor: from sympathetic repetition and taking the trouble to help,
to just confirming details if the accent is less familiar.

Page 72 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Understanding an interlocutor
C2

Can understand any interlocutor, even on abstract and complex topics of a specialist nature beyond theirown field, given an opportunity to adjust to a less familiar variety.

C1

Can understand an interlocutor in detail on abstract and complex topics of a specialist nature beyond theirown field, though they may need to confirm occasional details, especially if the variety is unfamiliar.

B2

Can understand in detail what is said to them in the standard language or a familiar variety even in a
[audially/visually] noisy environment.

B1

Can follow clearly articulated speech/sign directed at them in everyday conversation, though will
sometimes have to ask for repetition of particular words/signs and phrases.

A2

Can understand enough to manage simple, routine exchanges without undue effort.
Can generally understand clear, standard speech/sign on familiar matters directed at them, provided they
can ask for repetition or reformulation from time to time.
Can understand what is said clearly, slowly and directly to them in simple everyday conversation; can bemade to understand, if the interlocutor can take the trouble.

A1

Pre-A1

Can understand everyday expressions aimed at the satisfaction of simple needs of a concrete type,delivered directly to them clearly and slowly, with repetition, by a sympathetic interlocutor.
Can understand questions and instructions addressed carefully and slowly to them and follow short,
simple directions.
Can understand simple questions that directly concern them (e.g. name, age and address), if the person is
asking slowly and clearly.
Can understand simple personal information (e.g. name, age, place of residence, origin) when other people
introduce themselves slowly and clearly, directly to them, and can understand questions on this theme
addressed to them, though the questions may need to be repeated.
Can understand a number of familiar words/signs and recognise key information (e.g. numbers, prices,
dates and days of the week), provided the delivery is very slow, with repetition if necessary.

Conversation
This scale concerns interaction with a primarily social function: the establishment and maintenance of personal
relationships. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f setting: from short exchanges, through maintaining a conversation and sustaining relationships, to flexible
use for social purposes;
f topics: from personal news, through familiar topics of personal interest, to most general topics;
f language functions: from greetings, etc., through offers, invitations and permission, to degrees of emotion
and allusive, joking usage.
Conversation
C2

Can converse comfortably and appropriately, unhampered by any linguistic limitations in conducting a fullsocial and personal life.

C1

Can use language flexibly and effectively for social purposes, including emotional, allusive and joking
usage.
Can establish a relationship with interlocutors through sympathetic questioning and expressions ofagreement plus, if appropriate, comments about third parties or shared conditions.
Can indicate reservations and reluctance, state conditions when agreeing to requests or granting
permission, and ask for understanding of their own position.

B2

Can engage in extended conversation on most general topics in a clearly participatory fashion, even in a
[audially/visually] noisy environment.
Can sustain relationships with users of the target language without unintentionally amusing or irritatingthem or requiring them to behave other than they would with another proficient language user.
Can convey degrees of emotion and highlight the personal significance of events and experiences.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 73

Conversation
Can start up a conversation and help keep it going by asking people relatively spontaneous questions
about a special experience or event, expressing reactions and opinions on familiar subjects.
Can have relatively long conversations on subjects of common interest, provided the interlocutor makes aneffort to support understanding.

B1

Can enter unprepared into conversations on familiar topics.
Can follow clearly articulated language directed at them in everyday conversation, though will sometimes
have to ask for repetition of particular words/signs.
Can maintain a conversation or discussion but may sometimes be difficult to follow when trying to express
exactly what they would like to.
Can express and respond to feelings such as surprise, happiness, sadness, interest and indifference.
Can establish social contact (e.g. greetings and farewells, introductions, giving thanks).
Can generally understand clear, standard language on familiar matters directed at them, provided they can
ask for repetition or reformulation from time to time.
Can participate in short conversations in routine contexts on topics of interest.
Can express how they feel in simple terms, and express thanks.
Can ask for a favour (e.g. to borrow something), can offer a favour, and can respond if someone asks themto do a favour for them.

A2

Can handle very short social exchanges but is rarely able to understand enough to keep conversation
going of their own accord, though they can be made to understand if the interlocutor will take the trouble.
Can use simple, everyday, polite forms of greeting and address.
Can converse in simple language with peers, colleagues or members of a host family, asking questions andunderstanding answers relating to most routine matters.
Can make and respond to invitations, suggestions and apologies.
Can express how they are feeling, using very basic stock expressions.
Can state what they like and dislike.
Can understand everyday expressions aimed at the satisfaction of simple needs of a concrete type,delivered directly to them in clear, slow and repeated language by a sympathetic interlocutor.

A1

Can take part in a simple conversation of a basic factual nature on a predictable topic (e.g. their homecountry, family, school).
Can make an introduction and use basic greeting and leave-taking expressions.
Can ask how people are and react to news.

Pre-A1

Can understand and use basic, formulaic expressions such as “Yes”, “No”, “Excuse me”, “Please”, “Thank you”,“No thank you”, “Sorry”.
Can recognise simple greetings.
Can greet people, state their name and take leave in a simple way.

Informal discussion (with friends)
This scale includes aspects of both the interpersonal and evaluative use of language, since these tend to beinterwoven in everyday interaction. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
f topics: from what to do and where to go, to abstract, complex and even unfamiliar topics and sensitive issues;f ability to follow the discussion: from identifying the topic, through following the main points, to keeping
up with animated discussion and understanding colloquial references;f language functions: from discussing and (dis)agreeing in a limited way to expressing ideas with precisionand dealing diplomatically with disagreement and criticism.

Page 74 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Informal discussion (with friends)
C2

Can advise on or discuss sensitive issues without awkwardness, understanding colloquial references anddealing diplomatically with disagreement and criticism.

C1

Can easily follow and contribute to complex interactions between third parties in group discussion even on
abstract, complex unfamiliar topics.
Can keep up with an animated discussion between proficient users of the target language.
Can express their ideas and opinions with precision, and present and respond to complex lines ofargument convincingly.

B2

Can take an active part in informal discussion in familiar contexts, commenting, putting a point of view
clearly, evaluating alternative proposals and making and responding to hypotheses.
Can with some effort catch much of what is said around them in discussion, but may find it difficult toparticipate effectively in discussion with several users of the target language who do not modify theirlanguage in any way.
Can account for and sustain their opinions in discussion by providing relevant explanations, arguments
and comments.
Can follow much of what is said around them on general topics, provided interlocutors avoid very
idiomatic usage and articulate clearly.
Can express their thoughts about abstract or cultural topics such as music or films.
Can explain why something is a problem.
Can give brief comments on the views of others.

B1

Can compare and contrast alternatives, discussing what to do, where to go, who or which to choose, etc.
Can generally follow the main points in an informal discussion with friends provided they articulate clearlyin standard language or a familiar variety.
Can give or seek personal views and opinions in discussing topics of interest.
Can make their opinions and reactions understood as regards solutions to problems or practical questionsof where to go, what to do, or how to organise an event (e.g. an outing).
Can express beliefs, opinions and agreement and disagreement politely.
Can generally identify the topic of discussion around them when it is conducted slowly and clearly.
Can exchange opinions and compare things and people using simple language.
Can discuss what to do in the evening or at the weekend.

A2

Can make and respond to suggestions.
Can agree and disagree with others.
Can discuss everyday practical issues in a simple way when addressed clearly, slowly and directly.
Can discuss what to do, where to go and make arrangements to meet.
Can express opinions in a limited way.

A1
Pre-A1Can exchange likes and dislikes for sports, foods, etc., using a limited repertoire of expressions, whenaddressed clearly, slowly and directly.
No descriptors available

Formal discussion (meetings)
This scale is concerned with more formal discussion, mainly in a professional or academic context. Key concepts
operationalised in the scale are very similar to those in informal discussion, but also include the following:f type of meeting and topics: from exchanges on practical problems to discussion of abstract, complex,
unfamiliar issues;f ability to follow the discussion: from needing repetition and clarification to understanding points given
prominence and keeping up with animated debate;f ability to contribute: from needing to rehearse and get help with formulation to probing, evaluating andchallenging the contributions of others and arguing one’s own position convincingly.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 75

Formal discussion (meetings)

C2

Can hold their own in formal discussion of complex issues, putting an articulate and persuasive argument,
at no disadvantage to other participants.
Can advise on/handle complex, delicate or contentious issues, provided they have the necessary
specialised knowledge.
Can deal with hostile questioning confidently, hold on to the turn and diplomatically rebut
counter-arguments.

C1

Can easily keep up with the debate, even on abstract, complex, unfamiliar topics.
Can argue a formal position convincingly, responding to questions and comments and answering complex
lines of counter-argument fluently, spontaneously and appropriately.
Can restate, evaluate and challenge contributions from other participants about matters within theiracademic or professional competence.
Can make critical remarks or express disagreement diplomatically.
Can follow up questions by probing for more detail and can reformulate questions if these are
misunderstood.

B2

Can keep up with an animated discussion, identifying accurately arguments supporting and opposing
points of view.
Can use appropriate technical terminology when discussing their area of specialisation with otherspecialists.
Can express their ideas and opinions with precision, and present and respond to complex lines ofargument convincingly.
Can participate actively in routine and non-routine formal discussion.
Can follow the discussion on matters related to their field, understand in detail the points given
prominence.
Can contribute, account for and sustain their opinion, evaluate alternative proposals and make andrespond to hypotheses.
Can follow much of what is said that is related to their field, provided interlocutors avoid very idiomaticusage and articulate clearly.
Can put over a point of view clearly, but has difficulty engaging in debate.

B1

A2

Can take part in routine formal discussion of familiar subjects which is clearly articulated in the standard
form of the language or a familiar variety and which involves the exchange of factual information, receiving
instructions or the discussion of solutions to practical problems.
Can follow argumentation and discussion on a familiar or predictable topic, provided the points are madein relatively simple language and/or repeated, and opportunity is given for clarification.
Can generally follow changes of topic in formal discussion related to their field which is conducted slowly
and clearly.
Can exchange relevant information and give their opinion on practical problems when asked directly,
provided they receive some help with formulation and can ask for repetition of key points if necessary.
Can express what they think about things when addressed directly in a formal meeting, provided they can
ask for repetition of key points if necessary.

A1

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Goal-oriented co-operation
This scale concerns collaborative, task-focused work, which is a daily occurrence in real life, especially in professional
contexts. As with the conversation and discussion scales, this scale includes similar descriptors on the ability tofollow discussion. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f following the discussion: from understanding simple instructions explained directly to them to understanding
detailed instructions reliably;f active contribution to the work: from simply asking for things and giving things to speculating about causes
and consequences and organising the entire task.

Page 76 3 CEFR –­Companion volumeGoal-oriented co-operation (cooking together, discussing
a document, organising an event, etc.)
C2

No descriptors available; see C1

C1

Can frame a discussion to decide on a course of action with a partner or group, reporting on what others
have said, and summarising, elaborating and weighing up multiple points of view.
Can understand detailed instructions reliably.

B2

Can help along the progress of the work by inviting others to join in, express what they think, etc.
Can outline an issue or a problem clearly, speculating about causes or consequences, and weighing
advantages and disadvantages of different approaches.
Can follow what is said, though they may occasionally have to ask for repetition or clarification if the
discussion is rapid or extended.
Can explain why something is a problem, discuss what to do next, and compare and contrast alternatives.
Can give brief comments on the views of others.

B1

Can generally follow what is said and, when necessary, repeat back part of what someone has said toconfirm mutual understanding.
Can make their opinions and reactions understood as regards possible solutions or the question of what to
do next, giving brief reasons and explanations.
Can invite others to give their views on how to proceed.
Can understand enough to manage simple, routine tasks without undue effort, asking very simply for
repetition when they do not understand.
Can discuss what to do next, making and responding to suggestions, and asking for and giving directions.

A2

Can indicate when they are following and can be made to understand what is necessary, if the interlocutor
takes the trouble.
Can communicate in simple and routine tasks using simple phrases to ask for and provide things, to get
simple information and to discuss what to do next.

A1

Can understand questions and instructions addressed carefully and slowly to them and follow short,
simple directions.
Can act on basic instructions that involve times, locations, numbers, etc.
Can ask people for things, and give people things.

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Obtaining goods and services
This scale mainly concerns service encounters in restaurants, shops, banks, etc. Effectively making a complaint
appears at B1, and above this level the scale focuses on following up a complaint or problem and negotiating
a solution. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f types of situation: from simple everyday transactions to disputes about responsibility and sensitive transactions in public, professional or academic life;
f getting service: from asking for food and drink to asking detailed questions about more complex services;f demanding satisfaction: from making a complaint (B1) to negotiating a solution to a dispute or a sensitivetransaction.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 77

Obtaining goods and services
C2

No descriptors available; see C1

C1

Can negotiate complex or sensitive transactions in public, professional or academic life.
Can cope linguistically to negotiate a solution to a dispute like an undeserved traffic ticket, financial
responsibility for damage in a flat, or blame regarding an accident.

B2

Can outline a case for compensation, using persuasive language to demand satisfaction and state clearly
the limits to any concession they are prepared to make.
Can state requirements and ask detailed questions regarding more complex services, e.g. rental
agreements.
Can explain a problem which has arisen and make it clear that the provider of the service/customer must
make a concession.
Can deal with most transactions likely to arise while travelling, arranging travel or accommodation, or
dealing with authorities during a foreign visit.

B1

Can ask in a shop for an explanation of the difference between two or more products serving the same
purpose, in order to make a decision, posing follow-up questions as necessary.
Can cope with less routine situations in shops, post offices, banks, e.g. returning an unsatisfactory purchase.
Can make a complaint.
Can deal with most situations likely to arise when making travel arrangements through an agent or when
actually travelling, e.g. asking a passenger where to get off for an unfamiliar destination.
Can deal with common aspects of everyday living such as travel, lodging, eating and shopping.
Can interact in predictable everyday situations (e.g. post office, station, shop), using a wide range of simple
expressions.
Can get all the information needed from a tourist office, as long as it is of a straightforward, non-specialised nature.
Can ask for and provide everyday goods and services.

A2

Can get simple information about travel, use public transport (e.g. buses, trains, taxis), ask and give
directions, and buy tickets.
Can ask about things and make simple transactions in shops, post offices or banks.
Can give and receive information about quantities, numbers, prices, etc.
Can make simple purchases by stating what is wanted and asking the price.
Can order a meal.
Can point out when something is wrong (e.g. “The food is cold” or “There is no light in my room”).
Can ask (face-to-face) for a medical appointment and understand the reply. Can indicate the nature of aproblem to a health professional, perhaps using gestures and body language.
Can ask people for things and give people things.

A1

Can ask for food and drink using basic expressions.
Can handle numbers, quantities, cost and time.

Pre-A1

Can make simple purchases and/or order food or drink when pointing or other gesture can support theverbal reference.

Information exchangeThis scale does not contain descriptors for the C levels, because merely exchanging factual information is nolonger a main focus in learning objectives for proficient users. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include
the following:f type of transaction: from simple questions, instructions and directions, through simple, routine exchanges,
to exchanging information with other specialists;
f type of information: from personal details, dates, prices, etc., through habits, routines, pastimes andstraightforward factual information, to detailed and complex information or advice.

Page 78 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Information exchange
C2

No descriptors available; see B2

C1

No descriptors available; see B2
Can understand and exchange complex information and advice on the full range of matters related to theiroccupational role.

B2

Can use appropriate technical terminology when exchanging information or discussing their area ofspecialisation with other specialists.
Can pass on detailed information reliably.
Can exchange, check and confirm accumulated factual information on familiar routine and non-routine
matters within their field with some confidence.
Can summarise and give their opinion about a short story, article, talk, discussion, interview or
documentary and answer further questions of detail.

B1

Can find out and pass on straightforward factual information.
Can ask for and follow detailed directions.
Can obtain more detailed information.
Can offer advice on simple matters within their field of experience.
Can understand enough to manage simple, routine exchanges without undue effort.
Can deal with practical everyday demands: finding out and passing on straightforward factual information.
Can ask and answer questions about habits and routines.
Can ask and answer questions about pastimes and past activities.
Can ask and answer questions about plans and intentions.
Can give and follow simple directions and instructions, e.g. explain how to get somewhere.

A2

Can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information.
Can exchange limited information on familiar and routine operational matters.
Can ask and answer questions about what they do at work and in their free time.
Can ask for and give directions referring to a map or plan.
Can ask for and provide personal information.
Can ask and answer simple questions about an event (e.g. ask where and when it took place, who wasthere and what it was like).
Can understand questions and instructions addressed carefully and slowly to them and follow short,
simple directions.
Can ask and answer simple questions, initiate and respond to simple statements in areas of immediateneed or on very familiar topics.

A1

Can ask and answer questions about themselves and other people, where they live, people they know,
things they have.
Can indicate time by lexicalised phrases like “next week”, “last Friday”, “in November”, “3 o’clock”.
Can express numbers, quantities and cost in a limited way.
Can name the colour of clothes or other familiar objects and can ask the colour of such objects.
Can tell people their name and ask other people their names.
Can use and understand simple numbers in everyday conversations.
Can ask and tell what day, time of day and date it is.

Pre-A1

Can ask for and give a date of birth.
Can ask for and give a phone number.
Can tell people their age and ask people about their age.
Can ask very simple questions for information, such as “What is this?” and understand one- or two-word/
sign answers.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 79

Interviewing and being interviewed
This scale concerns the specialised roles associated with doctor’s appointments and job applications as well asother forms of examination, plus surveys and, in an educational context, projects. In relation to signing, there isan assumption that the interlocutor can also sign. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f independence from the interlocutor: from requiring direct, slow, clear standard language to acting without
any support, at no disadvantage to the other person(s);f taking the initiative: from bringing up new subjects (B1) to participating fully, developing a point fluently
and handling interjections well;f conducting the actual interview: from using a prepared questionnaire (B1), through departing spontaneously
from prepared questions and following up and probing interesting replies, to structuring the discourse
and interacting authoritatively.
Interviewing and being interviewed
C2

Can keep up their side of the dialogue extremely well, structuring the discourse and interacting
authoritatively with effortless fluency as interviewer or interviewee, at no disadvantage to otherparticipants.

C1

Can participate fully in an interview, as either interviewer or interviewee, expanding and developing thepoint being discussed fluently without any support, and handling interjections well.
Can carry out an effective, fluent interview, departing spontaneously from prepared questions, following
up and probing interesting replies.

B2
Can take the initiative in an interview, and expand and develop ideas with little help or prodding from aninterviewer.
Can provide concrete information required in an interview/consultation (e.g. describe symptoms to adoctor), but with limited precision.
Can carry out a prepared interview, checking and confirming information, though they may occasionallyhave to ask for repetition if the other person’s response is rapid or extended.

B1

Can take some initiative in an interview/consultation (e.g. to bring up a new subject) but is very dependent
on the interviewer in the interaction.
Can describe symptoms in a simple way and ask for advice when using health services, and can understandthe answer, provided this is given clearly in everyday language.
Can use a prepared questionnaire to carry out a structured interview, with some spontaneous follow-up
questions.
Can make themselves understood in an interview and communicate ideas and information on familiar
topics, provided they can ask for clarification occasionally, and are given some help to express what theywant to.

A2

Can describe to a doctor very basic symptoms and ailments such as a cold or the flu.
Can answer simple questions and respond to simple statements in an interview.
Can indicate in simple language the nature of a problem to a health professional, perhaps using gesturesand body language.
Can reply in an interview to simple direct questions, put very slowly and clearly in direct, non-idiomatic
language, about personal details.

A1

Pre-A1

Can state in simple language the nature of a problem to a health professional and answer simple questions
such as “Does that hurt?” even though they have to rely on gestures and body language to reinforce themessage.
No descriptors available

Page 80 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Using telecommunications
This new 2018 scale concerns use of the phone and internet-based apps for remote communication. Key concepts
operationalised in the scale include the following:
f range of information and transactions involved: from simple messages and conversations on predictabletopics like arrival times, routine messages and basic services to use for a variety of personal and professional purposes;
f interlocutor: from a known person to unknown persons with less familiar accents;
f length of exchange: from short, simple exchanges to extended casual conversation.
Using telecommunications
C2

Can use telecommunications confidently and effectively for both personal and professional purposes, even
if there is some interference (noise) or the caller has a less familiar accent.

C1

Can use telecommunications effectively for most professional or personal purposes.

B2

Can use telecommunications for a variety of personal and professional purposes, provided they can ask forclarification if the accent or terminology is unfamiliar.
Can participate in extended casual conversation over the phone with a known person on a variety of
topics.
Can use telecommunications for everyday personal or professional purposes, provided they can ask forclarification from time to time.
Can give important details over the (video)phone concerning an unexpected incident (e.g. a problem in a
hotel, with travel arrangements, with a hire car).

B1
Can use telecommunications to have relatively simple but extended conversations with people they know
personally.
Can use telecommunications for routine messages (e.g. arrangements for a meeting) and to obtain basic
services (e.g. book a hotel room or make a medical appointment).
Can use telecommunications with their friends to exchange simple news, make plans and arrange to meet.

A2

Can, given repetition and clarifications, participate in a short, simple phone conversation with a known
person on a predictable topic, e.g. arrival times, arrangements to meet.
Can understand a simple message (e.g. “My flight is late. I will arrive at 10 o’clock.”), confirm details of themessage and pass it on by phone to other people concerned.

A1

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

3.3.1.2. Written interaction
Written interaction concerns interactive communication through the medium of script or sign.43 There are two
scales: “Correspondence” and “Notes, messages and forms”. The former focuses on an interpersonal exchange,
while the latter concerns information transfer. In written interaction the language used is similar to oral language.

43. The number of formal and informal video-recorded chats and message exchanges has been rising rapidly, most notably throughWhatsApp. Signers may correspond in writing or sign – or even switch between the two. In some countries, signers can now sendenquiries, comments and complaints to certain service providers through a dedicated web portal. In addition, there are an increasing
number of online surveys in which signers can choose whether to answer the questions in writing or in their sign language. The verb
“compose” is therefore used in this section to include the possibility of signing.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 81

In addition, most interactive situations are tolerant of some error and confusion and have some contextual
support. There is usually an opportunity to use interaction strategies like asking for clarification or asking forhelp with formulation and to repair misunderstandings. Finally, the requirement to produce carefully structured,accurate text is less of a priority.
Online interaction is dealt with separately because it is multimodal (see next section).

Overall written interaction
Overall written interaction
C2

Can express themselves in an appropriate tone and style in virtually any type of formal and informalinteraction.

C1

Can express themselves with clarity and precision, relating to the addressee flexibly and effectively.

B2

Can express news and views effectively in writing, and relate to those of others.

B1

Can convey information and ideas on abstract as well as concrete topics, check information, and ask about
or explain problems with reasonable precision.
Can compose personal letters and notes asking for or conveying simple information of immediate
relevance, getting across the point they feel to be important.

A2

Can compose short, simple formulaic notes relating to matters in areas of immediate need.

A1

Can ask for or pass on personal details.

Pre-A1

Can convey basic information (e.g. name, address, family) in short phrases on a form or in a note, with theuse of a dictionary.

Correspondence
The 2001 scale concerned only personal correspondence. The update augments this with descriptors for formal
correspondence, since this is an activity that some user/learners need to carry out. Key concepts operationalisedin the scale therefore include the following:f type of message: from simple, personal messages, to in-depth, personal and professional correspondence;f type of language: from formulaic expressions to emotional, allusive and joking usage and writing withgood expression in an appropriate tone and style.
Correspondence
C2

C1

Can compose virtually any type of correspondence necessary in the course of their professional life in an
appropriate tone and style.
Can express themselves with clarity and precision in personal correspondence, using language flexibly andeffectively, including emotional, allusive and joking usage.
Can, with good expression and accuracy, compose formal correspondence such as letters of clarification,
application, recommendation, reference, complaint, sympathy and condolence.
Can maintain a relationship through personal correspondence using the language fluently and effectively
to give detailed descriptions of experiences, pose sympathetic questions and follow up issues of mutualinterest.

B2+

Can in most cases understand idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms in correspondence and othercommunications and use the most common ones themselves as appropriate to the situation.
Can compose formal correspondence such as letters of enquiry, request, application and complaint using
appropriate register, structure and conventions.
Can compose a forceful but polite letter of complaint, including supporting details and a statement of thedesired outcome.

Page 82 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Correspondence
Can compose letters conveying degrees of emotion and highlighting the personal significance of eventsand experiences and commenting on the correspondent’s news and views.
Can use formality and conventions appropriate to the context when writing personal and professional
letters and e-mails.

B2

Can compose formal e-mails/letters of invitation, thanks or apology using appropriate registers andconventions.
Can compose non-routine professional letters, using appropriate structure and conventions, provided
these are restricted to matters of fact.
Can obtain, by letter or e-mail, information required for a particular purpose, collate it and forward it bye-mail to other people.
Can compose personal letters giving news and expressing thoughts about abstract or cultural topics suchas music or film.
Can compose letters expressing different opinions and giving detailed accounts of personal feelings andexperiences.
Can reply to an advertisement in writing and ask for further information on items that interest them.

B1

Can compose basic formal e-mails/letters (e.g. to make a complaint and request action).
Can compose personal letters describing experiences, feelings and events in some detail.
Can compose basic e-mails/letters of a factual nature (e.g. to request information or to ask for and giveconfirmation).
Can compose a basic letter of application with limited supporting details.
Can exchange information by text message, by e-mail or in short letters, responding to questions from theother person (e.g. about a new product or activity).

A2

Can convey personal information of a routine nature, for example in a short e-mail or letter introducing
themselves.
Can compose very simple personal letters expressing thanks and apology.
Can compose short, simple notes, e-mails and text messages (e.g. to send or reply to an invitation, toconfirm or change an arrangement).
Can compose a short text in a greetings card (e.g. for someone’s birthday or to wish them a Happy New Year).
Can compose messages and online postings as a series of very short sentences about hobbies and likes/
dislikes, using simple words and formulaic expressions, with reference to a dictionary.

A1

Can compose a short, simple postcard.
Can compose a short, very simple message (e.g. a text message) to friends to give them a piece of
information or to ask them a question.

Pre-A1

Can convey basic personal information in short phrases and sentences, with reference to a dictionary.

Notes, messages and forms
This scale encompasses a range of transactional interactive writing. At the A levels it includes filling in forms
with personal details. From A2 the focus is on taking or leaving messages and writing/signing short notes. Key
concepts operationalised in the scale therefore include the following:
f filling in forms with personal details (Pre-A1 to A2);
f leaving and taking messages, from simple messages about time, through messages containing several
points, to complex personal or professional messages;
f formulating notes: from short and simple to more developed notes to friends, service people, teachers, etc.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 83

Notes, messages and forms
C2

No descriptors available; see B2

C1

No descriptors available; see B2

B2

Can take or leave complex personal or professional messages, provided they can ask for clarification orelaboration if necessary.
Can take routine messages that are likely to occur in a personal, professional or academic context.
Can take messages communicating enquiries and explaining problems.

B1

Can formulate notes conveying simple information of immediate relevance to friends, service people,
teachers and others who feature in their everyday life, getting across comprehensibly the points they feelare important.
Can take messages over the phone containing several points, provided the caller dictates these clearly andsympathetically.
Can take a short, simple message provided they can ask for repetition and reformulation.

A2

Can formulate short, simple notes and messages relating to matters in areas of immediate need.
Can fill in personal and other details on most everyday forms (e.g. to open a bank account, or to send a
letter by recorded delivery).

A1

Pre-A1Can fill in numbers and dates, own name, nationality, address, age, date of birth or arrival in the country,
etc., e.g. on a hotel registration form.
Can leave a simple message giving information regarding for instance where they have gone, or what timethey will be back (e.g. “Shopping: back at 5 p.m.”).
Can fill in very simple registration forms with basic personal details: name, address, nationality, marital
status.

3.3.1.3. Online interaction
Online communication is always mediated through a machine, which implies that it is unlikely ever to be exactly
the same as face-to-face interaction. There are emergent properties of group interaction online that are almost
impossible to capture in traditional competence scales focusing on the individual’s behaviour in speech, signing
or in writing. For instance, there is an availability of resources shared in real time. On the other hand, there may
be misunderstandings that are not spotted (and corrected) immediately, as is often easier with face-to-facecommunication. Some requirements for successful communication are:f the need for more redundancy in messages;
f the need to check that the message has been correctly understood;f ability to reformulate in order to help comprehension and deal with misunderstandings;
f ability to handle emotional reactions.

Online conversation and discussion
This scale focuses on conversation and discussion online as a multimodal phenomenon, with an emphasis on
how interlocutors communicate online to handle both serious issues and social exchanges in an open-ended
way. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f instances of simultaneous (real-time) and consecutive interaction, the latter allowing time to prepare a
draft and/or consult aids;f participation in sustained interaction with one or more interlocutors;
f composing posts and contributions for others to respond to;
f comments (for example, evaluative) on the posts, comments and contributions of others;
f reactions to embedded media;
f the ability to include symbols, images and other codes to make the message convey tone, stress and prosody, but also the affective/emotional side, irony, etc.
Page 84 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: the move from lower to higher levels is accompanied by ashift from simple social exchanges and personal news towards a broader range of competences encompassing
professional and educational discursive interaction at the C levels, with the introduction of real-time interaction andgroup interaction from B1+. B2 is characterised by the ability to participate actively in discussion and argument,
linking a contribution effectively to others in the thread, and repairing misunderstandings appropriately. By C1, theuser/learner can modulate their register and give critical evaluations diplomatically. At C2, they can anticipate anddeal effectively with possible misunderstandings (including cultural ones), communication issues and emotional
reactions. Progression can also be seen as the process of adding virtual “spaces” in which the user/learner caninteract such as a “café”, “classroom” or “meeting room”. A user/learner will struggle to interact successfully in an
online meeting until they reach the B levels, will be able to interact in a virtual “classroom” at A2 only if carefully
guided, and maybe can communicate only very superficially at A1 when posting and chatting in the “café”. At
the C levels, on the other hand, the user/learner can adapt their register and interaction style according to thevirtual space they are in, adjusting their language appropriately to make communication more effective.

Online conversation and discussion
Can express themselves with clarity and precision in real-time online discussion, adjusting language
flexibly and sensitively to context, including emotional, allusive and joking usage.

C2

Can anticipate and deal effectively with possible misunderstandings (including cultural ones),
communication issues and emotional reactions in an online discussion.
Can easily and quickly adapt their register and style to suit different online environments, communication
purposes and speech acts.
Can engage in real-time online exchanges with several participants, understanding the communicative
intentions and cultural implications of the various contributions.

C1

Can participate effectively in live, online professional or academic discussion, asking for and giving further
clarification of complex, abstract issues as necessary.
Can adapt their register according to the context of online interaction, moving from one register to theother within the same exchange if necessary.
Can evaluate, restate and challenge arguments in professional or academic live online chat and discussion.
Can engage in online exchanges, linking their contributions to previous ones in the thread, understanding
cultural implications and reacting appropriately.

B2

Can participate actively in an online discussion, stating and responding to opinions on topics of interest at
some length, provided contributors avoid unusual or complex language and allow time for responses.
Can engage in online exchanges between several participants, effectively linking their contributions toprevious ones in the thread, provided a moderator helps manage the discussion.
Can recognise misunderstandings and disagreements that arise in an online interaction and deal withthem, provided the interlocutor(s) are willing to co-operate.
Can engage in real-time online exchanges with more than one participant, recognising the communicative
intentions of each contributor, but may not understand details or implications without further explanation.
Can post online accounts of social events, experiences and activities referring to embedded links andmedia and sharing personal feelings.

B1

Can post a comprehensible contribution in an online discussion on a familiar topic of interest, provided
they can prepare the text beforehand and use online tools to fill gaps in language and check accuracy.
Can make personal online postings about experiences, feelings and events and respond individuallyto the comments of others in some detail, though lexical limitations sometimes cause repetition andinappropriate formulation.
Can introduce themselves and manage simple exchanges online, asking and answering questions andexchanging ideas on predictable everyday topics, provided enough time is allowed to formulate responses,
and that they interact with one interlocutor at a time.

A2+

Can make short descriptive online postings about everyday matters, social activities and feelings, withsimple key details.
Can comment on other people’s online postings, provided they are written/signed in simple language,reacting to embedded media by expressing feelings of surprise, interest and indifference in a simple way.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 85

Online conversation and discussion

A2

Can engage in basic social communication online (e.g. a simple message on a virtual card for special
occasions, sharing news and making/confirming arrangements to meet).
Can make brief positive or negative comments online about embedded links and media using a repertoireof basic language, though they will generally have to refer to an online translation tool and other resources.
Can formulate very simple messages and personal online postings as a series of very short sentences abouthobbies, likes/dislikes, etc., relying on the aid of a translation tool.

A1

Can use formulaic expressions and combinations of simple words/signs to post short positive and negative
reactions to simple online postings and their embedded links and media, and can respond to further
comments with standard expressions of thanks and apology.
Can post simple online greetings, using basic formulaic expressions and emoticons.

Pre-A1

Can post online short simple statements about themselves (e.g. relationship status, nationality,
occupation), provided they can select them from a menu and/or refer to an online translation tool.

Goal-oriented online transactions and collaboration
This scale focuses on the potentially collaborative nature of online interaction and transactions that have specificgoals, as a regular feature of contemporary life. A rigid separation between written and oral does not really apply toonline transactions, where multimodality is increasingly a key feature and resource, and the descriptors therefore
assume the exploitation of different online media and tools according to context. Key concepts operationalisedin the scale include the following:f purchasing goods and services online;
f engaging in transactions requiring negotiation of conditions, in a service as well as client role;f participation in collaborative project work;f dealing with communication problems.
Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: the move towards higher levels expands from basic
transactions and information exchange at the A levels towards more sophisticated collaborative project work thatis goal-oriented. This can be seen as a progression from filling in predictable online forms at Pre-A1, to solving
various problems in order for the transaction to take place at the B levels, through to being able to participate
in, and ultimately co-ordinate, group project work online at the C levels. One can also see such competences
as progressing from reactive to proactive participation, and from simple to complex. Simple collaborative tasks
appear at A2+, with a co-operative interlocutor, with small group project work from B1 and the ability to takea lead role in collaborative work from B2+. By C1, the user/learner can co-ordinate a group that is working on a
project online, formulating and revising detailed instructions, evaluating proposals from team members, andproviding clarifications in order to accomplish the shared tasks.
Goal-oriented online transactions and collaboration

C2

Can resolve misunderstandings and deal effectively with frictions that arise during the collaborative
process.
Can provide guidance and add precision to the work of a group at the redrafting and editing stages ofcollaborative work.
Can co-ordinate a group that is working on a project online, formulating and revising detailed instructions,evaluating proposals from team members, and providing clarifications in order to accomplish the sharedtasks.

C1

Can deal with complex online transactions in a service role (e.g. applications with complicatedrequirements), adjusting language flexibly to manage discussions and negotiations.
Can participate in complex projects requiring collaborative writing and redrafting as well as other forms of
online collaboration, following and relaying instructions with precision in order to reach the goal.
Can deal effectively with communication problems and cultural issues that arise in an online collaborative
or transactional exchange by reformulating, clarifying and providing examples through media (visual,audio, graphic).

Page 86 3 CEFR –­Companion volumeGoal-oriented online transactions and collaboration
Can take a lead role in online collaborative work within their area(s) of expertise, keeping the group on task
by reminding it of roles, responsibilities and deadlines in order to achieve established goals.
Can engage in online collaborative or transactional exchanges within their area(s) of expertise that requirenegotiation of conditions and explanation of complicated details and special requirements.

B2

Can deal with misunderstandings and unexpected problems that arise in online collaborative ortransactional exchanges by responding politely and appropriately in order to help resolve the issue.
Can collaborate online with a group that is working on a project, justifying proposals, seeking clarificationand playing a supportive role in order to accomplish shared tasks.
Can engage in online transactions that require an extended exchange of information, provided theinterlocutor(s) avoid complex language and are willing to repeat and reformulate when necessary.
Can interact online with a group that is working on a project, following straightforward instructions,seeking clarification and helping to accomplish the shared tasks.

B1

Can engage in online collaborative or transactional exchanges that require simple clarification or
explanation of relevant details, such as registering for a course, tour or event, or applying for membership.
Can interact online with a partner or small group working on a project, provided there are visual aids suchas images, statistics and graphs to clarify more complex concepts.
Can respond to instructions and ask questions or request clarifications in order to accomplish a shared task
online.
Can use formulaic language to respond to routine problems arising in online transactions (e.g. concerningavailability of models and special offers, delivery dates, addresses).
Can interact online with a supportive partner in a simple collaborative task, responding to basic
instructions and seeking clarification, provided there are visual aids such as images, statistics or graphs toclarify the concepts involved.

A2

Can make simple online transactions (e.g. ordering goods or enrolling in a course) by filling in an online
form or questionnaire, providing personal details and confirming acceptance of terms and conditions,declining extra services, etc.
Can ask basic questions about the availability of a product or feature.
Can respond to simple instructions and ask simple questions in order to accomplish a shared task online
with the help of a supportive interlocutor.

A1
Pre-A1

Can complete a very simple online purchase or application, providing basic personal information (e.g.
name, e-mail or telephone number).
Can make selections (e.g. choosing a product, size, colour) in a simple online purchase or application form,
provided there is visual support.

3.3.2. Interaction strategies
Three descriptor scales are offered for interaction strategies: “Taking the floor” (“Turntaking”), “Co-operating”
and “Asking for clarification”. Notice that “Taking the floor” (“Turntaking”), is in fact repeated in the section on“Pragmatic competence”, since it is a crucial part of discourse competence. This is the only instance in which ascale in the CEFR is repeated. In the scale for “Co-operating”, there are two aspects – cognitive strategies: framing,planning and organising ideational content, and collaborative strategies: handling interpersonal, relational
aspects. In the section for mediation, these two aspects are further developed in new scales for cognitive strategies(“Collaborating to construct meaning”) and collaborative strategies (“Facilitating collaborative interaction withpeers”). In many respects, these two scales represent a further development of the 2001 scale for “Co-operating”.
However, since they go considerably further than the more discourse-focused approach of the “Co-operating”
scale, it was decided to keep them under mediation.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 87

Turntaking
This scale is concerned with the ability to take the initiative in discourse. As stated above, this ability can beviewed both as an interaction strategy (to take the turn) and as an integral aspect of discourse competence. Key
concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f initiating, maintaining and ending conversation;
f intervening in an existing conversation or discussion, often using a prefabricated expression to do so, or
to gain time to think.
Turntaking
C2

No descriptors available; see C1

C1

Can select a suitable phrase from a readily available range of discourse functions to preface their remarks
appropriately in order to get the floor, or to gain time and keep the floor while thinking.
Can intervene appropriately in discussion, exploiting appropriate language to do so.
Can initiate, maintain and end discourse appropriately with effective turntaking.

B2

Can initiate discourse, take their turn when appropriate and end conversation when they need to, though
they may not always do this elegantly.
Can use stock phrases (e.g. “That’s a difficult question to answer”) to gain time and keep the turn while
formulating what they want to express.
Can intervene in a discussion on a familiar topic, using a suitable phrase to get the floor.

B1

Can initiate, maintain and close simple, face-to-face conversation on topics that are familiar or of personal
interest.
Can use simple techniques to start, maintain or end a short conversation.

A2

Can initiate, maintain and close simple, face-to-face conversation.
Can ask for attention.

A1

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Co-operatingThis scale concerns collaborative discourse moves intended to help a discussion develop. Key concepts
operationalised in the scale include the following:
f confirming comprehension (lower levels);f ability to give feedback and relate one’s own contribution to that of previous speakers/signers (higher levels);f summarising the point reached in the discussion in order to take stock (B levels);f inviting others to contribute.
Note: This scale is developed further in the scales for “Facilitating collaborative interaction with peers” and“Collaborating to construct meaning”.
Co-operating
C2

Can link contributions skilfully to those of others, widen the scope of the interaction and help steer it
towards an outcome.

C1

Can relate own contribution skilfully to that of others.

B2+

Can give feedback on and follow up statements and inferences and so help the development of the
discussion.
Can summarise and evaluate the main points of discussion on matters within their academic or
professional competence.

Page 88 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Co-operating
B2

Can help the discussion along on familiar ground, confirming comprehension, inviting others in, etc.
Can summarise the point reached at a particular stage in a discussion and propose the next steps.
Can exploit a basic repertoire of language and strategies to help keep a conversation or discussion going.
Can summarise the point reached in a discussion and so help focus the argument.

B1

Can repeat back part of what someone has said to confirm mutual understanding and help keep thedevelopment of ideas on course.
Can invite others into the discussion.

A2

Can indicate when they are following.

A1

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Asking for clarification
This scale concerns intervening in an interaction to indicate whether one is following or not, and to ask follow-up
questions on certain points, to check comprehension. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include thefollowing:f indicating comprehension or a comprehension problem (lower levels);f requesting repetition;f asking follow-up questions to check comprehension or request more details.
Asking for clarification
C2

No descriptors available; see C1

C1

Can ask for explanation or clarification to ensure they understand complex, abstract ideas in professional or
academic contexts, live or online.
Can ask follow-up questions to check that they have understood what someone intended to say, and get
clarification of ambiguous points.

B2

B1

Can ask for explanation or clarification to ensure they understand complex, abstract ideas.
Can formulate follow-up questions to a member of a group to clarify an issue that is implicit or poorly
articulated.
Can ask for further details and clarifications from other group members in order to move a discussion
forward.
Can ask someone to clarify or elaborate what they have just said.
Can ask very simply for repetition when they do not understand.
Can ask for clarification about key words/signs or phrases not understood, using stock phrases.

A2
Can indicate that they did not follow.
Can signal non-understanding and ask for a word/sign to be spelt out.

A1
Pre-A1

Can indicate with simple words/signs, intonation and gestures that they do not understand.
Can express in a simple way that they do not understand.
No descriptors available

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 89

3.4. MEDIATION
The development and validation of the scales for mediation is described in “Developing illustrative descriptorsof aspects of mediation for the CEFR” (North and Piccardo 2016). The aim was to provide CEFR descriptors for abroader view of mediation, as presented in the paper “Education, mobility, otherness – The mediation functionsof schools” (Coste and Cavalli 2015).
In mediation, the user/learner acts as a social agent who creates bridges and helps to construct or convey meaning,sometimes within the same language, sometimes across modalities (e.g. from spoken to signed or vice versa,
in cross-modal communication) and sometimes from one language to another (cross-linguistic mediation). The
focus is on the role of language in processes like creating the space and conditions for communicating and/or
learning, collaborating to construct new meaning, encouraging others to construct or understand new meaning,and passing on new information in an appropriate form. The context can be social, pedagogic, cultural, linguistic
or professional.

Figure 14 – Mediation activities and strategies

MediationMediation activities

Mediatinga textRelaying
specific
information
Explaining
data
Processing
textMediating concepts

Mediation strategies

Mediatingcommunication

Strategies
to explain a
new concept

Strategies
to simplify
a textCollaborating
in a group

Leadinggroup work

Facilitating
collaborativeinteraction
with peers

Managing
interaction

Facilitating
pluricultural
space

Linking toprevious
knowledge

Amplifying a
dense text

Encouraging
conceptual
talkActing as anintermediary

Adapting
language

Streamlining
a textFacilitating
communication in delicate
situations anddisagreements

Breaking
down
complicatedinformation

Collaborating
to constructmeaning

Translating awritten text
Note-taking
Expressinga personal
response to
creative texts
Analysis andcriticism of
creative texts

Page 90 3 CEFR –­Companion volume3.4.1. Mediation activities
There are many different aspects of mediation, but all share certain characteristics. For example, in mediation
one is less concerned with one’s own needs, ideas or expression than with those of the party or parties forwhom one is mediating. A person who engages in mediation activity needs to have a well-developed emotional
intelligence, or an openness to develop it, in order to have sufficient empathy for the viewpoints and emotional
states of other participants in the communicative situation. The term “mediation” is also used to describe a socialand cultural process of creating conditions for communication and co-operation, facing and hopefully defusing
any delicate situations and tensions that may arise. Cross-linguistic and cross-modal mediation, in particular,
inevitably involve social and cultural competence as well as plurilingual competence. This emphasises the factthat one cannot in practice completely separate one type of mediation from another. In adapting descriptors
to their context, therefore, users should feel free to mix and match categories to suit their own perspective.
The scales for mediation are presented in three groups, reflecting the way in which mediation tends to occur.
“Mediating a text” involves passing on to another person the content of a text to which they do not have access,often because of linguistic, cultural, semantic or technical barriers. This is the main sense in which the 2001
CEFR text uses the term mediation. The first set of descriptor scales offered are for this, usually cross-linguistic,
interpretation, which is increasingly being incorporated into language curricula (for example in Switzerland,
Germany, Austria, Italy, Greece and Spain). However, the notion has been further developed to include mediatinga text for oneself (for example in taking notes during a lecture) or in expressing reactions to texts, particularly
creative and literary ones.
“Mediating concepts” refers to the process of facilitating access to knowledge and concepts for others, particularly
if they may be unable to access this directly on their own. This is a fundamental aspect of parenting, mentoring,teaching and training, but also of collaborative learning and work. Mediating concepts involves two complementary
aspects: on the one hand constructing and elaborating meaning and on the other hand facilitating and stimulating
conditions that are conducive to such conceptual exchange and development.
“Mediating communication” aims to facilitate understanding and shape successful communication between
users/learners who may have individual, sociocultural, sociolinguistic or intellectual differences in standpoint. The
mediator tries to have a positive influence on aspects of the dynamic relationship between all the participants,
including the relationship with themselves. Often, the context of the mediation will be an activity in which
participants have shared communicative objectives, but this need not necessarily be the case. The skills involved
are relevant to diplomacy, negotiation, pedagogy and dispute resolution, but also to everyday social and/or
workplace interactions. Mediating communication is thus primarily concerned with personal encounters. This
is not a closed list – users may well be able to think of other types of mediation activities not included here.

Overall mediation
Overall mediation

C2

Can mediate effectively and naturally, taking on different roles according to the needs of the people andsituation involved, identifying nuances and undercurrents and guiding a sensitive or delicate discussion.
Can explain in clear, fluent, well-structured language the way facts and arguments are presented,
conveying evaluative aspects and most nuances precisely, and pointing out sociocultural implications (e.g.
use of register, understatement, irony and sarcasm).

C1

Can act effectively as a mediator, helping to maintain positive interaction by interpreting different
perspectives, managing ambiguity, anticipating misunderstandings and intervening diplomaticallyin order to redirect the conversation. Can build on different contributions to a discussion, stimulating
reasoning with a series of questions. Can convey clearly and fluently in well-structured language thesignificant ideas in long, complex texts, whether or not they relate to their own fields of interest, including
evaluative aspects and most nuances.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 91

Overall mediation
Can establish a supportive environment for sharing ideas and facilitate discussion of delicate issues,
showing appreciation of different perspectives, encouraging people to explore issues and adjusting
sensitively the way they express things. Can build on others’ ideas, making suggestions for ways forward.
Can convey the main content of well-structured but long and propositionally complex texts on subjects
within their fields of professional, academic and personal interest, clarifying the opinions and purposes of
speakers/signers.

B2
Can work collaboratively with people from different backgrounds, creating a positive atmosphere byproviding support, asking questions to identify common goals, comparing options for how to achieve
them and explaining suggestions for what to do next. Can further develop others’ ideas, pose questions
that invite reactions from different perspectives and propose a solution or next steps. Can convey detailed
information and arguments reliably, e.g. the significant point(s) contained in complex but well-structured
texts within their fields of professional, academic and personal interest.
Can collaborate with people from other backgrounds, showing interest and empathy by asking andanswering simple questions, formulating and responding to suggestions, asking whether people agree,
and proposing alternative approaches. Can convey the main points made in long texts expressed inuncomplicated language on topics of personal interest, provided they can check the meaning of certain
expressions.

B1
Can introduce people from different backgrounds, showing awareness that some questions may beperceived differently, and invite other people to contribute their expertise and experience as well as theirviews. Can convey information given in clear, well-structured informational texts on subjects that arefamiliar or of personal or current interest, although lexical limitations cause difficulty with formulation attimes.
Can play a supportive role in interaction, provided other participants speak/sign slowly and that one ormore of the participants helps them to contribute and to express their suggestions. Can convey relevant
information contained in clearly structured, short, simple, informational texts, provided the texts concern
concrete, familiar subjects and are formulated in simple everyday language.

A2
Can use simple words/signs to ask someone to explain something. Can recognise when difficulties occur
and indicate in simple language the apparent nature of a problem. Can convey the main point(s) involved
in short, simple conversations or texts on everyday subjects of immediate interest, provided these areexpressed clearly in simple language.

A1

Pre-A1

Can use simple words/signs and non-verbal signals to show interest in an idea. Can convey simple,
predictable information of immediate interest given in short, simple signs and notices, posters andprogrammes.
No descriptors available

3.4.1.1. Mediating a text
For all the descriptors in the scales in this section, Language A and Language B may be different languages,
varieties or modalities of the same language, different registers of the same variety, or any combination of theabove. However, they may also be identical: the CEFR 2001 is clear that mediation may also be in one language.
Alternatively, mediation may involve several languages, varieties or modalities; there may be a Language C andeven conceivably a Language D in the communicative situation concerned. The descriptors for mediation are
equally applicable in each case. Users may thus wish to specify precisely which languages/varieties/modalities
are involved when adapting the descriptors to their context. For ease of use, reference is made in the descriptors
to just Language A and Language B.
It is also important to underline that the illustrative descriptors offered in this section are not intended to describe
the competences of professional interpreters and translators. The descriptors focus on language competences,

Page 92 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

thinking of what a user/learner can do in this area in informal everyday situations. Translation and interpretationcompetences and strategies are an entirely different field.

Relaying specific information
Relaying specific information refers to the way some particular piece of information of immediate relevance isextracted from the target text and relayed to someone else. Here, the emphasis is on the specific content thatis relevant, rather than the main ideas or lines of argument presented in a text. “Relaying specific information” isrelated to “Reading for orientation” (although the information concerned may have been given orally in a publicannouncement or series of instructions). The user/learner scans the source text for the necessary informationand then relays this to a recipient. Key concepts operationalised in the two scales include the following:f relaying information on times, places, prices, etc. from announcements or written/signed artefacts;
f relaying sets of directions or instructions;f relaying specific, relevant information from informational texts like guides and brochures, from correspondence, or from longer, complex texts like articles, reports, etc.
Progression up the scales is characterised as follows: at Pre-A1 and A1 the user/learner can relay simple information
like times, places and numbers, whereas at A2 they can cope with the information in simple texts like instructions
and announcements. By B1, they can select and relay specific, relevant information in straightforward oral
announcements and in texts like leaflets, brochure entries and letters. By B2, they can reliably relay detailed
information from formal correspondence or particular sections of long, complex texts. As with the scale for“Information exchange”, there are no descriptors for the C levels since such purely informational tasks do not
require a C level of proficiency.
In the two scales, Language A and Language B may be different languages, varieties of the same language,
registers of the same variety, modalities of the same language or variety, or any combination of theabove. However, they may also be identical. In the former case, users should specify the languages/
varieties/modalities concerned; in the latter case, users should simply remove the parts in brackets.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 93

Page 94 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

B1

Can relay (in Language B) specific information given in straightforward
informational texts (e.g. leaflets, brochure entries, notices and letters or e-mails) (inLanguage A).

Can relay (in Language B) the contents of detailed instructions or directions,provided these are clearly articulated (in Language A).

Can relay (in Language B) the content of public announcements and messages
delivered clearly at normal speed (in Language A).

Can relay (in Language B) the main point(s) contained in formal correspondence
and/or reports (in Language A) on general subjects and on subjects related to theirfields of interest.

Can relay in writing (in Language B) which presentations at a conference (given
in Language A) were relevant, pointing out which would be worth detailed
consideration.

Can relay (in Language B) which presentations given (in Language A) at aconference, or which articles in a book (in Language A) are particularly relevant fora specific purpose.

B2

No descriptors available; see B2

Can explain (in Language B) the relevance of specific information found in aparticular section of a long, complex text (in Language A).

C1

Can relay in writing (in Language B) specific information given in a straightforward
recorded message (left in Language A), provided the topics concerned are familiar
and the delivery is slow and clear.

Can relay in writing (in Language B) specific, relevant information contained instraightforward informational texts (in Language A) on familiar subjects.

Can relay in writing (in Language B) specific information points contained in texts
delivered (in Language A) on familiar subjects (e.g. calls, announcements andinstructions).

Can relay in writing (in Language B) the significant point(s) contained in formal
correspondence (in Language A).

Can relay in a written report (in Language B) relevant decisions that were taken in a
meeting (in Language A).

Can relay in writing (in Language B) the relevant point(s) contained in an article (inLanguage A) from an academic or professional journal.

Can relay in writing (in Language B) the relevant point(s) contained inpropositionally complex but well-structured texts (in Language A) within theirfields of professional, academic and personal interest.

No descriptors available; see B2

No descriptors available; see C1

Relaying specific information in writing

C2

Relaying specific information in speech or sign

Relaying specific information

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 95

Pre-A1

A1

A2

Can list (in Language B) specific information contained in simple texts (in LanguageA) on everyday subjects of immediate interest or need.

Can list (in Language B) names, numbers, prices and very simple information of
immediate interest in oral texts (in Language A), provided the articulation is very
slow and clear, with repetition.

Can list (in Language B) names, numbers, prices and very simple information fromtexts (in Language A) that are of immediate interest, that are composed in very
simple language and contain illustrations.

Can relay (in Language B) in a simple way a series of short, simple instructions,provided the original (in Language A) is clearly and slowly articulated.

