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

COMPANION VOLUMEWITH NEW DESCRIPTORSCOMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORKOF REFERENCE FOR LANGUAGES:LEARNING, TEACHING, ASSESSMENT

COMPANION VOLUMEWITH NEW DESCRIPTORS

www.coe.int/lang-cefr

Language Policy Programme
Education Policy Division
Education Department
Council of Europe

French edition:
Cadre européen commun deréférence pour les langues :apprendre, enseigner, évaluer.
Volume complémentaire avec denouveaux descripteurs
All rights reserved. No part of thispublication may be translated,
reproduced, or transmitted, in any
form or by any means, electronic(internet, etc.) or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording or
any information storage or retrieval
system, without prior permission inwriting from the Directorate ofCommunications(F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex
or publishing@coe.int).
© Council of Europe, February 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES

10LIST OF TABLES

10PREFACE WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

11

FOREWORD

21

INTRODUCTION TO THE CEFR COMPANION VOLUME23

KEY ASPECTS OF THE CEFR FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING

25

The aims of the CEFR

25

Implementing the action-oriented approach

27

Plurilingual and pluricultural competence

28

The CEFR descriptive scheme

29

Mediation

33

The CEFR common reference levels

34

CEFR profiles

36

The CEFR illustrative descriptors

40

Using the CEFR illustrative descriptors

43

Some useful resources for CEFR implementation

45

THE PROJECT TO UPDATE AND EXTEND THE CEFR ILLUSTRATIVE DESCRIPTORS

47

The stages of the project47

Updating 2001 Scales

47

New scales

47

Pre-A1

48

Mediation

49

Phonology

49

Development methodology

49

Sign language

51

Young learners

51

Summary of changes

52

Issues and responses

53

Relationship of mediation scales to existing CEFR scales

54

Cross-linguistic mediation

54►Page 5

General and communicative language competences

55

General and communicative language competences in building on pluricultural repertoire

55

Plurilingual comprehension and level

55

Sign language users and descriptors

55

THE CEFR ILLUSTRATIVE DESCRIPTOR SCALES

56

Communicative language activities and strategies (CEFR Section 4.4)
Reception

56

Reception activities
Listening comprehension

57
57

Understanding conversation between other speakers

58

Listening as a member of a live-audience

59

Listening to announcements and instructions

60

Listening to audio media and recordings

61

Reading comprehension

62

Reading correspondence

63

Reading for orientation

64

Reading for information / argument

65

Reading instructions

66

Reading as a leisure activity

67

Audio-visual Reception

68

Watching TV and film

68

Reception Strategies
Production

69
70

Production activities
Spoken Production

Page 6 ►

56

71
72

Sustained monologue: Describing experience72

Sustained monologue: Giving information73

Sustained monologue: Putting a case (e.g. in debate)

74

Public announcements

75

Addressing audiences

76

Written Production

77

Creative writing

78

Written reports and essays

79

Production Strategies

80

Planning

80

Compensating

81

Monitoring and repair

82

Interaction

83

Interaction activities
Spoken Interaction85
85

Understanding an interlocutor

86

Conversation

86

Informal discussion (with friends)

88

Formal discussion (meetings)

89

Goal-oriented co-operation90

Obtaining goods and services

91

Information exchange

92Interviewing and being interviewed

93

Using telecommunications

94

Written Interaction

95

Correspondence

96

Notes, messages and forms

97

Online Interaction

98

Online conversation and discussion

98

Goal-oriented online transactions and collaboration

100

Interaction Strategies

102

Taking the floor (Turntaking)102

Cooperating

103

Asking for clarification

104

Mediation

105

Mediation activities

108

Mediating a text

109

Relaying specific information

109

Explaining data

111

Processing text

112

Translating a written text in speech

115

Translating a written text in writing

115

Note-taking (lectures, seminars, meetings etc.)

117

Expressing a personal response to creative texts (including literature)

118►Page 7

Analysis and criticism of creative texts (including literature)
Mediating concepts

119

Facilitating collaborative interaction with peers

120

Collaborating to construct meaning

120

Managing interaction

122

Encouraging conceptual talk

122

Mediating communication

124

Facilitating pluricultural space

124

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

126

Facilitating communication in delicate situations and disagreements

127

Mediation strategies

128

Strategies to explain a new concept

128

Linking to previous knowledge

128

Adapting language

128

Breaking down complicated information

129

Strategies to simplify a text

129

Amplifying a dense text

129

Streamlining a text

129

Communicative language competences
Linguistic

132
133

General linguistic range

133

Vocabulary range

134

Grammatical accuracy

135

Vocabulary control

136

Phonological control

136

Overall phonological control

137

Sound articulation

137

Prosodic features

137

Orthographic control
Sociolinguistic
Sociolinguistic appropriateness
Pragmatic

Page 8 ►

119

139
139
139
140

Flexibility

141

Turntaking

142

Thematic development

143

Coherence and cohesion

144

Propositional precision

145

Spoken fluency

146

Signing competences

147

Linguistic148

Sign language repertoire

148

Diagrammatical accuracy

150

Pragmatic

152

Sign text structure

152

Setting and perspectives

154

Presence and effect155

Signing fluency

156

Sociolinguistic
Sociolinguistic repertoire and cultural repertoire

157
157

Plurilingual and pluricultural competence

159

Building on pluricultural repertoire

160

Plurilingual comprehension

162

Building on plurilingual repertoire

163

APPENDICES

165

Appendix 1 – Salient features of spoken language at the CEFR levels (CEFR 3.6)

165

Appendix 2 – CEFR Table 2: Self-assessment grid (with online interaction and mediation)

169

Appendix 3 – CEFR Table 3: Qualitative features of spoken language (expanded with phonology)
173
Appendix 4 – Manual Table C4: Written assessment grid

175

Appendix 5 – Development and validation of the extended illustrative descriptors

177

Appendix 6 – Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction andmediation activities

187

Appendix 7 – List of changes to specific 2001 Descriptors

225

Appendix 8 – Sources for new descriptors

226

Appendix 9 – Supplementary descriptors

230►Page 9

List of Figures
Figure 1 – The structure of the CEFR descriptive scheme.

30

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

32

Figure 3 – CEFR Common Reference Levels

34

Figure 4 – A rainbow

34

Figure 5 – The conventional six colours

34

Figure 6 – A fictional profile of needs in an additional language – lower secondary CLIL (Content and Language
Integrated Learning)
37
Figure 7 – A profile of needs in an additional language – postgraduate natural sciences (Fictional)

38

Figure 8 – A plurilingual proficiency profile with fewer categories

39

Figure 9 – A proficiency profile – overall proficiency in one language

39

Figure 10 – A plurilingual proficiency profile – listening across languages

40

Figure 11 – Multimethod developmental research design

50

Figure 12 – Development design of Young Learner Project52

Figure 13 – Data Collection design used for each of the three validation phases (this precise distribution is Phase
2: Assigning to levels)
182
Figure 14 – The phases of the sign language project

185

List of Tables
Table 1 – Macro-functional basis of CEFR categories for communicative language activities

31

Table 2 – Communicative language strategies in the CEFR

33

Table 3 – The different purposes of descriptors (after CEFR Figure 6)

44

Table 4 – The CEFR descriptive scheme, the 2001 illustrative descriptors, the updates and additions

48

Table 5 – Summary of changes resulting from the project

52

Page 10 ►Preface with acknowledgements
This companion volume to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,teaching, assessment (CEFR) represents another step in a process that has been pursued by theCouncil of Europe since 1971 and owes much to the contributions of members of the language
teaching profession across Europe and beyond.
This Companion Volume was authored by Brian North and Tim Goodier (Eurocentres Foundation) and
Enrica Piccardo (University of Toronto / Université Grenoble-Alpes).
Publication has been assisted by a project follow-up advisory group consisting of: Marisa Cavalli,
Mirjam Egli Cuenat, Neus Figueras, Francis Goullier, David Little, Günther Schneider and Joseph
Sheils.
In order to ensure complete coherence and continuity with the existing CEFR scales, the Council ofEurope asked the Eurocentres Foundation to take once again the responsibility for co-ordinating thedevelopment of the descriptors published in this Volume, with Brian North co-ordinating the work. The
Education Policy Division (Language Policy Programme) wishes to express 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 four stages:
Stage 1:

Filling gaps on the original illustrative descriptor scales with materials then available (20142015)
Authoring Group : Eurocentres Foundation: Brian North, Tunde Szabo, Tim Goodier
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

The Council of Europe wishes to thank the following institutions and projects for kindly making theirvalidated descriptors available:
ALTE

Can do statements

AMMKIA project (Finland)

Descriptors for grammar and vocabulary

Cambridge English Language Assessment

BULATS Summary of Typical Candidate Abilities
Common Scales for Speaking and for Writing
Assessment Scales for Speaking and for Writing

CEFR-J project

Descriptors for secondary school learners

Eaquals

Eaquals bank of CEFR-related descriptors

English Profile

Descriptors for the C level

Lingualevel / IEF (Swiss) project

Descriptors for secondary school learners

Pearson Education

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 thelate John Trim’s translation of descriptors for the C levels in Profile Deutsch.

Preface with acknowledgements ►Page 11

Stage 2:

Developing descriptor scales for areas missing in the original set, in particular for mediation(2014-2016)
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: Marisa Cavalli, Daniel Coste, Mirjam Egli, 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(at meetings in June 2014, 2015 and/or June 2016)
Sarah Breslin*, Mike Byram*, Michel Candelier*, Neus Figueras*,
Francis Goullier*, Hanna Komorowska*, Terry Lamb*, Nick Saville*,
Maria Stoicheva*, Luca Tomasi*(* 2016 only)

The Council of Europe wishes to thank the Research Centre for Language Teaching, Testing andAssessment, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (RCeL) for making available descriptors
from the Greek Integrated Foreign Languages Curriculum.
The Council of Europe wishes to thank Cambridge English Language Assessment, in particular Coreen
Docherty, for the logistical support offered over a period of six months to the project, without whichlarge scale data collection and analysis would not have been feasible. The Council also wishes togratefully acknowledge the support from the institutions listed at the bottom of this section, who took
part in the three phases of validation for the new descriptors, especially all those who also assistedwith piloting them.
Stage 3:Developing a new scale for phonological control (2015-2016)
Authoring Group : Enrica Piccardo, Tim Goodier
Sounding board : Brian North, Coreen Docherty
Consultants

Stage 4:

: Sophie Deabreu, Dan Frost, David Horner, Thalia Isaacs,
Murray Munro

Developing descriptors for sign languages (2015-2018)
Authoring Group : Jörg Keller, Petrea Bürgin, Aline Meili, Dawei Ni
Consultants

Stage 5:

: Brian North, Curtis Gautschi

Collating descriptors for young learners (2014–2016)
Authoring Group : Eurocentres: Tunde Szabo.
Sounding Board : Coreen Docherty, Tim Goodier, Brian North.
Consultants: Angela Hasselgreen, Eli Moe.

The Council of Europe also wishes to thank:
Cambridge English Language Assessment and the ELP authors for making their descriptors available
for the collation of descriptors for Young Learners.
The Swiss National Research Programme for funding the research and development of the descriptors
for sign language1.
The following readers, whose comments on an early version of the text in this Companion Volume on
key aspects of the CEFR for teaching and learning greatly helped to structure it appropriately forreaders with different degrees of familiarity with the CEFR: Sezen Arslan, Danielle Freitas, Angelica
Galante, İsmail Hakkı Mirici, Nurdan Kavalki, Jean-Claude Lasnier, Laura Muresan, Funda Ölmez.

1

SNF-Project 100015_156592: Gemeinsamer Europäischer Referenzrahmen für Gebärdensprachen: empiriebasierte
Grundlagen für grammatische, pragmatische und soziolinguistische Deskriptoren in Deutschschweizer Gebärdensprache.

Page 12 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Organisations, in alphabetical order, that facilitated the recruitment of institutes for thevalidation of the descriptors for mediation, online interaction, reactions to literature andplurilingual/pluricultural competence:
Cambridge English Language Assessment
CERCLES :European Confederation of Language Centres in Higher Education

CIEP : Centre international d'études pédagogiques
Eaquals : Evaluation and Accreditation of Quality in Language Services
EALTA : European Association for Language Testing and Assessment
FIPLV : International Federation of Language Teaching Associations
Instituto Cervantes
NILE (Norwich Institute for Language Education)
UNIcertInstitutes (organised in alphabetical order by country) that participated between February andNovember 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.
Algeria
Institut français d'Alger
Argentina
Academia Argüello, Córdoba

National University of Cordoba / St Patrick’s
School, Córdoba

Asociación de Ex Alumnos del Lenguas Vivas
Juan Ramón Fernández,

Universidad Nacional de La Plata, La Plata

Austria
BBS (Berufsbildende Schule) RohrbachInstitut Français

BG/BRG(Bundesgymnasium/Bundesrealgymnasium)
HalleinInternational Language Centre of the Universityof Innsbruck

CEBS (Center für berufsbezogene Sprachen desbmbf), Vienna

LTRGI (Language Testing Research Group
Innsbruck), School of Education, University of
Innsbruck

Federal Institute for Education Research (BIFIE),
ViennaLanguage Centre of the University of Salzburg

HBLW Linz-Landwiedstraße

Pädagogische Hochschule Niederösterreich

HLW (Höhere Lehranstalt für wirtschaftliche
Berufe) Ferrarischule, Innsbruck
Bolivia
Alliance Française La Paz
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Anglia V Language School, Bijeljina

Institut Français de Bosnie-Herzégovine

BrazilAlliance Française

Instituto Cervantes Recife

Alliance Française de Curitiba

Preface with acknowledgements ►Page 13

Bulgaria
AVO Language and Examination Centre, Sofia

Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski

Cameroun
Alliance Française, Bamenda

Institut Français

IFC Yaoundé
Canada
OISE, University of Toronto
Chile
Alliance Française de La Serena
China
Alliance Française

Heilongjiang University

China Language Assessment, Beijing Foreign
Studies University

Tianjin Nankai University

Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Schoolof Interpreting and Translation Studies
Colombia
Alliance Française de Bogota

Universidad Surcolombiana

Croatia
University of Split

Gimnazija Ivan Supek

Croatian Defense Academy, Zagreb

Ministry of Science, Education and Sports

CyprusCyprus University of Technology

University of Cyprus

Czech RepublicCharles University, Prague (Institute for Language
and Preparatory Studies)

National Institute of Education

Masaryk University Language Centre, Brno

University of South Bohemia

EstoniaFoundation Innove, Tallinn
Egypt
Institut FrançaisInstituto Cervantes, Cairo

Finland
Aalto University

Tampere University of Applied Sciences

Häme University of Applied Sciences

Turku University

Language Centre, University of Tampere

University of Eastern Finland

Matriculation Examination Board

University of Helsinki Language Centre

National Board of Education

University of Jyväskylä

FranceAlliance Française

Eurocentres Paris

Alliance Française de Nice

France langue

Alliance Française Paris Ile-de-France

French in Normandy

Page 14 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

British Council, Lyon

ILCF Lyon

CAVILAM - Alliance Française

INFREP

Centre international d'études pédagogiques(CIEP)

International house Nice

CIDEF-UCO

ISEFE

CLV-UPMF

Université de Franche-Comté

Collège International de Cannes

Université Pierre-Mendès-France Grenoble 2

Créa-langues, France
Germany
Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft Englisch an
Gesamtschulen

Technische Hochschule Wildau

elc-European Language Competence, Frankfurt

Technische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina zu
Braunschweig (Sprachenzentrum)Frankfurt School of Finance & Management

Technische Universität Darmstadt

Fremdsprachenzentrum der Hochschulen im Land
Bremen, Bremen University

Technische Universität München(Sprachenzentrum)

Georg-August-Universität Göttingen (Zentrale
Einrichtung für Sprachen undSchlüsselqualifikationen)telc gGmbH Frankfurt

Goethe-Institut München

Universität des Saarlandes (Sprachenzentrum)

Institut Français

Universität Freiburg (Sprachlehrinstitut)

Language Centre, Neu-Ulm University of Applied
Sciences (HNU)

Universität Hohenheim (Sprachenzentrum)

Instituto Cervantes, Munich

Universität Regensburg (Zentrum für Sprache
und Kommunikation)

Institut für Qualitätsentwicklung MecklenburgVorpommern

Universität Leipzig (Sprachenzentrum)

Justus-Liebig Universität Giessen (Zentrum für
fremdsprachliche und berufsfeldorientierte
Kompetenzen)

Universität Passau (Sprachenzentrum)

Pädagogische Hochschule Heidelberg

Universität Rostock (Sprachenzentrum)

Pädagogische Hochschule Karlsruhe

Universität Würzburg (Zentrum für Sprachen)

Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Zentrum für
Fremdsprachenausbildung (ZFA)

University Language Centers in Berlin and
Brandenburg

Sprachenzentrum, Europa-Universität ViadrinaFrankfurt (Oder)

VHS Siegburg

GreeceBourtsoukli Language Centre

RCeL: National & Kapodistrian University ofAthensHellenic American University in Athens

Vagionia Junior High School, Crete

Hungary
ELTE ONYCECL Examinations, University of Pécs

Eötvös Lorand University

Tanárok Európai Egyyesülete, AEDE

Euroexam

University of Debrecen

Preface with acknowledgements ►Page 15

Budapest Business School

University of Pannonia

Budapest University of Technology andEconomics
India
ELT Consultants

Fluency Center, Coimbatore

Ireland
Alpha College, Dublin

NUI Galway

Galway Cultural Institute

Trinity College Dublin

Italy
Accento, Martina Franca, Apulia

Istituto Comprensivo di Campli

AISLi (Associazione Italiana Scuola di Lingue)

Istituto Monti, Asti

Alliance Française

Liceo Scientifico “Giorgio Spezia,”

Bennett Languages, Civitavecchia

Domodossola

British School of Trieste

Padova University Language Centre

British School of Udine

Pisa University Language Centre

Centro Lingue Estere Arma dei Carabinieri

Servizio Linguistico di Ateneo, Università
Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano

Centro Linguistio di Ateneo - Università di
Bologna

Università degli Studi Roma Tre

Centro Linguistico di Ateneo di Trieste

Università degli Studi di Napoli “Parthenope” /I.C. “Nino Cortese,” Casoria, Naples

CVCL (Centro per la Valutazione e leCertificazioni linguistiche) - Università per
Stranieri di Perugia

Università degli Studi di Parma

Free University of Bolzano, Language Study Unit

University of Bologna

Globally Speaking, RomeCentro Linguistico di Ateneo, Università della
Calabria

Institut français de Milan

University of Brescia

Institute for Educational Research / LUMSA
University, Rome

Università per Stranieri di Siena

International House, Palermo
Japan
Alliance Française

Japan School of Foreign Studies, Osaka
University

Institut Français du Japon

Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Japan

LatviaBaltic International Academy, Department ofTranslation and Interpreting

University of Latvia

LebanonInstitut Français

Page 16 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Lithuania
Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences

Vilnius University

Ministry of Education and Science
Luxembourg
Ministry of Education, Children and Youth

University of Luxembourg

MoroccoInstitut Français de Maroc
MexicoUniversity of Guadalajara
F.Y.R. Macedonia
AAB University

MAQS,/ Queen Language school

Elokventa Language Centre

Language Center, South East European
University

Netherlands
Institut Français des Pays-Bas

SLO

Cito

University of Groningen, Language Centre

New ZealandLanguage Studies International (LSI)Worldwide School of English

NorwayDepartment of Teacher Education and School
Research, University of OsloVox - Norwegian Agency for Lifelong Learning

University of Bergen
Peru
Alliance Française

USIL

Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola
PolandBritish Council, Warsaw

Jagiellonian Language Center, Jagiellonian
University, Kraków

Educational Research Institute, Warsaw

LANG LTC Teacher Training Centre, Warsaw

Gama College, Krakow

Poznan University of Technology, Poland

Instituto Cervantes, Krakow, Poland

SWPS University of Social Sciences andHumanities, Poland

Portugal
British Council, Lisbon

ISCAP - Instituto Superior de Contabilidade eAdministração do Porto, Instituto Politécnico do
PortoCamões, Instituto da Cooperação e da Língua

FCSH, NOVA University of Lisbon

IPG - Instituto Politécnico da Guarda

University of Aveiro

Romania
ASE - The Bucharest University of Economic
Studies

Institut Français

Preface with acknowledgements ►Page 17

LINGUA Language Centre of Babeș-Bolyai,
University Cluj-Napoca

Petroleum-Gas University of Ploiesti

Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies

Universitatea Aurel Vlaicu din Arad

RussiaGlobus International Language Centres

National Research University Higher Schools of
Economics, Moscow

Lomonosov Moscow State University

Nizhny Novgorod Linguistics University

MGIMO

Samara State University

Moscow State Institute of International Relations

St Petersburg State University

Saudi Arabia
National Center for Assessment in Higher
Education, Riyadh

English Language Center (ELC), Taibah
University, Madinah

SenegalInstitut Français de Dakar
SerbiaCentre Jules Verne

University of Belgrade

Institut français de Belgrade
Slovakia
Trnava University
SloveniaDržavni izpitni center
Spain
Alliance Française

EOI de Vigo

British Council, Madrid

ILM Caceres

British Institute of SevilleInstitut FrançaisCentro de Lenguas, Universitat Politècnica deValència

Instituto Britanico de Sevilla S.A.

Consejería de Educación de la Junta deAndalucía

Instituto de Lenguas Modernas de la
Universidad de Extremadura

Departament d'Ensenyament- Generalitat deCatalunya

Universidad Europea de Madrid

EOI de Albacete

Lacunza - IH San Sebastián

EOI de Badajoz, Extremadura

Net Languages, Barcelona

EOI de Catalunya

Universidad Antonio de Nebrija

EOI de Granada

Universidad Internacional de La Rioja

EOI de La Coruna, Galicia

Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

EOI de Málaga, Málaga

Universidad Católica de Valencia

EOI de Santa Cruz de Tenerife

Universidad de Cantabria

EOI de Santander

Universidad de Jaén

EOI de Santiago de Compostela, Galicia

Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Sevilla

EOI de Villanueva-Don Benito, Extremadura

Universidad Ramon Llull, Barcelona

Page 18 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

SwedenInstituto Cervantes Stockholm

University of Gothenburg

Switzerland
Bell Switzerland

UNIL, EPFL

Eurocentres Lausanne

Universität Fribourg

Sprachenzentrum der Universität Basel

University of Lausanne

TLC - IH Zurich-Baden

ZHAW, Winterthur

Taiwan / “Chinese Taipei”
The Language Training and Testing Center,
TaipeiThailand
Alliance Française
TurkeyÇağ University, Mersin

IDV Bilkent University, Ankara

Ege University

Middle East Technical University, Ankara

Hacettepe University, Ankara

Sabancı University, Istanbul

United Arab Emirates
Higher Colleges of Technology
UgandaAlliance Française de Kampala
UkraineInstitute of Philology, Taras Shevchenko National
University of Kyiv

Sumy State University, Institute for BusinessTechnologies

Odessa National Mechnikov University

Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv

United Kingdom
Anglia Examinations, Chichester College

Pearson Education

Cambridge English Language Assessment

School of Modern Languages and Culture,
University of Warwick

Eurocentres, BournemouthSouthampton Solent University, School ofBusiness and Law

Eurocentres, Brighton

St Giles International London Central

Eurocentres, London

Trinity College London

Experience English

University of Exeter

Instituto Cervantes, Manchester

University of HullInternational Study and Language Institute,
University of Reading

University of Liverpool

Kaplan International College, London

Westminster Professional Language Centre

NILE (Norwich Institute for Language Education)

University of Westminster

Uruguay
Centro Educativo Rowan, Montevideo

Preface with acknowledgements ►Page 19

United States of America
Alliance Française de Porto RicoETS (Educational Testing Service)

Cambridge Michigan Language Assessments

Purdue University

Columbia University, New York

University of Michigan

Eastern Michigan University

Page 20 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Foreword
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment(CEFR) was published in 2001 (European Year of Languages) after a comprehensive process ofdrafting, piloting and consultation undertaken by the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. Available in 40
languages the CEFR is one of the best known and most used Council of Europe policy instruments andhas been the subject of Recommendations by its Committee of Ministers and Parliamentary Assembly.
The CEFR has also been adopted by the European Commission, including in their EUROPASS project
and the project to establish a European Indicator of Language Competence.
The CEFR is one of a number of major initiatives in the language field by the Council of Europe in an
engagement that has been continuous since 1964. Engagement in languages started as a means toincrease international understanding, promote lifelong learning and increase the quality and practicalityof language education in schools. It is evident that language education is fundamental to the effective
enjoyment of the right to education and other individual human rights and the rights of minorities.
Since the CEFR was published, the engagement of the Council’s Language Policy Programme
together with its European Centre for Modern Languages (ECML) has broadened, building on the
success of the CEFR and other projects. A number of policy documents and resources that further
develop the underlying educational principles and objectives of the CEFR are available, not only
concerning foreign/second languages but also as regards the language of schooling, and thedevelopment of curricula to promote plurilingual and intercultural education. Many of these areavailable on the Platform of resources and references for plurilingual and intercultural education, forexample:►Guide for the Development and Implementation of Curricula for Plurilingual and Intercultural
Education;►

A Handbook for Curriculum Development and Teacher Education Concerning the Language
Dimension in All Subjects.

►

From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual Education: Guide for the Development of Language
Education Policies in Europe;

Others are available separately:►

Policy guidelines and resources for the linguistic integration of adult migrants;►

Guidelines for Intercultural Education and an Autobiography of Intercultural Encounters

Competences for Democratic Culture: Living together as equals in culturally diverse democraticsocieties (2016).Since its launch, the CEFR, together with its related instrument for learners, theEuropean Language Portfolio (ELP), has been a central feature of the Council of Europe’s
intergovernmental programmes in the field of education, including their initiatives to promote the right toquality education for all. The development of language competences is essential for social inclusion,mutual understanding and professional development. The CEFR has contributed to the implementationof the Council of Europe’s language education principles, including the promotion of reflective learningand learner autonomy.
A comprehensive set of resources has been developed around the CEFR since its publication in orderto support implementation and, like the CEFR itself, is presented on the Council’s CEFR website andthe ECML’s thematic area website for CEFR and ELP. However, regardless of all the support material
provided, the Council of Europe has frequently received requests to continue to develop aspects of the
CEFR, particularly the illustrative descriptors of second/foreign language proficiency. Requests havebeen made to complement the original illustrative scales with descriptors for mediation, reactions toliterature and online interaction, to produce versions for young learners and for sign languages, as wellas to develop more detailed coverage in the descriptors for A1 and the C levels. Much work done byother institutions and professional bodies since the publication of the CEFR has confirmed the validityof the initial research conducted in a Swiss National Science Research project by Brian North andGünther Schneider. To respond to the requests received and in keeping with the open, dynamic

Foreword ►Page 21

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 theillustrative descriptors that complements the original ones contained in the body of the CEFR text. For
this purpose, validated and calibrated descriptors were generously offered to the Council of Europe by
a number of institutions in the field of language education.
However, for mediation, an important concept introduced in the CEFR which has assumed evengreater importance with the increasing linguistic and cultural diversity of our societies, no validated andcalibrated descriptors existed. The development of descriptors for mediation was, therefore, the longest
and most complex part of the project that led to the production of this CEFR Companion Volume.
Descriptor scales are provided for mediating a text, for mediating concepts, for mediating
communication, as well as for the related mediation strategies and plurilingual/pluriculturalcompetences. In addition, illustrative descriptor scales specifically for sign languages are provided,
again informed by a Swiss National Science Research project 2. Links to variants of the original CEFR
illustrative descriptors scales produced for sign language in the
project of the Council ofEurope’s European Centre for Modern Languages (ECML) are also provided.
The fact that this extension takes the CEFR descriptors beyond the area of modern language learning
to encompass aspects relevant to language education across the curriculum was overwhelmingly
welcomed in the extensive consultation process undertaken in 2016–17. This reflects the increasingawareness of the need for an integrated approach to language education across the curriculum.
Language teaching practitioners particularly welcomed descriptors concerned with online interaction,
collaborative learning and mediating text. The consultation also confirmed the importance that policy
makers attach to the provision of descriptors for plurilingualism/pluriculturalism. This is reflected in theCouncil of Europe’s recent initiative to develop competences for democratic culture, such as valuing
cultural diversity and openness to cultural otherness and to other beliefs, world views and practices.
In addition to the extended illustrative descriptors, this CEFR Companion Volume contains an
introduction to the aims and main principles of the CEFR that the Council of Europe hopes will help toincrease awareness of all of the messages of the CEFR. The main functions of the CEFR are: (a) toprovide a metalanguage for discussing the complexity of language proficiency and for reflecting on andcommunicating decisions on learning objectives and outcomes that are coherent and transparent, and(b) to provide inspiration for curriculum development and teacher education. To assist in thesefunctions, each descriptor scale is now presented with a rationale.
In addition to the Companion Volume, a new collation of descriptors relevant for young learners, put
together by the Eurocentres Foundation, is also available to assist with course planning and selfassessment. Here, a different approach was adopted: descriptors in the extended illustrativedescriptors that are relevant for two age groups (7–10 and 11–15) were selected. Then a collation wasmade of the adaptations of these descriptors relevant to young learners that appeared in ELPs,
complemented with assessment descriptors for young learners generously offered by Cambridge
English Language Assessment.
The Council of Europe hopes that this Companion Volume, with its extension of the CEFR illustrativedescriptors to include areas such as mediation, plurilingual/pluricultural competence and sign language
will contribute to the quality inclusive education for all, and the promotion of plurilingualism andpluriculturalism. It is important to note that the additions do not impact on the construct described in the
CEFR, or on its Common Reference Levels. The Companion Volume, and in particular the descriptors
for new areas, represent an enrichment of the original descriptive apparatus. Those responsible forcurriculum planning for foreign languages and languages of schooling will find further guidance forpromoting plurilingual and intercultural education in the Guide for the Development and Implementationof Curricula for Plurilingual and Intercultural Education.

Sjur Bergan

Villano Qiriazi

Head of Education Department

Head of Education Policy Division

2

Swiss National Research Programme Project 100015_156592 Gemeinsamer Europäischer Referenzrahmen fürGebärdensprachen: Empirie-basierte Grundlagen für grammatische, pragmatische und soziolinguistische Deskriptoren in
Deutschschweizer Gebärdensprache conducted at the Zurich University of Applied Science (ZHAW, Winterthur).

Page 22 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Introduction to the CEFR Companion
VolumeThe Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment(CEFR), and this current extension of it, are part of the Council of Europe’s goal to ensure quality
inclusive education as a right of all citizens. This CEFR Companion Volume is intended as acomplement to the CEFR, which was published as a book in 2001 and which is available in 40
languages at the time of writing. The present document does not change the status of that 2001
publication.
Following this brief introduction, the Volume elaborates some of the key notions of the CEFR as avehicle for promoting quality in second/foreign language teaching and learning as well as plurilingualand intercultural education. The CEFR consists of far more than a set of language proficiency levels.
As explained in the text, the CEFR broadens the perspective of language education in a number ofways, not least by its vision of the user/learner as a social agent, co-constructing meaning ininteraction, 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 languagerelated competences and language use, and practical tools, in the form of illustrative descriptors, tofacilitate the development of curricula and orientation of teaching and learning.
The Companion Volume is the product of a project of the Education Policy Division (Language Policy
Programme) of the Council of Europe. The focus in that project was to update the CEFR illustrativedescriptors by:►highlighting certain innovative areas of the CEFR for which no descriptor scales had been
provided in the 2001 set of descriptors, but which have become increasingly relevant over the
past twenty years, especially mediation and plurilingual / pluricultural competence;►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;►

responding to demands for more elaborate description of listening and reading in existing
scales, and for descriptors for other communicative activities such as online interaction, using
telecommunications, expressing reactions to creative text and literature;►enriching the description at A1, and at the C levels, particularly C2.

Following the text on the CEFR, therefore, the Companion volume presents the extended version of
the illustrative descriptors:►

newly developed illustrative descriptor scales are introduced alongside the existing ones;►

schematic tables are provided, which group scales belonging to the same category(communicative language activities or aspects of competence);►a short rationale is presented for each scale, explaining the thinking behind the categorisation;►

descriptors that were developed and validated in the project, but not subsequently included in
the illustrative descriptors are presented in an appendix (Appendix 9).

In addition to the Companion Volume’s clarification of aspects of the CEFR, and the extended
illustrative descriptors that it provides, users may wish to consult the following two fundamental policy
documents related to plurilingual, intercultural and inclusive education:►

Guide for the Development and Implementation of Curricula for Plurilingual and Intercultural
Education (2016), which constitutes an operationalization and further development of CEFR
Chapter 8 on language diversification and the curriculum.

Introduction to the CEFR Companion Volume ►Page 23►Competences for Democratic Culture: Living together as equals in culturally diverse
democratic societies (2016), the sources for which helped to inspire some of the new
descriptors for mediation included in this volume.

Users concerned with school education may also wish to consult the paper Education, mobility,
otherness: the mediation functions of schools (2015), which helped the conceptualisation of mediationin the descriptor development project.

Page 24 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Key aspects of the CEFR for teaching
and learning
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment(CEFR) presents a comprehensive descriptive scheme of language proficiency and a set of common
reference levels (A1-C2) defined in illustrative descriptor scales, plus options for curriculum design
promoting plurilingual and intercultural education, further elaborated in the Guide mentioned in the
introduction.
One of the main principles of the CEFR is thepromotion of the positive formulation of
educational aims and outcomes at all levels. Its‘Can do’ definition of aspects of proficiency provides
a clear, shared roadmap for learning, and a far morenuanced instrument to gauge progress than an
exclusive focus on scores in tests and examinations.
This principle is based on the CEFR view oflanguage as a vehicle for opportunity and success insocial, 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 atool for coherent, transparent and effective
plurilingual education in such a way as to promote
democratic citizenship, social cohesion andintercultural dialogue’ (CM/Rec(2008)7).

BACKGROUND TO THE CEFR
The CEFR was developed as a continuation of theCouncil of Europe’s work in language education during
the 1970s and 1980s. The CEFR ‘action-oriented
approach’ builds on and goes beyond thecommunicative approach proposed in the mid-1970s in
The Threshold Level, the first functional/notional
specification of language needs.
The CEFR, and the related European Language
Portfolio that accompanied it, were recommended byan inter-governmental Symposium held in Switzerland
in 1991. As its title suggests, the CEFR is concerned
principally with learning and teaching. It aims tofacilitate transparency and coherence between
curriculum, teaching and assessment within an
institution and transparency and coherence between
institutions, educational sectors, regions and countries.

As well as being used as a reference tool by almost
The CEFR was piloted in draft versions in 1996 andall member states of the Council of Europe and the1998 before being published in English (Cambridge
European Union, the CEFR has also had a
University Press) and French (Hatier-Didier) in 2001
considerable influence beyond Europe and this is an
and has since been translated into 40 languages.
on-going process. 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 forwardlooking conceptual underpinning of the CEFR and has paved the way for a new phase of work aroundthe CEFR, leading to the extension of the illustrative descriptors published in this CEFR Companion
Volume. Before presenting the illustrative descriptors, however, a reminder of the purpose and natureof the CEFR is outlined. First we consider the aims of the CEFR, its descriptive scheme and the actionoriented approach, then the Common Reference Levels and creating profiles in relation to them, plus
the illustrative descriptors themselves, and finally the concepts of plurilingualism/pluriculturalism andmediation that were introduced to language education by the CEFR.

The aims of the CEFR
The stated aims of the CEFR are to:►promote and facilitate co-operation among educational institutions in different countries;►

provide a sound basis for the mutual recognition of language qualifications;►assist learners, teachers, course designers, examining bodies and educational administrators
to situate and co-ordinate their efforts. (CEFR: Section 1.4)

Key aspects of the CEFR for teaching and learning ►Page 25

But besides these formal and institutional aims, the CEFR seeks to continue the impetus that Councilof Europe projects have given to educational reform. 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 andexerting agency in the learning process. This implies a real paradigm shift in both course planningand teaching, promoting learner engagement and autonomy.
The CEFR’s action-oriented approach representsa shift away from syllabuses based on a linear
progression through language structures, or a predetermined set of notions and functions, towards
syllabuses based on needs analysis, oriented
towards real-life tasks and constructed aroundpurposefully selected notions and functions. This
promotes a proficiency perspective guided by ‘Cando’ descriptors rather than a deficiency perspective
focusing on what the learners have not yet acquired.
The idea is to design curricula and courses based onreal world communicative needs, organized aroundreal-life tasks and accompanied by ‘Can do’
descriptors that communicate aims to learners.
Fundamentally, the CEFR is a tool to assist theplanning of curricula, courses and examinations byworking backwards from what the users/learners
need to be able to do in the language. The
provision of a comprehensive descriptive scheme
containing illustrative ‘Can do’ descriptor scales foras many aspects of the scheme as proves feasible(CEFR Chapters 4 and 5), plus associated content
specifications published separately for different
languages (= Reference Level Descriptions: RLDs)
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 ofopen-minded plurilingual citizens. This was clearly
confirmed at the intergovernmental Language Policy
Forum that reviewed progress with the CEFR in 2007,
as well as in several recommendations from theCommittee of Ministers. This main focus isemphasized yet again in the Guide for theDevelopment and Implementation of Curricula for
Plurilingual and Intercultural Education. However, atthe same time, the Language Policy Forum underlined
the need for responsible use of the CEFR levels,
exploitation of the methodologies and resources
provided for developing examinations and relatingthem to the CEFR.
However, as the subtitle learning, teaching,assessment makes clear; the CEFR is not just an
assessment project. CEFR Chapter 9 outlines manydifferent approaches to assessment, most of which arealternatives to standardized tests. It explains ways inwhich the CEFR in general, and its illustrativedescriptors in particular, can be helpful to the teacher
in the assessment process, but there is no focus on
language testing and no mention at all of test items.