Can relay (in Language B) simple, predictable information about times and places
given in short, simple statements (delivered in Language A).

Can relay (in Language B) simple instructions about places and times (given in
Language A), provided these are repeated very slowly and clearly.

Can relay (in Language B) very basic information (e.g. numbers and prices) fromshort, simple, illustrated texts (in Language A).

Can list (in Language B) the main points of short, clear, simple messages andannouncements (given in Language A), provided they are clearly and slowly
articulated.

Can relay in writing (in Language B) specific information contained in short simple
informational texts (in Language A), provided the texts concern concrete, familiar
subjects and are composed in simple everyday language.

Relaying specific information in writing

Can relay (in Language B) the point made in short, clear, simple messages,
instructions and announcements, provided these are expressed slowly and clearlyin simple language (in Language A).

Can relay (in Language B) specific, relevant information contained in short, simple
texts, labels and notices (in Language A) on familiar subjects.

Can relay (in Language B) the point made in a clear announcement (in LanguageA) concerning familiar everyday subjects, though they may have to simplify themessage and search for words/signs.

Relaying specific information in speech or sign

Relaying specific information

Explaining data
This scale refers to the transformation into a verbal text of information found in figures (graphs, diagrams, etc.).
The user/learner might do this as part of a PowerPoint presentation, or when explaining to a friend or colleague
the key information given in graphics accompanying an article, a weather forecast or financial information. Key
concepts operationalised in the two scales include the following:
f describing graphic material on familiar topics (e.g. flow charts, weather charts);f presenting trends in graphs;
f commenting on bar charts;
f selecting and interpreting the salient, relevant points of empirical data presented graphically.
Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: the higher the level, the more complex the visual informationis, from everyday visuals (e.g. weather charts) to complex visuals accompanying academic and highly professional
texts. Secondly, the higher the level, the more complex the communicative acts involved (interpreting source
data, describing the salient points, explaining in detail). There are no descriptors at A1 and A2. At A2+ the user/
learner can describe simple visuals on familiar topics, while at B1 they can describe overall trends and detailed
information in diagrams in their fields of interest. At B2 the focus is on the reliable interpretation of complex
data, while at C2 the user/learner can interpret and describe various forms of empirical data from conceptuallycomplex research.
In the two scales, Language A and Language B may be different languages, varieties of the same language,
registers of the same variety, modalities of the same language or variety, or any combination of the above.
However, they may also be identical. In the former case, users should specify the languages/varieties/modalities
concerned; in the latter case, users should simply remove the parts in brackets.

Page 96 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 97

Can describe in simple sentences (in Language B) the main facts shown in visuals
on familiar topics (e.g. a weather map, a basic flow chart) (with text in Language A).

No descriptors available

Can interpret and describe (in Language B) overall trends shown in simple
diagrams (e.g. graphs, bar charts) (with text in Language A), even though lexical
limitations cause difficulty with formulation at times.

Can interpret and describe (in Language B) simple visuals on familiar topics (e.g. aweather map, a basic flow chart) (with text in Language A), even though pauses,
false starts and reformulation may be very evident.

No descriptors available

No descriptors available

A1

Pre-A1

A2

No descriptors available

No descriptors available

Can interpret and present in writing (in Language B) the overall trends shown in
simple diagrams (e.g. graphs, bar charts) (with text in Language A), explaining theimportant points in more detail, given the help of a dictionary or other referencematerials.

Can interpret and describe (in Language B) detailed information in diagrams intheir fields of interest (with text in Language A), even though lexical gaps may
cause hesitation or imprecise formulation.

No descriptors available

Can interpret and present reliably in writing (in Language B) detailed informationfrom diagrams and visually organised data in their fields of interest (with text in
Language A).

Can interpret and describe reliably (in Language B) detailed information containedin complex diagrams, charts and other visually organised information (with text in
Language A) on topics in their fields of interest.

B2

B1

Can interpret and present clearly and reliably in writing (in Language B) the salient,
relevant points contained in complex diagrams and other visually organised data(with text in Language A) on complex academic or professional topics.

Can interpret and present in writing (in Language B) various forms of empirical
data (with text in Language A) from conceptually complex research on academic or
professional topics.

Can interpret and describe clearly and reliably (in Language B) the salient
points and details contained in complex diagrams and other visually organised
information (with text in Language A) on complex academic or professional topics.

Can interpret and describe clearly and reliably (in Language B) various forms of
empirical data and visually organised information (with text in Language A) fromconceptually complex research concerning academic or professional topics.

Explaining data in writing

C1

C2

Explaining data in speech or sign

Explaining data (in graphs, diagrams, etc.)

Processing text
Processing text involves understanding the information and/or arguments included in the source text and thentransferring these to another text, usually in a more condensed form, in a way that is appropriate to the context.
In other words, the outcome represents a condensing and/or reformulating of the original information andarguments, focusing on the main points and ideas in the source text. The key word in the processing scales is“summarising”. Whereas in “Relaying specific information” the user/learner will almost certainly not read the whole
text (unless the information required is well hidden!), in “Processing text” they have first to fully understand all
the main points in the source text. “Processing text” is thus related to “Reading for information and argument”(sometimes called reading for detail, or careful reading), although the information concerned may have been
given orally in a presentation or lecture. The user/learner may then choose to present the information to therecipient in a completely different order, depending on the goal of the communicative encounter. Key concepts
operationalised in the two scales include the following:
f summarising the main points in a source text;
f collating such information and arguments from different sources;
f recognising and clarifying to the recipient the intended audience, the purpose and viewpoint of the original.
Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: in general, as one moves up the scale, the more cognitively
and linguistically demanding the process described by the descriptor, the greater the variety of text types, thehigher the degree of complexity of the texts and the abstraction of the topics, and the more sophisticated thevocabulary. There is no descriptor for A1. At A2, the learner may need to supplement their limited repertoire withgestures, drawing or expressions embedded from other languages. At lower levels, source texts are simpler andmore factual, concerning everyday topics and topics of immediate interest. By B1, texts include TV programmes,
conversations and well-structured texts on topics of interest. By B2, the user/learner can synthesise and report
information from a number of sources, for example interviews, documentaries, films and complex texts intheir fields of interest. By the C levels, they can summarise long, demanding professional or academic texts inwell-structured language, inferring attitudes and implicit opinions, and explaining subtle distinctions in thepresentation or facts and arguments.
In the two scales, Language A and Language B may be different languages, varieties of the same language,
registers of the same variety, modalities of the same language or variety, or any combination of the above.
However, they may also be identical. In the former case, users should specify the languages/varieties/modalities
concerned; in the latter case, users should simply remove the parts in brackets.

Page 98 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 99

B2+

C1

C2

Can summarise in writing (in Language B) long, complex texts (in Language A),interpreting the content appropriately, provided they can occasionally check the
precise meaning of unusual, technical terms.
Can summarise in writing a long and complex text (in Language A) (e.g. an
academic article, article providing political analysis, novel extract, editorial, literary
review, report or extract from a scientific book) for a specific audience, respecting
the style and register of the original.

Can summarise (in Language B) long, demanding texts (in Language A).
Can summarise (in Language B) discussion (in Language A) on matters within theiracademic or professional competence, elaborating and weighing up different
points of view and identifying the most significant points.
Can summarise clearly in well-structured language (in Language B) the main points
made in complex texts (in Language A) in fields of specialisation other than theirown, although they may occasionally check particular technical concepts.
Can explain (in Language B) subtle distinctions in the presentation of facts andarguments (in Language A).
Can exploit information and arguments from a complex text (in Language A) todiscuss a topic (in Language B), glossing with evaluative comments, adding theiropinion, etc.
Can explain (in Language B) the attitude or opinion expressed in a source text
(in Language A) on a specialised topic, supporting inferences they make withreference to specific passages in the original.

Can summarise in writing (in Language B) the main content of well-structured but
propositionally complex texts (in Language A) on subjects within their fields ofprofessional, academic and personal interest.
Can compare, contrast and synthesise in writing (in Language B) the informationand viewpoints contained in academic and professional publications (in Language
A) in their fields of special interest.
Can explain in writing (in Language B) the viewpoint articulated in a complex
text (in Language A), supporting inferences they make with reference to specificinformation in the original.

Can explain in writing (in Language B) the way that facts and arguments arepresented in a text (in Language A), particularly when someone else’s position is
being reported, drawing attention to the use of understatement, veiled criticism,irony and sarcasm.
Can summarise information from different sources, reconstructing arguments andaccounts in a coherent presentation of the overall result.

Can explain (in Language B) inferences when links or implications are not madeexplicit (in Language A), and point out the sociocultural implications of the form of
expression (e.g. understatement, irony, sarcasm).

Can summarise clearly in well-structured language (in Language B) the information
and arguments contained in complex texts (in Language A) on a wide range ofsubjects related to their fields of interest and specialisation.
Can summarise (in Language B) the main points of complex discussions (inLanguage A), weighing up the different points of view presented.

Processing text in writing

Processing text in speech or sign

Processing text

Page 100 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

B1+

B2

Can collate short pieces of information from several sources (in Language A) andsummarise them (in Language B) for somebody else.

Can summarise (in Language B) a short narrative or article, talk, discussion,interview or documentary (in Language A) and answer further questions about
details.

Can summarise (in Language B) the main points made in long texts (in LanguageA) on topics in their fields of interest, provided they can check the meaning ofcertain expressions.

Can summarise (in Language B) the plot and sequence of events in a film or play (inLanguage A).

Can summarise (in Language B) extracts from news items, interviews or
documentaries containing opinions, arguments and discussions (in Language A).

Can recognise the intended audience of a text (in Language A) on a topic ofinterest and explain (in Language B) the purpose, attitudes and opinion of theauthor.

Can summarise (in Language B) the important points made in longer, complex
texts (in Language A) on subjects of current interest, including their fields of special
interest.

Can summarise (in Language B) a wide range of factual and imaginative texts (inLanguage A), commenting on and discussing contrasting points of view and themain themes.

Can synthesise and report (in Language B) information and arguments from anumber of sources (in Language A).

Processing text in speech or sign

Processing text in writing

Can summarise in writing (in Language B) the information and arguments
contained in texts (in Language A) on subjects of general or personal interest.

Can summarise in writing (in Language B) the main content of complex texts (inLanguage A) on subjects related to their fields of interest and specialisation.

Processing text

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 101

Pre-A1

A1

A2

B1

No descriptors available

Can, with the help of a dictionary, convey (in Language B) the meaning of simple
phrases (in Language A) on familiar and everyday themes.
Can copy out single words and short texts presented in standard printed format.

Can convey (in Language B) simple, predictable information given in short, very
simple signs and notices, posters and programmes (in Language A).

No descriptors available

Can use simple language to convey (in Language B) the main point(s) contained invery short texts (in Language A) on familiar and everyday themes that contain thehighest frequency vocabulary; despite errors, the text remains comprehensible.
Can copy out short texts in printed or clearly handwritten format.

Can convey (in Language B) the main point(s) contained in clearly structured, short,
simple texts (in Language A), supplementing their limited repertoire with othermeans (e.g. gestures, drawings, words/signs from other languages) in order to doso.

Can list as a series of bullet points (in Language B) the relevant information
contained in short simple texts (in Language A), provided the texts concern
concrete, familiar subjects and contain only simple everyday language.
Can pick out and reproduce key words and phrases or short sentences from a shorttext within the learner’s limited competence and experience.

Can summarise in writing (in Language B) the main points made in straightforward,
informational texts (in Language A) on subjects that are of personal or current
interest, provided oral texts are clearly articulated.
Can paraphrase short passages in a simple fashion, using the original text wording
and ordering.

Can summarise (in Language B) the main points made in clear, well-structured
texts (in Language A) on subjects that are familiar or of personal interest, althoughlexical limitations cause difficulty with formulation at times.
Can summarise simply (in Language B) the main information content ofstraightforward texts (in Language A) on familiar subjects (e.g. a short record of aninterview, magazine article, travel brochure).
Can summarise (in Language B) the main points made during a conversation(in Language A) on a subject of personal or current interest, provided people
articulated clearly.
Can summarise (in Language B) the main points made in long texts delivered orally(in Language A) on topics in their fields of interest, provided they can listen or view
several times.
Can summarise (in Language B) the main points or events in TV programmes andvideo clips (in Language A), provided they can view them several times.

Can report (in Language B) the main points made in simple TV or radio news
items (in Language A) reporting events, sports, accidents, etc., provided the topics
concerned are familiar and the delivery is slow and clear.
Can report in simple sentences (in Language B) the information contained inclearly structured, short, simple texts (in Language A) that have illustrations ortables.
Can summarise (in Language B) the main point(s) in simple, short informational
texts (in Language A) on familiar topics.

Processing text in writing

Processing text in speech or sign

Processing textTranslating a written text
Translating a written text in speech or sign is a largely informal activity that is by no means uncommon in everyday
personal and professional life. It is the process of spontaneously giving an oral translation of a written text, often
a notice, letter, e-mail or other communication. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
f providing a rough, approximate translation;
f capturing the essential information;
f capturing nuances (higher levels).
Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: the scale moves from rough translation of routine everyday
information in simple texts at the lower levels to translation with increasing fluency and accuracy of texts that
become increasingly more complex. The distinction between levels A1 to B1 is almost solely the type of texts
involved. By B2, the user/learner can provide oral translation of complex texts containing information andarguments on subjects within their fields of professional, academic and personal interest, and at the C levels
they can fluently translate complex texts on a wide range of general and specialised subjects, capturing nuances
and implications.
“Translating a written text in writing” is by its very nature a more formal process than providing an impromptu
oral translation. However, this CEFR descriptor scale is not intended to relate to the activities of professionaltranslators or to their training. Indeed, translating competences are not addressed in the scale. Furthermore,
professional translators, like professional interpreters, develop their competences through their career. The
language level necessary for a translation also depends on the type of text. Literary translation, for example,
requires a level at or above C2. As mentioned when discussing CEFR levels in the section on key aspects of the
CEFR, C2 is not the highest definable level of second/foreign language proficiency. It is in fact the middle levelof a scale of five levels for literary translation produced in the PETRA project.44 On the other hand, plurilingual
user/learners with a more modest level of proficiency sometimes find themselves in a situation in which they
are asked to provide a written translation of a text in their professional or personal context. Here they are being
asked to reproduce the substantive message of the source text, rather than necessarily interpret the style andtone of the original into an appropriate style and tone in the translation, as a professional translator would be
expected to do.
In using the descriptors in this scale it is particularly important to specify the languages involved because thescale deliberately does not address the issue of translating into and from the first language. This is partly becauseof the fact that, for increasing numbers of plurilingual persons, “first language” and “best language” are not always
synonymous. What the scale provides is a functional description of the language ability necessary to reproduce
a source text in another language. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
f comprehensibility of the translation;f the extent to which the original formulations and structure (over-)influence the translation, as opposedto the text following relevant conventions in the target language;
f capturing nuances in the original.
Progression up the scale is shown in a very similar way to the previous scale. At the lower levels, translating
involves approximate translations of short texts containing information that is straightforward and familiar,
whereas at the higher levels, the source texts become increasingly complex and the translation is more andmore accurate and reflective of the original.
In the two scales, Language A and Language B may be different languages, varieties of the same language,
registers of the same variety, modalities of the same language or variety, or any combination of the above.
However, they may also be identical. In the former case, users should specify the languages/varieties concerned/
modalities; in the latter case, users should simply remove the parts in brackets.
Note: As in any case in which mediation across languages is involved, users may wish to complete the descriptor
by specifying the languages concerned

44. https://petra-education.eu/.

Page 102 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 103

B1

Can provide an approximate oral translation (into Language B) of clear, wellstructured informational texts (written in Language A) on subjects that are familiar
or of personal interest, although lexical limitations cause difficulty with formulation
at times.

Can provide oral translation (into Language B) of texts (written in LanguageA) containing information and arguments on subjects within their fields ofprofessional, academic and personal interest, provided they are written in
uncomplicated, standard language.

Can produce clearly organised translations (from Language A into Language B)
that reflect normal language usage but may be over-influenced by the order,
paragraphing, punctuation and particular formulations of the original.

Can provide oral translation (into Language B) of complex texts (written in
Language A) containing information and arguments on subjects within their fields
of professional, academic and personal interest.

C1

Can produce approximate translations (from Language A into Language B) of
information contained in short, factual texts written in uncomplicated, standard
language; despite errors, the translation remains comprehensible.

Can produce approximate translations (from Language A into Language B)of straightforward, factual texts that are written in uncomplicated, standard
language, closely following the structure of the original; although linguistic errors
may occur, the translation remains comprehensible.

Can produce translations (into Language B) that closely follow the sentence andparagraph structure of the original text (in Language A), conveying the main pointsof the source text accurately, though the translation may read awkwardly.

Can translate (into Language B) abstract texts on social, academic and professional
subjects in their field (written in Language A), successfully conveying evaluative
aspects and arguments, including many of the implications associated with them,though some expression may be over-influenced by the original.

Can provide fluent oral translation (into Language B) of complex texts (written in
Language A) on a wide range of general and specialised topics, capturing mostnuances.

B2

Can translate (into Language B) technical material outside their field ofspecialisation (written in Language A), provided subject matter accuracy is checked
by a specialist in the field concerned.

Can provide fluent oral translation (into Language B) of abstract texts (written in
Language A) on a wide range of subjects of personal, academic and professional
interest, successfully conveying evaluative aspects and arguments, including thenuances and implications associated with them.

Translating a written text in writing

C2

Translating a written text in speech or sign

Translating a written text

Page 104 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Pre-A1

A1

A2

No descriptors available

No descriptors available

Can, with the help of a dictionary, translate simple words/signs and phrases (fromLanguage A into Language B), but may not always select the appropriate meaning.

Can provide a simple, rough oral translation (into Language B) of simple everyday
words/signs and phrases (written in Language A) that are encountered on signs
and notices, posters, programmes, leaflets, etc.

Can provide a simple, rough oral translation (into Language B) of routine
information on familiar everyday subjects that is written in simple sentences(in Language A) (e.g. personal news, short narratives, directions, notices or
instructions).

Can use simple language to provide an approximate translation (from Language
A into Language B) of very short texts on familiar and everyday themes that
contain the highest frequency vocabulary; despite errors, the translation remains
comprehensible.

Translating a written text in writing

Can provide a simple, rough oral translation (into Language B) of short, simple
texts (e.g. notices on familiar subjects) (written in Language A), capturing the mostessential point.

Can provide an approximate oral translation (into Language B) of short, simple,
everyday texts (e.g. brochure entries, notices, instructions, letters or e-mails)(written in Language A).

Translating a written text in speech or sign

Translating a written text

Note-taking (lectures, seminars, meetings, etc.)
This scale concerns the ability to grasp key information and write coherent notes, which is valuable in academic
and professional life. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f type of source text: from demonstrations and instructions, through straightforward lectures and meetings
on subjects in their field, to meetings and seminars on unfamiliar, complex subjects;
f consideration on the part of the speaker/signer (lower levels): from a slow and clear delivery, plus pauses
to take notes, through clearly articulated, well-structured lectures, to multiple sources;
f type of note-taking: from taking notes as a series of points (lower levels), through notes on what seems tothem to be important, to appropriate selection of what to note and what to omit;f accuracy of the notes (higher levels): from notes precise enough for own use (B1), through accurate notes
on meetings in their field (B2), to accurate capture of abstract concepts, relationships between ideas,
implications and allusions.
Note-taking (lectures, seminars, meetings, etc.)
Can, while continuing to participate in a meeting or seminar, create reliable notes (or minutes) for people
who are not present, even when the subject matter is complex and/or unfamiliar.

C2

Is aware of the implications and allusions of what is said and can take notes on them as well as on theactual words used.
Can take notes selectively, paraphrasing and abbreviating successfully to capture abstract concepts andrelationships between ideas.
Can take detailed notes during a lecture on topics in their field of interest, recording the information soaccurately and so closely to the original that the notes could also be useful to other people.

C1

Can make decisions about what to note down and what to omit as the lecture or seminar proceeds, evenon unfamiliar matters.
Can select relevant, detailed information and arguments on complex, abstract topics from multiple oral
sources (e.g. lectures, podcasts, formal discussions and debates, interviews), provided the delivery is at
normal speed.

B2

Can understand a clearly structured lecture on a familiar subject, and can take notes on points which strikethem as important, even though they tend to concentrate on the actual formulation and therefore to misssome information.
Can take accurate notes in meetings and seminars on most matters likely to arise within their field ofinterest.
Can take notes during a lecture which are precise enough for their own use at a later date, provided the
topic is within their field of interest and the lecture is clear and well structured.

B1

Can take notes as a list of key points during a straightforward lecture, provided the topic is familiar, and thelecture is both formulated in simple language and articulated clearly.
Can note down routine instructions in a meeting on a familiar subject, provided these are formulated insimple language and they are given sufficient time to do so.

A2

Can take simple notes at a presentation/demonstration where the subject matter is familiar andpredictable and the presenter allows for clarification and note-taking.

A1

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Creative texts
Creative texts are one of the main sources for “Reading as a leisure activity” and there are several descriptors
related to the reading of literature in the scale with that title. However, creative texts are not confined to literature
or indeed to script. Film, theatre, recitals and multimodal installations are just some of the other types of creative
text, as works of imagination and cultural significance. Therefore, while some of the descriptors in this section
do refer explicitly to scripted text and/or literature, many refer to “the work” concerned.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 105

Creative texts tend to evoke a reaction, and this is often promoted in language education. This response may be
expressed in a classroom or in one of the amateur literacy circles often associated with foreign language learning.
There are perhaps four main types of classic response:f engagement: giving a personal reaction to the language, style or content, feeling drawn to an aspect of
the work or a character or characteristic of it;
f interpretation: ascribing meaning or significance to aspects of the work including content, motifs, character
motives, metaphor, etc.
f analysis of certain aspects of the work including language, literary devices, context, characters, relationships, etc.
f evaluation: giving a critical appraisal of technique, structure, the vision of the artist, the significance of
the work, etc.
There is a fundamental difference between the first two categories (engagement and interpretation) and thelast two (analysis and evaluation). Describing a personal reaction and interpretation is cognitively far simpler
than giving a more intellectual analysis and/or evaluation. Therefore, two different scales are offered.

Expressing a personal response to creative texts (including literature)
This first scale reflects the approach taken in school sectors and in adult reading circles. It focuses on expressionof the effect that a work has on the user/learner as an individual. Key concepts operationalised in the scale
include the following:f explaining what they liked, what interested them about the work;
f describing characters, saying which they identified with;f relating aspects of the work to their own experience;f relating feelings and emotions;f personal interpretation of the work as a whole or of aspects of it.
Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: at the lower levels the user/learner can say whether they liked
the work, say how it made them feel, discuss characters and relate aspects of the work to their own experience,with increased detail at B1. At B2 they can give more elaborate explanations, comment on the form of expression
and style and give their interpretation of the development of a plot, the characters and the themes in a story,
novel, film or play. At the C levels, they can give broader and deeper interpretations, supporting them withdetails and examples.
Expressing a personal response to creative texts (including literature)
C2

No descriptors available

C1

Can describe in detail a personal interpretation of a work, outlining their reactions to certain features andexplaining their significance.
Can outline a personal interpretation of a character in a work: their psychological/emotional state, themotives for their actions and the consequences of these actions.

B2

Can give a clear presentation of their reactions to a work, developing their ideas and supporting them with
examples and arguments.
Can give a personal interpretation of the development of a plot, the characters and themes in a story,
novel, film or play.
Can describe their emotional response to a work and elaborate on the way in which it has evoked this
response.
Can express in some detail their reactions to the form of expression, style and content of a work, explaining
what they appreciated and why.

Page 106 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Expressing a personal response to creative texts (including literature)

B1

Can explain why certain parts or aspects of a work especially interested them.
Can explain in some detail which character they most identified with and why.
Can relate events in a story, film or play to similar events they have experienced or heard about.
Can relate the emotions experienced by a character to emotions they have experienced.
Can describe the emotions they experienced at a certain point in a story, e.g. the point(s) in a story when
they became anxious for a character, and explain why.
Can explain briefly the feelings and opinions that a work provoked in them.
Can describe the personality of a character.
Can describe a character’s feelings and explain the reasons for them.

A2

Can express their reactions to a work, reporting their feelings and ideas in simple language.
Can state in simple language which aspects of a work especially interested them.
Can state whether they liked a work or not and explain why in simple language.

A1

Can use simple words/signs to state how a work made them feel.

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Analysis and criticism of creative texts (including literature)
This scale represents an approach more common at an upper secondary and university level. It concerns moreformal, intellectual reactions. Aspects analysed include the significance of events in a novel, the treatment of thesame themes in different works and other links between them, the extent to which a work follows conventions,and more global evaluation of the work as a whole. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include:
f comparing different works;
f giving a reasoned opinion of a work;
f critically evaluating features of a work, including the effectiveness of its techniques.
Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: there are no descriptors for A1 and A2. Until B2, the focus ison description rather than evaluation. At B2, the user/learner can analyse similarities and differences between
works, giving a reasoned opinion and referring to the views of others. At C1, analysis becomes more subtle,
concerned with the way the work engages the audience, the extent to which it is conventional, or whether it
employs irony. At C2, the user/learner can recognise finer linguistic and stylistic subtleties, unpack connotations
and give more critical appraisals of the way in which structure, language and rhetorical devices are exploited ina work of literature for a particular purpose.
Analysis and criticism of creative texts (including literature)
Can give a critical appraisal of work of different periods and genres (e.g. novels, poems and plays),
appreciating subtle distinctions of style and implicit as well as explicit meaning.

C2

Can recognise the finer subtleties of nuanced language, rhetorical effect and stylistic language use (e.g.
metaphors, abnormal syntax, ambiguity), interpreting and “unpacking” meanings and connotations.
Can critically evaluate the way in which structure, language and rhetorical devices are exploited in a work
for a particular purpose and give a reasoned argument concerning their appropriateness and effectiveness.
Can give a critical appreciation of deliberate breaches of linguistic conventions in a piece of writing.
Can critically appraise a wide variety of texts including literary works of different periods and genres.

C1

Can evaluate the extent to which a work follows the conventions of its genre.
Can describe and comment on ways in which the work engages the audience (e.g. by building up andsubverting expectations).

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 107

Analysis and criticism of creative texts (including literature)
Can compare two works, considering themes, characters and scenes, exploring similarities and contrasts
and explaining the relevance of the connections between them.
Can give a reasoned opinion of a work, showing awareness of the thematic, structural and formal featuresand referring to the opinions and arguments of others.

B2

Can evaluate the way the work encourages identification with characters, giving examples.
Can describe the way in which different works differ in their treatment of the same theme.
Can point out the most important episodes and events in a clearly structured narrative in everyday
language and explain the significance of events and the connections between them.

B1

Can describe the key themes and characters in short narratives involving familiar situations that contain
only high frequency everyday language.

A2

Can identify and briefly describe, in basic formulaic language, the key themes and characters in short,
simple narratives involving familiar situations that contain only high frequency everyday language.

A1

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

3.4.1.2. Mediating concepts
It is recognised in education that language is a tool used to think about a subject and to articulate that thinking
in a dynamic co-constructive process. A key component of the development of mediation scales, therefore,
is to capture this function. How can the user/learner facilitate access to knowledge and concepts throughlanguage? There are two main ways in which this occurs: one is in the context of collaborative work and theother is when someone has the official or unofficial role of facilitator, teacher or trainer. In either context, it isvirtually impossible to develop concepts without preparing the ground for it by managing the relational issues
concerned. For this reason, two scales are presented for collaborating in a group, and for leading group work.
In each case the first scale, presented on the left in the table, concerns establishing the conditions for effective
work (= relational mediation).
The second scale, presented on the right in the table, is concerned with the development and elaboration ofideas (= cognitive mediation). As is the case with different aspects of communicative language competence, orof plurilingual and pluricultural competence, distinctions are made to assist reflection, but real communication
requires a holistic integration of different aspects. The four descriptor scales in this section thus form pairs, as
indicated below.
Establishing conditions

Developing ideas

Collaborating in a group

Facilitating collaborativeinteraction with peers

Collaborating to construct meaning

Leading group work

Managing interaction

Encouraging conceptual talk

The two scales under “establishing conditions” focus on building and maintaining positive interactions and do
not deal directly with access to new knowledge and concepts. However, such mediation may well be a necessary
precursor or indeed parallel activity in order to facilitate the development of new knowledge. People must be
sensitive to others’ views, so a positive atmosphere is often a prerequisite for collaborative engagement that
may lead to new knowledge. Although these four scales are directly relevant to the educational domain, they
are not confined to the classroom because they are applicable to all domains where there is a need to movepeople’s thinking forward.

Page 108 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Facilitating collaborative interaction with peers
The user/learner contributes to successful collaboration in a group that they belong to, usually with a specificshared objective or communicative task in mind. They are concerned with making conscious interventions whereappropriate to orient the discussion, balance contributions and help to overcome communication difficulties
within the group. They do not have a designated lead role in the group, and are not concerned with creating alead role for themselves, being concerned solely with successful collaboration. Key concepts operationalised in
the scale include the following:f collaborative participation by consciously managing one’s own role and contributions to group communication;f active orientation of teamwork by helping to review key points and consider or define next steps;
f use of questions and contributions to move the discussion forward in a productive way;
f use of questions and turntaking to balance contributions from other group members with their own
contributions.
Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: at A2, the user/learner can collaborate actively in simple,
shared tasks, provided someone helps them express their suggestions. At B1, the focus is on posing questions
and inviting others to contribute. By B2, the learner/user can refocus the discussion, helping to define goals
and comparing ways of achieving them. At C1, they can help steer a discussion tactfully towards a conclusion.

Collaborating to construct meaningThis scale is concerned with stimulating and developing ideas as a member of a group. It is particularly relevant
to collaborative work in problem solving, brainstorming, concept development and project work.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f cognitively framing collaborative tasks by deciding on aims, processes and steps;
f co-constructing ideas/solutions;f asking others to explain their thinking and identifying inconsistencies in their thought processes;
f summarising the discussion and deciding on next steps.
Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: the scale moves from simple questioning techniques andthe organisation of tasks at B1 to further developing other people’s ideas and opinions, co-developing ideas(B2/B2+) to evaluating problems, challenges and proposals, highlighting inconsistencies in thinking (C1), andguiding discussion effectively to a consensus at C2.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 109

Page 110 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

B2

C1

C2

Can contribute to collaborative decision making and problem solving, expressing
and co-developing ideas, explaining details and making suggestions for future
action.

Can act as rapporteur in a group discussion, noting ideas and decisions, discussingthese with the group and later giving a summary of the group’s view(s) in a plenary.

Can consider two different sides of an issue, giving arguments for and against, andpropose a solution or compromise.

Can present their ideas in a group and pose questions that invite reactions fromother group members’ perspectives.

Can help define goals for teamwork and compare options for how to achieve them.

Can refocus a discussion by suggesting what to consider next, and how to proceed.

Can further develop other people’s ideas and opinions.

Can ask questions to stimulate discussion on how to organise collaborative work.

Can help organise the discussion in a group by reporting what others have said,summarising, elaborating and weighing up different points of view.

Can highlight the main issue that needs to be resolved in a complex task and theimportant aspects that need to be taken into account.

Can, based on people’s reactions, adjust the way they formulate questions and/orintervene in a group interaction.

Can highlight inconsistencies in thinking, and challenge others’ ideas in theprocess of trying to reach a consensus.

Can evaluate problems, challenges and proposals in a collaborative discussion inorder to decide on the way forward.

Can frame a discussion to decide on a course of action with a partner or group,
reporting on what others have said, summarising, elaborating and weighing up
multiple points of view.

Can show sensitivity to different perspectives within a group, acknowledging
contributions and formulating any reservations, disagreements or criticisms in sucha way as to avoid or minimise any offence.

Can develop the interaction and tactfully help steer it towards a conclusion.

Can summarise, evaluate and link the various contributions in order to facilitateagreement on a solution or a way forward.

Collaborating to construct meaning

No descriptors available

Facilitating collaborative interaction with peers

Collaborating in a group

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 111

Pre-A1

A1

A2

B1

No descriptors available

Can invite others’ contributions to very simple tasks using short, simple phrases
prepared in advance. Can indicate that they understand and ask whether others
understand.

Can collaborate in simple, practical tasks, asking what others think, making
suggestions and understanding responses, provided they can ask for repetition or
reformulation from time to time.

Can collaborate in simple, shared tasks, provided other participants articulate
slowly and one or more people help them contribute and express theirsuggestions.

Can invite other people in a group to contribute their views.

No descriptors available

Can express an idea and ask what others think, using very simple words/signs andphrases, provided they can prepare in advance.

Can make suggestions in a simple way.

Can make simple remarks and pose occasional questions to indicate that they arefollowing.

Can ensure that the person they are addressing understands what they mean byasking appropriate questions.

Can repeat part of what someone has said to confirm mutual understanding andhelp keep the development of ideas on course.

Can ask a group member to give the reason(s) for their views.

Can use questions, comments and simple reformulations to maintain the focus of a
discussion.

Can collaborate in simple, shared tasks and work towards a common goal in agroup by asking and answering straightforward questions.

Can define the task in basic terms in a discussion and ask others to contribute theirexpertise and experience.

Can organise the work in a straightforward collaborative task by stating the aim
and explaining in a simple manner the main issue that needs to be resolved.

Collaborating to construct meaning

Can collaborate on a shared task, e.g. formulating and responding to suggestions,asking whether people agree, and proposing alternative approaches.

Facilitating collaborative interaction with peers

Collaborating in a groupManaging interaction
This scale is intended for situations in which the user/learner has a designated lead role to organise communicative
activity between members of a group or several groups, for example as a teacher, workshop facilitator, trainer or
meeting chair. They have a conscious approach to managing phases of communication that may include both
plenary communication with the whole group, and/or management of communication within and between
sub-groups. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f leading plenary activity;
f giving instructions and checking understanding of communicative task objectives;
f monitoring and facilitating communication within the group or sub-groups without impeding the flow ofcommunication between group participants;
f reorienting communication in the group or sub-groups; intervening to put a group back on task;
f adapting one’s own contributions and interactive role to support group communication, according to need.
Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: at B1 the user/learner can give clear instructions, allocate
turns, and bring participants in a group back to the task. These aspects are extended at B2 with explanations ofdifferent roles, ground rules and an ability to put a group back on task with new instructions or to encourage morebalanced participation. Several descriptors on monitoring clustered at B2+; only one of these has been kept in
the scale. By C1, the user/learner can organise a varied and balanced sequence of plenary, group and individual
work, ensuring smooth transitions between the phases, intervening diplomatically in order to redirect discussion,
to prevent one person dominating or to confront disruptive behaviour. At C2, they can take on different roles
as appropriate, recognise undercurrents and give appropriate guidance, and provide individualised support.

Encouraging conceptual talkEncouraging conceptual talk involves providing scaffolding to enable another person or persons to themselves
construct a new concept, rather than passively following a lead. The user/learner may do this as a member of agroup, taking temporarily the role of facilitator, or they may have the designated role of an expert (for example,
an animator, teacher, trainer or manager) who is leading the group in order to help them understand concepts.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f asking questions to stimulate logical reasoning (dialogic talk);f building contributions into logical, coherent discourse.
Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: the scale moves from showing interest at A1, through asking
simple questions to bring someone into a discussion or to ask someone’s opinion at A2, to monitoring discussion
and posing higher order questions at B2+ and above, in order to encourage logical reasoning, justification ofideas and the construction of coherent lines of thinking.

Page 112 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 113

Can encourage members of a group to build on one another’s information andideas to come up with a concept or solution.

Can monitor individual and group work non-intrusively, intervening to set a groupback on task or to ensure even participation.

No descriptors available

No descriptors available

A1

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Can use simple isolated words/signs and non-verbal signals to show interest in an
idea.

Can ask what somebody thinks of a certain idea.

Can give very simple instructions to a co-operative group, given some help withformulation when necessary.

A2

Can ask questions to invite people to clarify their reasoning.

Can ask appropriate questions to check understanding of concepts that have been
explained.

Can ask people to elaborate on specific points they made in their initial explanation.

Can ask why someone thinks something, or how they think something would
work.

Can allocate turns in a discussion, inviting a participant to express their views.

Can ask people to explain how an idea fits with the main topic under discussion.

Can build on people’s ideas and link them into coherent lines of thinking.

Can explain ground rules of collaborative discussion in small groups that involves
problem solving or the evaluation of alternative proposals.

Can intervene when necessary to set a group back on task with new instructions or
to encourage more even participation.

Can formulate questions and feedback to encourage people to expand on theirthinking and justify or clarify their opinions.

Can explain the different roles of participants in the collaborative process, giving
clear instructions for group work.

Can intervene supportively in order to focus people’s attention on aspects of thetask by asking targeted questions and inviting suggestions.

Can encourage members of a group to describe and elaborate on their thinking.

Can ask a series of open questions that build on different contributions in order tostimulate logical reasoning (e.g. hypothesising, inferring, analysing, justifying andpredicting).

Can organise and manage collaborative group work efficiently.

Can intervene diplomatically in order to redirect discussion, prevent one person
dominating or confront disruptive behaviour.

Can organise a varied and balanced sequence of plenary, group and individual
work, ensuring smooth transitions between the phases.

Can recognise undercurrents in interaction and take appropriate steps to guide thedirection of discussion.

Can effectively lead the development of ideas in a discussion of complex abstract
topics, giving direction by targeting questions and encouraging others toelaborate on their reasoning.

Encouraging conceptual talkCan give simple, clear instructions to organise an activity.

B1

B2

C1

C2

Can take on different roles according to the needs of the participants andrequirements of the activity (resource person, mediator, supervisor, etc.) andprovide appropriate individualised support.

Managing interaction

Leading group work

3.4.1.3. Mediating communication
Despite the brevity of the presentation of mediation in the 2001 CEFR text, the social aspect is underlined.
Mediation concerns a language user who plays the role of intermediary between different interlocutors, engagedin activities that “occupy an important place in the normal linguistic functioning of our societies” (CEFR Section
2.1.3). Language is of course not the only reason why people sometimes have difficulty understanding one another.
Even if one thinks of mediation in terms of rendering a text comprehensible, the difficulty in comprehension
may well be due to a lack of familiarity with the area or field concerned. Understanding the other requires aneffort of translation from one’s own perspective to the other, keeping both perspectives in mind; sometimes
people need a third person or a third space in order to achieve this. Sometimes there are delicate situations,
tensions or even disagreements that need to be faced in order to create the conditions for any understanding
and hence any communication.
The descriptors for mediating communication will therefore have direct relevance to teachers, trainers, students
and professionals who wish to develop their awareness and competence in this area, in order to achieve better
outcomes in their communicative encounters in a particular language or languages, particularly when there isan intercultural element involved.

Facilitating pluricultural space
This scale reflects the notion of creating a shared space between linguistically and culturally different interlocutors(that is, the capacity to deal with “otherness”, to identify similarities and differences, to build on known andunknown cultural features, and so on) in order to enable communication and collaboration. The user/learner
aims to facilitate a positive interactive environment for successful communication between participantsof different cultural backgrounds, including in multicultural contexts. Rather than simply building on theirpluricultural repertoire to gain acceptance and to enhance their own mission or message (see “Building on
pluricultural repertoire”), they are engaged as a cultural mediator: creating a neutral, trusted, shared “space” inorder to enhance communication between others. They aim to expand and deepen intercultural understanding
between participants in order to avoid and/or overcome any potential communication difficulties arising fromcontrasting cultural viewpoints. Naturally, the mediator themselves needs a continually developing awareness ofsociocultural and sociolinguistic differences affecting cross-cultural communication. Key concepts operationalisedin the scale include the following:f using questions and showing interest to promote understanding of cultural norms and perspectives
between participants;
f demonstrating sensitivity to and respect for different sociocultural and sociolinguistic perspectives andnorms;
f anticipating, dealing with and/or repairing misunderstandings arising from sociocultural and sociolinguistic
differences.
Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: at B1 the emphasis is on introducing people and showinginterest and empathy by asking and answering questions. By B2+, appreciation of different perspectives andflexibility are central: the ability to belong to a group yet maintain balance and distance, express oneself sensitively,
clarify misunderstandings and explain how things were meant. This aspect is developed further in the C levels,
where the user/learner can control their actions and expression according to context, making subtle adjustments
in order to prevent and/or repair misunderstandings and cultural incidents. By C2, they can mediate effectively
and naturally, taking account of sociocultural and sociolinguistic differences.
Facilitating pluricultural space

C2

Can mediate effectively and naturally between members of their own and other communities, taking
account of sociocultural and sociolinguistic differences.
Can guide a sensitive discussion effectively, identifying nuances and undercurrents.
Can act as a mediator in intercultural encounters, contributing to a shared communication culture bymanaging ambiguity, offering advice and support, and heading off misunderstandings.

C1

Can anticipate how people might misunderstand what has been said or written and can help maintainpositive interaction by commenting on and interpreting different cultural perspectives on the issue
concerned.

Page 114 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Facilitating pluricultural space
Can exploit knowledge of sociocultural conventions in order to establish a consensus on how to proceed ina particular situation that is unfamiliar to everyone involved.
Can, in intercultural encounters, demonstrate appreciation of perspectives other than that of their own
worldview, and express themselves in a way appropriate to the context.
Can clarify misunderstandings and misinterpretations during intercultural encounters, suggesting how
things were actually meant in order to clear the air and move the discussion forward.

B2
Can encourage a shared communication culture by expressing understanding and appreciation of different
ideas, feelings and viewpoints, and inviting participants to contribute and react to each other’s ideas.
Can work collaboratively with people who have different cultural orientations, discussing similarities anddifferences in views and perspectives.
Can, when collaborating with people from other cultures, adapt the way they work in order to createshared procedures.
Can support communication across cultures by initiating conversation, showing interest and empathy byasking and answering simple questions, and expressing agreement and understanding.
Can act in a supportive manner in intercultural encounters, recognising the feelings and different
worldviews of other members of the group.

B1

Can support an intercultural exchange using a limited repertoire to introduce people from different
cultural backgrounds and to ask and answer questions, showing awareness that some questions may beperceived differently in the cultures concerned.
Can help develop a shared communication culture, by exchanging information in a simple way about
values and attitudes to language and culture.

A2

Can contribute to an intercultural exchange, using simple words/signs to ask people to explain things andto get clarification of what they say, while exploiting a limited repertoire to express agreement, to invite, tothank, etc.

A1

Can facilitate an intercultural exchange by showing a welcoming attitude and interest with simple words/
signs and non-verbal signals, by inviting others to contribute, and by indicating whether they understandwhen addressed directly.

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Acting as an intermediary in informal situations (with friends and colleagues)This scale is intended for situations in which the user/learner as a plurilingual individual mediates acrosslanguages and cultures to the best of their ability in an informal situation in the public, private, occupationalor educational domain. The scale is therefore not concerned with the activities of professional interpreters. The
mediation may be in one direction (for example, during a welcome speech) or in two directions (for example,
during a conversation). Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f informally communicating the sense of what speakers/signers are saying in a conversation;
f conveying important information (for example, in a situation at work);
f repeating the sense of what is expressed in speeches and presentations.
Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: at the A levels, the user/learner can assist in a very simple
manner, but by A2+ and B1 they can mediate in predictable everyday situations. However, such assistance isdependent on the interlocutors being supportive in that they alter their expression or will repeat information
as necessary. At B2, the user/learner can mediate competently within their fields of interest, given the pauses
to do so, and by C1 they can do this fluently on a wide range of subjects. At C2 the user/learner can also convey
the meaning of the interlocutors faithfully, reflecting the style, register and cultural context.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 115

Acting as an intermediary in informal situations (with friends and colleagues)
C2

Can communicate in a clear, fluent, well-structured way (in Language B) the sense of what is said (inLanguage A) on a wide range of general and specialised topics, maintaining appropriate style and register,conveying finer shades of meaning and elaborating on sociocultural implications.

C1

Can communicate fluently (in Language B) the sense of what is said (in Language A) on a wide range ofsubjects of personal, academic and professional interest, conveying significant information clearly andconcisely as well as explaining cultural references.
Can mediate (between Language A and Language B) conveying detailed information, drawing theattention of both sides to background information and sociocultural cues, and posing clarification andfollow-up questions or statements as necessary.

B2

Can communicate (in Language B) the sense of what is said in a welcome address, anecdote orpresentation in their field (given in Language A), interpreting cultural cues appropriately and giving
additional explanations when necessary, provided the presenter stops frequently in order to allow time forthem to do so.
Can communicate (in Language B) the sense of what is said (in Language A) on subjects within theirfields of interest, conveying and when necessary explaining the significance of important statements andviewpoints, provided the interlocutors give clarifications if needed.
Can communicate (in Language B) the main sense of what is said (in Language A) on subjects within theirfields of interest, conveying straightforward factual information and explicit cultural references, provided
they can prepare beforehand and that the interlocutors articulate clearly in everyday language.

B1
Can communicate (in Language B) the main sense of what is said (in Language A) on subjects of personal
interest, while following important politeness conventions, provided the interlocutors articulate clearly andthey can ask for clarification and pause to plan how to express things.
Can communicate (in Language B) the overall sense of what is said (in Language A) in everyday situations,following basic cultural conventions and conveying the essential information, provided this is articulated
clearly and they can ask for repetition and clarification.

A2
Can communicate (in Language B) the main point of what is said (in Language A) in predictable everyday
situations, conveying back and forth information about personal wants and needs, provided other people
help with formulation.

A1
Pre-A1

Can communicate (in Language B) other people’s personal details and very simple, predictable information(in Language A), provided other people help with formulation.
No descriptors available

Facilitating communication in delicate situations and disagreements
This scale is intended for situations in which the user/learner may have a formal role to mediate in a disagreement
between third parties, or may informally try to resolve a misunderstanding, delicate situation or disagreement
between them. The user/learner is primarily concerned with clarifying what the problem is and what the parties
want, helping them understand each other’s positions. They may well attempt to persuade the third parties
to move closer to a resolution of the issue. They are not at all concerned with their own viewpoint, but seekbalance in the representation of the viewpoints of the other parties involved in the discussion. Key concepts
operationalised in the scale include the following:f exploring in a sensitive and balanced way the different viewpoints represented by participants in the dialogue;
f elaborating on viewpoints expressed to enhance and deepen participants’ understanding of the issues
discussed;
f establishing common ground;f establishing possible areas of concession between participants;
f mediating a shift in viewpoint of one or more participants, to move closer to an agreement or resolution.

Page 116 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: at the A levels, the user/learner can recognise whendisagreements occur. At B1, they can obtain explanations, demonstrate understanding of the issues andseek clarifications where necessary. At B2, they can outline the main issues and the positions of the parties
concerned, identify common ground, highlight possible solutions and summarise what is agreed on. Theseskills are deepened at B2+, with the user/learner showing detailed awareness of the issues and eliciting possible
solutions. At the C levels, they have the diplomatic and persuasive language to do this more effectively, guiding
a delicate discussion sensitively.
Facilitating communication in delicate situations and disagreements

C2

Can deal tactfully with a disruptive participant, framing any remarks diplomatically in relation to thesituation and cultural perceptions.
Can confidently take a firm but diplomatic stance over an issue of principle, while showing respect for the
viewpoints of others.
Can demonstrate sensitivity to different viewpoints, using repetition and paraphrase to demonstrate adetailed understanding of each party’s requirements for an agreement.

C1

Can formulate a diplomatic request to each side in a disagreement to determine what is central to theirposition, and what they may be willing to give up under certain circumstances.
Can use persuasive language to suggest that parties in disagreement shift towards a new position.
Can elicit possible solutions from parties in disagreement in order to help them to reach consensus,
formulating open-ended, neutral questions to minimise embarrassment or offence.
Can help the parties in a disagreement better understand each other by restating and reframing theirpositions more clearly and by prioritising needs and goals.
Can formulate a clear and accurate summary of what has been agreed and what is expected from each of
the parties.

B2
Can, by asking questions, identify areas of common ground and invite each side to highlight possible
solutions.
Can outline the main points in a disagreement with reasonable precision and explain the positions of theparties involved.
Can summarise the statements made by the two sides, highlighting areas of agreement and obstacles toagreement.
Can ask parties in a disagreement to explain their point of view, and can respond briefly to their
explanations, provided the topic is familiar to them and the parties express themselves clearly.

B1
Can demonstrate their understanding of the key issues in a disagreement on a topic familiar to them andmake simple requests for confirmation and/or clarification.

A2

Can recognise when people disagree or when difficulties occur in interaction and adapt memorised, simple
phrases to seek compromise and agreement.

A1

Can recognise when people disagree or when someone has a problem and can use memorised, simple
expressions (e.g. “I understand” or “Are you okay?”) to indicate sympathy.

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

3.4.2. Mediation strategies
The user/learner’s ability to mediate does not only involve being linguistically competent in the relevant languageor languages; it also entails using mediation strategies that are appropriate in relation to the conventions,conditions and constraints of the communicative context. Mediation strategies are the techniques employed toclarify meaning and facilitate understanding. As a mediator, the user/learner may need to shuttle between people,
between texts, between types of discourse and between languages, varieties or modalities, depending on the
mediation context. The strategies here presented are communication strategies, that is, ways of helping people
to understand, during the actual process of mediation. They concern the way source content is processed for the

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 117

recipient. For instance, is it necessary to elaborate it, to condense it, to paraphrase it, to simplify it, to illustrate itwith metaphors or visuals? The strategies are presented separately because they apply to many of the activities.

3.4.2.1. Strategies to explain a new concept
Linking to previous knowledge
Establishing links to previous knowledge is a significant part of the mediation process since it is an essential
part of the learning process. The mediator may explain new information by making comparisons, by describing
how it relates to something the recipient already knows or by helping recipients activate previous knowledge,
for example. Links may be made to other texts, relating new information and concepts to previous material,
and to background knowledge of the world. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f posing questions to encourage people to activate prior knowledge;f making comparisons and/or links between new and prior knowledge;
f providing examples and definitions.
Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: there is a progression from comparison to familiar everyday
experience at B1, through awareness raising with clear explanations of links at B2, to extended, spontaneous
definition of complex concepts that draw on previous knowledge at C2.

Adapting language
The user/learner may need to employ shifts in use of language, style and/or register in order to incorporate thecontent of a text into a new text of a different genre and register. This may be done through the inclusion ofsynonyms, similes, simplification or paraphrasing. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f paraphrasing;f adapting delivery;f explaining technical terminology.
Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: from A2 to B2 the user/learner can exploit paraphrasing
and simplification to make the content of texts more accessible. B2 descriptors concern paraphrasing difficult
concepts and technical topics comprehensible with paraphrasing, and conscious adaptation of the language
used. At the C levels, concepts are technical or complex, and the user/learner is able to present the content in adifferent genre or register that is appropriate for the audience and purpose.

Breaking down complicated information
Understanding can often be enhanced by breaking down complicated information into constituent parts,and showing how these parts fit together to give the whole picture. Key concepts operationalised in the scale
include the following:f breaking a process into a series of steps;
f presenting ideas or instructions as bullet points;
f presenting separately the main points in a chain of argument.
Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: at B1 the user/learner can present instructions or informational
text one point at a time. At B2, they can break down complicated processes or arguments and present theircomponents separately. At C1, there is an added emphasis on reinforcement and recapitulation, and at C2 theuser/learner can explain the relationship of parts to the whole and encourage different ways of analysing the issue.

Page 118 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 119

B2

C1

C2

Can explain technical terminology and difficult
concepts when communicating with non-experts
about matters within their own field of specialisation.

Can spontaneously pose a series of questions
to encourage people to think about their priorknowledge of an abstract issue and to help themestablish a link to what is going to be explained.

Can explain a new concept or procedure bycomparing and contrasting it to one that people are
already familiar with.

Can formulate questions and give feedback to
encourage people to make connections to previous
knowledge and experiences.

Can clearly explain the connections between thegoals of the session and the personal or professional
interests and experiences of the participant(s).

Can adapt the language of a very wide range of texts
in order to present the main content in a register anddegree of sophistication and detail appropriate to theaudience concerned.

Can introduce complex concepts (e.g. scientificnotions) by providing extended definitions andexplanations that draw on previous knowledge thatcan be assumed.

Can make accessible for others the main contents
of a text on a subject of interest (e.g. an essay, aforum discussion, a presentation) by paraphrasing in
simpler language.

Can make a specific, complex piece of informationin their field clearer and more explicit for others byparaphrasing it in simpler language.

Can explain technical topics within their field, using
suitably non-technical language for a recipient who
does not have specialist knowledge.

Can paraphrase and interpret complex, technicaltexts, using suitably non-technical language for arecipient who does not have specialist knowledge.

Can adapt their language (e.g. syntax, idiomaticity,
jargon) in order to make a complex specialist topic
accessible to recipients who are not familiar with it.

Adapting language

Linking to previous knowledge

Strategies to explain a new concept

Can make a complicated process easier to understandby breaking it down into a series of smaller steps.

Can make a complicated issue easier to understandby presenting the components of the argument
separately.

Can facilitate understanding of a complex issue
by highlighting and categorising the main points,
presenting them in a logically connected pattern, andreinforcing the message by repeating the key aspects
in different ways.

Can facilitate understanding of a complex issue by
explaining the relationship of parts to the whole andencourage different ways of approaching it.

Breaking down complicated information

Page 120 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

No descriptors available

Pre-A1
No descriptors available

No descriptors available

Can repeat the main point of a simple message on an
everyday subject, using different formulation to help
someone else understand it.

No descriptors available

No descriptors available

Can paraphrase short passages in a simple fashion,using the original order of the text.

Can paraphrase more simply the main points madein short, straightforward texts on familiar subjects(e.g. short magazine articles, interviews) to make thecontents accessible for others.

Adapting language

Can show how new information is related to what
people are familiar with by asking simple questions.

A1

A2

B1

Can explain how something works by providing
examples that draw on people’s everyday
experiences.

Linking to previous knowledge

Strategies to explain a new concept

No descriptors available

No descriptors available

No descriptors available

Can make a set of instructions easier to understandby repeating them slowly, a few words/signs at atime, employing verbal and non-verbal emphasis tofacilitate understanding.

Can make a short instructional or informational
text easier to understand by presenting it as a list of
separate points.

Breaking down complicated information

3.4.2.2. Strategies to simplify a text
Amplifying a dense text
Density of information is often an obstacle to understanding. This scale is concerned with the expansion of the
input source through the inclusion of helpful information, examples, details, background information, reasoning
and explanatory comments. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f using repetition and redundancy, for example by paraphrasing in different ways;
f modifying style to explain things more explicitly;
f giving examples.
Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: at B1 and B2 the emphasis is on providing repetition andfurther examples, whereas at the C levels the focus is more on elaboration and explanation, adding helpful detail.

Streamlining a text
This scale is concerned with the opposite to “Amplifying” in the scale above, namely pruning a written text toits essential message(s). This may involve expressing the same information more economically by eliminating
repetition and digressions, and excluding those sections of the source that do not add relevant new information.
However, it may also involve regrouping the source ideas in order to highlight important points, to draw
conclusions or to compare and contrast them. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f highlighting key information;
f eliminating repetition and digressions;f excluding what is not relevant for the audience.
Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: highlighting may be simply underlining or inserting marksin the margin at A2+/B1 but becomes a complete rewrite of the source text at C2. At B2, the learner is able toedit the source text to remove irrelevance and repetition. At the C levels, the focus switches to tailoring a source
text for a particular audience.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: communicative language activities and strategies Page 121

Page 122 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

No descriptors available

No descriptors available

No descriptors available

A1

Pre-A1

Can make an aspect of an everyday topic clearer by providing simple examples.

Can make an aspect of an everyday topic clearer and more explicit by conveying
the main information in another way.

Can make new information more accessible by using repetition and adding
illustrations.

Can make concepts on subjects in their fields of interest more accessible by giving
concrete examples, recapitulating step by step and repeating the main points.

Can make the content of a text on a subject in their fields of interest moreaccessible to a target audience by adding examples, reasoning and explanatory
comments.

No descriptors available

No descriptors available

Can identify and mark (e.g. underline, highlight) the key sentences in a shorteveryday text.

Can identify and mark (e.g. underline, highlight) the essential information ina straightforward, informational text, in order to pass this information on tosomeone else.

Can identify related or repeated information in different parts of a text and merge
it in order to make the essential message clearer.

Can edit a source text by deleting the parts that do not add new information thatis relevant for a given audience in order to make the significant content moreaccessible for them.

Can simplify a source text by excluding non-relevant or repetitive information andtaking into consideration the intended audience.

Can reorganise a complex source text in order to focus on the points of most
relevance to the target audience.

Can make complex, challenging content more accessible by explaining difficult
aspects more explicitly and adding helpful detail.

Can make the main points contained in a complex text more accessible to thetarget audience by adding redundancy, explaining, and modifying style andregister.

Can redraft a complex source text, improving coherence, cohesion and the flow ofan argument, while removing sections unnecessary for its purpose.

Can elucidate the information given in texts on complex academic or professional
topics by elaborating and providing examples.

A2

B1

B2

C1

C2

Streamlining a text

Amplifying a dense text

Strategies to simplify a text

Chapter 4
THE CEFR ILLUSTRATIVE DESCRIPTORSCALES: PLURILINGUAL AND
PLURICULTURAL COMPETENCE
The notions of plurilingualism and pluriculturalism presented in the CEFR 2001 (Sections 1.3, 1.4, and 6.1.3) were
the starting point for the development of descriptors in this area. The plurilingual vision associated with the CEFR
gives value to cultural and linguistic diversity at the level of the individual. It promotes the need for learners as“social agents” to draw on all their linguistic and cultural resources and experiences in order to fully participate
in social and educational contexts, achieving mutual understanding, gaining access to knowledge and in turn,further developing their linguistic and cultural repertoire. As the CEFR 2001 states:
the plurilingual approach emphasises the fact that as an individual person’s experience of language in its culturalcontexts expands, from the language of the home to that of society at large and then to the languages of other peoples(whether learnt at school or college, or by direct experience), he or she does not keep these languages and cultures instrictly separated mental compartments, but rather builds up a communicative competence to which all knowledge
and experience of language contributes and in which languages interrelate and interact. (CEFR 2001 Section 1.3)

Figure 15 – Plurilingual and pluricultural competence

Plurilingual and pluriculturalcompetence

Building
on pluriculturalrepertoire

Plurilingual
comprehension

Building
on plurilingual
repertoire

The vision of the learner as a social agent in the action-oriented approach takes these concepts further in relation
to language education, considering that:the aim of language education is profoundly modified. It is no longer seen as simply to achieve “mastery” of one or
two, or even three languages, each taken in isolation, with the “ideal native speaker” as the ultimate model. Instead,the aim is to develop a linguistic repertory, in which all linguistic abilities have a place. (CEFR 2001 Section 1.3)

In the development of descriptors, the following points mentioned specifically in the CEFR 2001 were given
particular attention:
f languages are interrelated and interconnected, especially at the level of the individual;
f languages and cultures are not kept in separated mental compartments;
f all knowledge and experience of languages contribute to building up communicative competence;f balanced mastery of different languages is not the goal, but rather the ability (and willingness) to modulate
their usage according to the social and communicative situation;
f barriers between languages can be overcome in communication, and different languages can be used
purposefully for conveying messages in the same situation.

Page 123

Other concepts were also taken into consideration after analysing recent literature:
f capacity to deal with “otherness” to identify similarities and differences, to build on known and unknown
cultural features, etc. in order to enable communication and collaboration;
f willingness to act as an intercultural mediator;
f proactive capacity to use knowledge of familiar languages to understand new languages, looking for
cognates and internationalisms in order to make sense of texts in unknown languages – while being awareof the danger of “false friends”;
f capacity to respond in a sociolinguistically appropriate way by incorporating elements of other languages
and/or variations of languages in their own discourse for communication purposes;
f capacity to exploit one’s linguistic repertoire by purposefully blending, embedding and alternating languages at the levels of utterance and discourse;
f readiness and capacity to expand linguistic/plurilinguistic and cultural/pluricultural awareness throughan attitude of openness and curiosity.
The reason for associating descriptors in this area with CEFR levels is to provide support to curriculum developers
and teachers in their efforts (a) to broaden the perspective of language education in their context and (b) toacknowledge and value the linguistic and cultural diversity of their learners. The provision of descriptors in levels
is intended to facilitate the selection of relevant plurilingual/pluricultural aims, which are also realistic in relation
to the language level of the user/learners concerned.
The scale “Facilitating pluricultural space” is included in the section “Mediating communication”, rather than here,
because it focuses on a more proactive role as an intercultural mediator. The three scales in this section describe
aspects of the broader conceptual area concerning plurilingual and intercultural education.
This area is the subject of the framework of reference for pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures(FREPA/CARAP), which lists different aspects of plurilingual and intercultural competences in a hypertextual
structure independent of language level, organised according to three broad areas: knowledge (savoir), attitudes(savoir-être) and skills (savoir-faire). Users may wish to consult FREPA/CARAP for further reflection and for accessto related training materials in this area.

Building on pluricultural repertoire
Many notions that appear in the literature and descriptors for intercultural competence are included, for example:
f the need to deal with ambiguity when faced with cultural diversity, adjusting reactions, modifying language, etc.
f the need for understanding that different cultures may have different practices and norms, and that actions
may be perceived differently by people belonging to other cultures;
f the need to take into consideration differences in behaviours (including gestures, tones and attitudes),discussing over-generalisations and stereotypes;
f the need to recognise similarities and use them as a basis to improve communication;
f willingness to show sensitivity to differences;f readiness to offer and ask for clarification, anticipating possible risks of misunderstanding.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale at most levels include the following:f recognising and acting on cultural, socio-pragmatic and sociolinguistic conventions/cues;
f recognising and interpreting similarities and differences in perspectives, practices and events;
f evaluating neutrally and critically.
Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: at the A levels the user/learner is capable of recognisingpotential causes of culturally based complications in communication and of acting appropriately in simple
everyday exchanges. At B1 they can generally respond to the most commonly used cultural cues, act according
to socio-pragmatic conventions and explain or discuss features of their own and other cultures. At B2, the user/
learner can engage effectively in communication, coping with most difficulties that occur, and is usually able
to recognise and repair misunderstandings. At the C levels, this develops into an ability to explain sensitively
the background to cultural beliefs, values and practices, interpret and discuss aspects of them, cope withsociolinguistic and pragmatic ambiguity and express reactions constructively with cultural appropriateness.

Page 124 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Building on pluricultural repertoire
C2

Can initiate and control their actions and forms of expression according to context, showing awareness ofcultural differences and making subtle adjustments in order to prevent and/or repair misunderstandings
and cultural incidents.
Can identify differences in sociolinguistic/-pragmatic conventions, critically reflect on them and adjust theircommunication accordingly.

C1

Can sensitively explain the background to and interpret and discuss aspects of cultural values and practices
drawing on intercultural encounters, reading, film, etc.
Can deal with ambiguity in cross-cultural communication and express their reactions constructively andculturally appropriately in order to bring clarity.
**Can describe and evaluate the viewpoints and practices of their own and other social groups, showing
awareness of the implicit values on which judgments and prejudices are frequently based.
**Can explain their interpretation of the cultural assumptions, preconceptions, stereotypes and prejudicesof their own community and of other communities that they are familiar with.
**Can interpret and explain a document or event from another culture and relate it to documents or eventsfrom their own culture(s) and/or from cultures with which they are familiar.

B2**Can discuss the objectivity and balance of information and opinions expressed in the media about theirown and other communities.
Can identify and reflect on similarities and differences in culturally determined behavioural patterns (e.g.
gestures and speech volume or, for sign languages, sign size) and discuss their significance in order tonegotiate mutual understanding.
Can, in an intercultural encounter, recognise that what one normally takes for granted in a particularsituation is not necessarily shared by others, and can react and express themselves appropriately.
Can generally interpret cultural cues appropriately in the culture concerned.
Can reflect on and explain particular ways of communicating in their own and other cultures, and the risksof misunderstanding they generate.
Can generally act according to conventions regarding posture, eye contact and distance from others.
Can generally respond appropriately to the most commonly used cultural cues.
Can explain features of their own culture to members of another culture or explain features of the otherculture to members of their own culture.

B1

Can explain in simple terms how their own values and behaviours influence their views of other people’svalues and behaviours.
Can discuss in simple terms the way in which things that may look “strange” to them in anothersociocultural context may well be “normal” for the other people concerned.
Can discuss in simple terms the way their own culturally determined actions may be perceived differently
by people from other cultures.
Can recognise and apply basic cultural conventions associated with everyday social exchanges (e.g.
different greetings, rituals).

A2

Can act appropriately in everyday greetings, farewells and expressions of thanks and apology, although
they have difficulty coping with any departure from the routine.
Can recognise that their behaviour in an everyday transaction may convey a message different from theone they intend, and can try to explain this simply.
Can recognise when difficulties occur in interaction with members of other cultures, even though they may
not be sure how to behave in the situation.

A1
Pre-A1

Can recognise differing ways of numbering, measuring distance, telling the time, etc. even though they
may have difficulty applying this in even simple everyday transactions of a concrete type.
No descriptors available

Descriptors marked with asterisks (**) represent a high level for B2. They may also be suitable for the C levels.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: plurilingual and pluricultural competence Page 125

Plurilingual comprehension
The main notion represented by this scale is capacity to use knowledge of and proficiency (even partial) in one
or more languages as leverage for approaching texts in other languages, in order to achieve a communication
goal. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
f openness and flexibility to work with different elements from different languages;
f exploiting cues;
f exploiting similarities, recognising “false friends” (from B1 up);f exploiting parallel sources in different languages (from B1 up);f collating information from all available sources (in different languages).
Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: going up the scale, the focus moves from the lexical levelto the use of co-text and contextual or genre-related clues. A more analytical ability is present at the B levels,
exploiting similarities, recognising “false friends” and exploiting parallel sources in different languages. There
are no descriptors for the C levels, perhaps because the sources used focused on the A and B levels.
Note: What is calibrated in this scale is the practical functional ability to exploit plurilingualism for comprehension.
In any particular context, when specific languages are concerned, users may wish to complete the descriptor by
specifying those languages, replacing the expressions underlined and in italics in the descriptor.
For example, the B1 descriptor:
Can deduce the message of a text by exploiting what they have understood from texts on the same theme
in different languages (e.g. news in brief, museum brochures, online reviews)
might be presented as:
Can deduce the message of a text in German by exploiting what they have understood from texts on thesame theme in French and English (e.g. news in brief, museum brochures, online reviews).

Plurilingual comprehension
C2

No descriptors available, see B2

C1

No descriptors available, see B2

B2

Can use their knowledge of contrasting genre conventions and textual patterns in languages in theirplurilingual repertoire in order to support comprehension.
Can use what they have understood in one language to understand the topic and main message of a text in
another language (e.g. when reading short newspaper articles in different languages on the same theme).
Can use parallel translations of texts (e.g. magazine articles, stories, passages from novels) to develop
comprehension in different languages.

B1

Can deduce the message of a text by exploiting what they have understood from texts on the same theme
in different languages (e.g. news in brief, museum brochures, online reviews).
Can extract information from documents in different languages in their field (e.g. to include in apresentation).
Can recognise similarities and contrasts between the way concepts are expressed in different languages, inorder to distinguish between identical uses of the same word/sign and “false friends”.
Can use their knowledge of contrasting grammatical structures and functional expressions of languages intheir plurilingual repertoire in order to support comprehension.

Page 126 3 CEFR –­Companion volumePlurilingual comprehension
Can understand short, clearly articulated announcements by piecing together what they understand fromthe available versions in different languages.
Can understand short, clearly expressed messages and instructions by piecing together what they
understand from the versions in different languages.

A2

Can use simple warnings, instructions and product information given in parallel in different languages tofind relevant information.
Can recognise internationalisms and words/signs common to different languages (e.g. haus/hus/house) to:- deduce the meaning of simple signs and notices;- identify the probable message of a short, simple text;- follow in outline short, simple social exchanges conducted very slowly and clearly in their presence;- deduce what people are trying to say directly to them, provided the articulation is very slow and clear,with repetition if necessary.

A1

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Building on plurilingual repertoire
In this scale we find aspects that characterise both the previous scales. As the social agent is building on theirpluricultural repertoire, they are also engaged in exploiting all available linguistic resources in order to communicate
effectively in a multilingual context and/or in a classic mediation situation in which the other people do notshare a common language. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
f flexible adaptation to the situation;
f anticipation as to when and to what extent the use of several languages is useful and appropriate;f adjusting language according to the linguistic skills of interlocutors;
f blending and alternating between languages where necessary;f explaining and clarifying in different languages;
f encouraging people to use different languages by giving an example.
Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: at the A levels, the focus is on exploiting all possible
resources in order to handle a simple everyday transaction. From the B levels, language begins to be manipulated
creatively, with the user/learner alternating flexibly between languages at B2 in order to make others feel more
comfortable, provide clarifications, communicate specialised information and in general increase the efficiency
of communication. At the C levels this focus continues, with the addition of an ability to gloss and explain
sophisticated abstract concepts in different languages. Overall there is also a progression from embedding single
words/signs from other languages to explaining particularly apt expressions, and exploiting metaphors for effect.
Note: What is calibrated in this scale is the practical functional ability to exploit plurilingualism. In any particular
context, when specific languages are concerned, users may wish to complete the descriptor by specifying thoselanguages, replacing the expressions underlined and in italics in the descriptor.
For example, the B2 descriptor
Can make use of different languages in their plurilingual repertoire during collaborative interaction, inorder to clarify the nature of a task, the main steps, the decisions to be taken and the outcomes expected
might be presented as:
Can make use of English, Spanish and French during collaborative interaction, in order to clarify the natureof a task, the main steps, the decisions to be taken and the outcomes expected.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: plurilingual and pluricultural competence Page 127

Building on plurilingual repertoire

C2

Can interact in a multilingual context on abstract and specialised topics by alternating flexibly between
languages in their plurilingual repertoire and if necessary explaining the different contributions made.
Can explore similarities and differences between metaphors and other figures of speech in the languages intheir plurilingual repertoire, either for rhetorical effect or for fun.
Can alternate between languages flexibly to facilitate communication in a multilingual context,
summarising and glossing in different languages in their plurilingual repertoire contributions to thediscussion and texts referred to.
Can participate effectively in a conversation in two or more languages in their plurilingual repertoire,adjusting to the changes of language and catering to the needs and linguistic skills of the interlocutors.

C1

Can use and explain specialised terminology from another language in their plurilingual repertoire morefamiliar to the interlocutor(s), in order to improve understanding in a discussion of abstract and specialised
topics.
Can respond spontaneously and flexibly in the appropriate language when someone else changes toanother language in their plurilingual repertoire.
Can support comprehension and discussion of a text spoken, signed or written in one language by
explaining, summarising, clarifying and expanding it in another language in their plurilingual repertoire.
**Can recognise the extent to which it is appropriate to make flexible use of different languages in theirplurilingual repertoire in a specific situation, in order to increase the efficiency of communication.
**Can alternate efficiently between languages in their plurilingual repertoire in order to facilitate
comprehension with and between third parties who lack a common language.

B2**Can introduce into an utterance an expression from another language in their plurilingual repertoirethat is particularly apt for the situation/concept being discussed, explaining it for the interlocutor whennecessary.
Can alternate between languages in their plurilingual repertoire in order to communicate specialised
information and issues on a subject in their field of interest to different interlocutors.
Can make use of different languages in their plurilingual repertoire during collaborative interaction, in orderto clarify the nature of a task, the main steps, the decisions to be taken and the outcomes expected.
Can make use of different languages in their plurilingual repertoire to encourage other people to use thelanguage in which they feel more comfortable.

B1

Can exploit creatively their limited repertoire in different languages in their plurilingual repertoire foreveryday contexts, in order to cope with an unexpected situation.
Can mobilise their limited repertoire in different languages in order to explain a problem or to ask for help
or clarification.

A2

Can use simple words/signs and phrases from different languages in their plurilingual repertoire to conduct a
simple, practical transaction or information exchange.
Can use a simple word/sign from another language in their plurilingual repertoire to make themselves
understood in a routine everyday situation, when they cannot think of an adequate expression in thelanguage being used.

A1
Pre-A1

Can use a very limited repertoire in different languages to conduct a very basic, concrete, everyday
transaction with a collaborative interlocutor.
No descriptors available

Descriptors marked with asterisks (**) represent a high level for B2. They may also be suitable for the C levels.

Page 128 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Chapter 5
THE CEFR ILLUSTRATIVE DESCRIPTOR SCALES:COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE COMPETENCES
As stated in the first chapter when discussing the CEFR descriptive scheme, the view of competence in the CEFR
does not come solely from applied linguistics but also from applied psychology and sociopolitical approaches.
However, the different competence models developed in applied linguistics from the early 1980s on did
influence the CEFR. Although they organised them in different ways, in general these models shared four main
aspects: strategic competence; linguistic competence; pragmatic competence (comprising both discourse andfunctional/actional competence) and sociocultural competence (including sociolinguistic competence). Since
strategic competence is dealt with in relation to activities, the CEFR presents descriptor scales for aspects ofcommunicative language competence in CEFR 2001 Section 5.2 under three headings: “Linguistic competence”,“Pragmatic competence” and “Sociolinguistic competence”. These aspects, or parameters of description, are always
intertwined in any language use; they are not separate “components” and cannot be isolated from each other.

Figure 16 – Communicative language competences

Communicative
language competences

Linguistic competenceSociolinguisticcompetence

Pragmatic competence

General linguistic range

Sociolinguistic
appropriateness

Flexibility

Vocabulary range

Turntaking

Grammatical accuracy

Thematic development

Vocabulary control

Coherence and cohesion

Phonological control

Propositional precision

Orthographic control

Fluency

Page 1295.1. LINGUISTIC COMPETENCE
Descriptors are available for different aspects of linguistic competence: “Range” (subdivided: “Morpho-syntactic
range”, later renamed “General linguistic range”, and “Vocabulary range”); “Control” (subdivided: “Grammaticalaccuracy” and “Vocabulary control”), “Phonological control” and “Orthographic control”. The range/control
distinction is a common one that reflects the need to take account of the complexity of the language usedrather than just registering mistakes. “Phonological control” is presented as a grid with the categories “Overallphonological control”, “Sound articulation” and “Prosodic features” (stress and intonation).
The features of language used successfully at different levels are sometimes called “criterial features” but theseare particular to different languages. Research in corpus linguistics is beginning to shed light on the nature ofthese features, and learners’ accuracy in using them, but results cannot easily be generalised across languages
or across the linguistic backgrounds of the learners concerned.

General linguistic range
Since the primary evidence for second language acquisition (that is, progress) is the emergence of new forms
and not their mastery, the “range” of language at the user/learner’s disposal is a primary concern. Secondly,
attempting to use more complex language, taking risks and moving beyond one’s comfort zone are essential
parts of the learning process. When learners are tackling more complex tasks, their control of their language
naturally suffers, and this is a healthy process. Learners will tend to have less control over more difficult, more
recently learnt morphology and syntax than when they stay within their linguistic comfort zone, and this needs
to be taken into consideration when viewing (lack of ) accuracy.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
f range of settings – from A1 to B2, then unrestricted;
f type of language: from memorised phrases to a very wide range of language to formulate thoughts precisely, give emphasis, differentiate and eliminate ambiguity;
f limitations: from frequent breakdown/misunderstanding in non-routine situations to no signs of having
to restrict what they want to say.
General linguistic range
C2

Can exploit a comprehensive and reliable mastery of a very wide range of language to formulate thoughts
precisely, give emphasis, differentiate and eliminate ambiguity. No signs of having to restrict what theywant to say.
Can use a broad range of complex grammatical structures appropriately and with considerable flexibility.

C1

Can select an appropriate formulation from a broad range of language to express themselves clearly,
without having to restrict what they want to say.
Can express themselves clearly without much sign of having to restrict what they want to say.

B2

B1

Has a sufficient range of language to be able to give clear descriptions, express viewpoints and develop
arguments without much conspicuous searching for words/signs, using some complex sentence forms to do so.
Has a sufficient range of language to describe unpredictable situations, explain the main points in an idea
or problem with reasonable precision and express thoughts on abstract or cultural topics such as music
and film.
Has enough language to get by, with sufficient vocabulary to express themselves with some hesitationand circumlocutions on topics such as family, hobbies and interests, work, travel and current events, but
lexical limitations cause repetition and even difficulty with formulation at times.
Has a repertoire of basic language which enables them to deal with everyday situations with predictable
content, though they will generally have to compromise the message and search for words/signs.

A2

Can produce brief, everyday expressions in order to satisfy simple needs of a concrete type (e.g. personal
details, daily routines, wants and needs, requests for information).
Can use basic sentence patterns and communicate with memorised phrases, groups of a few words/signs
and formulae about themselves and other people, what they do, places, possessions, etc.
Has a limited repertoire of short, memorised phrases covering predictable survival situations; frequent
breakdowns and misunderstandings occur in non-routine situations.

Page 130 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

General linguistic range
A1
Pre-A1

Has a very basic range of simple expressions about personal details and needs of a concrete type.
Can use some basic structures in one-clause sentences with some omission or reduction of elements.
Can use isolated words/signs and basic expressions in order to give simple information about themselves.

Vocabulary range
This scale concerns the breadth and variety of expressions used. It is generally acquired through reading widely.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
f range of settings – from A1 to B2, then unrestricted;
f type of language: from a basic repertoire of words/signs and phrases to a very broad lexical repertoire
including idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms.
Note: Vocabulary range is taken to apply to both reception and production. For sign languages, established andproductive vocabulary is implied from A2+ to C2, with established vocabulary at A1 and A2.

Vocabulary range
C2

Has a good command of a very broad lexical repertoire including idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms;
shows awareness of connotative levels of meaning.
Has a good command of a broad lexical repertoire allowing gaps to be readily overcome withcircumlocutions; little obvious searching for expressions or avoidance strategies.

C1

Can select from several vocabulary options in almost all situations by exploiting synonyms of even words/
signs less commonly encountered.
Has a good command of common idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms; can play with words/signs
fairly well.
Can understand and use appropriately the range of technical vocabulary and idiomatic expressions
common to their area of specialisation.
Can understand and use the main technical terminology of their field, when discussing their area ofspecialisation with other specialists.
Has a good range of vocabulary for matters connected to their field and most general topics.

B2

Can vary formulation to avoid frequent repetition, but lexical gaps can still cause hesitation andcircumlocution.
Can produce appropriate collocations of many words/signs in most contexts fairly systematically.
Can understand and use much of the specialist vocabulary of their field but has problems with specialist
terminology outside it.
Has a good range of vocabulary related to familiar topics and everyday situations.

B1

Has sufficient vocabulary to express themselves with some circumlocutions on most topics pertinent totheir everyday life such as family, hobbies and interests, work, travel and current events.
Has sufficient vocabulary to conduct routine everyday transactions involving familiar situations and topics.

A2

Has sufficient vocabulary for the expression of basic communicative needs.
Has sufficient vocabulary for coping with simple survival needs.

A1
Pre-A1

Has a basic vocabulary repertoire of words/signs and phrases related to particular concrete situations.
No descriptors available

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: Communicative language competences Page 131

Grammatical accuracy
This scale concerns both the user/learner’s ability to recall “prefabricated” expressions correctly and the capacity
to focus on grammatical forms while articulating thought. This is difficult because, when formulating thoughts
or performing more demanding tasks, the user/learner has to devote the majority of their mental processing
capacity to fulfilling the task. This is why accuracy tends to drop during complex tasks. In addition, research in
English, French and German suggests that inaccuracy increases at around B1 as the learner is beginning to use
language more independently and creatively. The fact that accuracy does not increase in a linear manner isreflected in the descriptors. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
f control of a specific repertoire (A1 to B1);
f prominence of mistakes (B1 to B2);
f degree of control (B2 to C2).
Grammatical accuracy
C2

Maintains consistent grammatical control of complex language, even while attention is otherwise engaged(e.g. in forward planning, in monitoring others’ reactions).

C1

Consistently maintains a high degree of grammatical accuracy; errors are rare and difficult to spot.
Good grammatical control; occasional “slips” or non-systematic errors and minor flaws in sentence structure
may still occur, but they are rare and can often be corrected in retrospect.

B2

Shows a relatively high degree of grammatical control. Does not make mistakes which lead tomisunderstanding.
Has a good command of simple language structures and some complex grammatical forms, although theytend to use complex structures rigidly with some inaccuracy.

B1

Communicates with reasonable accuracy in familiar contexts; generally good control, though with
noticeable mother-tongue influence. Errors occur, but it is clear what they are trying to express.
Uses reasonably accurately a repertoire of frequently used “routines” and patterns associated with morepredictable situations.

A2

Uses some simple structures correctly, but still systematically makes basic mistakes; nevertheless, it isusually clear what they are trying to say.

A1

Shows only limited control of a few simple grammatical structures and sentence patterns in a learnt
repertoire.

Pre-A1Can employ very simple principles of word/sign order in short statements.

Vocabulary control
This scale concerns the user/learner’s ability to choose an appropriate expression from their repertoire. As
competence increases, such ability is driven increasingly by association in the form of collocations and lexical
chunks, with one expression triggering another. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f familiarity of topics (A1 to B1);
f degree of control (B2 to C2).
Vocabulary control
C2

Consistently correct and appropriate use of vocabulary.

C1

Uses less common vocabulary idiomatically and appropriately.
Occasional minor slips, but no significant vocabulary errors.

B2

Lexical accuracy is generally high, though some confusion and incorrect word/sign choice does occur
without hindering communication.

Page 132 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Vocabulary control
B1

Shows good control of elementary vocabulary but major errors still occur when expressing more complex
thoughts or handling unfamiliar topics and situations.
Uses a wide range of simple vocabulary appropriately when discussing familiar topics.

A2

Can control a narrow repertoire dealing with concrete, everyday needs.

A1

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Phonological control
The 2001 scale has been replaced in this publication. The description of phonology in CEFR 2001 Section 5.2.1.4
is clear, thorough and sufficiently broad to encompass more recent reflections on aspects of phonology insecond/foreign language education. However, the 2001 scale did not capture this conceptual apparatus andthe progression appeared unrealistic, particularly in moving from B1 (“Pronunciation is clearly intelligible even
if a foreign accent is sometimes evident and occasional mispronunciations occur”) to B2 (“Has a clear, natural,
pronunciation and intonation”). In fact, the phonology scale was the least successful of those calibrated in theoriginal research behind the descriptors published in 2001.
In language teaching, the phonological control of an idealised native speaker has traditionally been seen as thetarget, with accent being seen as a marker of poor phonological control. The focus on accent and on accuracy
instead of on intelligibility has been detrimental to the development of the teaching of pronunciation. Idealisedmodels that ignore the retention of accent lack consideration for context, sociolinguistic aspects and learners’
needs. The 2001 scale seemed to reinforce such views and for this reason, the scale was redeveloped from scratch.
A process report45 on the sub-project is available on the CEFR website. From an extensive review of the literatureand consultation with experts, the following core areas were identified to inform work on descriptor production:
f articulation, including pronunciation of sounds/phonemes;
f prosody, including intonation, rhythm and stress – both word stress and sentence stress – and speechrate/chunking;f accentedness, accent and deviation from a “norm”;
f intelligibility, accessibility of meaning for interlocutors, covering also the interlocutors’ perceived difficultyin understanding (normally referred to as “comprehensibility”).
However, because of a certain overlapping between sub-categories the scale operationalises the above-mentioned
concepts into three categories:
f overall phonological control (replacing the existing scale);f sound articulation;
f prosodic features (intonation, stress and rhythm).
Intelligibility has been a key factor in discriminating between levels. The focus is on how much effort is required
from the interlocutor to decode the speaker’s message. Descriptors from the two more detailed scales are
summarised in more global statements, and explicit mention of accent has been used at all levels. Key concepts
operationalised in the scale include the following:f intelligibility: how much effort is required from the interlocutor to decode the speaker’s message;
f the extent of influence from other languages spoken;
f control of sounds;
f control of prosodic features.
The focus is on familiarity and confidence with the target language sounds (the range of sounds a speaker canarticulate and with what degree of precision). The key concept operationalised in the scale is the degree of clarityand precision in the articulation of sounds.
The focus is on the ability to effectively use prosodic features to convey meaning in an increasingly precise
manner. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
f control of stress, intonation and/or rhythm;
f ability to exploit and/or vary stress and intonation to highlight their particular message.

45. Piccardo E. (2016), “Phonological Scale Revision Process Report”, Education Policy Division, Council of Europe, available at https://rm.coe.int/168073fff9.
The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: Communicative language competences Page 133

Page 134 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

B1

B2

Pronunciation is generally intelligible; intonation andstress at both utterance and word levels do not prevent
understanding of the message. Accent is usually
influenced by the other language(s) they speak.

Is generally intelligible throughout, despite regularmispronunciation of individual sounds and words they
are less familiar with.

Can generalise from their repertoire to predict thephonological features of most unfamiliar words (e.g.
word stress) with reasonable accuracy (e.g. while
reading).

Can articulate a high proportion of the sounds inthe target language clearly in extended stretches of
production; is intelligible throughout, despite a few
systematic mispronunciations.

Can convey their message in an intelligible way inspite of a strong influence on stress, intonation and/or
rhythm from the other language(s) they speak.

Can employ prosodic features (e.g. stress, intonation,rhythm) to support the message they intend to convey,
though with some influence from the other languages
they speak.

Can vary intonation and place stress correctly in order
to express precisely what they mean to say.

Can generally use appropriate intonation, place stresscorrectly and articulate individual sounds clearly;
accent tends to be influenced by the other language(s)they speak, but has little or no effect on intelligibility.

C1

Can produce smooth, intelligible spoken discoursewith only occasional lapses in control of stress, rhythm
and/or intonation, which do not affect intelligibility oreffectiveness.

C2

Can articulate virtually all the sounds of the target
language with a high degree of control. They canusually self-correct if they noticeably mispronounce asound.

Can employ the full range of phonological featuresin the target language with a high level of control –including prosodic features such as word and sentencestress, rhythm and intonation – so that the finer pointsof their message are clear and precise. Intelligibility andeffective conveyance and enhancement of meaning
are not affected in any way by features of accent that
may be retained from other language(s).

Can employ the full range of phonological features inthe target language with sufficient control to ensure
intelligibility throughout. Can articulate virtually all
the sounds of the target language; some features ofaccent(s) retained from other language(s) may be
noticeable, but they do not affect intelligibility.

Prosodic features
Can exploit prosodic features (e.g. stress, rhythm andintonation) appropriately and effectively in order toconvey finer shades of meaning (e.g. to differentiate
and emphasise).

Sound articulation
Can articulate virtually all the sounds of the target
language with clarity and precision.

Overall phonological control

Phonological control

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: Communicative language competences Page 135

A1

A2

Can use the prosodic features of a limited repertoireof simple words and phrases intelligibly, in spite ofa very strong influence on stress, rhythm and/or
intonation from the other language(s) they speak; theirinterlocutor needs to be collaborative.

Can reproduce sounds in the target language if
carefully guided.
Can articulate a limited number of sounds, so thatspeech is only intelligible if the interlocutor provides
support (e.g. by repeating correctly and by eliciting
repetition of new sounds).

Prosodic features (e.g. word stress) are adequate forfamiliar everyday words and simple utterances.

Systematic mispronunciation of phonemes does nothinder intelligibility, provided the interlocutor makes
an effort to recognise and adjust to the influence of the
speaker’s language background on pronunciation.

Pronunciation of a very limited repertoire of learnt
words and phrases can be understood with some effort
by interlocutors used to dealing with speakers of thelanguage group. Can reproduce correctly a limited
range of sounds as well as stress for simple, familiar
words and phrases.

Can use the prosodic features of everyday words
and phrases intelligibly, in spite of a strong influenceon stress, intonation and/or rhythm from the otherlanguage(s) they speak.

Pronunciation is generally intelligible whencommunicating in simple everyday situations, provided
the interlocutor makes an effort to understand specificsounds.

Pronunciation is generally clear enough to beunderstood, but conversational partners will needto ask for repetition from time to time. A strong
influence from the other language(s) they speak on
stress, rhythm and intonation may affect intelligibility,
requiring collaboration from interlocutors.
Nevertheless, pronunciation of familiar words is clear.

Prosodic features

Sound articulation

Overall phonological control

Phonological control

Orthographic control
This scale concerns the ability to copy, spell and use layout and punctuation. Key concepts operationalised in
the scale include the following:f copying words and sentences (at lower levels);
f spelling;f intelligibility through a blend of spelling, punctuation and layout.
Orthographic control
C2

Writing is orthographically free of error.

C1

Layout, paragraphing and punctuation are consistent and helpful.
Spelling is accurate, apart from occasional slips of the pen.

B2

Can produce clearly intelligible, continuous writing which follows standard layout and paragraphing
conventions.
Spelling and punctuation are reasonably accurate but may show signs of mother-tongue influence.

B1

Can produce continuous writing which is generally intelligible throughout.
Spelling, punctuation and layout are accurate enough to be followed most of the time.

A2

Can copy short sentences on everyday subjects, e.g. directions on how to get somewhere.
Can write with reasonable phonetic accuracy (but not necessarily fully standard spelling) short words thatare in their oral vocabulary.

A1

Can copy familiar words and short phrases, e.g. simple signs or instructions, names of everyday objects,
names of shops, and set phrases used regularly.
Can spell their address, nationality and other personal details.
Can use basic punctuation (e.g. full stops, question marks).

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

5.2. SOCIOLINGUISTIC COMPETENCE
Sociolinguistic competence is concerned with the knowledge and skills required to deal with the social
dimension of language use. Since language is a sociocultural phenomenon, much of what is contained in the
CEFR, particularly in respect of the sociocultural, is also of relevance to sociolinguistic competence. The matterstreated here are those specifically relating to language use that are not dealt with elsewhere: linguistic markers
of social relations; politeness conventions; register differences; and dialect and accent.

Sociolinguistic appropriatenessOne scale is offered for “Sociolinguistic appropriateness”. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include thefollowing:f using polite forms and showing awareness of politeness conventions;f performing language functions in an appropriate way (at lower levels in a neutral register);f socialising, following basic routines at lower levels, without requiring the interlocutor(s) to behave differently(from B2 up) and employing idiomatic expressions, allusive usage and humour (at C levels);f recognising sociocultural cues, especially those pointing to differences, and acting accordingly;
f adopting an appropriate register (from B2 up).

Page 136 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Sociolinguistic appropriatenessC2

Can mediate effectively and naturally between users of the target language and members of their own
community, taking account of sociocultural and sociolinguistic differences.
Has a good command of idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms with awareness of connotative levels of
meaning.
Appreciates virtually all the sociolinguistic and sociocultural implications of language used by proficientusers of the target language and can react accordingly.
Can effectively employ, both orally and in writing, a wide variety of sophisticated language to command,argue, persuade, dissuade, negotiate and counsel.

C1

Can recognise a wide range of idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms, appreciating register shifts; may,
however, need to confirm occasional details, especially if the accent is unfamiliar.
Can understand humour, irony and implicit cultural references and pick up nuances of meaning.
Can follow films employing a considerable degree of slang and idiomatic usage.
Can use language flexibly and effectively for social purposes, including emotional, allusive and joking
usage.
Can adjust their level of formality (register and style) to suit the social context: formal, informal or colloquial
as appropriate, and maintain a consistent register.
Can frame critical remarks or express strong disagreement diplomatically.

B2

Can with some effort keep up with and contribute to group discussions even when talk is fast andcolloquial.
Can recognise and interpret sociocultural/sociolinguistic cues and consciously modify their linguistic formsof expression in order to express themselves appropriately in the situation.
Can express themselves confidently, clearly and politely in a formal or informal register, appropriate to thesituation and person(s) concerned.
Can adjust their expression to make some distinction between formal and informal registers but may notalways do so appropriately.
Can sustain relationships with users of the target language without unintentionally amusing or irritatingthem or requiring them to behave other than they would with another proficient user.
Can express themselves appropriately in situations and avoid crass errors of formulation.

B1

A2

Can perform and respond to a wide range of language functions, using their most common exponents in aneutral register.
Is aware of the salient politeness conventions and acts appropriately.
Is aware of, and looks out for signs of, the most significant differences between the customs, usages,
attitudes, values and beliefs prevalent in the community concerned and those of their own community.
Can perform and respond to basic language functions, e.g. information exchange and requests, andexpress opinions and attitudes in a simple way.
Can socialise simply but effectively using the simplest common expressions and following basic routines.
Can handle very short social exchanges, using everyday polite forms of greeting and address.
Can make and respond to invitations, suggestions, apologies, etc.

A1
Pre-A1Can establish basic social contact by using the simplest everyday polite forms of: greetings and farewells;
introductions; saying please, thank you, sorry, etc.
No descriptors available

5.3. PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE
A simple way of understanding the linguistic/pragmatic distinction is to say that linguistic competence is concernedwith language usage (as in “correct usage”) and hence with language resources and knowledge of the language
as a system, whereas pragmatic competence is concerned with actual language use in the (co-) construction of
text. Pragmatic competence is thus primarily concerned with the user/learner’s knowledge of the principles oflanguage use according to which messages are:f organised, structured and arranged (“discourse competence”);
f used to perform communicative functions (“functional competence”);
f sequenced according to interactional and transactional schemata (“design competence”).

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: Communicative language competences Page 137

Discourse competence concerns the ability to design texts, including generic aspects like “Thematic development”,“Coherence and cohesion” as well as, in an interaction, co-operative principles and “Turntaking”. Functional
competence includes “Flexibility” in the use of one’s repertoire and the selection of appropriate sociolinguistic
choices. All the scales for communicative language activities describe different types of functional languageuse. Knowledge of interactional and transactional schemata relates also to sociocultural competence and is tosome extent treated under “Sociolinguistic appropriateness” on the one hand and “General linguistic range”
and “Vocabulary range” on the other, in terms of range of settings and, at lower levels, repertoires for them. In
addition, pragmatic competence involves “speaker meaning” in context as opposed to the “sentence/dictionary
meaning” of words and expressions. Thus, articulating exactly what you want to say requires another aspect ofpragmatic competence: “Propositional precision”.
Finally, saying anything requires “Fluency”. Fluency is generally understood in two complementary ways: firstly
in a holistic way, representing the speaker/signer’s ability to articulate a (possibly complex) message. This more
holistic usage is reflected in statements like “she’s an articulate speaker” or “his Russian is very fluent” and implies
an ability to talk/sign at length, with appropriate things to say in a wide range of contexts. In a narrower, more
technical interpretation, talking/signing at length implies a lack of distraction through breaks and long pausesin the flow. Putting “Fluency” under pragmatic competence cuts across the traditional competence/performancedichotomy used by linguists since Chomsky. As was mentioned in discussing the CEFR model, the CEFR does notcontinue that tradition. The view taken is that, in an action-oriented approach, competence exists only in action.

Flexibility
Flexibility is concerned with the ability to adapt language learnt to new situations and to formulate thoughts
in different ways. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f recombining learnt elements creatively (especially lower levels);
f adapting language to the situation and to changes of direction in conversation and discussion;f reformulating points in different ways to emphasise points, express degrees of commitment and confidence, and avoid ambiguity.
Flexibility
C2

Shows great flexibility in reformulating ideas in differing linguistic forms to give emphasis, differentiate
according to the situation, interlocutor, etc. and to eliminate ambiguity.

C1

Can make a positive impact on an intended audience by effectively varying style of expression andsentence length, use of advanced vocabulary and word order.
Can modify their expression to express degrees of commitment or hesitation, confidence or uncertainty.
Can adjust what they say and the means of expressing it to the situation and the recipient and adopt alevel of formality appropriate to the circumstances.

B2

Can adjust to the changes of direction, style and emphasis normally found in conversation.
Can vary formulation of what they want to say.
Can reformulate an idea to emphasise or explain a point.

B1

A2

Can adapt their expression to deal with less routine, even difficult, situations.
Can exploit a wide range of simple language flexibly to express much of what they want.
Can adapt well-rehearsed, memorised, simple phrases to particular circumstances through limited lexical
substitution.
Can expand learnt phrases through simple recombinations of their elements.

A1

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Page 138 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Turntaking
Turntaking is concerned with the ability to take the discourse initiative. This ability can be viewed both as aninteraction strategy (to take the floor) or as an integral aspect of discourse competence. For this reason this scalealso appears in the section “Interaction strategies”. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f initiating, maintaining and ending conversation;
f intervening in an existing conversation or discussion, often using a prefabricated expression to do so, or
to gain time to think.
Note: This scale is repeated under “Interaction strategies”.

Turntaking
C2

No descriptors available; see C1

C1

Can select a suitable phrase from a readily available range of discourse functions to preface their remarks
appropriately in order to get the floor, or to gain time and keep the floor while thinking.

Can intervene appropriately in discussion, exploiting appropriate language to do so.
Can initiate, maintain and end discourse appropriately with effective turntaking.

B2

Can initiate discourse, take their turn when appropriate and end conversation when they need to, though
they may not always do this elegantly.
Can use stock phrases (e.g. “That’s a difficult question to answer”) to gain time and keep the turn while
formulating what they want to express.

Can intervene in a discussion on a familiar topic, using a suitable phrase to get the floor.

B1
Can initiate, maintain and close simple face-to-face conversation on topics that are familiar or of personal
interest.

Can use simple techniques to start, maintain or close a short conversation.

A2

Can initiate, maintain and close simple, face-to-face conversation.

Can ask for attention.

A1

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Thematic development
This scale is concerned with the way in which ideas are logically presented in a text and related to each other in aclear rhetorical structure. It also involves following relevant discourse conventions. Key concepts operationalisedin the scale include the following:f telling a story/relating a narrative (lower levels);f developing a text, expanding and supporting points appropriately, for instance with examples;f developing an argument (especially B2 to C1).

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: Communicative language competences Page 139

Thematic development
C2

Can use the conventions of the type of text concerned with sufficient flexibility to communicate complex ideas
in an effective way, holding the target reader’s attention with ease and fulfilling all communicative purposes.
Can use the conventions of the type of text concerned to hold the target reader’s attention andcommunicate complex ideas.

C1

Can give elaborate descriptions and narratives, integrating sub-themes, developing particular points androunding off with an appropriate conclusion.
Can write a suitable introduction and conclusion to a long, complex text.
Can expand and support the main points at some length with subsidiary points, reasons and relevant
examples.
Can develop an argument systematically with appropriate highlighting of significant points, and relevant
supporting detail.
Can present and respond to complex lines of argument convincingly.

B2

Can follow the conventional structure of the communicative task concerned when communicating theirideas.
Can develop a clear description or narrative, expanding and supporting their main points with relevant
supporting detail and examples.
Can develop a clear argument, expanding and supporting their points of view at some length withsubsidiary points and relevant examples.
Can evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of various options.
Can clearly signal the difference between fact and opinion.
Can clearly signal chronological sequence in narrative text.
Can develop an argument well enough to be followed without difficulty most of the time.

B1
Shows awareness of the conventional structure of the text type concerned when communicating their ideas.
Can reasonably fluently relate a straightforward narrative or description as a sequence of points.
Can tell a story or describe something in a simple list of points.

A2

Can give an example of something in a very simple text using “like” or “for example”.
No descriptors available

A1

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Coherence and cohesion
Coherence and cohesion refer to the way in which the separate elements of a text are interwoven into a
coherent whole by exploiting linguistic devices such as referencing, substitution, ellipsis and other forms oftextual cohesion, plus logical and temporal connectors and other forms of discourse markers. Both cohesion
and coherence operate at the level of the sentence/utterance and at the level of the complete text. Key concepts
operationalised in the scale include the following:f linking elements, mainly with logical and temporal connectors;
f using paragraphs to emphasise text structure;
f varying the types of cohesive devices used, with fewer “clunky” connectors (C levels).

Page 140 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Coherence and cohesion
C2

Can create coherent and cohesive text making full and appropriate use of a variety of organisational
patterns and a wide range of cohesive devices.

C1

Can produce clear, smoothly flowing, well-structured language, showing controlled use of organisational
patterns, connectors and cohesive devices.
Can produce well-organised, coherent text, using a variety of cohesive devices and organisational patterns.
Can use a variety of linking expressions efficiently to mark clearly the relationships between ideas.

B2

Can use a limited number of cohesive devices to link their utterances into clear, coherent discourse, though
there may be some “jumpiness” in a long contribution.
Can produce text that is generally well-organised and coherent, using a range of linking expressions andcohesive devices.
Can structure longer texts in clear, logical paragraphs.
Can introduce a counter-argument in a simple discursive text (e.g. with “however”).

B1

Can link a series of shorter, discrete simple elements into a connected, linear sequence of points.
Can form longer sentences and link them together using a limited number of cohesive devices, e.g. in astory.
Can make simple, logical paragraph breaks in a longer text.

A2

Can use the most frequently occurring connectors to link simple sentences in order to tell a story or
describe something as a simple list of points.
Can link groups of words/signs with simple connectors (e.g. “and”, “but” and “because”).

A1
Pre-A1Can link words/signs or groups of words/signs with very basic linear connectors (e.g. “and” or “then”).
No descriptors available

Propositional precisionThis scale concerns the ability to pinpoint how to formulate what one wishes to express. It concerns the extent
to which the user/learner can communicate detail and shades of meaning, and can avoid compromising theirideally intended message. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f type of setting and information concerned (A1 to B1), with no restriction from B2, when the user/learnercan communicate detail reliably, even in more demanding situations;f degree of detail and precision in information given;f ability to qualify, emphasise and disambiguate likelihood, commitment, belief, etc.
Propositional precision
C2

Can convey finer shades of meaning precisely by using, with reasonable accuracy, a wide range of
qualifying devices (e.g. adverbs expressing degree, clauses expressing limitations).
Can give emphasis, differentiate and eliminate ambiguity.

C1

Can qualify opinions and statements precisely in relation to degrees of, for example, certainty/uncertainty,
belief/doubt, likelihood, etc.
Can make effective use of linguistic modality to signal the strength of a claim, an argument or a position.
Can pass on detailed information reliably.

B2

Can communicate the essential points even in more demanding situations, though their language lacks
expressive power and idiomaticity.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: Communicative language competences Page 141

Propositional precision
Can explain the main points in an idea or problem with reasonable precision.

B1

Can convey simple, straightforward information of immediate relevance, getting across the point they feel
is most important.
Can express the main point they want to make comprehensibly.

A2

Can communicate what they want to say in a simple and direct exchange of limited information on familiar
and routine matters, but in other situations they generally have to compromise the message.

A1

Can communicate basic information about personal details and needs of a concrete type in a simple way.

Pre-A1

Can communicate very basic information about personal details in a simple way.

Fluency
Fluency, as discussed above, has a broader, holistic meaning (= articulate speaker/signer) and a narrower, technicaland more psycholinguistic meaning (= accessing one’s repertoire). The broader interpretation would include“Propositional precision”, “Flexibility”, and at least to some extent “Thematic development” and “Coherence/cohesion”. For this reason, the scale below focuses more on the narrower, more traditional view of fluency. Key
concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f ability to construct utterances, despite hesitations and pauses (lower levels);f ability to maintain a lengthy production or conversation;f ease and spontaneity of expression.
FluencyC2

Can express themselves at length with a natural, effortless, unhesitating flow. Pauses only to reflect on
precisely the right means to express their thoughts or to find an appropriate example or explanation.

C1

Can express themselves fluently and spontaneously, almost effortlessly. Only a conceptually difficult
subject can hinder a natural, smooth flow of language.
Can communicate spontaneously, often showing remarkable fluency and ease of expression in even longer
complex stretches of language.

B2

Can produce stretches of language with a fairly even tempo; although they can be hesitant as they searchfor patterns and expressions, there are few noticeably long pauses.
Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with users of thetarget language quite possible without imposing strain on either party.
Can express themselves with relative ease. Despite some problems with formulation resulting in pausesand “cul-de-sacs”, they are able to keep going effectively without help.

B1
Can keep going comprehensibly, even though pausing for grammatical and lexical planning and repair isvery evident, especially in longer stretches of free production.
Can make themselves understood in short contributions, even though pauses, false starts andreformulation are very evident.

A2
Can construct phrases on familiar topics with sufficient ease to handle short exchanges, despite very
noticeable hesitation and false starts.

A1
Pre-A1

Can manage very short, isolated, mainly pre-packaged utterances, with much pausing to search forexpressions, to articulate less familiar words/signs, and to repair communication.
Can manage very short, isolated, rehearsed utterances using gesture and signalled requests for help whennecessary.

Page 142 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Chapter 6
THE CEFR ILLUSTRATIVE DESCRIPTORSCALES: SIGNING COMPETENCES
Many of the CEFR descriptors, especially those for communicative language activities, are as applicable to sign
languages as they are to spoken languages, since sign languages are used to fulfil the same communicative functions.
Hence these descriptors are modality-neutral, and modifications have been made to the formulation to emphasise
this. However, there are obviously ways in which sign languages differ substantially from spoken languages.
Fundamentally, they involve grammatical competences in the use of space, which we term “diagrammaticalcompetence”. They also involve a broadened notion of the term “text”, namely for video-recorded signing thatis not based on a written script. These competences go far beyond the paralinguistic features of communication
through spoken language. The signing space is typically used to establish and later refer to relevant persons,places and objects in a form of spatial mapping. Sign languages then have syntax, semantics, morphology andphonology just like any other language. These differ of course from one sign language to another, as there aredifferent sign languages in different countries, and sometimes more than one sign language in the same country.
But there are certain common features such as the use of indexing, pronouns and classifier constructions. In
addition, non-manual elements (facial expression, body orientation, head movement, etc.) and constructedaction are used extensively in addition to hand and arm movements that are more traditionally considered tobe the articulators of sign languages.
For communication, and reflecting contact with spoken language users, the repertoire of lexical and productive
signs is supplemented by literally spelling out words or names using fingerspelling. Roughly, each letter of the
spoken language script corresponds to a handshape. In due course, it may become lexicalised and phonologised.
Fingerspelling, however, is a means of conveying something unfamiliar, for example a proper name, or a conceptthat does not have an established sign in the sign language used. Thus, fingerspelling is one of several contact
phenomena that facilitate access to the written knowledge of spoken languages. Furthermore, fingerspelling isused to borrow new expressions from spoken languages, which may eventually also become lexicalised.
The categories for signing competences relate to the linguistic, pragmatic and sociolinguistic competences
found in spoken languages, and therefore the descriptor scales specifically for signing competences are provided
here under those three headings. Scales are provided for receptive and productive competences in seven pairs:
two for linguistic competence, one for sociolinguistic competence and four for different aspects of pragmaticcompetence.
A few of the descriptors calibrated for signing competences are of a more global nature, similar to those included
earlier. These have been kept in signing competences because they help to demonstrate the content coherence
between the descriptors for signing competences and those for other areas.