To further promote and facilitate cooperation, the
CEFR also provides common reference levels A1– C2, defined by the illustrative descriptors. The
In general, the Language Policy Forum emphasised
Common Reference Levels are introduced in CEFR
the need for international networking and exchange ofChapter 3 and used for the descriptor scales
expertise in relation to the CEFR through bodies like
distributed throughout CEFR Chapters 4 and 5. The
ALTE, EALTA and Eaquals.
provision of a common descriptive scheme, common
reference levels, and illustrative descriptors defining
aspects of the scheme at the different levels, is intended to provide a common metalanguage for the
language education profession in order to facilitate communication, networking, mobility andthe recognition of courses taken and examinations passed. In relation to examinations, theCouncil’s Language Policy Programme has published a Manual for relating language examinations to
the CEFR, now accompanied by a toolkit of accompanying material and a volume of case studies
published by Cambridge University Press, together with a Manual for Language Test Development andExamining. The Council’s ECML has also produced Relating language examinations to the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR) Highlightsfrom the Manual and provides capacity-building to member states through its RELANG initiative.
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 evencoordinating 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 thefunction of the Common European Framework to lay down the objectives that users
should pursue or the methods they should employ’. (CEFR: Notes to the User)

Page 26 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Implementing the action-oriented approach
The CEFR sets out to be comprehensive, in the sense that it is possible to find the main approaches tolanguage education in it, and neutral, in the sense that it raises questions rather than answering themand does not prescribe any particular pedagogic approach. There is, for example, no suggestion thatone should stop teaching grammar 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, and thus seeing language as a vehicle forcommunication rather than as a subject to study. In so doing, it proposes the analysis of learners’
needs and the use of ‘Can do’ descriptors and communicative tasks, on which there is a whole chapter:
CEFR 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 Chapters 4 and 5 provide abasis for the transparent definition of curriculum aims
and of standards and criteria for assessment, with
Chapter 4 focussing on activities (‘the WHAT’) and
Chapter 5 focussing on competences (‘the HOW’).
This is not educationally neutral. It implies that theteaching and learning process is driven by action, that
it is action-oriented. It also clearly suggests planningbackwards from learners’ real life communicativeneeds,
with consequent alignment between
curriculum, teaching and assessment.

A REMINDER OF CEFR CHAPTERS
Chapter 1: The Common European Framework in its
political and educational context
Chapter 2: Approach adopted
Chapter 3: Common Reference Levels
Chapter 4: Language use and the language
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 diversification and thecurriculum
Chapter 9: Assessment

At the classroom level, there are several implications of the implementation of the action-oriented
approach. Seeing learners as social agents implies involving them in the learning process possibly withdescriptors as a means of communication. It also implies recognising the social nature of language
learning and language use, the interaction between the social and the individual in the process oflearning. Seeing learners as language users implies extensive use of the target language in theclassroom – learning to use the language rather than just learning 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 as well as differences
between languages and cultures. Above all, the action-oriented approach implies purposeful,collaborative tasks in the classroom, whose primary focus is not language. If the primary focus of atask is not language, then there must be some other product or outcome (e.g. planning an outing,making a poster, creating a blog, designing a festival, choosing a candidate, etc.). Descriptors can beused to help to design such tasks and also to observe, and if desired, (self-) assess the language useof learners during the task.
Both the CEFR descriptive scheme and the action-oriented approach put the co-construction of
meaning (through interaction) 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 attimes, it will take a collaborative nature between learners themselves. The precise balance between
teacher-centred instruction and such collaborative interaction 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 takeplace across languages and draw upon user/learners’ plurilingual and pluricultural repertoires.

Key aspects of the CEFR for teaching and learning ►Page 27

Plurilingual and pluricultural competence
The CEFR distinguishes between multilingualism (the coexistence of different languages at the social
or individual level) and plurilingualism (the dynamic and developing linguistic repertoire of an individualuser/learner). Plurilingualism is presented in the CEFR as an uneven and changing competence, inwhich the user/learner’s resources in one language or variety may be very different in nature to thosein another. However, the fundamental point is that plurilinguals have a single, inter-related, repertoirethat they combine with their general competences and various strategies in order to accomplish tasks(CEFR Section 6.1.3.2).
Plurilingual competence as explained in the CEFR (Section 1.3) involves the ability to call flexibly uponan inter-related, uneven, plurilinguistic repertoire to:►switch from one language or dialect (orvariety) to another;►

express oneself in one language (or dialect,
or variety) and understand a person speaking
another;►call upon the knowledge of a number oflanguages (or dialects, or varieties) to makesense of a text;►

recognise words from a common international
store in a new guise;►

mediate between individuals with no common
language (or dialect, or variety), even with
only a slight knowledge oneself;►►bring the whole of one’s linguistic equipment
into play, experimenting with alternative formsof expression;
exploit paralinguistics (mime, gesture, facial
expression, etc.).

The linked concepts of plurilingualism /pluriculturalism and partial competences wereintroduced to language education for the first time in
Draft 2 of the CEFR proposal in 1996.
They were developed as a form of dynamic, creative
process of ‘languaging’ across the boundaries oflanguage varieties, as a methodology and as
language policy aims. The background to thisdevelopment was a series of studies in bilingualism
in the early 1990s at the research centre CREDIF in
Paris.
The curriculum examples given in what is now CEFR
Chapter 8 consciously promoted the concepts ofplurilingual and pluricultural competence.
These two concepts appeared in a more elaborated
form in the following year 1997 in the paper
Plurilingual and Pluricultural Competence.

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 forthe other points in the above list during the 2014–17 Project to develop descriptors for mediation. Thiswas successful except in respect of the last point (paralinguistics), on which unfortunately informants
could not agree as to its relevance or interpret descriptors consistently.
By a curious coincidence, 1996 is also theyear in which the term ‘translanguaging’ isrecorded (in relation to bilingual teaching in
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 in 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 orapproach, or – fundamentally – as the sociopolitical aim of preserving linguistic diversity.
All these perspectives are increasingly
common across Europe.

At the time that the CEFR was published, the concepts
discussed in this section, especially the idea of a holistic,
inter-related plurilingual repertoire, were innovative.
However, that idea has since been supported bypsychological and neurological research in relation to bothpeople who learn an additional language early in life andthose who learn them later, with stronger integration for theformer. Plurilingualism has also been shown to result in a
number of cognitive advantages, due to an enhanced
executive control system in the brain (i.e. 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 is because
the two aspects usually go hand-in-hand. Having said that,
however, one form of unevenness may actually be that one
aspect (e.g. pluricultural competence) is much stronger thanthe other (e.g. plurilingual competence: see CEFR Section
6.1.3.1).

Page 28 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

One of the reasons for promoting the development of plurilingualism and pluriculturalism is thatexperience of them:► ‘exploits pre-existing sociolinguistic and pragmatic competences which in turn develops themfurther;► leads to a better perception of what is general and what is specific concerning the linguisticorganisation of different languages (form of metalinguistic, interlinguistic or so to speak‘hyperlinguistic’ awareness);► by its nature refines knowledge of how to learn and the capacity to enter into relations withothers and new situations. It may, therefore, to some degree accelerate subsequent learningin the linguistic and cultural areas’. (CEFR Section 6.1.3.3)
Neither pluriculturalism nor the notion of intercultural competence – referred to briefly in CEFR Section
5.1.1.3 and 5.1.2.2 – are greatly developed in the CEFR book. The implications of plurilingualism andintercultural competence for curriculum design in relation to the CEFR are outlined in the Guide for theDevelopment and Implementation of Curricula for Plurilingual and Intercultural Education. In addition, adetailed taxonomy of aspects of plurilingual and pluricultural competence relevant to pluralistic
approaches is available in the ECML’s Framework of Reference for Pluralistic Approaches toLanguages and Cultures (FREPA).

The CEFR descriptive scheme
In this section, we outline the descriptive scheme of the CEFR and point out which elements have beenfurther developed in the 2014–17 Project. As mentioned above, a core aim of the CEFR is to provide acommon descriptive metalanguage to talk about language proficiency. Figure 1 presents the structureof the CEFR descriptive scheme diagrammatically.
After an introduction to relevant key concepts (CEFR Chapter 1), the CEFR approach is introduced in
the very short CEFR Chapter 2. In any communicative situation, general competences (e.g.
knowledge of the world, socio-cultural competence, intercultural competence, professional experience
if any: CEFR Section 5.1) are always combined with communicative language competences(linguistic, sociolinguistic and pragmatic competences: Section 5.2), and strategies (some general,
some communicative language strategies) in order to complete a task (CEFR Chapter 7). Tasks
often require some collaboration with others – hence the need for language. The example chosen in
CEFR Chapter 2 to introduce this idea – moving – is one in which the use of language is only
contingent on the task. In moving a wardrobe, some communication, preferably through language, isclearly 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 in CEFR Chapter 2:‘Language use, embracing language learning, comprises the actions performed bypersons who as individuals and as social agents develop a range of competences, bothgeneral and in particular communicative language competences. They draw on thecompetences at their disposal in various contexts under various conditions and undervarious constraints to engage in language activities involving language processes to
produce and/or receive texts in relation to themes in specific domains, activating thosestrategies 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
modification of their competences’. (CEFR Section 2.1)

Thus, in performing tasks, competences and strategies are mobilised in the performance and in turnfurther 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 includes a chapter on tasks. CEFR Chapter 7 discusses
real-life tasks and pedagogic tasks, possibilities for compromise between the two, factors that maketasks simple or complex from a language point of view, conditions and constraints etc. The precise
form that tasks in the classroom may take, and the dominance that they should have in the
programme, is for users of the CEFR to decide. CEFR Chapter 6 surveys language teaching
methodologies, pointing out that different approaches may be appropriate for different contexts. As amatter 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

Key aspects of the CEFR for teaching and learning ►Page 29

approaches informed by sociocultural and socio-constructivist theories. Starting from a discussion of
the place of plurilingualism in language education, CEFR Chapter 8 outlines alternative options for
curriculum design, a process taken further in the Guide for the Development and Implementation ofCurricula for Plurilingual and Intercultural Education. No matter what perspective is adopted, it is
implicit that tasks in the language classroom should involve communicative language activities andstrategies (CEFR Section 4.4) that also occur in the real world, like those listed in the CEFR
descriptive scheme.
With its communicative language activities and strategies, the CEFR replaces the traditional model ofthe four skills (listening, speaking, reading, writing), which has increasingly proved inadequate tocapture 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 iscloser to real-life language use, which is grounded in interaction in which meaning is co-constructed.
Activities are presented under four modes of communication: reception, production, interaction andmediation.

Overall
Language
Proficiency
Communicative
languagecompetences

Generalcompetences

Communicative
language
activities

Communicative
languagestrategies

SavoirLinguistic

Reception

Reception

Savoir-faireSociolinguistic

Production

Production

Savoir-etre

Pragmatic

Interaction

Interaction

MediationMediation

Savoir apprendre

Figure 1 – The structure of the CEFR descriptive scheme3.
The development of the CEFR categories for communicative activities was considerably influenced by
the distinction between transaction and interpersonal language use, and between interpersonal andideational language use (development of ideas). This can be seen in Table 1.

3

Taken from page 55 of the ECEP project publication: Piccardo, E., Berchoud, M., Cignatta, T., Mentz, O. and Pamula, M.
(2011). Pathways Through Assessment, Learning and Teaching in the CEFR. Graz, Austria: European Centre for Modern
Languages: ISNBN: 978-92-871-7159-7

Page 30 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Table 1 – Macro-functional basis of CEFR categories for communicative language activities
RECEPTION

PRODUCTION

INTERACTION

MEDIATION

Creative,
Interpersonal
Language 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

e.g. Obtaining goods
and services
Information exchange

Mediating a text

Evaluative,
Problem-solving
Language Use(Merged with readingfor information andargument)

e.g. Sustainedmonologue: Presenting acasee.g. Discussion

Mediating concepts

With regard to the approach to language activities set out in Table 1, the following list of advantages ofsuch a development beyond the four skills is taken from one of the preparatory studies written in thelead up to the development of the CEFR 4:►

the proposed categories (reception, production, interaction, mediation) make sense not justfor insiders but also for users: such categories reflect more the way people actually use thelanguage than do the four skills;►

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 befacilitated;►pedagogic tasks involving classroom collaborative small group interaction, project work, pen
friend correspondence, language examination interviews, would be easier to situate with thismodel;►

organisation in terms of transparent activities in specific contexts of use would facilitate therecording and profiling of the ‘slices of life’ which make up the language learner's experience;►such an approach based on genre, encourages the activation of content schemata andacquisition of the formal schemata (discourse organisation) appropriate to the genre;►

categories which highlight the interpersonal and sustained self-expression are central by A2
and may help to counter-balance the pervasive transmission metaphor which sees language
as information transfer;►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;►

the distinction Reception, Interaction, Production recalls classifications used for learning andperformance strategies and may well facilitate a broader concept of strategic competence;►the distinction Reception, Interaction, Production, Mediation actually marks a progression ofdifficulty and so might aid the development of the concept of partial qualifications;►such relatively concrete contexts of use (tending towards supra-genres/speech events rather
than abstract skills or functions) makes the link to realistic assessment tasks in examinations
easier to establish, and should help facilitate the provision of more concrete descriptors.

One of the areas in which the CEFR has been most influential is in the recognition in course aims andin the structure of oral examinations of the fundamental distinction between production (= sustainedmonologue; long turns) and interaction (=conversational dialogue; short turns). When the CEFR was
published, splitting writing in the same way by distinguishing between written production and written
interaction did not meet with 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 widely spread but false notion that the CEFR promotes a model of five skills.
4Perspectives on Language Proficiency and Aspects of Competence: a reference paper defining categories and levels.
Strasbourg, Council of Europe CC-LANG (94) 20, by Brian North.

Key aspects of the CEFR for teaching and learning ►Page 31

The development of email, texting and social media since then shows that, as in many other areas, the
CEFR was very forward-looking for its time. The fourth mode, mediation, was developed during thework of the original CEFR authoring group5.
Figure 2, which appeared in the 1996 and 1998 drafts 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, andmediation 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 whateverreason to communicate with each other directly. Translation or interpretation, aparaphrase, 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 Section 2.1.3)

RECEPTION

INTERACTION

MEDIATION

PRODUCTION

Figure 2 – The relationship between reception, production, interaction and mediation.
As with many other aspects mentioned in the CEFR,
the concepts of interaction and mediation are notgreatly developed in the text. This is one disadvantage
of covering so much ground in 250 pages. One
consequence is that the interpretation of mediation in
the CEFR has tended to be reduced to interpretationand translation. It is for this reason that the 2014–2017
project to develop descriptors for mediation was set up.
That project emphasised a wider view of mediation, as
outlined in Appendix 5 and explained in detail in thepaper Developing Illustrative Descriptors of Aspects ofMediation for the Common European Framework ofReference (CEFR).
The CEFR represents a departure from the traditional
distinction made in applied linguistics between theChomskyan concepts of (hidden) ‘competence’ and(visible) ‘performance’ – with ‘proficiency’ normallydefined as the glimpse of someone’s underlying
competence derived from a specific performance. In
the CEFR, ‘proficiency’ is a term encompassing theability to perform communicative language activities(can do…), whilst drawing upon both general andcommunicative language competences (linguistic,sociolinguistic, and pragmatic), and activating
appropriate communicative strategies.
5

John Trim, Daniel Coste, Brian North and Joseph Sheils.

Page 32 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

CAN DO DESCRIPTORS AS COMPETENCE
The idea of scientifically calibrating ‘Can do’
descriptors to a scale of levels comes originallyfrom the field of professional training for nurses.
Tests were not very helpful in assessing a traineenurse’s competence; what was needed was asystematic, informed observation by an expert
nurse, guided by short descriptions of typicalnursing competence at different levels ofachievement.
This ‘Can do’ approach was transferred to language
teaching and learning in the work of the Council ofEurope in the late 1970s. This happened throughthree channels: (a) needs-based language training
for the world of work; (b) an interest in teacher
assessment based on defined, communicative
criteria, and (c) experimentation with selfassessment using ‘Can do’ descriptors as a way of
increasing learner reflection and motivation.
Nowadays ‘Can do’ descriptors are being applied tomore and more disciplines in many countries inwhat is often referred to as a competence-based
approach.

The acquisition of proficiency is in fact seen as a circular process: by performing activities, theuser/learner develops competences and acquires strategies. This approach embraces a view ofcompetence as only existing when enacted in language use, reflecting both (a) the broader view ofcompetence as action from applied psychology, particularly in relation to the world of work andprofessional training and (b) the view taken nowadays in the sociocultural approach to learning. The
CEFR ‘Can do’ descriptors epitomise this philosophy.
Communicative language strategies are thus seen in the CEFR as a kind of hinge between
communicative language competence and communicative language activities and are attached to thelatter in CEFR Section 4.4. The development of the descriptors for strategic competence was
influenced by the model: plan, execute, monitor, and repair. However, as can be seen from Table 2
below, descriptor scales were not developed for all categories. The categories in italic were also
considered at the time of developing the original CEFR descriptors, but no descriptors were produced.
For mediation, a decision was taken to only develop descriptors for execution strategies.
Table 2 – Communicative language strategies in the CEFR
RECEPTION

PRODUCTION

INTERACTION

Planning

Framing

Planning

N/A

Execution

InferringCompensating

Turn-taking
Cooperating

Evaluation &RepairMonitoring

Monitoring and selfcorrection

Asking for clarification
Communication repair

MEDIATION

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

Mediation
As mentioned in discussing the CEFR descriptive scheme above, mediation was introduced tolanguage teaching and learning in the CEFR, in the move away from the four skills, as one of the fourmodes of communication, that is: reception, interaction, production and mediation (see Figure 2). Veryoften 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 amessage, 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 is not limited to cross-linguistic mediation (passing on informationin another language) as can be seen from the following extracts:►

Section 2.1.3: Make communication possible between persons who are unable, for whateverreason, to communicate with each other directly.

►

Section 4.4: Act as an intermediary between interlocutors who are unable to understand eachother directly, normally (but not exclusively) speakers of different languages.

►

Section 4.6.6: 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).

Although the 2001 CEFR text does not develop the concept of mediation to its full potential, itemphasises the two key notions of co-construction of meaning in interaction and constant movement
between the individual and social level in language learning, mainly through its vision of theuser/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 inthe 2001 text, the CEFR descriptive scheme de facto gives mediation a key position in the actionoriented approach, similar to the role that other scholars now give it when they discuss the language
learning process.

Key aspects of the CEFR for teaching and learning ►Page 33

The approach taken to mediation in the 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 approach has been taken because of its relevance in increasingly diverse
classrooms, in relation to the spread of CLIL, (Content and Language Integrated Learning), andbecause 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 organized in such a way that learners have to share different
input, 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.

The CEFR common reference levels
The CEFR has two axes: a horizontal axis of categories for describing different activities and aspectsof competence, which were outlined above, and a vertical axis representing progress in proficiency inthose categories. To facilitate the organisation of courses and to describe progress, the CEFR presents
the six Common Reference Levels shown in Figure 3. This organisation provides a roadmap thatallows 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 & A2), Independent user (B1 & B2) and Proficient user (C1 & C2).
Secondly, the six reference levels, which represent very broad bands of language proficiency, are very
often subdivided.

Figure 3 – CEFR Common Reference Levels
All categories in the humanities and liberal arts are in any case conventional, socially constructedconcepts. Like the colours of the rainbow, language proficiency is actually a continuum. Yet, as with therainbow, despite the fuzziness of the boundaries between colours, we tend to see some colours morethan 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 34 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Figure 5 – The conventional six colours

The Common Reference Levels are defined in detail by the illustrative descriptors in CEFR Chapters 4
and 5, but major characteristics of the levels are summarised briefly in CEFR Section 3.6 (seeAppendix 1) and in three tables used to introduce the levels in CEFR Chapter 3.
►

CEFR Table 1: a global scale, with one short, summary paragraph per level.

►

CEFR Table 2: a self-assessment grid, which summarises in a simplified form CEFR
descriptors for communicative language activities in CEFR Chapter 4. Table 2 is also used in
the Language Passport of the many versions of the European Language Portfolio and in the
EU’s Europass. An expanded version including Written and online interaction and Mediation is
given as Appendix 2.

CEFR Table 3: a selective summary of the CEFR descriptors for aspects of communicative language
competence in CEFR Chapter 5. An expanded version including Phonology is given as Appendix 3.
It should be emphasised that the top level in the CEFR scheme, C2, has no relation whatsoever withwhat is sometimes referred to as the performance of an idealised ‘native-speaker’, or a ‘well-educatednative speaker’ or a ‘near-native speaker’. Such concepts were not taken as a point of reference during
the development of the levels or the descriptors. C2, the top level in the CEFR scheme, is introducedin the CEFR as follows:‘Level C2, whilst it has been termed ‘Mastery’, is not intended to imply native-speaker ornear native-speaker competence. What is intended is to characterise the degree ofprecision, appropriateness and ease with the language which typifies the speech of those
who have been highly successful learners’. (CEFR 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 themore developed intercultural competence above that level which is achieved by many
language professionals’. (CEFR Section 3.2)

A1, the bottom level of the original CEFR 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 andrespond 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 ofsituation-specific phrases’. (CEFR Section
3.6)‘Level A1 (Breakthrough) is probably thelowest ‘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 of language and which are relevant to
the needs of the learners concerned. The
1994–5 Swiss National Science ResearchCouncil Survey, which developed and scaled
the illustrative descriptors, identified a band of
language use, limited to the performance ofisolated tasks, which can be presupposed in
the definition of Level A1. In certain contexts,
for example with young learners, it may beappropriate to elaborate such a ‘milestone’.

BACKGROUND TO THE CEFR LEVELS
The six-level scheme is labelled from upwards from A
to C precisely because C2 is not the highest
imaginable level for proficiency in an additional
language. In fact, a scheme including a seventh level
had been proposed by David Wilkins at anintergovernmental Symposium held in 1977 to discussa possible European unit credit scheme. The CEFR
Working Party adopted Wilkins’ first six levels because
Wilkins’ seventh level is beyond the scope ofmainstream education.
In the Swiss National Research Project that empiricallyconfirmed the levels and developed the original CEFR
illustrative descriptors, the existence of this seventh
level was confirmed. There were user/learners
studying interpretation and translation at the Universityof Lausanne who were clearly above C2. Indeed,
simultaneous interpreters at European institutions andprofessional translators operate at a level well above
C2. For instance, C2 is the third of five levels forliterary translation recently produced in the PETRA
project. In addition many plurilingual writers display
Wilkins’ seventh level of ‘ambilingual proficiency’
without being bilingual from birth.

Key aspects of the CEFR for teaching and learning ►Page 35

The following descriptors relate to simple, general tasks, which were scaled below Level A1, but canconstitute useful objectives 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 Section 3.5)
In the updated and extended set of descriptors in this document, the level referred to above has beenlabelled 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 wellwant to subdivide them, illustrating ways in which this might be done in different contexts (CEFR
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’ (e.g. A2 or A2.1) andthe ‘plus levels’ (e.g. A2+ or A2.2). The latter are distinguished from the former by a horizontal line, as
in this example for overall listening comprehension.
Can understand enough to be able to meet needs of a concrete type provided speech is clearly and slowly
articulated.
A2

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

Plus levels represent a very strong competence at a level that does not yet reach the minimum
standard for the following 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(CEFR Tables 1, 2 & 3).

CEFR profiles
Levels are a necessary simplification. We need levels in order to organise learning, to track progress
and to answer questions like How good is your French? or What proficiency should we require fromcandidates? However, any simple answer like B2 – or even B2 receptive, B1 productive – hides acomplex profile. The reason the CEFR includes so many descriptor scales is to encourage users todevelop differentiated profiles. Descriptor scales can be used firstly to identify which language activities
are relevant for a particular group of learners and then secondly to establish which level those learners
need to achieve in those activities in order to accomplish their goals. This can be illustrated with thefollowing 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 for reception, interaction, production andmediation respectively. The labels around the edge of the circle are the descriptor scales that areconsidered 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 and7 may get produced for individuals in the context of very intensive ‘Language for Specific Purpose’(LSP) training, but the technique is also very useful for analysing the needs of particular groups oflearners.
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 cooperation,
facilitating collaborative interaction and spoken production. The highest priority, though, is onunderstanding the interlocutor (B2), in this case (CLIL), presumably the teacher. The profile shown in
Figure 7 (post graduate science student) also puts an emphasis on reception (C1) and on certain
aspects of mediation: collaborating to construct meaning, explaining data, and processing text inwriting. Profiles can be created for various groups, particularly in professional or in specialised

Page 36 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

educational areas. Stakeholders can be consulted in a two-step process: first to establish the relevant
descriptor scales and secondly to determine realistic goals on 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 again of space over time: a gain in relevant terrain 6. A realistic graphic profile of any individual’s
proficiency would be more like the uneven Figures 6 and 7 than the more abstract perfection levels
shown as concentric circles in Figure 3.

Figure 6 – A fictional profile of needs in an additional language – lower secondary CLIL (Content andLanguage Integrated Learning)

6

The 1996 and 1998 draft 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.

Key aspects of the CEFR for teaching and learning ►Page 37

Figure 7 – A profile of needs in an additional language – postgraduate natural sciences (Fictional)
However, for a personal profile of proficiency, working with fewer categories is probably desirable inmost circumstances. Figures 6 and 7 worked with the descriptor scales for different, detailed types ofactivities. A simpler alternative is to use only the seven overall scales (Overall listening comprehension,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. 7 The profilefor different languages is superimposed on each other in the same graphic. The figure shows a profileof ‘partial competences’ not atypical 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 theperson has found themselves, and by their experience, including transversal competences acquired ingeneral 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 since they reflect the life experience of theperson concerned as well as their inherent abilities, what the CEFR (Section 5.2) describes as their‘general competences’.

7

LINCDIRE: LINguistic & Cultural DIversity REinvented: www.lincdireproject.org
Note: the website of the LINCDIRE project is under construction but it will be completed by the end of 2017

Page 38 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Figure 8 – A plurilingual proficiency profile with fewer categories
In practice, more linear diagrams have tended to be used 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 listening (Overall listening comprehension).
Graphics similar to these appear in versions of the European Language Portfolio. Earlier Portfolios
profiled ability in one language after another (as in Figure 9), whilst some later ones show theplurilingual profile for overall proficiency in each communicative language activity (as in Figure 10).
SPANISH

Pre-A1

A1

A2

A2+

B1

B1+

B2

B2+

C1

Listening comprehension
Reading comprehension
Spoken interaction
Written interaction
Spoken production
Written production
Mediation
Figure 9 – A proficiency profile – overall proficiency in one language

Key aspects of the CEFR for teaching and learning ►Page 39

LISTENING

Pre-A1

A1

A2

A2+

B1

B1+

B2

B2+

C1

C2

Above C2

EnglishGermanFrenchSpanishItalianFigure 10 – A plurilingual proficiency profile – listening across languages
Graphic profiles have been associated with the CEFR and the Portfolio since their earliest versions in
the late 1990s. Nowadays it is of course far easier to produce them from a spreadsheet (e.g. Excel)
and with the many web tools available. However, such graphic profiles only have meaning if one canassume a familiarity with the levels and categories concerned on the part of the reader. The CEFR
illustrative descriptors can bring that familiarity.

The CEFR illustrative descriptors
The illustrative descriptors are presented in descriptor scales, a list of which is given in the second
contents page. Each descriptor scale (both original and new) provides examples of typical 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 eachindividual descriptor provides an independent, criterion statement that can be used on its own, out of
the context of the scale. In fact, the descriptors are mainly used in that way: independently of the scalethat 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 on checklists of descriptors for curriculum or module aims and for
self-assessment (as in European Language Portfolios). However, the association of a descriptor with a
specific level should not be seen as an exclusive or mandatory one. The descriptors appear at the firstlevel at which a user/learner is most likely to be able to perform the task described. This is the level atwhich the descriptor is most likely to be relevant as a curriculum aim: it is the level at which it isreasonable to develop the ability to do what is described. That descriptor would be a challenging, but
by no means impossible, aim for user/learners at the level below. Indeed, for some types of learners,
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 (c.f. Figures 6–10) as
well as levels. Users may find it useful to read CEFR Sections 3.7 How to read the illustrativedescriptor scales and Section 3.8 How to use descriptors of language proficiency.
CEFR DESCRIPTOR RESEARCH PROJECT
The illustrative descriptors published in the CEFR in 2001 were based on the results from a Swiss National Research
Project set up to develop and validate descriptors for the CEFR and the ELP and to give a picture of the development of
the language proficiency reached at the end of different school years in the Swiss educational system. The projectdescribed herein to develop an extended set of illustrative descriptors replicated the approach taken in this 1993–97 Swiss
project. The 3-phase methodology used in that original project is described briefly in CEFR Appendix B:
Intuitive Phase: Detailed analysis of existing descriptor scales and authoring of new descriptors.
Qualitative Phase: 32 face-to-face workshops with groups of 4–12 teachers (a) sorting descriptors into the categories
they purported to describe; (b) evaluating the clarity, accuracy and relevance of the descriptors; (c) sorting descriptors into
bands of proficiency.
Quantitative Phase: Rasch scaling analysis of the way 250 teachers interpreted the difficulty of the descriptors wheneach teacher assessed 10 learners forming a structured sample of two of their classes at the end of a school year. Theseevaluations with descriptors took place when the (c 80% secondary school) teachers were awarding grades for the school
year.

Page 40 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

The scales of illustrative descriptors consist of independent, stand-alone descriptors and are notprimarily intended for assessment. They are not assessment scales in the sense in which the term isgenerally used in language assessment. They do not attempt to cover each relevant aspect at every
level in the way that assessment scales for assessing a performance conventionally do. They areillustrative, not just in the sense that they are presented as non-mandatory examples, but also in thesense that they provide only illustrations of competence in the area concerned at the 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.
The illustrative descriptors are one source for the development of standards appropriate to the context
concerned; they are not in themselves offered as standards. The CEFR itself makes this point veryclearly, stating that the descriptors are presented:‘… as recommendations and are not in any way mandatory, ‘as a basis for reflection,
discussion and further action... The aim of the examples is to open new possibilities, notto pre-empt decisions’ (ibid). It is already clear, however, that a set of common reference
levels as a calibrating instrument is particularly welcomed by practitioners of all kinds
who, as in many other fields, find it advantageous to work with stable, accepted
standards of measurement and format.
As a user, you are invited to use the scaling system and associated descriptors critically.
The Modern Languages Section of the Council of Europe will be glad to receive a reportof your experience in putting them into use. Please note also that 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 forparticular learners or groups of learners’. (CEFR: 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 takethe 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 Section 9.2.2: The criteria for the attainment of a learning objective.
Each descriptor scale included in this Companion Volume is accompanied by a short rationale, whichhighlights 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 theimpossibility of writing one. For example, at C2 the entry is sometimes: ‘No descriptor available: seeC1.’ In such cases, the user is invited to consider whether he/she can formulate for the context
concerned a descriptor representing a more demanding version of the definition given for C1.
In CEFR Section 3.4, the claim made for the validity of the illustrative descriptors is that they:►draw, in their formulation, upon the experience of many institutions active in the field ofdefining levels of proficiency;►

have been developed in tandem with the descriptive scheme presented in CEFR Chapters 4& 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;►

have been matched to the set of Common Reference Levels: A1, A2, B1, B2, C1 and C2;►

meet the criteria outlined in CEFR Appendix A for effective descriptors in that each is brief (upto 25 words), is clear and transparent, is positively formulated, describes something definite
and has independent, stand-alone integrity – not relying on the formulation of otherdescriptors for its interpretation;►

have been found transparent, useful and relevant by groups of non-native and native-speakerteachers from a variety of educational sectors with very different profiles in terms of linguistic
training and teaching experience;►are relevant to the description of actual learner achievement in lower and upper secondary,vocational and adult education, and could thus represent realistic objectives;►

have been ‘objectively calibrated’ to a common scale. This means that the position of the vast
majority of the descriptors on the scale is the product of the way in which they have beeninterpreted to assess the achievement of learners, and not just on the basis of the opinion of
the authors;

Key aspects of the CEFR for teaching and learning ►Page 41

►provide a bank of criterion statements about the continuum of foreign language proficiency
which 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 todevelop new sets of objectives.

As a result, the 2001 set of illustrative descriptors met with wide acceptance and has been translated
into 40 languages. However, the illustrative descriptors were referred to in the CEFR as a ‘descriptor
bank’ 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 thedevelopment of communities of practice by groups of teachers. Users of the CEFR are invited to selectthe CEFR levels and illustrative descriptors that they consider to be appropriate for their learners’
needs, to adapt the formulation of the latter, in order to better suit the specific context concerned, andto supplement them with their own descriptors where they deem it necessary. This is the way that
descriptors have been adapted for ELPs.

Using the CEFR illustrative descriptors
The main function of descriptors is to helpaligncurriculum,
teaching
andassessment. Educators can select CEFR
descriptors according to their relevance to theparticular context, adapting them in theprocess if necessary. In this way descriptors
can provide a detailed, flexible resource for:►relating learning aims to real world
language use, thus giving aframework to action-oriented
learning;►

providing transparent ‘signposting’ tolearners, parents, sponsors;►offering a ‘menu’ to negotiate
priorities with adult learners in aprocess of ongoing needs analysis;►►suggesting classroom tasks toteachers, usually tasks that will
involve activities described in several
descriptors;
introducing criterion-referenced
assessment with the criteria relating
to an external framework (here the
CEFR).

DEFINING CURRICULUM AIMS FROM A NEEDS PROFILE
Step 1: Select the descriptor scales that are relevant to theneeds of the group of learners concerned. (See the Contents
page; see Figures 6 and 7). Clearly this is best undertaken in
consultation with stakeholders, including teachers and, in thecase of adult learners, the learners themselves. Stakeholders
can also be asked what other communicative activities are
relevant.
Step 2: Determine with the stakeholders, for each relevant
descriptor scale, the level that the learners should reach.
Step 3: Collate the descriptors for the target level(s) from all
the relevant scales into a list. This gives the very first draft of aset of communicative aims.
Step 4: Refine the list, possibly in discussion with thestakeholders.
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
existing course. In such a case, descriptors from particular scales are selected, adapted to the local
context and added to an existing curriculum document.
However, CEFR descriptors can also be used to develop a set of learning aims from scratch. In doingso, one should ideally start by creating a needs profile, such as those shown graphically in Figures 6
and 7. In practice, a short 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 European Language Portfolio.
Whichever approach is taken, any resulting list of descriptors needs to be slimmed down to areasonable length by removing repetition and aspects that appear less relevant in the particular
context. It is usually at this point that descriptors are adapted, shortened, simplified, merged withexisting communicative aims, and supplemented by other educational aims. What is a ‘reasonable’length for a list depends on the precise purpose. A list can be long (e.g. 60-80 descriptors) in designinga curriculum for an entire level, but experience suggests that any list used as an instrument for teacher

Page 42 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

assessment or self-assessment is more effective if it is much shorter (e.g. 10-20 descriptors) andfocused on activities of relevance in a particular section or module of the course.
Descriptors can also be useful as a starting point for providing transparent criteria for assessment.
CEFR Chapter 9 outlines different forms of assessment and ways in which descriptors can be useful inrelation to them. In discussing the exploitation of descriptors in assessment, the CEFR makes thefollowing 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 arelocated in Chapter 5.

The former are very suitable for teacher- or self-assessment with regard to real-world
tasks. Such teacher- or self-assessments 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 Section 9.2.2)

The latter, descriptors of aspects of proficiency related to competences (CEFR Chapter 5), can be auseful source for developing assessment criteria for how well user/learners are able to perform aparticular task: to assess the quality of their production. This is opposed to the what: communicative
activities they ‘can do’ (CEFR Chapter 4). The relationship between the two types of illustrativedescriptors is shown in Table 3, modified from CEFR Figure 6. Each type (what; how) can take twoforms: simpler, for ‘outsiders,’ and more elaborated, for ‘insiders’ (usually teachers). Simple forms ofdescriptors 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 construct a programme and specific tasks in it (constructor-oriented). Simpler versions ofdescriptors for how a learner performs 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 sharedwith 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 (diagnosticoriented). Users may wish to follow up on this point in CEFR Sections 3.8 and 9.2.2, which explainthese different orientations.
Table 3 – The different purposes of descriptors (after CEFR Figure 6)
WHAT the user / learner can do(CEFR Chapter 4)

HOW WELL the user/learnerperforms (CEFR Chapter 5)of relevance to:More complex
descriptors

constructor-oriented curriculum
descriptors

diagnostic-oriented assessment
descriptors

Curriculum designers
Teachers

Simpler
descriptors

user-oriented learning aims and'can do' learning outcomes

self-assessment-oriented
assessment descriptors

Learners
Parents/employers etc.

As mentioned, the primary function of descriptors is to facilitate the provision of transparent andcoherent alignment 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 Section 4.1.1; CEFR Table 5). These domains are illustrated inAppendix 6 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 foruniversity study). It is particularly evident in cases such as the Language of Schooling for children with
an immigrant background and CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) that the teacherlearner(s) interaction and collaborative interaction between learners that occur have mediating
functions:►that of organising collective work and the relationships between participants;►that of facilitating access to – and the construction of – knowledge.

Key aspects of the CEFR for teaching and learning ►Page 43

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 2014–2017 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. The Authoring Group very much hope that theprovision of CEFR descriptors for mediating text, mediating concepts, mediating communication andfor 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.

Some useful resources for CEFR implementation
The 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) andcalibrated assessment tasks. In addition, materials from a number of CEFR-related projects areavailable through the ECML website. The following is a shortlist of some of the most practical guidance
documents in relation to exploitation of the CEFR for language teaching and learning:►

A Guide for Users (John Trim et al., Council of Europe) – available in English and French;►

Guide for the Development and Implementation of Curricula for Plurilingual and Intercultural
Education – (Jean-Claude Beacco et al., Council of Europe) – available in English andFrench;►From Communicative to Action-Oriented: A Research Pathway (Enrica Piccardo, Curriculum
Services Canada) – available in English and French;►

Pathways through assessment, learning and teaching in the CEFR. (Enrica Piccardo et al.,Council of Europe) – available in English and French;►Council of Europe Tools for Language Teaching: Common European Framework andPortfolios. (Francis Goullier, Didier/Council of Europe) – available in English and French;►

Eaquals CEFR materials;►

CEFTrain;►

Pour enseigner les langues avec les CERCL- clés et conseils (Claire Bourguignon,
Delagrave).