Page 143

Figure 17 – Signing competences
Signing competences

Linguistic

Sociolinguistic

Pragmatic

Sign language repertoire(receptive/productive)

Sociolinguistic
appropriateness andcultural repertoire(receptive/productive)

Sign text structure(receptive/productive)

Diagrammatical accuracy(receptive/productive

Setting and perspectives(receptive/productive)
Language awarenessand interpretation(receptive)
Presence and effect(productive)
Processing speed(receptive)
Signing fluency(productive)

6.1. LINGUISTIC COMPETENCE
Descriptors are available for “Sign language repertoire” and for “Diagrammatical accuracy”. This distinction
reflects the knowledge/control dichotomy and mirrors that between range and control/accuracy with respect
to grammar and vocabulary.

Sign language repertoire
These two scales incorporate language resources that are accessed in both sign language comprehension andproduction, for example in the combination of non-manual features with classifier handshapes to indicate
reference and possibly hand motion and orientation to express other aspects of the intended meaning.
Sign languages draw extensively on productive sign formation. As for spoken languages, the sign language lexicon
consists of two sets of entries: established lexical items and productive elements used in the formation of (new)signs or forms respectively. Established signs have a fixed citation form, which is typically cited in dictionaries
of sign languages. Elements of the productive lexicon combine in productive relationships between a narrow
set of handshapes that operate in signing space to generate new, dynamic descriptions of events. The threedimensional spatial nature of many expressions allows for variable, yet precise formulations. Learners progressin the use of these competences according to the multifaceted needs of expression by acquiring combinatory
restrictions as well as principles for stylistic/aesthetic purposes.
Because of the high proportion of productive elements in sign languages, reception demands a high degreeof processing of the simultaneously provided morpho-phonological and morpho-syntactic sub-structures, aswell as bearing in mind the given contexts for spatial reference. In short, productive sign creation combines
meaning-bearing elements that, in the respective combinations, cannot be found in the sign language lexicon,
and comprehension demands a re-analysis of such signs. To meet particular communication needs – which
encompass more than just a global understanding of what a message is about – learners have to reapply
grammatical rules for productive signing, reapply combinatory restrictions, keep track of spatial assignments,
and consider the applicability of principles for stylistic-aesthetic purposes. Such sign language comprehension

Page 144 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

processes are reported by learners to be less facilitated by lexical resources than is the case in the comprehension
processes of many spoken languages.
Key concepts operationalised in the two scales include:
f knowledge of basic forms, parts of speech, and meanings of manual signs, including registers and variants;
f basic linguistic knowledge of elements in sign languages for naming and referring, and for composing
signs with reference to morpho-syntactic and morphological processes and simultaneous constructions;f manual aspects such as lexical signs, idioms and chunks, as well as the morpho-phonological elementsthat are used in productive signs;
f knowledge of sign roots and of non-manual elements, for example the use of the eyes, the head, the bodyand body motion, speed of signing, amplitude of articulation, etc., as well as associated restrictions; these
forms are accessed and used to interpret signing, naming and referring;f knowledge of manual and non-manual elements of sign combinations (frozen forms, idioms and formulaic
chunks) as well as knowledge of morpho-phonological rules which are used in productive sign creation;
this also includes knowledge of, e.g. the subset of handshapes of a particular sign language;
f language-specific knowledge relating to the combination of the manual and non-manual elements into
possible signs, since neither manual nor non-manual elements “surface” in isolation;
f conceptual knowledge of meaning and connotations, to the extent that for example a user/learner caninterpret or produce metaphors or irony;f and overall, demonstrate competence in understanding and using the manual and the non-manual elements of signs.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: Signing competences Page 145

Page 146 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Can sign comprehensibly and precisely on a complex subject.
Can adapt the signing style to the content and/or object being described.
Can present a simple productive action through depiction and constructed action.
Can use a differentiated choice of signs that corresponds to the type of text
concerned.
Can employ constructed action (actions are imitated one-to-one).

Can understand and correctly attribute signed names for commonly known
persons and institutions.
Can differentiate nuances of meaning that are expressed with specific handshapes.
Can understand idioms (and signs particular to the local community).
Can understand what is meant when the signer paraphrases without producing
the sign for the concept concerned.

Can always express their own opinion, even when the positions taken and opinions
expressed by others are being presented.
Can express the same content in a different language.
Can alternate between productive and lexical signing.
Can communicate information using the productive lexicon only.
Can paraphrase lexical elements by using productive elements, e.g. by using
depicting signs and other classifier constructions.

Can express actions, objects and relations between these by using suitableclassifier constructions (one- and two-handed) in varying ways with ease.
Can employ the appropriate productive sign (e.g. a classifier) in order to highlight aparticular meaning.
Can sign comprehensibly using just one hand (the dominant hand).
Can use a sentence to specify the precisely intended meaning of a vague term (e.g.
specify “murder” through use of depiction).
Can provide very broad coverage of a topic, taking account of the different aspects
involved.
Can switch between direct and indirect speech.

Can understand the meaning of mouthings in context.
Can understand technical texts in their own field and make use of the information,ideas or opinions in them.
Can understand specific, precise instructions, wishes, recommendations, etc.

Can understand a large number of signs employed in everyday situations.
Can deduce the meaning of individual unknown signs through the context of asentence.

Can express themselves in abstract, poetic signing.
Canformulateabstractexpressionsandconcepts,(e.g.intheacademicandscientificdomain).
Can produce with one hand a productive or lexical sign (e.g. a depicting or lexical verb
like “search for”), while simultaneously using the other hand as part of a constructedaction (e.g. scratching their head in different places as if searching for something).46
Can present a complex action or event in a linguistically aesthetic way, e.g. by
employing handshapes as a means of playful expression.

Can understand abstract concepts, e.g. from the field of science, and assign themto the appropriate context.
Can understand creative or newly coined descriptions of phenomena (e.g. a UFO).
Can understand challenging texts on a range of topics and explain what they areabout.

46. This is also known as “body partitioning”.

B2

C1

C2

Productive

Receptive

Sign language repertoire

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: Signing competences Page 147

A2+

B1

Can fingerspell quickly and accurately.
Can, in order to facilitate understanding, make a relevant comparison withother things or images or circumstances that the recipient already knows (e.g. “Aporcupine looks like a big hedgehog”).
Can employ different productive signs (e.g. handshapes indicating handling) whendescribing an action or event.
Can employ mouthings in a differentiated manner that is appropriate to context.
Can employ different means (e.g. non-manuals including facial expression,
handshape, hand orientation, movement) in order to describe the size and shapeof an object.
Can present personal characteristics just with mouthings and constructed action.
Can describe important characteristics of a person or object with the appropriate
handshapes.
Can modify productive signing appropriately to the context.
Can make part of their contribution by using constructed action to present
individual, simple actions.
Can express the character and qualities of a person or protagonist by using
constructed action.
Can present actions or events through productive signing.
Can vary the scale of their signing (larger, smaller) dependent on the situation.
Can give a comprehensive description of a person, including facial expression, skincolour, make-up, hairstyle and profession.
Can employ appropriate productive lexicon elements for reference, e.g. to animals,
instead of lexical signs.
Can use mouthings precisely to express specific contents.
Can use a range of signs.
Can present different aspects of a plot or storyline (e.g. duration, as in “workthrough the night”).
Can employ examples in order to illustrate something.
Can indicate clearly the difference between two things.
Can relay information in a short and minimal, yet intelligible way.
Can, with preparation, use the right names and terminology related to the topic
concerned.
Can describe a person in terms of their characteristic features.

Can extract the relevant information from a short text provided it is presented in a
simple and structured way.
Can distinguish between signs that appear similar.
Can deduce the nature of an object from non-manual cues and depictive signs.
Can make indirect inferences about the features of the characters in a story from asigner’s facial expressions.

Can selectively extract information from a signed text, e.g., details of the time,
individuals involved, places or appointments and indications as to how or why.
Can understand productively expressed actions and processes.
Can infer the chronological sequence of events from non-manual cues (close vs.
remote events in terms of time).
Can understand what kind of creature is meant when the signer imitates people oranimals.

Can understand content that a person expresses only by means of productive
signs.
Can understand the terms for common technical devices designed for deaf
people’s use.
Can understand the meaning of modal verbs (e.g., can = <ability>, must =<command>, want = <wish>).
Can extract specific information from everyday texts (e.g., numbers, names, places,
persons).
Can understand signing when the signer provides images to visualise the content.

Sign language repertoire

Page 148 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Can express their own opinion.
Can present visually simple information like actions and relationships (e.g. in thefamily).
Can sign a direct demand.
Can express an amount/quantity through non-manual cues.
Can express proximity and distance by using appropriate non-manual cues.
Can describe the design, colour and texture of clothes.

Can produce correct mouthings and employ them to differentiate between
otherwise identical signs.
Can spell names and technical expressions, among other things, using
fingerspelling.
Can describe physical shape (height, width, length).
Can sign direct requests.
Can sign conventional greetings and leave-taking expressions.
Can describe a person through facial expressions, hair and physical characteristics
or through things the person often wears.
Can produce clear and unambiguous handshapes.
Can produce the lexical signs for months, days of the week and times of the day.
Can state their opinion (agree, disagree).

Can identify details in an extensive description of a person/object, such as body
shape, hairstyle, or occupation.
Can understand non-manual information on the proximity or distance of a place orobject.
Can recognise and correctly interpret meaning expressed non-manually.
Can recognise and understand the codified backchannelling signs of aninterlocutor.
Can understand simple reports of what the signer did.
Can understand simple instructions, wishes, recommendations, etc.

Can understand direct commands (e.g., “open the door”).
Can understand quantities expressed non-manually.
Can understand descriptions of clothes (pattern, colour).
Can understand information on proportions, quantities, and size ratios.
Can distinguish between signs that only differ according to the shape of themouth.
Can understand signs even if they are modified manually.
Can understand the contribution to meaning from the shape of the mouth, e.g.,
puffed up or contracted cheeks.
Can infer the shape of objects that are described from non-manual signals.
Can understand simple negation with <no>, <not>, or a shake of the head.
Can understand expressions via fingerspelling if they do not understand the lexicalsigns.
Can recognise and understand facial feedback from the interlocutor (agreement/
rejection).

A2

A1

Sign language repertoire

Diagrammatical accuracy
Diagrammatical accuracy describes the correctness, accuracy, precision and complexity of syntactic expressions.
Taken together, these aspects determine the comprehensibility of the intended meanings of the signed expressions.
The competences here relate to manual and non-manual elements; they encompass knowledge and observationof syntactic rules and principles, use of signing space, the bodily expression necessary, head motions and so on.
Receptive competences include correctly analysing parts of speech, spatial relations of structured expressions,particular contributions of clausal and phrasal functions, non-manual markings (e.g. to indicate scope, spatialreference, topicalised phrases).
These competences relate to the expression of textuality (see “Sign text structure”) as they are used in structuring
signed texts by applying a number of strategies that may include, for example, a specific arrangement of thesigning space or rhetorical questions to introduce a new point. This scale also shares commonalities with thescale “Sign language repertoire” because it is fed by lexical knowledge of manual and non-manual meaning–form
relationships. “Diagrammatical accuracy” thus also relies on non-manual elements, for example the raising ofeyebrows to indicate particular grammatical constructions, and to mark a range of adverbials.
Key concepts operationalised in the receptive scale include:
f the exact memorisation of discourse referents and relations located in signing space;f the interpretation of different references (e.g. of established elements in signing space, indexing, pronouns,
classifiers, congruency, etc.);
f the interpretation of situated events in time as well as temporal relationships and reference to time andduration;f interpretation of non-manual elements (e.g. use and scope of upper body, facial expression, eye gaze);
f comprehension of sign sequences and linked clauses;
f comprehension of inflected forms, e.g. verbs or other predicates.
Key concepts operationalised in the productive scale include:
f an appropriate use of the signing space, taking account of existing conventions;f the expression of situated events in time or of temporal relationships by establishing appropriate timereferences;f consistency in and accuracy of referencing (to established elements in signing space, indexing, pronouns,
classifier constructions, etc.);
f accuracy of non-manual elements (e.g. the range of use of upper body, the use of the body in the articulation of constructed action, facial expression, head movements, etc.);
f accuracy of sign sequences necessary to express certain concepts (e.g. cause and effect);f use of particular conjunctions or serialisations;f use of certain structures, e.g. ability to modulate verbs;
f means for structuring sign texts appropriate for the respective text type.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: Signing competences Page 149

Page 150 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Can situate the different contents/actions in the text sensibly in the signing spacein order to structure the text.
Can maintain full consistency in the reference using indexing, productive signs, inshort texts.

Can use the signing space in a conscious manner, e.g. using the right side for <for>and the left side for <against> reasons.
Can use a large or a small signing space, dependent on the situation.
Can link productive signing with indicators of time (timelines).
Can employ appropriate timelines in order to indicate the point in time or
the duration of an event (for temporal relations: simultaneously, beforehand/
afterwards, after another).
Can express how one does something; <with X>; <without Y>.
Can express different temporal relationships (for example, three relationships:
simultaneously; before and after; one after another).
Can employ upper body posture when indicating time reference, e.g. lean forward
for future.
Can exploit an appropriate timeline in order to place past, present and future
events in the correct relationship to each other.
Can exploit variation in the sign order of subject, verb, object in a sentence in orderto highlight something (e.g. SVO, SOV, OSV).

Can distinguish the various temporal relationships between the actions and events(simultaneous events, previous event, subsequent event).
Can distinguish between whether an action involves several people (objects) ormany actions involve one person (subject).
Can distinguish between direct and indirect speech in signed texts.
Can understand statements that contain predicates that take no agent, e.g., “thewater is flowing now”.
Can recognise rhetorical questions even if linguistically expressed in a very
economical way, e.g., by raising the eyebrows.
Can assign classifiers to the correct reference object (e.g., animals) through thecontext.
Can understand aspectual modulations (e.g., staggering, fast, creeping or rolling
movements).

Can distinguish on the basis of grammatical signals between statements about realand imaginary events.
Can keep apart the characters and their actions even in longer texts.
Can recognise sentences as units and indicate how many sentences a short text
contains.
Can understand verbal aspect (e.g., completion, repetition, continuation, result ofactions).

B2

No descriptors available; see B2+

No descriptors available; see B2+

C1

No descriptors available; see B2+

No descriptors available; see B2+

Productive

C2

Receptive

Diagrammatical accuracy

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: Signing competences Page 151

B1

Can identify various strategies for expressing the comparative and superlativeof adjectives and understand their meaning (e.g., through changes in the size or
speed of the sign or through the correct use of classifiers).

Can correctly interpret indexical reference to persons, provided they have been
properly introduced and situated.

Can use non-manual signals to distinguish for example, wh-questions from yes/noquestions, or assertions from yes/no questions.

Can understand statements indicating intentions (aims, <in order to …>).

Can correctly interpret events in a timeline (past, present or future).

Can understand modified lexical signs.

Can infer the time, duration or sequence of an event from the timelines employed.

Receptive

Productive

Can express cause and effect (reason for something).

Can support referencing to events in a passage of time with non-manual features(e.g. to distinguish events that are close in time as opposed to events that are
distant in time).

Can present a simple temporal sequence by using the signing space.

Can incorporate number marking into a sign (e.g. to indicate number of persons
moving, number of days).

Can employ constructed action in order to convey meaning.

Can employ the relevant non-manual elements for the description of a shape.

Can mark questions appropriately, using non-manual markers relevant (e.g. upper
body posture plus mimic, eyebrows).

Can correctly use different sentence types (statements, questions, imperatives).

Can correctly direct eye gaze in the signing space in order to refer to previously
introduced objects or people.

Can situate objects/people in the signing space by indexing and later referencing
them with pronouns.

Can make comparisons using adjectives, including superlative forms, e.g. throughuse of productive signs, changing size, or speed of hand movement.

Can focus on one point on a timeline and/or use temporal adverbials in order tolocate an event correctly in past, present or future time.

Can establish relationships in the signing space and later reuse these.

Can indicate a rhetorical question correctly by leaving a slight pause between thequestion and the answer.

Can link two phrases to yield the meaning relation of <although> and <despite>.

Can express why one does something (aim:< in order to …>).

Can express rhetorical questions in an economical manner, e.g. using just theeyebrows.

Diagrammatical accuracy

Page 152 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

A1

A2

Can express a non-causal sequence (e.g. <and then …>, <and so …>, <next …>,<after that …>).

Can understand conditional sentences, i.e. under what conditions (<if>) a
consequence (<then>) occurs.

Can express lists and sequences <and ..., ... plus>).

Can understand the meaning of basic causal relations (e.g., “I’m late because I got
stuck in the traffic”).

Can understand from descriptions of manipulated objects how a signer sets/lays
them down or places them.

Can understand productively expressed time indicators (<day-before-yesterday>,<3-years-ago>, etc.), when the time references are clearly indicated.

Can understand lists and sequences (<and>/<both-and>/<and then> meanings).

Can construct a simple sentence using lexical signs.

Can understand different plural forms with simple signs (e.g., plural by means of
numbers or by repetition).

Can form plurals through use of repetition or by marking a number.

Can represent the thickness of an object by using productive signs.

Can construct simple sentences with SVO and SOV patterns.

Can use personal pronouns correctly.

Can understand the forms and sizes of objects (e.g., the form of a pyramid) andidentify the objects.

Can understand an utterance as a direct request, question or order and respondaccordingly.

Can distinguish between and understand different ways of expressing negation.

Can understand indirect messages (questions, requests, wishes, rejection, etc.).

Can employ productive signs correctly in simple sentences.

Can use <if … then> sentences.

Can correctly interpret verb agreement.

Can recognise and understand modified handshapes.

Can produce accurate handshapes not only in isolated signs but also in sentences.

Can use canonical space effectively to place focus on important elements.

Can correctly interpret classifier constructions in simple sentences, provided they
are clearly signed.

Can identify different types of sentence and their meaning through the word order(statements, questions, orders).

Can understand differences in meaning that indicate whether actions are carriedout by one person or several people, e.g., a person goes v. many people go.
Can describe the environment (e.g. landscape) with depicting signs).

Can mark verb agreement consistently, maintaining concordance.

Can understand clause linkages that express <even if>/<nevertheless> relations.

Can understand how sameness <same-as> and difference <different-from> areexpressed.

Can express the conditions under which one does certain things (<if … then>).

Productive

Can recognise and understand condition and consequence in if-then sentences.

Receptive

Diagrammatical accuracy

6.2. SOCIOLINGUISTIC COMPETENCE
In this scale some elements of sociocultural knowledge have been included, since it is difficult to draw a hard andfast line between the two concepts. In the SNSF research project, a number of descriptors for specific knowledgeof aspects relevant to deaf communities were calibrated. Despite being important for understanding local culture,shared knowledge and values, and the meaning of particular signs, some topics that relate to regional culture
have been placed in the supplementary descriptors in Appendix 9 and should be interpreted and exemplified
by regional values relevant wherever needed.

Sociolinguistic appropriateness and cultural repertoire
This scale is the equivalent of the one for sociolinguistic appropriateness under communicative language
competences. In addition to sociolinguistic appropriateness (register, politeness conventions, etc.) some moregeneral elements of cultural and regional knowledge are included.
Key concepts operationalised in the receptive scale include the following:f ability to recognise different registers and switch between them;f ability to assess the appropriateness of greetings, introductions and leave taking;f ability to recognise whether the signer takes into account the social status of a referent or partner;
f ability to assess the appropriateness of the use of signing space (regarding context and recipient);
f ability to apply knowledge of sociocultural norms, taboos, appropriate personal appearance, etc;
f establishment and maintenance of eye contact;
f ability to understand and apply means of gaining attention or means of giving feedback;f ability to apply knowledge of the landmarks of the local culture(s): people, facts and major community issues;f ability to deduce social background, regional origin, local ties from the signing of interlocutors;
f ability to take into account knowledge of the world relevant to communication (e.g. abbreviations, technical aids).
Key concepts operationalised in the productive scale include the following:f expression of registers and ability to switch between them;f ability to express greetings, introductions and leave taking;f ability to sign appropriately with regard to the social status of referents and/or the interlocutors;
f adaptation of signing space to the context and recipient(s), taking account of local conditions;f respect for sociocultural norms, taboos, etc;
f establishment and maintenance of eye contact;f means of gaining attention; means of giving feedback;f knowledge of the landmarks of the local culture(s); people, facts and major community issues;f ability to provide and judge social background, regional origin, local ties from the signing of interlocutors;
f applying knowledge of the world relevant to communication (e.g. abbreviations, technical aids, etc.).

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: Signing competences Page 153

Page 154 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Can attribute a text to a target audience on the basis of the size of a sign, e.g., big/formal or small/intimate setting.
Can assign the text to a formal or informal context on the basis of manual or nonmanual features in the introduction to the text.
Can judge whether a person introduces themselves to other deaf people in a
culturally appropriate way.
Can recognise and understand cultural references in texts.
Can draw on indirect references to important events, persons and institutions intheir own country in order to understand a text.

Can adopt the appropriate formal register in order to maintain distance from thereported issue.
Can indicate someone’s social status through the articulation of signs in thesigning space (e.g. use of a higher locus in signing space to indicate a higher status
than the signer’s).

Can gauge whether the public concerned is familiar with deafness and can explain
things explicitly if necessary.
Can produce lexicalised signs of different registers.
Can explain facts and events that are important in deaf communities.

Can deduce from a person’s linguistic register their probable background (origin,age, occupation).
Can recognise whether the register of a text is appropriate for the target audience.
Can recognise whether a text contains all information necessary to enable a target
audience with the relevant prior knowledge to understand it.
Can recognise a person or character’s social status on the basis of manual and nonmanual references in the text.
Can understand the abbreviations commonly used in the deaf community.

C1

B2

Can respect sociocultural norms in producing texts (e.g. appropriate register, formsof politeness, status, taboos).
Can adapt their register to the audience concerned.
Can switch between formal and informal registers without effort.
Can express non-lexical difference of register through both manual and nonmanual means.
Can tell a joke that relates to deaf experiences.

Can recognise the linguistic register chosen by the signer on the basis of the signs
used.
Can recognise when a signer switches from an informal to a formal register or viceversa.
Can judge whether the register employed maintains a distance appropriate to thetext.
Can infer the social relationship between interlocutors (proximity, hierarchy, etc.)from their remarks.
Can indicate a person’s social status when they have seen how others address that
person (by interpreting the manual signing).
Can understand discreet references to persons present when the signer, forexample, employs a smaller signing space or holds a hand in front of the index
finger so that it is not apparent to whom the finger is pointing.

C2

No descriptors available; see C1

Productive

Can recognise sociocultural conventions in unfamiliar texts (e.g., appropriate
register, polite forms, social status, taboo subjects).
Can recognise when the signer gives the characters in a story their own linguistic
profile and can describe these profiles.

Receptive

Sociolinguistic appropriateness and cultural repertoire

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: Signing competences Page 155

Can recognise whether the interlocutor responds appropriately to a <thank you>etc.

Can recognise differences in register that the signer expresses manually andnon-manually.

Can recognise when someone wishes to be given the floor (e.g., raising a hand,tapping a person’s arm).

Can recognise on the basis of the sign-language address pronouns whether
strangers are addressing them appropriately.

Can judge whether or not a greeting/leave-taking remark is appropriate for thetype of text concerned.

Can take into account aspects of the immediate environment that are importantfor signed communication (e.g. light, objects on the table).

Can adapt the signing space used to the context and the audience.

Can use an appropriate means of address when meeting an unknown deaf person.

Is familiar with the common technical aids for communication between deaf andhearing people and can name them.

Can accept or decline a direct request or demand.

Can maintain eye contact with their interlocutor while signing.

Can use the sign-abbreviations that are conventional in relation to sign language
communities.

Can indicate someone’s social status with non-manual means (e.g. direction ofvision).

Can use their knowledge of the target sign language culture to explain the originof certain culturally determined signs (e.g. the names of well-known people,
institutions and place names).

Can introduce themselves to deaf people appropriately.

Can, in the course of describing travel, include cultural experiences and aspects
typical of the country concerned.

Can sensitise people to cultural issues.

Can present themselves in a manner appropriate to the type of text and the publicconcerned (e.g. clothes, accessories, personal appearance).47

Can, as appropriate, engage in greeting/leave-taking remark, according to the typeof text and the public concerned.

Productive

47. These non-linguistic elements relate to the visibility of the author of a sign language text. Learners need to anticipate in production how such factors influence the reception of their text.

A2

B1

Can understand and follow explanations on the origin of culture-specific signs,
such as names of well-known people, institutions or places.

Receptive

Sociolinguistic appropriateness and cultural repertoire

Page 156 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

A1

Can maintain appropriate eye contact with a signer in a dialogue.

Receptive

Productive

Can respond appropriately in conventionalised interactions, e.g. replying with aformulaic <welcome> / <never mind> / <all well …> / <thank you>.

Can give their interlocutor visual feedback (positive and negative) using facial
expressions and other non-manual elements (e.g. head nod or shake).

Can give their interlocutor visual feedback through conventionalised phrases andmouthings.

Can use fingerspelling as an aid when communication problems occur.

Can maintain direct eye contact with their interlocutor.

Can attract attention in order to acquire the turn (e.g. by raising a hand or waving
to gain eye contact, by tapping the interlocutor on the shoulder).

Can employ different strategies in order to establish the eye contact necessary
for communication (e.g. waving, tapping a person on the shoulder, arm or hand,tapping on the table, turning off and on lighting).

Can greet a deaf person appropriately.

Sociolinguistic appropriateness and cultural repertoire6.3. PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE
Pragmatic competences cover discourse competences in different media, such as the ability to create personal
meaning in the context of a face-to-face or a written discourse and to capture the intentions of language action(e.g. of indirect acts of speech), as well as functional competences such as processing and comprehension evenof implicit meaning. These competences also relate to language awareness (metalanguage). Pairs of descriptor
scales are available for “Sign text structure” and “Setting and perspectives”. In addition there are two other receptive
scales, “Language awareness and interpretation” and “Processing speed”, as well as two other productive scales:“Presence and effect” and “Signing fluency”.

Sign text structure
The focus of this pair of scales is on the ability of the user/learner not only to grasp and understand the structureof different types of text but also to shape and structure their contributions. Sign text structure relates to thescales for “Coherence” and “Thematic development” under “Communicative language competences”.
The pair of scales include knowledge of schema for video-recorded texts, e.g. for reports, stories or explanations
and knowledge of the ways texts are built and made coherent. They also include knowledge and employmentof particular cohesive devices in interpreting a text or in shaping and structuring a video text. The notion “text”
is used here without referring to conventional scripts for spoken languages. It is meant to refer to multiphrase
signed expressions to convey ideas, thoughts and meanings that serve some function. The notion “sign text”
highlights the fact that texts in sign languages were ephemeral before media for recording (monologues) werecommonly available. Apart from jokes, particular narratives, prayers and a small number of other genres of textthat were handed down in an “oral tradition” and shared in a community, texts remained dialogic in nature.
They could not be conserved and were not accessible for discursive examination, educational purposes orargumentative development. This has changed with video.
However, in contrast to written texts, even videoed signed texts cannot easily be skimmed to look for specificinformation and headings cannot be checked for a rough overview. Nonetheless, specific knowledge of different
text types can help to narrow the search space: a thematic introduction will be found at the beginning, a conclusion
at the end of a video; the indication of time and place of an event can be found close to each other; summaries
are placed at the beginning, conclusions follow the argumentation and so on.
Language users with text competence are able to recognise and assess well-designed as well as fragmented texts
and can grasp explicit and implicit meanings. Text competence also requires the competences of all other scales
introduced here, for example “Diagrammatical accuracy” and “Sign language repertoire”. The text structure scales
focus on coherence and the structured development of a signed message, whereas, for instance, the descriptors
for “Diagrammatical accuracy” focus on the syntactically correct locations for the use of proforms (handshapes
used in place of a previously used sign).
Key concepts operationalised in the receptive scale include:
f ability to detect the logical development and reconstruct the coherence of a text;
f ability to understand texts by applying knowledge of text types, schemes, genres, and associated text
structures and expected contents;
f ability to react to gaps in the logical development and misfits of coherence in a text;
f ability to identify sub-structures of a text (e.g. particular information or chains of argumentation);f ability to prioritise different pieces of information based on their emphasis;f ability to interpret and weigh explicit and implicit references in a text;
f ability to formulate expectations on textual content and to use expectations in the employment of appropriate strategies (e.g. when searching for specific content).
Key concepts operationalised in the productive scale include the following:f logical development and coherence of the text, with ability to present and justify arguments;
f structuring information and arguments sequentially with an introduction and conclusion, adding examples
and explanations where needed;f creating appropriate transitions; placing emphasis;f appropriate use of cohesive devices (manual and non-manual, rhetorical, etc.) according to the respective
text type;f referring backwards and forward in the text.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: Signing competences Page 157

Page 158 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

B2+

C1

C2

Can mention in passing several other places and people, without losing theirthread.
Can systematically justify their opinions, for example logically, morally andpragmatically.
Can effortlessly use stylistic and rhetoric means to effectively develop theircontribution.

Can develop a convincing, logical argument (thesis, justification, exemplification,
conclusion).
Can emphasise certain aspects of a complex topic.
Can structure complex content in a sensible way.
Can employ different types of argumentative texts (e.g. an explanatory text
outlining arguments for and against something, or a text giving detailed
background and exploring an issue in depth).
Can treat a very wide range of topics, introducing and concluding each one
appropriately.
Can effortlessly employ manual and non-manual, lexical and productive cohesive
devices to structure the text.
Can adapt the linguistic cohesive devices employed appropriately to the internal
structure of the text.
Can construct the message of a text from general statements to specific details.
Can formulate an appropriate introduction and conclusion for a text.
Can, while concluding, establish a thematic reference back to the introduction.
Can organise and formulate content following guiding principles.
Can provide recipients who are not present with all the necessary information
about the context, so that they can follow what is said.
Can group different pieces of information thematically.
Can present with images the way an event/organisation is structured.
Can use pauses to structure a text (e.g. pausing between different arguments).

Can reproduce the content of a lengthy signed text with various details.
Can, after watching a signed text, explain relationships in detail.
Can recognise various means of structuring signed texts and correctly interpret
their function in the textual context (e.g., rhetorical questions, enumeration, bodyturns).
Can use their own knowledge of types of text to formulate expectations regarding
the content and structure of a text and assess its quality accordingly.
Can distinguish the separate elements of an argument (assertion, reasons,examples, conclusions) in a signed text.
Can predict what is coming next from the order in which elements appear in an
utterance, and the emphasis that they receive.

Can recognise the recurrent, central theme in enacted texts.
Can recognise, on the basis of the location of an argument in the signing space, towhat opinion the argument belongs.
Can identify structural elements of texts and use their functions to understand thetext as a whole.
Can identify gaps in familiar types of text and fill these coherently by deduction orquery.
Can recognise whether or not the signer is answering the key questions in a text.

Productive

Can understand logical, causal, temporal or semantic relationships in order to linkparts of a signed text to one another.
Can distinguish various kinds of evaluative texts from one another (e.g., acontrovert text with arguments for and against, justification of an argument, or aphilosophical text).
Can identify and understand complex hierarchical structures (e.g. in politics andorganisations).
Can identify missing parts of complex texts or unfamiliar types of texts and infer
missing content.

Receptive

Sign text structure

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: Signing competences Page 159

B1+

B2

Can compare the opinions of others and take a position in relation to them.

Can deduce the content of a short text from the context even if local cohesive
devices are lacking.

Can relate their own experience to something in the text.

Can refer explicitly to what has been said earlier.

Can point out relevant and interesting details briefly and concisely.

Can present clearly the relationships between things by making explicit reference
to them.

Can structure a text into a number of thematic sections.

Can present content in a sensible order.

Can structure text content into an introduction, main section and conclusion.

Can briefly explain a term in the course of a text, when and if this is necessary.

Can indicate temporal relationships between different things related in a report.

Can employ rules that concern going from the general to details.

Can employ principles that govern moving from general ideas to presenting
details.

Can highlight the most important aspects of a topic.

Can create appropriate transitions and links between the different sections of thetext.

Can employ a metalanguage, e.g. to orientate the reader by explaining explicitly inthe text the order in which they are doing things.

Can deliver all of the contents and components that are expected for the type oftext concerned.

Can structure the text logically, maintaining a clear development.

Can structure content into categories/topics, situate these in the signing space,
and then refer to them through indexing.

Productive

Can recognise means of spatial structuring and use them for understanding asigned text.

Can understand the development of a highly structured signed text.

Can identify connections and relationships between content if these are explicitly
referred to in the signed text.

Can understand references to previously provided information.

Can recognise the importance of a statement that is at the centre of the signingspace.

Can recognise a change of topics in a signed text.

Can assess whether the introduction and the conclusion of a text fit together.

Can recognise in a signed text the transitions between the introduction, the main
text and the conclusions.

Can grasp the recurrent, central theme in a text and follow it without difficulty.

Can understand well the content of a clearly structured, lengthy signed text.

Receptive

Sign text structure

Page 160 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

A1

A2

B1

Can recognise the end of a signed contribution by e.g., the clasped hands.

Can grasp the individual points in an enumeration.

Can infer the intention/objective of a signed text from the introduction.

Can understand simple time sequences expressed through the signing space.

Can identify and understand simple hierarchical structures (e.g., families, work) byusing buoys in signing space.

Can find the main points in short everyday texts.

Can recognise simple ways of structuring in a signed text (e.g., a subject andcomments on it).

Receptive

Productive

No descriptors available

Can, at the beginning of a text, give the details necessary to frame the description,
providing answers to the key “what”, “where” and “who” questions.

Can produce a summary on simple topics.

Can formulate simple for-and-against arguments in the form of questions.

Can differentiate the different points in a list.

Can introduce a topic adequately.

Can conclude their contribution correctly (hands together).

Can give reasons for their opinions.

Can summarise in a text the most important statements in reply to “when”, “where”,“who”, “what”, “how” and “why” questions.

Can use the sign <palm-up> to mark the end of a particular discourse contribution.

Can employ simple strategies to structure information (e.g. adding comments on
the topic).

Can indicate the most important aspects of a topic in the hierarchical order of theirimportance.

Can introduce a topic appropriately, then provide the relevant content.

Can sequence the successive elements of a text in logical order.

Can formulate the aim and objective of a text in the introduction.

Sign text structure

Setting and perspectives
A key aspect of sign languages is the use of spatial reference. This requires clearly establishing contexts forinterpretation by creating a setting. To do so, the three-dimensional signing space is systematically divided.
Discourse referents and particular relations must be placed unambiguously within the signing space. Establishingreferences serves two main functions: it is a means to establish reference relations within sentences (clauses)
and it provides a context of interpretation for a text. Sign languages typically clearly introduce the context andsetting of a text at the beginning of the interaction or production in order to establish reference points within thethree-dimensional signing space. Once established, these reference points remain in place until a new setting is
introduced, or an animate referent moves through space. Consistency of spatial relations is therefore essential
in order to produce a coherent, unambiguous contribution.
During a contribution, for example in constructed dialogue (reported speech), it may be necessary for thesigner to adopt the perspective of a particular referent. Signers can shift between perspectives by leveraging
the potential for moving between referential loci (via a body shift or a shoulder shift), or in more reduced forms(e.g. with eye gaze shifts to mark a change in point of view). In all instances, the canonical viewpoint is typicallythat of the signer. Thus, sign languages and spoken languages use the same privileged viewpoint: namely thatof the signer or speaker.
Key concepts operationalised in the receptive scale include the following:f ability to envisage signing space and to memorise the relations for the subsequent text;
f ability to recognise a new setting, change of scene, topic, etc.;
f comprehension of an action, event or issue that is presented from the perspective of different people ordifferent points of view;f ability to follow constructed action (role shifts, shifts of perspectives), constructed dialogue (reported
speech), and to recognise the different techniques in doing so, e.g. by body posture, line of vision or othernon-manuals;
f interpretation of manual and non-manual signals and comprehension of setting-related references.
Key concepts operationalised in the productive scale include the following:f ability to envisage and plan use of signing space;f ability to construct a new setting or indicate a change of scene, topic, etc.;
f ability to present an action, event or issue from the perspective of different people or different points of view;f ability to adopt or change a role (e.g. through body posture, line of vision, depiction);f use of non-manual means such as facial expression, posture or eye gaze to indicate different people.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: Signing competences Page 161

Page 162 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

B2

C1

C2

Can recognise what the signer says themselves and what they say from theperspective of another person.

Can grasp the spatial references in signing space and use these for comprehension.

Can understand a narrative with several characters when the changes of roles areclearly and slowly marked (e.g., by the position of the upper body and eye gaze).

Can, in their interpretation of the text, take account of the perspective of aparticipant in the action (e.g., that the character does not see everything).

Can recognise what the signer says from their own perspective and what they say
from another person’s perspective.

Can distinguish between various perspectives (observer/narrator), provided they
are clearly marked.

Can recognise when the signer is establishing a new scene for reference (a setting)in signing space.

Can fully grasp a setting established in the signing space (e.g., landscape, family
relations, situation), even if it is only indicated by depicting verbs.

Can memorise spatial settings established in signing space (e.g., landscape, family,
situation) and follow references within the settings without difficulty.

Can easily follow several changes of perspective and role.

Can follow changes of scene, locations or persons during an action.

Can follow a constructed dialogue between several characters without difficultyeven if the marking of role changes is reduced e.g., to the direction of vision.

Receptive

Productive

Can depict a change of character perspective with body posture and/or the
direction of vision.

Can depict the role of a character, e.g. to demonstrate feelings.

Can present a change of scene, place or person comprehensibly.

Can introduce a setting using just constructed action and depiction.

Can linguistically correctly construct a new setting when the text requires a new
topic or situation to be addressed.

Can present a simple action or event from the perspective of an observer/narrator.

Can present a simple action or event from the perspective of a participant.

Can correctly introduce and effect a role shift.

Can use the signing space correctly while presenting an interaction between morethan two people (e.g. family dinner).

Can create a complex 3-D image including objects in motion.

Can switch between different perspectives.

Can present a complex action or event by playing different roles and adopting
different perspectives.

Setting and perspectives

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: Signing competences Page 163

A1

A2

B1

No descriptors available

Can understand simple constructed action where the signer takes another person’srole.

No descriptors available

Can envisage and describe ideas spatially.

Can, by means of subsequent indexical references, once again identify objects andpersons previously situated in the signing space.

No descriptors available

Can consistently maintain the relative sizes and proportions of objects (e.g. when
peeling a banana).

Can describe a person by using constructed action.

Can adopt a facial expression appropriate to the character, person or object being
described.

Can use body posture to indicate different opinions in relation to an issue (e.g. bycontrasting arguments for and against by a posture oriented to the right and to theleft respectively).

Can refer to characters in a narrative by using depiction.

Can employ facial expressions appropriate to a character in a narrative.

Can create a clear image in the signing space.

Can develop a statement that maps ideas from near to far, and from small to big.

Can represent the relative proportions and inter-relationships of e.g. a landscape insigning space.

Can imagine the surroundings, such as the landscape or room furnishings, fromdescriptions of shapes.

Can, in spatial descriptions, understand where and how objects are located.

Can demonstrate a change of character perspective through an alteration in upper
body posture.

Can describe correctly the relative positions of entities with respect to each other.

Can use location markings established at the beginning of the text and understandsubsequent references to it, provided these are clearly indicated.

Can identify and remember relative positions of persons/objects and their spatial
relationships with one another.

Can construct a setting in the signing space for a text (e.g. landscape, family,
situation) in a linguistically correct manner.

Productive

Can correctly identify objects and persons that have already been introduced on
the basis of the direction of the signer’s gaze.

Receptive

Setting and perspectives

Language awareness and interpretation
This scale includes descriptors for competences that enable a correct interpretation of perceived acts ofcommunication as well as of their functions. These competences allow the identification of the respective functionsof texts (convincing, amusing, persuading, affecting, etc.) to establish expectations of a text, to understand andevaluate the presence of the signer, and to distinguish different levels of communication. The competences also
include the comprehension and assessment of stylistic means, connotative meanings and conscious prosodic signals.
Metalinguistic competences allow for evaluative attributions of specific signs and expressions perceived,forexample as an aesthetic contribution or a rhetorical reply. They are applied in the interpretation of a signer’s
productions as, for example, in a text making an appeal or request, or in a formal text, and they are applied inreflections on signing.
Over and above accessing lexical and productive repertoires, these competences encompass the ability tounderstand different types of signed statements, such as variation in tempo and style that are not part of the lexicon.
Also, in contrast to authors of written text, the author of a signed text usually remains visible: videoed sign texts
are not alienated from authors, and the conveyed meanings are not detached from the authors unless they use
technological techniques (e.g. an avatar). Therefore, the appearance of the signer may be substantially important for
the interpretation of a signed text. Indeed, this is a feature that videoed texts share with face-to-face interactions.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f correct interpretation of conscious prosodic signals as well as non-linguistic (non-verbal) signals conveyed
by the signer;f identification of the intended communicative act as a whole and assessment of the signer’s conformity
to appearance;f ability to distinguish between intended and unintended, communicative and non-communicative behaviour of the signer, its correct interpretations and reflection;f correct interpretation of new classifiers, pauses, handshapes, ready-made signs, etc.;
f correct interpretation of non-manual means, e.g. facial expression, eye gaze, mouthing including mouth
gestures (or not), as elements of constructed action and constructed dialogue;
f distinction of connotative meaning even if conveyed in a non-explicit way;
f correct interpretation of the rhetorical or structural function of pauses, metaphors, irony, etc.
Language awareness and interpretation

C2

Can work out the main points of emphasis in sophisticated texts.
Can understand aesthetic signing in the context of use, even if they are not familiar with it.
Can interpret abstract poetic signs.
Can recognise rhetorical and stylistic devices in a signed text and understand their functions (e.g.,repetition, rhyme, metaphor, irony).
Can understand signing in which the signer combines different stylistic devices simultaneously (e.g.,
non-dominant hand indicates a context, whereas dominant hand indicates an action from a different
perspective, either being combined with non-manual expressions).48
Can recognise a variation in the word order and describe its rhetorical effect (e.g., emphasis).
Can recognise when a signer employs the sustained hold of a sign as a prosodic or rhetorical device.

C1

Can extract key information on an unfamiliar subject from a lengthy signed text.
Can decide whether or not a statement made about a text takes account of an implied meaning.
Can correctly interpret metalinguistic references within a signed text.
Can grasp unknown concepts by exploiting analogies explained in a text
Can distinguish between the use of body posture as a means of structuring the text (e.g., to separate
arguments for and against) or as a grammatical device (e.g., for relative clauses).
Can understand complicated emotional states that the signer expresses non-manually and by constructed action.
Can identify and outline content which is expressed in creative images.
Can explain creative language games in which the signer uses, e.g. the handshape, as an aesthetic element.

48. This is an instance of “body partitioning”.

Page 164 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Language awareness and interpretation

B2

Can understand conveyed information that is implied, but not explicitly stated in a text (e.g., he wentskiing, and I’ll visit him in hospital).
Can follow the main points of a text even when the signer also makes digressions.
Can recognise whether a signer is delivering a complex text in a relaxed or a tense way.
Can recognise whether the signer produces a text in a specific rhythm and describe the effect of various
rhythms.
Can give reasons why the signer inserts pauses in a text, e.g., because they make sense as a structuralelement or because the signer has to reflect.
Can understand who has what opinion and how these opinions relate to each other.
Can recognise when a signer’s personal experiences influence the argumentation and when they do not.
Can determine whether the signing style used is in keeping with the content.
Can decide on the basis of the interlocutor’s signs and non-manual cues how certain the signer is about
what they are saying (e.g., <undecided> / <uncertain> / <probable>).
Can distinguish productive signs with classifier constructions from imitative, iconic signs.
Can follow the signs made by an interlocutor even when less use is made of non-manual means.
Can describe the effect that the sign speed of a text has on them.
Can judge whether a person presents themselves in a way that is in keeping with the context and the typeof text concerned (clothing, aura, well-groomed appearance).
Can deduce the meaning of unfamiliar signs using comparisons and analogies.

B1

Can understand the sequence of events from the sequence of statements made.
Can understand simple “for” and “against” arguments on a particular issue.
Can understand what advantages and disadvantages a text mentions on a subject.
Can understand the key aspects of conclusions.
Can recognise and correctly interpret important elements on the basis of non-manual components used
for emphasis (e.g., facial expression, size of movement).
Can infer from the classifiers used what general term is being talked about (e.g., “murder” from thehandling of a murder weapon).
Can distinguish between important and unimportant content in a text.
Can infer the temporal aspect from the movements of the upper body.
Can understand a text so well that they are emotionally affected.
Can recognise the non-manual elements employed by a signer to produce tension in the text.
Can correctly interpret the <palm-up> sign (e.g., to indicate a pause).
Can recognise and understand non-manual markers.
Can understand explanations so that they can implement instructions.
Can understand an introduction to a subject and reproduce it in their own words.
Can grasp the signer’s opinion on a subject.
Can relate explanations and examples to one another.
Can interpret emotions when the signer communicates these by means of facial expressions.

A2

A1

Can recognise whether or not they are addressed as the recipient.
Can understand the main points of signed texts on everyday topics
Can grasp and indicate the differences between things.
Can identify identical references even if these are expressed in different linguistic ways, e.g., by a lexical
sign or by constructed action.
Can recognise unfamiliar signs in the continuous flow and ask what they mean.
Can distinguish between positive and negative attitudes on the basis of non-manual cues (e.g., eyebrows
together v. high eyebrows).
Can understand the direct acceptance or rejection of requests/demands.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: Signing competences Page 165

Presence and effect
The extent of the effect on addressees of one’s signing (perlocutionary effects of convincing, amusing, persuading,affecting, etc.) and the specific signs at the user/learner’s disposal are the main focus of this scale. There is a focus
on the vocabulary and range of structures, including both manual and non-manual elements, and the way theuser can exploit them stylistically in order to produce a catchy text. Whether the user wants to demonstratesophistication, boast or explain, the signer must be aware of their presence.
This includes different ways of presenting a signed statement, such as variation in tempo and style. In contrast toa written text, the author remains visible in sign texts: videoed texts in a sign language are not typically detachedfrom their authors, and neither are the conveyed meanings. Producing a formal sign text, for example, requires
an appropriate formal appearance on the part of the signer. Therefore, there is an additional competence inproducing signed texts, namely the “competence of appearance” that must be learnt and that includes various
aspects of how to successfully produce an appropriate sign text for specific purposes.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f sophistication and semantic precision in the overall message (up to aesthetic use at C2);
f conscious use of rhetorical means, register options, pause structure and discourse control;
f anticipation of the needs of the addressees in discursive productions;f use of productive and established lexicon, including ready-made signs, use of depiction where appropriate
and effective;
f expression of specific functions and vocabulary (A levels);f behaviour and appearance of the signer (taking account of the visible environment, accessories, etc.).
Presence and effect

C2

Can be creative, without losing their train of thought.
Can use a wide range of different ways to build up suspense and excitement (e.g. constructed action,
rhetorical questions, varying rhythm).
Can effortlessly and playfully employ handshapes as an aesthetic element, so that creative forms oflanguage emerge.
Can present thoughts and feelings in an artistic way by using a selection of signs and depiction, as
appropriate.

C1

Can prepare well, so that while signing they do not need to think about content.
Appears calm and relaxed when signing, even when a high degree of concentration is required.
Can give the characters in a story their own individual linguistic profile (style, tone, register, etc.).
Can use language to develop a narrative in such a way that the recipient can become immersed in what ishappening in the story.
Can alter the pace of signing (from slow to fast) in order to build up suspense.
Can cause the recipients to be carried away by enthusiasm.
Can employ exaggeration appropriately and effectively.

B2

Can contribute unconventional and original reflections on the topic concerned in a linguistically skilfulmanner.
Can express their imagination and concepts creatively.
Can choose from a broad variety of non-manual means to build up suspense and excitement.
Can cause an audience to experience strong emotions (e.g. laughing, crying).
Can describe an event in an exciting way.
Can express complicated emotional states through constructed action and gesture.
Can make relevant comparisons that help the recipient better grasp the information concerned.
Can stimulate/awaken curiosity on the part of the recipient with regard to the ending to a text.

B1+

Can convey a new point of view in a way that makes the recipients think.
Can express the feelings of a person who is close to them.
Can use body language and facial expression to convey meaning.
Can emphasise what is important by using non-manual means and the extent of movements.

Page 166 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Presence and effect
B1

A2

A1

Can hold the attention of the recipients by employing various means (e.g. rhetorical questions).
Can tell a story in a credible way.
Can express personal traits of a character.
Can present themselves in a polite and appropriate way.
Can state facts in a neutral manner, excluding emotional affectedness.
Can convey and stimulate feelings (e.g. joy, sadness).
Can convey emotions through facial expression.
Can employ depiction appropriately to express negative and positive feelings (e.g. eyebrows together:
negative; eyebrows raised: positive).
Can position themselves so that the signing is easily visible to the recipients.
Can express emotional states through depiction only (without the need for lexical signs).

Processing speed
This scale includes competences that describe the ease or effort in comprehending a sign language. The
processing speed may depend on familiar versus unfamiliar signs, on the degree of grammatical complexity or on
the familiarity with fingerspelling, to give examples. The scale therefore captures how different competences ofother scales can be used, how automatised competences already are and how many resources must be allocatedin interpretation or are available for further processing of messages. The individual’s experience of challenging
communication, depending on the language used, relates to this. Processing speed indicates the level of trainingof a recipient and how well they can grasp and understand conveyed information.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f strain of comprehending texts and expressions of differing length, explicitness and complexity;
f ability to assess the signing speed, regularity and rhythm of others and to monitor oneself;
f ability to capture actions that are produced with different articulators simultaneously;
f ability to follow actions with several characters and complex settings;
f ability to follow messages or texts even if the transitions between the different parts of the text aresmoothly signed;
f ability to understand fluently produced fingerspelling;f ability to follow the content despite assimilations, interruptions, gaps, pauses, production errors or unclear
signing.
Processing speed

C2

Can follow texts that are enacted in parallel (e.g., with two signers).
Can keep track of who is to take the next turn when several signers are involved, for example, in a panel
discussion, by monitoring requests for a turn.
Can list the various aspects mentioned in a text even if the signer mentions them quickly one after theother.
Can easily understand fluently fingerspelled signs, even if they do not see every letter but perhaps only
ergonomic word shapes.

C1

Can follow a long fluidly signed text.
Can follow complicated reports without difficulty.
Can easily understand complex actions and relationships between objects/persons/places that aredescribed using various classifier constructions.
Can follow how people react to one another’s communication behaviour even when several signers are
involved, for example in a panel discussion.
Can understand a signed text even if the signer uses only one hand.
Can follow a text even when it contains several unknown signs.
Can understand a text even when certain signs or sentences are incomplete or not visible.
Can spot signing errors and correct them for themselves without query.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: Signing competences Page 167

Processing speed
Can follow unexpected news or video messages without preparation.

B2

B1

A2
A1

Can easily understand descriptions of actions even if the signer uses different classifier constructions (e.g.,
manipulators, substitutors).
Can follow even unexpected twists in a text.
Can understand rhythmically presented movement sequences and actions, and recognise their aesthetic
quality.
Can follow a long and slowly signed text, provided it is shown several times.
Can follow the narration of a well-known story without difficulty.
Can recognise and imitate various handshapes, even when the signer uses them in rapid succession.
Can spot signing errors and ask for more precision or clarification.
Can follow a longer, fluidly signed text, provided it is repeated.
Can understand a relatively long text in one go, provided it is signed slowly.
Can understand designations (name, fingerspelled items, functions) for persons in a text and subsequent
reference to them.
Can follow the interlocutor’s signs, provided they are clearly visible.
Can understand fluent fingerspelling of letters, provided the producer repeats it, if necessary.
Can understand short, slowly and clearly signed texts in one go.

Signing fluency
This scale is a direct equivalent of the scale for fluency under communicative language competences. Key
concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f the pace, regularity and rhythm of signing;f ability to pause where appropriate;f ability to articulate simultaneous constructions with different articulators;
f ability to articulate signs one after another with smooth transitions and without distortion;f ability to fingerspell in a fluid sequence to express words for unknown signs (A levels) or context-dependentemphasis (B level and beyond), or as a means of bilingual contact signing (all levels).
Signing fluency
C2

No descriptors available; see C1

C1

Can sign rapidly in a steady rhythm.
Can sign a longer text fluently and rhythmically.
Can employ an extended hold of a sign (hold) as a rhetorical or prosodic feature.

B2

Can sign at a fluent pace, even though some pauses for planning are still necessary.
Can relate fluently in a sign language a story that they know.
Can hold a sign with one hand in order to demonstrate something static (hold), while simultaneously using
the other hand to continue signing.49
Can sign at a comfortable pace, without needing to think about the individual signs.
Can use pauses for effect at appropriate points.
Can rhythmically represent the stages of a movement or activity (e.g. leaves falling down, hail).
Can fingerspell fluently, connecting or blending elements smoothly.

49. These constructions are also known as “fragment buoys”.

Page 168 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Signing fluency
Can sign a fluent transition between related points.

B1

A2
A1

Can sign a short text rhythmically.
Can employ sequences of handshapes and/or the handshapes for fingerspelling fluently.
Can sign a simple sentence rhythmically.
Can indicate the end of a sentence clearly by leaving a pause.
No descriptors available

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales: Signing competences Page 169

APPENDICES

Page 171Appendix 1
SALIENT FEATURES OF THE CEFR LEVELS
Level A1 is considered the lowest level of generative language use – the point at which the learner can “interact
in a simple way, ask and answer simple questions about themselves, where they live, people they know, andthings they have, initiate and respond to simple statements in areas of immediate need or on very familiar topics”,
rather than relying purely on a very finite rehearsed, lexically organised repertoire of situation-specific phrases.
Level A2 does appear to reflect the level referred to by the “Waystage” specification. It is at this level that the
majority of descriptors stating social functions are to be found, like “use simple everyday polite forms of greeting
and address”; “greet people, ask how they are and react to news”; “handle very short social exchanges”; “ask andanswer questions about what people do at work and in free time”; “make and respond to invitations”; “discuss
what to do, where to go and make arrangements to meet”; “make and accept offers”. Here too are to be founddescriptors on getting out and about: the simplified cut-down version of the full set of transactional specifications
in “The Threshold Level” for adults living abroad, like: “make simple transactions in shops, post offices or banks”;“get simple information about travel”; “use public transport: buses, trains, and taxis, ask for basic information,
ask and give directions, and buy tickets”; “ask for and provide everyday goods and services”.
The next band represents a “strong Waystage” (A2+) performance. What is noticeable here is more active
participation in conversation given some assistance and certain limitations, for example: “initiate, maintain andclose simple, restricted face-to-face conversation”; “understand enough to manage simple, routine exchanges
without undue effort”; “make themselves understood and exchange ideas and information on familiar topics
in predictable everyday situations, provided the other person helps if necessary”; “communicate successfullyon basic themes if they can ask for help to express what they want to”; “deal with everyday situations withpredictable content, though they will generally have to compromise the message and search for words/signs”;“interact with reasonable ease in structured situations, given some help, but participation in open discussion
is fairly restricted”; plus significantly more ability to sustain monologues, for example: “express how they feel insimple terms”; “give an extended description of everyday aspects of their environment, e.g. people, places, a job
or study experience”; “describe past activities and personal experiences”; “describe habits and routines”; “describeplans and arrangements”; “explain what they like or dislike about something”; “give short, basic descriptions ofevents and activities”; “describe pets and possessions”; “use simple descriptive language to make brief statements
about and compare objects and possessions”.
Level B1 reflects the “Threshold Level” specification for a visitor to a foreign country and is perhaps most obviously
categorised by two features. The first feature is the ability to maintain interaction and get across what you
want to, in a range of contexts, for example: “generally follow the main points of extended discussion aroundthem, provided people articulate clearly in standard language”; “give or seek personal views and opinions in an
informal discussion with friends”; “express the main point they want to make comprehensibly”; “exploit a wide
range of simple language flexibly to express much of what they want to”; “maintain a conversation or discussion
but may sometimes be difficult to follow when trying to express exactly what they would like to”; “keep goingcomprehensibly, even though pausing for grammatical and lexical planning and repair is very evident, especiallyin longer stretches of free production”. The second feature is the ability to cope flexibly with problems in everyday
life, for example “cope with less routine situations on public transport”; “deal with most situations likely toarise when making travel arrangements through an agent or when actually travelling”; “enter unprepared into
conversations on familiar topics”; “make a complaint”; “take some initiatives in an interview/consultation (e.g.
to bring up a new subject) but is very dependent on interviewer in the interaction”; “ask someone to clarify orelaborate what they have just said”.

Page 173

The subsequent band seems to be a “strong Threshold” (B1+). The same two main features continue to be present,with the addition of a number of descriptors that focus on the exchange of “quantities” of information, for example:“take messages communicating enquiries, explaining problems”; “provide concrete information required in
an interview/consultation (e.g. describe symptoms to a doctor) but does so with limited precision”; “explain
why something is a problem”; “summarise and give their opinion about a short story, article, talk, discussion,interview or documentary and answer further questions of detail”; “carry out a prepared interview, checking andconfirming information, though they may occasionally have to ask for repetition if the other person’s response is
rapid or extended”; “describe how to do something, giving detailed instructions”; “exchange accumulated factual
information on familiar routine and non-routine matters within their field with some confidence”.
Level B2 represents a new level as far above B1 (“Threshold”) as A2 (“Waystage”) is below it. It is intended toreflect the “Vantage Level” specification. The metaphor is that having been progressing slowly but steadily
across the intermediate plateau, the user/learner finds they have arrived somewhere, things look different, theyacquire a new perspective, can look around them in a new way. This concept does seem to be borne out to aconsiderable extent by the descriptors calibrated at this level. They represent quite a break with the content so
far. For example, at the lower end of the band there is a focus on effective argument: “account for and sustain
their opinions in discussion by providing relevant explanations, arguments and comments”; “explain a viewpoint
on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options”; “construct a chain of reasonedargument”; “develop an argument giving reasons in support of or against a particular point of view”; “explain aproblem and make it clear that their counterpart in a negotiation must make a concession”; “speculate about
causes, consequences, hypothetical situations”; “take an active part in informal discussion in familiar contexts,
commenting, putting their point of view clearly, evaluating alternative proposals and making and responding tohypotheses”. Secondly, running right through the level there are two new focuses. The first is being able to morethan hold your own in social discourse: for example, “converse naturally, fluently and effectively”; “understand indetail what is said to them in the standard language even in an [audially/visually] noisy environment”; “initiate
discourse, take their turn when appropriate and end conversation when they need to, though they may notalways do this elegantly”; “use stock phrases (e.g. “That’s a difficult question to answer”) to gain time and keep
the turn while formulating what to say”; “interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regularinteraction with users of the target language quite possible without imposing strain on either party”; “adjust to
the changes of direction, style and emphasis normally found in conversation”; “sustain relationships with usersof the target language without unintentionally amusing or irritating them or requiring them to behave otherthan they would with another proficient user”. The second new focus is a new degree of language awareness:“correct mistakes if they have led to misunderstandings”; “make a note of their recurrent mistakes and consciously
monitor their language”; “generally correct slips and errors if they become conscious of them”; “plan what is tobe said and the means to say it, considering the effect on the recipient(s)”. In all, this does seem to be a new
threshold for a language learner to cross.
At the next band – representing a “strong Vantage” (B2+) performance – the focus on argument, effective social
discourse and on language awareness that appears at B2 (“Vantage”) continues. However, the focus on argument
and social discourse can also be interpreted as a new focus on discourse skills. This new degree of discourse
competence shows itself in conversational management (co-operating strategies): “give feedback on and follow
up statements and inferences by others and so help the development of discussion”; “relate own contribution
skilfully to those of others”. It is also apparent in relation to coherence/cohesion: “use a limited number ofcohesive devices to link sentences together smoothly into clear, connected discourse”; “use a variety of linking
expressions efficiently to mark clearly the relationships between ideas”; “develop an argument systematicallywith appropriate highlighting of significant points, and relevant supporting detail”. Finally, it is at this band that
there is a concentration of items on “negotiating”: “outline a case for compensation, using persuasive language
and simple arguments to demand satisfaction”; “state clearly the limits to a concession”.
Level C1, seems to be characterised by good access to a broad range of language, which allows fluent, spontaneouscommunication, as illustrated by the following examples: “Can express themselves fluently and spontaneously,
almost effortlessly. Has a good command of a broad lexical repertoire allowing gaps to be readily overcome withcircumlocutions. There is little obvious searching for expressions or avoidance strategies”; “only a conceptuallydifficult subject can hinder a natural, smooth flow of language”. The discourse skills characterising the previous
band continue to be evident at Level C1, with an emphasis on more fluency, for example: “select a suitable phrasefrom a fluent repertoire of discourse functions to preface their remarks in order to get the floor, or to gain timeand keep it while thinking”; “produce clear, smoothly flowing, well-structured language, showing controlled useof organisational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices”.

Page 174 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Level C2 is not intended to imply native-speaker or near native-speaker competence. What is intended is tocharacterise the degree of precision, appropriateness and ease with the language that typifies the speech of those
who have been highly successful learners. Descriptors calibrated here include: “convey finer shades of meaning
precisely by using, with reasonable accuracy, a wide range of modification devices”; “has a good command of
idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms with awareness of connotative levels of meaning”; “backtrack andrestructure around a difficulty so smoothly the interlocutor is hardly aware of it”.

C2

Can understand virtually all types of texts. Can summarise information from different oral andwritten sources, reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation. Can express
themselves spontaneously, very fluently and precisely, differentiating finer shades of meaningeven in more complex situations.

C1

Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer texts, and recognise implicit meaning. Can
express themselves fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions.
Can use language flexibly and effectively for social, academic and professional purposes. Can
produce clear, well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects, showing controlled use oforganisational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices.

B2

Can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete and abstract topics, including
technical discussions in their field of specialisation. Can interact with a degree of fluency andspontaneity that makes regular interaction with users of the target language quite possible
without imposing strain on either party. Can produce clear, detailed text on a wide range ofsubjects and explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages ofvarious options.

B1

Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly
encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. Can deal with most situations likely to arise while
travelling in an area where the language is spoken. Can produce simple connected text on topics
which are familiar or of personal interest. Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes &ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans.

A2

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
their background, immediate environment and matters in areas of immediate need.

A1

Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed at thesatisfaction of needs of a concrete type. Can introduce themselves and others and can ask andanswer questions about personal details such as where someone lives, people they know andthings they have. Can interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly
and is prepared to help.

Basic user

Independent user

Proficient user

The Common Reference Levels can be presented and exploited in a number of different formats, in varying
degrees of detail. Yet the existence of fixed points of common reference offers transparency and coherence, atool for future planning and a basis for further development.
The Common Reference Levels are summarised in the following table:

Salient features of the CEFR levels Page 175

Page 177

Readingcomprehension

Oralcomprehension

Reception

I can understandfamiliar names, words/
signs and very simple
sentences, for example
on notices and posters
or in catalogues.

I can recognise familiar
words and very basic
phrases concerning
myself, my family and
immediate concretesurroundings whenpeople speak/sign
slowly and clearly.

A1

I can find specific,
predictable
information in
simple everyday
material, such as
advertisements,
prospectuses, menus
and timetables, andI can understandshort simple personal
letters.

I can read very short,
simple texts.

I can catch the main
point in short, clear,simple messages andannouncements.

I can understandphrases and thehighest frequency
vocabulary related
to areas of mostimmediate personal
relevance (e.g. very
basic personal andfamily information,
shopping, local
geography,
employment).

A2

I can understandcontemporary literaryprose.

I can understandlong and complex
factual and literarytexts, appreciating
distinctions of style.
I can read articles andreports concernedwith contemporary
problems in which
the writers adopt
particular stances orviewpoints.

I can understand texts
that consist mainlyof high frequency
everyday or jobrelated language.

I can understandspecialised articles
and longer technicalinstructions, evenwhen they do not
relate to my field.

I can understandtelevision
programmes and films
without too much
effort.

I can understand mostTV news and current
affairs programmes.
I can understand the
majority of films instandard language.

I can understandthe main point ofmany radio or TV
programmes oncurrent affairs or
topics of personal or
professional interest
when the delivery is
relatively slow andclear.

I can understand thedescription of events,
feelings and wishes inpersonal letters.

I have no difficultyin understanding
any kind of oral
language, whether
live or broadcast,even when deliveredat fast natural speed,provided I have sometime to get familiar
with the accent.
I can understandextended talk evenwhen it is not clearlystructured and whenrelationships are
only implied and notsignalled explicitly.

I can understandextended talk andlectures and follow
even complex lines ofargument provided
the topic is reasonably
familiar.

I can understand themain points of clear
standard language
on familiar mattersregularly encounteredin work, school,
leisure, etc.

I can read with easevirtually all forms of
the written/signed
language, including
abstract, structurally
or linguisticallycomplex texts, such as
manuals, specialised
articles and literaryworks.

C2

C1

B2

B1

Appendix 2
SELF-ASSESSMENT GRID (EXPANDED WITH ONLINEINTERACTION AND MEDIATION)

Page 178 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Writtenproduction

Oral production

Production

A2

I can use a series ofphrases and sentences
to describe in simple
terms my family
and other people,
living conditions,my educational
background and mypresent or most recent
job.

I can produce a seriesof simple phrases andsentences linked withsimple connectors
like “and”, “but” and“because”.

A1

I can use simple
phrases and sentences
to describe where
I live and people Iknow.

I can produce simple
isolated phrases andsentences.

I can produce an essay
or report, passing on
information or giving
reasons in support ofor against a particularpoint of view.

I can produce different
kinds of texts in a style
appropriate to thereader I have in mind.

I can produce detailed
expositions ofcomplex subjects inan essay or a report,
underlining what I
consider to be thesalient issues.

I can produce
summaries andreviews of professionalor literary works.

I can produce complex
letters, reports orarticles that present acase with an effective
logical structure thathelps the recipient
notice and remember
significant points.

I can produce clear,smoothly flowing text
in an appropriate style.

I can produce clear,detailed text on awide range of subjects
related to my interests.

I can explain aviewpoint on a
topical issue giving
the advantages anddisadvantages ofvarious options.

I can express myself inclear, well-structured
text, expressing
points of view at somelength.

I can produce
straightforward
connected text on
topics that are familiar
or of personal interest.

I can briefly givereasons andexplanations for
opinions and plans.
I can narrate a story
or relate the plot of
a book or film anddescribe my reactions.

I can present a clear,smoothly flowing
description orargument in a style
appropriate to thecontext and with
an effective logicalstructure that helps
the recipient noticeand remember
significant points.

I can present clear,detailed descriptionsof complex subjects
integrating subthemes, developing
particular points
and rounding off
with an appropriate
conclusion.

I can present clear,detailed descriptions
on a wide range ofsubjects related to myfield of interest.

I can connect phrases
in a simple way inorder to describe
experiences andevents, my dreams,
hopes and ambitions.

C2

C1

B2

B1

Self-assessment grid (expanded with online interaction and mediation) Page 179

Writtenand online
interaction

Oral interaction

Interaction

I can complete a very
simple purchase,filling in forms withpersonal details.

I can complete simple
transactions suchas ordering goods,
can follow simple
instructions and cancollaborate in a sharedtask with a supportive
interlocutor.

I can engage in basicsocial interaction,
expressing how I
feel, what I am doingor what I need,
and responding
to comments with
thanks, apology or
answers to questions.

I can post short,
simple greetings asstatements about
what I did and how
I liked it, and can
respond to comments
in a very simple way.

I can react simply toother posts, images
and media.

I can handle very shortsocial exchanges, eventhough I can’t usually
understand enough tokeep the conversation
going myself.

I can ask and answer
simple questions inareas of immediateneed or on very
familiar topics.

I can interact with agroup working on
a project, provided
there are visual aids
such as images,
statistics and graphs
to clarify more
complex concepts.

I can ask for or give
simple clarifications
and can respondto comments andquestions in somedetail.

I can interact about
experiences, events,
impressions andfeelings, provided
I can prepare
beforehand.

I can highlight thesignificance offacts, events andexperiences, justify
ideas and support
collaboration.

I can interact withseveral people, linking
my contributions totheirs and handlingmisunderstandings
or disagreements,
provided the others
avoid complex
language, allow metime and are generally
co-operative.

I can take an active
part in discussion
in familiar contexts,
accounting for andsustaining my views.

I can deal effectively
with communication
problems and culturalissues that arise
by clarifying andexemplifying.

I can understandthe intentions andimplications of othercontributions oncomplex, abstract
issues and can express
myself with clarity andprecision, adapting mylanguage and register
flexibly and effectively.

I can formulate ideas
and opinions with
precision and relate
my contribution
skilfully to those ofothers.

I can use language
flexibly and effectively
for social andprofessional purposes.

I can anticipate
and deal effectively
with possible
misunderstandings,
communication
issues and emotional
reactions, adjustinglanguage and tone
flexibly and sensitively
as appropriate.

I can express myself
in an appropriate
tone and style invirtually any type ofinteraction.

I can express myself
fluently and convey
finer shades ofmeaning precisely. If
I do have a problem
I can backtrack andrestructure around the
difficulty so smoothlythat other people are
hardly aware of it.

I can take parteffortlessly in any
conversation or
discussion and have agood familiarity withidiomatic expressions
and colloquialisms.

I can express
myself fluently andspontaneously
without much
obvious searching for
expressions.

I can interact witha degree of fluency
and spontaneitythat makes regularinteraction with usersof the target language
quite possible.

I can deal with mostsituations likely toarise while travellingin an area where thelanguage is spoken.

I can communicate
in simple and routine
tasks requiring
a simple anddirect exchange
of information on
familiar topics andactivities.

I can interact in a
simple way provided
the other person isprepared to repeat orrephrase things at a
slower rate and help
me formulate what I
am trying to express.
I can enter unpreparedinto conversation on
topics that are familiar,of personal interest or
pertinent to everyday
life (e.g. family,
hobbies, work, travel
and current events).

C2

C1

B2

B1

A2

A1

Page 180 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Mediatingconcepts

Mediating a text

Mediation

I can express an ideavery simply and ask
others whether they
understand me andwhat they think.

I can makesuggestions in a
simple way to movethe discussion forward
and can ask what
people think of certain
ideas.

I can ask appropriatequestions to checkunderstanding ofconcepts and canrepeat back part ofwhat someone has
said to confirm mutual
understanding.

I can further develop
other people’s ideas
and link them into
coherent lines ofthinking, considering
different sides of anissue.

I can guide thedevelopment ofideas in a discussionof complex abstract
topics, encouraging
others to elaborateon their reasoning,summarising,evaluating andlinking the various
contributions in orderto create agreement
for a solution or way
forward.
I can acknowledge
different perspectives
in guiding a group,
asking a series ofopen questions thatbuild on different
contributions in orderto stimulate logicalreasoning, reportingon what others have
said, summarising,elaborating andweighing up multiple
points of view, andtactfully helping steer
discussion towards aconclusion.
I can encourage
participation and posequestions that invite
reactions from othergroup members or
ask people to expand
on their thinking andclarify their opinions.

I can help define a task
in basic terms and ask
others to contribute
their expertise.

I can collaborate
in simple, practicaltasks, asking what
others think, making
suggestions andunderstanding
responses, provided I
can ask for repetition
or reformulation fromtime to time.

I can invite otherpeople’s contributions
using short, simple
phrases.
I can invite otherpeople to contribute,to clarify the reason(s)for their views or toelaborate on specificpoints they havemade.

I can explain in clear,fluent, well-structured
language the way
facts and arguments
are presented,
conveying evaluative
aspects and mostnuances precisely,and pointing
out sociocultural
implications (e.g.
use of register,understatement, irony
and sarcasm).

I can convey clearlyand fluently in wellstructured language
the significant ideas inlong, complex texts,
whether or not they
relate to my own fields
of interest, provided I
can occasionally checkparticular technicalconcepts.

I can convey detailed
information andarguments reliably,
e.g. the significant
point(s) containedin complex but
well-structured texts
within my fields ofprofessional, academic
and personal interest.

I can convey
information given inclear, well-structured
informational texts
on subjects that arefamiliar or of personalor current interest.

I can convey the main
point(s) involved in
short, simple texts on
everyday subjects ofimmediate interest,
provided these areexpressed clearly insimple language.

I can convey
simple, predictable
information given
in short, simple
texts like signs andnotices, posters andprogrammes.

I can use simple
words/signs andsignals to show myinterest in an idea
and to confirm that I
understand.

C2

C1

B2

B1

A2

A1

Self-assessment grid (expanded with online interaction and mediation) Page 181

Mediatingcommunication

Mediation

I can communicate
other people’s
personal details
and very simple,
predictable
information, provided
other people help mewith formulation.
I can recognise whenpeople disagree orwhen difficulties
occur and can use
simple phrases toseek compromise andagreement.

I can communicate themain sense of what
is said on subjectsof personal interest,
provided speakers
articulate clearly and I
can pause to plan how
to express things.
I can communicate
the significance ofimportant statements
and viewpoints on
subjects within myfields of interest,
provided speakers
give clarifications if
needed.

I can use persuasive
language
diplomatically.

I can communicate
significant information
clearly, fluently andconcisely, and explain
cultural references.

I can mediate
effectively andnaturally between
members of myown and othercommunities,
taking account ofsociocultural andsociolinguistic
differences andcommunicating finer
shades of meaning.

I can mediate a sharedcommunication
culture by managing
ambiguity,
demonstrating
sensitivity todifferent viewpoints
and heading off
misunderstandings.

I can encouragea sharedcommunication
culture by adapting
the way I proceed,by expressing
appreciation ofdifferent ideas,
feelings andviewpoints, and byinviting participants toreact to each other’sideas.

I can support a sharedcommunication
culture by introducing
people, exchanging
information aboutpriorities, and making
simple requests forconfirmation and/or
clarification.

I can contribute tocommunication byusing simple words/
signs to invite people
to explain things,
indicating when I
understand and/or
agree.

I can facilitatecommunication by
showing my welcome
and interest withsimple words/signs
and non-verbal
signals, by inviting
others to contributeand indicating
whether I understand.
I can communicate themain point of what
is said in predictable,
everyday situations
about personal wants
and needs.

C2

C1

B2

B1

A2

A1

Page 183

C1

C2

FluencyCan express themselves
spontaneously at lengthwith a natural colloquialflow, avoiding or
backtracking around any
difficulty so smoothlythat the interlocutor ishardly aware of it.

Can express
themselves fluently
and spontaneously,
almost effortlessly. Only
a conceptually difficult
subject can hinder anatural, smooth flow of
language.

Accuracy

Maintains consistentgrammatical control
of complex language,
even while attention isotherwise engaged (e.g.
in forward planning,in monitoring others’
reactions).

Consistently maintains
a high degree ofgrammatical accuracy;
errors are rare, difficult
to spot and generally
corrected when they dooccur.

Range

Shows great flexibility
reformulating ideas indiffering linguistic forms
to convey finer shadesof meaning precisely,
to give emphasis, todifferentiate and toeliminate ambiguity.
Also has a goodcommand of idiomatic
expressions andcolloquialisms.

Has a good commandof a broad range oflanguage allowing themto select a formulation
to express themselvesclearly in an appropriate
style on a wide range
of general, academic,
professional or leisure
topics without having to
restrict what they wantto say.

Can select a suitablephrase from a readily
available range of
discourse functions to
preface their remarks inorder to get or to keep
the floor and to relate
their own contributions
skilfully to those of otherspeakers.

Can interweave theircon­tribution into thejoint discourse withfully natural turntaking,referencing, allusion
making, etc.

Can interact with easeand skill, picking up
and using non-verbal
and intonational cues
apparently effortlessly.

Interaction

Appendix 3
QUALITATIVE FEATURES OF SPOKEN LANGUAGE(EXPANDED WITH PHONOLOGY)

Can employ the fullrange of phonologicalfeatures in the target
language with ahigh level of control– including prosodic
features such as wordand sentence stress,
rhythm and intonation –so that the finer points of
their message are clear
and precise. Intelligibility
is not affected in any way
by features of accentthat may be retained
from other language(s).
Can employ the fullrange of phonologicalfeatures in the target
language with sufficient
control to ensure
intelligibility throughout.

Can create coherent
and cohesive discourse
making full andappropriate use of avariety of organisational
patterns and a wide
range of connectors andother cohesive devices.

Can produce clear,smoothly flowing, wellstructured language,
showing controlled
use of organisational
patterns, connectors andcohesive devices.

Can articulate virtually
all the sounds of thetarget language; somefeatures of accent
retained from otherlanguage(s) may be
noticeable, but they do
not affect intelligibility
at all.

Phonology

Coherence

Page 184 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

A2+

B1

B1+

B2

B2+

Has enough language
to get by, with sufficient
vocabulary to express
themselves withsome hesitation andcircumlocutions on
topics such as family,
hobbies and interests,
work, travel and current
events.

Has a sufficient range oflanguage to give clear
descriptions and express
viewpoints on mostgeneral topics, without
much conspicuous
searching for words,
using some complex
sentence forms to do so.

Range

Uses reasonably
accurately a repertoireof frequently used“routines” and patterns
associated with morepredictable situations.

Shows a relatively highdegree of grammaticalcontrol. Does notmake errors that cause
misunderstanding, andcan correct most of their
mistakes.

Accuracy

Can keep goingcomprehensibly, eventhough pausing forgrammatical and lexicalplanning and repair isvery evident, especiallyin longer stretches offree production.

Can produce stretchesof language with a fairly
even tempo; although
they can be hesitant asthey search for patterns
and expressions, there
are few noticeably longpauses.

FluencyCan repeat part ofwhat someone has
said to confirm mutual
understanding.

Can initiate, maintainand close simple faceto-face conversation on
topics that are familiar orof personal interest.

Can help the discussion
along on familiar
ground confirming
comprehension, inviting
others in, etc.

Can initiate discourse,
take their turn whenappropriate and end
conversation when theyneed to, though they
may not always do thiselegantly.

Interaction

Can link a series ofshorter, discrete
simple elements into
a connected, linear
sequence of points.

Can use a limited
number of cohesive
devices to link theirutterances into clear,coherent discourse,
though there may besome “jumpiness” in along contribution.

Coherence

Pronunciation is
generally intelligible; canapproximate intonationand stress at bothutterance and wordlevels. However, accent isusually influenced by theother language(s) they
speak.

Can generally use
appropriate intonation,
place stress correctly
and articulate individual
sounds clearly; accent
tends to be influenced
by the other language(s)they speak, but has
little or no effect on
intelligibility.

Phonology

Qualitative features of spoken language (expanded with phonology) Page 185

A1

A2

Shows only limited
control of a few simple
grammatical structuresand sentence patterns ina memorised repertoire.

Can manage very short,isolated, mainly prepackaged utterances,with much pausing tosearch for expressions,
to articulate less familiar
words, and to repair
communication.

Can make themselves
under­stood in very shortutterances, even thoughpauses, false starts andreformulation are very
evident.

Uses some simple
structures correctly, but
still systematically makes
basic mistakes.

Uses basic sentence
patterns with memorised
phrases, groups of a
few words/signs andformulae in order tocommunicate limited
information in simple
everyday situations.

Has a very basic
repertoire of words/
signs and simple phrases
related to personal
details and particularconcrete situations.

Fluency

Accuracy

Range

Pronunciation of a very
limited repertoire oflearnt words and phrases
can be understoodwith some effort byinterlocutors used todealing with speakersof the language groupconcerned.

Can link words/signs orgroups of words/signs
with very basic linear
connectors like “and” or“then”.
Can interact in a simple
way but communication
is totally dependent on
repetition, rephrasing
and repair.

Can ask and answer
questions about
personal details.

Can reproduce correctly
a limited range ofsounds as well as stresson simple, familiar words
and phrases.

Pronunciation is
generally clear enoughto be understood,
but conversational
partners will need to
ask for repetition fromtime to time. A strong
influence from theother language(s) they
speak on stress, rhythm
and intonation may
affect intelligibility,
requiring collaborationfrom interlocutors.
Nevertheless,pronunciation of familiar
words is clear.

Can link groups of words
with simple connectors
like “and”, “but” and“because”.

Can ask and answer
questions and respondto simple statements.
Can indicate when they
are following but israrely able to understandenough to keep
conversation going of
their own accord.

Phonology

Coherence

Interaction

Page 187

Can emphasise therelevant salient issues,
expand and support
points of view at somelength with subsidiarypoints, reasons andrelevant examples,and round off with anappropriate conclusion.

Consistently maintains
a high degree ofgrammatical accuracy;
occasional errors ingrammar, collocations
and idioms.

Can write clear, detailed,well-structured anddeveloped descriptions
and imaginative texts
in a mostly assured,personal, natural style
appropriate to thereader in mind.

Can produce clear,smoothly flowing, wellstructured text, showing
controlled use oforganisational patterns,
connectors and cohesive
devices.

Can expand and support
point of view withsome subsidiary points,
reasons and examples.

Can write clear, wellstructured expositionsof complex subjects,
emphasising therelevant salient issues.

Can provide anappropriate andeffective logicalstructure that helps thereader to find significant
points.

Has a good commandof a broad range oflanguage allowing themto select a formulation
to express themselvesclearly in an appropriate
style on a wide range
of general, academic,
professional or leisure
topics without having to
restrict what they wantto say. Flexibility in styleand tone is somewhat
limited.

Can write clear, wellstructured and mostly
accurate texts ofcomplex subjects.

Can use a logicalstructure that helps thereader to find significant
points.

Can produce clear,smoothly flowing,
complex reports,
articles and essays that
present a case or givecritical appreciation of
proposals or literaryworks.

Can write clear,smoothly flowing andfully engrossing stories
and descriptions ofexperience in a style
appropriate to the genre
adopted.

Maintains consistentand highly accurate
grammatical control ofeven the most complex
language forms. Errors
are rare and concern
rarely used forms.

Can create coherent andcohesive texts making
full and appropriate
use of a variety oforganisational patterns
and a wide range of
connectors and othercohesive devices.

Shows great flexibility
in formulating ideas indiffering linguistic forms
to convey finer shadesof meaning precisely,
to give emphasis andto eliminate ambiguity.
Also has a goodcommand of idiomatic
expressions andcolloquialisms.

Can write clear, highly
accurate and smoothly
flowing complex texts
in an appropriate andeffective personal style
conveying finer shadesof meaning.

50. This table appears as Table C4 in the manual Relating Language Examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR).

C1

C2

Argument

Description

Accuracy

Coherence

Range

Overall

Appendix 4
WRITTEN ASSESSMENT GRID50

Page 188 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

B1

B2

Can write short, simple
essays on topics ofinterest.
Can summarise, reportand give their opinion
on accumulated factual
information on familiar
routine and non-routine
matters within their field,with some confidence.
Can write very briefreports in a standard
conventionalised format,
which pass on routine
factual information andstate reasons for actions.
Can write accounts ofexperiences, describing
feelings and reactions in
simple connected text.
Can write a descriptionof an event or recent trip
– real or imagined.
Can narrate a story.
Can write
straightforward, detailed
descriptions on a range
of familiar subjects
within their field ofinterest.
Uses reasonably
accurately a repertoireof frequently used“routines” and patterns
associated with morecommon situations.
Occasionally makes
errors that the reader
usually can interpretcorrectly on the basis of
the context.

Has enough language
to get by, with sufficient
vocabulary to express
themselves with somecircumlocutions on
topics such as family,
hobbies and interests,
work, travel and current
events.

Can write
straightforward
connected texts on a
range of familiar subjects
within their field ofinterest, by linking aseries of shorter discreteelements into a linear
sequence. The texts
are understandable
but occasional unclear
expressions and/orinconsistencies may
cause a break-up inreading.

Can link a seriesof shorter discreteelements into a
connected, linear text.

Can write an essay orreport that develops anargument systematicallywith appropriate
highlighting of somesignificant points andrelevant supporting
detail. Can evaluate
different ideas or
solutions to a problem.
Can write an essay orreport that develops anargument, giving somereasons in support of oragainst a particular pointof view and explaining
the advantages anddisadvantages of various
options.
Can synthesise
information andarguments from anumber of sources.
Can write clear, detailed
descriptions of real or
imaginary events andexperiences marking therelationship between
ideas in clear connected
text, and following
established conventionsof the genre concerned.
Can write clear, detailed
descriptions on a variety
of subjects related totheir field of interest.
Can write a review of afilm, book or play.

Shows a relatively highdegree of grammaticalcontrol. Does notmake errors that cause
misunderstandings.

Can use a number ofcohesive devices to link
their sentences into
clear, coherent text,
though there may besome “jumpiness” in alonger text.

Has a sufficient rangeof language to give
clear descriptions, andexpress viewpoints onmost general topics,
using some complex
sentence forms to doso. Language lacks,
however, expressivenessand idiomaticity and useof more complex forms
is still stereotypical.

Can write clear, detailed
official and semi-official
texts on a variety ofsubjects related totheir field of interest,
synthesising andevaluating information
and arguments from anumber of sources.
Can make a distinction
between formal andinformal languagewith occasional lessappropriate expressions.

Argument

Description

Accuracy

Coherence

Range

OverallWritten assessment grid Page 189

Uses simple structures
correctly, but still
systematically makes
basic mistakes. Errors
may sometimes cause
misunderstandings.

Shows only limited
control of a few simple
grammatical structuresand sentence patterns ina memorised repertoire.
Errors may cause
misunderstandings.

Can link groups of words
with simple connectors
like “and”, “but” and“because”.

Can link words or groups
of words with very basic
linear connectors like“and” and “then”.

Uses basic sentence
patterns withmemorised phrases,
groups of a few words
and formulae in order
to communicate limited
information, mainly ineveryday situations.

Has a very basic
repertoire of words andsimple phrases related
to personal details andparticular concrete
situations.

Can write a series ofsimple phrases andsentences linked withsimple connectors
like “and”, “but” and“because”. Longer texts
may contain expressions
and show coherence
problems that make thetext hard to understand.

Can write simple isolated
phrases and sentences.
Longer texts containexpressions and showcoherence problems
that make the text very
hard or impossible tounderstand.

A2

A1

Accuracy

Coherence

Range

Overall

Can write simple
phrases and sentences
about themselves andimaginary people, where
they live and what theydo, etc.

Can write very short,basic descriptionsof events, past
activities and personal
experiences.
Can write short, simple,
imaginary biographiesand simple poems about
people.

Description

Argument

Page 191

C1

C2

in an online politicalor philosophicaldiscussion held byfriends/enthusiasts,
such as an online bookclub forum

Can engage in real-time online exchanges with several
participants, understanding the communicative
intentions and cultural implications of the various
contributions.

Can participate effectively in live, online professionalor academic discussion, asking for and giving further
clarification of complex, abstract issues as necessary.

as a moderator orcontributor in an online
public policy forum

in an online politicalor philosophicaldiscussion held byfriends/enthusiasts,
such as an online bookclub forum

Can express themselves with clarity and precision in
real-time online discussion, adjusting language flexibly
and sensitively to context, including emotional, allusive
and joking usage.
Can anticipate and deal effectively with possible
misunderstandings (including cultural ones),
communication issues and emotional reactions in an
online discussion.
Can easily and quickly adapt their register and styleto suit different online environments, communication
purposes and speech acts.
participating in achat thread held as afollow-up to a publicpresentation

Publicin an online meeting
to discuss long-term
company strategy, or in
an online professional
development session
for teachersin an interdepartmental
chat in a large
corporation

as a convenor for aunion online forum
and/or website

Occupational

Situation (and roles)
Personal

Online conversation and discussion

Online interaction

The examples were validated in a series of distance workshops carried out during Phase 3 of the validation, from November to December 2015.

as a student contributor
to an open online
course or forum (e.g.
a massive online open
course – MOOC)

as a student contributor
to an open online
course or forum

as a lead contributor
in an online hang-out
space for co-researchers
at a university

Educational

As an extra resource for users of the scales, the Authoring Group produced the following examples elaborating the descriptors for online interaction and mediation activities
for the four domains set out in CEFR 2001 Section 4.1.1. These examples are intended to assist educators in selecting activities appropriate to their learners for each descriptor.

Appendix 5
EXAMPLES OF USE IN DIFFERENT DOMAINS FOR DESCRIPTORSOF ONLINE INTERACTION AND MEDIATION ACTIVITIESPage 192 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

B2+

C1[not applicable]

in a discussion on asocial networking site

Can engage in online exchanges, linking theircontributions to previous ones in the thread,understanding cultural implications and reacting
appropriately.

in a discussion on asocial networking site

Personal

Can evaluate, restate and challenge arguments
in professional or academic live online chat anddiscussion.

Can adapt their register according to the context of
online interaction, moving from one register to theother within the same exchange if necessary.

Online conversation and discussion
Publicas a participant in an
online support groupwebsite for social or
personal issues
in a special interest
online forum evaluating
content and issues

in a special interest
online forum evaluating
content and issues

participating in an
online discussion forum
for a college debating
societyin an online forum forstudents or teachers of
the same discipline

in an interdepartmental
chat in a large
corporation
during a staff
committee meeting
held online to discuss
working conditions,or as a participant inan online focus groupmeetingin an online forum forstudents or teachers of
the same discipline

Educational

as a consultant
participating in an
online business or
project meeting

during a staff
committee meeting
held online to discuss
working conditions,or as a participant inan online focus groupmeeting

Occupational

Situation (and roles)

as a participant in an
online support groupwebsite for social or
personal issues

Online interaction

Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities Page 193

B1

B1+

B2

in a discussion on asocial networking site

Can recognise misunderstandings and disagreementsthat arise in an online interaction and deal with them,provided the interlocutor(s) are willing to co-operate.

Can make personal online postings about experiences,feelings and events and respond individually tothe comments of others in some detail, thoughlexical limitations sometimes cause repetition andinappropriate formulation.

Can post a comprehensible contribution in an online
discussion on a familiar topic of interest, provided they
can prepare the text beforehand and use online tools tofill gaps in language and check accuracy.

Can post online accounts of social events, experiences
and activities referring to embedded links and media
and sharing personal feelings.

making contact online
with remote friends
and/or family to catchup in detail on personal
news and plans

making contact online
with remote friends
and/or family to catchup in detail on personal
news and plans

Can engage in online exchanges between several
participants, effectively linking their contributions toprevious ones in the thread, provided a moderator
helps manage the discussion.

Can engage in real-time online exchanges with morethan one participant, recognising the communicative
intentions of each contributor, but may not understanddetails or implications without further explanation.

in a critical discussionof arts or music withfriends online

Personal

Can participate actively in an online discussion, stating
and responding to opinions on topics of interest at
some length, provided contributors avoid unusual orcomplex language and allow time for responses.

Online conversation and discussion
Publicas a forum contributor
to an events website
connected to a public/
cultural festival

as a contributor to thereviews and issues
area of a commercial
software or gaming
websiteas a forum contributor
to an events website
connected to a public/
cultural festival

as a contributor toa forum about acommercial software or
gaming website

in a special interest
online forum evaluating
content and issues

as a contributor toa forum about acommercial software or
gaming website
as a participant in an
online support groupwebsite for social or
personal issues

as a contributor
to a professional
development forum

as a participant in a
simple online focus
group meetingas a contributor to a
departmental onlinesocial events feed in a
corporation

in a staff committee
meeting held online,
or as a participant inan online focus groupmeetingin an interdepartmental
chat in a large
corporation

in a staff committee
meeting held online,
or as a participant inan online focus groupmeetingin a staff committee
meeting held online
to discuss working
conditions, or as aparticipant in an online
focus group meeting

Occupational

Situation (and roles)
in a public online
discussion forum/comment thread heldby a broadcasting/news
agencyOnline interaction

in an online forum forstudents studying thesame subjects

as a contributor toa university student
union social events feed

in a discussion withstudents at anotherschool in an e-twining
project
in a collaborative
meeting with students
from another school inan e-twinning project

Educational

Page 194 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

A1

making contact online
with remote friends
and/or family – also as
a possible language
classroom simulation

Can use formulaic expressions and combinations ofsimple words/signs to post short positive and negative
reactions to simple online postings and their embedded
links and media, and can respond to further commentswith standard expressions of thanks and apology.

A2

making contact online
with remote friends
and/or family – also as
a possible language
classroom simulation

Can engage in basic social communication online (e.g.
a simple message on a virtual card for special occasions,sharing news and making/confirming arrangements tomeet).
Can make brief positive or negative comments online
about embedded links and media using a repertoire ofbasic language, though they will generally have to refer
to an online translation tool and other resources.

A2+

making contact online
with remote friends
and/or family to catchup on personal news
and plansPersonal

Can formulate very simple messages and personal
online postings as a series of very short sentences
about hobbies, likes/dislikes, etc., relying on the aid of atranslation tool.

Can introduce themselves and manage simple
exchanges online, asking and answering questions
and exchanging ideas on predictable everyday
topics, provided enough time is allowed to formulate
responses, and that they interact with one interlocutor
at a time.
Can make short descriptive online postings about
everyday matters, social activities and feelings, withsimple key details.
Can comment on other people’s online postings,
provided they are written/signed in simple language,reacting to embedded media by expressing feelings ofsurprise, interest and indifference in a simple way.

Online conversation and discussion
Publicpublic postings to a
festival/event website– also as a possible
language classroom
simulation

public postings to a
festival/event website

as a contributor to asimple departmentalsocial feed – also as
a possible language
classroom simulation

as a contributor to asimple departmental
online forum on familiar
topicsOccupational

Situation (and roles)

as a contributor to an
online travel advice
service

Online interactionin the Q&A sectionof a school learning
platform – also as apossible language
classroom simulationin the Q&A sectionof a school learning
platform – also as apossible language
classroom simulationin the Q&A sectionof a school learning
platform

Educational

Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities Page 195

C1

C2

Pre-A1

Personal

PublicOccupational

as a participant in a
project using online
tools to co-ordinate theintroduction of newprocedures across multiple
locationsas the convenor fora social intervention
project organised
online (e.g. by anon-governmentalorganisation)

Can participate in complex projects requiring
collaborative writing and redrafting as well as otherforms of online collaboration, following and relaying
instructions with precision in order to reach the goal.
Can deal effectively with communication problems andcultural issues that arise in an online collaborative ortransactional exchange by reformulating, clarifying andproviding examples through media (visual, audio, graphic).

as a project manager using
online tools to co-ordinate
the introduction of new
systems across multiple
remote sites

as the facilitator in an
online collaborative
project

as personal assistant,travel agent or enrolment
secretary for an
educational institution

as the convenor fora social intervention
project organised
online (e.g. by anon-governmentalorganisation)

as voluntary
moderator of an
online citizens’
advice service and/or Q&A forum[not applicable][not applicable]

Occupational

Situation (and roles)

on a social network site

on a social network site

Online interaction

PublicPersonal

Situation (and roles)

Can deal with complex online transactions in a service
role (e.g. applications with complicated requirements),
adjusting language flexibly to manage discussions andnegotiations.

Can co-ordinate a group that is working on a project
online, formulating and revising detailed instructions,evaluating proposals from team members, andproviding clarifications in order to accomplish theshared tasks.

Can resolve misunderstandings and deal effectively
with frictions that arise during the collaborative process.
Can provide guidance and add precision to the workof a group at the redrafting and editing stages ofcollaborative work.

Goal-oriented online transactions
and collaboration

Can post simple online greetings, using basic formulaic
expressions and emoticons.
Can post online short simple statements about
themselves (e.g. relationship status, nationality,
occupation), provided they can select them from amenu and/or refer to an online translation tool.

Online conversation and discussion

Online interaction

as a participant in acollaborative research
programme requiring
online data collectionand evaluation[not applicable]

as the lead researcher ina collaborative research
programme requiring
online qualitative
data collection andevaluation

Educational

as a language
classroom simulation

Educational

Page 196 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

B1

B1+

B2

B2+

participating in awell-structured online
seminar introducing
straightforward newprocedures

reporting a public
services issue
online to the local
council (e.g. a wastecollection issue)

making a tour
booking or enrollingin an association or
event online
as a member of
a community
group organising
environmental
improvement

Can engage in online transactions that require an
extended exchange of information, provided theinterlocutor(s) avoid complex language and are willing
to repeat and reformulate when necessary.
Can interact online with a group that is working on a
project, following straightforward instructions, seeking
clarification and helping to accomplish the shared tasks.

Can engage in online collaborative or transactional
exchanges that require simple clarification or
explanation of relevant details, such as registering for acourse, tour or event, or applying for membership.

Can interact online with a partner or small group
working on a project, provided there are visual aids
such as images, statistics and graphs to clarify more
complex concepts.
Can respond to instructions and ask questions orrequest clarifications in order to accomplish a sharedtask online.

in a straightforward
online collaborative
activity at school/
university

in a clearly structured
online collaborative
activity at school/
university
leading group task(s) inan online professional
development project,involving collaborative
work with a clearly definedgoal

as a team leader ina social intervention
project organised
online (e.g. by anon-governmentalorganisation)

in a clearly structured
online collaborative
activity at school/
university

Educational

in a straightforward
online collaborative
activity at school/
university

leading group task(s) inan online professional
development project,involving collaborative
work with a clearly definedgoal

Occupationalin an online staff meetingon implementing newprocedures

Can collaborate online with a group that is working on
a project, justifying proposals, seeking clarification andplaying a supportive role in order to accomplish sharedtasks.

as a team leader ina social intervention
project organised
online (e.g. by anon-governmentalorganisation)

Publicreporting a public
services issue
online to the local
council (e.g. a wastecollection issue)[not applicable]

Personal

Situation (and roles)

Can deal with misunderstandings and unexpected
problems that arise in online collaborative ortransactional exchanges by responding politely andappropriately in order to help resolve the issue.

Can take a lead role in online collaborative work within
their area(s) of expertise, keeping the group on task byreminding it of roles, responsibilities and deadlines inorder to achieve established goals.
Can engage in online collaborative or transactional
exchanges within their area(s) of expertise that
require negotiation of conditions and explanation ofcomplicated details and special requirements.

Goal-oriented online transactions
and collaboration

Online interaction

Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities Page 197

ordering goods
onlineCan make simple online transactions (e.g. ordering
goods or enrolling in a course) by filling in an online
form or questionnaire, providing personal details
and confirming acceptance of terms and conditions,declining extra services, etc.

[not applicable]ordering goods bycompleting a simple
order form withfamiliar words andillustrations
ordering goods bycompleting a simple
tick-box order form
with familiar words
and illustrations

Can complete a very simple online purchase orapplication, providing basic personal information (e.g.
name, e-mail or telephone number).

Can make selections (e.g. choosing a product, size,
colour) in a simple online purchase or application form,
provided there is visual support.

A1

Pre-A1

Can ask basic questions about the availability of a
product or feature.

assisting simple
online planningand promotion of apublic event such asa street party

ordering goods
online with use of achat window

PublicCan interact online with a supportive partner ina simple collaborative task, responding to basic
instructions and seeking clarification, provided there
are visual aids such as images, statistics or graphs toclarify the concepts involved.

[not applicable]

Personal

completing a simple
interdepartmental tick-box
form with familiar words
and illustrations

completing a simple
interdepartmental form
with familiar words andillustrations

in completing a task over
Skype with a colleague
from another country

completing simple
interdepartmental orders
and requests

Occupational

Situation (and roles)

Can respond to simple instructions and ask simple
questions in order to accomplish a shared task online
with the help of a supportive interlocutor.

A2

A2+

Can use formulaic language to respond to routine
problems arising in online transactions (e.g. concerningavailability of models and special offers, delivery dates,
addresses).

Goal-oriented online transactions
and collaboration

Online interaction

enrolling in a course
online, but likely only asa language classroom
simulation

in a teacher-guided
online collaborative
activity at school

enrolling in a course
onlinein a teacher-guided
online collaborative
activity at school

enrolling in a course
onlineEducational

Page 198 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

B2

B2+

C1

C2
in an article, website,
book or talk faceto-face or online
concerning current
affairs or an area of
personal interest orconcern
web talk/self-helpgroup explanations(e.g. how to repair yourprinter); articles related
to a particular theme
or current issue ofinterest

a notice,announcement, letteror e-mail outlining
policies, regulations orprocedures (e.g. related
to housing, insurance,
rent/mortgage,
employment or healthcare)

Can relay (in Language B) which presentations given (inLanguage A) at a conference, or which articles in a book(in Language A), are particularly relevant for a specificpurpose.

Can relay (in Language B) the main point(s) contained informal correspondence and/or reports (in Language A) on
general subjects and on subjects related to their fields ofinterest.

Personal

Can explain (in Language B) the relevance of specificinformation found in a particular section of a long,complex text (in Language A).

No descriptors available: see C1

Relaying specific information in speech or sign

a letter, e-mail or notice
outlining university
policies, procedures orregulations
a letter, e-mail ornotice outlining why
a meeting had to becancelled, whether
someone is for oragainst an idea andwhy, workplacepolicies or regulations
a notice orannouncement madeby a public authority
or facility like a library,swimming pool, etc.
outlining regulations
or proceduresa press conference,on various web talksites, in relation to aparticular issue

an academic
conference, various
web talk sites, fromacademic books andjournals in relation to aparticular projecta trade fair, aprofessional
conference, reports
and newspaper
articles in relation to aparticular project

presentations at public
meetings, from public
documents explaining
policy changes

Educationalan article, book,reference book or
lecture/presentation

Occupationala business report,
article, regulation or
workplace policy

PublicText (and discourse environment)from presentations at
public meetings, frompublic documents
explaining policychanges, politicalspeeches

Mediating a text

Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities Page 199

B1

leaflets, brochures,
guidebooks, websites,
details of a housing
agreementon the radio or TV, froma passer-by (e.g. travel/route information),
instructions from afriend over the phone
on how to get to a
party

Can relay (in Language B) the contents of detailed
instructions or directions, provided these are clearly
articulated (in Language A).

Can relay (in Language B) specific information given instraightforward informational texts (e.g. leaflets, brochure
entries, notices and letters or e-mails) (in Language A).

on the radio or TV

Personal

Can relay (in Language B) the content of publicannouncements and messages delivered clearly at normal
speed (in Language A).

Relaying specific information in speech or sign

school policies
and regulations, acourse outline, steps
involved in completingan assignment/
school task, a listof assignments aswell as relevant
criteria, notices, exam
regulations, conditions
for participation in an
exchange programmepossible products thatmeet a requirement,
the terms of acommercial offer,equipment operational
instructions, safety
procedures
leaflets, information
panels in museums
or galleries, notices
identifying immediate
public hazards, club/
association rules, travel
itineraries, times andlocations of club/
association meetings,
information about asale or promotion

academic regulations,policies/procedures,
course/assignment
requirements given bya professor/teacher;
instructions on how
to use simple researchtools to complete aschool task or on how
to conduct a simple
experiment
instructions given ina meeting on how
to perform a worktask, or operate
simple equipment;
instructions,particularly on
safety procedures,
given at a trade fairor conference, at afactory, warehouse, ona shipinstructions at airports,
stations and on planes,
buses and trains, oron how to use simple
equipment such as a
hotel safe, directions
on how to get from X
to Y, a travel itinerary

Educational
during a university
event/lecture, which
may take place in alarge auditorium

Occupational
at a trade fair orconference, at afactory, warehouse,refinery, on a ship,
during safety drills

PublicText (and discourse environment)

in a station, airport,
sports stadium, atpolitical rallies/events,
alerts, warnings or
instructions that may
be given at an accidentsite or construction
zone

Mediating a text

Page 200 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

A2

A2+

on the TV or radio,announcements
about weddings,
births and changes tocircumstances

news about the family
from a personal letteror e-mailannouncements ofpersonal interest
such as weddings orbirths, changes to
employment or living
circumstances, simple
messages left for family
or housemates about
meeting times orrequests to completetasks such as taking
out the rubbish
a recipe, how to use
a basic household
appliance, how toassemble a piece offurniture

Can relay (in Language B) specific, relevant information
contained in short, simple texts, labels and notices (inLanguage A) on familiar subjects.

Can relay (in Language B) the point made in short, clear,simple messages, instructions and announcements,
provided these are expressed slowly and clearly in simple
language (in Language A).

Can relay (in Language B) in a simple way a series of short,
simple instructions, provided the original speech (inLanguage A) is clearly and slowly articulated.

Personal

Can relay (in Language B) the point made in a clear
announcement (in Language A) concerning familiar
everyday subjects, though they may have to simplify themessage and search for words/signs.

Relaying specific information in speech or sign

how to operate officeequipment such aschanging the toner
on a photocopier or
downloading software

instructions
concerning ahomework assignment,
or a simple experiment

information about aschool trip or exchange
programme, messages
about school opening/closing times in
response to inclement
weather, information
about class tasks or
homework
simple messages
left by customers orcolleagues for others,announcements
about changes to job
proceduresat airports, stations andon planes, trains andbuses about routes,
times of arrival or
departure, changes
in platform or gate,
weather forecasts

how to get from X toY, directions provided
by a traffic or parking
official

news about school
activities from a flyer orleafletpossible products thatmeet a requirement,
safety procedures,
location, date and timeof a meeting stated inan e-mail/letter

leaflets, information
panels in museums
or galleries, notices
identifying immediate
public hazards, travel
itineraries, times andlocations of club/
association meetings,
information about asale or promotion

Educational
information about
an upcoming test at
school, such as when
it is and what will betested; details about anupcoming school trip

Occupational
announcements
about changes tojob responsibilities,
information about newworkplace procedures

PublicText (and discourse environment)

weather reports, train
platform changes, how
to purchase tickets foran event

Mediating a text

Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities Page 201

Pre-A1

A1

the name, address andphone number of arestaurant, restaurant
menus including prices
and main ingredients

restaurant reservations,dinner invitations
including date andtime

Can relay (in Language B) simple instructions about places
and times (given in Language A), provided these arerepeated very slowly and clearly.

Can relay (in Language B) very basic information (e.g.
numbers and prices) from short, simple, illustrated texts (inLanguage A).

TV scheduleannouncements
about upcoming
programmes of interest

Personal

Can relay (in Language B) simple, predictable information
about times and places given in short, simple statements(delivered in Language A).

Relaying specific information in speech or sign
Publicthe name and addressof a shop, the pricesof goods, timetables,
travel itineraries,
performance
information schedule,
seating availability,
price, etc.

notices on bulletinboards/walls about
when a store opens/closes, location of
toilets[not applicable]

a meeting location andtime from an e-mailthe location andstarting/finishingtime of a meeting;information about
work hours, breaks, thelocation of toilets, drink
machines

Occupational

Text (and discourse environment)

the location andstarting time of anevent/performance,
travel itineraries

Mediating a text

the location of aschool, the costof a uniform or
school supplies, thedestination and costof a school trip, school
timetables

school timetable, themeeting location for aschool trip

the location and timeof a school excursion
or after-school activity,
the location of thecanteen, toilets andwater fountains

Educational

Page 202 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

B2

B2+

No descriptors available: see B2+

C1

from a clubterms and conditions
for a trip or service

Can relay in a written report (in Language B) relevant
decisions that were taken in a meeting (in Language A).