►

Le point sur le Cadre Européen commun de référence pour les langues (Evelyn Rosen, CléInternational)►

The CEFR in practice (Brian North, Cambridge University Press)►

Language course planning (Brian North et al, Oxford University Press)

Page 44 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

The Project to Update and Extend the
CEFR Illustrative Descriptors
These extended illustrative descriptors include the original set included in Sections 4.4 and 5.2 of the2001 CEFR published text. The descriptor scales are organised according to the categories of the
CEFR descriptive scheme. Page numbers are indicated on the Contents. The original descriptors
are indicated in blue font. Any changes made to original descriptors are listed in Appendix 7.
The original descriptors have been supplemented by a selection of validated, calibrated descriptors
from the institutions listed in the Preface and by descriptors developed, validated and calibrated during
the 2014-2017 Mediation Project. The approach taken both to the update of the 2001 descriptors andin the mediation project is described in Appendix 5 and briefly summarised here.
► Where a version of a descriptor scale is available for sign languages through the ECML’s
ProSign Project, this is indicated with the logo
top right. To see the ProSign
descriptors for the respective scale please click on the logo.
►

Examples of contexts of use for the new illustrative descriptors for online interaction and for
mediation activities, for the public, personal, occupational and educational domains, are given
in Appendix 6.

The relationship between the CEFR descriptive scheme, the 2001 illustrative descriptors and the
updates and additions provided in this volume is shown in Table 4. As can be seen from Table 4, thedescriptor scales for reception are presented before those for production, although the latter appear
first in the 2001 CEFR text.

The stages of the project
Updating 2001 Scales
The 2001 illustrative descriptor scales are one of the most widely exploited aspects of the CEFR andthe relevance of the original descriptors has remained remarkably stable over time. Therefore, theapproach taken was to supplement the 2001 set rather than change descriptors in it. There are,however, proposed changes to a small number of descriptors in the scales from CEFR Chapters 4 and5. The amendment of a small number of ‘absolute’ statements at C2 is intended to better reflect that
the CEFR illustrative descriptors do not take an idealised native speaker as a reference point for thecompetence of a user/learner. These small changes are included in the extended set of illustrativedescriptors published here, and are listed in Appendix 7. The working method adopted began with asmall authoring group from the Eurocentres Foundation who selected, incorporated and, where
necessary, adapted relevant calibrated materials drawn from the sources cited in the Foreword. In aseries of meetings with a small group of experts who acted as a sounding board, the resulting set ofdescriptors was refined before being submitted to a larger group of consultants for review.

New scales
At 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 from the scale Information exchange to the Sustained monologue: Giving
information scale during this process.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 45

Table 4 – The CEFR descriptive scheme, the 2001 illustrative descriptors, the updates and additions
In 2001
descriptive
schemeIn 2001
descriptor
scalesDescriptor
scales updated
in this volume

Spoken√√√Written√√√

Strategies

√

√

√

Spoken√√√Written√√√

Strategies

√

√

√

Spoken√√√Written√√√

Strategies

√

√

√

Activities

Reception(CEFR 4.4.2)

Production(CEFR 4.4.1)

Interaction(CEFR 4.4.3)

OnlineMediation(CEFR 4.4.4)

Descriptor
scales addedin thisvolume

√

Text

√

√

Concepts√√

Communication√√

Linguistic

√

√

√

Pragmatic√√√

Sociolinguistic

√

√

√

Pluricultural√√

Plurilingual
comprehension
and repertoire√√

Competences
Communicative
languagecompetence(CEFR 5.2)
Plurilingual &pluriculturalcompetence(CEFR 6.1.3)√ (Phonology)

Pre-A1
Pre-A1 represents a ‘milestone’ half way towards Level A1, a band of proficiency at which the learnerhas not yet acquired a generative capacity, but relies upon a repertoire of words and formulaic
expressions. The existence of a band of proficiency below A1 is referred to at the beginning of CEFR
Section 3.5. A short list of descriptors is given that had been calibrated below A1 in the Swiss National
Research Project. 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 which focused onthese lower levels. Therefore, a band of proficiency labelled Pre-A1 is included in the majority of thescales.

Page 46 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Mediation
The approach taken to mediation in the 2001 CEFR publication and in the 2013-2017 project is
explained in the next section. The 1996 pilot version of the CEFR, published during the last stages of
the Swiss research project, sketched out categories for illustrative descriptor scales for mediation tocomplement 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 this area in education. In the consideration ofmediation, descriptors for building on plurilingual and pluricultural repertoires were also added. It wasto the validation of these new descriptors for mediation, online interaction, reactions to literature andbuilding on plurilingual/pluricultural repertoires that the institutions listed in the Foreword contributed.

Phonology
For Phonological Control, an existing CEFR scale, a completely new set of descriptors was developed(see report by Enrica Piccardo). Phonology had been the least successful scale developed in the
research behind the original descriptors. 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 phonological control, in line withcurrent 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.

Development methodology
A short description of the development project is given in Appendix 5, with a more complete version
available in the paper by Brian North and Enrica Piccardo: Developing Illustrative Descriptors of
Aspects of Mediation for the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). The projectemulated 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,
qualitative and quantitative developmental research design as summarised in Figure 11. An
extensive review of relevant literature was followed by an intuitive authoring phase, with feedback froma sounding board. This was followed between February 2015 and February 2016 by three phases ofvalidation activities with around 1,000 people. The validation was then followed in July 2016 to
February 2017 by three rounds of consultation, with piloting from January–July 2017.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 47

Figure 11 – Multimethod developmental research design

Page 48 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Sign language
Parallel to the main project mentioned above, descriptors for sign language competence were
produced with a similar methodology in the first phase of a project at the Zurich University of Applied
Sciences (ZHAW), funded by the Swiss National Research Programme. The project aims in a second
phase to produce descriptors for receptive signing competence. These descriptors specifically for sign
languages complement the existing CEFR for spoken languages. Many other CEFR descriptors are
actually applicable to sign language since sign language is used to fulfil the same communicative
functions. This is indeed the basis of the ProSign Project that has produced variants of existing CEFR
scales, as indicated in this Volume.
Ever since the CEFR for spoken languages was introduced, there has been a need to define common
learning targets, curricula and levels for education in sign languages. The CEFR is in fact increasingly
used in order to structure courses in sign language. 95% of deaf children are born to hearing parents,
so, although the community of the deaf is small, there is a great need for such courses, not just thefamilies of deaf children, but for educational purposes (interpreters, deaf migrants, hard of hearing,pedagogues, linguists, etc.). In addition, the CEFR is starting to play a role in relation to the training
and qualifications of sign language teachers and interpreters and, most particularly, in the struggle forthe recognition of sign languages and the qualifications of sign language professionals. The initiative toinclude descriptors for sign language in the CEFR therefore received vocal support from a number ofassociations in the community of the Deaf. Brief details on the project are included in Appendix 5.

Young learners
The collated descriptors for young learners are available here on 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 foryoung learners during this project, as young learner descriptors are largely derived and adapted fromthe 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 validationof European Language Portfolios for young learners. Therefore, the approach adopted for young
learners was to collect and collate descriptors for young learners and organise these into the two mainage groups 7–10 and 11–15 that were represented by the majority of 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 particularmaterials drawn from accredited models in the Council of Europe ELP bank and/or samples registeredon the Council of Europe website, along with young learner assessment descriptors supplied byCambridge English Language Assessment. These were individually aligned to the 2001 illustrativedescriptors according to level, identifying meaningful correspondences between young learnerdescriptors and CEFR illustrative descriptors, and presented to sounding board of experts for
document peer review. This collation and alignment is intended to support further development ofyoung learner curricula, portfolios and assessment instruments, with a consciousness of lifelong
learning leading to competences described in the CEFR.
In addition, the extended illustrative descriptors were included in the document for educators toconsider for relevance to young learner programmes. Guidance judgements were added as to the
proposed relevance of each of the extended CEFR illustrative descriptors to each of the two age
groups. These judgements were also ratified by the sounding board though peer review, and in a
separate consultative workshop.
The descriptors are presented in two documents, one for each age group. The documents have an
identical structure, presenting the descriptors by level, starting with Pre-A1, and filtering out nonrelevant CEFR illustrative descriptors which have been evaluated as clearly beyond the typicalcognitive, social or experiential capacity of the age group (mainly at the higher levels). The documents
thus show what CEFR descriptor the young learner descriptor is related to along with an indication of
the relevance of a CEFR descriptor to the age group if no young learner descriptor examples are yetavailable. Additionally, an archive document retains all the mapped descriptors together for both age
groups, organised by scale.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 49

Figure 12 – Development design of Young Learner Project

Summary of changes
Table 5 below summarises the changes to the CEFR illustrative descriptors resulting from the project
and the rationale for these changes.
Table 5 – Summary of changes resulting from the project
What is addressedin this publication

Comments

Pre-A1

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

Changes to 2001
descriptors

A list of changes to existing 2001 descriptors appearing in CEFR Chapter 4 for communicative
language activities & strategies, and in CEFR Chapter 5 for aspects of communicative language is
given in Appendix 7.

Changes to C2
descriptors

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

Changes to A1-C1
descriptors

Very 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). Changes are also proposed tocertain descriptors that refer to linguistic accommodation (or not) by ‘native speakers’, because
this term has become controversial since the CEFR was published.

Plus levels

The description for plus levels (=B1+; B1.2) has been strengthened. Please see Appendix 1 and
CEFR Section 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 andProsodic features.

Mediation

The approach taken to mediation is broader than that presented in the CEFR book. In addition to afocus on activities to mediate a text, scales are provided for mediating concepts and for 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.

Page 50 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

What is addressedin this publication

Comments

Pluricultural

The scale Building on pluricultural repertoire describes the use of pluricultural competences in acommunicative 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 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.

Specification of
languages involved

It is recommended that, as part of the adaptation of the descriptors for practical use in a particular
context, the relevant languages should be specified in relation to:

Literature

Online

Cross-linguistic mediation (particularly scales for Mediating a text)

Plurilingual comprehensionBuilding on plurilingual repertoire.

There are three new scales relevant to creative text and literature:

Reading as a leisure activity (the purely receptive process; descriptors taken from othersets 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)

There 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, and embedding
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

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

Sign language

Where variants of CEFR descriptor scales have been adapted for sign languages in the ProSign
Project, this is indicated in the top right-hand corner of the scale with thelogo. In
addition, seven scales specifically for signing competence are included in this Volume on the basisof research conducted in Switzerland.

Parallel project:
Young learners

Two collations of descriptors for young learners from ELPs are provided: for the 7–10 and 11–15
age groups respectively. At the moment, no young learner descriptors have been related todescriptors on the new scales, but the relevance for young learners is indicated.

Issues and responses
A great amount of feedback was given by participants in the validation activities in 2015, in consultation
meetings and during the wider consultation and piloting in 2016–7. This section focuses on some of the
key issues which were raised over the duration of the project and how each one was addressed.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 51

Relationship of mediation scales to existing CEFR scales
Although the focus in the project was to provide descriptors for activities and strategies that were notalready covered by existing CEFR descriptor scales, some aspects of the mediation scales, particularly
at lower levels, are reminiscent of the kinds of activities described in existing CEFR scales. This isbecause some aspects of mediation, in the broader interpretation now being adopted, are alreadypresent in the original illustrative descriptor scales. The new scales under Mediating a text for Relaying
specific information, Explaining data and Processing text, for example, are an elaboration of concepts
introduced in the existing scale Processing text under ‘Text’ in CEFR Section 4.6.3. Similarly, thescales particularly concerning group interaction Facilitating collaborative interaction with peers,
Collaborating to construct meaning, and Encouraging conceptual talk are in many ways a further
development of concepts in the existing scale Cooperating strategies under Interaction Strategies. This
underlines the difficulty of any scheme of categorisation. We should never underestimate the fact thatcategories 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 accountof this point. However, making clear distinctions proved to be remarkably difficult. Mother tongue andfirst language and language of schooling are often not synonymous and even expressions like source
language and target language proved confusing (e.g. when mediating from another language one may
be mediating to the mother tongue, the other language is in such a case the source language and themother tongue would be the target language). Attempts to cater for these variations also meant that at
one point the collection of descriptors tripled in size unnecessarily, with very minor changes informulation.
Therefore, the project group decided to take the line that, as with the original illustrative descriptors,
what is calibrated is the perceived difficulty of the functional language ability irrespective of whateverlanguages are involved. It is recommended that those languages should be specified by the user aspart of the adaptation of the descriptors for practical use.
The scales for Mediating a text contain a reference to ‘Language A’ and ‘Language B’ broad terms formediated communication sources and communication outputs respectively. It is stated in notes thatmediation may be within one language or across languages, varieties or registers (or any combinationof these) and that the user may wish to state the specific languages concerned. Equally the user may
wish to provide examples relevant to their context, perhaps inspired by those presented in Appendix 6
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:
Can explain (in Language B) the relevance of specific information given in a particular sectionof a long, complex text (written in Language A).
might become:Can explain in French the relevance of specific information given in a particular section of along, complex text in English (for example 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 (for example an article, website, book or talk face-to-face / online concerningcurrent affairs or an area of personal interest or concern).
All of the descriptors for mediating a text involve integrated skills, a mixture of reception andproduction. The focus is not on reception, for which CEFR scales already exist. The level at which
descriptors are calibrated reflects the level of the processing and the production required. When thereception and the production are in different languages, then the level represented by the descriptor isthat needed to process and articulate the source message in the target language(s).

Page 52 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

General and communicative language competences
In any CEFR descriptor scale, the descriptors at a particular level define what can reasonably beachieved when the user/learner has a communicative language competence (CEFR Section 5.2) in thelanguage(s) concerned corresponding to the CEFR level given, provided that the person concerned
also has the personal characteristics, knowledge, cognitive maturity and experience – that is to say thegeneral competences (CEFR Section 5.1) – necessary to do so successfully. The CEFR scales areintended to be used to profile ability. It is unlikely that all users who are globally ‘B1’ are capable ofdoing 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 andB1+ or even B2 in relation to others, depending upon their personal profile of general competences, inturn dependent on age, experience etc. This is the case with many existing CEFR descriptor scales
that concern cognitive abilities like Listening and notetaking, Reading for information and argument,
Formal discussion (Meetings), Sustained monologue: Addressing audiences, and producing Reports
and essays. It is equally the case with many mediation activities. Some of the scales under mediating atext (e.g. Processing text) or mediation strategies (e.g. Streamlining text) involve activities requiring a
degree of cognitive sophistication that may also not be shared equally by everyone. Furthermore, thescales 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 andcompetences acquired along the way. Therefore, rather than seeking to eliminate the influence ofindividual differences, the approach taken in the descriptors acknowledges that they are a key
contributing factor to learners’ unique profiles of communicative ability.

General and communicative language competences in building on pluriculturalrepertoire
As with mediating, using one’s pluricultural repertoire involves a range of general competences (CEFR
Section 5.1), usually in close conjunction with pragmatic and sociolinguistic competences (CEFR
Section 5.2.2 & 3). Thus in this scale, as in the mediation scales and many other CEFR scales,
competences other than language competences come into play. The boundaries between knowledgeof the world (CEFR 5.1.1.1), sociocultural knowledge (CEFR 5.1.1.2) and intercultural awareness(CEFR 5.1.1.3) are not really clear-cut, as the CEFR explains. Nor are those between practical skills
and know-how (CEFR 5.1.2.1) – which includes social skills – and socio-cultural knowledge orintercultural skills and knowhow (5.1.2.2). The field of socio-pragmatics also studies aspects of theseareas from a more ‘linguistic’ point of view. What is more important than possible overlap between
categories is the fact that the user/learner calls on all these various aspects, merged with theappropriate communicative language competence, in the creation of 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.

Plurilingual comprehension and level
Plurilingual comprehension usually involves activities like exploiting one’s receptive ability in one
language (however partial) to deduce the meaning of texts written in another language. Again, it is theminimum functional level needed in each of the languages concerned to perform these activities thatthe descriptor scaling refers to. Proximity of languages naturally helps. Therefore, again, in any specificcontext, users are advised to specify the languages concerned as part of the adaptation of thedescriptor for practical use.

Sign language users and descriptors
People who are born deaf may acquire a sign language as their first language given appropriate input
by their parents and peers. Sign languages are not merely a form of gesture based communication,and not simply a different medium to express a spoken language. Linguistic research has provided
ample evidence that sign languages are human languages in their own right that display all features,means, rules and restrictions found in spoken language. This includes language acquisition,
processing, loss – that is all psychological processes and language specific representations found for
spoken languages.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 53

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor
ScalesCommunicative language activities and strategies (CEFR Section 4.4)
Reception
Reception involves receiving and processing input, activating what are thought to be appropriate
schemata in order to build up a representation of the meaning being expressed and a hypothesis as tothe communicative intention behind it. Incoming co-textual and contextual cues are checked to see ifthey ‘fit’ the activated schema – or suggest that an alternative hypothesis is necessary. In aural
reception (one-way listening) activities, the language user receives and processes a spoken input
produced by one or more speakers. In visual reception (reading) activities the user receives andprocesses as input written texts produced by one or more writers. In audio-visual reception, 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 and voiceovers.

Reception
Activities
Overall Listening
Comprehension

Overall Reading
Comprehension

Reception
Strategies
Audio-visual(Watching TV, film &video)

Understanding
interaction between
other speakers

Reading
correspondence

Listening as a memberof alive audience

Reading for orientation

Listening toannouncements &instructions

Reading for information&argument

Listening to audio
media & recordings

Reading instructions

Reading as aleisure activity

Page 54 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Identifying cues &inferringReception activities
Listening comprehension
The aspects of listening comprehension included under reception are different kinds of one-way
listening, excluding Understanding the interlocutor (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 the role as participant in an interaction towards the one-way role of an overhearer or
bystander, to being a member of a live audience, to being a member of an audience at a distance – via
media. Scales are provided for Understanding conversation between other speakers (as an
overhearer) and for Listening as a member of a live-audience. To these scales particular media areadded, with Listening to announcements and instructions, and Listening to audio media andrecordings. There is also a separate scale for Watching TV and film included under audio-visualcomprehension.
SPOKEN RECEPTIONOVERALL LISTENING COMPREHENSIONC2

Can understand with ease virtually any kind of spoken language, whether live or broadcast, delivered at fast natural
speed.

C1

Can understand enough to follow extended speech on abstract and complex topics beyond his/her own field, thoughhe/she may need to confirm occasional details, especially if the accent is unfamiliar.
Can recognise a wide range of idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms, appreciating register shifts.
Can follow extended speech even when it is not clearly structured and when relationships are only implied and notsignalled explicitly.
Can understand standard spoken language, live or broadcast on both familiar and unfamiliar topics normally encounteredin personal, social, academic or vocational life. Only extreme background noise, inadequate discourse structure and/or
idiomatic usage influence the ability to understand.

B2

B1

Can understand the main ideas of propositionally and linguistically complex speech on both concrete and abstract topics
delivered in standard speech, including technical discussions in his/her field of specialisation.
Can follow extended speech and complex lines of argument provided the topic is reasonably familiar, and the direction of
the talk is sign-posted by explicit markers.
Can understand straightforward factual information about common everyday or job related topics, identifying both generalmessages and specific details, provided speech is clearly articulated in a generally familiar accent.
Can understand the main points of clear standard speech on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school,
leisure etc., including short narratives.
Can understand enough to be able to meet needs of a concrete type provided speech is clearly and slowly articulated.

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 speech is clearly and slowly articulated.

A1

Can follow speech that is very slow and carefully articulated, with long pauses for him/her to assimilate meaning.
Can recognise concrete information (e.g. places and times) on familiar topics encountered in everyday life, provided it isdelivered in slow and clear speech.

Pre-A1

Can understand short, very simple questions and statements provided that they are delivered slowly and clearly andaccompanied by visuals or manual gestures to support understanding and repeated if necessary.
Can recognise everyday, familiar words, 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 and clearly in a defined,familiar, everyday context.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 55

Understanding conversation between other speakers concerns two main situations: the first is whenother speakers in a group interaction talk across the 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:
listening 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 element of accommodation
to them and because the speakers may have shared assumptions, experiences they refer to and evenvariants in usage, and secondly because the user/learner, not being an addressee, has no ‘rights’ to
ask for clarification, repetition etc. Key concepts operationalized in the scale include the following:►

picking up and connecting words, phrases etc.;►

catching enough to identify the topic, changes of topic;►

identifying chronological progression, e.g. a story;►

identifying when people agree and disagree, points made for and against an issue;►

identifying attitudes and sociocultural implications (C levels).

UNDERSTANDING CONVERSATION BETWEEN OTHER SPEAKERS
C2

Can identify the sociocultural implications of most of the language used in colloquial discussions that take place at a natural
speed.

C1

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 speaker in an animated discussion characterised by overlapping turns, digressions andcolloquialisms that is delivered at a natural speed in accents that are familiar to the listener.
Can keep up with an animated conversation between speakers of the target language.

B2

B1

A2

Can with some effort catch much of what is said around him/her, but may find it difficult to participate effectively in
discussion with several speakers of the target language who do not modify their speech in any way.
Can identify the main reasons for and against an argument or idea in a discussion conducted in clear standard speech.
Can follow chronological sequence in extended informal speech, e.g. in a story or anecdote.
Can follow much of everyday conversation and discussion, provided it takes place in standard speech and is clearly
articulated in a familiar accent.
Can generally follow the main points of extended discussion around him/her, provided speech is clearly articulated instandard speech.
Can generally identify the topic of discussion around him/her that is conducted slowly and clearly.
Can recognise when speakers agree and disagree in a conversation conducted slowly and clearly.
Can follow in outline short, simple social exchanges, conducted very slowly and clearly.

A1

Can understand some words and expressions when people are talking about him/herself, family, school, hobbies orsurroundings, provided they are talking slowly and clearly.
Can understand words and short sentences when listening to a simple conversation (e.g. between a customer and asalesperson in a shop), provided that people talk very slowly and very clearly.

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Page 56 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Listening as a member of a live-audience concerns listening to a speaker addressing an audience, forexample in a meeting or seminar, at a conference or lecture, on a guided tour, at a wedding or othercelebration. Understanding the speaker as a member of an audience is in fact usually easier than
Understanding conversation between other speakers, even though the user/learner is even further
away from being a participant in the talk. This is firstly because the more structured nature of amonologue means that it is easier to bridge over sections that one doesn’t understand and pick up thethread again. Secondly, the speaker is more likely to be using a neutral register and projecting his/hervoice to maximize the ability of the audience to follow. Key concepts operationalized in the scale
include the following:►

following talk accompanying real artefacts (e.g. on a guided tour) and visual aids (e.g.
PowerPoint);►

the degree of accommodation to the audience (speed of delivery, extent to which usage issimplified);►familiarity of the situation and subject matter;►following a line of argument, distinguishing man points etc.

LISTENING 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.

B2

Can follow the essentials of lectures, talks and reports and other forms of academic/professional presentation which arepropositionally and linguistically complex.
Can understand the speaker’s point of view on topics that are of current interest or that relate to his/her specialised field,
provided that the talk is delivered in standard spoken language.
Can follow complex lines of argument in a clearly articulated lecture provided the topic is reasonably familiar.
Can distinguish main themes from asides, provided that the lecture or talk is delivered in standard spoken language.
Can recognise the speaker’s point of view and distinguish this from facts that he/she is reporting.
Can follow a lecture or talk within his/her own field, provided the subject matter is familiar and the presentation
straightforward and clearly structured.
Can distinguish between main ideas and supporting details in standard lectures on familiar subjects, provided these aredelivered in clearly articulated standard speech.

B1

Can follow in outline straightforward short talks on familiar topics, provided these are delivered in clearly articulated
standard speech.
Can follow a straightforward conference presentation or demonstration with visual support (e.g. slides, handouts) on a topic
or product within his/her field, understanding explanations given.
Can understand the main points of what is said in a straightforward monologue like a guided tour, provided the delivery isclear and relatively slow.
Can follow the general outline of a demonstration or presentation on a familiar or predictable topic, where the message isexpressed 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 that it is illustrated with slides, concrete
examples or diagrams, it is delivered slowly and clearly with repetition and the topic is familiar.
Can understand the outline of simple information given in a predictable situation, such as on a guided tour, e.g. ‘This iswhere the President lives.’

A1

Can understand in outline very simple information being explained in a predictable situation like a guided tour, provided thatspeech is very slow and clear and that there are long pauses from time to time.

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 57

Listening to announcements and instructions, involves a different type of extremely focused listening inwhich the aim is to catch specific information. The situation is complicated by the fact that theannouncement or instructions may well be delivered by a (possibly faulty) public address system, or
called out by a speaker some considerable distance away. Key concepts operationalized in the scale
include the following:►

understanding directions and detailed instructions;►catching the main point of announcements;►

degree of clarity, from slow and clear to normal speed with audio distortion.

LISTENING TO ANNOUNCEMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS
C2No descriptors available; see C1

C1

Can extract specific information from poor quality, audibly distorted public announcements e.g. in a station, sports stadiumetc.
Can understand complex technical information, such as operating instructions, specifications for familiar products andservices.

B2

Can understand announcements and messages on concrete and abstract topics spoken in standard speech at normal
speed.
Can understand detailed instructions well enough to be able to follow them successfully.

B1

Can understand simple technical information, such as operating instructions for everyday equipment.
Can follow detailed directions.
Can understand public announcements at airports, stations and on planes, buses and trains, provided these are clearly
articulated in standard speech with minimum interference from 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. a telephone recording or radio announcement of a cinema
programme or sports event, an announcement that a train has been delayed, or messages announced by loudspeaker in asupermarket), provided the delivery is slow and clear.

A2
Can catch the main point in short, clear, simple messages and announcements.
Can understand simple directions relating to 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.

A1

Can understand instructions addressed carefully and slowly to him/her and follow short, simple directions.
Can understand when someone tells him/her 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 are delivered
slowly face-to- face, accompanied by pictures or manual gestures and repeated if necessary.

Page 58 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Listening to audio media and recordings involves broadcast media and recorded materials including
messages, weather forecasts, narrated stories, news bulletins, interviews and documentaries. Key
concepts operationalized in the scale include the following:►

picking out concrete information;►

understanding main points, essential information;►

catching important information;►

identifying speaker mood, attitudes and viewpoints.

LISTENING TO AUDIO MEDIA AND RECORDINGSC2No descriptors available; see C1

C1

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

B2

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

B1

Can understand the main points of radio 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 of a holiday),provided the speaker speaks slowly and clearly.
Can understand the most important information contained in short radio commercials concerning goods and services ofinterest (e.g. CDs, video games, travel, etc.).
Can understand in a radio interview what people say they do in their free time, what they particularly like doing and what
they do not like doing, provided that they speak slowly and clearly.

A2

Can understand and extract the essential information from short, recorded passages dealing with predictable everyday
matters that are delivered slowly and clearly.
Can extract important information from short radio broadcasts, such as the weather forecast, concert announcements or
sports results, provided that 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

Can pick out concrete information (e.g. places and times) from short audio recordings on familiar everyday topics, provided
they are delivered very slowly and clearly.

Pre-A1

Can recognise words, names and numbers that he/she already knows in simple, short recordings, provided that they aredelivered very slowly and clearly

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 59

Reading comprehension
The categories for reading are a mixture between reading purpose and reading particular genres withspecific functions. In terms of reading purpose, there is a fundamental difference between Reading fororientation and Reading for information / argument. The former is sometimes called search reading andmainly 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 forsomething 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 a long prose text looking forsomething in particular. Then there is a fundamental difference between Reading for
information/argument and Reading as a leisure activity. The latter may well involve non-fiction, but notnecessarily literature. It will also encompass magazines and newspapers, blogs, biographies etc. – andpossible even texts 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
specialized form of reading for information. Reading correspondence is different again, and this isoffered first since the scales start in each category with interpersonal language use. Reading as aleisure activity is given last purely because it is added in 2017.
WRITTEN RECEPTIONOVERALL READING COMPREHENSIONC2

Can understand virtually all forms of the written language 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 and implicit as well as
explicit meaning.

C1

Can understand in detail lengthy, complex texts, whether or not they relate to his/her own area of speciality, provided
he/she can reread difficult sections.
Can understand a wide variety of texts including literary writings, newspaper or magazine articles, and specialised
academic or professional publications, provided that there are opportunities for re-reading and he/she has access toreference tools.

B2

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

B1

Can read straightforward factual texts on subjects related to his/her field and interests with a satisfactory level ofcomprehension.

A2

Can understand short, simple texts on familiar matters of a concrete type which consist of high frequency everyday or jobrelated language.
Can understand short, simple texts containing the highest frequency vocabulary, including a proportion of sharedinternational vocabulary items.

A1

Can understand very short, simple texts a single phrase at a time, picking up familiar names, words and basic phrases andrereading as required.

Pre-A1

Can recognise familiar words accompanied by pictures, such as a fast-food restaurant menu illustrated with photos or a
picture book using familiar vocabulary.

Page 60 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Reading correspondence encompasses reading both personal and formal correspondence. Key
concepts operationalized in the scale include the following:►length and complexity/simplicity of message;►

concreteness of information, whether it follows a routine format;►

the extent to which language is standard, colloquial, idiomatic;►

the extent to which the subject is an everyday one, one related to interests or specialised.

READING CORRESPONDENCE
C2

Can understand specialised, formal correspondence on a complex topic.

C1

Can understand any correspondence given the occasional use of a dictionary.
Can understand implicit as well as explicit attitudes, emotions and opinions expressed in emails, discussion forums, blogs
etc., provided that there are opportunities for re-reading and he/she has access to reference tools.
Can understand slang, idiomatic expressions and jokes in private correspondence.

B2

Can read correspondence relating to his/her field of interest and readily grasp the essential meaning.
Can understand what is said in a personal email or posting even where some colloquial language is used.
Can understand formal correspondence on less familiar subjects well enough to redirect it to someone else.

B1

A2

Can understand the description of events, feelings and wishes in personal letters well enough to correspond regularly witha pen friend.
Can understand straightforward personal letters, emails or postings giving a relatively detailed account of events andexperiences.
Can understand standard formal correspondence and online postings in his/her area of professional interest.
Can understand a simple personal letter, email or post in which the person writing is talking about familiar subjects (such as
friends or family) or asking questions on these subjects.
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 emails and letters (e.g. confirmation of a booking or on-line purchase).

A1

Can understand short, simple messages on postcards.
Can understand short, simple messages sent via social media or email (e.g. proposing what to do, when and where tomeet).

Pre-A1

Can understand from a letter, card or email the event to which he/she is 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, for example ‘Back at 4
o’clock’ or ‘In the meeting room,’ provided there are no abbreviations.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 61

Reading for orientation – search reading – involves ‘skimming:’ reading at speed in order to judge
relevance and ‘scanning:’ searching for specific information. Key concepts operationalized in the scale
include the following:►

the type of texts (from notices, leaflets etc. to articles and books);►

picking out concrete information like times, prices from texts that are visual artefacts, rather
than prose text, with layout that helps;►

identifying important information;►scanning prose text for relevance;►

speed – mentioned at B2.

READING FOR ORIENTATIONC2No 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 his/her own field andin related fields, and can identify the relevance and usefulness of particular sections for the task 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 of professional topics,
deciding whether closer study is worthwhile.
Can scan longer texts in order to locate desired information, and gather information from different parts of a text, or fromdifferent texts in order to fulfil a specific task.
Can scan through straightforward, factual texts in magazines, brochures or in the web, identify what they are about anddecide 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 foodstuffs 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 that
there are not too many abbreviations.
Can find specific information in practical, concrete, predictable texts (e.g. travel guidebooks, recipes), provided they are
written 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, etc.).

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’ to find a service ortradesman).
Can understand everyday signs and notices etc. in public places, such as streets, restaurants, railway stations, inworkplaces, such as directions, instructions, hazard warnings.

A1

Can recognise familiar names, words and very basic phrases on simple notices in the most common everyday situations.
Can understand store guides (information on which floors departments are on) and directions (e.g. to where to find lifts).
Can understand basic hotel information, e.g. times when meals are served.
Can find and understand simple, important information in advertisements, in programmes for special events, in leaflets andbrochures (e.g. what is proposed, costs, the date and place of the event, departure times etc.).

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.

Page 62 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Reading for information / argument – detailed reading – involves careful study of a text that one has
judged to be relevant for a purpose at hand. It is often associated with study and professional life. Key
concepts operationalized in the scale include the following:► type of texts, from simple, short illustrated informational material to complex reports andarticles;► subject of texts, from familiar everyday subjects of personal interest to topics outside his/herarea of interest;► depth of understanding, from getting an idea of the content to understanding finer points andimplications.
READING FOR INFORMATION AND ARGUMENTC2

Can understand the finer points and implications of a complex report or article even outside his/her area of specialisation.

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 as stated opinions.
Can understand in detail lengthy, complex texts, whether or not they relate to his/her own area of speciality, provided
he/she can reread difficult sections.
Can obtain information, ideas and opinions from highly specialised sources within his/her field.
Can understand specialised articles outside his/her field, provided he/she can use a dictionary occasionally to confirm
his/her interpretation of terminology.

B2

B1

Can understand articles and reports concerned with contemporary problems in which the writers adopt particular stances orviewpoints.
Can recognise when a text provides factual information and when it seeks to convince readers of something.
Can recognise different structures in discursive text: contrasting arguments, problem-solution presentation and cause-effectrelationships.
Can understand straightforward, factual texts on subjects relating to his/her interests or studies.
Can understand short texts on subjects that are familiar or of current interest, in which people give their points 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.
Can recognise the line of argument in the treatment of the issue presented, though not necessarily in detail.
Can recognise significant points in straightforward newspaper articles on familiar subjects.
Can understand most factual information that he/she is likely to come across on familiar subjects of interest, provided
he/she has sufficient time for re-reading.
Can understand the main points in descriptive notes such as those on museum exhibits and explanatory boards in
exhibitions.
Can identify specific information in simpler written material he/she encounters such as letters, brochures and shortnewspaper articles describing events.
Can follow the general outline of a news report on a familiar type of event, provided that the contents are familiar andpredictable.
Can pick out the main information in short newspaper reports or simple articles in which figures, names, illustrations andtitles 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 that they are written in simple
language.
Can understand information given in illustrated brochures and maps, e.g. the principal attractions of a city or area.
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 his/her own field, provided that it is written in simple languageand 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 otherpeople.

A1

Can get an idea of the content of simpler informational material and short simple descriptions, especially if there is visual
support.
Can understand short texts on subjects of personal interest (e.g. news flashes about sports, music, travel, or stories etc.)
written with simple words and supported by illustrations and pictures.

Pre-A1

Can understand the simplest informational material that consists of familiar words and pictures, such as a fast-foodrestaurant menu illustrated with photos or an illustrated story formulated in very simple, everyday words

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 63

Reading instructions is a specialized form of reading for information. Key concepts operationalized in
the scale include the following:►

topic of instructions, from routine prohibitions on simple notices and simple directions todetailed conditions and complex instructions on something unfamiliar, possibly outside his/herarea of expertise;►degree of contextualisation and familiarity;►

length, from a few words to detailed and lengthy complex instructions in continuous text.

READING INSTRUCTIONS
C2No descriptors available; see C1

C1

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

B2

Can understand lengthy, complex instructions in his/her field, including details on conditions and warnings, provided he/she
can reread difficult sections.
Can understand instructions and procedures in the form of a continuous text, for example in a manual, provided that he/she
is familiar with the type of process or product concerned.

B1

Can understand clearly written, 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 of electrical equipment).
Can understand regulations, for example safety, when expressed in simple language.
Can understand short written 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 that they are illustrated and not written 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

Can follow short, simple written directions (e.g. to go from X to Y).

Pre-A1

Can understand very short, simple, instructions used in familiar, everyday contexts such as ‘No parking,’ ‘No food or drink,’
etc., especially if there are illustrations.

Page 64 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Reading as a leisure activity involves both fiction and nonfiction, including creative texts, different formsof literature, magazine and newspaper articles, blogs, biographies, etc. – depending on one’s interests.
Key concepts operationalized in the scale include the following:►length, variety of texts and whether there are illustrations;►type of texts, from simple descriptions of people and places, through different types ofnarrative texts to contemporary and classical writings in different genres;►

topics, from everyday topics (e.g. hobbies, sports, leisure activities, animals), concrete
situations to a full range of abstract and literary topics;►

type of language: from simple to stylistically complex;►

ease of reading: from guessing with the help of images, through reading with a large degreeof independence to appreciating the variety of texts;►

depth of understanding: from understanding in outline/the main points to understanding
implicit as well as explicit meaning.

READING AS A LEISURE ACTIVITY
C2

Can read virtually all forms of the written language including classical or colloquial literary and non-literary writings indifferent genres, appreciating subtle distinctions of style and implicit as well as explicit meaning.

C1

Can read and appreciate a variety of literary texts, provided that he/she can reread certain sections and that he/she canaccess reference tools if he/she wishes.
Can read contemporary literary texts and non-fiction written in the standard form of the language with little difficulty and withappreciation of implicit meanings and ideas.

B2

Can read for pleasure with a large degree of independence, adapting style and speed of reading to different texts (e.g.
magazines, more straightforward novels, history books, biographies, travelogues, guides, lyrics, poems), using appropriate
reference sources selectively.
Can read novels that have a strong, narrative plot and that are written in straightforward, unelaborated language, provided
that he/she can take his/her time and use a dictionary.
Can read newspaper / magazine accounts of films, books, concerts etc. written for a wider audience and understand themain points.
Can understand simple poems and song lyrics written in straightforward language and style.

B1

Can understand the description of places, events, explicitly expressed feelings and perspectives in narratives, guides andmagazine articles that are written in high frequency, everyday language.
Can understand a travel diary mainly describing the events of a journey and the experiences and discoveries the person
made.
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 written in highfrequency 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 that are written in simple words.
Can understand what is happening in a photo story (e.g. in a lifestyle magazine) and form an impression of what thecharacters 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 clearly written in simple language.

A1

Can understand short, illustrated narratives about everyday activities that are written in simple words.
Can understand in outline short texts in illustrated stories, provided that the images help him/her to guess a lot of thecontent.

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 65

Audio-visual Reception
Watching TV and film includes live and recorded video material plus, at higher levels, film. Key
concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:►

following changes of topic and identifying main points;►

identifying details, nuances and implied meaning (C levels);►delivery: from slow, clear standard usage to the ability to handle slang and idiomatic usage.

WATCHING TV, FILM AND VIDEO
C2

No descriptors available; see C1

C1

Can follow films employing a considerable degree of slang and idiomatic usage.
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 are delivered in
the standard language.
Can extract the main points from the arguments and discussion 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 thelanguage.
Can understand a large part of many TV programmes on topics of personal interest such as interviews, short lectures, andnews reports when the delivery is relatively slow and clear.