Can relay in writing (in Language B) the significant point(s)contained in formal correspondence (in Language A).

a rental agreement
or insurance policy
for a friend or family
memberin relation to aparticular issue thatis the subject of acommunity meeting

Can relay in writing (in Language B) the relevant point(s)contained in an article (in Language A) from an academicor professional journal.

from a press
conference, on various
web talk sites, in
relation to a particular
issue

Publicpublic regulations
such as housing or
tax laws, a notice orannouncement madeby a public authority[not applicable]

Personal

in a circular sent toemployees, in a letterfrom a partner giving
notice or stating
new conditions; in acomplaint

from a businessmeetingfrom a report, businessarticlefrom a business
report, regulation or
workplace policy

from a trade fair,a professional
conference, in relation
to a particular projectOccupational

Text (and discourse environment)

Can relay in writing (in Language B) the relevant point(s)contained in propositionally complex but well-structured
texts (in Language A) within their fields of professional,
academic and personal interest.

Can relay in writing (in Language B) which presentations at
a conference (given in Language A) were relevant, pointing
out which would be worth detailed consideration.

No descriptors available: see B2+

C2

Relaying specific information in writing

Mediating a text

in a circular sent by
a school principal toparents, in a reply froman organisation to arequest for information
sent during a projectfrom a meetingof student
representatives

information from anarticle, book or journal
for a classmate or aprofessor

information from anarticle, website, notes
taken from a lecture,or a presentationdelivered by auniversity professor

from an academic
conference, on various
web talk sites, in
relation to a particular
project

Educational

Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities Page 203

A2+

B1

a short message, ane-mail to a friend
mentioning the reason
they will be late

instructions on how
to use household
appliances taken froma manual, messages forfamily or housemates
sent in an e-mail,information e-mailed
about when and where
to meet a friend/family
membera message about thetime and place of ameeting, a request tocomplete a householdtask such as preparinga meal or taking out
the rubbish
from newspapers,
instructions on
appliances or medicine

Can relay in writing (in Language B) specific, relevant
information contained in straightforward informational
texts (in Language A) on familiar subjects.

Can relay in writing (in Language B) specific information
given in a straightforward recorded message (left in
Language A), provided the topics concerned are familiar
and the delivery is slow and clear.

Can relay in writing (in Language B) specific information
contained in short, simple informational texts (in LanguageA), provided the texts concern concrete, familiar subjects
and are composed in simple everyday language.

Personal

Can relay in writing (in Language B) specific information
points contained in texts (delivered in Language A)
on familiar subjects (e.g. calls, announcements andinstructions).

Relaying specific information in writing

about a work task,
instructions on how
to operate simple
equipment, about
safety procedures, job
requirements posted in
an advertisement

simple customer
orders, queries orcomplaints, telephonemessage for acolleague, changes towork procedures

queue at the embassy,
answering machine:request for call backfrom an administrationor public office, bankbrochures, websites,
adverts, posters,
schedules

quantities anddelivery times from ane-mailed order, tasks
and deadlines for the
person concerned
from the minutes toa meeting, relevant
steps in simple user
instructions for a pieceof equipmentfrom e-mails, lettersabout events orschedules

Occupationalcustomer orders,queries or complaints,changes to work
schedule orprocedures, how
to operate officeequipment

PublicText (and discourse environment)a notice orannouncement madeby a public authority

Mediating a text

about a school task,
test or homeworkassignment foundin a course syllabus,
how to do a simple
experiment in a scienceclass from a handout,
about a museum visit
or other school trip
described in a leaflet

about school
timetables or schedulechangese-mail instructions
about a school trip,
a task assignment
or details of course
requirements takenfrom a course syllabuschanges to school
opening/closing times
as a result of inclement
weather, changes
to class location or
meeting place for aclass trip

Educational

Page 204 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Pre-A1

A1

A2
household manuals,
instructions on how to
prepare a mealfrom a TV channel
repeatedly
demonstratingproducts

the name, address andphone number of arestaurant, restaurant
menus including prices
and main ingredients

Can list (in Language B) names, numbers, prices and very
simple information of immediate interest in oral texts (inLanguage A), provided the articulation is very slow andclear, with repetition.

Can list (in Language B) names, numbers, prices and very
simple information from texts (in Language A) that areof immediate interest, that are composed in very simple
language and contain illustrations.

simple telephonemessages for family
or housemates,
announcements ofpersonal interest forfamily or friends

Personal

Can list (in Language B) specific information containedin simple texts (in Language A) on everyday subjects ofimmediate interest or need.

Can list (in Language B) the main points of short, clear,simple messages and announcements (given in LanguageA), provided they are clearly and slowly articulated.

Relaying specific information in writing

the name and addressof a shop, the pricesof goods, timetables,
travel itineraries,
performance
information schedule,
seating availability,
price, etc.

announcements about
when a store opens/closesa simple, short
telephone message
about a change to atimetable, schedule ormeeting point

the location of aschool, the costof a uniform or
school supplies, thedestination and costof a school trip, school
timetables[not applicable]

textbooks, classreadings, about aschool task, test or
homework assignment,
how to do a simple
experiment in ascience class, about amuseum visit or otherschool trip

a short, simple
telephone message fora colleague

manual instructions on
how to operate simple
equipment, about
safety procedures, job
requirements posted in
an advertisement

school timetables,
schedules or openings/
closings, task roles
as part of a groupassignment, homeworkassigned

telephone message fora colleague, changes towork procedures

directions on how to
get from X to Y, which
train platform or flightgate and at what time,about a train or flightdelay

advertisements,
prospectuses,
brochures, leaflets,
travel itineraries,
timetables, directions

Educational

Occupational

Text (and discourse environment)
PublicMediating a text

Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities Page 205

Can interpret and describe (in Language B) overall trends
shown in simple diagrams (e.g. graphs, bar charts) (withtext in Language A), even though lexical limitations cause
difficulty with formulation at times.

B1+

B1

trends represented
in household bills or
personal finances,
explained to a friend or
family member

Can interpret and describe (in Language B) detailed
information in diagrams in their fields of interest (withtext in Language A), even though lexical gaps may cause
hesitation or imprecise formulation.

B2

C1

a diagram in an articleof personal interest;a process diagram fora household device
or piece of leisuresoftware, explained
to a friend or family
memberCan interpret and describe clearly and reliably (inLanguage B) the salient points and details containedin complex diagrams and other visually organised
information (with text in Language A) on complex
academic or professional topics.

C2

diagrams/visual dataon topics of personal
interest such as
medical research orenvironmental data
for family or friends;
economic data
presented graphicallyto accompany anewspaper article

Personal

Can interpret and describe reliably (in Language B)
detailed information contained in complex diagrams,
charts and other visually organised information (with text
in Language A) on topics in their fields of interest.

Can interpret and describe clearly and reliably (inLanguage B) various forms of empirical data and visuallyorganised information (with text in Language A) fromconceptually complex research concerning academic or
professional topics.

Explaining data (in graphs, diagrams,etc.) in speech or sign

weather report(statistics and trends)
when determining
the best dates for acommunity event,basic financial trends
presented during
a community/clubmeeting, diagrammatic
displays in a science
museumtrends represented
in a graph or bar
chart during abusiness meetingor responsibilities
represented in acompany organogramused for employee
training

graphs, charts andtables referenced in
employee training orcompany reports

detailed analysis offinancials, a market
survey or government
diagrams/visual data
presented in a meeting

diagrams/visual datafrom corporate or
public sector reportsthat are relevant for
a community policy
or planning meeting;data included inpresentations at public
meetings

diagrams/visualsfrom corporate or
public sector reportsthat are relevant for acommunity policy orplanning meeting

Occupational

Text (and discourse environment)
PublicMediating a text

general trends foundin graphs, bar charts
or diagrams, used inpair or group workat secondary school/
college/university

graphs, bar charts ordiagrams in a formalclass presentation,
at secondary school/
college/university

visual data included inpublished academic
research or collected
as part of a research
project presented in a
lecture or academicconference/roundtable event

diagrams/visual
data from publishedacademic researchor collected as partof a research project
presented in a
lecture or academic
conference/roundtable event

Educational

Page 206 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

C2

No descriptors available

A1

Can interpret and present in writing (in Language B)
various forms of empirical data (with text in LanguageA) from conceptually complex research on academic or
professional topics.

Explaining data (in graphs,
diagrams, etc.) in writing

No descriptors available

A2

A2+

Can interpret and describe (in Language B) simple visuals
on familiar topics (e.g. a weather map, a basic flow chart)(with text in Language A), even though pauses, false starts
and reformulation may be very evident.

Explaining data (in graphs, diagrams,etc.) in speech or sign

[not applicable]

Personal[not applicable]

Publicdata from a company
financial report, market
research or othercorporate report orfrom research anddevelopment activities
for senior management

Occupational

as part of a PhD thesis
or master’s dissertationthat includes empirical
data

Educationalfeatures of graphs, barcharts or diagrams
such as population/
weather changes
over time, used inpair or group workat secondary school/
college/university

a flow chart
representing a simple
work process or activity
such as changing the
toner of a photocopieror basic roles andresponsibilities asrepresented in acompany organogram

historic weather datawhen determining
the best dates for acommunity event,basic financial trends
presented during
a community/clubmeeting, a bus or
metro route map, or afloor plan of a building
or shopping centre

Text (and discourse environment)

Educational

Occupational

Text (and discourse environment)
PublicMediating a text

a weather map
consulted whenplanning outdoor
activities, the mainfeatures of a household
device shown in a
diagram, identified
to a friend or family
member

Personal

Mediating a text

Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities Page 207

instructions anddiagram left for ahouse sitter to operate
a complex appliance

trends represented
in household bills or
personal finances, forfamily members

an e-mail giving
simple local directions
represented on anaccompanying map

Can interpret and present reliably in writing (in LanguageB) detailed information from diagrams and visuallyorganised data in their fields of interest (with text in
Language A).

Can interpret and present in writing (in Language B) the
overall trends shown in simple diagrams (e.g. graphs, barcharts) (with text in Language A), explaining the important
points in more detail, given the help of a dictionary orother reference materials.

Can describe in simple sentences (in Language B) the main
facts shown in visuals on familiar topics (e.g. a weather
map, a basic flow chart) (with text in Language A).

No descriptors available

No descriptors available

No descriptors available

C1

B2

B1

A2

A1

Pre-A1

B1+

diagrams/visual dataon topics of personal
interest such as
medical research orenvironmental data
for family or friends;
economic data
presented graphicallyto accompany anewspaper article

Personal

Can interpret and present clearly and reliably in writing(in Language B) the salient, relevant points contained incomplex diagrams and other visually organised data (withtext in Language A) on complex academic or professional
topics.

Explaining data (in graphs,
diagrams, etc.) in writing
Publicsimple demographic
information or trends
posted in an online
community/clubdiscussion forum

simple weather dataor basic financial data
posted as part of an
online discussion for acommunity/club event

health and safety
procedures (e.g. ata hospital, factory,
library)

instructions fora simple officeprocedure represented
in a flow chartan e-mail describing
the main features of avisual attachment suchas a graph or bar chart

an internal (company)
report/memo on thesignificant points
contained in a visual
attachment such asa graph, bar chart ornumeric tabledetailed analysis offinancials, a market
survey or government
diagrams/visual data
presented in a meeting

Occupational

Text (and discourse environment)

diagrams/visualsfrom corporate or
public sector reportsthat are relevant for
a community policy
or planning meeting;data included inpresentations at public
meetings

Mediating a text

a simple written
narrative
accompanying a
picture or pictures as aclassroom assignment

a simple classassignment
summarising a survey
or demographic data

written assignment
accompanying
technical visual
information provided
for a school/university
project

visual data included inpublished academic
research or collected
as part of a research
project presented in a
lecture or academicconference/roundtable event

Educational

Page 208 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

C1

C2

discussions, current
affairs programmes,books, newspaper
articles, commentaries
and editorials,
specialised articles
or other publications
addressed to a general
educated readershipcurrent affairs
programmes, articles
in a magazine ornewspaper

discussions, current
affairs programmes

newspaper editorials
and commentaries,
TV news and current
affairs programmes

discussions, current
affairs programmes,books, newspaper
articles, commentaries
and editorials,
specialised articles,or other publications
addressed to a general
educated readership

Can summarise (in Language B) long, demanding texts (inLanguage A).

Can summarise (in Language B) discussion (in LanguageA) on matters within their academic or professional
competence, elaborating and weighing up different pointsof view and identifying the most significant points.

Can summarise clearly in well-structured language (inLanguage B) the main points made in complex texts (inLanguage A) in fields of specialisation other than theirown, although they may occasionally check particulartechnical concepts.

Can explain (in Language B) subtle distinctions in thepresentation of facts and arguments (in Language A).

Personal

Can explain (in Language B) inferences when links or
implications are not made explicit (in Language A), andpoint out the sociocultural implications of the form of
expression (e.g. understatement, irony, sarcasm).

Processing text in speech or sign

instructional material,a textbook, a reader,a dictionary, papers
in academic journals,
lectures, conference
presentations anddiscussions, web talks
a lecture at an
academic conference,
web talks, instructional
material, textbooks,
papers in academic
journals, referencebooks

a technical reportaddressed to a
specialised audience,a business letter,a contract, a
regulation, conference
presentations
presentation at aconference, seminar or
meeting, a professional
publication, atechnical report, apress statement orconference

laws, public legal
documents,
regulations,presentations,speeches, sermons

contributions at a
town hall meeting, apublic debate/lecture,
a forum discussion,a political meeting, apolitical tract, a public
policy document,a legal opinion, apolitical speecha forum discussion
involving several
participants

a forum discussion,round table or
colloquium involving
several participants

a web talk, a lecture
at an academic
conference or seminar,
academic articles andbooks

a presentation at aconference, seminaror meeting, a report,
contract, regulations

a meeting or seminara lecture at an
academic conference,
web talks, instructional
material, textbooks,
papers in academic
journals, reference
books

presentation at aconference, seminar or
meeting, a professional
publication, atechnical report, apress statement orconference

contributions at a
town hall meeting, apublic debate/lecture,
a forum discussion,a political meeting, apolitical tract, a public
policy document,a legal opinion, apolitical speecha forum discussion
involving several
participants, politicalspeeches, sermons,
opinions anddocuments

Educational

Occupational

Text (and discourse)
PublicMediating a text

Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities Page 209

B2

B2+

C1

a discussion on familyoccasions, TV news
and current affairs
programmes, talkshows

on current affairs: web
talks or interviews,
TV news and analysis,
documentaries, articles

Can summarise clearly in well-structured language (inLanguage B) the information and arguments contained incomplex texts (in Language A) on a wide range of subjects
related to their fields of interest and specialisation.

Can synthesise and report (in Language B) information andarguments from a number of sources (in Language A).

Can summarise (in Language B) the main points ofcomplex discussions (in Language A), weighing up the
different points of view presented.

books, newspaper
articles, commentaries
and editorials,
specialised articles;
TV news and current
affairs programmes,
talk showsbooks, newspaper
articles, commentaries
and editorials,
specialised articles;
TV news and current
affairs programmes,
talk shows

Personal

Can explain (in Language B) the attitude or opinion
expressed in a source text (in Language A) on a specialised
topic, supporting inferences they make with reference tospecific passages in the original.

Can exploit information and arguments from a complex
text (in Language A) to discuss a topic (in Language B),
glossing with evaluative comments, adding their opinion,
etc.

Processing text in speech or sign
Publicat a town hall or
political meeting: news
items, interviews or
documentaries on theissue at handa formal discussion
between several
participantspresentations,(political) speeches,
sermons

in a report, at a
meeting: media
coverage of acompany/government
announcement/policy

in meetings, briefing ororientation sessions

conference
presentations

technical reports,
professional articles,
specifications,contracts

Occupational

Text (and discourse)a political tract,a public policy
document; aforum discussion,presentation, a politicalspeech, sermon

Mediating a text

when undertaking
a project: web talks,
lectures, vox pop
interviews, surveys,
blogs, documentaries

a panel at an academic
conference involving
several speakers

lectures, conference
presentations anddiscussions, web talks

instructional
material, a textbook,a reader, a paper inan academic journal,
lectures, conference
presentations anddiscussions, web talks

Educational

Page 210 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

B1+

B2

from websites, current
affairs programmes,
documentaries,
newspaper articles andeditorials
in an informal
discussion with friends,
chat on social media
in an informal
discussion with friends
long telephone
calls, TV current
affairs programmes,
documentaries, web
talks
discussions withfriends, documentaries,
short narratives,
articles in newspaper
or magazines
informal discussions,prospectuses,
advertisements,
programmes intheatres, song lyrics

Can summarise (in Language B) extracts from news
items, interviews or documentaries containing opinions,arguments and discussions (in Language A).

Can summarise (in Language B) the plot and sequence of
events in a film or play (in Language A).

Can summarise (in Language B) the main points madein long texts (in Language A) on topics in their fields ofinterest, provided they can check the meaning of certain
expressions.

Can summarise (in Language B) a short narrative or article,
talk, discussion, interview or documentary (in Language A)
and answer further questions about details.

Can collate short pieces of information from several
sources (in Language A) and summarise them (in LanguageB) for somebody else.

books, newspaper
articles, commentaries
and editorials,
specialised articles,or other publications
addressed to a general
educated readership

Personal

Can recognise the intended audience of a text (inLanguage A) on a topic of interest and explain (inLanguage B) the purpose, attitudes and opinion of theauthor.

Can summarise (in Language B) the important points madein longer, complex texts (in Language A) on subjects ofcurrent interest, including their fields of special interest.

Can summarise (in Language B) a wide range of factual
and imaginative texts (in Language A), commenting on
and discussing contrasting points of view and the main
themes.

Processing text in speech or sign
Publicpublic notices andannouncements,
notes from meetings,
relevant reports innewspapers andmagazines

a talk at a public
meeting, an interview,
public notices

speeches, talks atpublic meetings[not applicable]

an informal discussion
in a public place (e.g.
airport, restaurant)

in interviews,
announcements, policy
statementsa political tract,a public policy
document

web talks,
documentaries andarticles of academic
relevance, shortnarratives
web talks, instructions
for carrying out tasks,
articles on related topic

reports, meetings,
letters and e-mails,
notes from meetings,
press coverage

university
lectures, relevant
documentaries
or current affairs
programmes, web talks

in a lesson, as part of a
project

as part of a groupproject

talks by visiting
speakers, websites
and web talks,
documentaries, articles

papers in academic
journals, reference
books

papers in academic
journals, reference
books, novels, shortstories

Educationalpresentations
or discussions
at conferences,seminars or meetings,
newspaper articles

a presentation or
lecture, relevant
documentaries
or current affairs
programmes[not applicable]in team or strategy
meetings

presentations atconferences, reports,
specialised articles

technical reports,
professional articles,
specifications,contracts

technical reports,
professional articles,
specifications,contracts

Occupational

Text (and discourse)a political tract,a public policy
document, a novel,
short story

Mediating a text

Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities Page 211

A2+

B1

personal letters, shortarticles, brochures,
advertisementsa short written
interview or magazine
article, a travel
brochure, letters,
e-mails, newspapernews summaries
a conversationexchanging news andtalking about plans,
news exchanged at a
weddinglong telephone
calls, TV current
affairs programmes,
documentaries, webtalks
a scene in a film,
novella or sitcom

in an informal
discussion with friends,
chat on social media

Can summarise simply (in Language B) the main
information content of straightforward texts (in LanguageA) on familiar subjects (e.g. a short record of an interview,
magazine article, travel brochure).

Can summarise (in Language B) the main points madeduring a conversation (in Language A) on a subject of
personal or current interest, provided people articulated
clearly.

Can summarise (in Language B) the main points made inlong texts delivered orally (in Language A) on topics intheir fields of interest, provided they can listen or view
several times.

Can summarise (in Language B) the main points or eventsin TV programmes and video clips (in Language A),
provided they can view them several times.

Can report (in Language B) the main points made in simple
TV or radio news items (in Language A) reporting events,
sports, accidents, etc., provided the topics concerned arefamiliar and the delivery is slow and clear.

Personal

Can summarise (in Language B) the main points made inclear, well-structured texts (in Language A) on subjects
that are familiar or of personal interest, although lexical
limitations cause difficulty with formulation at times.

Processing text in speech or sign
Publican informal discussion
in a public place (e.g.
airport, restaurant)

a current affairs
programme on thesubject of a public
meetingspeeches, talks atpublic meetings

points made in
informal conversation
with a public official

as part of a project
involving collecting
information frommedia sourcesa scene in adocumentary, aninterviewa news extract,interview or publicstatement relevant to
the institution[not applicable]

university
lectures, relevant
documentaries
or current affairs
programmes, web talksa presentation or
lecture, a round-tablediscussion, relevant
documentaries
or current affairs
programmes

what an authority
consulted said in
relation to a request,
what a person
interviewed for a
project said

descriptions,narratives, textbook
entries, websites, news
summaries, shortarticlesreports, business
letters and e-mails

a consultation with anexpert, an auditor, aconsultant

talks by visiting
speakers, web
talks, descriptions,narratives, textbook
entries, websites, news
summaries, shortarticlesEducationalpresentations anddemonstrations,
reports, business
letters

Occupational

Text (and discourse)

short articles, short
official letters, publicstatements andnotices, regulations,leaflets, event
programmes

Mediating a text

Page 212 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Pre-A1

A1

A2

A2+

weather reports, very
simple assembly
instructions

notes on teenagers’
doors, information
pinned to the fridge,
e.g. whose turn it is tocook/clean/wash up

Can convey (in Language B) the main point(s) containedin clearly structured, short, simple texts (in LanguageA), supplementing their limited repertoire with othermeans (e.g. gestures, drawings, words/signs from otherlanguages) in order to do so.

Can convey (in Language B) simple, predictable
information given in short, very simple signs and notices,
posters and programmes (in Language A).

No descriptors available“who, when, where”
information in anews item, website/
brochures, simple
guide entries“who, when, where”
information in a news
item

Personal

Can summarise (in Language B) the main point(s) in simple,
short informational texts (in Language A) on familiar
topics.

Can report in simple sentences (in Language B) the
information contained in clearly structured, short, simple
texts (in Language A) that have illustrations or tables.

Processing text in speech or sign
Publicsigns and notices
giving directions,posters andprogrammesannouncing and giving
times of events

information about
times and costs oftransport, availabilityof services

information panels inmuseums, institutional
leaflets (e.g. hospital,
police)weather reports, shortillustrated descriptionsof places, very simple
picture stories
class lists, information
on events in the social
programme

signs and notices
giving locations and/or
warnings, notices withschedules

details of tasks
and assignments,
descriptions of courses
or examinations

an illustrated story, asimple informational
text about a country,with tables of
information

Educational[not applicable]

reports of annual
financial performancethe details of a work
schedule

Occupational

Text (and discourse)

options for a concert
or sport event,information in
notices and posters,
timetables, graffiti,
programmes, tickets

Mediating a text

Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities Page 213

C1

C2

Can summarise in writing a long and complex text (inLanguage A) (e.g. an academic article, article providing
political analysis, novel extract, editorial, literary review,
report or extract from a scientific book) for a specificaudience, respecting the style and register of the original.

Can summarise in writing (in Language B) long,complex texts (in Language A), interpreting the content
appropriately, provided they can occasionally check the
precise meaning of unusual, technical terms.

Can summarise information from different sources,
reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent
presentation of the overall result.

Can explain in writing (in Language B) the way facts
and arguments are presented in a text (in LanguageA), particularly when someone else’s position is being
reported, drawing attention to the use of understatement,
veiled criticism, irony and sarcasm.

Processing text in writing
discussions, current
affairs programmes,books, newspaper
articles, commentaries
and editorials,
specialised articles,or other publications
addressed to a general
educated readership

Personal

Publiccontributions at a
town hall meeting, apublic debate, a forum
discussion, a politicalmeeting, a politicaltract, a public policy
document, a legal
opinioncontributions at a
town hall meeting, apublic debate, a forum
discussion, a politicalmeeting, a politicaltract, a public policy
document

a lecture at an
academic conference,
web talks, instructional
material, textbooks,
papers in academic
journals, referencebooks

a lecture at an
academic conference,
web talks, instructional
material, textbooks,
papers in academic
journalsa presentation at aconference, seminar or
meeting, a professional
publication, a technicalreport, a conference,business proposals

a presentation at aconference, seminar or
meeting, a professional
publication, a technicalreport, a conference

a lecture at an
academic conference,
web talks, instructional
material, textbooks,
papers in academic
journals, referencebooks

Educationala presentation at aconference, seminar or
meeting, a professional
publication, a technicalreport, a conference

Occupational

Text (and discourse)

contributions at a
town hall meeting, apublic debate, a forum
discussion, a politicalmeeting, a politicaltract, a public policy
document, a legal
opinionMediating a text

Page 214 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

B1

B1+

B2

B2+

documentaries, current
affairs programmes,
articles in a magazineor newspaper, novels,
short stories, plays

a telephone call, a web
talk, news bulletins,
documentaries,
personal letters,
informational
brochures, shortarticlesCan summarise in writing (in Language B) the information
and arguments contained in texts (in Language A) on
subjects of general or personal interest.

Can summarise in writing (in Language B) the main points
made in straightforward, informational texts (in LanguageA) on subjects that are of personal or current interest,
provided oral texts are clearly articulated.

Can summarise in writing (in Language B) the maincontent of complex texts (in Language A) on subjects
related to their fields of interest and specialisation.

documentaries, current
affairs programmes,
articles in a magazineor newspaper, novels,
short stories, plays[not applicable]

Can compare, contrast and synthesise in writing (inLanguage B) the information and viewpoints contained inacademic and professional publications (in Language A) intheir fields of special interest.

Can explain in writing (in Language B) the viewpoint
articulated in a complex text (in Language A), supporting
inferences they make with reference to specific informationin the original.

a discussion on familyoccasions, TV news
and current affairs
programmes, talkshows

Personal

Can summarise in writing (in Language B) the maincontent of well-structured but propositionally complex
texts (in Language A) on subjects within their fields ofprofessional, academic and personal interest.

Processing text in writing
Publica video-recorded
presentation at a
meeting, a briefing
session for a task,
reports and business
lettersa presentation at a
public meeting, publicstatements or notices

an orientation session,
instructions for an
assignment, a talkby a visiting speaker,
narratives and shortarticlesa web talk, a lecture,
an academic seminar,
academic papers andbooks, novels, shortstories, plays

a web talk, a lecture,
an academic seminar,
academic papers andbooks, novels, shortstories, plays
a presentation at aconference, seminar,
meeting, briefing
session or press
conference, a report, acontract, regulations,articlesa presentation at aconference, seminar,
meeting, briefing
session or press
conference, a report, acontract, regulations,articlesacademic articles,
reviews, books

lectures, conference
presentations anddiscussions, web talks

Educational

professional journals
and newspapers, policy
documents, technicalreportsa forum discussion
involving several
participants, blogs,
speeches, sermons,legal pleas, opinions
and documents, policy
documents

a forum discussion
involving several
participants, blogs,
speeches, sermons,legal pleas, opinions
and documents, policy
documents

public policy
documents

conference
presentations

Occupational

Text (and discourse)

presentations,speeches, sermonsMediating a text

Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities Page 215

Pre-A1

A1

A2

A2+

B1

letters with news

Can use simple language to convey (in Language B) the
main point(s) contained in very short texts (in Language A)
on familiar and everyday themes that contain the highest
frequency vocabulary; despite errors, the text remains
comprehensible.

No descriptors available

Can copy out single words and short texts presented instandard printed format.

Can, with the help of a dictionary, convey (in Language B)
the meaning of simple phrases (in Language A) on familiarand everyday themes.

Can copy out short texts in printed or clearly handwritten
format.
public notices,transportation
information

public notices,
guidebook entries

information panels inmuseums, institutional
leaflets (e.g. hospital,
police)“who, when, where”
information in a news
item, website/brochuredescriptions, simple
guide entries

Can list as a series of bullet points (in Language B) the
relevant information contained in short simple texts (inLanguage A), provided the texts concern concrete, familiar
subjects and contain only simple everyday language.

Can pick out and reproduce key words and phrases or
short sentences from a short text within the learner’s
limited competence and experience.

short official letters,
public statements andnotices, regulations,leaflets providing
information aboutchanges to services,
event programmes

Publicpersonal letters, shortarticles, brochures,
advertisements,
website texts

Personal

simple instructions andreports on subjects intheir field

simple work
instructions such as
how to change thetoner on a printernotices, regulations,
instructions for a task

reports, business
letters

Occupational

Text (and discourse)

Can paraphrase short passages in a simple fashion, using
the original text wording and ordering.

Processing text in writing

Mediating a text

simple narratives,
academic regulations

simple, shortnarratives, generalacademic regulations
such as for an exam

details of tasks
and assignments,
descriptions of courses
or examinations,
textbook extracts

narratives, textbook
entries, websites, news
summaries, shortarticlesEducational

Page 216 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Can provide fluent oral translation (into Language B) of
abstract texts (written in Language A) on a wide range ofsubjects of personal, academic and professional interest,
successfully conveying evaluative aspects and arguments,
including the nuances and implications associated withthem.

Can provide fluent oral translation (into Language B) ofcomplex written texts (written in Language A) on a wide
range of general and specialised topics, capturing mostnuances.

Can provide oral translation (into Language B) of complex
texts (written in Language A) containing information andarguments on subjects within their fields of professional,
academic and personal interest.

Can provide oral translation (into Language B) of texts(written in Language A) containing information andarguments on subjects within their fields of professional,
academic and personal interest, provided they are written
in uncomplicated, standard language.

Can provide an approximate oral translation (intoLanguage B) of clear, well-structured informational texts(written in Language A) on subjects that are familiar orof personal interest, although lexical limitations cause
difficulty with formulation at times.

Can provide an approximate oral translation (intoLanguage B) of short, simple everyday texts (e.g. brochure
entries, notices, instructions, letters or e-mails) (written in
Language A).

C2

C1

B2+

B1+

B1

A2+

Translating a written text in speech or sign

e-mails or letters withnews from friends/
relativesnewspaper ormagazine articles
on current issues of
personal interest

specialised magazine
articles and reports on
matters of personal
interest

Personal

Publicnotices about changes
to public services suchas parking regulations
or rubbish collection

simple reports such asa witness statement toan accident

texts accompanying
artworks at a museum
or exhibition,municipal regulations
such as recycling,
parking, etc.

an extended CV
and presentation
letter from a job orinternship applicant

a CV and presentation
letter from a job orinternship applicant

technical reports
related to theirprofession

professional
publications, technicalreports, contracts,press releases

Occupational

Text (and discourse environment)

public policy
document,
declarations, rules orregulations

Mediating a text

brochure(s) describing
extracurricular
activities available,
including conditions

academic articles andreports, regulations

academic projects andrelated documents

Educational

Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities Page 217

C2

Pre-A1

A1

A2

Can translate (into Language B) technical material outside
their field of specialisation (written in Language A),
provided subject matter accuracy is checked by a specialist
in the field concerned.

Translating written text in writing

letters, newspaper
articles, commentaries
and editorials,
specialised articles,or other publications
addressed to a general
educated readership

Personal

Publicsigns and notices,
posters, leaflets

notices, instructions,basic health and safety
regulations

a political tract,a public policy
document, a legal
opinionPublicprofessional
publications, technicalreports, contracts,press releases

Occupational

Text (and discourse environment)

signs and notices,
posters, programmes,
leaflets

directions, notices,
information on posters

basic health and safety
regulations at theworkplaceOccupational

Text (and discourse environment)

instructions on how topurchase a travel card

Mediating a text

[not applicable]

Can provide a simple, rough oral translation (intoLanguage B) of simple everyday words/signs and phrases(written in Language A) that are encountered on signs andnotices, posters, programmes, leaflets, etc.

No descriptors available

personal news in
e-mails and letterslabels on foodproducts or electronic
devices, instructions on
how to use a medicine

Personal

Can provide a simple, rough oral translation (intoLanguage B) of routine information on familiar everyday
subjects that is written in simple sentences (in Language A)(e.g. personal news, short narratives, directions, notices or
instructions).

Can provide a simple, rough, oral translation (intoLanguage B) of short, simple texts (e.g. notices on familiar
subjects) (written in Language A), capturing the mostessential point.

Translating a written text in speech or sign

Mediating a text

academic papers

Educationalsigns and notices,
posters, timetables

exam instructions

notices on books orcourse/class exchanges

Educational

Page 218 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Can, with the help of a dictionary, translate simple words/
signs and phrases (from Language A into Language B), but
may not always select the appropriate meaning.

A2

A1

No descriptors available

Can use simple language to provide an approximatetranslation (from Language A into Language B) of very
short texts on familiar and everyday themes that containthe highest frequency vocabulary; despite errors, thetranslation remains comprehensible.

B1

Pre-A1

simple, shortnarratives, generalacademic regulations
such as for an exam

Can produce approximate translations (from Language A
into Language B) of information contained in short, factual
texts written in uncomplicated, standard language; despite
errors, the translation remains comprehensible.

B1+

letters with news

general academic
regulations

Can produce approximate translations (from Language
A into Language B) of straightforward, factual texts thatare written in uncomplicated, standard language, closely
following the structure of the original; although linguistic
errors may occur, the translation remains comprehensible.

public notices,transportation
information

public notices,
guidebook entries

simple instructions andreports on subjects intheir field

simple work
instructions such as
how to change thetoner in a printerstraightforward letters,
instructions, reports on
subjects in their fieldstraightforward letters,
instructions, reports on
subjects in their field

B2

public documents
describing generalregulations, guidebook
entries, statements ofopinionletters with news,
articles of generalinterest

Can produce translations (into Language B) that closely
follow the sentence and paragraph structure of the originaltext (in Language A), conveying the main points of thesource text accurately, though the translation may readawkwardly.

B2+

simple narratives,
academic regulations

straightforward
narratives, generalacademic regulations

academic papers andbooks, novels, shortstories, plays

letters, articles
in a magazine ornewspaper, somecolloquial writings

academic papers andbooks, literary criticism

Educational

Can produce clearly organised translations (from Language
A into Language B) that reflect normal language usage
but may be over-influenced by the order, paragraphing,
punctuation and particular formulations of the original.

scientific, technical,
financial or project
reports, regulations,articles and otherprofessional
publications

Occupational

C1

speeches, sermons,policy documents

Publicletters, articles
in a magazine ornewspaper, shortstories

Personal

Text (and discourse environment)

Can translate (into Language B) abstract texts on social,academic and professional subjects in their field (written
in Language A), successfully conveying evaluative aspects
and arguments, including many of the implications
associated with them, though some expression may beover-influenced by the original.

Translating written text in writing

Mediating a text

Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities Page 219

C1

C2

at a public meeting,at a committee/club/
association meeting,during a seminar or
lecture on a topic ofinterest
in researching an area
for an association,pressure group,
political party, etc.

Can make decisions about what to note down and what
to omit as the lecture or seminar proceeds, even on
unfamiliar matters.

Can select relevant, detailed information and argumentson complex, abstract topics from multiple oral sources(e.g. lectures, podcasts, formal discussions and debates,interviews), provided the delivery is at normal speed.

at a public meeting,at a committee/club/
association meeting,during a seminar on a
topic of interest

Publicduring a public lecture
on a topic of interestin researching a topic
of personal interest[not applicable]

Personal

in researching an area
for a paper or seminarpresentation

in a seminar or
discussion forum, while
attending a lecture

at a management
meeting, professional
conference or training
seminarin researching an
area for a report orpresentation

while attending a
lecture, watching a
web talk

in a seminar or
discussion forum, while
attending a lecture

in a seminar or
discussion forum

Educational

at a professional
conference or training
seminarat a management
meeting, professional
conference or training
seminarat a management
meeting or a training
seminarOccupational

Text (and discourse environment)

Can take detailed notes during a lecture on topics in theirfield of interest, recording the information so accurately
and so closely to the original that the notes could also be
useful to other people.

Can take notes selectively, paraphrasing and abbreviating
successfully to capture abstract concepts and relationships
between ideas.

Is aware of the implications and allusions of what is said
and can take notes on them as well as on the actual words
used.

Can, while continuing to participate in a meeting or
seminar, create reliable notes (or minutes) for people whoare not present, even when the subject matter is complex
and/or unfamiliar.

Note-taking (lectures, seminars, meetings, etc.)

Mediating a text

Page 220 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

at a fair/shopping
centre demonstrationof a new product ofinterest

No descriptors available

No descriptors available

A2

A1

Pre-A1during a public lecture
on a topic of interest

Can take notes as a list of key points during astraightforward lecture, provided the topic is familiar, andthe lecture is both formulated in simple language andarticulated clearly.

Can take simple notes at a presentation/demonstration
where the subject matter is familiar and predictable andthe presenter allows for clarification and note-taking.

during a public lecture
on a topic of interest

Can take notes during a lecture which are precise enoughfor their own use at a later date, provided the topic is
within their field of interest and the lecture is clear and wellstructured.

at a public meeting,at a committee/club/
association meeting,during a seminar on a
topic of interest

at a public meeting,at a committee/club/
association meeting,during a seminar on a
topic of interest

during a public lecture
on a topic of interest

PublicCan take accurate notes in meetings and seminars on most
matters likely to arise within their field of interest.

[not applicable]

Personal

at a professional
conference, fair ortraining seminarat an internal meetingor a training seminarat a professional
conference or training
seminarat a professional
conference or training
seminarat a management
meeting, a training
seminarat a professional
conference or training
seminarOccupational

Text (and discourse environment)

Can note down routine instructions in a meeting on afamiliar subject, provided these are formulated in simple
language and they are given sufficient time to do so.

B1

B1+

B2

Can understand a clearly structured lecture on a familiar
subject, and can take notes on points which strike them asimportant, even though they tend to concentrate on theactual formulation and therefore to miss some information.

Note-taking (lectures, seminars, meetings, etc.)

Mediating a text

[not applicable]

in a seminar or
discussion forum

while attending a
lecture or watching a
web talk

while attending a
lecture or watching a
web talk

in a seminar or
discussion forum

while attending a
lecture, watching a
web talk

Educational

Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities Page 221

B2

C1

C2

a novel or short story
just read, a play, film ormusical just seen – indiscussion with friends

a novel or short story
just read, a play, film,
musical or other show
just seen, paintings or
sculptures in a gallery,cultural artefacts
in a museum – indiscussion with friends

Can outline a personal interpretation of a character in awork: their psychological/emotional state, the motives fortheir actions and the consequences of these actions.

Can give a clear presentation of their reactions to awork, developing their ideas and supporting them with
examples and arguments.

Can express in some detail their reactions to the form of
expression, style and content of a work, explaining what
they appreciated and why.

Can describe their emotional response to a work andelaborate on the way in which it has evoked this response.

Can give a personal interpretation of the development ofa plot, the characters and themes in a story, novel, film orplay.

a novel or short story
just read, a play, film,
musical or other show
just seen, paintings or
sculptures in a gallery,cultural artefacts
in a museum – indiscussion with friends

Personal

Can describe in detail a personal interpretation of a work,
outlining their reactions to certain features and explaining
their significance.

No descriptors available: see C1

Expressing a personal response to
creative texts (including literature)
Publica more straightforward
novel or short story
read as a member ofa foreign language
reading circle
organised by a teacher
or cultural institutea film or other cultural/artistic artefact at ascreening or exhibition
organised by a cultural
institute or club[not applicable]

in socialising withforeign partners
or clients: casual
discussion of theliterature, film industry
or major culturalartefacts of the otherperson’s country[not applicable]

in socialising withforeign partners
or clients: casual
discussion of theliterature, film industry
or major culturalartefacts of the otherperson’s country

Occupational

Text (and discourse environment)a novel, short story,
play, poem, read or
studied as a memberof a cultural circle
organised by a cultural
institute or clubMediating a text

a novel, poem, play,short story or otherliterary work studiedin classa novel, poem,
play, short story orother classical orcontemporary work
studied in a literature
courseEducational

Page 222 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Pre-A1

A1

A2

B1

No descriptors available

Can use simple words/signs to state how a work madethem feel.

Can state whether they liked a work or not and explain
why in simple language.

Can state in simple language which aspects of a work
especially interested them.

Can express their reactions to a work, reporting their
feelings and ideas in simple language.

Can describe a character’s feelings and explain the reasonsfor them.

Can describe the personality of a character.

Can explain briefly the feelings and opinions that a work
provoked in them.

Can describe the emotions they experienced at a certain
point in a story, e.g. the point(s) in a story when they
became anxious for a character, and explain why.

Can relate the emotions experienced by a character toemotions they have experienced.

Can relate events in a story, film or play to similar events
they have experienced or heard about.

Can explain in some detail which character they mostidentified with and why.

Can explain why certain parts or aspects of a work
especially interested them.

Expressing a personal response to
creative texts (including literature)[not applicable]a more straightforward
novel or short story
read as a member ofa foreign language
reading circle
organised by a teacher
or cultural institutea simpler short story ornovel just read, a film,
musical or other show
just seen – with friends[not applicable]

Publica simple story, fairy/
folk tale or poem readin classa simpler short story,
fairy/folk tale or extractfrom a novel read inclass or for homework,a video story watchedin classin socialising withforeign partners
or clients: casual
discussion of/references toheritage literature(e.g. Cervantes,
Shakespeare) studied
at school or works ofwell-known film stars[not applicable]

Educational

Occupational

Text (and discourse environment)
Personal

Mediating a text

Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities Page 223

B2

C1

C2

Can describe the way in which different works differ intheir treatment of the same theme.

Can evaluate the way the work encourages identification
with characters, giving examples.

Can give a reasoned opinion of a work, showing awarenessof the thematic, structural and formal features andreferring to the opinions and arguments of others.

Can compare two works, considering themes, charactersand scenes, exploring similarities and contrasts andexplaining the relevance of the connections betweenthem.

Can describe and comment on ways in which the work
engages the audience (e.g. by building up and subverting
expectations).

Can evaluate the extent to which a work follows theconventions of its genre.

Can critically appraise a wide variety of texts including
literary works of different periods and genres.

Can give a critical appreciation of deliberate breaches of
linguistic conventions in a piece of writing.

Can critically evaluate the way in which structure,
language and rhetorical devices are exploited in a work
for a particular purpose and give a reasoned argument
concerning their appropriateness and effectiveness.

Can recognise the finer subtleties of nuanced language,
rhetorical effect and stylistic language use (e.g. metaphors,abnormal syntax, ambiguity), interpreting and “unpacking”
meanings and connotations.

Can give a critical appraisal of work of different periods
and genres (e.g. novels, poems and plays), appreciating
subtle distinctions of style and implicit as well as explicit
meaning.

Analysis and criticism of creative
texts (including literature)

a novel or short story
just read, a play, film,
musical or other show
just seen, paintings or
sculptures in a gallery,cultural artefacts
in a museum – indiscussion with friends[not applicable]

Personal

Publica more straightforward
novel or short story
read as a member ofa foreign language
reading circle
organised by a teacher
or cultural institute[not applicable]

Occupational

Text (and discourse environment)

in writing a review ofa novel, film, writer’sor artist’s life work forthe journal or blog
of a cultural circle
organised by a cultural
institute or clubMediating a text

a novel, poem, play,short story or otherliterary work studiedin classa novel, poem,
play, short story orother classical orcontemporary work
studied in a literature
courseEducational

Page 224 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

No descriptors available

No descriptors available

A2

A1

Pre-A1[not applicable]

Can describe the key themes and characters in shortnarratives involving familiar situations that contain only
high frequency everyday language.

Can identify and briefly describe, in basic formulaic
language, the key themes and characters in short, simple
narratives involving familiar situations that contain only
high frequency everyday language.

B1

a novel or short story
just read, a play, film,
musical or other show
just seen, paintings or
sculptures in a gallery,cultural artefacts
in a museum – indiscussion with friends

Personal

Can point out the most important episodes and events ina clearly structured narrative in everyday language andexplain the significance of events and the connections
between them.

Analysis and criticism of creative
texts (including literature)
Public[not applicable][not applicable]

Occupational

Text (and discourse environment)a more straightforward
novel or short story
read as a member ofa foreign language
reading circle
organised by a teacher
or cultural instituteMediating a text

a simple story, fairy/
folk tale or poem readin classa simpler short story,
fairy/folk tale or extractfrom a novel read inclass or for homework

Educational

Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities Page 225

C1

B1+

B2

B2+

Can show sensitivity to different perspectives within agroup, acknowledging contributions and formulating any
reservations, disagreements or criticisms in such a way as
to avoid or minimise any offence.
Can develop the interaction and tactfully help steer it
towards a conclusion.

Can collaborate on a shared task, e.g. formulating andresponding to suggestions, asking whether people agree,
and proposing alternative approaches.
Can collaborate in simple, shared tasks and work towards
a common goal in a group by asking and answeringstraightforward questions.
Can define the task in basic terms in a discussion and ask
others to contribute their expertise and experience.

Can help define goals for teamwork and compare options
for how to achieve them.
Can refocus a discussion by suggesting what to consider
next, and how to proceed.

Can ask questions to stimulate discussion on how toorganise collaborative work.

Can act as rapporteur in a group discussion, noting ideas
and decisions, discussing these with the group and later
giving a summary of the group’s view(s) in a plenary.

Can, based on people’s reactions, adjust the way they
formulate questions and/or intervene in a groupinteraction.

No descriptors available: see C1

C2

Facilitating collaborative interaction with peers

during an exchangewith friends, family
members, colleagues
met in informal
circumstances tochoose between
possible solutions to a
problemduring an exchangewith friends, family
members, colleagues
met in informal
circumstances todiscuss an issue they
are aware of

Personal

at a community
meeting dealing with astraightforward issue,
with visual support

at community
meetings dealing witha specific issue, withvisual support

during a relatively
straightforwardbusiness transaction;
during committee
meetings between
colleagues

as a chair/memberof a group during
focus group meetings;
during a relatively
straightforwardbusiness transaction;
during programmemeetings; duringcommittee meetings

Situation (and roles)
PublicOccupational

as a member/chair/moderator at a
community/association
meeting; a fundraising
event; a Q&A session ina public presentationof a project (e.g. for a
new building/facility)

Mediating concepts

during a simple
collaborative task
in a class at school/
university; incommunity-of-practicework with the supportof other teachers

during a collaborative
task in a class at
school/university; incommunity-of-practicework for teacher
development

as a lecturer/instructor
at a conference during
Q&A time; during apreviously organised
debate in a class at
school/university; incommunity-of-practicework for teacher
development

Educational

Page 226 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Can invite others’ contributions to very simple tasks using
short, simple phrases prepared in advance. Can indicatethat they understand and ask whether others understand.

A1

No descriptors available

Can collaborate in simple, practical tasks, asking what
others think, making suggestions and understanding
responses, provided they can ask for repetition or
reformulation from time to time.

A2

Pre-A1during a shortexchange with friends,
family members

Can collaborate in simple, shared tasks, provided otherparticipants articulate slowly and one or more people help
them to contribute and to express their suggestions.

A2+

B1

during a shortexchange withfriends, family
members, colleagues
met in informal
circumstances, forinstance to ask foradvice before choosing
among possible
solutions to a problem

Personal

Can invite other people in a group to contribute theirviews.

Facilitating collaborative interaction with peers[not applicable]

during astraightforwardbusiness transaction

as a chair/memberof a group during
focus group meetings;
during a relatively
straightforwardbusiness transaction;
during committee
meetings

Situation (and roles)
PublicOccupational
at a community
meeting dealing with astraightforward issue,
with visual support

Mediating concepts

during a simple
collaborative task
in a class at school/
university

during a simple
collaborative task
in a class at school/
university; incommunity-of-practicework with the supportof other teachers

Educational

Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities Page 227

C1

C2

Can highlight inconsistencies in thinking, and challenge
others’ ideas in the process of trying to reach a consensus.

Can evaluate problems, challenges and proposals in acollaborative discussion in order to decide on the way
forward.

Can frame a discussion to decide on a course of action witha partner or group, reporting on what others have said,summarising, elaborating and weighing up multiple pointsof view.

Can summarise, evaluate and link the various contributions
in order to facilitate agreement on a solution or a way
forward.

Collaborating to construct meaning
during an exchangewith friends, family
members, colleagues
met in informal
circumstances todiscuss an issue they
are aware of

Personal

at community
meetings dealing witha specific issue, withvisual support

as a chair/moderator
of a group during
focus group meetings;
during a business
transaction; during
programme meetings;
during committee
meetings

Situation (and roles)
PublicOccupational
as a chair/moderator
at a community/
association meeting;a fundraising event;a Q&A session in a
public presentation ofa project (e.g. for a newbuilding/facility)

Mediating concepts

in completing a groupproblem-solving taskor project or in a classdebateas a lecturer/instructor
at a conference during
Q&A time; during apreviously organised
debate in a class at
school/university; incommunity-of-practicework for teacher
development

Educational

Page 228 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

B2

B2+

a conversation withfamily or friends toplan a themed or
staged social event
such as a (surprise)
party
in a discussion withfamily or friends withstrongly differing ideas
about what to doon holiday, during afamily reunion, a houserenovation

Can present their ideas in a group and pose questions that
invite reactions from other group members’ perspectives.

when planning acomplicated outing,holiday or project withfamily and friends

in helping a friend
plan how to resolvea financial or family
problem, whenplanning a family
event, e.g. a wedding
or anniversary party

Personal

Can further develop other people’s ideas and opinions.

Can help organise the discussion in a group by reporting
what others have said, summarising, elaborating andweighing up different points of view.

Can contribute to collaborative decision making andproblem solving, expressing and co-developing ideas,
explaining details and making suggestions for future
action.

Can highlight the main issue that needs to be resolved in
a complex task and the important aspects that need to betaken into account.

Collaborating to construct meaning

at a community
meeting seeking asolution to a local
social problem (e.g.
security, vandalism,
traffic conditions, lackof green areas and/orof amenities/services)

as a member of aclub in a community
meeting to organise apublic event

as a member of astrategy meetingor project-planningmeeting; during
collaborative work on a
project

as a chair/member ofa strategy meetingor project-planningmeetingSituation (and roles)
PublicOccupational
as a member/chair/moderator of aplanning meeting fora (political) campaign
or project and/or an
event set up by a clubMediating concepts

in completing a groupproblem-solving taskor project, or in a classdebate; in communityof-practice work forteacher development

when planning, withclassmates/colleagues,a group assignment or
project, an educational
outing or exchange
visitwhen organising agroup assignment suchas writing a collective
review or designinga research project, inplanning an exchange
visit or project

Educational

Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities Page 229

Pre-A1

A1

A2

A2+

B1

B1+

B2

No descriptors available

Can express an idea and ask what others think, using
very simple words/signs and phrases, provided they can
prepare in advance.

Can make suggestions in a simple way.

Can make simple remarks and pose occasional questions
to indicate that they are following.

Can ensure that the person they are addressing
understands what they mean by asking appropriatequestions.

Can repeat part of what someone has said to confirm
mutual understanding and help keep the development ofideas on course.

Can ask a group member to give the reason(s) for theirviews.

Can use questions, comments and simple reformulations
to maintain the focus of a discussion.

in a discussion of
options for an evening
out, when organising aparty or when deciding
on house rules

in a discussion
with flatmatesor friends about
how to reorganisearrangements in anapartment, how to
repair something, how
to organise an event

Can organise the work in a straightforward collaborative
task by stating the aim and explaining in a simple manner
the main issue that needs to be resolved.

Personal
in a discussion withfamily or friends withstrongly differing ideas
about what to doon holiday, during afamily reunion, during
a house renovation,or during a domestic
dispute between
housemates

Can consider two different sides of an issue, giving
arguments for and against, and propose a solution orcompromise.

Collaborating to construct meaning[not applicable]

during collaborative
work on a projectin completing a groupproblem-solving taskor projectin completing a groupproblem-solving taskor project, or in a classdebateat a project-planningmeeting; during
collaborative work on a
project

in attending a public
consultation meeting
about local issues
such as transport,
planning applications
or community policy/
events

Educationalin completing a groupproblem-solving taskor project or in a classdebate; in communityof-practice work forteacher development

as a member of astrategy meetingor project-planningmeeting; during
collaborative work on a
project

Situation (and roles)
PublicOccupational
at a community
meeting seeking asolution to a local
social problem (e.g.
security, vandalism,
traffic conditions, lackof green areas and/orof amenities/services)Mediating concepts

Page 230 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

C1

C2[not applicable]

Can organise a varied and balanced sequence of plenary,group and individual work, ensuring smooth transitions
between the phases.

Can intervene diplomatically in order to redirect
discussion, prevent one person dominating or confront
disruptive behaviour.

during a shortexchange with friends,
family members met in
informal circumstances[not applicable]

Personal

Can recognise undercurrents in interaction and takeappropriate steps to guide the direction of discussion.

Can take on different roles according to the needs of theparticipants and requirements of the activity (resource
person, mediator, supervisor, etc.) and provide appropriate
individualised support.

Managing interaction
Publicduring activities
implying group/pairwork, collaborative
tasks, think/pair/share,
project work at school/
university or in teacher
education; parent/
student assembly,
organising for instancea protest/opposition,a school trip; at a PhD
workshopat consultation
meetings/
sessions on policy/
structure change
in an organisation;
at professional
development sessions;
during work on
complex collaborative
projects within anotherbusiness, at partnering
institutions

at a meeting on
procedures, during
collaborative work on a
project

Educational

Occupational

Situation (and roles)

as a member/chair/moderator at a
community meeting;at a political/volunteer/charity/association
meeting or sports
event, at a local,
regional, national,
international level

Mediating concepts

Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities Page 231

B2+

at consultation
sessions on policy/
structure change
in an organisation;
at professional
development sessions;
during work on
complex collaborative
projects within anotherbusiness, at partnering
institutions

at consultation
sessions on policy/
structure change
in an organisation;
at professional
development sessions;
during work on
complex collaborative
projects, at partnering
institutions

Occupational

Can intervene supportively in order to focus people’s
attention on aspects of the task by asking targeted
questions and inviting suggestions.

as a member/chair/moderator at a
community meeting;at a political/volunteer/charity/association
meeting or sports
event, at a local,
regional, national,
international level

Publicat a meeting on
procedures, during
collaborative work on a
project[not applicable]

Personal

Situation (and roles)

Can monitor individual and group work non-intrusively,intervening to set a group back on task or to ensure evenparticipation.