B1

A2

Can follow many films in which visuals and action carry much of the storyline, and which are delivered clearly instraightforward language.
Can catch the main points in TV programmes on familiar topics when the delivery is relatively slow and clear.
Can identify the main point of TV news items reporting events, accidents etc. where the visual supports the commentary.
Can follow a TV commercial or a trailer for or scene from a film, understanding what the actors are talking about, provided
that 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 and phrases and identify the topics in headline news summaries and many of the products inadvertisements, by exploiting visual information and general knowledge.

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Page 66 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Reception Strategies
In reception, understanding progresses through a combination of bottom up/top down processing andof the use of content and formal schemata in inferencing. One scale is provided for the inferencing
strategies that this involves. Key concepts operationalized in the scale include the following:►

exploiting illustrations, formatting, headings, subtitles, position in the text etc.

►

ability to deduce meaning from the co-text and linguistic context;►

exploiting linguistic clues: from numbers and proper nouns, through word roots prefixes andsuffixes, temporal connectors, logical connectors – to skilled use of a variety of strategies.

IDENTIFYING CUES AND INFERRING (SPOKEN & WRITTEN)C2

No descriptors available; see C1

C1

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

B2

Can use a variety of strategies to achieve comprehension, including listening for main points; checking comprehension byusing contextual clues.

B1

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 unfamiliar words from the context on topics related to his/her field and interests.
Can extrapolate the meaning of occasional unknown words 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 listen to a short narrative and predict what will happen next.
Can follow a line of argument or the sequence of events in a story, by focusing on common logical connectors (e.g.
however, because) and temporal connectors (e.g. after that, beforehand).
Can deduce the probable meaning of unknown words in a written text by identifying their constituent part (e.g. identifying
word 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 type to derive theprobable meaning of unknown words from the context.
Can exploit his/her recognition of known words to deduce the meaning of unfamiliar words in short expressions used inroutine 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 written text (e.g. at the
beginning or end of a letter).

A1

Can deduce the meaning of an unknown word for a concrete action or object, provided the surrounding text is very simple,
and on a familiar everyday subject.

Pre-A1Can deduce the meaning of a word from an accompanying picture or icon.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 67

Production
Production includes both speaking and writing activities. Spoken production is a ‘long turn,’ which may
involve a short description or anecdote, or may imply a longer, more formal presentation. Productive
activities, spoken and written, have an important function in many academic and professional fields(oral presentations, written studies and reports) and particular social value is attached to them.
Judgements are made of what has been submitted in writing or of the fluency and articulateness inspeaking, especially when addressing an audience. Ability in this more formal production is notacquired 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 associatedwith formal genres, but Monitoring and Compensating for gaps in vocabulary or terminology are also aquasi-automated process in natural speech.

Production
Activities

Overall Spoken
Production

Production
Strategies

Overall Written
Production

Planning

Sustained monologue:
Describing experience

Creative writing

Compensating

Sustained monologue:
Giving information

Written reports &essaysMonitoring &repairSustained monologue:
Putting a case (e.g. debate)

Public announcements

Addressing audiences

Page 68 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Production activities
The categories for spoken production are organized in terms of three macro-functions (interpersonal,transactional, evaluative), with two more specialised genres: Addressing audiences and Publicannouncements. Sustained monologue: Describing experience focuses mainly on descriptions andnarratives whilst Sustained monologue: Putting a case (e.g. in debate) describes the ability to sustain
an argument, which may well be made in a long turn in the context of normal conversation anddiscussion. Sustained monologue: giving information is a new scale, created by transferring certain
descriptors from the scale for Information exchange that implied monologue rather than dialogue.
SPOKEN PRODUCTION
OVERALL SPOKEN PRODUCTION
C2

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

C1

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

B2

Can give clear, systematically developed descriptions and presentations, with appropriate highlighting of significant points,
and relevant supporting detail.
Can give clear, detailed descriptions and presentations on a wide range of subjects related to his/her field of interest,
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 his/her field 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 ashort 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).

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 69

Spoken Production
Sustained monologue: Describing experience concerns narrative and description. It has many short
descriptors at A1-B1 reflecting a relatively direct link between communicative functions and thelanguage used to express them. There is little or no information about quality of language, for whichscales for communicative language competence would need to be consulted. Key concepts
operationalized in the scale include the following:►

aspects described, from simple everyday information (describe him/herself, what he/she does
and where he/she lives) through classic functions (e.g. describe plans and arrangements,
habits and routines, past activities and personal experiences) and a wide range of subjects
related to his/her field of interest, to detailed descriptions of complex subjects;►

complexity of discourse: from simple words and formulaic expressions, and simple sentences,through relating as a linear sequence of points, to integrating sub themes and developing
particular points 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 and rounding off with
an appropriate conclusion.

B2

Can give clear, detailed descriptions on a wide range of subjects related to his/her 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

A2

Can give straightforward descriptions on a variety of familiar subjects within his field of interest.
Can reasonably fluently relate a straightforward narrative or description as a linear 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 his/her reactions.
Can describe dreams, hopes and ambitions.
Can describe events, real or imagined.
Can narrate a story.
Can tell a story or describe something in a simple list of points.
Can describe everyday aspects of his/her 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 and possessions.
Can explain what he/she likes or dislikes about something.
Can describe his/her family, living conditions, educational background, present or most recent job.
Can describe people, places and possessions in simple terms.
Can say what he/she is good at and not so good at (e.g. sports, games, skills, subjects).
Can briefly talk about what he/she plans to do at the weekend or during the holidays.

A1

Can describe him/herself, what he/she does and where he/she lives.
Can describe simple aspects of his/her everyday life in a series of simple sentences, using simple words and basic
phrases, provided he/she can prepare in advance.

Pre-A1Can describe him/herself (e.g. name, age, family), using simple words and formulaic expressions, provided he/she canprepare in advance.
Can say how he/she is feeling using simple words like ‘happy’, ‘tired’, accompanied by body language.

Page 70 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Sustained monologue: Giving information is a new scale concerned with explaining information to arecipient 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 operationalized in thescale include the following:►type of information: from a simple description of an object, or directions, throughstraightforward factual information on a familiar topic to complex professional or academic
procedures;►degree of precision: from simple descriptions through explaining the main points withreasonable precision to communicating detailed information reliably to making clear
distinctions between ideas, concepts and things that closely resemble one another.

SUSTAINED MONOLOGUE: GIVING INFORMATIONC2No 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.
Can communicate complex information and advice on the full range of matters related to his/her occupational role.

B2

B1

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 a problem or to givedetailed directions, provided he/she can prepare beforehand.

A2

Can give simple directions from place to place, using basic expressions such as ‘turn right’ and ‘go straight’ along withsequential connectors such as ‘first,’ ‘then,’ and ‘next.’

A1

Can give a simple description of an object or picture while showing it to others using basic words, phrases and formulaic
expressions, provided he/she can prepare in advance.

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 71

Sustained monologue: Putting a case (e.g. in debate) describes the ability to sustain an argument. The
original scale (marked in blue) was bunched at B2, where this ability is a salient concept. Descriptors
have now been added for more levels. Key concepts operationalized in the scale include the following:►

topics: from what he/she likes or dislikes about something to opinions on subjects relating toeveryday life, to topical issues and complex issues;►manner of arguing: from making simple, direct comparisons, through expanding andsupporting viewpoints at some length whilst developing an argument systematically, to taking
into account the interlocutor’s perspective and employing emphasis effectively;►manner of formulation: from presenting an idea in simple terms to highlighting significant
points appropriately and formulating points precisely in well-structured speech.

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 speech, 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 his/her points of view at some length with subsidiary points andrelevant 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 say whether or not he/she approves of what someone has done and give reasons to justify this opinion.
Can explain what she likes or dislikes about something, why he/she prefers one thing to another, making simple, directcomparisons.
Can present his/her opinion in simple terms, provided listeners are patient.

A1

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Page 72 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Public announcements are a very specialised way of passing important information to a group ofpeople, perhaps in a private capacity (e.g. at a wedding), perhaps whilst organising an event or outing
or in the manner of air cabin staff. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:► type of content: from predictable, learnt content to announcements on a range of topics;► intelligibility: from a delivery listeners will have to concentrate to follow, to effective use ofstress and intonation, conveying finer shades of meaning precisely;► need for preparation: from very short, rehearsed announcements to spontaneous and almost
effortless fluency.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
C2

No descriptors available; see C1

C1

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

B2

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

B1

Can deliver short, rehearsed announcements on a topic pertinent to everyday occurrences in his/her field which, despite
possibly very foreign stress and intonation, are nevertheless clearly intelligible.

A2

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

A1

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 73

Addressing audiences involves giving a presentation or making a speech at a public event, in a
meeting, seminar or class. Whilst the talk is clearly prepared it is not usually read word for word.
Nowadays it is conventional to use visual aids like PowerPoint, but this need not be the case. After apresentation, it is customary to take questions spontaneously, answering in a short monologue, so thisis included in the descriptors as well. Key concepts operationalized in the scale include the following:►type of address: from a very short, rehearsed statement, through a prepared straightforward
presentation on a familiar topic within his/her field, to a well-structured presentation of acomplex subject given to an audience unfamiliar with it;►

consideration of the audience: there is no comment at the A levels, but from B1 theprogression goes from being clear enough to be followed without difficulty most of the time, tostructuring and adapting the talk flexibly to meet the needs of the audience;►

ability to handle questions: from answering straightforward questions with some help, throughtaking a series of follow up questions fluently and spontaneously, to handling difficult andeven hostile questioning.

ADDRESSING AUDIENCES
C2

Can present a complex topic confidently and articulately to an audience unfamiliar with it, structuring and adapting the talkflexibly to meet the audience's needs.
Can handle difficult and even hostile questioning.

C1

Can give a clear, well-structured presentation of a complex subject, expanding and supporting points of view at somelength with subsidiary points, reasons and relevant examples.
Can structure a longer presentation appropriately in order to help the audience follow the sequence of ideas andunderstand the overall argumentation.
Can speculate or hypothesise in presenting a complex subject, comparing and evaluating alternative proposals andarguments.
Can handle interjections well, responding spontaneously and almost effortlessly.

B2

Can give a clear, systematically developed presentation, with highlighting of significant points, and relevant supporting
detail.
Can depart spontaneously from a prepared text and follow up interesting points raised by members of the audience, 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 view and giving theadvantages 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
him/herself or the audience.
Can give a prepared presentation on a familiar topic within his/her field, outlining similarities and differences (e.g. between
products, countries/regions, plans).

B1

A2

Can give a prepared straightforward presentation on a familiar topic within his/her field which is clear enough to be followed
without difficulty most of the time, and in which the main points are explained with reasonable precision.
Can take follow up questions, but may have to ask for repetition if the speech was rapid.
Can give a short, rehearsed presentation on a topic pertinent to his/her everyday life, briefly give reasons and explanations
for opinions, plans and actions.
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 he/she can ask for repetition and if some help with the formulation of
his/her reply is possible.

A1

Can read a very short, rehearsed statement – e.g. to introduce a speaker, propose a toast.

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Page 74 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Written Production
In the categories for written production, the macro-functions ‘transactional language use’ and‘evaluative language use’ are not separated because they are normally interwoven (Reading for
information and argument also combined these two aspects). Creative writing is the written equivalentof Sustained monologue: Describing experience, and focuses on description and narrative.
WRITTEN PRODUCTION
OVERALL WRITTEN PRODUCTION
C2

Can write clear, smoothly flowing, complex texts in an appropriate and effective style and a logical structure which helps thereader to find significant points.

C1

Can write 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 written genres, varying the tone, style and register according toaddressee, text type and theme.

B2

Can write clear, detailed texts on a variety of subjects related to his/her field of interest, synthesising and evaluating
information and arguments from a number of sources.

B1

Can write straightforward connected texts on a range of familiar subjects within his/her field of interest, by linking a series ofshorter discrete elements into a linear sequence.

A2

Can write a series of simple phrases and sentences linked with simple connectors like ‘and,’ ‘but’ and ‘because’.

A1

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

Pre-A1

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

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 75

Creative writing involves personal, imaginative expression in a variety of text types. Key concepts
operationalized in the scale include the following:►

aspects described, from simple everyday information, through a variety of subjects related tofields of interest to engaging stories and descriptions of experience;►types of texts: from diary entries and short, imaginary biographies and simple poems, to wellstructured and developed descriptions and imaginative texts;►

complexity of discourse: from simple words and phrases, through clear connected text, tofollowing established conventions of the genre concerned in clear, well-structured, smoothly
flowing text;►

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

B2

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

B1

Can write straightforward, detailed descriptions on a range of familiar subjects within his/her field of interest.
Can write accounts of experiences, describing feelings and reactions in simple connected text.
Can write a description of an event, a recent trip – real or imagined.
Can narrate a story.
Can write about everyday aspects of his/her environment e.g. people, places, a job or study experience in linked
sentences.
Can write 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

Can write a series of simple phrases and sentences about their family, living conditions, educational background, present
or most recent job.
Can write short, simple imaginary biographies and simple poems about people.
Can write diary entries that describe activities (e.g. daily routine, outings, sports, hobbies), people and places, using basic,
concrete vocabulary and simple phrases and sentences with simple connectives like ‘and,’ ‘but’ and ‘because’.
Can write an introduction to a story or continue a story, provided he/she can consult a dictionary and references (e.g. tablesof verb tenses in a course book).

A1

Can write simple phrases and sentences about themselves and imaginary people, where they live and what they do.
Can describe in very simple language what a room looks like.
Can use simple words and phrases to describe certain everyday objects (e.g. the colour of a car, whether it is big or small).

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Page 76 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Written reports and essays covers more formal types of transactional and evaluative writing. Key
concepts operationalized in the scale include the following:► content: from familiar subjects of interest and routine factual information, to complex
academic and professional topics, distinguishing one’s own viewpoints from those in thesources;► type of texts: from short reports and posters, to complex texts which present a case, or givecritical appreciation of proposals or literary works;► complexity of discourse: from linking sentences with simple connectors, to smoothly flowing
expositions with effective logical structure.
WRITTEN REPORTS AND ESSAYS

C2

Can produce clear, smoothly flowing, complex reports, articles or essays which present a case, or give critical appreciationof proposals or literary works.
Can provide an appropriate and effective logical structure which helps the reader to find significant points.
Can set out multiple perspectives on complex academic or professional topics, clearly distinguishing his/her own ideas andopinions from those in the sources.

C1

Can write clear, well-structured expositions of complex subjects, underlining the relevant salient issues.
Can expand and support points of view at some length with subsidiary points, reasons and relevant examples.
Can write a suitable introduction and conclusion to a longer report, article or dissertation on a complex academic or
professional topic provided that the topic is within his/her field of interest and there are opportunities for redrafting andrevision.

B2

Can write an essay or report that develops an argument systematically with appropriate highlighting of significant points
and relevant supporting detail.
Can write a detailed description of a complex process.
Can evaluate different ideas or solutions to a problem.
Can write an essay or report which develops an argument, giving reasons in support of or against a particular point of viewand explaining the advantages and disadvantages of various options.
Can synthesise information and arguments from a number of sources.

B1

Can write short, simple essays on topics of interest.
Can write a text on a topical subject of personal interest, using simple language to list advantages and disadvantages, giveand justify his/her opinion.
Can summarise, report and give his/her opinion about accumulated factual information on familiar routine and non-routine
matters within his/her field with some confidence.
Can write very brief reports to a standard conventionalised format, which pass on routine factual information and statereasons for actions.
Can present a topic in a short report or poster, using photographs and short blocks of text.

A2

Can write simple texts on familiar subjects of interest, linking sentences with connectors like ‘and,’ ‘because,’ or ‘then.’
Can give his/her impressions and opinions in writing 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

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 77

Production Strategies
Communication strategies are presented in the CEFR in relation to the classic approach to strategies ininterlanguage communication: planning, execution, monitoring, repair. For production strategies, theexecution strategy for which an illustrative scale is offered is Compensating. Before the appearance of
the CEFR, this tended to be the main communication strategy taken into consideration. Monitoring andrepair are then combined into one scale.
Planning
Planning is concerned with mental preparation before speaking or writing. It can involve thinking
consciously about what to say and how to formulate it; it can also involve rehearsal or the preparationof drafts. Key concepts operationalized in the scale include the following:►

working out how to express the point that needs to be got across, and perhaps rehearsing
expression;►considering how recipients may react to what is said.

PLANNING
C2

No descriptors available; see C1

C1

Can, when preparing a more formal spoken or written text, consciously adopt the conventions linked to the particular typeof text concerned (structure, level of formality and other conventions).

B2

Can, in preparing for a potentially complicated or awkward situation, plan what to say in the event of different 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) he/she wants to get across, exploiting any resources available andlimiting the message to what he/she can recall or find the means to express.

A2

Can recall and rehearse an appropriate set of phrases from his/her repertoire.

A1

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Page 78 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

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:►paralinguistic gesture to support language;►

deliberately using a ‘wrong’ word and qualifying it;►

defining the missing concept;►

paraphrasing (circumlocution) and the extent to which such paraphrasing is evident.

COMPENSATING
C2

Can substitute an equivalent term for a word he/she can't recall so smoothly that it is scarcely noticeable.

C1

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

B2

B1

A2

Can use circumlocution and paraphrase to cover gaps in vocabulary and structure.
Can address most communication problems by using circumlocutions, or by avoiding difficult expressions.
Can define the features of something concrete for which he/she can't remember the word.
Can convey meaning by qualifying a word meaning something similar (e.g. a truck for people = bus).
Can use a simple word meaning something similar to the concept he/she wants to convey and invites ‘correction’.
Can foreignise a mother tongue word and ask for confirmation.
Can use an inadequate word from his/her repertoire and use gesture to clarify what he/she wants to say.
Can identify what he/she means by pointing to it (e.g. ‘I'd like this, please’).

A1

Can use gesture to support simple words in expressing a need.

Pre-A1

Can point to something and ask what it is.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 79

Monitoring and repair
Monitoring and repair covers both (a) the spontaneous realization 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 or written and checking it for correctness and appropriateness. Key concepts operationalized in
the scale include the following:►changing tack and using a different tactic – very obviously at A levels, very smoothly at C
levels;►self-correcting slips, errors and ‘favourite mistakes;►

the extent to which a communication problem must be evident before repair is undertaken.

MONITORING AND REPAIR
C2Can backtrack and restructure around a difficulty so smoothly the interlocutor is hardly aware of it.

C1

Can backtrack when he/she encounters a difficulty and reformulate what he/she wants to say without fully interrupting theflow of speech.
Can self-correct with a high degree of effectiveness.

B2

B1

Can often retrospectively self-correct his/her occasional ‘slips’ or non-systematic errors and minor flaws in sentence
structure.
Can correct slips and errors if he/she becomes conscious of them or if they have led to misunderstandings.
Can make a note of ‘favourite mistakes’ and consciously monitor speech for it/them.
Can correct mix-ups with tenses or expressions which lead to misunderstandings provided the interlocutor indicates there isa problem.
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

Page 80 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Interaction
Interaction, which involves two or more parties co-constructing discourse, is central in the CEFR
scheme of language use summarised at the start of this document. Spoken interaction is considered tobe the origin of language, with interpersonal, collaborative and transactional functions. Production in
the form of storytelling can be considered as a further development in oracy and eventually literacy.
Interaction is also fundamental in learning. The CEFR scales for interaction strategies reflect this withscales for turn-taking, cooperating (= collaborative strategies) and asking for clarification. These basic
interaction strategies are as important in collaborative learning as they are in real worldcommunication. The majority of the scales for interaction concern spoken interaction. When the CEFR
was developed, the notion of written interaction did not meet with universal recognition and was not
greatly developed as a result. With hindsight, one can see that written interaction (= writing much as
you would speak, in a slowed down dialogue) has taken a more and more significant role over the past
20 years. Rather than further develop that category, however, the extended descriptors develop the
new category of online interaction.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 81

Interaction
Activities

Overall Spoken
Interaction

Overall Written
Interaction

Interaction
Strategies

OnlineInteraction

Taking the floor(Turntaking)

Understanding theinterlocutor

Correcpondence

Online conversation &discussion

Cooperating

Conversation

Notes, messages &forms

Goal-oriented onlinetransactions &colloboration

Asking forclarification

Informaldiscussion

Formal discussion(meetings)

Goal-oriented
co-operation

Obtaining goods &services

Informationexchange

Interviewing &being interviewed

Using
telecommunications

Page 82 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Interaction activities
Spoken Interaction
The scales for spoken interaction are once again organized by the three macro-functions‘interpersonal’, ‘transactional’ and ‘evaluative’, with certain specialized genres added on. The scales
begin with Understanding an interlocutor. ‘Interlocutor’ is a somewhat technical term which means the
person with whom one is conversing directly in a dialogue – not just any speaker. As mentioned before,
the metaphor behind the scales for listening is that of a series of concentric circles. Here we are at thecentre of those circles: the user/learner is actively involved in an interaction with the interlocutor.
The other scales then follow:►

Interpersonal: Conversation►

Evaluative: Informal discussion (with friends); Formal discussion (meetings), Goal-oriented
collaboration►

Transactional: Information exchange, Obtaining goods and services, Interviewing and being
interviewed, and Using telecommunications.

SPOKEN INTERACTION
OVERALL SPOKEN 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 range of modification devices. Can
backtrack and restructure around a difficulty so smoothly the interlocutor is hardly aware of it.

C1

Can express him/herself 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, vocational or leisure topics,
marking clearly the relationships between ideas. Can communicate spontaneously with good grammatical control without
much sign of having to restrict what he/she wants to say, adopting a level of formality appropriate to the circumstances.

B2

B1

A2

Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction, and sustained relationships withspeakers of the target language quite possible without imposing strain on either party. Can highlight the personal
significance of events and experiences, account for and sustain views clearly by providing relevant explanations andarguments.
Can communicate with some confidence on familiar routine and non-routine matters related to his/her interests andprofessional 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.
Can exploit a wide range of simple language to deal with most situations likely to arise whilst travelling. Can enter
unprepared into conversation of familiar topics, express personal opinions and exchange information on topics that arefamiliar, of personal interest or pertinent to everyday life (e.g. family, hobbies, work, travel and current events).
Can interact with reasonable ease in structured situations and short conversations, provided the other person helps if
necessary. Can manage simple, routine exchanges without undue effort; can ask and answer 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 is rarely able to understand enough tokeep conversation going of his/her own accord.

A1

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

Pre-A1

Can ask and answer questions about him/herself and daily routines, using short, formulaic expressions and relying on
gestures to reinforce the information.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 83

Understanding an interlocutor concerns understanding a person with whom you are conversing directlyin an interaction, with the possibility of negotiating meaning. Key concepts operationalized in the scale
include the following:►

topic and setting: from personal details and everyday needs, to complex and abstract topics ofa specialist nature;►

type of delivery by the interlocutor: from careful and slow to standard speech and less familiar
accents;►

degree of accommodation by the interlocutor: from sympathetic repetition and taking thetrouble to help, to just confirming details if the accent is less familiar.

UNDERSTANDING AN INTERLOCUTOR
C2

Can understand any interlocutor, even on abstract and complex topics of a specialist nature beyond his/her own field, given
an opportunity to adjust to a less familiar accent.

C1

Can understand in detail speech on abstract and complex topics of a specialist nature beyond his/her own field, thoughhe/she may need to confirm occasional details, especially if the accent is unfamiliar.

B2

Can understand in detail what is said to him/her in the standard spoken language even in a noisy environment.

B1

Can follow clearly articulated speech directed at him/her in everyday conversation, though will sometimes have to ask for
repetition of particular words and phrases.
Can understand enough to manage simple, routine exchanges without undue effort.
Can generally understand clear, standard speech on familiar matters directed at him/her, provided he/she can ask for
repetition or reformulation from time to time.

A2

Can understand what is said clearly, slowly and directly to him/her in simple everyday conversation; can be made tounderstand, if the speaker can take the trouble.
A1

Can understand everyday expressions aimed at the satisfaction of simple needs of a concrete type, delivered directly tohim/her in clear, slow and repeated speech by a sympathetic speaker.
Can understand questions and instructions addressed carefully and slowly to him/her and follow short, simple directions.

Pre-A1

Can understand simple questions which directly concern him/her, for example about name, age and address or similar
things, 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, provided that they speak slowly and clearly directly to him/her, and can understand questions on this theme
addressed to him/her, though the questions may need to be repeated.
Can understand a number of familiar words and greetings and recognise key information such as numbers, prices, dates
and days of the week, provided speech is delivered very slowly, with repetition if necessary.

Conversation concerns interaction with a primarily social function: the establishment and maintenanceof personal relationships. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:►

setting: from short exchanges through maintaining a conversation and sustaining relationships
to flexible use for social purposes;►

topics: from personal news, through familiar topics of personal interest to most general topics;►

language functions: from greetings etc. through offers, invitations and permission to degrees
of emotion and allusive, joking usage.

Page 84 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

CONVERSATIONC2

Can converse comfortably and appropriately, unhampered by any linguistic limitations in conducting a full social andpersonal 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 of agreement, 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 forunderstanding of his/her own position.

B2

Can engage in extended conversation on most general topics in a clearly participatory fashion, even in a noisy
environment.
Can sustain relationships with speakers of the target language without unintentionally amusing or irritating them or requiringthem to behave other than they would with another proficient speaker.
Can convey degrees of emotion and highlight the personal significance of events and experiences.
Can start up a conversation and help it to keep going by asking people relatively spontaneous questions about a special
experience or event, expressing reactions and opinion on familiar subjects.
Can have relatively long conversations on subjects of common interest, provided that the interlocutor makes an effort tosupport understanding.

B1

Can enter unprepared into conversations on familiar topics.
Can follow clearly articulated speech directed at him/her in everyday conversation, though will sometimes have to ask for
repetition of particular words and phrases.
Can maintain a conversation or discussion but may sometimes be difficult to follow when trying to say exactly what he/shewould like to.
Can express and respond to feelings such as surprise, happiness, sadness, interest and indifference.
Can establish social contact: greetings and farewells; introductions; giving thanks.
Can generally understand clear, standard speech on familiar matters directed at him/her, provided he/she 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 he/she feels in simple terms, and express thanks.
Can ask for a favour (e.g. to lend something), can offer a favour and can respond if someone asks him/her to do a favour
for them.

A2

Can handle very short social exchanges but is rarely able to understand enough to keep conversation going of his/her own
accord, though he/she can be made to understand if the speaker will take the trouble.
Can use simple everyday polite forms of greeting and address.
Can chat in simple language with peers, colleagues or members of a host family, asking questions and understanding theanswers relating to most routine matters.
Can make and respond to invitations, suggestions and apologies.
Can express how he/she is feeling using very basic stock expressions.
Can say what he/she likes and dislikes.

A1

Can understand everyday expressions aimed at the satisfaction of simple needs of a concrete type, delivered directly tohim/her in clear, slow and repeated speech by a sympathetic speaker.
Can take part in a simple conversation of a basic factual nature on a predictable topic, e.g. his/her home country, 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 some basic, formulaic expressions such as ‘Yes,’ ‘No,’ ‘Excuse me,’ ‘Please,’ ‘Thank you,’ ‘No
thank you,’ ‘Sorry.’
Can recognise simple greetings.
Can greet people, say his/her name and take leave of them.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 85

Informal discussion (with friends) includes aspects of both the interpersonal and evaluative use oflanguage, since these tend to be interwoven in everyday interaction. Key concepts operationalized in
the scale include the following:►

topics: from what to do and where to go, to abstract, complex and even unfamiliar topics andsensitive issues;►ability to follow the discussion: from identifying the topic through following main points tokeeping up with animated discussion and understanding colloquial references;►

language functions: from discussing and (dis)agreeing in a limited way to expressing ideas
with precision and dealing diplomatically with disagreement and criticism.

INFORMAL DISCUSSION (WITH FRIENDS)
C2

Can advise on or talk about sensitive issues without awkwardness, understanding colloquial references and dealing
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 speakers of the target language.
Can express his/her ideas and opinions with precision, present and respond to complex lines of argument convincingly.

B2

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

B1

A2

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 speech is clearly articulated in standard
language.
Can give or seek personal views and opinions in discussing topics of interest.
Can make his/her opinions and reactions understood as regards solutions to problems or practical questions of where togo, what to do, how to organise an event (e.g. an outing).
Can express belief, opinion, agreement and disagreement politely.
Can generally identify the topic of discussion around him/her which is conducted slowly and clearly.
Can exchange opinions and compare things and people using simple language.
Can discuss what to do in the evening, at the weekend.
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

Can exchange likes and dislikes for sports, foods, etc., using a limited repertoire of expressions, when addressed clearly,
slowly and directly.

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Page 86 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

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

FORMAL DISCUSSION (MEETINGS)

C2

Can hold his/her own in formal discussion of complex issues, putting an articulate and persuasive argument, at no
disadvantage to other speakers.
Can advise on/handle complex, delicate or contentious issues, provided he/she has the necessary specialised knowledge.
Can deal with hostile questioning confidently, hold on to his/her turn to speak 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 his/her academic 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.
Can keep up with an animated discussion, identifying accurately arguments supporting and opposing points of view.
Can use appropriate technical terminology, when discussing his/her area of specialisation with other specialists.
Can express his/her ideas and opinions with precision, present and respond to complex lines of argument convincingly.

B2

Can participate actively in routine and non-routine formal discussion.
Can follow the discussion on matters related to his/her field; understand in detail the points given prominence by the
speaker.
Can contribute, account for and sustain his/her opinion, evaluate alternative proposals and make and respond to
hypotheses.
Can follow much of what is said that is related to his/her field, provided interlocutors avoid very idiomatic usage andarticulate 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 conducted in clearly articulated speech in thestandard form of the language 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 made in relatively
simple language and/or repeated, and opportunity is given for clarification.
Can generally follow changes of topic in formal discussion related to his/her field which is conducted slowly and clearly.
Can exchange relevant information and give his/her opinion on practical problems when asked directly, provided he/she
receives some help with formulation and can ask for repetition of key points if necessary.
Can say what he/she thinks about things when addressed directly in a formal meeting, provided he/she can ask for
repetition of key points if necessary.

A1

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 87

Goal-oriented co-operation (e.g. cooking together, discussing a document, organising an event etc.)
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 to follow the discussion. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include
the following:►

following the discussion: from understanding simple instructions explained directly to him/her
to understanding detailed instructions reliably;►

active contribution to the work: from simply asking for things and giving things to speculating
about causes and consequences and organising the entire task.

GOAL-ORIENTED CO-OPERATION(E.G. ASSEMBLING A FURNITURE KIT, DISCUSSING A DOCUMENT, ORGANISING AN EVENT ETC.)C2

No descriptors available; see C1

C1

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

B2

Can understand detailed instructions reliably.
Can help along the progress of the work by inviting others to join in, say what they think etc.
Can outline an issue or a problem clearly, speculating about causes or consequences, and weighing advantages anddisadvantages of different approaches.
Can follow what is said, though he/she may occasionally have to ask for repetition or clarification if the other people's talk is
rapid or extended.
Can explain why something is a problem, discuss what to do next, compare and contrast alternatives.
Can give brief comments on the views of others.

B1

A2

Can generally follow what is said and, when necessary, can repeat back part of what someone has said to confirm mutual
understanding.
Can make his/her 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
he/she does not understand.
Can discuss what to do next, making and responding to suggestions, asking for and giving directions.
Can indicate when he/she is following and can be made to understand what is necessary, if the speaker takes the trouble.
Can communicate in simple and routine tasks using simple phrases to ask for and provide things, to get simple informationand to discuss what to do next.

A1

Can understand questions and instructions addressed carefully and slowly to him/her 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

Page 88 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Obtaining goods and services 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 acomplaint or problem and negotiating a solution. Key concepts operationalized in the scale include thefollowing:►types of situations: from simple, everyday transactions to disputes about responsibility andsensitive transactions in public, professional or academic life;►

getting service: from asking for food and drink to asking detailed questions about more
complex services;►demanding satisfaction: from making a complaint (B1) to negotiating a solution to a dispute ora sensitive transaction.

OBTAINING GOODS AND SERVICES
C2

No descriptors available; see C1

C1

Can negotiate complex or sensitive transactions in public, professional or academic life.

B2

Can cope linguistically to negotiate a solution to a dispute like an undeserved traffic ticket, financial responsibility fordamage in a flat, for blame regarding an accident.
Can outline a case for compensation, using persuasive language to demand satisfaction and state clearly the limits to any
concession he/she is 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 aconcession.

B1

Can deal with most transactions likely to arise whilst travelling, arranging travel or accommodation, or dealing withauthorities during a foreign visit.
Can ask in a shop for an explanation of the difference between two or more products serving the same purpose, in order tomake a decision, posing follow up questions as necessary.
Can cope with less routine situations in shops, post office, bank, 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 passenger where to get off for unfamiliar destination.
Can deal with common aspects of everyday living such as travel, lodgings, eating and shopping.
Can interact in predictable everyday situations (e.g. a post office, a station, a shop), using a wide range of simple words
and expressions.
Can get all the information needed from a tourist office, as long as it is of a straightforward, non-specialised nature.

A2

Can ask for and provide everyday goods and services.
Can get simple information about travel, use public transport: buses, trains, and 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 say 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 a problem to ahealth professional, perhaps using gestures and body language.

A1

Can ask people for things and give people things.
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 the verbal reference.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 89

Information exchange does not contain descriptors for the C levels, because merely exchanging factual
information is no longer a main focus in learning objectives for proficient users. Key concepts
operationalized in the scale include the following:►type of transaction: from simple questions, instructions and directions through simple, routine
exchanges to exchanging information with other specialists;►

type of information: from personal details, dates, prices etc. through habits, routines, pastimes
and straightforward factual information to detailed and complex information or advice.

INFORMATION EXCHANGE
C2

No descriptors available; see B2

C1

No descriptors available; see B2

B2

Can understand and exchange complex information and advice on the full range of matters related to his/her occupationalrole.
Can use appropriate technical terminology, when exchanging information or discussing his/her area of specialisation withother specialists.
Can pass on detailed information reliably.
Can exchange, check and confirm accumulated factual information on familiar routine and non-routine matters within
his/her field with some confidence.
Can summarise and give his or her opinion about a short story, article, talk, discussion interview, or documentary andanswer 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 his/her 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 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 was there and what it
was like.

A1

Can understand questions and instructions addressed carefully and slowly to him/her and follow short, simple directions.
Can ask and answer simple questions, initiate and respond to simple statements in areas of immediate need or on very
familiar topics.
Can ask and answer questions about themselves and other people, where they live, people they know, things they have.
Can indicate time by such phrases as next week, last Friday, in November, three 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.

Pre-A1

Can tell people his/her name and ask other people their name.
Can use and understand simple numbers in everyday conversations.
Can ask and tell day, time of day and date.
Can ask for and give a date of birth.
Can ask for and give a phone number.
Can say and ask people about their age.
Can ask very simple questions for information, such as ‘What is this?’ and understand 1- or 2-word answers.

Page 90 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Interviewing and being interviewed concerns the specialised roles associated with doctor’s
appointments and job applications as well as other forms of examination, plus surveys and, in an
education context, projects. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:►

independence from the interlocutor: from requiring direct, slow, clear standard speech, toacting without any support, at no disadvantage to other speakers;►

taking the initiative: from bringing up new subjects (B1), to participating fully, developing apoint fluently and handling interjections well;►conducting the actual interview: from using a prepared questionnaire (B1), through departing
spontaneously from prepared questions and following up and probing interesting replies, tostructuring the talk and interacting authoritatively.

INTERVIEWING AND BEING INTERVIEWEDC2Can keep up his/her side of the dialogue extremely well, structuring the talk and interacting authoritatively with effortless
fluency as interviewer or interviewee, at no disadvantage to other speakers.

C1

Can participate fully in an interview, as either interviewer or interviewee, expanding and developing the point being
discussed fluently without any support, and handling interjections well.

B2

Can carry out an effective, fluent interview, departing spontaneously from prepared questions, following up and probinginteresting replies.
Can take initiatives in an interview, expand and develop ideas with little help or prodding from an interviewer.
Can provide concrete information required in an interview/consultation (e.g. describe symptoms to a doctor) but does sowith limited precision.
Can carry out a prepared interview, checking and confirming information, though he/she may occasionally have to ask for
repetition if the other person's response is rapid or extended.

B1

A2

Can take some initiatives in an interview/consultation (e.g. to bring up a new subject) but is very dependent on interviewer
in the interaction.
Can describe symptoms in a simple way and ask for advice when using health services; can understand the 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 him/herself understood in an interview and communicate ideas and information on familiar topics, provided
he/she can ask for clarification occasionally, and is given some help to express what he/she wants to.
Can describe to a doctor very basic symptoms and ailments such as cold and 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 gestures and bodylanguage.

A1

Can reply in an interview to simple direct questions spoken very slowly and clearly in direct non-idiomatic speech about
personal details.
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 he/she has to rely on gestures and body language to reinforce the message.

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 91

Using telecommunications concerns use of the telephone and internet-based apps for audio and videocommunication. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:►range of information and transactions involved: from simple messages and conversations on
predictable topics like arrival times, routine messages and basic services, to use for a varietyof personal and professional purposes;►interlocutor: from a known person to unknown persons with less familiar accents;►

length of exchange: from short, simple exchanges to extended casual conversation.

USING TELECOMMUNICATIONS
C2Can use telecommunications confidently and effectively for both personal and professional purposes, even if there is someinterference 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 he/she can ask for clarification 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.

B1

Can use telecommunications for everyday personal or professional purposes, provided he/she can ask for clarification fromtime to time.
Can give important details over the phone concerning an unexpected incident (e.g. a problem in a hotel, with travel
arrangements, with a hire car).
Can use telecommunications to have relatively simple but extended conversations with people he/she knows 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 his/her 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 apredictable topic, e.g. arrival times, arrangements to meet.
Can understand a simple phone message (e.g. ‘My flight is late. I will arrive at ten o'clock.’), confirm details of the message
and pass it on by phone to other people concerned.

A1

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Page 92 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Written Interaction
There are two scales for written interaction: Correspondence and Notes, messages and forms. The
former focuses on an exchange in written form, often of an interpersonal nature, whilst the latter
concerns information transfer. In interactive writing the language used is similar to spoken language. In
addition, most interactive writing situations are tolerant of some error and confusion and have somecontextual support. There is usually an opportunity to use interaction strategies like asking forclarification, asking for help with formulation and to repair misunderstandings. Finally, the requirement
to produce carefully structured, accurate text is less of a priority in this type of writing.
Online interaction is dealt with separately because it is multimodal (see next section).
WRITTEN INTERACTION
OVERALL WRITTEN INTERACTION
C2

Can express him/herself in an appropriate tone and style in virtually any type of formal and informal written interaction.

C1

Can express him/herself 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 write personal letters and notes asking for or conveying simple information of immediate relevance, getting across thepoint he/she feels to be important.

A2

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

A1

Can ask for or pass on personal details in written form.

Pre-A1

Can write short phrases to give basic information (e.g. name, address, family) on a form or in a note, with the use of adictionary.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 93

Correspondence: The 2001 scale concerned only personal correspondence. The update augments thiswith descriptors for formal correspondence, since this is an activity some user/learners need to carryout. Key concepts operationalised in the scale therefore include the following:►type of message: from simple, personal messages, to in-depth, personal and professionalcorrespondence;►

type of language: from formulaic expressions to emotional, allusive and joking usage andwriting with good expression in an appropriate tone and style.

CORRESPONDENCE
C2

Can write virtually any type of correspondence necessary in the course of his/her professional life in an appropriate tone
and style.

C1

Can express him/herself with clarity and precision in personal correspondence, using language flexibly and effectively,
including emotional, allusive and joking usage.
Can, with good expression and accuracy, write formal correspondence such as letters of clarification, application,
recommendation, reference, complaint, sympathy and condolence.

B2

B1

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 mutual interest.
Can in most cases understand idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms in correspondence and other written
communications and use the most common ones him/herself as appropriate to the situation.
Can write formal correspondence such as letters of enquiry, request, application and complaint with appropriate register,
structure and conventions.
Can write a forceful but polite letter of complaint, including supporting details and a statement of the desired outcome.
Can write letters conveying degrees of emotion and highlighting the personal significance of events and experiences andcommenting on the correspondent's news and views.
Can use formality and conventions appropriate to the context when writing personal and professional letters and emails.
Can write formal emails/letters of invitation, thanks or apology with appropriate register and conventions.
Can write non-routine professional letters, using appropriate structure and conventions, provided these are restricted tomatters of fact.
Can obtain, by letter or e-mail, information required for a particular purpose, collate it and forward it by mail to other people.
Can write personal letters giving news and expressing thoughts about abstract or cultural topics such as music, films.
Can write letters expressing different opinions and giving detailed accounts of personal feelings and experiences.
Can reply to an advertisement in writing and ask for further information on items which interest him/her.
Can write basic formal emails/letters, for example to make a complaint and request action.
Can write personal letters describing experiences, feelings and events in some detail.
Can write basic emails/letters of a factual nature, for example to request information or to ask for and give confirmation.
Can write a basic letter of application with limited supporting details.
Can exchange information by text message, e-mail or in short letters, responding to questions the other person had (e.g.
about a new product or activity).

A2

Can convey personal information of a routine nature, for example in a short email or letter introducing him/herself.
Can write very simple personal letters expressing thanks and apology.
Can write short, simple notes, emails and text messages (e.g. to send or reply to an invitation, to confirm or change an
arrangement).
Can write a short text in a greetings card (e.g. for someone’s birthday or to wish them a Happy New Year).

A1

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

Pre-A1

Can write short phrases and sentences giving basic personal information with reference to a dictionary.

Page 94 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Notes, messages and forms 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 andwriting short notes. Key concepts operationalised in the scale therefore include the following:►

filling in forms with personal details (Pre-A1 to A2);►leaving and taking (telephone) messages, from simple messages about time, throughmessages containing several points to complex personal or professional messages;►

writing notes: from short and simple to more developed notes to friends, service people,
teachers etc.

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 he/she can ask clarification or elaboration if
necessary.
Can take routine messages that are likely to occur in a personal, professional or academic context.
Can take messages communicating enquiries, explaining problems.

B1

Can write notes conveying simple information of immediate relevance to friends, service people, teachers and others whofeature in his/her everyday life, getting across comprehensibly the points he/she feels are important.
Can take messages over the phone containing several points, provided that the caller dictates these clearly andsympathetically.
Can take a short, simple message provided he/she can ask for repetition and reformulation.

A2

Can write 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 request a visa or visa waiver, to open a bank account,to send a letter recorded delivery, etc.

A1

Can write numbers and dates, own name, nationality, address, age, date of birth or arrival in the country etc. such as on a
hotel registration form.
Can leave a simple message giving information on e.g. where he/she has gone, what time he/she will be back. (e.g.
‘Shopping: back at 5 p.m.’).

Pre-A1Can fill in very simple registration forms with basic personal details: name, address, nationality, marital status.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 95

Online Interaction
Online communication is always mediated through a machine, which implies that it is unlikely ever tobe 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 theindividual’s behaviour in speech or in writing. For instance, there is an availability of resources sharedin real time. On the other hand, there may be misunderstandings which are not spotted (and corrected)
immediately, as is often easier with face-to-face communication. Some requirements for successfulcommunication are:►the need for more redundancy in messages;►

the need to check that the message has been correctly understood;►

ability to reformulate in order to help comprehension, deal with misunderstanding;►ability to handle emotional reactions.

Online conversation and discussion focuses on conversation and discussion online as a multi-modal
phenomenon, with an emphasis on how interlocutors communicate online to handle both serious
issues and social exchanges in an open-ended way. Key concepts operationalized in the scale include
the following:►

instances of simultaneous (real time) and consecutive interaction, the latter giving time toprepare a draft and/or consult aids;►

participation in sustained interaction with one or more interlocutors;►

composing posts and contributions for others to respond to;►comments (e.g. evaluative) on posts, comments and contributions of others;►

reactions to embedded media;►

the ability to include symbols, images, and other codes for making the message convey tone,
stress and prosody, but also the affective/emotional side, irony etc.

Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: the move from the lower levels to the higher isaccompanied by the shift from simple social exchanges and personal news towards a broader range ofcompetences encompassing professional and educational discursive interaction at the C levels, with
the introduction of real time interaction and group interaction from B1+. B2 is characterised by theability to participate actively in discussion and argument, linking a contribution effectively to others in
the thread, and repairing misunderstandings appropriately. By C1, the user/learner can modulate
his/her register and giving critical evaluations diplomatically. At C2, he/she can anticipate and deal
effectively with possible misunderstandings (including cultural ones), communication issues andemotional reactions. Progression can also be seen as the process of adding virtual ‘spaces’ in which
the user/learner can interact: e.g. ‘café,’ ‘classroom,’ ‘meeting room’. A user/learner will struggle tointeract successfully in an online meeting until he/she reaches 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 canadapt his/her register and interaction style according to the virtual space he/she is in, adjusting his/her
language appropriately to make his communication more effective.

Page 96 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

ONLINE CONVERSATION AND DISCUSSIONC2

Can express him/herself 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 andemotional reactions occurring in an online discussion.
Can easily and quickly adapt his/her register and style to suit different online environments, communication purposes andspeech acts.

C1

Can engage in real-time online exchanges with several participants, understanding the communicative intentions andcultural implications of the various contributions.
Can participate effectively in live, online professional or academic discussion, asking for and giving further clarification ofcomplex, abstract issues as necessary.
Can adapt his/her register according to the context of online interaction, moving from one register to the other within thesame exchange if necessary.
Can evaluate, re-state and challenge arguments in professional or academic live online chat and discussion.
Can engage in online exchanges, linking his/her contributions to previous ones in the thread, understanding cultural
implications and reacting appropriately.

B2

B1

A2

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 his/her contributions to previous ones inthe thread, provided a moderator helps manage the discussion.
Can recognise misunderstandings and disagreements that arise in an online interaction and can deal with them, provided
that the interlocutor(s) are willing to cooperate.
Can engage in real-time online exchanges with more than one participant, recognising the communicative intentions ofeach 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 and media and sharing
personal feelings.
Can post a comprehensible contribution in an online discussion on a familiar topic of interest, provided that he/she canprepare 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 individually to the comments ofothers in some detail, though lexical limitations sometimes cause repetition and inappropriate formulation.
Can introduce him/herself 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 he/she interacts with one
interlocutor at a time.
Can make short descriptive online postings about everyday matters, social activities and feelings, with simple key details.
Can comment on other people’s online postings, provided that they are written in simple language, reacting to embedded
media by expressing feelings of surprise, interest and indifference in a simple way.
Can engage in basic social communication online (e.g. writing a simple message on a virtual card for a special occasion,
sharing news and making/confirming arrangements to meet).
Can make brief positive or negative comments online about embedded links and media using a repertoire of basic
language, though he/she will generally have to refer to an online translation tool and other resources.

A1

Can write very simple messages and personal online postings as a series of very short sentences about hobbies,
likes/dislikes, etc., relying on the aid of a translation tool.
Can use formulaic expressions and combinations of simple words 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.

Pre-A1

Can post simple online greetings, using basic formulaic expressions and emoticons.
Can post online short simple statements about him/herself (e.g. relationship status, nationality, occupation), provided
he/she can select them from a menu and/or refer to an online translation tool.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 97

Goal-oriented online transactions and collaboration: This scale focuses on the potentially collaborative
nature of online interaction and transactions that have specific goals, as a regular feature ofcontemporary life. A rigid separation between written and oral does not really apply to onlinetransactions, 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 operationalised in the scale include the following:► purchasing goods and services online;► engaging in transactions requiring negotiation of conditions, in a service as well as client role;► participation in collaborative project work;► dealing with communication problems.
Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: the move towards higher levels expands frombasic transactions and information exchange at the A levels towards more sophisticated collaborative
project work that is 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 coordinate, 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 cooperative interlocutor,
with small group project work from B1 and the ability to take a lead role in collaborative work from B2+.
By C1, the user/learner can coordinate a group who are working on a project online, formulating andrevising detailed instructions, evaluating proposals from team members and providing clarifications inorder to accomplish the shared tasks.

Page 98 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

GOAL-ORIENTED ONLINE TRANSACTIONS AND COLLABORATIONC2

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 of collaborative work

C1

Can coordinate a group who are working on a project online, formulating and revising detailed instructions, evaluating
proposals from team members and providing clarifications in order to accomplish the shared tasks.
Can deal with complex online transactions in a service role (e.g. applications with complicated requirements), adjustinglanguage flexibly to manage the discussion and negotiation.
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 exemplifying through media (visual, audio, graphic).

B2

Can take a lead role in online collaborative work within his/her area(s) of expertise, keeping the group on task by reminding
them of roles, responsibilities and deadlines in order to achieve established goals.
Can engage in online collaborative or transactional exchanges within his/her area(s) of expertise that require negotiation of
conditions and explanation of complicated details and special requirements.
Can deal with misunderstandings and unexpected problems that arise in online collaborative or transactional 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 clarification and playing a
supportive role in order to accomplish shared tasks.
Can engage in online transactions that require an extended exchange of information, provided the interlocutor(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 andhelping 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, 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 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. concerning availability ofmodels and special offers, delivery dates, addresses, etc.).
Can interact online with a supportive partner in a simple collaborative task, responding to basic instructions and seeking
clarification, provided there are some visual aids such as images, statistics, or graphs to clarify the concepts involved.

A2

Can make simple online transactions (such as ordering goods or enrolling on a course) by filling in an online form orquestionnaire, 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

Can complete a very simple online purchase or application, providing basic personal information (such as name, e-mailaddress or telephone number).

Pre-A1

Can make selections (e.g. choosing a product, size, colour) in a simple online purchase or application form, provided there
is visual support.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 99

Interaction Strategies
Three descriptor scales are offered for Taking the floor (Turntaking), for Cooperating and for Asking forclarification. 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 a scale in the
CEFR is repeated. In the scale for Cooperating, there are two aspects: cognitive strategies: framing,planning and organising the ideational content of talk, and collaborative strategies: handlinginterpersonal, relational, aspects. In the project to develop scales for mediation, these two aspects arefurther developed in new scales for cognitive strategies (Collaborating to construct meaning) andcollaborative strategies (Facilitating collaborative interaction with peers). In many respects, these two
scale represent a further development of the original scale for Cooperating. However, since they goconsiderably further than the more discourse-focused approach of the Cooperating scale, it was
decided to keep them under conceptual mediation.
Taking the floor (Turntaking)
Taking the floor (Turntaking) is concerned with the ability to take the discourse initiative. As statedabove, this ability can be viewed both as an interaction strategy (to take the turn) or as an integral
aspect of discourse competence. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:►

initiating, maintaining and ending conversation;►intervening in an existing conversation or discussion, often using a prefabricated expression
to do so, or to gain time to think.

TAKING THE FLOOR (TURNTAKING)C2

No descriptors available; see C1

C1

Can select a suitable phrase from a readily available range of discourse functions to preface his/her remarks appropriately
in order to get the floor, or to gain time and keep the floor whilst thinking.

B2

Can intervene appropriately in discussion, exploiting appropriate language to do so.
Can initiate, maintain and end discourse appropriately with effective turn taking.
Can initiate discourse, take his/her turn when appropriate and end conversation when he/she needs to, though he/she 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 whilst formulating what to
say.

B1

A2

Can intervene in a discussion on a familiar topic, using a suitable phrase to get the floor.
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.
Can initiate, maintain and close simple, face-to-face conversation.
Can ask for attention.

A1

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Page 100 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Cooperating
Cooperating concerns collaborative discourse moves intended to help a discussion develop.
concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:Key►

confirming comprehension (lower levels);►

ability to give feedback and relate one’s own contribution to that of previous speakers (higher
levels);►summarising the point reached in the discussion in order to take stock (B levels);►

inviting others to speak.

COOPERATING
Note: This scale is developed further in the scales for Facilitating collaborative interaction with peers and Collaborating to constructmeaning.
C2

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

C1

Can relate own contribution skilfully to those of other speakers.

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 his/her academic or professional
competence.
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 talk.

B1

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

A2

Can indicate when he/she is following.

A1

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 101

Asking for clarification
Asking for clarification concerns intervening in an interaction to indicate whether one is following thetalk, and to ask follow up questions on certain points, to check comprehension. Key concepts
operationalized in the scale include the following:►

indicating comprehension or a comprehension problem (lower levels);►requesting repetition;►

asking follow up questions to check comprehension or request more details.

ASKING FOR CLARIFICATIONC2No descriptors available; see C1

C1

Can ask for explanation or clarification to ensure he/she understands complex, abstract ideas in professional or academic
contexts, live or online.
Can ask follow up questions to check that he/she has understood what a speaker intended to say, and get clarification of
ambiguous points.

B2

B1

A2

Can, in informal conversation (with friends), ask for explanation or clarification to ensure he/she understands 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 he or she has just said.
Can ask very simply for repetition when he/she does not understand.
Can ask for clarification about key words or phrases not understood using stock phrases.
Can say he/she didn't follow.
Can signal non-understanding and ask for a word to be spelt out.

A1

Can indicate with words, intonation and gestures that he/she does not understand.
Can express in a simple way that he/she does not understand.

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Page 102 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Mediation
The development and validation of the scales for mediation is described in the report Developing
Illustrative Descriptors of Aspects of Mediation for the Common European Framework of Reference(CEFR). The aim was to provide CEFR descriptors for a broader view of mediation presented in thepaper Education, Mobility, Otherness: The mediation functions of schools.
In mediation, the user/learner acts as a social agent who creates bridges and helps to construct orconvey meaning, sometimes within the same language, sometimes from one language to another(cross-linguistic mediation). The focus is on the role of language in processes like creating the spaceand 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.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 103

Mediation
Activities
Mediatinga textRelaying specific informationin speech / in writing

Mediation
Strategies

Mediatingconcepts
Colloborating
in a group

Explaining data (e.g. ingraphs, diagrams, charts etc.)
in speech / in writing

Facilitating colloborativeinteraction with peers

Processing text
in speech / in writing

Collaborating to constract
meaning

Translating a written text
in speech / in writing

Note taking (lectures,
seminars, meetings, etc.)
Expressing a personal
response to creative texts(including literature)
Analysis and criticism of
creative texts (including
literature)

Page 104 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Mediatingcommunication
Leading group
work

Facilitating pluricultural
space

Managing interaction

Encouraging conceptual
talkActing as anintermediary in informal
situations

Facilitating
communication indelicate situations anddisagreements

Strategies to explain
a new concept

Strategies to simplfy atext

Linking to previous
knowledge

Amplifying a dense
text

Breaking down
complicatedinformation

Streamlining a text

Adapting language

OVERALL MEDIATION

C2

Can mediate effectively and naturally, taking on different roles according to the needs of the people and situation involved,
identifying nuances and undercurrents and guiding a sensitive or delicate discussion. Can explain in clear, fluent, wellstructured 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 diplomatically in order to redirect talk. Can build on different
contributions to a discussion, stimulating reasoning with a series of questions. Can convey clearly and fluently in wellstructured language the significant ideas in long, complex texts, whether or not they relate to his/her own fields of interest,
including evaluative aspects and most nuances.

B2

B1

A2

Can establish a supportive environment for sharing ideas and facilitate discussion of delicate issues, showing appreciationof different perspectives, encouraging people to explore issues and adjusting sensitively the way he/she expresses things.
Can build upon other’s ideas, making suggestions for ways forward. Can convey the main content of well-structured but
long and propositionally complex texts on subjects within his/her fields of professional, academic and personal interest,
clarifying the opinions and purposes of speakers.
Can work collaboratively with people from different backgrounds, creating a positive atmosphere by giving 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 other people’s ideas, pose questions that invite reactions from different perspectives andpropose 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 his/her fields of professional, academic and personal interest.
Can collaborate with people from other backgrounds, showing interest and empathy by asking and answering 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 in uncomplicated language on topics of personal
interest, provided that he/she can check the meaning of certain expressions.
Can introduce people from different backgrounds, showing awareness that some questions may be perceived differently,
and invite other people to contribute their expertise and experience, their views. Can convey information given in clear,well-structured informational texts on subjects that are familiar or of personal or current interest, although his/her lexical
limitations cause difficulty with formulation at times.
Can play a supportive role in interaction, provided that other participants speak slowly and that one or more of them helps
him/her to contribute and to express his/her suggestions. Can convey relevant information contained in clearly structured,short, simple, informational texts, provided that the texts concern concrete, familiar subjects and are formulated in simple
everyday language.
Can use simple words 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 are expressed clearly in simple language.

A1

Can use simple words 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 and programmes.

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 105

Mediation activities
There are many different aspects of mediation, but all share certain characteristics. For example, inmediation, one is less concerned with one’s own needs, ideas or expression, than with those of theparty or parties for whom one is mediating. A person who engages in mediation activity needs to havea 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 social and cultural process of creating conditions forcommunication and cooperation, facing and hopefully defusing any delicate situations and tensions
that may arise. Particularly with regard to cross-linguistic mediation, users should remember that thisinevitably also involves social and cultural competence as well as plurilingual competence. This
underlines the fact that one cannot in practice completely separate types of mediation from eachother. 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 tooccur.
Mediating a text►

Relaying specific information – in speech and in writing►

Explaining data (e.g. in graphs, diagrams, charts etc.) – in speech and in writing►

Processing text – in speech and in writing►

Translating a written text – in speech and in writing►

Note-taking (lectures, seminars, meetings, etc.)►

Expressing a personal response to creative texts (including literature)►

Analysis and criticism of creative texts (including literature)

Mediating concepts►

Collaborating in a group► Facilitating collaborative interaction with peers► Collaborating to construct meaning►

Leading group work
► Managing interaction► Encouraging conceptual talkMediating communication►

Facilitating pluricultural space►

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

Facilitating communication in delicate situations and disagreements

Mediating a text involves passing on to another person the content of a text to which they do not haveaccess, often because of linguistic, cultural, semantic or technical barriers. This is the main sense inwhich 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 (in e.g. Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Italy, Greece and Spain). However, the notion has
been further developed to include mediating a 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 ofparenting, mentoring, teaching and training. Mediating concepts involves two complementary aspects:
on the one hand constructing and elaborating meaning and on the other hand facilitating andstimulating conditions that are conducive to conceptual exchange and development.

Page 106 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Mediating communication: The aim of mediating communication is to facilitate understanding and toshape successful communication between users/learners who may have individual, sociocultural,sociolinguistic or intellectual differences in standpoint. The mediator tries to have a positive influenceon aspects of the dynamic relationship between all the participants, including the relationship with him
or herself. Often, the context of the mediation will be an activity in which participants have sharedcommunicative 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 personalencounters, and so descriptor scales are only provided for spoken communicative activities. This is
not a closed list – users may well be able to think of other types of relational activity not included here.
Mediating a text
For all the descriptors in the scales in this section, Language A and Language B may be two different
languages, two varieties of the same language, two registers of the same variety, or any combinationof the above. However, they may also be identical: the CEFR is clear that mediation may be in one
language. Users may thus wish to specify the languages/varieties involved when adapting thedescriptors to their context. It is also important to underline that the illustrative descriptors offered inthis section are not intended to describe the competences of professional interpreters and translators.
Firstly, the descriptors focus on language competences, thinking of what a user/learner can do in thisarea in informal, everyday situations. Translation and interpretation competences and strategies are
an entirely different field. As mentioned in the introduction, the language competence of professional
interpreters and translators is usually considerably above CEFR Level C2.
Relaying specific information refers to the way some particular piece(s) of information of immediate
relevance is extracted from the target text and relayed to someone else. Here, the emphasis is on thespecific content that is relevant, rather than the main ideas or lines of argument presented in a text.
Relaying specific information is related to Reading for orientation (although the information concerned
may have been given orally in a public announcement or series of instructions). The user/learnerscans the source text for the necessary information and then relays this to a recipient. Key concepts
operationalised in the two scales (relaying in speech and in writing) include the following:►

relaying information on times, places, prices, etc. from announcements or written artefacts;►

relaying sets of directions or instructions;►relaying specific, relevant information from informational texts like guides and brochures, fromcorrespondence, 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, numbers etc., whereas at A2 he/she can cope with theinformation in simple texts like instructions and announcements. By B1, he/she can select and relay
specific, relevant information in straightforward spoken announcements and in written texts likeleaflets, brochure entries, letters. By B2, he/she can reliably relay detailed information from formal
correspondence or particular sections of long, complex texts. As with the scale for Informationexchange, 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 two different languages, two varietiesof the same language, two registers of the same variety, or any combination of the above.
However, they may also be identical. In the former case, users should specify the languages /varieties concerned; in the latter case, users should simply remove the parts in brackets.
RELAYING SPECIFIC INFORMATION IN SPEECH
C2

No descriptors available; see C1

C1

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

B2

Can relay (in Language B) which presentations given in (Language A) at a conference, which articles in a book (written in
Language A) are particularly relevant for a specific purpose.
Can relay (in Language B) the main point(s) contained in formal correspondence and/or reports on general subjects and on
subjects related to his/her fields of interest (written in Language A).

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 107

RELAYING SPECIFIC INFORMATION IN SPEECH

B1

A2

Can relay (in Language B) the content of public announcements and messages spoken in clear, standard (Language A) at
normal speed.
Can relay (in Language B) the contents of detailed instructions or directions, provided these are clearly articulated (inLanguage A).
Can relay (in Language B) specific information given in straightforward informational texts (such as leaflets, brochure
entries, notices and letters or emails) (written in Language A).
Can relay (in Language B) the point made in a clear, spoken announcement (made in Language A) concerning familiar
everyday subjects, though he/she may have to simplify the message and search for words.
Can relay (in Language B) specific, relevant information contained in short, simple texts, labels and notices (written in
Language 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 (in Language
A) is clearly and slowly articulated.

A1

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

Pre-A1

Can relay (in Language B) simple instructions about places and times (given in Language A), provided these are repeatedvery slowly and clearly.
Can relay (in Language B) very basic information (e.g. numbers and prices) from short, simple, illustrated texts (written in
Language A).

RELAYING SPECIFIC INFORMATION IN WRITINGC2

No descriptors available; see B2

C1

No descriptors available; see B2

B2

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 writing (in Language B) the relevant point(s) contained in propositionally complex but well-structured texts(written Language A) within his/her fields of professional, academic and personal interest.
Can relay in writing (in Language B) the relevant point(s) contained in an article (written in Language A) from an academicor professional journal.
Can relay in a written report (in Language B) relevant decisions that were taken in a meeting (in Language A).
Can relay in writing the significant point(s) contained in formal correspondence (in Language A).

B1

Can relay in writing (in Language B) specific information points contained in texts (spoken in Language A) on familiar
subjects (e.g. telephone calls, announcements, and instructions).
Can relay in writing (in Language B) specific, relevant information contained in straightforward informational texts (written 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 that 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 (written in LanguageA), provided the texts concern concrete, familiar subjects and are written in simple everyday language.

A2

Can list (in Language B) the main points of short, clear, simple messages and announcements (given in Language A)
provided that speech is clearly and slowly articulated.
Can list (in Language B) specific information contained in simple texts (written in Language A) on everyday subjects ofimmediate interest or need.

A1

Can list (in Language B) names, numbers, prices and very simple information of immediate interest (given in Language A),
provided that the speaker articulates very slowly and clearly, with repetition.

Pre-A1Can list (in Language B) names, numbers, prices and very simple information from texts (written Language A) that are of
immediate interest, that are written in very simple language and contain illustrations.

Page 108 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Explaining data refers to the transformation into a verbal text of information found in diagrams, charts,
figures and other images. 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 anarticle, a weather forecast, or financial information. Key concepts operationalised in the two scales(explaining data in speech and in writing) include the following:► describing graphic material on familiar topics (e.g. flow charts weather charts);► presenting trends in graphs;► commenting on bar charts;► 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
information is, from everyday (e.g. weather charts) to complex visuals accompanying academic andhighly 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, whilst
at B1 he/she can describe overall trends and detailed information in diagrams in his/her fields ofinterest. At B2 the focus is on the reliable interpretation of complex data, whilst at C2 the user/learner
can interpret and describe various forms of empirical data from conceptually complex research.
In the two scales, Language A and Language B may be two different languages, two varietiesof the same language, two registers of the same variety, or any combination of the above.
However, they may also be identical. In the former case, users should specify the languages /varieties concerned; in the latter case, users should simply remove the parts in brackets.
EXPLAINING DATA IN SPEECH (E.G. IN GRAPHS, DIAGRAMS, CHARTS ETC.)
C2

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

C1

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.

B2

Can interpret and describe reliably (in Language B) detailed information contained in complex diagrams, charts and othervisually organised information (with text in Language A) on topics in his/her fields of interest.

B1

A2

Can interpret and describe (in Language B) detailed information in diagrams in his/her fields of interest (with text in
Language A), even though lexical gaps may cause hesitation or imprecise formulation.
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. a weather map, a basic flow chart) (withtext in Language A), even though pauses, false starts and reformulation may be very evident in speech.
No descriptors available

A1

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 109

EXPLAINING DATA IN WRITING (E.G. IN GRAPHS, DIAGRAMS, CHARTS ETC.)
C2

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

C1

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.

B2

Can interpret and present reliably in writing (in Language B) detailed information from diagrams and visually organised datain his 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, bar charts)(with text in Language A), explaining the important points in more detail, given the help of a dictionary or other referencematerials.

B1

Can describe in simple sentences (in Language B) the main facts shown in visuals on familiar topics (e.g. a weather map, abasic flow chart) (with text in Language A).
A2

No descriptors available

A1

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Processing text involves understanding the information and/or arguments included in the source text
and then transferring these to another text, usually in a more condensed form, in a way that is
appropriate to the context of situation. In other words, the outcome represents a condensing and/or
reformulating of the original information and arguments, focusing on the main points and ideas in thesource text. The key word of the processing information scales in both speaking and writing 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, he/she has 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 theinformation concerned may have been given orally in a presentation or lecture. The user/learner may
then choose to present the information to the recipient in a completely different order, depending on
the goal of the communicative encounter. Key concepts operationalised in the two scales include thefollowing:►summarising main points in a source text;►

collating such information and arguments from different sources;►

recognising and clarifying to the recipient the intended audience, the purpose and viewpointof the original.

Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: In general, as one moves up the scale, the morecognitively and linguistically demanding the process described by the descriptor, the greater thevariety of text-types, the higher the degree of complexity of the texts and the abstractness of the
topics, the more sophisticated the vocabulary. There is no descriptor for A1. At A2, the learner may
need to supplement his/her limited repertoire with gestures, drawing or expressions embedded fromother languages. At lower levels, source texts are simpler, more factual concerning everyday topics
and topics of immediate interest. By B1, texts include TV programmes, conversations and wellstructured written 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
written texts in his/her fields of interest. By the C levels, he/she can summarise long, demanding
professional or academic texts in well-structured language, inferring attitudes and implicit opinions,and explaining subtle distinctions in the presentation or facts and arguments.

Page 110 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

In the two scales, Language A and Language B may be two different languages, two varietiesof the same language, two registers of the same variety, or any combination of the above.
However, they may also be identical. In the former case, users should specify the languages /varieties concerned; in the latter case, users should simply remove the parts in brackets.
PROCESSING TEXT IN SPEECHC2

Can explain (in Language B) inferences when links or implications are not made explicit (in Language A), and point out
sociocultural implications of the speaker/writer’s form of expression (e.g. understatement, irony, sarcasm).
Can summarise in (Language B) long, demanding texts (in Language A).
Can summarise (in Language B) discussion (in Language A) on matters within his/her academic or professional
competence, elaborating and weighing up different points of view and identifying the most significant points.

C1

Can summarise clearly in well-structured speech (in Language B) the main points made in complex spoken and written
texts (in Language A) in fields of specialisation other than his/her own, although he/she may occasionally check particulartechnical concepts.
Can explain (in Language B) subtle distinctions in the presentation of facts and arguments (in Language A).
Can exploit information and arguments from a complex spoken or written text (in Language A) to talk about a topic (inLanguage B), glossing with evaluative comments, adding his/her opinion, etc.
Can explain (in Language B) the attitude or opinion expressed in a spoken or written text (in Language A) on a specialised
topic, supporting inferences he/she makes with reference to specific passages in the original.
Can summarise (in Language B) the important points made in longer, complex, live spoken texts (in Language A) on
subjects of current interest, including his/her fields of special interest.
Can summarise (in Language B) the main points of complex discussions (in Language A), weighing up the different pointsof view presented.
Can synthesise and report (in Language B) information and arguments from a number of spoken and/or written sources (inLanguage A).

B2

Can summarise (in Language B) a wide range of factual and imaginative texts (in Language A), commenting on anddiscussing contrasting points of view and the main themes.
Can summarise (in Language B) the important points made in longer, spoken and written complex texts (in Language A) on
subjects of current interest, including his/her fields of special interest.
Can recognise the intended audience of a spoken or written text (in Language A) on a topic of interest and explain (inLanguage B) the purpose, attitudes and opinion of the author.
Can summarise (in Language B) extracts from news items, interviews or documentaries containing opinions, argument anddiscussion sources (in Language A).
Can summarise and comment (in Language B) on the plot and sequence of events in a film or play (in Language A).
Can summarise (in Language B) the main points made in long spoken texts (in Language A) on topics in his/her fields ofinterest, provided that standard language is used and that he/she can check the meaning of certain expressions.
Can summarise (in Language B) a short narrative or article, a 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 Language B) forsomebody else.

B1

Can summarise (in Language B) the main points made in clear, well-structured spoken and written texts (in Language A)
on subjects that are familiar or of personal interest, although his/her lexical limitations cause difficulty with formulation attimes.
Can summarise simply (in Language B) the main information content of straightforward texts (in Language A) on familiar
subjects (e.g. a short written interview or magazine article, a 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 that the speakers articulated clearly in standard language.
Can summarise (in Language B) the main points made in long texts (delivered orally in Language A) on topics in his/herfields of interest, provided that standard language is used and that he/she can listen several times.
Can summarise (in Language B) the main points or events in TV programmes and video clips (in Language A), provided
he/she can view them several times.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 111

PROCESSING TEXT IN SPEECH

A2

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 that the topics concerned are familiar and the delivery is slow and clear.
Can report in simple sentences (in Language B) the information contained in clearly structured, short, simple texts (written
in Language A) that have illustrations or tables.
Can summarise (in Language B) the main point(s) in simple, short informational texts (in Language A) on familiar topics.
Can convey (in Language B) the main point(s) contained in clearly structured, short, simple spoken and written texts (inLanguage A), supplementing his/her limited repertoire with other means (e.g. gestures, drawings, words from otherlanguages) in order to do so.

A1

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

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

PROCESSING TEXT IN WRITINGC2

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

C1

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

B2

Can summarise in writing (in Language B) the main content of well-structured but propositionally complex spoken andwritten texts (in Language A) on subjects within his/her fields of professional, academic and personal interest.
Can compare, contrast and synthesise in writing (in Language B) the information and viewpoints contained in academic
and professional publications (in Language A) in his/her fields of special interest.
Can explain in writing (in Language B) the viewpoint articulated in a complex text (in Language A), supporting inferences
he/she makes with reference to specific information in the original.
Can summarise in writing (in Language B) the main content of complex spoken and written texts (in Language A) on
subjects related to his/her fields of interest and specialisation.
Can summarise in writing (in Language B) the information and arguments contained in texts (in Language A) on subjects ofgeneral or personal interest.

B1

A2

Can summarise in writing (in Language B) the main points made in straightforward informational spoken and written texts(in Language A) on subjects that are of personal or current interest, provided spoken texts are delivered in clearly
articulated standard speech.
Can paraphrase short written passages in a simple fashion, using the original text wording and ordering.
Can list as a series of bullet points (in Language B) the relevant information contained in short simple texts (in LanguageA), provided that the texts concern concrete, familiar subjects and are written in simple everyday language.
Can pick out and reproduce key words and phrases or short sentences from a short text within the learner’s limitedcompetence and experience.
Can use simple language to render in (Language B) very short texts written in (Language A) on familiar and everyday
themes that contain the highest frequency vocabulary; despite errors, the text remains comprehensible.
Can copy out short texts in printed or clearly hand-written format.

A1Can, with the help of a dictionary, render in (Language B) simple phrases written in (Language A), but may not always
select the appropriate meaning.
Can copy out single words and short texts presented in standard printed format.

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Page 112 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Translating a written text in speech is a largely informal activity that is by no means uncommon in
everyday personal and professional life. It is the process of spontaneously giving a spoken translationof a written text, often a notice, letter, email or other communication. Key concepts operationalised in
the scale include the following:►

providing a rough, approximate translation;►

capturing the essential information;►

capturing nuances (higher levels).

Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: The scale moves from rough translation ofroutine, 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 spoken translation ofcomplex texts containing information and arguments on subjects within his/her fields of professional,
academic and personal interest, and at the C levels he/she can fluently translate a complex texts on awide 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 a spoken
translation. However, this CEFR descriptor scale is not intended to relate to the activities ofprofessional translators or to their training. Indeed, translating competences are not addressed in thescale. Furthermore, professional translators, like professional interpreters, are usually operating at alevel well above C2. As mentioned when discussing the 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 level of a scale of five levels for literary translation produced in the PETRA project.
Nevertheless, plurilingual user/learners with a more modest level of proficiency sometimes findthemselves in a situation in which they are asked to provide a written translation of a text in a
professional or personal context. Here they are being asked to reproduce the substantive message ofthe source text, rather than necessarily interpret the style and tone 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 will be particularly important to specify the languages involved
because the scale deliberately does not address the issue of translating into and from the mothertongue. This is partly because of the fact that, for increasing numbers of plurilingual persons, ‘mothertongue’ and ‘best language’ are not always synonymous. What the scale provides is a functionaldescription of the language ability necessary to reproduce a source text in another language. Key
concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:►

comprehensibility of the translation;►

the extent to which the original formulations and structure (over)influence the translation, as
opposed to the text following relevant conventions in the target language;►

capturing nuances in the original;

Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: Progression is shown in a very similar way to theprevious 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 increasing complex and the translation is increasing more accurate and reflective of theoriginal.
In the two scales, Language A and Language B may be two different languages, two varietiesof the same language, two registers of the same variety, or any combination of the above.
However, they may also be identical. In the former case, users should specify the languages /varieties concerned; in the latter case, users should simply remove the parts in brackets.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 113

TRANSLATING A WRITTEN TEXT IN SPEECH
Note: As in any case in which mediation across languages is involved, users may wish to complete the descriptor by
specifying the languages concerned.
C2

Can provide fluent spoken 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 with them.

C1

Can provide fluent spoken translation into (Language B) of complex written texts written in (Language A) on a wide range ofgeneral and specialised topics, capturing most nuances.

B2

Can provide spoken translation into (Language B) of complex texts written in (Language A) containing information andarguments on subjects within his/her fields of professional, academic and personal interest.

B1

Can provide spoken translation into (Language B) of texts written in (Language A) containing information and arguments on
subjects within his/her fields of professional, academic and personal interest, provided that they are written in
uncomplicated, standard language.
Can provide an approximate spoken translation into (Language B) of clear, well-structured informational texts written in(Language A) on subjects that are familiar or of personal interest, although his/her lexical limitations cause difficulty withformulation at times.
Can provide an approximate spoken translation into (Language B) of short, simple everyday texts (e.g. brochure entries,
notices, instructions, letters or emails) written in (Language A).

A2

Can provide a simple, rough, spoken translation into (Language B) of short, simple texts (e.g. notices on familiar subjects)
written in (Language A), capturing the most essential point.
Can provide a simple, rough spoken translation into (Language B) of routine information on familiar everyday subjects thatis written in simple sentences in (Language A) (e.g. personal news, short narratives, directions, notices or instructions).

A1

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

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

TRANSLATING A WRITTEN TEXT IN WRITINGC2

Can translate into (Language B) technical material outside his/her field of specialisation written in (Language A), provided
subject matter accuracy is checked by a specialist in the field concerned.

C1

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

B2

B1

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 produce translations into (Language B, which closely follow the sentence and paragraph structure of the original text in(Language A), conveying the main points of the source text accurately, though the translation may read awkwardly.
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, thetranslation remains comprehensible.
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.

A2

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

A1

Can, with the help of a dictionary, translate simple words and phrases from (Language A) into (Language B), but may notalways select the appropriate meaning.

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Page 114 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Note-taking (lectures, seminars, meetings etc.): This scale concerns the ability to listen and write
coherent notes, which is valuable in academic and professional life. Key concepts operationalised in
the scale include the following:►type of source text: from demonstrations and instructions, through straightforward lecturesand meetings on subjects in his/her field to meetings and seminars on unfamiliar, complex
subjects;►

consideration on the part of the speaker (lower levels): slow and clear speech, plus pauses totake notes, through clearly articulated, well-structured lectures to multiple sources;►

type of note-taking: from taking notes as a series of points (lower levels), through notes onwhat seems to him/her to be important, to appropriate selection on what to note and what to
omit;

►

accuracy of the notes (higher levels): from notes precise enough for own use (B1) throughaccurate notes on meetings in his/her field (B2) to accurate capture of abstract concepts,
relationships between ideas, implications and allusions.