Can organise and manage collaborative group work
efficiently.

Managing interaction

Mediating concepts

during activities
implying group/pairwork, collaborative
tasks, think/pair/share,
project work at school/
university or in teacher
education; parent/
student assembly,
organising for instancea protest/opposition,a school trip; at a PhD
workshop

Educational

Page 232 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

A2

Can give very simple instructions to a co-operative group,
given some help with formulation when necessary.

Can give simple, clear instructions to organise an activity.

B1

as a member/chair/moderator at a
community meetingwith a specific, clearly
defined goal; at a
festival working with agroup, with a specificgoal

residents meeting toagree routine terms of
upkeep, etc.

Can allocate turns in a discussion, inviting a participant toexpress their views.

B1+

as a member/chair/moderator at a
community meeting;at a political/volunteer/charity/association
meeting or sports
event, at a local,
regional, national,
international level

Publicas a member/chair/moderator at a
community meetingwith a specific, clearly
defined goal; at a
festival working with agroup, with a specificgoal[not applicable]

Personal

during activities
implying group/pairwork, collaborative
tasks, think/pair/share,
project work at school/
university or in teacher
education; parent/
student assembly,
organising for instancea protest/opposition,a school trip; at a PhD
workshopduring a clearlystructured
collaborative activity at
school/university

as a chair/memberof a group during
focus group meetings;
during committee
meetings

at a meeting on
procedures, during
collaborative work on a
project

at a meeting on
procedures, during
collaborative workon a project, at astaff meeting on
introducing newprocedures/equipment

as a team member at a
meeting of a small task
force

Educational

Occupational

Situation (and roles)

Can intervene when necessary to set a group back ontask with new instructions or to encourage more evenparticipation.

B2

Can explain ground rules of collaborative discussion
in small groups that involves problem solving or theevaluation of alternative proposals.

Can explain the different roles of participants in thecollaborative process, giving clear instructions for group
work.

Managing interaction

Mediating concepts

Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities Page 233

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

C1

B2+

Can ask a series of open questions that build on different
contributions in order to stimulate logical reasoning(e.g. hypothesising, inferring, analysing, justifying andpredicting).

C2

Can encourage members of a group to describe andelaborate on their thinking.
Can encourage members of a group to build on one
another’s information and ideas to come up with a concept
or solution.

Can effectively lead the development of ideas in a
discussion of complex abstract topics, giving direction bytargeting questions and encouraging others to elaborateon their reasoning.

Encouraging conceptual talkNo descriptors available

A1

Managing interaction

when discussing
social and politicalissues with friends andrelatives

Personal

Occupational

Publicwhen taking thelead during project
team meetings andbrainstorming sessions

Occupational

Situation (and roles)

PublicSituation (and roles)

at a community
meeting discussing
details of an action
planMediating concepts

Personal

Mediating concepts

when leading aseminar, giving alesson, engaging
in class debates ordiscussions; as alecturer/instructor at aconference during Q&A
time

when leading aseminar, giving alesson, engaging
in class debates ordiscussions

Educational

Educational

Page 234 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Pre-A1

A1

A2

B1

B1+

B2

when discussing
social and personal
issues with friends andrelatives

Can ask questions to invite people to clarify theirreasoning.

in a discussion of
options for an eveningout

Can use simple isolated words/signs and non-verbal
signals to show interest in an idea.

No descriptors available

when discussing
options with family,
friends or housemates
for an evening out,
when organising a
party

Can ask what somebody thinks of a certain idea.

Can ask why someone thinks something, or how they thinksomething would work.

[not applicable]

when discussing films,
plays and other formsof entertainment withfriends/relatives

Can ask people to elaborate on specific points they madein their initial explanation.

Can ask appropriate questions to check understanding ofconcepts that have been explained.

when discussing
social and politicalissues with friends andrelatives

Personal

Can formulate questions and feedback to encourage
people to expand on their thinking and justify or clarify
their opinions.
Can build on people’s ideas and link them into coherent
lines of thinking.
Can ask people to explain how an idea fits with the main
topic under discussion.

Encouraging conceptual talkPublic[not applicable]

at a community
meetingin attending a public
consultation meeting
about local issues
such as transport,
planning applications
or community policy/
events[not applicable]

in attending a public
consultation meeting
about local issues
such as transport,
planning applications
or community policy/
events[not applicable]

during team meetings;
during collaborative
work on a project

when engaging in classdebates or discussion

during project
team meetings andbrainstorming sessions;
during collaborative
work on a projectin a simple group
activity

when engaging
in simple classdiscussions

in simple class debatesor discussions with(fellow) students

when leading aseminar, giving alesson, engaging
in class debates ordiscussions; as alecturer/instructor at aconference during Q&A
time

Educational

when taking thelead during project
team meetings andbrainstorming sessions

Occupational

Situation (and roles)

at a community
meeting discussing
details of an action
planMediating concepts

Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities Page 235

C1

C2

Can anticipate how people might misunderstand what
has been said or written and can help maintain positive
interaction by commenting on and interpreting different
cultural perspectives on the issue concerned.

Can act as a mediator in intercultural encounters,
contributing to a shared communication culture bymanaging ambiguity, offering advice and support, andheading off misunderstandings.

Can guide a sensitive discussion effectively, identifying
nuances and undercurrents.

Can mediate effectively and naturally between membersof their own and other communities, taking account ofsociocultural and sociolinguistic differences.

Facilitating pluricultural spacewhen breaking/delivering news on
delicate issues fromthird parties

in multiculturalgatherings orcelebrations of
personal relevancewith friends and/or
familyPersonal

at a multicultural
guidance andcounselling session
concerning for instancemarriage, divorce, childcustodyduring a multiculturalcommunity meeting,when shopping,travelling or dealing
with public affairs
in a multiculturalenvironment

when discussing theterms of a multilateralcontract, when
explaining the laws or
regulations in anothercountry

during a meeting atsenior managementlevel in a multinationalsetting

Occupational

Situation (and roles)
PublicMediating communication

when teaching auniversity course to a
multicultural classat a seminar ina multicultural
educational setting

Educational

Page 236 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

B2

B2+

in potentiallyconflicting private
situations involving
persons fromdifferent cultures orbackgrounds

when presented to, or
introducing someone
to, a new group offriends/people sharing
interests

Can clarify misunderstandings and misinterpretations
during intercultural encounters, suggesting how things
were actually meant in order to clear the air and move thediscussion forward.

Can encourage a shared communication culture by
expressing understanding and appreciation of different
ideas, feelings and viewpoints, and inviting participants tocontribute and react to each other’s ideas.

when organising
shared activities withfriends or roommateswhen discussing
with friends and/or relatives social or
personal issues or ways
to act in an informal
multicultural setting

Can, in intercultural encounters, demonstrate appreciationof perspectives other than that of their own worldview,and express themselves in a way appropriate to thecontext.

Can work collaboratively with people who have different
cultural orientations, discussing similarities and differencesin views and perspectives.

in multiculturalgatherings orcelebrations of
personal relevancewith friends and/or
familyPersonal

Can exploit knowledge of sociocultural conventions inorder to establish a consensus on how to proceed in aparticular situation that is unfamiliar to everyone involved.

Facilitating pluricultural space

helping colleagues
from a different
cultural backgroundfind a way throughwork-related problems

when discussing
the implementationof internationalcommercial policies
with colleagues

when interactingwith individuals and/or groups in theneighbourhood

in peer interaction
at public events(e.g. festivals, talks,demonstrations)in joint activities withtravel mates during a
trip, in peer interaction
at public events(e.g. festivals, talks,demonstrations)in peer interaction
at public events(e.g. festivals, talks,demonstrations)in discussions withcolleagues about
simple tasks, working
hours, holidays

when escortingcolleagues from othercountries around town
or company premises

during a meeting atsenior managementlevel in a multinationalsettingduring a multiculturalcommunity meeting,when shopping,travelling or dealing
with public affairs
in a multiculturalenvironment

when conducting
or moderating apublic debate on
multicultural issues

Occupational

Situation (and roles)
PublicMediating communication

with schoolmates inacademic activities

as an instructor
when teaching a
multicultural primaryclass at intercultural
centres

as an instructor when
dealing with conflicts
between students
on an international
campusin supporting inclusive
education

at a seminar ina multicultural
educational setting

Educational

Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities Page 237

in simple exchanges
and conversations at
restaurants

in a simple informal
conversation between
friends/relatives andvisitors

Can support an intercultural exchange using a limited
repertoire to introduce people from different cultural
backgrounds and to ask and answer questions, showing
awareness that some questions may be perceived
differently in the cultures concerned.

No descriptors available

A1

Pre-A1Can facilitate an intercultural exchange by showing awelcoming attitude and interest with simple words/signs
and non-verbal signals, by inviting others to contribute,and by indicating whether they understand whenaddressed directly.

A2

Can help develop a shared communication culture, by
exchanging information in a simple way about values andattitudes to language and culture.

during a multiculturalcommunity meeting

when organising
shared activities withfriends or roommates

Can act in a supportive manner in intercultural encounters,
recognising the feelings and different worldviews of othermembers of the group.

during holidays, withlocalsin everyday
conversations withfriends and relatives
from different cultural
backgrounds

Can support communication across cultures by initiating
conversation, showing interest and empathy by asking andanswering simple questions, and expressing agreement
and understanding.

Can contribute to an intercultural exchange, using simple
words/signs to ask people to explain things and to getclarification of what they say, while exploiting a limited
repertoire to express agreement, to invite, to thank, etc.

B1

B1+

B2

during a multiculturalcommunity meeting

Publicwhen organising
shared activities withfriends or roommates

Personal

when a newcomer isintroduced into theworkplacewhen introducing
newcomers into theworkplacein discussions withcolleagues about
simple tasks, working
hours, holidays

between colleagues
during work-related
telephone exchanges
or conversations

when discussing
the implementationof internationalcommercial policies
with colleagues

Occupational

Situation (and roles)

Can, when collaborating with people from other cultures,
adapt the way they work in order to create sharedprocedures.

Facilitating pluricultural space

Mediating communication

as a student
welcoming a new
person who joins thegroup

as an instructor whenwelcoming students
into the school’s sports
team

at a seminar ina multicultural
educational settingwith schoolmates in
out-of-school activities

at a seminar ina multicultural
educational setting

Educational

Page 238 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

B2

B2+

C1

C2

in discussions withrelatives/friends
on matters such as
studying or working
abroadCan communicate (in Language B) the sense of what
is said in a welcome address, anecdote or presentationin their field (in Language A), interpreting cultural cues
appropriately and giving additional explanations whennecessary, provided the presenter stops frequently in order
to allow time for them to do so.
in a conversation
with friends/relatives,
guests/hosts about
important current
affairs

with visiting guests/
relatives from anothercountry

Can mediate (between Language A and Language B)
conveying detailed information, drawing the attention ofboth sides to background information and socioculturalcues, and posing clarification and follow-up questions orstatements as necessary.

Can communicate (in Language B) the sense of what is said(in Language A) on subjects within their fields of interest,
conveying and when necessary explaining the significanceof important statements and viewpoints, provided theinterlocutors give clarifications if needed.

interpretation, at
a formal gatheringwith guests, ofcomplex ceremonies,
statements,
conversations, or
discussions

at a gathering withguestsin a discussion withfriends/relatives,
guests/hosts (e.g. on
politics, literature)

Personal

Can communicate fluently (in Language B) the sense ofwhat is said (in Language A) on a wide range of subjects ofpersonal, academic and professional interest, conveying
significant information clearly and concisely as well as
explaining cultural references.

Can communicate in a clear, fluent, well-structured way (inLanguage B) the sense of what is said (in Language A) on awide range of general and specialised topics, maintaining
appropriate style and register, conveying finer shades ofmeaning and elaborating on sociocultural implications.

Acting as intermediary in informal
situations (with friends and colleagues)

during a guided visit(e.g. an exhibition)

during a guided visit

at a public meeting, at
an intercultural event

during a public lecture,
at a political rally or
meeting, at a (religious)
ceremonyat dinner with visitingcolleagues

during a visit tocompany/factory/
university premises

at a school event orparents’ day

in a parent–teacher
meeting to discussa child’s school
performance; duringa school exchangewith visiting principals,
teachers or students

in a parent–teacher
meeting to discussa child’s school
performance, with anacademic in discussionof their specialised
field

during an interview
as part of a research
project, at a conferenceor seminar

during discussions onorganisational matterssuch as international
conferences or events,
contract negotiations

with visiting
partners or clients,
in a discussion in aninternational team
about organisation,
project and resource
planning

at a school event
such as an awards
evening with parents,
at a welcome addressor presentation tovisiting guests fromother schools, inwebinars, debates anddiscussions

Educational

at a management
meeting, a social orcultural event during
a work-related visit inanother country

Occupational

Situation (and roles)
PublicMediating communication

Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities Page 239

B1

A1

No descriptors available

Can communicate (in Language B) other people’s personal
details and very simple, predictable information (inLanguage A), provided other people help with formulation.

A2

Pre-A1

Can communicate (in Language B) the main point of what
is said (in Language A) in predictable everyday situations,conveying back and forth information about personalwants and needs, provided other people help withformulation.

A2+

Can communicate (in Language B) the main sense ofwhat is said (in Language A) on subjects of personal
interest, while following important politeness conventions,provided the interlocutors articulate clearly and they can
ask for clarification and pause to plan how to express
things.

B1+

Can communicate (in Language B) the overall senseof what is said (in Language A) in everyday situations,following basic cultural conventions and conveying theessential information, provided it is articulated clearly andthey can ask for repetition and clarification.

Can communicate (in Language B) the main sense of what
is said (in Language A) on subjects within their fields ofinterest, conveying straightforward factual informationand explicit cultural references, provided they can prepare
beforehand and the interlocutors articulate clearly ineveryday language.

Acting as intermediary in informal
situations (with friends and colleagues)

during the
introduction of avisitor/guest to family/
friend circles

interpreting on thetelephone for relatives
and friends when
applying for a service
such as the internet or
utilities

in a conversation
between friends/
relatives and visitors tomake arrangements foran outingin everyday
conversations withfriends and relatives(e.g. on family, work,
daily events)

Personal

at a public officeoffering services, suchas a licensing office

at a public officeoffering services, suchas a licensing office

at a restaurant withguests, conversing
about background,hobbies, educationin casual conversations
with other travellers
during a trip or holiday(e.g. on travel, hobbies,
interests)

during a visit from aclientduring a visit from aclientat the workplace toorganise a leaving
party

in everyday
conversations withcolleagues/ workmates(e.g. on interests, work,
daily events)

Occupational

Situation (and roles)
PublicMediating communication

with a new student
from their country oforiginduring a school
exchange – incoming
and outgoing, ina parent–teacher
meeting to discussa child’s school
performance

Educational

Page 240 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

B2

B2+

C1

C2

Can, by asking questions, identify areas of common groundand invite each side to highlight possible solutions.

Can formulate a clear and accurate summary of what
has been agreed and what is expected from each of theparties.

Can help the parties in a disagreement better understandeach other by restating and reframing their positions moreclearly and by prioritising needs and goals.

Can elicit possible solutions from parties in disagreement
in order to help them to reach consensus, formulating
open-ended, neutral questions to minimise
embarrassment or offence.

Can use persuasive language to suggest that parties indisagreement shift towards a new position.

Can formulate a diplomatic request to each side in adisagreement to determine what is central to theirposition, and what they may be willing to give up undercertain circumstances.

Can demonstrate sensitivity to different viewpoints, using
repetition and paraphrase to demonstrate a detailed
understanding of each party’s requirements for anagreement.

Can confidently take a firm but diplomatic stance over anissue of principle, while showing respect for the viewpointsof others.

Can deal tactfully with a disruptive participant, framing
any remarks diplomatically in relation to the situation andcultural perceptions.

Facilitating communication in delicate
situations and disagreements

in disputes withlandlords/tenants(e.g. over financial
responsibility fordamage in a flat)in a disagreement
between housemates
about house rules,
when discussing withrelatives decisions
about responsibilities
and measuresconcerning child or
elderly carein a disagreement
between housemates
about house rules,
when discussing withrelatives decisions
about responsibilities
and measuresconcerning child or
elderly carein a disagreement
between friends
or family members
discussing personal orsocial issues

Personal

at collective bargainingor labour arbitrationin disputes regarding
an accident

during minor disputes
at the workplacewhen dealing witheveryday negativeinteractions between
employees
in arguments affecting
third parties atrestaurants, cinemas orother public places

helping others withcomplaints about bills
or services at shops,
transport, banks

in the resolution oforganisational andfunctional conflicts

in the resolution oforganisational andfunctional conflictsin negotiations, indiscussions about cutsand restructuringin collaborative workthat takes a difficult
turnduring an incident ona package holiday or apublic event

during an incident ona package holiday or apublic eventin a situation withintercommunal conflicttensions

Occupational

Situation (and roles)
PublicMediating communication

in mediating in
dysfunctional group
work, when organisingand managing peer
mediation, or in adisagreement between
two groups of students

in dysfunctional group
work, when organisingand managing peer
mediation, or in adisagreement between
two groups of students

in cases of bullying
or racial/genderaggravated school
violence

in cases of disruptiveclassroom behaviour

Educational

Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities Page 241

Pre-A1

A1

No descriptors available

when a flatmate is
upset, perhaps during
or after an argument

Can recognise when people disagree, or when someone
has a problem, and can use memorised, simple expressions(e.g. “I understand” or “Are you okay?”) to indicate
sympathy.

B1

A2

Can demonstrate their understanding of the key issues in adisagreement on a topic familiar to them and make simple
requests for confirmation and/or clarification.

B1+

in arguments
between flatmatesover household
responsibilities orhome improvements

in disputes withlandlords/tenants(e.g. over financial
responsibility fordamage in a flat)in arguments
between flatmatesover household
responsibilities

Can ask parties in a disagreement to explain their pointof view, and can respond briefly to their explanations,provided the topic is familiar to them and the parties
express themselves clearly.

B2

in a disagreement
between housemates
about house rules,
when discussing withrelatives decisions
about responsibilities
and measuresconcerning child or
elderly care

Personal

Can recognise when people disagree or when difficulties
occur in interaction, and adapt memorised, simple phrases
to seek compromise and agreement.

Can summarise the statements made by the two sides,
highlighting areas of agreement and obstacles toagreement.

Can outline the main points in a disagreement withreasonable precision and explain the positions of theparties involved.

Facilitating communication in delicate
situations and disagreements

in an argument at aparty, on an outing,at a public place like astation or museumin arguments affecting
third parties atrestaurants, cinemas orother public places

as a member/chair/moderator at a
community meeting todiscuss social policies
or safety and security
problems

in arguments affecting
third parties atrestaurants, cinemas orother public places

when a colleague isupset, perhaps during
or after an argument

when two people in
the workplace have an
argument about how
to do something, or atask not completed

when dealing witheveryday negativeinteractions between
employees

during preparatory
meetings to examine
and revise an agenda
or an action plan

when dealing witheveryday negativeinteractions between
employees

Occupational

Situation (and roles)
PublicMediating communication

when fellow students
start arguing, or are leftout, during group workwhen dealing witheveryday negativeinteractions between
classmatesin mediating in
dysfunctional group
work, when organisingand managing peer
mediation, or in adisagreement between
two groups of students

Educational

Appendix 6
DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE
EXTENDED ILLUSTRATIVE DESCRIPTORSUPDATING THE 2001 SCALES
The illustrative descriptor scales published in 2001 are among the most widely exploited aspects of the CEFR andthe relevance of the descriptors has remained remarkably stable over time. Therefore, the approach taken was tosupplement the 2001 set rather than change the descriptors in it. There are, however, substantive changes to asmall number of descriptors in the scales from CEFR 2001 Chapters 4 and 5. The amendment of a small numberof “absolute” statements at C2 is intended to better reflect the fact that the CEFR illustrative descriptors do nottake an idealised native speaker as a reference point for the competence of a user/learner. These small changes
are included in the extended set of illustrative descriptors published here, and are listed in Appendix 7. The
working method adopted began with a small Authoring Group from the Eurocentres Foundation that selected,
incorporated and, where necessary, adapted relevant calibrated materials drawn from the sources cited in the
preface. In a series of meetings with a small group of experts that acted as a Sounding Board, the resulting set
of descriptors was refined before being submitted to a larger group of consultants for review.

NEW SCALESAt this stage of the project, new scales were added for “Reading as a leisure activity” (under “Written reception”),
for “Using telecommunications” (under “Spoken interaction”) and for “Sustained monologue: giving information”(under “Spoken production”). Certain existing descriptors defining more monologic speech were also moved fromthe scale “Information exchange” to the “Sustained monologue: giving information” scale during this process.

PRE-A1
Pre-A1 represents a “milestone” halfway towards Level A1, a band of proficiency at which the learner has not yet
acquired a generative capacity, but relies upon a repertoire of words and formulaic expressions. The existence ofa band of proficiency below A1 is referred to at the beginning of CEFR 2001 Section 3.5. A short list of descriptors
is given there that had been calibrated below A1 in the SNSF research project that had developd the illustrativedescriptors. A fuller description of the competences of learners at A1 and the inclusion of a level below A1
was important for users as evidenced by the number of descriptor projects that focused on these lower levels.
Therefore, a band of proficiency labelled Pre-A1 is included in the majority of the scales.

PHONOLOGY
For “Phonological control”, which was an existing CEFR 2001 scale, a completely new set of descriptors wasdeveloped /see “Phonological Scale Revision Process Report” (Piccardo 2016). Phonology had been the least
successful scale developed in the research behind the descriptors published in 2001. The phonology scale was
the only CEFR illustrative descriptor scale for which a native-speaker norm, albeit implicit, had been adopted.
In an update, it appeared more appropriate to focus on intelligibility as the primary construct in phonologicalcontrol, in line with current research, especially in the context of providing descriptors for building on plurilingual/pluricultural repertoires. The resulting phonology project followed all three validation phases described below
in relation to other new scales, with over 250 informants involved in each phase.

YOUNG LEARNERS
The collated descriptors for young learners are available on the CEFR website. There is a recognised need for
instruments to better support CEFR alignment of teaching and learning for young learners. However, a conscious
decision was taken to avoid parallel design and calibration of new descriptors for young learners during thisproject, as young learner descriptors are largely derived and adapted from the CEFR illustrative descriptors,
according to age and context. Moreover, a great deal of work has already been done in this area by professionals
across the member states in the design and validation of European Language Portfolios for young learners.
Therefore, the approach adopted for young learners was to collect and collate descriptors for young learners

Page 243

and organise these into the two main age groups (7 to 10 and 11 to 15) that were represented by the majorityof validated ELP samples available.
Though not fully comprehensive, the project brings together a representative selection of ELP descriptors for young
learners from a range of Council of Europe member states, using in particular materials drawn from accredited
models in the Council of Europe ELP bank and/or samples registered on the Council of Europe website, alongwith young learner assessment descriptors supplied by Cambridge Assessment English. These were individuallyaligned to the illustrative descriptors published in 2001 according to level, identifying meaningful correspondences
between young learner descriptors and CEFR illustrative descriptors, and presented to the Sounding Board ofexperts for document peer review. This collation and alignment is intended to support further development ofyoung learner curricula, portfolios and assessment instruments, with an awareness of lifelong learning leading
to competences described in the CEFR.
In addition, the extended illustrative descriptors were included in the document for educators to consider for
relevance to young learner programmes. Guidance judgments were added as to the proposed relevance of eachof the extended CEFR illustrative descriptors to each of the two age groups. These judgments were also ratified
by the Sounding Board through peer review, and in a separate consultative workshop.
The descriptors51 are presented in two documents, one for each age group. The documents have an identicalstructure, presenting the descriptors by level, starting with Pre-A1, and filtering out non-relevant CEFR illustrativedescriptors that have been evaluated as clearly beyond the typical cognitive, social or experiential capacity of
the age group (mainly at the higher levels). The documents thus show what CEFR descriptor the young learnerdescriptor is related to along with an indication of the relevance of a CEFR descriptor to the age group if noyoung learner descriptor examples are yet available. Additionally, an archive document retains all the mapped
descriptors together for both age groups, organised by scale.
Figure 18 – Development design of Young Learner ProjectPreparatory
work

Development

Qualitative
validation

Initial collationof validated ELP& assessment
descriptors
Shortlist of 35 sources
evaluated / collated from19 member states

Judgement ofcorrespondences
to 2001 illustrativedescriptors
By main researcher,according to validated
Young Learnerdescriptor levels

Expertconsultation
Peer review of Young
Learner descriptoralignment and judgmentsof relevance

Separate
reference
documents foreach age group
Finalisation

Introduction chapter
Reorganisation ofdescriptors by level
rather than scale
Archive version retainedwith both age groups
organised by scale

Categorisationof sources
Sources alignedby age group

Steering
committee
review ofcollation format
By members of CEFR
extended set expert
authoring group

Expert consultation
Relevant age
groups finalised

Addition ofextended set
descriptors
with judgmentsof relevance
Extended descriptors
evaluated for relevanceto each age group

Rework / expert
workshopUpdate of alignments,
judgments of relevanceand comments

Final updates
Adjustments to final
document versions
to reflect validatedchanges to theextended set of CEFR
illustrative descriptors

A new collationof descriptors foryoung learners

51. Bank of supplementary descriptors, www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/bank-ofsupplementary-descriptors.

Page 244 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

MEDIATIONThe conceptual approach to mediation
The 1996 provisional version of the CEFR, published during the last stages of the Swiss research project, sketchedout categories for illustrative descriptor scales for mediation to complement those for reception, interaction
and production. However, no project was set up to develop them. One important aim of the current update,therefore, was to finally provide such descriptor scales for mediation, given the increasing relevance of thisarea in education. In the consideration of mediation, descriptors for building on plurilingual and pluriculturalrepertoires were also added. It was to the validation of these new descriptors for mediation, online interaction,
reactions to literature and building on plurilingual/pluricultural repertoires that the institutions listed in the
preface contributed.
The main focus in developing new scales was on mediation, for aspects of which 23 descriptor scales are now
available (mediation activities: 18; mediation strategies: 5). The approach taken to mediation was broader thanthat presented in CEFR 2001, in which Section 2.1.3 introduced mediation as the fourth category of communicative
language activities, in addition to reception, interaction and production:
In both the receptive and productive modes, the written and/or oral activities of mediation make communication
possible between persons who are unable, for whatever reason, to communicate with each other directly. Translation
or interpretation, a paraphrase, summary or record, provides for a third party a (re)formulation of a source text to which
this third party does not have direct access. Mediating language activities – (re)processing an existing text – occupy
an important place in the normal linguistic functioning of our societies.

This description is taken a stage further in CEFR 2001 Section 4.4.4:
In mediating activities, the language user is not concerned to express his/her own meanings, but simply to act as anintermediary between interlocutors who are unable to understand each other directly – normally (but not exclusively)
speakers of different languages. Examples of mediating activities include spoken interpretation and written translation
as well as summarising and paraphrasing texts in the same language, when the language of the original text is notunderstandable to the intended recipient.

The focus in the text of the CEFR 2001 book is thus on information transfer and on acting as an intermediaryeither in one language or across languages.
The conceptual approach taken in this project is closer to that adopted by Coste and Cavalli, in line with thebroader educational field, in their 2015 paper for the Council of Europe, “Education, mobility, otherness – The
mediation functions of schools” (Coste and Cavalli 2015). The full conceptualisation of mediation is described in“Developing illustrative descriptors of aspects of mediation for the CEFR” (North and Piccardo 2016). In developing
categories for mediation, the Authoring Group used Coste and Cavalli’s distinction between:f “Relational mediation”: the process of establishing and managing interpersonal relationships in order tocreate a positive, collaborative environment (for which six scales were developed);f “Cognitive mediation”: the process of facilitating access to knowledge and concepts, particularly when an
individual may be unable to access this directly on their own, due perhaps to the novelty and unfamiliarityof the concepts and/or to a linguistic or cultural barrier.
However, it is virtually impossible to undertake cognitive mediation without taking account of the relational issues
concerned. Real communication requires a holistic integration of both aspects. For this reason, the mediation
scales are presented in a more practical division into four groups:
f mediating a text;
f mediating concepts;
f mediating communication;
f mediation strategies.
Finally, consideration of cross-linguistic and cultural mediation led to an interest in the ability to exploit aplurilinguistic or pluricultural repertoire, for which three additional scales were developed:
f building on pluricultural repertoire;f plurilingual comprehension;f building on plurilingual repertoire.

Development and validation of the extended illustrative descriptors Page 245

The aim of developing descriptors for plurilingual and pluricultural competence linked to CEFR levels is toencourage teachers to include the acquisition of plurilingual and pluricultural competence, appropriate to the
proficiency level of their learners, in their planning.

METHODOLOGY ADOPTED
The project emulated and further extended the methodologies employed in the original CEFR descriptor researchby Brian North and Günther Schneider in Switzerland. It followed a similar mixed methods research design,with qualitative and quantitative development, as summarised in Figure 12. An extensive review of relevant
literature was followed by an intuitive authoring phase, with feedback from a Sounding Board. This was followed
between February 2015 and February 2016 by three phases of validation activities with around 1 000 people.
The validation was then followed between July 2016 and February 2017 by three rounds of consultation, withpiloting between January 2017 and July 2017.
The methodology followed for the development and validation of the new scales mirrored that undertakenin the original Swiss research (see CEFR 2001 Appendix B), but on a larger scale. Like the original research the
project had three broad phases:
f initial research and development (intuitive phase);f checking and improving the categories and quality of the descriptors (qualitative phase);f calibrating the best descriptors to a mathematical scale and confirming the cut-offs between the levels(quantitative phase).
The above tasks took place between January 2014 and March 2016, followed by consultation and piloting.

PREPARATORY WORKThe first step was to collect existing instruments and articles related to mediation; at this point the mediation
descriptors from Profile Deutsch and some other sources were translated into English. In a series of liaison
meetings with Daniel Coste and Marisa Cavalli, the authors of “Education, mobility, otherness – The mediation
functions of schools” (Coste and Cavalli 2015), a set of initial categories was developed and an initial collectionof descriptors for mediating text and mediating concepts was collected and drafted. The main categories into
which scales were grouped in the early stages were:
f cognitive mediation (facilitating access to knowledge, awareness and skills);
f interpersonal mediation (establishing and maintaining relationships; defining roles and conventions inorder to enhance receptivity, avoid/resolve conflict and negotiate compromise);f textual mediation (transmitting information and argument: clarifying, summarising, translating, etc.).
The full initial collection also included a number of draft scales related to aspects of institutional mediation(for example: integrating newcomers, dealing with stakeholders as an institution, developing and maintaining
institutional relationships), together with a number of scales on different aspects of mediation by teachers – bothaspects reflecting the focus of Coste and Cavalli on the mediation role of schools. However, at the first consultative
meeting, held in July 2014, there was a consensus that these scales were in effect recycling aspects of interaction
and production already present in the CEFR, rather than breaking new ground. For this reason, development was
focused on the above-mentioned categories of conceptual, interpersonal and textual mediation. The collection
was reworked for an expert meeting that set up an Authoring Group in September 2014.

DEVELOPMENT
The Authoring Group then conducted a thorough literature review and redrafted the initial collection in aseries of meetings between September 2014 and February 2015. Sub-groups worked on online interaction,
plurilingual/pluricultural competence and phonology. Work on plurilingual and pluricultural competencesarose naturally from consideration of cross-linguistic mediation, particularly in the role of intermediaries. Workon phonology was undertaken because the existing CEFR 2001 scale for phonological control, alone among the
CEFR illustrative scales, took an implied native speaker as a point of reference and set up unrealistic expectations(B2: “Has acquired a natural pronunciation and intonation”). This was considered incompatible with a plurilingual
perspective. A Sounding Board closely supported the work of the Authoring Group with input materials andfeedback. In February 2015, a set of 427 draft descriptors for online interaction, mediation activities and strategies
and for plurilingual/pluricultural competence were ready for the first round of validation activities. Since work on

Page 246 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

plurilingual/pluricultural competence and phonology started later, only some of the descriptors for the former
and none of those for the latter were included at this point. The phonology descriptors were first tried out in aworkshop in June 2015 and in consultation with phonology experts.

QUALITATIVE VALIDATION
By this stage, 137 institutes had been recruited to take part in validation. This first phase took place at these
institutions from February to March 2015 during face-to-face workshop sessions, in which almost 1 000 people took
part. The task was a more systematic version of the one used in the 32 workshops in the original CEFR descriptor
research project. Participants discussed in pairs some 60 descriptors for three to five related areas, decided whatarea they were describing, rated them for (a) clarity, (b) pedagogic relevance and (c) relation to real-world languageuse, and suggested improvements to formulation. Following this, some 60 descriptors were dropped, including one
entire scale. Very many of the other descriptors were reformulated, usually shortened, and two new scales (“Spoken
translation of written text”; “Breaking down complicated information”) were drafted at the suggestion of workshop
participants. It was at this point that some of the detail being removed from descriptors was put into examples
for different domains (see Appendix 5). Qualitative validation for phonology, in which 250 project participants
took part online in the same (familiar) activities, came much later in the year, in November and December 2015.

QUANTITATIVE VALIDATIONIn the next phase, 189 institutions took part, with a total of 1 294 participants from 45 countries. Again, eachparticipating institution organised a face-to-face workshop. After familiarisation activities similar to thoserecommended in the Council of Europe’s manual entitled “Relating Language Examinations to the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR) – A Manual” (Councilof Europe 2009) participants took part in a standard-setting workshop in which, individually and after discussion,
they assigned draft descriptors to CEFR levels. The full range of CEFR proficiency bands from the initial CEFR
descriptor research was used for this purpose (= 10 bands from Pre-A1 to C2). Participants wrote their decisions on
PDF printouts and only at the end did they enter their considered, final, individual decisions into an online survey.
In the analysis, firstly the percentages of respondents assigning each descriptor to each level and sub-level were
calculated, and then a Rasch Model scaling analysis was carried out, as in the original CEFR descriptor research.
To conduct a Rasch analysis, one needs a matrix of linked data, and each item (here descriptor) should ideallyhave 100 responses. This goal was met for all descriptor scales: the lowest number of respondents for any one
scale being 151 and the highest 273.
A matrix of this type was used for each of the validation phases, with a conscious effort to target categories ofdescriptors to groups known to be interested in the categories concerned. The advantages of the Rasch analysis
were firstly that it enabled those descriptors that just did not work and those participants who just could notcomplete the task to be identified and excluded, and secondly that it gave each descriptor an arithmetic value.
That value could then be converted to the scale underlying the CEFR descriptors published in 2001 by using
some of them as “anchor items”.
Results from the preliminary quantitative analysis were discussed at a consultative meeting in July 2015, following
which 36 descriptors were dropped and about half relegated to recalibration, usually after amendments. A major
issue was a lack of descriptors at A1 and A2 for mediation and plurilingual/pluricultural competence. An effort
was made to draft these before the following phase.
The main quantitative data collection then followed in an online survey conducted in English and French between
October and December 2015. This time respondents replied individually to the question: “Could you, or a person
whom you are thinking of, do what is described in the descriptor?” They were asked to do this three times, fortheir different plurilingual personae and/or for people whom they knew very well (partners, children, etc.), andthis resulted in 3 503 usable responses from about 1 500 people. The task was a slightly adapted replication of
the one used in the calibration of the descriptors published in 2001, which was based on teacher assessmentwith descriptors of a representative sample of students in their classes. Two analyses were carried out: a global
analysis with all the descriptors and a second analysis in which each main category was analysed separately.
Decisions about the level of each descriptor were then made on the basis of all of the information available.
Quantitative validation for phonology followed in January 2016, with 272 people taking part. There were twotasks: (a) assigning to levels, and (b) assessing learner performances in video clips (“Can the learner in the video
do what is described in the descriptor?”). Different standard-setting techniques were employed; again, readers
are referred to “Phonological Scale Revision Process Report” (Piccardo 2016) for details.

Development and validation of the extended illustrative descriptors Page 247

The Rasch Model
The Rasch Model is named after a Danish mathematician, George Rasch. It is the most commonlyused of a family of probability models that operationalise latent trait theory (also called item response
theory – IRT). The model analyses the extent to which an item “fits” in the underlying construct(= latent trait) that is being measured. It also estimates on a mathematical scale, firstly difficulty
values (= how difficult each item is) and secondly, ability values (= how competent each person isin the trait in question). The model is used for many purposes but two of the main ones are:- building banks of items for tests;- questionnaire analysis.
To analyse questionnaires, a variant called the rating scale model (RSM) is used. A multifaceted variant of
the RSM can remove subjectivity from assessors’ judgments. Detailed explanations are available in the
Reference Supplement to “Relating Language Examinations to the Common European Framework ofReference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR) – A Manual” (Council of Europe 2009).
The main advantage of the Rasch Model is that, unlike with classical test theory, thevalues obtained are generalisable to other groups that can be considered to be part ofthe same overall population (that is, sufficiently share the same characteristics).
The objective scaling and the potential generalisability of the scale values obtained
makes the model particularly suitable for determining at which level one should situate“can do” descriptors on a common framework scale like the CEFR levels.

FURTHER VALIDATION OF PLURILINGUAL AND PLURICULTURAL COMPETENCE
Finally, an extra survey was carried out in February 2016 for three reasons. Firstly, it was an opportunity to include
descriptors for reception strategies and plurilingual comprehension, mostly adapted from the MIRIADI Project;52
secondly, the task in the main online survey had not worked well for plurilingualism, so the extra survey re-ran
this with a different task; finally, it was an opportunity to add more descriptors for pluricultural competence,
particularly at lower levels. The survey was carried out in two completely separate parallel versions. Fromamong the project participants, 267 volunteers completed one form, while 62 experts in plurilingual education
completed the other. The results were then contrasted and it was established that there was no statisticallysignificant difference between them. The calibrations to levels were also extremely compatible with the existing
CEFR 2001 scale for sociolinguistic appropriateness.

52. www.miriadi.net/en/miriadi-plan.

Page 248 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Figure 19 – Multimethod developmental research design

Development and validation of the extended illustrative descriptors Page 249

ISSUES AND RESPONSES
A great amount of feedback was given by participants in the validation activities in 2015, in consultation meetingsand during the wider consultation and piloting in 2016-17. This section focuses on some of the key issues thatwere raised over the duration of the project and how each one was addressed.

RELATIONSHIP OF MEDIATION SCALES TO CEFR 2001 SCALES
Although the focus in the project was to provide descriptors for activities and strategies that were not alreadycovered by CEFR 2001 descriptor scales, some aspects of the mediation scales, particularly at lower levels, arereminiscent of the kinds of activities described in existing CEFR scales. This is because some aspects of mediation, inthe broader interpretation now being adopted, are already present in the illustrative descriptor scales published in
2001. The new scales under “Mediating a text” for “Relaying specific information”, “Explaining data” and “Processingtext”, for example, are an elaboration of concepts introduced in the existing scale for “Processing text” under“Text” in CEFR 2001 Section 4.6.3. Similarly, the scales particularly concerning group interaction in “Facilitating
collaborative interaction with peers”, “Collaborating to construct meaning” and “Encouraging conceptual talk”, arein many ways a further development of concepts in the existing scale “Co-operating strategies under interaction
strategies”. This underlines the difficulty of any scheme of categorisation. We should never underestimate the factthat categories are convenient, invented artefacts that make it easier for us to interpret the world. Boundaries
are fuzzy and overlap is inevitable.

CROSS-LINGUISTIC MEDIATION
Earlier versions of the descriptors had experimented with various formulations seeking to take account of thispoint. However, making clear distinctions proved to be remarkably difficult. “Mother tongue” and “first language”
and “language of schooling” are often not synonymous and even expressions like “source language” and “target
language” proved confusing (for example when mediating from another language one may be mediating to themother tongue; the other language is in such a case the source language and the mother tongue would be thetarget language). Attempts to cater to these variations also meant that at one point the collection of descriptors
unnecessarily tripled in size, with very minor changes in formulation.
Therefore, the project group decided to take the line that, as with the illustrative descriptors published in 2001,
what is calibrated is the perceived difficulty of the functional language ability irrespective of what languages
are involved. It is recommended that those languages be specified by the user as part of the adaptation of thedescriptors for practical use.
The scales for “Mediating a text” contain a reference to “Language A” and “Language B”: broad terms for mediatedcommunication sources and communication outputs respectively. It is stated in the notes that mediation may be
within one language or across languages, varieties or registers (or any combination of these), and that the user
may wish to state the specific languages concerned. Equally, the user may wish to provide examples relevant totheir context, perhaps inspired by those presented in Appendix 5 for the four domains of language use: public,
personal, occupational and educational.
For example, the first descriptor on the scale for “Relaying specific information in speech or sign”:
Can explain (in Language B) the relevance of specific information given in a particular section of a long, complex text
(in Language A).

might become:Can explain in French the relevance of specific information given in a particular section of a long, complex text inEnglish (e.g. an article, website, book or talk face-to-face/online concerning current affairs or an area of personal
interest or concern).

or if communication within one target language is concerned:
Can explain the relevance of specific information given in a particular section of a long, complex text (e.g. an article,
website, book or talk face-to-face/online concerning current affairs or an area of personal interest or concern).

All the descriptors for mediating a text involve integrated skills, a mixture of reception and production. The focus
is not on reception, for which CEFR scales already exist. The level at which descriptors are calibrated reflects thelevel of processing and production required. When reception and production are in different languages, thenthe level represented by the descriptor is that needed to process and articulate the source message in the target
language(s).

Page 250 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

GENERAL AND COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE COMPETENCES
In any CEFR descriptor scale, the descriptors at a particular level define what can reasonably be achieved when theuser/learner has a communicative language competence (CEFR 2001 Section 5.2) in the language(s) concerned
corresponding to the CEFR level given, provided the person concerned also has the personal characteristics,
knowledge, cognitive maturity and experience – that is to say the general competences (CEFR 2001 Section
5.1) – necessary to do so successfully. The CEFR scales are intended to be used to profile ability. It is unlikelythat all users who are globally “B1” are capable of doing exactly what is defined at B1 on all CEFR descriptor
scales, no more and no less. It is far more likely that people whose overall level is at B1 will in fact be A2 or A2+
in relation to some activities and B1+ or even B2 in relation to others, depending upon their personal profile ofgeneral competences, in turn dependent on age, experience, etc. This is the case with many existing CEFR 2001
descriptor scales that concern cognitive abilities like “Note-taking”, “Reading for information and argument”,“Formal discussion (meetings)”, “Sustained monologue: addressing audiences”, and producing “Reports andessays”. It is equally the case with many mediation activities. Some of the scales under mediating a text (forexample “Processing text”) or mediation strategies (for example “Streamlining text”) involve activities requiringa degree of cognitive sophistication that may also not be shared equally by everyone. Furthermore, the scales
for mediating communication require interpersonal skills that are not shared equally, partly due to experience.
Similarly, the profiles of user/learners at, for example, B1 will differ greatly in relation to “Building on plurilingual/pluricultural repertoire”, dependent on their personal trajectories and the experience and competences acquiredalong the way. Therefore, rather than seeking to eliminate the influence of individual differences, the approachtaken in the descriptors acknowledges that they are a key contributing factor to learners’ unique profiles ofcommunicative ability.

GENERAL AND COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE COMPETENCESIN BUILDING ON PLURICULTURAL REPERTOIRE
As with mediating, using one’s pluricultural repertoire involves a range of general competences (CEFR 2001
Section 5.1), usually in close conjunction with pragmatic and sociolinguistic competences (CEFR 2001 Section
5.2.2 and 5.2.3). Thus in this scale, as in the mediation scales and many other CEFR scales, competences otherthan language competences come into play. The boundaries between knowledge of the world, sociocultural
knowledge and intercultural awareness are not really clear-cut, as the CEFR 2001 explains. Nor are those between
practical skills and know-how – which includes social skills – and sociocultural knowledge or intercultural skills
and know-how. The field of socio-pragmatics also studies aspects of these areas from a more “linguistic” pointof view. What is more important than possible overlap between categories is the fact that the user/learner callson all these various aspects, merged with the appropriate communicative language competence, in the creationof meaning in a communicative situation. Some are more likely than others to be able to do this to the extent
permitted by a given language proficiency level, perhaps because of their differing aptitudes and experience.

CONSULTATION AND PILOTINGThe development and validation described above were then followed by a process of consultation and pilotingin three phases:
f expert workshop;f pre-consultation online survey with experts;
f formal consultation.
After a meeting with Council of Europe experts in June 2016 and a detailed pre-consultation online survey of
CEFR experts in the summer of 2016, the descriptors were revised before a formal consultation took place inEnglish and French between October 2016 and February 2017. There were two parallel surveys of individuals andinstitutions. Some 500 individual informants completed the survey, together with a number of invited institutions
and curriculum or assessment agencies. Among other questions, respondents were asked to state to what extent
they found each of the new scales to be helpful and to comment on the descriptors. All the proposed new scales
were considered to be helpful or very helpful by 80% of the respondents, with the institutions/agencies tending
to give a more positive response. The most popular new scales concerned mediating a text, collaborating insmall groups and online interaction. There was a considerable difference of opinion between individuals andinstitutions on two descriptor scales: “Goal-oriented online transactions and collaboration” and “Building on
plurilingual repertoire”. While 96% of the institutions found these two scales helpful or very helpful, only 81%
to 82% of individuals did so.

Development and validation of the extended illustrative descriptors Page 251

In the formal consultation, two thirds of the respondents definitely welcomed the fact that the descriptor scales
for mediation moved beyond the area of classic modern language teaching (to Content and Language Integrated
Learning – CLIL, and Language of Schooling), with over 90% of both individuals and institutions agreeing to someextent. A great number of comments and suggestions were received, which have helped to finalise descriptor
formulations, scale titles and the way in which the scales are presented.
Piloting took place between February and June 2017, with results continuing to feed into formulation of andpresentation of the descriptor scales. The vast majority of the pilots selected descriptors from relevant scales inorder to inform the design of communicative tasks in the classroom, and then used the descriptors to observe
the language use of the learners. Feedback on the descriptors was very positive, with some useful suggestions
for small revisions. The most popular areas for piloting were collaborating in small groups, mediating a text andplurilingual/pluricultural competence. In one pilot, the two descriptor scales for online interaction were alsopresented in a separate survey of 1 175 Italian teachers of English who were completing an online course in useof digital resources.53 Of these respondents, 94.8% found the descriptors very clear or quite clear, and 80.8%
reported that they were very easy or quite easy to use for self-assessment.
At the same time as the formal consultation, a questionnaire was also sent to Council of Europe member statesasking about use of the CEFR in their countries, familiarity with support materials recently provided by theCouncil of Europe’s Education Policy Division (Language Policy Programme) and their reaction to the proposed
new descriptor scales. Member states were also asked to suggest institutions for piloting. Results were very
positive, except for some reservations concerning the use of the CEFR in initial teacher education – only half ofthe respondents saying it has been highly helpful. As might be expected, the dimensions of the CEFR most often
referred to in official documents and implemented in practice were the descriptors (83% highly so), the levels(75% highly so) and the action-oriented approach (63% highly so). To the question of whether they welcomed
the new scales, the positive response was highest for plurilingual/pluricultural competence (79%), followed byonline interaction (75%), mediation (63%) and literature (58%).

INCORPORATION OF DESCRIPTORS FOR SIGN LANGUAGES
People who are born deaf may acquire a sign language as their first language given appropriate input by theirparents and peers. Sign languages are not merely a form of gesturally-based communication, and not simply
a different medium through which a spoken language is expressed. Linguistic research has provided ample
evidence that sign languages are human languages in their own right, like spoken languages, and display linguisticfeatures, means, rules and restrictions like those found in spoken language. Those features include language
acquisition, processing, loss and all the other psychological processes and language-specific representations
that also apply in spoken languages.
Parallel to the main project mentioned above, descriptors for sign language competence were produced, following
a similar methodology to that used in a project at the Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW), funded by
the SNSF.54 The project identified and calibrated descriptors for productive and receptive signing competence.
These are descriptors that apply specifically to sign languages and complement the existing CEFR descriptors.
However, one should also remember that the CEFR descriptors, which express an ability to act in the language, arerelevant to all human languages. Sign languages are used to fulfil actions just as spoken languages are. Therefore
the same descriptors can be applied to both language modalities, and as a result all the CEFR descriptors havebeen reformulated to be modality-neutral.
Ever since the CEFR was introduced, there has been a need to define common learning targets, curricula andlevels for education in sign languages. The CEFR is in fact increasingly used in order to structure courses in sign
language. Most deaf children (95%) are born to hearing parents so, although the community of deaf people issmall, there is a great need for such courses, not just for the families of deaf children, but also for educational
purposes (interpreters, deaf migrants, hard-of-hearing people, teachers, linguists, etc.). In addition, the CEFR isstarting to play a role in relation to the training and qualifications of sign language teachers and interpreters
and, most particularly, in working towards official recognition of sign languages and the qualifications of sign
language professionals. The initiative to include descriptors for sign language in the CEFR therefore received
strong support from a number of associations in the community of the deaf.

53. “Techno-CLIL 2017”, moderators: Letizia Cinganotto and Daniela Cuccurullo, https://moodle4teachers.org/enrol/index.php?id=90.
54. The Council of Europe wishes to thank the SNSF for providing the approximately €385 000 that made the project possible.

Page 252 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

The ZHAW55 sign language project “Common European Framework of Reference for Sign Languages: developmentof descriptors for Swiss-German Sign Language” operated to a different timescale, with the research completed
in June 2019, three years after the completion of the main descriptor project. Again, the sign language project
followed a mixed-method, developmental research design that combined intuitive, qualitative and quantitative
analyses. However, as the signing community is small, the sign language project took place on a smaller scale.
The three main phases of the project are outlined in Figure 20.
The approach was entirely data-based. Rather than adapting existing CEFR descriptors to sign language, the
ZHAW project’s aim was to produce descriptors for aspects of signing competence based on the study of videos
of expert signers. The expert signers were recorded signing different types of texts and these performanceswere then discussed in a series of workshops with sign language teachers. The ZHAW Authoring Group thenformulated descriptors on the basis of comments and analysis from the sign language teachers. In this way acollection of over 300 descriptors for productive competences as well as 260 descriptors for receptive competences
was developed. As in the mediation project, there was no consideration of level at this stage: the aim was tocapture significant aspects of competence in words. As in the mediation project, descriptors were improved in
an iterative process of consultation and conducting workshops.
Furthermore, a simple validation experiment in the project demonstrated that hearing non-signers and deaf
non-teachers had a significantly different interpretation of the level a descriptor refers to in comparison to deaf
teachers. Therefore, the descriptors were calibrated only by deaf sign language instructors either born deaf orwith L1-competence attributed by the community on the basis of their signed forms (videos).
The descriptors were then grouped into categories. Initially it had been intended to produce scales for different
types of text (narrative, descriptive, explanatory, etc.).56 However, very many of the descriptors were identified as
relevant for several text types because they treated transversal competences. Finally, therefore, in a workshop
undertaken by the project team, the descriptors were grouped into sets on the basis of similarity. Three separate
groups sorted the descriptors into piles that appeared to describe related competences. A final categorisation
was then negotiated. The characteristics of each set were examined and refined, leading to the definition of
categories for nine scales as follows:
Linguistic competence:
1.

Sign language repertoire (receptive/productive);2.

Diagrammatical accuracy (receptive/productive).

Sociolinguistic competence:3.

Sociolinguistic appropriateness and cultural repertoire (receptive/productive).

Pragmatic competence:4.

Sign text structure (receptive/productive);

5.

Setting and perspectives (receptive/productive);

6.

Language awareness and interpretation (receptive);

7.

Presence and effect (productive) (in German: Auftritt and Wirkung);

8.

Processing speed (receptive);

9.

Signing fluency (productive).

55. Zurich University of Applied Sciences Authoring Group: Jörg Keller, Petrea Bürgin, Aline Meili and Dawei Ni.
56. Keller J. et al. (2017), “Auf dem Weg zum Gemeinsamen Europäischen Referenzrahmen (GER) für Gebärdensprachen. Empirie-basierte
Bestimmung von Deskriptoren für Textkompetenz am Beispiel der Deutschschweizer Gebärdensprache (DSGS)”, Das Zeichen, No. 105 ,pp. 86-97; Keller J. et al. (2018), “Deskriptoren zur gebärdensprachlichen Textstrukturierung im GER für Gebärdensprachen”, Das Zeichen,No. 109 , pp. 242-5. Keller J. (2019), “Deskriptoren für Textkompetenz in Gebärdensprachen”, in Barras M. et al. (eds), IDT 2017, Band 2.
Berlin: ESV, pp. 111-117.