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

C2

Can, whilst continuing to participate in a meeting or seminar, create reliable notes (or minutes) for people who are notpresent, even when the subject matter is complex and/or unfamiliar.
Is aware of the implications and allusions of what is said and can make notes on them as well as on the actual words usedby the speaker.
Can make notes selectively, paraphrasing and abbreviating successfully to capture abstract concepts and relationships
between ideas.

C1

Can take detailed notes during a lecture on topics in his/her field of interest, recording the information so accurately and so
close to the original that the notes could also be used by other people.
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 arguments on complex, abstract topics from multiple spoken sources (e.g.
lectures, podcasts, formal discussions and debates, interviews etc.), provided that standard language is delivered at normal
speed in one of the range of accents familiar to the listener.

B2

Can understand a clearly structured lecture on a familiar subject, and can take notes on points which strike him/her asimportant, even though he/she tends to concentrate on the words themselves and therefore to miss some information.
Can make accurate notes in meetings and seminars on most matters likely to arise within his/her field of interest.
Can take notes during a lecture, which are precise enough for his/her own use at a later date, provided the topic is within
his/her field of interest and the talk is clear and well structured.
Can take notes as a list of key points during a straightforward lecture, provided the topic is familiar, and the talk is bothformulated in simple language and delivered in clearly articulated standard speech.
Can note down routine instructions in a meeting on a familiar subject, provided they are formulated in simple language andhe/she is given sufficient time to do so.

B1

A2

Can make simple notes at a presentation/demonstration where the subject matter is familiar and predictable and thepresenter allows for clarification and note-taking.

A1

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

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, literature tends toevoke a reaction, and this is often promoted in language education. This response may be expressedin 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:►

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;►interpretation: ascribing meaning or significance to aspects of the work including contents,
motifs, characters’ motives, metaphor, etc.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 115►analysis of certain aspects of the work including language, literary devices, context,
characters, relationships. etc.

►

evaluation: giving a critical appraisal of technique, structure, the vision of the artist, thesignificance of the work, etc.

There is a fundamental difference between the first two categories (engagement and interpretation)and the last two (analysis and evaluation). Describing a personal reaction and interpretation is
cognitively far simpler than giving a more intellectual analysis and/or evaluation. Therefore, twodifferent scales are offered.
Expressing a personal response to creative texts (including literature): This first scale reflects theapproach taken in school sectors and in adult reading circles. The scale focuses on expression of theeffect a work of literature has on the user/learner as an individual. Key concepts operationalized in thisscale include the following:►

explaining what he/she liked, what interested him/her about the work;►

describing characters, saying which he/she identified with;►relating aspects of the work to own experience;►

relating feelings and emotions;►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 he/she liked the work, say how it made him/her feel, talk about characters and relate aspectsof the work to his/her own experience, with increased detail at B1. At B2 he/she can give moreelaborate explanations, comment on the form of expression and style and give his/her interpretation of
the development of a plot, the characters and the themes in a story, novel, film or play. At the C levels,
he/she can give broader and deeper interpretations, supporting them with details and examples.
EXPRESSING A PERSONAL RESPONSE TO CREATIVE TEXTS (INCLUDING LITERATURE)
C2

No descriptor available

C1

Can describe in detail his/her personal interpretation of a work, outlining his/her reactions to certain features and explaining
their significance.
Can outline his/her interpretation of a character in a work: their psychological/emotional state, the motives for their actions
and the consequences of these actions.
Can give his/her personal interpretation of the development of a plot, the characters and the themes in a story, novel, film
or play.

B2

Can give a clear presentation of his/her reactions to a work, developing his/her ideas and supporting them with examples
and arguments.
Can describe his/her emotional response to a work and elaborate on the way in which it has evoked this response.
Can express in some detail his/her reactions to the form of expression, style and content of a work, explaining what he/she
appreciated and why.

B1

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

A2

Can express his/her reactions to a work, reporting his/her feelings and ideas in simple language.
Can describe a character’s feelings and explain the reasons for them.
Can say in simple language which aspects of a work especially interested him/her.
Can say whether he/she liked a work or not and explain why in simple language.
Can select simple passages he/she particularly likes from work of literature to use as quotes.

A1

Can use simple words and phrases to say how a work made him/her feel.

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Page 116 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Analysis and criticism of creative texts (including literature): This represents an approach morecommon at an upper secondary and university level. It concerns more formal, intellectual reactions.
Aspects analysed include the significance of events in a novel, treatment of the same themes indifferent works and other links between them, the extent to which a work follows conventions, andmore global evaluation of the work as a whole. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include:►comparing different works;►

giving a reasoned opinion of a work;►

critically evaluating features of the work, including the effectiveness of techniques employed.

Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: there are no descriptors for A1 and A2. Until B2,
the focus is on description rather than evaluation. At B2, the user/learner can analyse similarities anddifferences 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 towhich it is conventional, 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 in a work of literature for a particular purpose.
ANALYSIS AND CRITICISM OF CREATIVE TEXTS (INCLUDING LITERATURE)

C2

Can give a critical appraisal of work of different periods and genres (novels, poems, and plays), appreciating subtle
distinctions of style and implicit as well as explicit meaning.
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 particularpurpose and give a reasoned argument on their appropriateness and effectiveness.
Can give a critical appreciation of the deliberate breach of linguistic conventions in a piece of writing.

C1

Can critically appraise a wide variety of texts including literary works of different periods and genres.
Can evaluate the extent to which a work meets the conventions of its genre.
Can describe and comment on ways in which the work engages the audience (e.g. by building up and subverting
expectations).

B2

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 about a work, showing awareness of the thematic, structural and formal features and referringto the opinions and arguments of others.
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.

B1

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 connection between them.
Can describe the key themes and characters in short narratives involving familiar situations that are written in highfrequency 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 are written in high frequency everyday language.

A1

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Mediating concepts
It is recognised in education that language is a tool used to think about a subject and to talk about thatthinking 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 through language? There are two main ways in which this occurs: one is in the context
of collaborative work and the other is when someone has the official or unofficial role of facilitator,
teacher or trainer. In either context, it is virtually 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 theleft in the chart, concerns establishing the conditions for effective work (= relational mediation).

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 117

The second scale, presented on the right in the chart, is concerned with the development andelaboration of ideas (= cognitive mediation). As is the case with different aspects of communicative
language competence, or of 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 collaborative interaction
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 as they are applicable to all
domains where there is a need to move thinking forward.
Facilitating collaborative interaction with peers: The user/learner contributes to successful
collaboration in a group that he/she belongs to, usually with a specific shared objective orcommunicative task in mind. He/she is concerned with making conscious interventions whereappropriate to orient the discussion, balance contributions, and help to overcome communicationdifficulties within the group. He/she does not have a designated lead role in the group, and is notconcerned with creating a lead role for himself/herself, being concerned solely with successful
collaboration. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:►

collaborative participation by consciously managing own role and contributions to the group
communication;►

active orientation of teamwork by helping to review key points and consider or define next
steps;►

use of questions and contributions to move the discussion forward in a productive way;►

use of questions and turn taking to balance contributions from other group members withhis/her own.

Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: At A2, the user/learner can collaborate actively insimple, shared tasks, provided someone helps him/her to express his/her suggestions. At B1, thefocus is on posing questions and inviting others to speak. By B2, the learner/user can refocus thediscussion, helping to define goals and comparing ways of achieving them. At C1, he/she can help
steer a discussion tactfully towards a conclusion.
Collaborating to construct meaning is concerned with stimulating and developing ideas as a memberof 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:►

cognitively framing collaborative tasks by deciding on aims, processes and steps;►

co-constructing ideas/solutions;►asking others to explain their thinking and identifying inconsistencies in their thoughtprocesses;►

summarising the discussion and deciding on next steps.

Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: the scale moves from simple questioning
techniques and the organisation of tasks at B1 to further developing other people’s ideas andopinions, co-developing ideas (B2/B2+) to evaluating problems, challenges, and proposals,
highlighting inconsistencies in thinking (C1) and guiding discussion effectively to a consensus at C2.

Page 118 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

COLLABORATING IN A GROUPC2FACILITATING COLLABORATIVE INTERACTION WITH PEERSCOLLABORATING TO CONSTRUCT MEANINGNo descriptors available

Can summarize, evaluate and link the various contributions in order to facilitate agreement for a solution
or way forward.

Can show sensitivity to different perspectives within a group, acknowledging contributions andformulating any reservations, disagreements or criticisms in such a way as to avoid or minimize any
offence.
Can develop the interaction and tactfully help steer it towards a conclusion.

Can frame a discussion to decide 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 evaluate problems, challenges, and proposals in a collaborative discussion in order to decide theway forward.
Can highlight inconsistencies in thinking, and challenge others’ ideas in the process of trying to reach aconsensus.

Can, based on people’s reactions, adjust the way he/she formulates questions and/or intervenes in agroup interaction.
Can act as rapporteur in a group discussion, noting ideas and decisions, discussing these with the groupand later giving a summary of the group’s view(s) in a plenary.

Can highlight the main issue that needs to be resolved in a complex task and the important aspects thatneed to be taken into account.
Can contribute to collaborative decision-making and problem-solving, expressing and co-developing
ideas, explaining details and making suggestions for future action.
Can help organise the discussion in a group by reporting what others have said, summarising,elaborating and weighing up different points of view.

Can ask questions to stimulate discussion on how to organise collaborative work.
Can help to 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 present his/her ideas in a group and pose questions that invite reactions from other group members’
perspectives.
Can consider two different sides of an issue, giving arguments for and against, and propose a solution orcompromise.

Can collaborate on a shared task, for example formulating and responding 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 andanswering straightforward questions.
Can define the task in basic terms in a discussion and ask others to contribute their expertise andexperience.

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

Can invite other people in a group to speak.

Can ask a group member to give the reason(s) for their views.
Can repeat back part of what someone has said to confirm mutual understanding and help keep thedevelopment of ideas on course.

Can collaborate in simple, shared tasks, provided that other participants speak slowly and that one ormore of them help him/her to contribute and to express his/her suggestions.

Can ensure that the person he/she is talking to understands what he/she means by asking appropriatequestions.

Can collaborate in simple, practical tasks, asking what others think, making suggestions andunderstanding responses, provided he/she can ask for repetition or reformulation from time to time.

Can make simple remarks and pose occasional questions to indicate that he/she is following.
Can make suggestions in a simple way in order to move the discussion forward.

A1

Can invite others’ contributions to very simple tasks using short, simple phrases. Can indicate that he/sheunderstands and ask whether others understand.

Can express an idea with very simple words and ask what others think.

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

No descriptors available

C1

B2

B1

A2

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 119

Managing interaction: 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. He/she has 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:►leading plenary activity;►

giving instructions and checking understanding of communicative task objectives;►

monitoring and facilitating communication within the group or sub-groups without impeding
the flow of communication between group participants;►

re-orienting communication in the group or sub-groups; intervening to set a group back on
task;

►

adapting own contributions and interactive role to support group communication, according toneed.

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 of different roles, ground rules and an ability to set a group back on task with new
instructions or to encourage more balanced participation. Several descriptors on monitoring areclustered at B2+. 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 diplomaticallyin order to redirect talk, to prevent one person dominating or to confront disruptive behaviour. At C2,
he/she can take on different roles as appropriate, recognise undercurrents and give appropriate
guidance, and provide individualised support.
Encouraging conceptual talk involves providing scaffolding to enable another person or persons tothemselves construct a new concept, rather than passively following a lead. The user/learner may dothis as a member of a group, taking temporarily the role of facilitator, or they may have the designatedrole of an expert (e.g. animator/teacher/trainer/manager) who is leading the group in order to help
them understand concepts. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:►

asking questions to stimulate logical reasoning (dialogic talk);►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 toencourage logical reasoning, justification of ideas, and the construction of coherent lines of thinking.

Page 120 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

LEADING GROUP WORKMANAGING INTERACTIONENCOURAGING CONCEPTUAL TALKC2

Can take on different roles according to the needs of the participants and requirements of the activity(resource person, mediator, supervisor, etc.) and provide appropriate individualised support.
Can recognise undercurrents in interaction and take appropriate steps accordingly to guide the directionof the talk.

Can effectively lead the development of ideas in a discussion of complex abstract topics, guiding thedirection of the talk by targeting questions and encouraging others to elaborate on their reasoning.

C1

Can organise a varied and balanced sequence of plenary, group and individual work, ensuring smoothtransitions between the phases.
Can intervene diplomatically in order to redirect talk, prevent one person dominating or to confront
disruptive behaviour.

Can ask a series of open questions that build on different contributions in order to stimulate logicalreasoning (e.g. hypothesising, inferring, analysing, justifying, and predicting).

Can organise and manage collaborative group work efficiently.
Can monitor individual and group work non-intrusively, intervening to set a group back on task or toensure even participation.
Can intervene supportively in order to focus people’s attention on aspects of the task by asking targeted
questions and inviting suggestions.

Can encourage members of a group to describe and elaborate on their thinking.
Can encourage members of a group to build upon one another’s information and ideas to come up with aconcept or solution.

Can explain the different roles of participants in the collaborative process, giving clear instructions forgroup work.
Can explain ground rules in collaborative discussion in small groups that involves problem solving or theevaluation of alternative proposals.
Can intervene when necessary to set a group back on task with new instructions or to encourage moreeven participation.

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.

Can allocate the turn in a discussion, inviting a participant to say something.

Can ask people to elaborate on specific points they made in their initial explanation.
Can ask appropriate questions to check understanding of concepts that have been explained.
Can ask questions to invite people to clarify their reasoning.

Can give simple, clear instructions to organise an activity.

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

A2

Can give very simple instructions to a cooperative group who help with formulation when necessary.

Can ask what somebody thinks of a certain idea.

A1

No descriptors available

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

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

No descriptors available

B2

B1

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 121

Mediating communication
Despite the brevity of the presentation of mediation in the 2001 CEFR text, the social aspect isunderlined. Mediation concerns a language user who plays the role of intermediary between different
interlocutors, engaged in activities that ‘occupy an important place in the normal linguistic functioningof 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 ofrendering a text comprehensible, the comprehension difficulty may well be due to a lack of familiarity
with the area or field concerned. Understanding the other requires an effort 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 oreven disagreements that need to be faced in order to create the conditions for any understanding andhence 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 orderto achieve better outcomes in their communicative encounters in a particular language or languages,
particularly when there is an intercultural element involved.
Facilitating pluricultural space: This scale reflects the notion of creating a shared space between andamong linguistically and culturally different interlocutors, i.e. the capacity of dealing with ‘otherness’ toidentify similarities and differences to build on known and unknown cultural features, etc. in order toenable communication and collaboration. The user/learner aims to facilitate a positive interactive
environment for successful communication between participants of different cultural backgrounds,
including in multicultural contexts. Rather than simply building on his/her pluricultural repertoire to gain
acceptance and to enhance his own mission or message (see Building on pluricultural repertoire),
he/she is engaged as a cultural mediator: creating a neutral, trusted, shared ‘space’ in order toenhance the communication between others. He/she aims to expand and deepen intercultural
understanding between participants in order to avoid and/or overcome any potential communicationdifficulties arising from contrasting cultural viewpoints. Naturally, the mediator him/herself needs acontinually developing awareness of sociocultural and sociolinguistic differences affecting crosscultural communication. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:►

using questions and showing interest to promote understanding of cultural norms andperspectives between speakers;►

demonstrating sensitivity to and respect for different sociocultural and sociolinguistic
perspectives and norms;►

anticipating, dealing with and/or repairing misunderstandings arising from sociocultural andsociolinguistic differences.

Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: At B1 the emphasis is on introducing people andshowing interest and empathy by asking and answering questions. By B2+, appreciation of different
perspectives and flexibility are central: the ability to belong to a group yet maintain balance anddistance, 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 his/her actions andexpression according to context, making subtle adjustments in order to prevent and/or repair
misunderstandings and cultural incidents. By C2, he/she can mediate effectively and naturally, taking
account of sociocultural and sociolinguistic differences.

Page 122 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

FACILITATING PLURICULTURAL SPACE
C2

Can mediate effectively and naturally between members of his/her own and other communities, taking account ofsociocultural and sociolinguistic differences.
Can guide a sensitive discussion effectively, identifying nuances and undercurrents.

C1

Can act as mediator in intercultural encounters, contributing to a shared communication culture by managing ambiguity
offering advice and support, and heading off misunderstandings.
Can anticipate how people might misunderstand what has been said or written and help to maintain positive interaction bycommenting on and interpreting different cultural perspectives on the issue concerned.

B2

Can exploit knowledge of socio-cultural conventions in order to establish a consensus on how to proceed in a particularsituation unfamiliar to everyone involved.
Can, in intercultural encounters, demonstrate appreciation of perspectives other than his/her own normal worldview, andexpress him/herself in a way appropriate to the context.
Can clarify misunderstandings and misinterpretations during intercultural encounters, suggesting how things were actuallymeant in order to clear the air and move the discussion forward.
Can encourage a shared communication culture by expressing understanding and appreciation of different ideas, feelingsand 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 and differences inviews and perspectives.
Can, when collaborating with people from other cultures, adapt the way he/she works in order to create shared procedures.
Can support communication across cultures by initiating conversation, showing interest and empathy by asking andanswering simple questions, and expressing agreement and understanding.
Can act in a supportive manner in intercultural encounters, recognising the feelings and different world views of othermembers of the group.

B1

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

A2

Can contribute to an intercultural exchange, using simple words to ask people to explain things and to get clarification ofwhat they say, whilst exploiting his/her limited repertoire to express agreement, to invite, to thank etc.

A1

Can facilitate an intercultural exchange by showing welcome and interest with simple words and non-verbal signals, byinviting others to speak and by indicating whether he/she understands when addressed directly.

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 123

Acting as intermediary in informal situations (with friends and colleagues): This scale is intended forsituations in which the user/learner as a plurilingual individual mediates across languages and cultures
to the best of his/her ability in an informal situation in the public, private, occupational or educational
domain. The scale is therefore not concerned with the activities of professional interpreters. The
mediation may be in one direction (e.g. during a welcome speech) or in two directions (e.g. during a
conversation). Key concepts operationalized in the scale include the following:►

informally communicating the sense of what speakers are saying in a conversation;►

conveying important information (e.g. in a situation at work);►

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 avery simple manner, but by A2+ and B1 he/she can mediate in predictable everyday situations.
However, such assistance is dependent on the interlocutor being supportive in that he/she alters
his/her speech or will repeat information as necessary. At B2, the user/learner can mediate
competently within his/her fields of interest, given the pauses to do so and by C1, he/she can do thisfluently on a wide range of subjects. At C2 the user/learner can also convey the meaning of the
speaker faithfully, reflecting the style, register, and cultural context.
ACTING AS INTERMEDIARY IN INFORMAL SITUATIONS (WITH FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES)C2

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

C1

Can communicate fluently in (Language B) the sense of what 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 mediate (between Language A and Language B), conveying detailed information, drawing the attention of both sides
to background information and sociocultural cues, and posing clarification and follow-up questions or statements asnecessary.

B2

B1

A2

Can communicate in (Language B) the sense of what is said in a welcome address, anecdote or presentation in his/herfield given in (Language A), interpreting cultural cues appropriately and giving additional explanations when necessary,
provided that the speaker stops frequently in order to allow time for him/her to do so.
Can communicate in (Language B) the sense of what is said in (Language A) on subjects within his/her fields of interest,
conveying and when necessary explaining the significance of important statements and viewpoints, provided speakers give
clarifications if needed.
Can communicate in (Language B) the main sense of what is said in (Language A) on subjects within his/her fields ofinterest, conveying straightforward factual information and explicit cultural references, provided that he/she can prepare
beforehand and that the speakers articulate clearly in everyday language.
Can communicate in (Language B) the main sense of what is said in (Language A) on subjects of personal interest, whilst
following important politeness conventions, provided that the speakers articulate clearly in standard language and thathe/she 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 that the speakers articulate clearly in standard
language and that he/she can ask for repetition and clarification.
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 that the speakers help with formulation.

A1

Can communicate (in Language B) other people’s personal details and very simple, predictable information available (inLanguage A), provided other people help with formulation.

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Page 124 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Facilitating communication in delicate situations and disagreements: The user/learner may have aformal role to mediate in a disagreement between third parties, or may informally try to resolve amisunderstanding, delicate situation or disagreement between speakers. He/she is primarily
concerned with clarifying what the problem is and what the parties want, helping them to understandeach other’s positions. He/she may well attempt to persuade them to move closer to a resolution of
the issue. He/she is not at all concerned with his/her own viewpoint, but seeks balance in the
representation of the viewpoints of the other parties involved in the discussion. Key concepts
operationalised in the scale include the following:►

exploring in a sensitive and balanced way the different viewpoints represented by participantsin the dialogue;►elaborating on viewpoints expressed to enhance and deepen participants’ understanding of
the issues discussed;►

establishing common ground;►establishing possible areas of concession between participants;►

mediating a shift in viewpoint of one or more participants, to move closer to an agreement or
resolution.

Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: at the A levels, the user/learner can recognise
when disagreements occur. At B1, he/she can obtain explanations, demonstrate understanding of theissues and seek clarifications where necessary. At B2, he/she can outline the main issues and thepositions of the parties concerned, identify common ground, highlight possible solutions andsummarise what is agreed. These skills are deepened at B2+, with the user/learner showing
awareness of a detailed understanding of the issues and eliciting possible solutions. At the C levels,
he/she has 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 the situation and cultural
perceptions.
Can confidently take a firm but diplomatic stance over an issue of principle, while showing respect for the viewpoint ofothers.

C1

Can demonstrate sensitivity to different viewpoints, using repetition and paraphrase to demonstrate detailed understandingof each party's requirements for an agreement.
Can formulate a diplomatic request to each side in a disagreement to determine what is central to their position, 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.

B2

Can elicit possible solutions from parties in disagreement in order to help them to reach consensus, formulating openended, neutral questions to minimise embarrassment or offense.
Can help the parties in a disagreement better understand each other by restating and reframing their positions more clearlyand 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.
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 the parties involved.
Can summarise the statements made by the two sides, highlighting areas of agreement and obstacles to agreement.

B1

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 him/her and the parties speak clearly.
Can demonstrate his/her understanding of the key issues in a disagreement on a topic familiar to him/her and make simple
requests for confirmation and/or clarification.

A2

Can recognise when speakers disagree or when difficulties occur in interaction and adapt memorised simple phrases toseek compromise and agreement.

A1

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

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 125

Mediation strategies
Strategies to explain a new concept►

Linking to previous knowledge►

Adapting language►

Breaking down complicated information

Strategies to simplify a text►

Amplifying a dense text►

Streamlining a text

The user/learner’s ability to mediate does not only involve being linguistically competent in the relevant
language or languages, it also entails using mediation strategies that are appropriate in relation to theconventions, conditions and constraints of the communicative context. Mediation strategies are thetechniques employed to clarify 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, depending on the mediation context. The strategies here presented are communication
strategies, i.e. ways of helping people to understand, during the actual process of mediation. They
concern the way source content is processed for the recipient. For instance, is it necessary toelaborate it, to condense it, to paraphrase it, to simplify it, to illustrate it with metaphors or visuals?
The strategies are presented separately because they apply to many of the activities.
Strategies to explain a new concept
Linking to previous knowledge: Establishing links to previous knowledge is a significant part of themediation 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 alreadyknows or by helping recipients activate previous knowledge, etc. Links may be made to other texts,
relating new information and concepts to previous material, and to background knowledge of theworld. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:►posing questions to encourage people to activate prior knowledge;►

making comparisons and/or links between new and prior knowledge;►

providing examples and definitions.

Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: there is a progression from comparison tofamiliar, everyday experience at B1 through awareness raising with clear explanations of links at B2 toextended, 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 the content of a text into a new text of a different genre and register.
This may be done through the inclusion of synonyms, similes, simplification or paraphrasing. Key
concepts operationalized in the scale include the following:►

paraphrasing;►

adapting speech / delivery;►

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 spoken and written texts more accessible. B2
descriptors talk of paraphrasing difficult concepts and technical topics comprehensible withparaphrase, and conscious adaptation of speech. At the C levels, concepts are technical or complex,
and the user/learner is able to present the content in a different genre or register that is appropriate forthe audience and purpose.

Page 126 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

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 thewhole picture. Key concepts operationalized in the scale include the following:►breaking a process into a series of steps;►

presenting ideas or instructions as bullet points;►

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 orinformational text one point at a time. At B2, he/she can break down complicated processes orarguments and present their components separately. At C1, there is an added emphasis on
reinforcement and recapitulation, and at C2 the user/learner can use metaphors to explain therelationship of parts to the whole and encourage different ways of analysing the issue.
Strategies to simplify a text
Amplifying a dense text: Density of information is often an obstacle to understanding. This scale isconcerned with the expansion of the input source (spoken or written) through the inclusion of helpful
information, examples, details, background information, reasoning and explanatory comments. Key
concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:►

using repetition and redundancy, for example by paraphrasing in different ways;►

modifying style to explain things more explicitly;►

giving examples.

Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: at B1 and B2 the emphasis is on providing
repetition and further examples whereas at the C levels the focus is more on elaboration andexplanation, adding helpful detail.
Streamlining a text: This scale is concerned with the opposite to Amplifying in the scale above pruning
a written text to its essential message(s). This may involve expressing the same information in fewerwords 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 tohighlight important points, to draw conclusions or to compare and contrast them. Key concepts
operationalised in the scale include the following:►highlighting key information;►

eliminating repetition and digressions;►excluding what is not relevant for the audience.

Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: highlighting may be simply underlining or
inserting marks in the margin at A2+/B1 but becomes a complete rewrite of the source text at C2. At
B2, the learner is able to edit the source text to remove irrelevance and repetition. At the C levels, thefocus switches to tailoring a source text for a particular audience.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 127

STRATEGIES TO EXPLAIN A NEW CONCEPTLINKING TO PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE

ADAPTING LANGUAGE

BREAKING DOWN COMPLICATED INFORMATION

Can introduce complex concepts (e.g. scientific notions) byproviding extended definitions and explanations which draw uponassumed previous knowledge.

Can adapt the language of a very wide range of texts in order topresent the main content in a register and degree of sophisticationand detail appropriate to the audience concerned.

Can facilitate understanding of a complex issue by explaining therelationship of parts to the whole and encourage different ways ofapproaching it.

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

Can explain technical terminology and difficult concepts whencommunicating with non-experts about matters within his/her fieldof specialisation.
Can adapt his/her language (e.g. syntax, idiomaticity, jargon) inorder to make a complex specialist topic accessible to recipients
who are not familiar with it.
Can paraphrase and interpret complex, technical texts, using
suitably non-technical language for a listener who does not havespecialist knowledge.

Can facilitate understanding of a complex issue by highlighting andcategorising the main points, presenting them in a logicallyconnected pattern and reinforcing the message by repeating the
key aspects in different ways.

Can clearly explain the connections between the goals of thesession and the personal or professional interests and experiencesof the participant(s).

Can explain technical topics within his/her field, using suitably nontechnical language for a listener who does not have specialist
knowledge.
Can make a specific, complex piece of information in his/her field
clearer and more explicit for others by paraphrasing it in simpler
language.

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

Can formulate questions and give feedback to encourage people to
make connections to previous knowledge and experiences.
Can explain a new concept or procedure by comparing andcontrasting it to one that people are already familiar with.

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

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

Can explain how something works by providing examples which
draw upon people’s everyday experiences.

Can paraphrase more simply the main points made in short,straightforward spoken or written texts on familiar subjects (e.g.
short magazine articles, interviews) to make the contents
accessible for others.

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

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

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

Can make a set of instructions easier to understand by saying themslowly, a few words at a time, employing verbal and non-verbal
emphasis to facilitate understanding.

A2

No descriptors available

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

No descriptors available

A1

No descriptors available

No descriptors available

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

No descriptors available

No descriptors available

C2

C1

B2

B1

Page 128 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

STRATEGIES TO SIMPLIFY A TEXTAMPLIFYING A DENSE TEXTSTREAMLINING A TEXTC2

Can elucidate the information given in texts on complex academic or professional topics by elaboratingand exemplifying.

Can redraft a complex source text, improving coherence, cohesion and the flow of an argument, whilst
removing sections unnecessary for its purpose

C1

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 the target audience byadding redundancy, explaining and modifying style and register.

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

Can make the content of a text on a subject in his/her fields of interest more accessible to a target
audience by adding examples, reasoning and explanatory comments.

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

Can make concepts on subjects in his/her fields of interest more accessible by giving concrete
examples, recapitulating step by step and repeating the main points.
Can make new information more accessible by using repetition and adding illustrations.

Can edit a source text by deleting the parts that do not add new information that is relevant for a given
audience in order to make the significant content more accessible for them.
Can identify related or repeated information in different parts of a text and merge it in order to make theessential message clearer.

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

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

B2

B1

Can make an aspect of an everyday topic clearer by providing simple examples.
A2

No descriptors available

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

A1

No descriptors available

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

No descriptors available

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 129

Communicative language competences
As stated in the first section when discussing the CEFR descriptive scheme, the view of competencein the CEFR does not come solely from applied linguistics but also applied psychology and sociopolitical approaches. However, the different competence models developed in applied linguistics since
the early 1980s did influence the CEFR. Although they organised them in different ways, in generalthese models shared four main aspects: strategic competence; linguistic competence; pragmaticcompetence (comprising both discourse and functional/actional competence), and socio-culturalcompetence (including socio-linguistic) competence. Since strategic competence is dealt with inrelation to activities, the CEFR presents descriptor scales for aspects of communicative language
competence in CEFR Section 5.2 under three headings: Linguistic competence, Pragmaticcompetence 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 eachother.

Communicative
Language Competences

Linguistic

General range

Sociolinguistic

Sociolinguistic
appropriateness

Pragmatic

Flexibility

Vocabulary
range

Taking the floor(Turntaking) - repeatedGrammaticalaccuracy

Thematic
development

Vocabularycontrol

Coherence

Phonologicalcontrol

Propositional
precision

Orthographic
control

Spoken fluency

Page 130 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Linguistic
Descriptors are available for Range (subdivided: Morpho-syntactic range, later renamed Generallinguistic range; Vocabulary range); Control (subdivided: Grammatical accuracy and Vocabularycontrol), 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 used rather than justregistering mistakes. Phonological control is presented as a grid with the categories Overallphonological control, Sound articulation and Prosodic features (stress and intonation)

General linguistic range
Since the primary evidence for second language acquisition (i.e. progress) is the emergence of newforms and not their mastery, the Range of language at the user/learner’s disposal is a primaryconcern. Secondly, attempting to use more complex language, taking risks and moving beyond one’s
comfort zone, is an essential part 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:►range of settings – from A1 to B2, then unrestricted;►

type of language: from memorised phrases to a very wide range of language to formulate
thoughts precisely, give emphasis, differentiate and eliminate ambiguity;►

limitations: from frequent breakdown/misunderstanding in non-routine situations to no signsof having to restrict what he/she wants to say.

GENERAL LINGUISTIC RANGEC2Can exploit a comprehensive and reliable mastery of a very wide range of language to formulate thoughts precisely, giveemphasis, differentiate and eliminate ambiguity. No signs of having to restrict what he/she wants to say.

C1

Can use a broad range of complex grammatical structures appropriately and with considerable flexibility.
Can select an appropriate formulation from a broad range of language to express him/herself clearly, without having to
restrict what he/she wants to say.
Can express him/herself clearly and without much sign of having to restrict what he/she wants to say.

B2

Has a sufficient range of language to be able to give clear descriptions, express viewpoints and develop arguments without
much conspicuous searching for words, 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 withreasonable precision and express thoughts on abstract or cultural topics such as music and films.

B1

Has enough language to get by, with sufficient vocabulary to express him/herself with some hesitation and circumlocutions
on topics such as family, hobbies and interests, work, travel, and current events, but lexical limitations cause repetition andeven difficulty with formulation at times.
Has a repertoire of basic language, which enables him/her to deal with everyday situations with predictable content, thoughhe/she will generally have to compromise the message and search for words.

A2

Can produce brief everyday expressions in order to satisfy simple needs of a concrete type: 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 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 andmisunderstandings occur in non-routine situations.

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.

Pre-A1

Can use isolated words and basic expressions in order to give simple information about him/herself.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 131

Vocabulary range
Vocabulary range concerns the breadth and variety of words and expressions used. Vocabulary range
is generally acquired through reading widely. Key concepts operationalized in the scale include thefollowing:►range of settings – from A1 to B2, then unrestricted;►

type of language: from a basic repertoire of words and phrases to a very broad lexicalrepertoire including idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms.

VOCABULARY RANGE
C2

Has a good command of a very broad lexical repertoire including idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms; showsawareness of connotative levels of meaning.

C1

Has a good command of a broad lexical repertoire allowing gaps to be readily overcome with circumlocutions; little obvious
searching for expressions or avoidance strategies.
Can select from several vocabulary options in almost all situations by exploiting synonyms of even less common words.
Has a good command of common idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms; can play with words fairly well.
Can understand and use appropriately the range of technical vocabulary and idiomatic expressions common to his/ herarea of specialisation.
Can understand and use the main technical terminology of his/her field, when discussing his/her area of specialisation withother specialists.

B2

B1

Has a good range of vocabulary for matters connected to his/her field and most general topics.
Can vary formulation to avoid frequent repetition, but lexical gaps can still cause hesitation and circumlocution.
Can produce the appropriate collocations of many words in most contexts fairly systematically.
Can understand and use much of the specialist vocabulary of his/her field but has problems with specialist terminology
outside of it.
Has a good range of vocabulary related to familiar topics and everyday situations.
Has a sufficient vocabulary to express him/herself with some circumlocutions on most topics pertinent to his/her 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 a sufficient vocabulary for the expression of basic communicative needs.
Has a sufficient vocabulary for coping with simple survival needs.

A1

Has a basic vocabulary repertoire of words and phrases related to particular concrete situations.

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Page 132 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Grammatical accuracy
Grammatical accuracy concerns both the user/learner’s ability to recall ‘prefabricated’ expressions
correctly and the capacity to focus on grammatical forms whilst articulating thought. This is difficult
because when formulating thoughts or performing more demanding tasks, the user/learner has todevote 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 is reflected in thedescriptors. Key concepts operationalized in the scale include the following:►

control of a specific repertoire (A1 to B1);►

prominence of mistakes (B1 to B2);►

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

B1

Shows a relatively high degree of grammatical control. Does not make mistakes which lead to misunderstanding.
Has a good command of simple language structures and some complex grammatical forms, although he/she tends to use
complex structures rigidly with some inaccuracy.
Communicates with reasonable accuracy in familiar contexts; generally good control though with noticeable mother tongue
influence. Errors occur, but it is clear what he/she is trying to express.
Uses reasonably accurately a repertoire of frequently used ‘routines’ and patterns associated with more predictablesituations.

A2

Uses some simple structures correctly, but still systematically makes basic mistakes – for example tends to mix up tenses
and forget to mark agreement; nevertheless, it is usually clear what he/she is 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 order in short statements.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 133

Vocabulary control
Vocabulary control concerns the user/learner’s ability to choose an appropriate expression from theirrepertoire. 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 operationalisedin the scale include the following:►familiarity of topics (A1 to B1);►

degree of control (B2 to C2).

VOCABULARY CONTROL
C2Consistently 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 choice does occur without hinderingcommunication.

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 talking about 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 Section
5.2.1.4 is clear, thorough and sufficiently broad to encompass more recent reflections on aspects ofphonology in second/foreign language education. However, the 2001 scale did not capture thisconceptual apparatus and the 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, thephonology scale was the least successful of those calibrated in the original research.
In language teaching, the phonological control of an idealised native speaker has traditionally been
seen as the target, 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 theteaching of pronunciation. Idealised models that ignore the retention of accent lack consideration forcontext, sociolinguistic aspects and learners’ needs. The current scale seemed to reinforce such views
and for this reason, the scale was redeveloped from scratch. A full report on the sub-project isavailable on CEFR website. From an extensive review of the literature and consultation with experts,
the following core areas were identified to inform work on descriptor production:►

articulation including pronunciation of sounds/phonemes;►

prosody including intonation, rhythm and stress – both word stress and sentence stress –and speech rate/chunking;►accentedness accent and deviation from a ‘norm’;►

intelligibility: accessibility of meaning for listeners, covering also the listeners’ perceived
difficulty in understanding (normally referred to as comprehensibility).

Page 134 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

However, because of a certain overlapping between sub-categories the scale operationalizes theabove-mentioned concepts into three categories:►

Overall phonological control (replacing the existing scale);►Sound articulation;►

Prosodic features (intonation, stress and rhythm).

Overall phonological control
Intelligibility has been a key factor for 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 moredetailed scales are summarised in more global statements and explicit mention of accent has beenused at all levels. Key concepts operationalized in the scale include the following:►

intelligibility: how much effort is required from the interlocutor to decode the speaker’s
message;►the extent of influence from other languages spoken;►

control of sounds;►

control of prosodic features.

Sound articulation
The focus is on familiarity and confidence with the target language sounds (the range of sounds a
speaker can articulate and with what degree of precision). The key concept operationalised in thescale is the degree of clarity and precision in the articulation of sounds.
Prosodic features
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:►

control of stress, intonation and/or rhythm;►

ability to exploit and/or vary stress and intonation to highlight his/her particular message.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 135

PHONOLOGICAL CONTROLOVERALL PHONOLOGICAL CONTROLSOUND ARTICULATIONPROSODIC FEATURES

Can articulate virtually all the sounds of the target language withclarity and precision.

Can exploit prosodic features (e.g. stress, rhythm and intonation)
appropriately and effectively in order to convey finer shades ofmeaning (e.g. to differentiate and emphasise).

C2

Can employ the full range of phonological features in the target
language with a high level of control – including prosodic features
such as word and sentence stress, rhythm and intonation – so thatthe finer points of his/her message are clear and precise.
Intelligibility and effective conveyance of and enhancement of
meaning are not affected in any way by features of accent that may
be retained from other language(s).

C1Can employ the full range of phonological features in the target
language with sufficient control to ensure intelligibility throughout.
Can articulate virtually all the sounds of the target language; somefeatures of accent retained from other language(s) may be
noticeable, but they do not affect intelligibility.

Can articulate virtually all of the sounds of the target language witha high degree of control. He/she can usually self-correct if he/she
noticeably mispronounces a sound.