Development and validation of the extended illustrative descriptors Page 253

Figure 20 – The phases of the sign language projectPreparatory
work

Identifying
text types

Identifying
experts fortext types

Development

Formulating
descriptors

Validating
descriptors
with signers

Validating

Checking
categories

Calibrating to
CEFR levels

Filming expert
signers

Sign language
descriptors

The final step was calibration to CEFR levels. To create a scale of descriptors, the Rasch Model was used, as in the
mediation and phonology projects and the original CEFR descriptor project. However, this time it was videos ofthe descriptors being signed that provided the data. Videos were provided for this purpose in both Swiss-German
Sign Language and International Sign (IS). The latter is a contact lingua franca, used in this case for signers fromdifferent European countries who took part. Following a successful trial of the rating scale by the project group,
respondents to online surveys were asked to rate the degree of difficulty that a descriptor represented on a
4-point rating scale from 1 (not difficult) to 4 (very difficult).
The entire dataset (N = 223) was checked for cases with very few or no evaluations, which were then removed.
Sample sizes and distributions of completed evaluations were then checked for the two main groups (Swiss
and European). In the Swiss group, N = 53, with nearly all evaluating all descriptors in the entire set of over 300.
In the European group, N = 37, with all participants evaluating a subset of all descriptors, resulting in a mean of
15 assessments per descriptor57 in addition to the 53 from the Swiss-German group.
As mentioned above while briefly describing the Rasch Model, descriptors will be more accurately placed at
the right level if persons and items for whom the data does not fit the model (because they are improbable) areremoved from the data. This step was followed in this project as in the main project.
The final step was to establish the cut-off between the CEFR levels on the sign language scale. To facilitate thisprocess, calibrated CEFR descriptors published in 2001 had been included to act as “anchor items” to transformthe scale produced to the mathematical values underlying the CEFR scale. For an explanation of this process,users are referred to the sections on quantitative validation in the “Developing illustrative descriptors of aspectsof mediation for the CEFR” (North and Piccardo 2016) and the “Phonological Scale Revision Process Report”(Piccardo 2016). However, unlike in those two projects, the mathematical values of these CEFR 2001 “anchors”
were not credible, even when unstable anchors had been removed. Therefore an alternative standard-setting
method based on expert judgment was used.58

57. While small, these values meet the minimum a priori requirements for 95% confidence intervals on difficulty parameters to within+/− 1 logit: see Linacre J. (1994), “Sample size and item calibration stability”, Rasch Measurement Transactions Vol. 7, No. 4, p. 328. The
Standard Error of Measurement for the sign language descriptors is greater than for the other descriptors, but calibration on the scale
is intuitively sensible. In a few cases, descriptors within the margin of error to the next proficiency band have been moved to thatadjacent band on the basis of collective expert judgment.
58. The method used was a variant of the “Bookmark Method” explained in “Relating Language Examinations to the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR) – A Manual” (Council of Europe 2009).

Page 254 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

FINALISATION
The feedback received in the various phases of validation, consultation and piloting between February 2015 andJune 2017 was very helpful in identifying and eliminating less successful descriptors and scales, and in revising
formulations. The process is documented in an archive available to researchers on the Council of Europe’s website.
The definitive version of the descriptors included in this document has taken account of all the feedback received.
Since very many descriptors were validated for certain levels of some scales, especially B2, a number have been
excluded from the extended version of the illustrative descriptors, although they are successfully validated
descriptors. They are available in Appendix 8. In itself this redundancy is a good thing as it underlines thecoherence of the calibration to levels, but it is not necessary to include all the descriptors concerned in the
finalised CEFR illustrative descriptor scales. They will later be presented as supplementary descriptors in the
CEFR-related descriptor bank that can be found on the Council of Europe’s website.

Development and validation of the extended illustrative descriptors Page 255

Appendix 7
SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO SPECIFICDESCRIPTORS PUBLISHED IN 2001
Overall listening oral comprehension
C2
Can understand with ease virtually Has no difficulty with any kind of spoken/signers language, whether
live or broadcast, delivered at fast native natural speed.
Understanding conversation between other native people
B2+
Can keep up with an animated conversation between native speakers/signers of the target language.
B2
Can with some effort catch much of what is said around them, but may find it difficult to participate
effectively in discussion with several native speakers/signers of the target language who do not modify
their language in any way.
Listening Understanding as a member of a live audience
C2
Can follow specialised lectures and presentations employing a high degree of colloquialism, regional usage
or unfamiliar terminology.
Overall reading comprehension
C2
Can understand and interpret critically virtually all forms of the written language types of written/signed
texts including abstract, structurally complex, or highly colloquial literary and non-literary writings.
Overall oral interaction
B2
Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction, and sustained
relationships with speakers/signers of the target language native speakers quite possible without imposing
strain on either party. Can highlight the personal significance of events and experiences, account for andsustain views clearly by providing relevant explanations and arguments.
Understanding a native speaker an interlocutor
C2
Can understand any native-speaker interlocutor, even on abstract and complex topics of a specialist nature
beyond their own field, given an opportunity to adjust to a non-standard less familiar variety accent or
dialect.
Conversation
B2
Can sustain relationships with users of the target language native speakers without unintentionallyamusing or irritating them or requiring them to behave other than they would with another native
proficient speaker/signer.
Informal discussion (with friends)
B2+
Can keep up with an animated discussion between native speakers/signers of the target language.
B2
Can with some effort catch much of what is said around them in discussion, but may find it difficult toparticipate effectively in discussion with several native speakers/signers of the target language who do not
modify their language in any way.
Formal discussion (meetings)
C2
Can hold their own in formal discussion of complex issues, putting forward an articulate and persuasive
argument, at no disadvantage to native speakers other participants.
Interviewing and being interviewed
C2
Can keep up their side of the dialogue extremely well, structuring the talk and interacting authoritatively
with complete effortless fluency as interviewer or interviewee, at no disadvantage to native speakers. otherparticipants.
Sociolinguistic appropriatenessC2
Can mediate effectively and naturally between speakers/signers of the target language and of their own
community of origin, taking account of sociocultural and sociolinguistic differences.
C2
Appreciates fully virtually all the sociolinguistic and sociocultural implications of language used by native
proficient speakers/signers of the target language and can react accordingly.
B2
Can sustain relationships with users of the target language native speakers without unintentionallyamusing or irritating them or requiring them to behave other than they would with another native
proficient speaker.
Spoken Fluency
B2
Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with users of thetarget language native speakers quite possible without imposing strain on either party.

Page 257

Appendix 8
SUPPLEMENTARY DESCRIPTORS
The descriptors in this appendix were also developed, validated and calibrated in the project to develop
descriptors for mediation. They have been excluded from the extended illustrative descriptors for one of threereasons: because of redundancy, because it had not been possible to develop descriptors for a sufficient rangeof levels, or because of comments in the consultation phases. They will be added to the bank of supplementary
descriptors on the Council of Europe website.

SCALESInterpreting
Note: As in any case in which mediation across languages is involved, users may wish to complete the descriptor by
specifying the languages concerned, as in this example for a C2 descriptor:
Can provide almost completely accurate simultaneous or consecutive interpretation into French of complex, formal
discourse in German, conveying the meaning of the speaker faithfully and reflecting the style, register and cultural context
without omissions or additions.
Can provide almost completely accurate simultaneous or consecutive interpretation of complex, formal
discourse, conveying the meaning of the speaker faithfully and reflecting the style, register and culturalcontext without omissions or additions.
C2Can, in informal situations, provide simultaneous or consecutive interpretation in clear, fluent, wellstructured language on a wide range of general and specialised topics, conveying style, register and finer
shades of meaning precisely.
Can provide simultaneous or consecutive interpretation, coping with unpredictable complications,conveying many nuances and cultural allusions on top of the main message, though expression may notalways reflect the appropriate conventions.

C1

Can provide consecutive interpretation fluently on a wide range of subjects of personal, academic andprofessional interest, passing on significant information clearly and concisely.
Can mediate during an interview, conveying complex information, drawing the attention of both sides tobackground information, and posing clarification and follow-up questions as necessary.
Can provide consecutive interpretation of a welcome address, anecdote or presentation in their field,
provided the speaker stops frequently to allow time for them to do so.

B2

Can provide consecutive interpretation on subjects of general interest and/or within their field, passing onimportant statements and viewpoints, provided the speaker stops frequently to allow them to do so, andgives clarifications if necessary.
Can, during an interview, interpret and convey detailed information reliably and provide supporting
information, although they may search for expressions and will sometimes need to ask for clarification ofcertain formulations.
Can, during an interview, interpret and convey straightforward factual information, provided they can
prepare beforehand and that the speakers articulate clearly in everyday language.

B1

Can interpret informally on subjects of personal or current interest, provided the speakers articulate
clearly in standard language and that they can ask for clarification and pause to plan how to express
things.

Page 259

Can interpret informally in everyday situations, conveying the essential information, provided the
speakers articulate clearly in standard language and that they can ask for repetition and clarification.
A2

Can interpret informally in predictable everyday situations, passing back and forth information about
personal wants and needs, provided the speakers help with formulation.
Can interpret simply in an interview, conveying straightforward information on familiar topics, provided
they can prepare beforehand and that the speakers articulate clearly.
Can indicate in a simple fashion that somebody else might be able to help in interpreting.

A1

Can communicate with simple words and gestures what basic needs a third party has in a particularsituation.

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Phonological control: sound recognition
C2

Can consciously incorporate relevant features of regional and sociolinguistic varieties of pronunciation
appropriately.

C1

Can recognise features of regional and sociolinguistic varieties of pronunciation and consciously
incorporate the most prominent in their speech.

B2

Can recognise common words when pronounced in a different regional variety from the one(s) they areaccustomed to.

B1

Can recognise when their comprehension difficulty is caused by a regional variety of pronunciation.

INDIVIDUAL DESCRIPTORS
Online conversation and discussion
C2

Can use with precision colloquialisms, humorous language, idiomatic abbreviations and/or specialised
register to enhance the impact of comments made in an online discussion.

C1

Can express their ideas and opinions with precision in an online discussion on a complex subject
or specialised topic related to their field, presenting and responding to complex lines of argument
convincingly.
Can critically evaluate online comments and express negative reactions diplomatically.

B2+

Can exploit different online environments to initiate and maintain relationships, using language fluently toshare experiences and develop the interaction by asking appropriate questions.

B2

Can develop an argument in an online discussion giving reasons for or against a particular point of view,though some contributions may appear repetitive.
Can express degrees of emotion in personal online postings, highlighting the personal significance of
events and experiences and responding flexibly to further comments.
Can repair possible misunderstandings in an online discussion with an appropriate response.

B1

Can initiate, maintain and close simple online conversations on topics that are familiar to them, thoughwith some pauses for real-time responses.

A2

Can post online how they are feeling or what they are doing, using formulaic expressions, and respond tofurther comments with simple thanks or apology.

PreA1

Can establish basic social contact online by using the simplest everyday polite forms of greetings andfarewells.

Page 260 3 CEFR –­Companion volumeGoal-oriented online transactions and collaboration
C1

Can deal effectively with communication problems and cultural issues that arise in online collaborative ortransactional exchanges, by adjusting their register appropriately.

A2+

Can exchange basic information with a supportive interlocutor online in order to address a problem or
simple shared task.

Establishing a positive atmosphere
B2

Can establish a supportive environment for sharing ideas and practice by providing clear explanations andencouraging people to explore and discuss the issue they are encountering, relating it to their experience.
Can use humour appropriate to the situation (e.g. an anecdote, a joking or light-hearted comment) in orderto create a positive atmosphere or to redirect attention.
Can create a positive atmosphere and encourage participation by giving both practical and emotional
support.

B1

Can create a positive atmosphere by the way they greet and welcome people and ask a series of questions
that demonstrate interest.

Processing text in speech or sign
C1

Can summarise clearly and fluently in well-structured language the significant ideas presented in complex
texts, whether or not they relate to their own fields of interest or specialisation.
Can summarise in clear, fluent, well-structured speech the information and arguments contained incomplex, spoken or written texts on a wide range of general and specialised topics.

B2+

Can clarify the implicit opinions and purposes of speakers, including attitudes.

B1+

Can summarise and comment on factual information within their field of interest.

Processing text in writing
B1

Can summarise in writing the main points made in straightforward informational texts regarding subjects
that are of personal or current interest.
Can summarise in writing the main points made in spoken or written informational texts regarding
subjects of personal interest, using simple formulations and the help of a dictionary to do so.

Visually representing information
B2

Can make abstract concepts accessible by visually representing them (in mind maps, tables, flow charts,etc.), facilitating understanding by highlighting and explaining the relationship between ideas.
Can represent information visually (with graphic organisers like mind maps, tables, flow charts, etc.) tomake both the key concepts and the relationship between them (e.g. problem–solution, compare-contrast)
more accessible.
Can, from a text, produce a graphic to present the main ideas in it (a mind map, pie chart, etc.) in order tohelp people understand the concepts involved.
Can make the key points of abstract concepts more accessible by representing information visually (inmind maps, tables, flow charts, etc.).
Can visually represent a concept or a process in order to make relations between information explicit (e.g.
in flow charts, tables showing cause–effect, problem–solution).

B1

Can communicate the essential points of a concept or the main steps in a straightforward procedure byusing a drawing or graphic organiser.
Can represent straightforward information clearly with a graphic organiser (e.g. a PowerPoint slide
contrasting before/after, advantages/disadvantages, problem/solution).
Can create a drawing or diagram to illustrate a simple text written in high frequency language.

Supplementary descriptors Page 261

Expressing a personal response to creative texts (including literature)
A2+

Can select simple passages they particularly like from a work of literature to use as quotes.

A2

Can explain in simple sentences how a work of literature made them feel.

Analysis and criticism of creative texts (including literature)
C2

Can analyse complex works of literature, identifying meanings, opinions and implicit attitudes.

C1

Can explain the effect of rhetorical/literary devices on the reader, e.g. the way in which the author changes
style in order to convey different moods.

Facilitating collaborative interaction
B2+

Can invite participation, introduce issues and manage contributions on matters within their academic or
professional competence.

B2+

Can keep a record of ideas and decisions in group work, discuss these with the group and structure areport back to a plenary.

B2

Can intervene to support collaborative problem solving initiated by another person.

Collaborating to construct meaning
B2+

Can synthesise the key points towards the end of a discussion.

Managing interaction
B2+

Can intervene to address problems in a group and to prevent the marginalisation of any participant.

B2

Can give clear instructions to organise pair and small group work and conclude them with summary
reports in a plenary.

Encouraging conceptual talkB2+

Can monitor performance non-intrusively and effectively, taking notes and later providing clear feedback.
Can monitor group work, drawing attention to the characteristics of good work and encouraging peer
evaluation.
Can monitor a small group discussion to ensure that ideas are not only exchanged but are used to build aline of argument or enquiry.

B2

Can present information and instruct people to use it independently to try and solve problems.

Facilitating pluricultural space
C1

Can recognise different communication conventions and their effect on discourse processes, adjust
the way they speak accordingly, and help to establish related “rules” to support effective interculturalcommunication.
Can interact flexibly and effectively in situations in which intercultural issues need to be acknowledged
and tasks need to be completed together, by exploiting their capacity to belong to the group(s) while
maintaining balance and distance.

Page 262 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

B2+

Can project themselves empathetically into another person’s perspective and ways of thinking and feelingso as to respond appropriately with both words and actions.

B2

Can establish a relationship with members of other cultures, showing interest and empathy throughquestioning, expressions of agreement and identification of emotional and practical needs.
Can encourage discussion without being dominant, expressing understanding and appreciation ofdifferent ideas, feelings and viewpoints, and inviting participants to contribute and react to each other’sideas.
Can help create a shared understanding based on their appreciation of the use of direct/indirect andexplicit/implicit communication.

Facilitating communication in delicate situations and disagreements
B2+

Can facilitate discussion of delicate situations or disagreements by outlining the essential issues that need
resolving.
Can formulate open-ended, neutral questions to obtain information about sensitive issues while
minimising embarrassment or offence.
Can use repetition and paraphrase to demonstrate detailed understanding of each party’s requirements foran agreement.
Can explain the background to a delicate situation or disagreement by repeating and summarisingstatements made.
Can clarify interests and objectives in a negotiation with open-ended questions that convey a neutral
atmosphere.
Can facilitate discussion of a disagreement by explaining the origins of the problem, reporting respectivelines of argument, outlining the essential issues that need resolving, and identifying points in common.
Can help the parties in disagreement to consider different possible solutions by weighing the advantages
and disadvantages of each solution.
Can evaluate the position of one party in a disagreement and invite them to reconsider an issue, relating
their argumentation to that party’s stated aim.

B2

Can summarise the essentials of what has been agreed.

Linking to previous knowledge
B2

Can raise people’s awareness of how something builds on their existing knowledge by providing andexplaining visual representations (e.g. diagram/chart, tables, flow charts).
Can explain clearly how something that will be introduced builds on what people probably already know.

Breaking down complicated information
C1

Can make a complex issue more comprehensible by building up the chain of steps or line of argument, andby recapitulating at key points.

Adapting language
C1

Can make information in a complex written text (e.g. a scientific article) more accessible by presenting thecontent in a different genre and register.

B2+

Can adapt articulation, sentence stress, intonation, speed and volume in order to structure content,
highlight important aspects and mark transitions from one topic to another.
Can make difficult concepts in a complex spoken or written text more comprehensible throughparaphrase.

B1+

Can use paraphrase to explain the content of a spoken or written text on a familiar topic in a simplified,more concrete form.

Supplementary descriptors Page 263

Amplifying a dense text
B2

Can support understanding of unfamiliar language in a text by providing additional examples that containsimilar language.

Streamlining a text
C1

Can rewrite a complex source text, reorganising it in order to focus on the points of most relevance to thetarget audience.

B2

Can distil the relevant information from different parts of the source text in order to guide the recipient tounderstanding the essential points.
Can distil information from different parts of the source text in order to make accessible contrasting
information and arguments contained in it.
Can eliminate repetition and digressions in a text in order to make the essential message accessible.

Building on pluricultural repertoire
C2

Can effectively employ, both in person and in writing, a wide variety of sophisticated communicative
strategies to command, argue, persuade, dissuade, negotiate, counsel and show empathy in a culturally
appropriate manner.

B2+

Can exploit their awareness of similarities and differences between cultures for successful interculturalcommunication in both personal and professional domains.

B2+

Can engage appropriately in communication, following the main verbal and non-verbal conventions andrituals appropriate to the context, coping with most difficulties that occur.

B2

Can recognise cultural stereotypes – favourable and discriminatory – and describe how they influence theirown or another’s behaviour.
Can analyse and explain the balance that they personally maintain in the adjustment process between
acculturation and preserving their own culture(s).
Can adapt their behaviour and verbal expression to new cultural environments, avoiding behaviours thatthey are aware may be viewed as impolite.
Can explain their interpretation of culturally specific opinions, practices, beliefs and values, pointing out
similarities and differences to their own and other cultures.

B2

Can comment on cultural differences, comparing them in depth with their own experience and traditions.
Can interact effectively in a situation in which intercultural issues need to be acknowledged in order tosolve a task co-operatively.
Can enquire about relevant cultural norms and practices while collaborating in an intercultural encounterand then apply the knowledge gained under the constraints of real-time interaction.

Plurilingual comprehension
A2

Can exploit easily identifiable vocabulary (e.g. international expressions, words with roots common todifferent languages – like “bank” or “music”) in order to form a hypothesis as to the meaning of a text.

Building on plurilingual repertoire
C2

Can borrow metaphors and other figures of speech from other languages in their plurilingual repertoire forrhetorical effect, elaborating, reformulating and explaining them as necessary.

C1

Can tell a joke from a different language, keeping the punch line in the original language, because the joke
depends on it and explaining the joke to those recipients who do not understand it.

Page 264 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

B2

Can follow a conversation happening around them in a language or languages in which they havereceptive competence, and express their contribution in a language that is understood by one or more of theinterlocutors.
Can support understanding and the development of ideas in multilingual group work in which participants
are using different languages in their plurilingual repertoire flexibly.
Can manage interaction in two or more languages in their plurilingual repertoire in order to keep a discussion
or a task moving, encouraging people to use their languages flexibly.
Can engage a multilingual group in an activity and encourage contributions in different languages by
narrating a story/incident in one language in their plurilingual repertoire and then explaining it in another.
Can exploit, and explain if necessary, an expression from another language in their plurilingual repertoire fora concept for which such a suitable expression seems not to exist in the language being used.

B1

Can use an apt word from another language that the interlocutor speaks, when they cannot think of anadequate expression in the language being spoken.

SIGN LANGUAGE COMPETENCES
Sign language repertoire
C2

Can describe a phenomenon, e.g. a UFO, in a creative, abstract manner.

C1

Can create original, artistic signing, going beyond known vocabulary.

B2+

Can describe different aspects of objects and events with precision.
Can explain precisely the consequences that a decision will have.

B2

Can sign indirect messages (indirect questions, requests, wishes and demands).
Can summarise a proposition (e.g. being put to a vote), formulating it more simply with the relevant
vocabulary.
Can express clearly and precisely what they want, despite any vocabulary limitations.
Can modify signs manually and non-manually.

B1+

Can use comparison to characterise people and objects.
Knows specific signing expressions connected with sign language culture.
Can discuss the advantages and disadvantages of an issue.

B1

Can imitate the behaviour of living beings (people, animals) using constructed action.
Can describe in simple sentences the places they visited (e.g. on a holiday).
Can circumscribe concepts with paraphrases, without knowing the proper signs for the concepts
concerned.

A2+

Can explain something comprehensibly.

A2

Can understand a simple signed text despite a limited vocabulary.
Can indicate animals with lexical signs.
Can correctly perform newly created signs, e.g. for persons or colours.

A1

Can understand commonplace expressions in a dialogue (e.g., greetings or thanks).
Can understand the lexical signs for months, days, numbers and times.
Can understand greetings in sign language.
Can understand lexicalised signs for animals.
Can follow simple instructions, explanations and statements of reasons.
Can employ simple mouthings appropriate to the context.

Supplementary descriptors Page 265

Diagrammatical accuracy
C1

Can indicate the movement of objects/living things (e.g. the gait of different animals).

B2+

Can express comparisons (the same as ..., different to ...).

B1+

Can form the plural with productive signs.

B1

Can use different ways of expressing negation.

A1

Can understand simple statements.

Sociolinguistic appropriateness and cultural repertoire

C1

Can assign a statement to a sociocultural register.
Can understand the designations for important laws, institutions and deaf organisations (e.g., WFDYS,EFSLI).

B2+

Can explain the local sociocultural habits and rules, e.g. the procedure followed in elections.
Can designate people who are important for deaf communities and sign language (regionally andinternationally).
Can make (indirect) reference to important dates, persons and institutions in their country.

B1+

Can discreetly refer to people who are present by, for example, using a smaller signing space or by holding
a hand in front of the index finger so that it is not apparent to whom the finger is pointing.
Can indicate the institutions, laws and regulations that are important for sign language in their country.

B1

Knows the names of relevant government departments and political parties in their country.
Knows the organisations that are most important for deaf people (e.g. national council for the deaf,
associations).
Knows the national sign language situation, e.g. for Switzerland: 3 sign languages; 5 dialects of SwissGerman Sign Language (DSGS).

Sign text structure
B2+

Can tell a story from beginning to end, without leaving out parts of it.
Can, when describing something, comply with canonical order in spatial placement (e.g. naming large
immoveable objects before small immoveable objects, and introducing moving objects after static
objects).

B2

Can produce a text with a clear line of development.
Can relate, for example, the plot of a film, a picture story, a narrative.
Can deliver sufficient important information in adequate measure and leave to one side elements that are
not important.
Can link given signs fluently into a short coherent text.
Can contrast and account for the opinions of others.

B1+

Can use personal experiences as examples in order to support an argument.

B1

Can, when describing a person, a character, or an animal, list visible characteristics in the correct order (e.g.
from head to toe).
Can answer key questions on a text clearly.

Page 266 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Setting and perspectives
Above
C2

Can employ a variety of different signing forms and techniques in an artistic way.

C1

Can associate events with particular feelings that the immediate environment induces (e.g. sunrise withthe feeling of happiness).

B2

Can persuade people, e.g. to register for an event.

B1+

Can establish the necessary conditions for a text (lighting, background, atmosphere of the room).

A2

Can convey emotions by non-manual means.

Language awareness and interpretation
C2

Can distinguish between and assess different types of justification, e.g., logical, moral, pragmatic.
Can recognise when the signer exaggerates individual aspects of a topic in order to achieve a particulareffect.
Can understand artistic representations of thoughts and feelings.

C1

Can pick up specific vocabulary on the subject through the context.
Can grasp the main ideas of a complex text, even if some gaps in understanding of particular details
remain.
Can judge whether a text has the necessary elements of tension to enable one to become immersed in
the action.
Can judge the stylistic sophistication of texts.
Can grasp and explain the content and intended emotional effect of a text.

B2+

Can distinguish facts from opinions.
Can explain why a text is gripping.

B2

Can identify a person or character by interpreting the personality traits or behaviour mimicked orindicated by the signer (e.g., that a timid person tends to look away, that an outgoing individual comes up
and says hello).
Can distinguish between a description of other people’s opinions and the personal opinion of the
producer of the text.
Can extract key information from a report and order it chronologically.

B1+

Can understand and state the interlocutor’s opinion on a subject.
Can form their own opinion about a text.

Processing speed
C2

Can quickly extract relevant details even from longer signed texts.

Supplementary descriptors Page 267

Appendix 9
SOURCES FOR NEW DESCRIPTORS
Abbe A., Gulick L. M. V. and Herman J. L. (2007), Cross-cultural competence in army leaders: a conceptual and empirical foundation,
United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Arlington, VA, available at www.dtic.mil/docs/
citations/ADA476072, accessed 9 September 2019.
Alberta Teachers of English as a Second Language (2005), Section 7. Intercultural Communicative Competence. ATESL Adult ESL
Curriculum Framework, Alberta Teachers of English as a Second Language, Figure 2, Adapted Intercultural Knowledge andSkills Strand of the Massachusetts Curriculum Framework, available at www.atesl.ca/resources/resource-library/, accessed
9 September 2019.
Alexander R. (2008), “Culture, dialogue and learning: an emerging pedagogy”, in Mercer N. and Hodgkinson S. (eds), Exploringtalk in schools, Sage, London, pp. 91-114.
ALTE Can Do Statements 2001, Appendix D in the CEFR 2001, available at www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-frameworkreference-languages, accessed 9 September 2019.
Association of American Colleges and Universities, Intercultural Knowledge and Competence Value Rubric, available at www.
aacu.org/value/rubrics/intercultural-knowledge, accessed 9 September 2019.
Barrett M. (2013), “Intercultural competence: a distinctive hallmark of interculturalism?”, in Barrett M. (ed.), Interculturalism
and multiculturalism: similarities and differences, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, pp. 147-68.
Barrett M. (2014), “Competences for democratic culture and intercultural dialogue (CDCID)”, 3rd meeting of the Ad hoc groupof experts, Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 16 and 17 June, Phase One of CDCID: Collation of Existing Competence Schemes,
CDCID 3/2014 – Doc.4.0.
Barrett M. et al. (2014), Developing intercultural competence through education, Pestalozzi Series No. 3, Council of Europe
Publishing, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/16808ce258, accessed 9 September 2019.
Beacco J.-C., Porquier R. and Bouquet S. (2004), Niveau B2 pour le français : Un référentiel, Didier, Paris.
Beacco J.-C. et al. (2006), Niveau A1.1 pour le français/référentiel DILF livre, Didier, Paris.
BULATS Summary of typical candidate abilities (global scale), available at www.englishtest.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/
Cambridge_English_BULATS_Sample_Certificate.pdf, accessed 9 September 2019.
Byram M. (1997), Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, Somerset.
Cambridge Assessment Scales for Speaking: see www.cambridgeenglish.org/exams-and-tests/cambridge-english-scale/,accessed 9 September 2019.
Cambridge Common Scale for Writing: Overall Writing Scales, available in, for example Cambridge English Business Certificates.
Handbook for teachers for exams from 2016, available at www.cambridgeenglish.org/images/business-english-certificateshandbook-for-teachers.pdf, accessed 9 September 2019.
Cambridge Overall Speaking Scales.
Cambridge Overall Writing Scales.
CARAP/FREPA, A Framework of Reference for Pluralistic Approaches to Languages and Cultures, available at http://carap.ecml.at,accessed 9 September 2019.
CEFR-J project for Japanese secondary school learners of English, 2011: for an update, see http://events.cambridgeenglish.
org/alte-2014/docs/presentations/alte2014-masashi-negishi.pdf, accessed 9 September 2019; see also Negishi, Takada andTono (2013).

Page 269

Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington DC: Descriptors from translation collected in 1992 and included in the bank ofdescriptors for the CEFR descriptor research, but never used.
Center für berufsbezogenen Sprachen, das Sprachen-Kompetenzzentrum der Sektion Berufsbildung des BMBF, Vienna.
CERCLES Portfolio descriptors, included in Lenz P. and Schneider G. (2004), “A bank of descriptors for self-assessment inEuropean Language”, available at www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/bank-ofsupplementary-descriptors, accessed 9 September 2019.
Common European Framework of Reference for Sign Languages: development of descriptors for Swiss-German Sign
Language. Swiss National Science Foundation research project. ZHAW: Zurich University of Applied Sciences, School ofApplied Linguistics, Institute of Language Competence.
Corcoll López C. and González-Davies M. (2016), “Switching codes in the plurilingual classroom”, ELT Journal No. 70, 1 January
2016, pp. 67-77.
Council of Europe, Autobiography of intercultural encounters, available at www.coe.int/lang-autobiography, accessed 9
September 2019.
Creese A. and Blackledge A. (2010), “Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: a pedagogy for learning and teaching?”,
Modern Language Journal Vol. 94, No. I, pp. 103-15.
Dunbar S. (1992), “Integrating language and content: a case study”, TESL Canada Journal Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 62-70.
Eaquals (2008), Eaquals can do SIP: Eaquals/ALTE Portfolio Descriptor revision, available at www.coe.int/en/web/commoneuropean-framework-reference-languages/bank-of-supplementary-descriptors, accessed 9 September 2019.
ELTDU (1976), “Stages of attainment scale”, English Language Development Unit, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Eurocentres adaptation of ELTDU scale: see www.eurocentres.com, accessed 9 September 2019.
European Language Portfolio Serial No. 1 (Prototype based closely on CEFR/Swiss project descriptors), see: www.coe.int/en/
web/portfolio, accessed 9 September 2019.
European Profiling Grid, EPG Project, available at www.epg-project.eu, accessed 9 September 2019.
Fantini A. and Tirmizi A. (2006), “Exploring and assessing intercultural competence”, World Learning Publications, Paper 1,
http://digitalcollections.sit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=worldlearning_publications, accessed 17 July 2018.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington DC, Descriptors from translation collected in 1992 and included in the bank ofdescriptors for the CEFR descriptor research, but never used.
Frau-Meigs D. (2007), “General Rapporteur’s report on the workshop on ‘Media literacy and human rights: education forsustainable democratic societies’”, Graz, Austria, 5 to 7 December 2007.
GCSE: UK General Certificate of Secondary Education, assessment criteria for English.
Glaboniat M. et al. (2005), Profile deutsch A1 – C2. Lernzielbestimmungen, Kannbeschreibungen, Kommunikative Mittel,
Langenscheidt, Munich.
Gollob R., Krapf P. and Weidinger W. (eds) (2010), Educating for democracy: background materials on democratic citizenship andhuman rights education for teachers, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/16802f727b,
accessed 9 September 2019.
Green A. (2012a), Language functions revisited: theoretical and empirical bases for language construct definition across the ability
range, English Profile Studies, Volume 2, UCLES/Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Green A. (2012b), “Performance conditions added to descriptors”, appendix to Language functions revisited: theoretical andempirical bases for language construct definition across the ability range. English Profile Studies, Volume 2, UCLES/Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Grindal K. (1997), EDC: Basic Concepts and Core Competences: The approach in Norway, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg.
GSE (Global Scale of English: Pearson), available at www.pearson.com/english/about/gse/learning-objectives.html, accessed
9 September 2019.
Hardman F. (2008), “Teachers’ use of feedback in whole-class and group-based talk”, in Mercer N. and Hodgkinson S. (eds),
Exploring talk in schools, Sage, London, pp. 131-50.
HarmoS: EDK (Schweizerischer Konferenz der Kantonalen Erziehungsdirektoren) (2008), Projekt Bildungsstandards HarmoS:
Vorschläge für Basisstandards Fremdsprachen, available at www.edk.ch/dyn/11659.php, accessed 9 September 2019.

Page 270 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Himmelmann G. (2003), Zukunft, Fachidentität und Standards der politischen Bildung, Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, TU
Braunschweig, Braunschweig [unpublished, summarised in Byram, 2008, From foreign language education to education forintercultural citizenship, Multilingual Matters, Toronto].
Hodel H., Pädagogischer Hochschule Luzern: Descriptors for Literature 2007. Descriptors for Literature 2013 (Personalcommunication: work in progress in HarmoS-related national project on objectives for school years).
Huber J., Mompoint-Gaillard P. and Lázár I. (eds) (2014), TASKs for democracy: developing competences for sustainable democraticsocieties, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg.
INCA Project (2004), Intercultural Competence Assessment, INCA Assessor Manual, available at ec.europa.eu/migrant-integration/librarydoc/the-inca-project-intercultural-competence-assessment, accessed 9 September 2019.
Interagency Language Roundtable, Scale of Proficiency, available at www.govtilr.org, accessed 9 September 2019.
Jørgensen J. N. et al. (2011), “Polylanguaging in superdiversity”, Diversities Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 22-37, available at www.unesco.
org/shs/diversities/vol13/issue2/art2, accessed 9 September 2019.
Karwacka-Vögele K. (2012), “Towards indicators for intercultural understanding”, in Huber J. (ed.), Intercultural competence forall: preparation for living in a heterogeneous world, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, pp. 51-60.
King J. and Chetty R. (2014), “Codeswitching: linguistic and literacy understanding of teaching dilemmas in multilingualclassrooms”, Linguistics and Education Vol. 25, pp. 40-50.
Koch L. [co-author of Swiss ELP 2000 (CH-2000)], Proposed additional descriptors for reading in a secondary school context(unpublished).
Lázár I. et al. (eds), Developing and assessing intercultural communicative competence. A guide for language teachers andteacher educators, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg/Graz, available at http://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/publications/
B1_ICCinTE_E_internet.pdf, accessed 9 September 2019.
Lenz P. and Berthele R. (2010), “Assessment in plurilingual and intercultural education”, Satellite Study No. 2 accompanying
Beacco J.-C. et al. (2016a), Guide for the development and implementation of curricula for plurilingual and intercultural education,
Language Policy Unit, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/16805a1e55, accessed 9 September 2019.59
Lewis G., Jones B. and Baker C. (2012), “Translanguaging: developing its conceptualisation and contextualisation”, Educational
Research and Evaluation Vol. 18, No. 7, pp. 655-70.
LICI Project, Handbook: language in content instruction, available at www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/17817415/
language-in-content-instruction-lici-project, accessed 9 September 2019.
Lingualevel/IEF (Swiss) project for 13-15 year olds, 2009, available at www.lingualevel.ch, accessed 9 September 2019.
Lüdi G. (2014), “Dynamics and management of linguistic diversity in companies and institutes of higher education: resultsfrom the DYLAN project”, in Gromes P. and Hu A. (eds), Plurilingual Education: policies – practices – language development,
Studies on Linguistic Diversity 3, John Benjamins, Hamburg, pp. 113-18.
Mercer N. and Dawes L. (2008), “The value of exploratory talk”, in Mercer N. and Hodgkinson S. (eds), Exploring talk in schools,
Sage, London, pp. 55-72.
MIRIADI Project, Skills reference data on multilingual communication in intercomprehension, available at www.miriadi.net/
en/printpdf/book/export/html/746, accessed 9 September 2019.
National Institute for Dispute Resolution (1995), “Performance-based assessment: a methodology, for use in selecting,training and evaluating mediators”, Washington DC, available at www.convenor.com/uploads/2/3/4/8/23485882/method.
pdf, accessed 9 September 2019.
Negishi M., Takada T. and Tono Y. (2013), “A progress report on the development of the CEFR-J”, in Galaczi E. D. and Weir C.
J. (2013) (eds), Exploring Language Frameworks: proceedings of the ALTE Kraków Conference, July 2011, Studies in Language
Testing Series No. 36, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 135-63.
Neuner G. (2012), “The dimensions of intercultural education”, in Huber J. (ed.), Intercultural competence for all: preparation
for living in a heterogeneous world, Pestalozzi Series No. 2, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, pp. 11-49, available athttps://rm.coe.int/16808ce20c, accessed 9 September 2019.

59. The document was prepared for the Policy Forum “The right of learners to quality and equity in education – The role of linguistic andintercultural competence”, which took place in Geneva, Switzerland from 2 to 4 November 2010.

Sources for new descriptors Page 271

Newby D. et al. (2006), “European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages”, EPOSTL, European Centre for Modern
Languages, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, available at www.ecml.at/tabid/277/PublicationID/16/Default.aspx,
accessed 9 September 2019.
North-South Centre of the Council of Europe (2012), “Global education guidelines. A handbook for educators to understandand implement global education”, North-South Centre of the Council of Europe, Lisbon, available at https://rm.coe.
int/168070eb85, accessed 9 September 2019.
Oatley K. (1994), “A taxonomy of the emotions of literary response and a theory of identification in fictional narrative”, Poetics
Vol. 23, pp. 53-74.
OECD (2005), “The definition and selection of key competencies. Executive summary”, Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development/DeSeCo, Paris, available at www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367.pdf, accessed 9 September 2019.
Pierce K. M. and Gilles C. (2008), “From exploratory talk to critical conversations”, in Mercer N. and Hodgkinson S. (eds), Exploringtalk in schools, Sage, London, pp. 37-54.
Purves A. C. (1971), “The evaluation of learning in literature”, in Bloom B. S., Hastings J. T. and G. F Madaus (eds), Handbook offormative and summative evaluation of student learning, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 699-766.
Research Centre for Language Teaching, Testing and Assessment, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Mediation
descriptors related to the mediation tasks in the Greek KPG examinations.
Schneider G., North B. and Koch L. (2000), A European Language Portfolio, Berner Lehrmittel und Medienverlag, Berne.
Takala S. (unpublished), AMMKIA: Finnish Project.
Thompson S., Hillman K. and De Bortoli L. (2013), A Teacher’s Guide to PISA Reading Literacy, ACER, Melbourne, available atwww.acer.org/files/PISA_Thematic_Report_-_Reading_-_web.pdf, accessed 9 September 2019.
Trim J. L. M, “C1 Level Can Do Specifications for Profile Deutsch”, Appendix A, in Green A. (2012), Language functions revisited:theoretical and empirical bases for language construct definition across the ability range, English Profile Studies, Volume 2,
UCLES/Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Tuning Educational Structures in Europe (n.d.-a), Approaches to teaching, learning and assessment in competences based degree
programmes, available at http://tuningacademy.org/?lang=en, accessed 9 September 2019.
Tuning Educational Structures in Europe (n.d.-b), Generic competences, available at http://tuningacademy.org/?lang=en,
accessed 9 September 2019.
Tuning Educational Structures in Europe (n.d.-c), Education – Specific competences, available at http://tuningacademy.
org/?lang=en, accessed 9 September 2019.
Vacca J. S. (2008), “Using scaffolding techniques to teach a social studies lesson about Buddha to sixth graders”, Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy Vol. 51, No. 8, pp. 652-8.
Vollmer H. and Thürmann E. (2016), “Language sensitive teaching of so-called non-language subjects: a checklist”, in Beacco
J.-C. et al. (eds), A handbook for curriculum development and teacher training – The language dimension in all subjects, Councilof Europe Publishing, Strasbourg.60
Walqui A. (2006), “Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: a conceptual framework”, International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 159-80.
Webb N. (2009), “The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom”, British Journal of Educational
Psychology Vol. 78, No. 1, pp. 1-28.
Zwiers J. (2008), Building academic language, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

60. . An extended version of this checklist has been published in German: Thürmann, Eike and Vollmer, Helmut Johannes (2012),“Schulsprache und Sprachsensibler Fachunterricht: Eine Checkliste mit Erläuterungen”, in Röhner C. and Hövelbrinks B. (eds),
Fachbezogene Sprachförderung in Deutsch als Zweitsprache, Juventa, Weinheim, pp. 212-33.

Page 272 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Appendix 10
ONLINE RESOURCES
ALTE (2011), “Manual for language test development and examining – For use with the CEFR”, Language Policy
Division, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/1680667a2b, accessed 9 September 2019.
Bank of supplementary descriptors, available at www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/
bank-of-supplementary-descriptors, accessed 9 September 2019.
Barrett M. et al. (2016), Competences for democratic culture: living together as equals in culturally diverse democratic societies,
Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/16806ccc07, accessed 10 December 2019.
Beacco J.-C. et al. (2016a), Guide for the development and implementation of curricula for plurilingual and intercultural education,Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/16806ae621, accessed 9 September 2019.
Beacco J.-C. et al. (2016b), A Handbook for Curriculum Development and Teacher Training: the language dimension in all subjects,
Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/16806af387, accessed 9 September 2019.
Beacco J.-C. and Byram M. (2007), From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual Education: guide for the development of language
education policies in Europe, Language Policy Division, Council of Europe, available at https://rm.coe.int/16802fc1c4, accessed
9 September 2019.
CEFR QualiMatrix, A quality assurance matrix for CEFR use, available atwww.ecml.at/CEFRqualitymatrix, accessed 9 September 2019.
CEFTrain (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages in Teacher Training): www.helsinki.fi/project/ceftrain/index.php.35.html, accessed 9 September 2019.
Competences for Democratic Culture: available at www.coe.int/competences, accessed 9 September 2019.
Coste D. and Cavalli M. (2015) Education, Mobility, Otherness – the mediation functions of schools, Language Policy Unit, Councilof Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/16807367ee, accessed 9 September 2019.
Committee of Ministers, Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)7 on the use of the Council of Europe’s Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and the promotion of plurilingualism, available at https://search.coe.int/cm/
Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=09000016805d2fb1, accessed 9 September 2019.
Committee of Ministers, recommendations on language and language learning: available at www.coe.int/en/web/commoneuropean-framework-reference-languages/recommendations, accessed 9 September 2019.
Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, available at https://rm.coe.int/1680459f97, accessed 9 September 2019.
Council of Europe (2009a), Relating Language Examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR) – a manual, Language Policy Division, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available
at https://rm.coe.int/1680667a2d, accessed 9 September 2019.
Council of Europe (2009b), Autobiography of Intercultural Encounters, available at www.coe.int/t/dg4/autobiography/
default_en.asp, accessed 9 September 2019.
Council of Europe (2018), Reference framework of competences for democratic culture, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg,
available at https://go.coe.int/mWYUH, accessed 17 April 2020.
Council of Europe, Official texts and guidelines relating to linguistic integration of adult migrants: available at www.coe.int/
en/web/lang-migrants/officials-texts-and-guidelines, accessed 9 September 2019.

Page 273

Eaquals “Practical resources for language teaching”, available at www.eaquals.org/our-expertise/cefr/our-work-practicalresources-for-language-teaching/, accessed 9 September 2019.
European Centre for Modern Languages of the Council of Europe: see www.ecml.at, accessed 9 September 2019.
European Centre for Modern Languages thematic pages for the CEFR and the ELP: see www.ecml.at/Thematicareas/
CEFRandELP/tabid/1935/language/en-GB/Default.aspx, accessed 9 September 2019.
Europass: see http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/, accessed 9 September 2019.
European Language Portfolio (ELP): www.coe.int/en/web/portfolio, accessed 9 September 2019.
FREPA/CARAP, A Framework of Reference for Pluralistic Approaches to Languages and Cultures, available at http://carap.ecml.
at/Accueil/tabid/3577/language/en-GB/Default.aspx, accessed 9 September 2019.
Goodier T. (ed.) (2018), Collated Representative Samples of Descriptors of Language Competences Developed for Young
Learners – resource for educators, Volume 1: Ages 7-10, Education Policy Division, Council of Europe, available at https://rm.coe.
int/16808b1688, accessed 9 September 2019.
Goodier T. (ed.) (2018), Collated Representative Samples of Descriptors of Language Competences Developed for Young Learners– resource for educators, Volume 2: Ages 11-15, Education Policy Division, Council of Europe, available at https://rm.coe.
int/16808b1689, accessed 9 September 2019.
Goullier F. (2007), Council of Europe Tools for Language Teaching – Common European framework and portfolios, Didier/Councilof Europe, Paris/Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/168069ce6e, accessed 9 September 2019.
Guidelines for intercultural dialogue in non-formal learning/education, available at https://pjp-eu.coe.int/en/web/youthpartnership/icd-guidelines, accessed 9 September 2019.
LINCDIRE: LINguistic & Cultural DIversity REinvented, available at www.lincdireproject.org, accessed 10 September 2019.
MIRIADI Project Plan: available at www.miriadi.net/en/miriadi-plan, accessed 9 September 2019.
Noijons J., Bérešová J., Breton G. et al. (2011), Relating Language Examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference
for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR) – Highlights from the Manual, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg,
available at: www.ecml.at/tabid/277/PublicationID/67/Default.aspx, accessed 9 September 2019.
North B. and Piccardo E. (2016), “Developing illustrative descriptors of aspects of mediation for the CEFR”, Education Policy
Division, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/168073ff31, accessed 9 September 2019.
PETRA-E Network: available at https://petra-education.eu/, accessed 9 September 2019.
Piccardo E. et al. (2011), Pathways through Assessing, Learning and Teaching in the CEFR, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg,
available at http://ecep.ecml.at/Portals/26/training-kit/files/2011_08_29_ECEP_EN.pdf, accessed 9 September 2019.
Piccardo E. (2014), “From communicative to action-oriented: a research pathway”, Curriculum Services Canada, available athttps://transformingfsl.ca/en/resources/?pagenum=2, accessed 9 September 2019.
Piccardo E. (2016), “Phonological Scale Revision Process Report”, Education Policy Division, Council of Europe, available athttps://rm.coe.int/168073fff9, accessed 9 September 2019.
Platform of resources and references for plurilingual and intercultural education: available at www.coe.int/lang-platform,
accessed 9 September 2019.
PRO-Sign Project: Sign languages and the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages – Descriptors
and approaches to assessment, available at www.ecml.at/ECML-Programme/Programme2012-2015/ProSign/PRO-Signreferencelevels/tabid/1844/Default.aspx.
Reference Level Descriptions (RLDs): available at www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/
reference-level-descriptions, accessed 9 September 2019.
Relating language curricula, tests and examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference (RELANG): available
at https://relang.ecml.at/, accessed 9 September 2019.
Techno-CLIL 2017, moderators: Letizia Cinganotto and Daniela Cuccurullo, available at https://moodle4teachers.org/enrol/
index.php?id=90, accessed 9 September 2019.
Trim J. (ed.) (2001), “Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment –A Guide
for Users”, Language Policy Division, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/1680697848, accessed 9
September 2019.

Page 274 3 CEFR –­Companion volume

Sales agents for publications of the Council of Europe
Agents de vente des publications du Conseil de l’Europe
BELGIUM/BELGIQUE
La Librairie Européenne The European Bookshop
Rue de l’Orme, 1
BE-1040 BRUXELLES
Tel.: + 32 (0)2 231 04 35
Fax: + 32 (0)2 735 08 60
E-mail: info@libeurop.eu
http://www.libeurop.be
Jean De Lannoy/DL Services
c/o Michot Warehouses
Bergense steenweg 77
Chaussée de Mons
BE-1600 SINT PIETERS LEEUW
Fax: + 32 (0)2 706 52 27
E-mail: jean.de.lannoy@dl-servi.com
http://www.jean-de-lannoy.be
CANADA
Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd.
22-1010 Polytek Street
CDN-OTTAWA, ONT K1J 9J1
Tel.: + 1 613 745 2665
Fax: + 1 613 745 7660
Toll-Free Tel.: (866) 767-6766
E-mail: order.dept@renoufbooks.com
http://www.renoufbooks.com
CROATIA/CROATIE
Robert’s Plus d.o.o.
Marasoviçeva 67
HR-21000 SPLIT
Tel.: + 385 21 315 800, 801, 802, 803
Fax: + 385 21 315 804
E-mail: robertsplus@robertsplus.hr

FINLAND/FINLANDE
Akateeminen Kirjakauppa
PO Box 128
Keskuskatu 1
FI-00100 HELSINKI
Tel.: + 358 (0)9 121 4430
Fax: + 358 (0)9 121 4242
E-mail: akatilaus@akateeminen.com
http://www.akateeminen.com

RUSSIAN FEDERATION/FÉDÉRATION DE RUSSIE
Ves Mir
17b, Butlerova ul. - Office 338
RU-117342 MOSCOW
Tel.: + 7 495 739 0971
Fax: + 7 495 739 0971
E-mail: orders@vesmirbooks.ru
http://www.vesmirbooks.ru

FRANCE
Please contact directly /Merci de contacter directement
Council of Europe Publishing
Éditions du Conseil de l’Europe
F-67075 STRASBOURG Cedex
Tel.: + 33 (0)3 88 41 25 81
Fax: + 33 (0)3 88 41 39 10
E-mail: publishing@coe.int
http://book.coe.int

SWITZERLAND/SUISSE
Planetis Sàrl
16, chemin des Pins
CH-1273 ARZIER
Tel.: + 41 22 366 51 77
Fax: + 41 22 366 51 78
E-mail: info@planetis.ch

Librairie Kléber
1, rue des Francs-Bourgeois
F-67000 STRASBOURG
Tel.: + 33 (0)3 88 15 78 88
Fax: + 33 (0)3 88 15 78 80
E-mail: librairie-kleber@coe.int
http://www.librairie-kleber.com
NORWAY/NORVÈGE
Akademika
Postboks 84 Blindern
NO-0314 OSLO
Tel.: + 47 2 218 8100
Fax: + 47 2 218 8103
E-mail: support@akademika.no
http://www.akademika.no

CZECH REPUBLIC/RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
Suweco CZ, s.r.o.
Klecakova 347
CZ-180 21 PRAHA 9
Tel.: + 420 2 424 59 204
Fax: + 420 2 848 21 646
E-mail: import@suweco.cz
http://www.suweco.cz

POLAND/POLOGNE
Ars Polona JSC
25 Obroncow Street
PL-03-933 WARSZAWA
Tel.: + 48 (0)22 509 86 00
Fax: + 48 (0)22 509 86 10
E-mail: arspolona@arspolona.com.pl
http://www.arspolona.com.pl

DENMARK/DANEMARK
GAD
Vimmelskaftet 32
DK-1161 KØBENHAVN K
Tel.: + 45 77 66 60 00
Fax: + 45 77 66 60 01
E-mail: reception@gad.dk
http://www.gad.dk

PORTUGAL
Marka Lda
Rua dos Correeiros 61-3
PT-1100-162 LISBOA
Tel: 351 21 3224040
Fax: 351 21 3224044
E mail: apoio.clientes@marka.pt
www.marka.pt

TAIWAN
Tycoon Information Inc.
5th Floor, No. 500, Chang-Chun Road
Taipei, Taiwan
Tel.: 886-2-8712 8886
Fax: 886-2-8712 4747, 8712 4777
E-mail: info@tycoon-info.com.tw
orders@tycoon-info.com.tw
UNITED KINGDOM/ROYAUME-UNIThe Stationery Office Ltd
PO Box 29
GB-NORWICH NR3 1GN
Tel.: + 44 (0)870 600 5522
Fax: + 44 (0)870 600 5533
E-mail: book.enquiries@tso.co.uk
http://www.tsoshop.co.uk
UNITED STATES and CANADA/ÉTATS-UNIS et CANADA
Manhattan Publishing Co
670 White Plains Road
USA-10583 SCARSDALE, NY
Tel: + 1 914 472 4650
Fax: + 1 914 472 4316
E-mail: coe@manhattanpublishing.com
http://www.manhattanpublishing.com

Council of Europe Publishing/Éditions du Conseil de l’Europe
F-67075 STRASBOURG Cedex
Tel.: + 33 (0)3 88 41 25 81 – Fax: + 33 (0)3 88 41 39 10 – E-mail: publishing@coe.int – Website: http://book.coe.int

This volume contains:► an explanation of the key aspects of the CEFR for teaching and learning;► a complete set of updated CEFR descriptors that replaces the 2001 set with:- modality-inclusive and gender-neutral descriptors;- added detail on listening and reading;- a new Pre–A1 level, plus enriched description at A1 and C levels;- a replacement scale for phonological competence;- new scales for mediation, online interaction and plurilingual/pluricultural competence;- new scales for sign language competence;► a short report on the four-year development, validation and consultation
processes.
The CEFR Companion volume represents another step in a process of engagement with language education that has been pursued by the Council of Europe
since 1971 and which seeks to:► promote and support the learning and teaching of modern languages;► enhance intercultural dialogue, and thus mutual understanding, social

cohesion and democracy;

EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRACY

www.coe.int/lang-cefr
The Council of Europe is the continent’s leading
human rights organisation. It comprises 47 member
states, including all members of the European Union.
All Council of Europe member states have signed
up to the European Convention on Human Rights,
a treaty designed to protect human rights, democracy
and the rule of law. The European Court of Human Rights
oversees the implementation of the Convention in
the member states.

http://book.coe.int
ISBN 978-92-871-8621-8€35/US$70
9 789287

186218PREMS 058220► protect linguistic and cultural diversity in Europe; and► promote the right to quality education for all.

COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK OF REFERENCE FOR LANGUAGES: LEARNING, TEACHING, ASSESSMENT

The CEFR Companion volume broadens the scope of language education. It reflects academic and societal developments since the publication of the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and updates the 2001
version. It owes much to the contributions of members of the language teachingprofession across Europe and beyond.

COMMON EUROPEAN
FRAMEWORKOF REFERENCE
FOR LANGUAGES:LEARNING, TEACHING,
ASSESSMENT

ENG

Companion volume