Can produce smooth, intelligible spoken discourse with only
occasional lapses in control of stress, rhythm and/or intonation,
which do not affect intelligibility or effectiveness.
Can vary intonation and place stress correctly in order to express
precisely what he/she means to say.

Can generally use appropriate intonation, place stress correctly andarticulate individual sounds clearly; accent tends to be influenced
by other language(s) he/she speaks, but has little or no effect on
intelligibility.

Can articulate a high proportion of the sounds in the target
language clearly in extended stretches of production; is intelligible
throughout, despite a few systematic mispronunciations.
Can generalise from his/her repertoire to predict the phonologicalfeatures of most unfamiliar words (e.g. word stress) with reasonableaccuracy (e.g. whilst reading).

Can employ prosodic features (e.g. stress, intonation, rhythm) to
support the message he/she intends to convey, though with someinfluence from other languages he/she speaks.

Pronunciation is generally intelligible; can approximate intonationand stress at both utterance and word levels. However, accent isusually influenced by other language(s) he/she speaks.

Is generally intelligible throughout, despite regular mispronunciationof individual sounds and words he/she is less familiar with.

Can convey his/her message in an intelligible way in spite of astrong influence on stress, intonation and/or rhythm from otherlanguage(s) he/she speaks.

Pronunciation is generally clear enough to be understood, butconversational partners will need to ask for repetition from time totime. A strong influence from other language(s) he/she speaks onstress, rhythm and intonation may affect intelligibility, requiring
collaboration from interlocutors. Nevertheless, pronunciation offamiliar words is clear.

Pronunciation is generally intelligible when communicating in simple
everyday situations, provided the interlocutor makes an effort tounderstand specific sounds.
Systematic mispronunciation of phonemes does not hinder
intelligibility, provided the interlocutor makes an effort to recognise
and adjust to the influence of the speaker's language backgroundon pronunciation.

Can use the prosodic features of everyday words and phrases
intelligibly, in spite of a strong influence on stress, intonation and/or
rhythm from other language(s) he/she speaks.
Prosodic features (e.g. word stress) are adequate for familiar,
everyday words and simple utterances.

Pronunciation of a very limited repertoire of learnt words andphrases can be understood with some effort by interlocutors used
to dealing with speakers of the language group concerned. Can
reproduce correctly a limited range of sounds as well as the stresson simple, familiar words and phrases.

Can reproduce sounds in the target language if carefully guided.
Can articulate a limited number of sounds, so that speech is only
intelligible if the interlocutor provides support (e.g. by repeatingcorrectly and by eliciting repetition of new sounds).

Can use the prosodic features of a limited repertoire of simple
words and phrases intelligibly, in spite of a very strong influence onstress, rhythm, and/or intonation from other language(s) he/she
speaks; his/her interlocutor needs to be collaborative.

B2

B1

A2

A1

Page 136 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Orthographic control
Orthographic control concerns the ability to copy, spell and use layout and punctuation. Key concepts
operationalized in the scale include the following:►copying words and sentences (at lower levels);►

spelling;►

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 how to get somewhere.
Can write with reasonable phonetic accuracy (but not necessarily fully standard spelling) short words that are in his/her 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 his/her address, nationality and other personal details.
Can use basic punctuation (e.g. full stops, question marks).

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Sociolinguistic
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 containedin the CEFR, particularly in respect of the sociocultural, is also of relevance to sociolinguisticcompetence. The matters treated here are those specifically relating to language use and not dealt withelsewhere: linguistic markers of social relations; politeness conventions; register differences; anddialect and accent.

Sociolinguistic appropriatenessOne scale is offered for sociolinguistic appropriateness. Key concepts operationalised in the scale
include the following:►

using polite forms and showing awareness of politeness conventions;►performing language functions in an appropriate way (at lower levels in a neutral register);►socialising, following basic routines at lower levels, without requiring the interlocutor(s) tobehave differently (from B2) and employing idiomatic expressions, allusive usage and humour(at C levels);►

recognising sociocultural cues, especially those pointing to differences, and acting
accordingly;►

adopting an appropriate register (from B2).

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 137

SOCIOLINGUISTIC APPROPRIATENESS

C2

Can mediate effectively and naturally between speakers of the target language and of his/her 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 proficient speakers of thetarget 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, needto 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 his/her level of formality (register and style) to suit the social context: formal, informal or colloquial as
appropriate and maintain a consistent spoken register.
Can frame critical remarks or express strong disagreement diplomatically.
Can with some effort keep up with and contribute to group discussions even when speech is fast and colloquial.
Can recognise and interpret sociocultural/sociolinguistic cues and consciously modify his/her linguistic forms of expressionin order to express him/herself appropriately in the situation.
Can express him/herself confidently, clearly and politely in a formal or informal register, appropriate to the situation andperson(s) concerned.

B2

Can adjust his/her expression to make some distinction between formal and informal registers but may not always do soappropriately.
Can express him/herself appropriately in situations and avoid crass errors of formulation.
Can sustain relationships with speakers of the target language without unintentionally amusing or irritating them or
requiring them to behave other than they would with another proficient speaker.
Can perform and respond to a wide range of language functions, using their most common exponents in a neutral 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 andbeliefs prevalent in the community concerned and those of his or her own community.

B1

Can perform and respond to basic language functions, such as information exchange and requests and express opinions
and attitudes in a simple way.
Can socialise simply but effectively using the simplest common expressions and following basic routines.

A2

Can handle very short social exchanges, using everyday polite forms of greeting and address. Can make and respond to
invitations, suggestions, apologies etc.
A1

Can establish basic social contact by using the simplest everyday polite forms of: greetings and farewells; introductions;saying please, thank you, sorry etc.

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Pragmatic
A simple way of understanding the linguistic/pragmatic distinction is to say that linguistic competence isconcerned with language usage (as in ‘correct usage’) and hence with language resources, knowledgeof the language as a system, whereas pragmatic competence is concerned with actual language use inthe (co-)construction of text. Pragmatic competence is thus primarily concerned with the user/learner’s
knowledge of the principles of language use according to which messages are:a)organised, structured and arranged (‘discourse competence’);b)used to perform communicative functions (‘functional competence’);c)sequenced according to interactional and transactional schemata (‘design competence’)

Page 138 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Discourse competence concerns the ability to design texts, including generic aspects like Thematicdevelopment and Coherence and cohesion as well as, in an interaction, cooperative principles andTurn-taking. Functional competence includes Flexibility in the use of one’s repertoire and the selectionof appropriate sociolinguistic choices. All the scales on communicative language activities describe
different types of functional language use. Knowledge of interactional and transactional schemata
relates also to socio-cultural competence and is to some extent treated under Sociolinguistic
appropriateness on the one hand and General linguistic range and Vocabulary range on the other
hand, in terms of range of settings and, at lower levels, repertoires for them. In addition, pragmaticcompetence involves ‘speaker meaning’ in context as opposed to the ‘sentence/dictionary meaning’ ofwords 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’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 isvery fluent’ and implies an ability to talk at length, with appropriate things to say in a wide range ofcontexts. In a narrower, more technical interpretation, talking at length implies a lack of distraction
through breaks and long pauses in the flow of speech. Putting Spoken fluency under pragmaticcompetence cuts across the traditional competence / performance dichotomy used by linguists since
Chomsky. As was mentioned in discussing the CEFR model, the CEFR does not continue thattradition. 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 operationalized in the scale include the following:►recombining learnt elements creatively (especially lower levels);►

adapting language to the situation and to changes of direction in the talk;►reformulating points in different ways to emphasise points, express degrees of commitment,
confidence and to avoid ambiguity.

FLEXIBILITY
C2

Shows great flexibility reformulating ideas in differing linguistic forms to give emphasis, to differentiate according to thesituation, interlocutor etc. and to eliminate ambiguity.

C1

Can make a positive impact on an intended audience by effectively varying style of expression and sentence length, use ofadvanced vocabulary and word order.
Can modify his/her expression to express degrees of commitment or hesitancy, confidence or uncertainty.
Can adjust what he/she says and the means of expressing it to the situation and the recipient and adopt a level 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 he/she wants to say.
Can reformulate an idea to emphasise or explain a point.

B1

Can adapt his/her expression to deal with less routine, even difficult, situations.
Can exploit a wide range of simple language flexibly to express much of what he/she wants.

A2

Can adapt well-rehearsed memorised simple phrases to particular circumstances through limited lexical substitution.
Can expand learned phrases through simple recombinations of their elements.

A1

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 139

Turntaking
Turntaking is concerned with the ability to take the discourse initiative. This ability can be viewed bothas an interaction strategy (to take the floor) or as an integral aspect of discourse competence. For thisreason this scale also appears in the section Interaction strategies. Key concepts operationalized in thescale include the following:►

initiating, maintaining and ending conversation;►intervening in an existing conversation or discussion, often using a prefabricated expression
to do so, or to gain time to think.

TURNTAKING
Note: This scale is repeated under Interaction strategies.
C2

No descriptors available; see C1

C1

Can select a suitable phrase from a readily available range of discourse functions to preface his/her remarks appropriately
in order to get the floor, or to gain time and keep the floor whilst thinking.

B2

Can intervene appropriately in discussion, exploiting appropriate language to do so.
Can initiate, maintain and end discourse appropriately with effective turn taking.
Can initiate discourse, take his/her turn when appropriate and end conversation when he/she needs to, though he/she 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 whilst formulating what to
say.

B1

A2

Can intervene in a discussion on a familiar topic, using a suitable phrase to get the floor.
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.
Can initiate, maintain and close simple, face-to-face conversation.
Can ask for attention.

A1

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Page 140 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Thematic development
Thematic development is concerned with the way in which ideas are logically presented in a text andrelated to each other in a clear rhetorical structure. It also involves following relevant discourse
conventions. Key concepts operationalized in the scale include the following:►

telling a story/ relating a narrative (lower levels);►developing a text, expanding and supporting points appropriately, e.g. with examples;►developing an argument (especially B2 – C1).

THEMATIC DEVELOPMENTC2

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.

C1

Can use the conventions of the type of text concerned to hold the target reader’s attention and communicate complex
ideas.
Can give elaborate descriptions and narratives, integrating sub themes, developing particular points and rounding off with
an appropriate conclusion.
Can write a suitable introduction and conclusion to a long, complex text.
Can expand and support 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

B1

A2

Can follow the conventional structure of the communicative task concerned, when communicating his/her ideas.
Can develop a clear description or narrative, expanding and supporting his/her main points with relevant supporting detailand examples.
Can develop a clear argument, expanding and supporting his/her points of view at some length with subsidiary points andrelevant 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*.
Shows awareness of the conventional structure of the text type concerned, when communicating his/her ideas.
Can reasonably fluently relate a straightforward narrative or description as a linear sequence of points.
Can tell a story or describe something in a simple list of points.
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*These three original descriptors also appear on the scale for Sustained monologue: putting a case.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 141

Coherence and cohesion
Coherence and cohesion refers 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 otherforms of textual 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 thecomplete text. Key concepts operationalized in the scale include the following:►linking words or elements, mainly with logical and temporal connectors►

using paragraphs to emphasise text structure►

varying the types of cohesive devices used, with fewer ‘clunky’ connectors (C levels)

COHERENCE AND COHESIONC2

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 speech, 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 words efficiently to mark clearly the relationships between ideas.

B2

Can use a limited number of cohesive devices to link his/her 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 words and cohesive devices.
Can structure longer texts in clear, logical paragraphs.
Can introduce a counter-argument in a simple discursive text (e.g. with ‘however’).

B1

A2

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 a story.
Can make simple, logical paragraph breaks in a longer text.
Can use the most frequently occurring connectors to link simple sentences in order to tell a story or describe something asa simple list of points.
Can link groups of words with simple connectors like ‘and, ‘but’ and ‘because’.

A1

Can link words or groups of words with very basic linear connectors like 'and' or 'then'.

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Page 142 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Propositional precision
Propositional precision is 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 his/her ideally intended message. Key concepts operationalized in the scale
include the following:►type of setting and information concerned (A1 to B1), with no restriction from B2, when theuser/learner can communicate detail reliably, even in more demanding situations;►degree of detail and precision in information given;►

ability to qualify, emphasise and disambiguate likelihood, commitment, belief etc.

PROPOSITIONAL PRECISIONC2

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.

B2

Can pass on detailed information reliably.
Can communicate the essential points even in more demanding situations, though his/her language lacks expressive power
and idiomaticity.
Can explain the main points in an idea or problem with reasonable precision.

B1

Can convey simple, straightforward information of immediate relevance, getting across which point he/she feels is mostimportant.
Can express the main point he/she wants to make comprehensibly.

A2

Can communicate what he/she wants to say in a simple and direct exchange of limited information on familiar and routine
matters, but in other situations he/she generally has 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.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 143

Spoken fluency
Spoken fluency, as discussed above, has a broader, holistic meaning (=articulate speaker) and anarrower, technical and more psycholinguistic meaning (=accessing one’s repertoire). The broader
interpretation would include Propositional precision, Flexibility, and at least to some extent Thematicdevelopment and Coherence/cohesion. For this reason, the scale below focuses more on the narrower,
more traditional view of fluency. Key concepts operationalized in the scale include the following:►ability to construct utterances, despite hesitations and pauses (lower levels);►

ability to maintain a lengthy production or conversation;►ease and spontaneity of expression.

SPOKEN FLUENCYC2Can express him/herself at length with a natural, effortless, unhesitating flow. Pauses only to reflect on precisely the rightwords to express his/her thoughts or to find an appropriate example or explanation.

C1

Can express him/herself fluently and spontaneously, almost effortlessly. Only a conceptually difficult subject can hinder anatural, smooth flow of language.
Can communicate spontaneously, often showing remarkable fluency and ease of expression in even longer complex
stretches of speech.

B2

B1

A2

Can produce stretches of language with a fairly even tempo; although he/she can be hesitant as he/she searches forpatterns and expressions, there are few noticeably long pauses.
Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with speakers of the target language
quite possible without imposing strain on either party.
Can express him/herself with relative ease. Despite some problems with formulation resulting in pauses and ‘cul-de-sacs’,
he/she is able to keep going effectively without help.
Can keep going comprehensibly, even though pausing for grammatical and lexical planning and repair is very evident,
especially in longer stretches of free production.
Can make him/herself understood in short contributions, even though pauses, false starts and reformulation are very
evident.
Can construct phrases on familiar topics with sufficient ease to handle short exchanges, despite very noticeable hesitationand false starts.

A1

Can manage very short, isolated, mainly pre-packaged utterances, with much pausing to search for expressions, toarticulate less familiar words, and to repair communication.

Pre-A1

Can manage very short, isolated, rehearsed, utterances using gesture and signalled requests for help when necessary.

Page 144 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Signing competences
Many of the CEFR descriptors, especially those for spoken communicative language activities, are asapplicable to sign language as they are to spoken language, since sign language is used to fulfil thesame communicative functions. This is indeed the basis of the ECML’s ProSign Project. However,there are obviously ways in which sign language differs substantially from spoken language.
Fundamentally it involves a spatial and diagrammatical competence in the use of visual space. And it
involves a broadened notion of the term “text”, namely for video recorded signing that is not based on a
written script. These competencies go far beyond the paralinguistic features of communication throughspoken language. The signing space is used to nominate and later refer to relevant persons, places
and objects in a form of spatial mapping. Sign languages then have syntax, semantics, morphology
and phonology just like any other language. These differ of course from one sign language to another,as there are different sign languages in different countries. But there are certain common features suchas the use of indexing, pronouns and classifiers. In addition, facial expression, body, head, and mimics
are used extensively in addition to hand and arm movements.
For communicative and contact purposes with spoken language users, the repertoire of proper signs is
supplemented by literally spelling out words or names with the so-called finger alphabet. Roughly, eachletter of the spoken language script corresponds to a handshape. This “fingering” however is a meansof conveying something unfamiliar, e.g. a proper name, in order to use e.g. data bases that are
restricted to graphemic access. So this “fingering” is a part of contact language necessary for the deaf
to access the written knowledge of the spoken world. Everyone must know it, but it is not regarded as acharacteristic of sign language proper.
Due to the divergent modalities of signed and spoken languages it cannot be assumed that thedifferent levels and the respective competencies of the CEFR for spoken languages can be transferred
onto sign languages as such. No European spoken language shows typological features that arecharacteristic of the European sign languages. So whereas a translation of communicative functions
from spoken to sign languages can work, a translation of language competences is less appropriate!
Naturally, the categories for signing competence relate to the linguistic, pragmatic and sociolinguisticcompetences found in spoken languages. And some of the descriptors given in the previous section
can also be applied to sign language. For ease of reference, however, the descriptor scales for signingcompetence are provided here together separately.

Signing competence

Linguistic

Pragmatic

Sign language
repertoire

Sign text structure

Diagrammaticalaccuracy

Setting andperspectives

Sociolinguistic

Sociolinguistic
appropriateness andcultural repertoire

Presence and effectSigning fluency

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 145

Linguistic
Descriptors are available for Sign language repertoire and for Diagrammatical accuracy. Thisdistinction again reflects the knowledge / control dichotomy and mirrors that between range andcontrol/accuracy outlined for grammar and vocabulary in the previous section.

Sign language repertoire
Sign language repertoire incorporates lexicalized language resources such as vocabulary range that
may be accessed for precision of expression or the derivation of composed or inflected signs. Suchlanguage resources are accessed in sign language production, e.g. in combining mimic expressions
with classifier handshapes to indicate reference and possibly hand motion and orientation to express
other aspects of the intended meaning. Because of the rather limited number of lexicalized frozen
forms in sign languages, competences of expression, namely vocabulary range and precision, also
depend on other means of expression, namely on competences in the morpho-phonological andmorpho-syntactic building of productive signs. This dependency is far more evident in sign languages
than in spoken languages due to the different numbers of lexicalized forms. Learners progress in theuse of these competences according to the multifaceted needs of expression by acquiring combinatory
restrictions as well as principles for stylistic-aesthetic purposes.
Key concepts operationalized in the scale include:►

basic linguistic knowledge of forms in sign languages, forms that are exploited for naming andreferring, for building new morpho-phonological and morpho-syntactical signs (nonconcatenative and polymorphophonemic) in composition, in derivation, in forming expressions
simultaneously;►

conceptual knowledge of meaning and connotations e.g. to make metaphors, and particularknowledge of the manual and the non-manual parameters of signs;►

manual aspects such as frozen (lexicalized) forms, idioms and chunks as well as the morphophonological building blocks that are used in productive sign creation;►

non-manual elements such as the particular meaning contributions of mimics, eyes, head,
body and body motion, speed of signing, amplitude of articulation, etc.

►

combination of the manual and non-manual building blocks (sign “roots” or “stems”) into
possible signs of a particular language, since neither manual nor non-manual building blocks“surface” in isolation.

SIGN LANGUAGE REPERTOIRE

C2

Can express him/herself in abstract, poetic signing.
Can formulate abstract expressions and concepts, e.g. in the academic and scientific domain.
Can produce with the one hand a productive or lexical sign (e.g. a classifier or a lexical verb like "search for "), whilst
simultaneously using the other hand and mimic for 'constructive action' (e.g. scratching his/her head in different places as if
searching for something).
Can present a complex action in a linguistically aesthetic way, for example by employing hand shapes as a means of playful
expression.

C1

Can express actions, objects and relations between these by using suitable (substitutor)-classifiers (one- and two-handed)in varying ways with ease.
Can employ the appropriate classifier in order to highlight a particular 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" by mimicking theweapon used).
Can give a very broad coverage of a topic, taking account of different aspects involved.
Can switch between direct and indirect speech.

B2+

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 with just mimic and an appropriate classifier.
Can use a differentiated choice of words that corresponds to the type of text concerned.
Can employ 'constructed action' (actions are imitated 1:1).

Page 146 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

SIGN LANGUAGE REPERTOIRE

B2

Can always express his/her own opinion, even when the positions taken and opinions expressed by others are being
presented.
Can express the same content in different language.
Can alternate between productive and lexical signing.
Can communicate information using only productive signing, without lexical signs.
Can replace lexical signing with productive signing, for example by using classifier predicates.
Can spell foreign words quickly and accurately with the finger alphabet.
Can, in order to facilitate understanding, make a relevant comparison with other things/images/circumstances that therecipient already knows (e.g. "A porcupine looks like a big hedgehog").
Can employ different classifiers (e.g. manipulators and substitutors) when describing an action.
Can employ mouth shapes in a differentiated manner that is appropriate to context.
Can employ different means (e.g. mimic, handshape, hand orientation, movement) in order to describe the size and shapeof an object.
Can present characteristics just with mouth gestures and mimic.

B1

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 his/her contribution by using 'constructed action' to present individual, simple actions.
Can express character and qualities of a person or protagonist by using mimic.
Can present actions through productive signing.
Can vary the scale of his/her signing (larger, smaller) dependent on the situation.
Can give a comprehensive description of a person, including facial expression, skin colour, make up, hairstyle andprofession.
Can employ appropriate classifiers to refer to, for example, animals instead of lexical signs.
Can use mouth shapes precisely to express specific content (e.g. PFF).

A2

Can use a range of signs.
Can present different aspects of the plot or storyline (e.g. duration: as in "work through the night".
Can employ examples in order to illustrate something.
Can make the distinction between different things clear.
Can relay information in a short and minimal, yet intelligible way.
Can, with preparation, use the right names and terminology related to the topic at hand.
Can describe a person in terms of their characteristic features.
Can express his/her own opinion.
Can present visually simple information like actions and relationships (e.g. in the family).
Can sign a direct demand.
Can express an amount/quantity through mimic.
Can express proximity and distance by using appropriate mimic or other non-manual means, for example by, in DGS, using
the tongue to express 'round the corner'.
Can describe the design, colour and texture of clothes.

A1

Can produce correct mouth shapes and employ them to differentiate between otherwise identical signs.
Can spell names and technical expressions, among other things, using the finger alphabet.
Can describe physical shape (height, width, length).
Can sign direct requests.
Can sign conventional greetings and leave taking expressions.
Can describe a person from facial expressions, hair and physical characteristics or through things the person often wears.
Can produce clear and unambiguous hand shapes.
Can indicate the lexical signs for months, days of the week and times of the day.
Can state his/her opinion (AGREE; DISAGREE).

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 147

Diagrammatical accuracy
Diagrammatical accuracy describes the correctness, accuracy, precision, and complexity of syntax
expressions, hence the comprehensibility of the intended meanings of the signed expressions. The
competences are of manual and non-manual types, they encompass knowledge and observation ofsyntactic rules and principles, use of signing space, bodily expression necessary, head motions etc.
These competences relate to the expression of textuality (cf. Text structure) as they are used instructuring signed texts by applying a number of strategies that may include a specific arrangement of
the signing space or rhetorical questions to introduce a new point etc. This scale also sharescommonalities with the scale Sign language repertoire as it is fed by lexical knowledge on manual andnon-manual meaning-form pairings. Diagrammatical accuracy thus also relies on non-manualelements, e.g. the raising of eye brows to indicate particular grammatical constructions and meanings.
Key concepts operationalized in the scale include:►

an appropriate use of the signing space, taking account of existing conventions;►the expression of situated events in time or of temporal relationships by establishingappropriate time references;►consistency in and accuracy of referencing (e.g. to established elements in signing space,indexing, pronouns, classifiers, etc.);►

accuracy of non-manual movements (e.g. use and scopes of upper body, mimic expression);►accuracy of sign sequences necessary to express certain concepts (e.g. cause and effect);►use of particular conjunctions or serializations;►use of certain structures; ability to conjugate verbs;►

means for structuring sign texts appropriate for the respective text-type.

Page 148 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

DIAGRAMMATICAL ACCURACY
C2

No descriptors available; see B2+

C1

No descriptors available; see B2+
Can situate the different contents/actions in the text sensibly in the signing space in order to structure the text
Can maintain full consistency in the references of proforms (classifiers, indexing, etc.) in short texts.
Can use the signing space in a conscious manner, for example the right side for 'for' and the left side for 'against.'
Can use a large or a small signing space, dependent on the situation.
Can link productive signing with indicators of time (timelines).

B2

Can employ appropriate timelines in order to indicate the point in time or the duration of an event (for the temporal relations:
simultaneously, beforehand/afterwards, after another).
Can express how one does something (with X; without Y).
Can express different temporal relationships (3 relationships: simultaneously; before and after; one after another).
Can employ upper body posture when indicating timelines.
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 a sentence in order to highlight something (e.g. SVO, SOV, OSV).
Can express rhetorical questions in an economical manner, for example just with the eyebrows.
Can express the reason why one does something (aim, in order to …).
Can link two phrases with ALTHOUGH and DESPITE.
Can indicate a rhetoric question correctly by leaving a slight pause between the question and the answer.
Can establish relationships in the signing space and later reuse these.
Can focus on one point on a timeline in order to locate an event correctly in past, present or future time.
Can make adequate comparisons with adjectives, including superlative forms, e.g. by correct use of classifiers, changing
size or speed of movement.

B1

Can situate objects/people in the signing space by indexing and later referencing to them with pronouns.
Can correctly employ the way he/she is looking in the signing space in order to refer to previously introduced objects or
people.
Can use correctly different types of sentence types (statements, questions, imperatives).
Can use the correct non-manual means for questions (upper body posture plus mimic, eyebrows).
Can employ the relevant mimic for the description of a shape.
Can employ mimic elements in order to convey meaning.
Can employ handshape as a modification device.
Can present a simple temporal sequence by using the signing space.
Can support the expression of the passage of time with mimic (events that are close in time as opposed to events that are
distant in time).
Can express cause and effect (reason for something).
Can express the conditions under which one does certain things if … then).
Can conjugate the different verbs consistently, maintaining concordance.
Can express a non-causal sequence (and then …, and so …, next …, after that …).

A2

A1

Can present the environment (e.g. landscape) by describing the relevant form(s).
Can put the focus on important elements by placing them spatially in the centre.
Can clearly and accurately perform a sequence of handshapes not only in isolation but also linked into a sentence.
Can use 'if ….then' sentences. Can express lists and sequences (..and..., ...plus...).
Can employ classifiers correctly in simple sentences.
Can use personal pronouns correctly.
Can construct simple sentences with SVO and SOV patterns.
Can represent the thickness of an object by using mimic.
Can construct a simple sentence with lexical signing.
Can form the plural with simple signs (with numbers, through repetition).

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 149

Pragmatic
Pragmatic competence covers textual (discourse) competences, the ability to create personal meaning
in content and functional competence (fluency). Descriptors are available for Text structure, for Setting
and perspectives, for Presence and effect and for Signing fluency.

Sign text structure
The ability of the user/learner to shape and structure their contributions is in the focus of this scale. It
relates to the scales for Coherence and Thematic development under Communicative language
competences for spoken languages.
For sign languages, the scale captures the signing competences needed to shape and structure a(video recorded) text. The notion “text” is used here without referring to a conventionalized script as
known from many spoken languages. It is meant to refer to multi phrase signed expressions to convey
ideas, thoughts and meanings that serve some function. The notion “sign text” highlights the fact thattexts in sign languages had a limited lifespan before media for recording (monologues) were commonly
available. Apart from jokes, particular narratives, prayers and a small number of other genres of textthat were handed down and spread in a community, texts could not be stretched over time, but
remained dialogic in nature. They could not be conserved and were not accessible for discursive
examination, educational purposes, or argumentative development. This has changed with video
recordings.
The scale includes the use of an appropriate schema for texts, the way the text is built up and madecoherent, and the particular cohesive devices employed to do so. Text competence also requires
competences of all other scales introduced here, e.g. Diagrammatical accuracy, Sign language
repertoire etc. The scale focusses on coherence and structured development of a signed message,
whereas, for example, the descriptors for Diagrammatical accuracy focus on the syntactically correct
locations for the use of proforms.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:► logical development and coherence of the text, with ability to present and justify arguments;► structuring information and arguments sequentially with an introduction and conclusion;► creating appropriate transitions; placing emphasis;► appropriate use of cohesive devices (manual and non-manual; rhetorical, etc.) according to
the respective text types;► referring backwards and forwards in the text.
SIGN TEXT STRUCTURE
C2

Can mention in passing several other places and people, without losing his/her thread.
Can systematically justify his/her opinions, for example logically, morally and pragmatically.
Can effortlessly use stylistic and rhetoric means to effectively develop his/her contribution.

C1

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.

B2+

Can formulate an appropriate introduction and conclusion for a text.
Can whilst concluding establish a thematic reference back to the introduction.
Can organise and formulate given content following his/her own guiding principles.
Can provide recipient who are not in presence with all the necessary information about the context, so that they can follow
he/she has to say.
Can group different pieces of information thematically.
Can present with images the way an event / an organisation is structured.
Can use pauses to structure a text, for example pausing between different arguments.

Page 150 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

SIGN TEXT STRUCTURE

B2

Can structure content into categories/topics, situate these in the signing space, and then refer to them through indexing.
Can structure the text logically, maintaining a clear development.
Can deliver all of the contents and parts that are expected for the type of text concerned.
Can employ a metalanguage (e.g. to orientate the reader by explaining explicitly in the text the order in which he/she isdoing things.
Can create appropriate transitions and links between the different sections of the text.
Can highlight the most important aspects of a topic. Can employ rhetoric questions to structure a text.
Can employ the rules that concern going from the general to details.
Can indicate the temporal relationships between the different things related in a report.
Can briefly introduce the explanation of a term in the course of a text, when and if this is necessary.
Can structure text content into an introduction, main section and closure or conclusion.
Can present content in a sensible order. Can structure a text into a number of thematic sections.
Can present clearly the relationships between things by making explicit reference to them.
Can point out relevant and interesting details briefly and concisely.
Can refer explicitly back to what has been said earlier.
Can compare the opinions of others and him/herself take a position in relation to them.
Can relate his/her own experience to something in the text.

B1

A2

Can formulate the aim and objective of a text in the introduction.
Can sequence the successive elements of a text in a logical order.
Can introduce a topic appropriately and then provide the relevant content.
Can indicate the most important aspects of a topic in the hierarchical order of their importance.
Can employ simple strategies to structure information (e.g. adding comments on the topic).
Can use the sign PALM-UP to indicate a pause.
Can summarise in a text the most important statements in reply to "when," "where," "who," "what," "how," and "why"questions.
Can give reasons for his/her opinions. Can conclude his/her contribution correctly (hands together).
Can introduce a topic adequately.
Can differentiate the different points in a list.
Can formulate simple for and against arguments into the form of questions to put.
Can produce a summary on simple topics.
Can, at the beginning of a text, give the details necessary to frame the description, providing answers to the key what, here
and who questions.

A1

No descriptors available.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 151

Setting and perspectives
A very important aspect of sign language is to establish clearly the context and setting at the beginningof the interaction or production in order to establish reference points within the three-dimensionalsigning space and to get onto the same wavelength. Within the established setting, reference points
remain in place until a new setting is established. Consistency of spatial relations is therefore essential
in order to produce a coherent, unambiguous contribution. To achieve this, signing space is divided
into reference spaces systematically. During the contribution, e.g. in reported speech, it may benecessary for the signer to adopt the role of some referent or to shift back and forth from relating
something to explaining an issue from a particular perspective. The use of unambiguous signing spaceis crucial in order to be able to do so, as shifts need to be unambiguously signalled.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:►ability to envisage and plan use of signing space;►constructing a new setting or indicating a change of scene, topic, etc.;►

presenting an action, event or issue from the perspective of different people or different pointsof view;►

adopting or changing a role (e.g. through body posture, line of vision, mimic);►use of facial expression and mimic to indicate different people.

SETTING AND PERSPECTIVES
C2

Can present a complex action or event by playing different roles and taking different perspectives.

C1

Can switch between different perspectives.
Can create a complex 3-D image including objects in motion.

B2

Can use the signing space correctly whilst presenting an interaction between more than two people (e.g. family dinner) as aroleplay.
Can correctly introduce and play different roles.
Can present a simple action or event from the perspective of a participant.
Can present a simple action or event from the perspective of an observer/narrator.
Can linguistically correctly construct a new setting when a new topic or situation etc. occurs in the text.
Can construct a setting using just mimic and the representation of different shapes.
Can present a change of scene, place or person comprehensibly.
Can slip into the role of a character, for example in order to demonstrate feelings.
Can indicate a change of role with body posture and/or the direction of vision.
Can construct a setting in the signing space for a text (landscape, family, situation) in a linguistically correct manner.
Can describe different positions in a correct relationship to one another.
Can demonstrate a change of role through an alteration in upper body posture.

B1

A2

Can reconstruct a landscape visually in the signing space in a way that respects.
Can envisage things spatially.
Can develop a statement in such a way as to move from near to far and from big to small.
Can create a clear image in the signing space.
Can employ a mimic appropriate to a character in a narrative.
Can refer to characters in a narrative by using mimic.
Can use body posture to indicate different opinions in relation to an issue (e.g. by contrasting arguments for and against by
a posture oriented to the right and to the left respectively).
Can adopt a facial expression appropriate to the character, person or object being described.
Can describe a person by using roleplay techniques.
Can when signing consistently maintain the relative sizes and proportions of objects (e.g. when peeling a banana).

A1

No descriptors available.

Page 152 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

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 is the main focus of thisscale. There is a focus on the vocabulary and range of structures as well as the non-manual means
available and the way the user can exploit them in a stylistic manner in order to produce a catchy text.
Be it to demonstrate sophistication, for boasting, or explaining, the signer must be aware of his/her
presence.
In addition to lexical and productive repertoires, this includes different ways of presenting a signed
statement such as variation in tempo and style. In contrast to a written text, the author remains visible
in sign texts: video recorded sign texts are not alienated from authors, the conveyed meanings are notdetached from the authors. Therefore, there is an additional competence in producing signed texts,
namely the “competence of appearance” which must be learned and which includes various aspects of
how to successfully produce an appropriate sign text for specific purposes.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:►

sophistication and semantic precision in the overall message (up to aesthetic use at the C2);►

use of new classifiers, substitutors, pauses, handshapes, inclusion of ready-made signs etc.;►

use and/or combination of different types of signing (e.g. productive, lexical);►use of mimic, mouthing (or not), ‘Constructed Action’, etc. where appropriate and effective;►

expression of specific functions and vocabulary (A levels);►behaviour and appearance of the signer (accessories).

PRESENCE AND EFFECT

C2

Can be creative, without losing his train of thought.
Can use a wide range of different ways to build up suspense and excitement (e.g. mimic, rhetoric questions, varying rhythm,
and roleplay).
Can effortlessly and playfully employ hand shapes as an aesthetic element, so that creative forms of language emerge.
Can present thoughts and feelings in an artistic way by using a selection of signs and mimic appropriate to them.

C1

Can prepare well, so that whilst signing he/she does 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 is happening in thestory.
Can alter the pace of signing (from slow to fast) in order to build up suspense.
Can lead the recipients to be carried away with enthusiasm.
Can employ exaggeration appropriately and effectively.

B2

B1

Can contribute unconventional and original reflections on the topic concerned in a linguistically skilful manner.
Can creatively give his/her imagination and mental images form in language.
Can chose from a broad variety of non-manual means (e.g. mimic) to build up suspense and excitement.
Can bring an audience to experience strong emotions (laughing, crying…).
Can describe an event in an exciting way.
Can express complicated emotional states with mimic and gesture.
Can make relevant comparisons that help the recipient better to grasp the information concerned.
Can stimulate/awaken curiosity on the part of the recipient with regard to the ending to a text.
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 him/her.
Can use body language and strong mimic.
Can emphasise certain aspects by using non-manual means (e.g. mimic, the extent of movements).
Can hold the attention of the recipients by employing various means (for example rhetorical questions).
Can tell a story in a credible way.
Can express personal character traits.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 153

PRESENCE AND EFFECT
Can present him/herself in a friendly and attractive way.
Can sign in a neutral manner, without emotion in the expression.
Can convey and stimulate feelings (joy, sadness).

A2

Can express emotions by employing mimic.
Can employ mimic appropriately to express negative and positive feelings (eyebrows together: negative; eyebrows raised:
positive).
Can position him/herself so that the signing is easily visible to the recipients.
Can express emotional states just with mimic (without the use of manual signs).

A1

Signing fluency
This scale is a direct equivalent of the scale for spoken fluency and complements it. Key concepts
operationalised in the scale include the following:►

the pace, regularity and rhythm of signing;►

the ability to pause where appropriate;►

the ability to perform meaningful actions with the two hands simultaneously;►

ability to use signs one after another with smooth transitions and without distortion;►

the ability to finger spell in a fluid sequence to express words for unknown signs (A levels) asa means of bilingual contact signing.

SIGNING FLUENCYC2

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 rhetoric or prosodic feature.

B2

Can sign at a fluent pace, even though some pauses for planning are still necessary.
Can relate fluently in sign language a story that he/she knows.
Can hold a sign with the one hand in order to demonstrate something static (hold), whilst simultaneously using the other
hand to continue signing.
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 (leafs falling down; hail).
Can use the finger alphabet to spell fluently, producing ergonomic designs rather than single letters.
Can sign a fluent transition between related points.

B1

A2
A1

Can sign a short text rhythmically.
Can employ different handshapes fluently one after another.
Can sign a simple sentence rhythmically.
Can indicate the end of a sentence clearly by leaving a pause.
No descriptors available.

Page 154 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Sociolinguistic
As in the scale in the previous section for this area, some elements of sociocultural knowledge havebeen included, since it is difficult to draw a hard and fast line between the two concepts. In the Zurich
research project, a number of descriptors for specific knowledge of aspects relevant to the deaf
community and the deaf culture were calibrated. These have been placed in the supplementary
descriptors in Appendix 9.

Sociolinguistic repertoire and cultural repertoire
This scale is the equivalent of the scale for Sociolinguistic appropriateness in the previous section andagain complements it. In addition to sociolinguistic appropriateness, (register, politeness conventionsetc.) some elements of cultural and regional knowledge are included. Key concepts operationalised in
the scale include the following:►

expression of registers and switches between them;►ability to express greetings, introductions and leave taking;►ability to sign appropriately with regard to the social status of referents and/or theinterlocutors;►

adaptation of signing space to the context and recipient(s); taking account of local conditions;►

respect of socio-cultural norms, taboos, etc. and appropriate personal appearance;►

establishment and maintenance of eye contact;►means of gaining attention; means of giving feedback;►knowledge of the landmarks of deaf culture, people, facts, and major community issues;►ability to provide and judge social background, regional origin, local ties in/from the signing ofinterlocutors;►

caring for aspects relevant to communication with the deaf (e.g. abbreviations, technical aids,
behaviour).

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 155

SOCIOLINGUISTIC APPROPRIATENESS AND CULTURAL REPERTOIRE
C2

No descriptors available; see C1

C1

Can respect sociocultural norms in producing texts, e.g. appropriate register, forms of politeness, status, taboos.
Can adapt his/her 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 non-.manual means.
Can tell a joke that relates to the culture of the deaf.
Can gauge whether the public concerned is familiar with deafness and explain things explicitly if necessary.
Can produce lexicalised signs of different registers.

B2

Can explain facts and events that are important in the culture of the deaf.
Can adopt the appropriate formal register in order to maintain distance to the reported issue.
Can indicate someone's social status through different manual performance of signs.
Can make or leave aside an appropriate greeting/leave-taking remark, according to the type of text and the publicconcerned.
Can present him/herself in a manner appropriate to the type of text and the public concerned (clothes, charisma, personal
hygiene).
Can sensibilise people to cultural issues.

B1

Can, in the course of describing travel, include cultural experiences and aspects typical of the country concerned.
Can introduce him/herself to deaf people appropriately.
Can use his/her knowledge of sign language culture to explain the origin of certain culturally determined signs (e.g. thenames of well-known people, institutions and place names).
Can indicate someone's social status with non-manual means, for example direction of vision.
Can use the sign-abbreviations that are conventional in relation to deafness.
Can maintain eye contact with his/her interlocutor whilst signing.
Can accept or decline a direct request or demand.
Is familiar with the common technical aids for deaf people and can name them.

A2

A1

Can use an appropriate means of address when meeting an unknown deaf person.
Can adapt the signing space used to the context and the audience.
Can take into account aspects of the immediate environment that are important for signed communication (light, objects on
the table).
Can greet a deaf person appropriately.
Can employ different strategies in order to establish the eye contact necessary for communication (touching, winking,tapping the table, turning off and on lighting).
Can attract attention in order to acquire the turn (e.g. by raising a hand, touching).
Can maintain direct eye contact with his interlocutor.
Can use the finger alphabet as an aid when communication problems occur.
Can give his/her interlocutor visual feedback through codified signing (e.g. 'PFF').
Can give his/her interlocutor visual feedback (positive and negative) with mimic.
Can respond appropriately to a "Thank you," (e.g. with "You're welcome").

Page 156 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Plurilingual and pluricultural competence
The notions of plurilingualism and pluriculturalism presented in the CEFR Sections 1.3, 1.4, and 6.1.3)
were the starting point for the development of descriptors in this area. The plurilingual vision associatedwith 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 upon all of their linguistic and cultural resources andexperiences 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 culturalrepertoire. As the CEFR states:‘… the plurilingual approach emphasises the fact that as an individual person’s
experience of language in its cultural contexts expands, from the language of the home tothat 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 andcultures in strictly separated mental compartments, but rather builds up a communicativecompetence to which all knowledge and experience of language contributes and in which
languages interrelate and interact’. (CEFR Section 1.3)

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 Section 1.3)
In the development of descriptors, the following points mentioned specifically in the CEFR were given
particular attention:► languages are interrelated and interconnected especially at the level of the individual;► languages and cultures are not kept in separated mental compartments;► all knowledge and experience of languages contribute to building up communicativecompetence;► 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;► barriers between languages can be overcome in communication and different languages canbe used purposefully for conveying messages in the same situation.
Other concepts were also taken into consideration after analysing recent literature:
►
►
►

►

the 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;
the willingness to act as an intercultural mediator;
the 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 – whilst being aware of the danger of ‘false friends;’
the capacity to respond in a sociolinguistically appropriate way by incorporating elements ofother languages and/or variations of languages in his/her own discourse for communication
purposes;

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 157

►►the capacity to exploit one’s linguistic repertoire by purposefully blending, embedding andalternating languages at the utterance level and at the discourse level;a readiness and capacity to expand linguistic/plurilinguistic and cultural/pluriculturalawareness through an attitude of openness and curiosity.

The association of an illustrative descriptor with a specific level should not be seen as exclusive or
mandatory, as explained in the section introducing the descriptors at the beginning of this document.
Descriptors are situated at the level most likely to be relevant as a curriculum aim, as determinedthrough the validation process briefly outlined in Appendix 5. A descriptor at a particular level would bea challenging – but by no means impossible – aim for user/learners at the level below. This isparticularly the case with descriptors for plurilingualism/pluriculturalism where the unique range ofexperiences and expertise of the user/learners, and their plurilingual/pluricultural profiles, are brought
into play. The main 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) to acknowledge 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 theuser/learners concerned.
The scale Facilitating pluricultural space is included in the section ‘Mediating Communication’, rather
than here, because it focuses on the more pro-active 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 FREPA (Framework of Reference for Pluralistic Approaches). FREPA lists
different aspects of plurilingual and intercultural competences in a hypertextual structure independentof language level, organised according to the three broad areas: Knowledge (savoir), Attitudes (savoirêtre) and Skills (savoir-faire). Users may wish to consult CARAP for further reflection and access torelated training materials in this area.

Building on pluricultural repertoire
Many notions that appear in the literature and descriptors for intercultural competence are included, forexample:► the need to deal with ambiguity when faced with cultural diversity, adjusting reactions,modifying language, etc.
► the need for understanding that different cultures may have different practices and norms, andthat actions may be perceived differently by people belonging to other cultures;► the need to take into consideration differences in behaviours (including gestures, tones andattitudes), discussing over-generalisations and stereotypes;► the need to recognise similarities and use them as a basis to improve communication;► the will to show sensitivity to differences;► readiness to offer and ask for clarification: anticipating possible risks of misunderstanding.
Key concepts operationalized in the scale at most levels include the following:►►►

recognising and acting on cultural, socio-pragmatic and socio-linguistic conventions/cues;
recognising and interpreting similarities and differences in perspectives, practices, events;
evaluating neutrally and critically.

Progression up the scale is characterised as follows: at the A levels the user/learner is capable ofrecognising potential causes of culturally-based complications in communication and of acting
appropriately in simple everyday exchanges. At B1 he/she can generally respond to the mostcommonly used cultural cues, act according to socio-pragmatic conventions and explain or discuss
features of his/her own and other cultures. At B2, the user/learner can engage effectively incommunication, coping with most difficulties that occur, usually able to recognise and repair
misunderstandings. At the C levels, this develops into an ability to explain sensitively the background tocultural beliefs, values and practices, interpret and discuss aspects of them, cope with socio-linguistic
and pragmatic ambiguity and express reactions constructively with cultural appropriateness.

Page 158 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

BUILDING ON PLURICULTURAL REPERTOIRE
Note: Descriptors marked with asterisk (**) represent a high level for B2. They may also be suitable for the C levels.
C2

Can initiate and control his/her actions and forms of expression according to context, showing awareness of culturaldifferences and making subtle adjustments in order to prevent and/or repair misunderstandings and cultural incidents.

C1

Can identify differences in socio-linguistic/-pragmatic conventions, critically reflect on them, and adjust his/hercommunication accordingly.
Can sensitively explain the background to, interpret and discuss aspects of cultural values and practices drawing on
intercultural encounters, reading, film, etc.
Can explain his/her interpretation of the cultural assumptions, preconceptions, stereotypes, and prejudices of his/her own
community and of other communities that he/she is familiar with.
Can deal with ambiguity in cross-cultural communication and express his/her reactions constructively and culturally
appropriately in order to bring clarity.

B2**Can describe and evaluate the viewpoints and practices of his/her own and other social groups, showing awareness of
the implicit values on which judgments and prejudices are frequently based.
**Can interpret and explain a document or event from another culture and relate it to documents or events from his/her own
culture(s)/ and/or from cultures he/she is familiar document or event from another culture with.
Can discuss the objectivity and balance of information and opinions expressed in the media about his/her own and othercommunities.
Can identify and reflect on similarities and differences in culturally-determined behaviour patterns (e.g. gestures andspeech volume) and discuss their significance in order to negotiate mutual understanding.
Can, in an intercultural encounter, recognise that what one normally takes for granted in a particular situation is notnecessarily shared by others, and can react and express him/herself appropriately.
Can generally interpret cultural cues appropriately in the culture concerned.
Can reflect on and explain particular ways of communicating in his/her own and other cultures, and the risks ofmisunderstanding they generate.

B1

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 his/her own culture to members of another culture or explain features of the other culture tomembers of his/her own culture.
Can explain in simple terms how his/her own values and behaviours influence his/her views of other people’s values andbehaviours.
Can discuss in simple terms the way in which things that may look ‘strange’ to him/her in another sociocultural context may
well be ‘normal’ for the other people concerned.
Can discuss in simple terms the way his/her own culturally-determined actions may be perceived differently by people fromother cultures.

A2

Can recognise and apply basic cultural conventions associated with everyday social exchanges (for example different
greetings rituals).
Can act appropriately in everyday greetings, farewells, and expressions of thanks and apology, although he/she has
difficulty coping with any departure from the routine.
Can recognise that his/her behaviour in an everyday transaction may convey a message different to the one he/she
intends, and can try to explain this simply.
Can recognise when difficulties occur in interaction with members of other cultures, even though he/she may well not be
sure how to behave in the situation.

A1

Can recognise differing ways of numbering, measuring distance, telling the time, etc. even though he/she may havedifficulty applying this in even simple everyday transactions of a concrete type.

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 159

Plurilingual comprehension
The main notion represented by this scale is the capacity to use the knowledge of and proficiency(even partial) in one or more languages as leverage for approaching texts in other languages and soachieve the communication goal. Key concepts operationalized in the scale include the following:► openness and flexibility to work with different elements from different languages;► exploiting cues;► exploiting similarities, recognising ‘false friends’ (from B1);
► exploiting parallel sources in different languages (from B1);
► 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 thelexical level to the use of co-text and contextual or genre-related clues. A more analytical ability ispresent at the B levels, exploiting similarities, recognising ‘false friends’ and exploiting parallel sourcesin different languages. There are no descriptors for the C levels, perhaps because the sources usedfocused at the A and B levels.
PLURILINGUAL COMPREHENSION
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 italic in the descriptor.
For example the B1 descriptor
Can deduce the message of a text by exploiting what he/she has understood from texts on the same theme written in different
languages (e.g. news in brief, museum brochure, online reviews)
might be presented as:
Can deduce the message of a text in German by exploiting what he/she has understood from texts on the same theme written in
French and English (e.g. news in brief, museum brochure, online reviews).
C2

No descriptors available, see B2

C1

No descriptors available, see B2

B2

Can use his/her knowledge of contrasting genre conventions and textual pattern in languages in his/her plurilingual
repertoire in order to support comprehension.

B1

Can use what he/she has understood in one language to understand the topic and main message of a text in anotherlanguage (e.g. when reading short newspaper articles on the same theme written in different languages).
Can use parallel translations of texts (e.g. magazine articles, stories, passages from novels) to develop comprehension indifferent languages.
Can deduce the message of a text by exploiting what he/she has understood from texts on the same theme written indifferent languages (e.g. news in brief, museum brochure, online reviews).
Can extract information from documents written in different languages in his/her field, e.g. to include in a presentation.
Can recognise similarities and contrasts between the way concepts are expressed in different languages, in order todistinguish between identical uses of the same word root and ‘false friends’.
Can use his/her knowledge of contrasting grammatical structures and functional expressions of languages in his/her
plurilingual repertoire in order to support comprehension.

A2

Can understand short, clearly articulated spoken announcements by piecing together what he/she understands from theavailable versions in different languages.
Can understand short, clearly written messages and instructions by piecing together what he/she understands from theversions in different languages.
Can use simple warnings, instructions and product information given in parallel in different languages to find relevant
information.

A1

Can recognise internationalisms and words 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, written text;
follow in outline short, simple social exchanges conducted very slowly and clearly in his/her presence;
deduce what people are trying to say directly to him/her, provided they speak very slowly and clearly, with repetition if
necessary.

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Page 160 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Building on plurilingual repertoire
In this scale we find aspects that characterise both the previous sales. As the social agent is buildingon his/her pluricultural repertoire, he/she is also engaged in exploiting all available linguistic resourcesin order to communicate effectively in a multilingual context and/or in a classic mediation situation inwhich the other people do not share a common language. Key concepts operationalized in the scale
include the following:►flexible adaptation to the situation;►

anticipation when and to what extent the use of several languages is useful and appropriate;►adjusting language according to the linguistic skills of interlocutors;►

blending and alternating between languages where necessary;►

explaining and clarifying in different languages;►

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, give clarifications, communicate specialised informationand in general increase the efficiency of communication. At the C levels this focus continues, with theaddition of an ability to gloss and explain sophisticated abstract concepts in different languages.
Overall there is also a progression from embedding single words from other languages to explaining
particularly apt expressions, and exploiting metaphors for effect.

The CEFR Illustrative Descriptor Scales ►Page 161

BUILDING ON PLURILINGUAL REPERTOIRE
Note: What is calibrated in this scale is the practical functional ability to exploit plurilingualism. In any particular context, when specificlanguages are concerned, users may wish to complete the descriptor by specifying those languages, replacing the expressions
underlined and in italic in the descriptor.
For example the B2 descriptor
Can make use of different languages in his/her plurilingual repertoire during collaborative interaction, in order to clarify the natureof a task, the main steps, the decisions to be taken, the outcomes expected.
might be presented as:
Can make use of English, Spanish and French during collaborative interaction, in order to clarify the nature of a task, the main
steps, the decisions to be taken, the outcomes expected.
Descriptors marked with asterisk (**) represent a high level for B2. They may also be suitable for the C levels.

C2

Can interact in a multilingual context on abstract and specialised topics by alternating flexibly between languages in his/her
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 in his/her
plurilingual repertoire, either for rhetoric effect or for fun.

C1

Can alternate between languages flexibly to facilitate communication in a multilingual context, summarising and glossing indifferent languages in his/her plurilingual repertoire contributions to the discussion and texts referred to.
Can participate effectively in a conversation in two or more languages in his/her plurilingual repertoire, adjusting to thechanges of language and catering to the needs and linguistic skills of the interlocutors.
Can use and explain specialised terminology from another languages in his/her plurilingual repertoire more familiar to theinterlocutor(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 to another language in
his/her plurilingual repertoire.
Can support comprehension and discussion of a text spoken or written in one language by explaining, summarising,clarifying and expanding it in (an) other language(s) in his/her plurilingual repertoire.

B2**Can recognise the extent to which it is appropriate to make flexible use of different languages in his/her plurilingual
repertoire in a specific situation, in order to increase the efficiency of communication.
**Can alternate efficiently between languages in his/her plurilingual repertoire in order to facilitate comprehension with andbetween third parties who lack a common language.
**Can introduce into an utterance an expression from another language in his/her plurilingual repertoire that is particularly
apt for the situation/concept being discussed, explaining it for the interlocutor when necessary.
Can alternate between languages in his/her plurilingual repertoire in order to communicate specialised information andissues on a subject in his field of interest to different interlocutors.
Can make use of different languages in his/her plurilingual repertoire during collaborative interaction, in order to clarify thenature of a task, the main steps, the decisions to be taken, the outcomes expected.
Can make use of different languages in his/her plurilingual repertoire to encourage other people to use the language inwhich they feel more comfortable

B1

Can exploit creatively his limited repertoire in different languages in his/her plurilingual repertoire for everyday contexts, inorder to cope with an unexpected situation.

A2

Can mobilise his/her limited repertoire in different languages in order to explain a problem or to ask for help or clarification.
Can use words and phrases from different languages in his/her plurilingual repertoire to conduct a simple, practicaltransaction or information exchange.
Can use a word from another language in his/her plurilingual repertoire to make him/herself understood in a routine
everyday situation, when he/she cannot think of an adequate expression in the language being spoken.

A1

Can use a very limited repertoire in different languages to conduct a very basic, concrete, everyday transaction with acollaborative interlocutor.

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Page 162 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Appendices
Appendix 1 – Salient features of spoken language at the CEFR levels (CEFR 3.6)
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 to simple statements inareas 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 levelthat 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 shortsocial exchanges; ask and answer questions about what they do at work and in free time; make andrespond to invitations; discuss what to do, where to go and make arrangements to meet; make andaccept offers. Here too are to be found descriptors 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 and close simple, restricted face-to-faceconversation; understand enough to manage simple, routine exchanges without undue
effort; make him/herself understood and exchange ideas and information on familiar
topics in predictable everyday situations, provided the other person helps if necessary;communicate successfully on basic themes if he/she can ask for help to express what hewants to; deal with everyday situations with predictable content, though he/she will
generally have to compromise the message and search for words; interact withreasonable ease in structured situations, given some help, but participation in open
discussion is fairly restricted; plus significantly more ability to sustain monologues, forexample: express how he feels in simple terms; give an extended description of everyday
aspects of his environment e.g. people, places, a job or study experience; describe past
activities and personal experiences; describe habits and routines; describe plans andarrangements; explain what he/she likes or dislikes about something; give short, basic
descriptions of events and activities; describe pets and possessions; use simple
descriptive language to make brief statements about and compare objects andpossessions.

Level B1 reflects the Threshold Level specification for a visitor to a foreign country and is perhaps
most categorised by two features. The first feature is the ability to maintain interaction and get acrosswhat you want to, in a range of contexts, for example: generally follow the main points of extended
discussion around him/her, provided speech is clearly articulated in standard dialect; give or seek
personal views and opinions in an informal discussion with friends; express the main point he/shewants to make comprehensibly; exploit a wide range of simple language flexibly to express much ofwhat he or she wants to; maintain a conversation or discussion but may sometimes be difficult to follow
when trying to say exactly what he/she would like to; keep going comprehensibly, even though pausing
for grammatical and lexical planning and repair is very evident, especially in longer stretches of freeproduction. 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 to arise 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 toclarify or elaborate what they have just said.

Appendix 1 – Salient features of spoken language at the CEFR levels (CEFR 3.6) ►Page 163

The subsequent band seems to be a strong Threshold (B1+). The same two mainfeatures continue to be present, with the addition of a number of descriptors which focus
on the exchange of quantities of information, for example: take messages communicatingenquiries, explaining problems; provide concrete information required in aninterview/consultation (e.g. describe symptoms to a doctor) but does so with limited
precision; explain why something is a problem; summarise and give his or her opinion
about a short story, article, talk, discussion interview, or documentary and answer further
questions of detail; carry out a prepared interview, checking and confirming information,
though he/she may occasionally has 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 his
field with some confidence.

Level B2 represents a new level as far above B1 (Threshold) as A2 (Waystage) is below it. It is
intended to reflect the Vantage Level specification. The metaphor is that having been progressing
slowly but steadily across the intermediate plateau, the learner finds he has arrived somewhere, things
look different, he/she acquires a new perspective, - can look around him/her in a new way. This
concept does seem to be borne out to a considerable 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 isa focus on effective argument: account for and sustain his 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 reasoned argument; develop an argument
giving reasons in support of or against a particular point of view; explain a problem and make it clearthat his 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 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 more than hold your own in social discourse: e.g. converse naturally, fluently and effectively;
understand in detail what is said to him/her in the standard spoken language even in a noisy
environment; initiate discourse, take his turn when appropriate and end conversation when he/sheneeds to, though he/she may not always do this elegantly; use stock phrases (e.g. ‘That's a difficult
question to answer’) to gain time and keep the turn whilst formulating what to say; interact with adegree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible
without imposing strain on either party; adjust to the changes of direction, style and emphasis normallyfound in conversation; sustain relationships with native speakers without unintentionally amusing or
irritating them or requiring them to behave other than they would with a native speaker. The second
new focus is a new degree of language awareness: correct mistakes if they have led tomisunderstandings; make a note of ‘favourite mistakes’ and consciously monitor speech for it/them;generally correct slips and errors if he becomes conscious of them; plan what is to be said and themeans to say it, considering the effect on the recipient/s. In all, this does seem to be a new thresholdfor a language learner to cross.
At the next band - representing a strong Vantage (B2+) performance - the focus onargument, effective social discourse and on language awareness which appears at B2(Vantage) continues. However, the focus on argument and social discourse can also beinterpreted as a new focus on discourse skills. This new degree of discourse competenceshows itself in conversational management (co-operating strategies): give feedback on
and follow up statements and inferences by other speakers and so help the developmentof the discussion; relate own contribution skilfully to those of other speakers. It is also
apparent in relation to coherence/cohesion: use a limited number of cohesive devices tolink sentences together smoothly into clear, connected discourse; use a variety of linking
words efficiently to mark clearly the relationships between ideas; develop an argument
systematically with 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 todemand satisfaction; state clearly the limits to a concession.

Level C1, the next band, was labelled Effective Operational Proficiency. What seems to characterise
this level is good access to a broad range of language, which allows fluent, spontaneouscommunication, as illustrated by the following examples: Can express him/herself fluently andspontaneously, almost effortlessly. Has a good command of a broad lexical repertoire allowing gaps tobe readily overcome with circumlocutions. There is little obvious searching for expressions orPage 164 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

avoidance strategies; only a conceptually difficult 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 phrase from a fluent repertoire of
discourse functions to preface his remarks in order to get the floor, or to gain time and keep it whilst
thinking; produce clear, smoothly-flowing, well-structured speech, showing controlled use oforganisational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices.
Level C2, whilst it has been termed ‘Mastery’, is not intended to imply native-speaker or near nativespeaker competence. What is intended is to characterise the degree of precision, appropriateness andease with the language which typifies the speech of those who have been highly successful learners.
Descriptors calibrated here include: convey finer shades of meaning precisely by using, withreasonable accuracy, a wide range of modification devices; has a good command of idiomatic
expressions and colloquialisms with awareness of connotative level of meaning; backtrack andrestructure around a difficulty so smoothly the interlocutor is hardly aware of it.
The Common Reference Levels can be presented and exploited in a number of different formats, invarying degrees of detail. Yet the existence of fixed points of common reference offers transparency
and coherence, a tool for future planning and a basis for further development. The intention ofproviding a concrete illustrative set of descriptors, together with criteria and methodologies for thefurther development of descriptors, is to help decision-makers design applications to suit their contexts.

Appendix 1 – Salient features of spoken language at the CEFR levels (CEFR 3.6) ►Page 165

Appendix 2 – CEFR Table 2: Self-assessment grid (with online interaction and mediation)
RECEPTION

A1

A2

B1

B2

C1

C2

Listening

I can recognise familiar words
and very basic phrases
concerning myself, my family
and immediate concretesurroundings when people
speak slowly and clearly.

I can understand phrases andthe highest frequency
vocabulary related to areas of
most immediate personal
relevance (e.g. very basic
personal and family information,
shopping, local geography,
employment).
I can catch the main point inshort, clear, simple messages
and announcements.

I can understand the main
points of clear standard speech
on familiar matters regularly
encountered in work, school,
leisure, etc.
I can understand the main pointof many radio or TV
programmes on current affairs
or topics of personal or
professional interest when thedelivery is relatively slow andclear.

I can understand extended
speech and lectures and follow
even complex lines of argument
provided the topic is reasonably
familiar.
I can understand most TV news
and current affairs programmes.
I can understand the majority offilms in standard dialect.

I can understand extended
speech even when it is notclearly structured and whenrelationships are only impliedand not signalled explicitly.
I can understand television
programmes and films without
too much effort.

I have no difficulty inunderstanding any kind of
spoken language, whether live
or broadcast, even when
delivered at fast native speed,provided I have some time toget familiar with the accent.

Reading

I can understand familiarnames, words and very simple
sentences, for example on
notices and posters or in
catalogues.

I can read very short, simple
texts.
I can find specific, predictable
information in simple everyday
material such as
advertisements, prospectuses,
menus and timetables and I canunderstand short simple
personal letters.

I can understand texts thatconsist mainly of high frequency
everyday or job-related
language.
I can understand the descriptionof events, feelings and wishes inpersonal letters.

I can read articles and reports
concerned with contemporary
problems in which the writers
adopt particular stances orviewpoints.
I can understand contemporary
literary prose.

I can understand long andcomplex factual and literarytexts, appreciating distinctionsof style.
I can understand specialised
articles and longer technicalinstructions, even when they do
not relate to my field.

I can read with ease virtually all
forms of the written language,
including abstract, structurally or
linguistically complex texts suchas manuals, specialised articles
and literary works.

Appendix 2 – CEFR Table 2: Self-assessment grid (with online interaction and mediation) ►Page 167

INTERACTION

A1

A2

B1

B2

C1

C2

SpokenInteraction

I can interact in a simple way
provided the other person isprepared to repeat or rephrase
things at a slower rate of speechand help me formulate what I'mtrying to say.
I can ask and answer simple
questions in areas of immediateneed or on very familiar topics.

I can communicate in simple
and routine tasks requiring asimple and direct exchange of
information on familiar topics
and activities.
I can handle very short social
exchanges, even though I can't
usually understand enough tokeep the conversation goingmyself.

I can deal with most situations
likely to arise whilst travelling inan area where the language isspoken.
I can enter unprepared into
conversation on topics that arefamiliar, of personal interest or
pertinent to everyday life (e.g.
family, hobbies, work, travel andcurrent events).

I can interact with a degree offluency and spontaneity thatmakes regular interaction withnative speakers quite possible.
I can take an active part indiscussion in familiar contexts,
accounting for and sustaining
my views.

I can express myself fluently
and spontaneously without
much obvious searching for
expressions.
I can use language flexibly andeffectively for social andprofessional purposes.
I can formulate ideas andopinions with precision andrelate my contribution skilfully tothose of other speakers.

I can take part effortlessly in any
conversation of discussion andhave a good familiarity withidiomatic expressions andcolloquialisms.
I can express myself fluently
and convey finer shades ofmeaning precisely.
If I do have a problem I canbacktrack and restructurearound the difficulty so smoothlythat other people are hardly
aware of it.

Written andonlineInteraction

I can post short, simple
greetings as statements about
what I did and how I liked it, andcan respond to comments in avery simple way.
I can react simply to other posts,
images and media.
I can complete a very simple
purchase, filling in forms withpersonal details.

I can engage in basic social
interaction, expressing how I
feel, what I am doing or what I
need, and responding tocomments with thanks, apology
or answers to questions.
I can complete simple
transactions such as ordering
goods, can follow simple
instructions and can collaborate
in a shared task with asupportive interlocutor.

I can interact about
experiences, events,
impressions and feelings
provided that I can prepare
beforehand.
I can ask for or give simple
clarifications and can respond tocomments and questions insome detail.
I can interact with a group
working on a project, provided
there are visual aids such asimages, statistics and graphs toclarify more complex concepts.

I can interact with several
people, linking my contributions
to theirs and handlingmisunderstandings or disagreements, provided the others
avoid complex language, allow
me time and are generallycooperative.
I can highlight the significanceof facts, events andexperiences, justify ideas andsupport collaboration.

I can understand the intentions
and implications of othercontributions on complex,
abstract issues and can express
myself with clarity and precision,
adapting my language andregister flexibly and effectively.
I can deal effectively with
communication problems andcultural issues that arise byclarifying and exemplifying

I can express myself in an
appropriate tone and style invirtually any type of written
interaction.
I can anticipate and deal
effectively with possible
misunderstandings,
communication issues andemotional reactions, andadjusting language and tone
flexibly and sensitively as
appropriate.

Page 168 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

PRODUCTION

A1

A2

B1

B2

C1

C2

SpokenProduction

I can use simple phrases andsentences to describe where I
live and people I know.

I can use a series of phrases
and sentences to describe insimple terms my family andother people, living conditions,my educational background andmy present or most recent job

I can connect phrases in a
simple way in order to describe
experiences and events, mydreams, hopes & ambitions.
I can briefly give reasons andexplanations for opinions andplans. I can narrate a story or
relate the plot of a book or film
and describe my reactions.

I can present clear, detailed
descriptions on a wide range ofsubjects related to my field ofinterest.
I can explain a viewpoint on a
topical issue giving theadvantages and disadvantagesof various options.

I can present clear, detailed
descriptions of complex subjects
integrating subthemes,
developing particular points androunding off with an appropriate
conclusion.

I can present a clear, smoothlyflowing description or argument
in a style appropriate to thecontext and with an effective
logical structure which helps therecipient to notice andremember significant points.

Written
Production

I can write simple isolated
phrases and sentences.

I can write a series of simple
phrases and sentences linked
with simple connectors like“and”, “but” and “because”.

I can write straightforward
connected text on topics which
are familiar or of personal
interest.

I can write clear, detailed text ona wide range of subjects related
to my interests.
I can write an essay or report,
passing on information or giving
reasons in support of or against
a particular point of view.

I can express myself in clear,well-structured text, expressing
points of view at some length.
I can write detailed expositionsof complex subjects in an essay
or a report, underlining what I
consider to be the salientissues.
I can write different kinds oftexts in a style appropriate to
the reader in mind.

I can write clear, smoothlyflowing text in an appropriate
style.
I can write complex letters,
reports or articles which present
a case with an effective logicalstructure which helps therecipient to notice andremember significant points.
I can write summaries andreviews of professional or
literary works.

Appendix 2 – CEFR Table 2: Self-assessment grid (with online interaction and mediation) ►Page 169

MEDIATION

A1

A2

B1

B2

C1

C2

Mediating a text

I can convey simple, predictable
information given in short,
simple texts like signs andnotices, posters andprogrammes.

I can convey the main point(s)involved in short, simple texts
on everyday subjects ofimmediate interest provided
these are expressed clearly insimple language.

I can convey information given
in clear, well-structured
informational texts on subjects
that are familiar or of personalor current interest.

I can convey detailed
information and arguments
reliably, e.g. the significant
point(s) contained in complex
but well-structured, texts within
my fields of professional,
academic and personal interest.

I can convey clearly and fluently
in well-structured language thesignificant ideas in long,complex texts, whether or notthey relate to my own fields ofinterest, provided that I canoccasionally check particulartechnical concepts.

I can explain in clear, fluent,well-structured language theway facts and arguments arepresented, conveying evaluative
aspects and most nuances
precisely, and pointing out
sociocultural implications (e.g.
use of register, understatement,
irony and sarcasm).

Mediatingconcepts

I can invite others’ contributions
using short, simple phrases.
I can use simple words andsignals to show my interest in
an idea and to confirm that I
understand.
I can express an idea very
simply and ask others whether
they understand me and what
they think.

I can collaborate in simple,
practical tasks, asking what
others think, making
suggestions and understanding
responses, provided I can ask
for repetition or reformulationfrom time to time.
I can make suggestions in a
simple way to move thediscussion forward and can ask
what people think of certain
ideas.

I can help define a task in basic
terms and ask others tocontribute their expertise.
I can invite other people tospeak, to clarify the reason(s)for their views or to elaborate on
specific points they made.
I can ask appropriate questions
to check understanding ofconcepts and can repeat backpart of what someone has said
to confirm mutual
understanding.

I can encourage participationand pose questions that invite
reactions from other groupmembers’ perspectives or ask
people to expand on theirthinking and clarify theiropinions.
I can further develop otherpeople’s ideas and link theminto coherent lines of thinking,considering different sides of anissue.

I can acknowledge different
perspectives in guiding a group,
asking a series of open
questions that build on different
contributions in order tostimulate logical reasoning,
reporting on what others have
said, summarising, elaborating
and weighing up multiple pointsof view, and tactfully helping
steer discussion towards aconclusion.

I can guide the development ofideas in a discussion of complex
abstract topics, encouraging
others to elaborate on theirreasoning, summarizing,evaluating and linking thevarious contributions in order tocreate agreement for a solution
or way forward.

Mediatingcommunication

I can facilitate communicationby showing my welcome andinterest with simple words andnon-verbal signals, by inviting
others to speak and indicating
whether I understand.
I can communicate otherpeople’s personal details andvery simple, predictable
information, provided otherpeople help me with formulation.

I can contribute tocommunication by using simple
words to invite people to explain
things, indicating when I
understand and/or agree.
I can communicate the main
point of what is said in
predictable, everyday situations
about personal wants andneeds.
I can recognise when speakers
disagree or when difficulties
occur and can use simple
phrases to seek compromise
and agreement.

I can support a sharedcommunication culture byintroducing people, exchanging
information about priorities, andmaking simple requests forconfirmation and/or clarification.
I can communicate the main
sense of what is said on
subjects of personal interest,
provided that speakers
articulate clearly and that I canpause to plan how to express
things.

I can encourage a sharedcommunication culture byadapting the way I proceed, byexpressing appreciation ofdifferent ideas, feelings andview-points, and inviting
participants to react to eachother’s ideas.
I can communicate thesignificance of importantstatements and viewpoints on
subjects within my fields ofinterest, provided speakers give
clarifications if needed.

I can mediate a sharedcommunication culture bymanaging ambiguity
demonstrating sensitivity todifferent viewpoints, andheading off misunderstandings.
I can communicate significant
information clearly, fluently andconcisely as well as explaining
cultural references.
I can use persuasive language
diplomatically.

I can mediate effectively andnaturally between members of
my own and other communities,
taking account of socioculturaland sociolinguistic differences
and communicating finer shadesof meaning.

Page 170 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Appendix 3 – CEFR Table 3: Qualitative features of spoken language (expanded with phonology)

C2

C1

RANGE

ACCURACYFLUENCY

INTERACTION

COHERENCE

PHONOLOGY

Shows great flexibility
reformulating ideas in differing
linguistic forms to convey finer
shades of meaning precisely, togive emphasis, to differentiate
and to eliminate ambiguity. Also
has a good command of
idiomatic expressions andcolloquialisms.

Maintains consistentgrammatical control of complex
language, even while attention isotherwise engaged (e.g. inforward planning, in monitoringothers' reactions).

Can express him/herself
spontaneously at length with anatural colloquial flow, avoiding
or backtracking around any
difficulty so smoothly that theinterlocutor is hardly aware of it.

Can interact with ease and skill,picking up and using non-verbal
and intonational cues apparently
effortlessly.
Can interweave his/her contribution into the joint discoursewith fully natural turntaking,referencing, allusion making etc.

Can create coherent andcohesive discourse making fulland appropriate use of a varietyof organisational patterns and awide range of connectors andother cohesive devices.

Can employ the full range ofphonological features in thetarget language with a high levelof control – including prosodic
features such as word andsentence stress, rhythm andintonation – so that the finer
points of his/her message areclear and precise. Intelligibility is
not affected in any way by
features of accent that may beretained from other language(s).

Has a good command of a broad
range of language allowing
him/her to select a formulation toexpress him/ herself clearly in an
appropriate style on a wide
range of general, academic,
professional or leisure topics
without having to restrict whathe/she wants to say.

Consistently maintains a highdegree of grammatical accuracy;
errors are rare, difficult to spot
and generally corrected when
they do occur.

Can express him/herself fluently
and spontaneously, almost
effortlessly. Only a conceptuallydifficult subject can hinder anatural, smooth flow of
language.

Can select a suitable phrasefrom a readily available range of
discourse functions to preface
his remarks in order to get or tokeep the floor and to relate
his/her own contributions skilfully
to those of other speakers.

Can produce clear, smoothly
flowing, well-structured speech,
showing controlled use oforganisational patterns,
connectors and cohesive
devices.

Can employ the full range ofphonological features in the TL
with sufficient control to ensure
intelligibility throughout.
Can articulate virtually all thesounds of the TL; some featuresof accent retained from otherlanguage(s) may be noticeable,
but they do not affectintelligibility at all.

Has a sufficient range oflanguage to be able to give clear
descriptions, express viewpoints
on most general topics, without
much conspicuous searching forwords, using some complex
sentence forms to do so.

Shows a relatively high degreeof grammatical control. Does notmake errors which cause
misunderstanding, and cancorrect most of his/her mistakes.

Can produce stretches oflanguage with a fairly eventempo; although he/she can behesitant as he or she searches
for patterns and expressions,
there are few noticeably longpauses.

Can initiate discourse, takehis/her turn when appropriate
and end conversation when
he/she needs to, though he/she
may not always do thiselegantly.
Can help the discussion alongon familiar ground confirming
comprehension, inviting othersin, etc.

Can use a limited number ofcohesive devices to link his/herutterances into clear, coherent
discourse, though there may besome "jumpiness" in a longcontribution.

Can generally use appropriate
intonation, place stress correctly
and articulate individual sounds
clearly; accent tends to be
influenced by other language(s)he/she speaks, but has little orno effect on intelligibility.

Has enough language to get by,with sufficient vocabulary to
express him/herself with somehesitation and circumlocutions
on topics such as family,
hobbies and interests, work,
travel, and current events.

Uses reasonably accurately arepertoire of frequently used"routines" and patterns
associated with more predictablesituations.

Can keep going comprehensibly,
even though pausing forgrammatical and lexical planningand repair is very evident,
especially in longer stretches offree production.

Can initiate, maintain and close
simple face-to-face conversation
on topics that are familiar or of
personal interest.
Can repeat back part of whatsomeone has said to confirm
mutual understanding.

Can link a series of shorter,
discrete simple elements into a
connected, linear sequence ofpoints.

Pronunciation is generally
intelligible; can approximate
intonation and stress at bothutterance and word levels.
However, accent is usually
influenced by other language(s)he/she speaks.

B2+

B2

B1+

B1

Appendix 3 – CEFR Table 3: Qualitative features of spoken language (expanded with phonology) ►Page 171

RANGE

ACCURACYFLUENCY

INTERACTION

COHERENCE

PHONOLOGY

Uses basic sentence patterns
with memorised phrases, groups
of a few words and formulae inorder to communicate limited
information in simple everyday
situations.

Uses some simple structures
correctly, but still systematicallymakes basic mistakes.

Can make him/herself understood in very short utterances,even though pauses, false starts
and reformulation are very
evident.

Can ask and answer questions
and respond to simple
statements.
an indicate when he/she isfollowing but is rarely able tounderstand enough to keep
conversation going of his/her own
accord.

Can link groups of words withsimple connectors like "and, "but"and "because".

Pronunciation is generally clear
enough to be understood, butconversational partners will needto ask for repetition from time totime. A strong influence fromother language(s) he/she speaks
on stress, rhythm and intonation
may affect intelligibility, requiring
collaboration from interlocutors.
Nevertheless, pronunciation offamiliar words is clear.

Has a very basic repertoire ofwords and simple phrases related
to personal details and particularconcrete situations.

Shows only limited control of afew simple grammaticalstructures and sentence patterns
in a memorised repertoire.

Can manage very short, isolated,
mainly pre-packaged utterances,with much pausing to search forexpressions, to articulate lessfamiliar words, and to repair
communication.

Can ask and answer questions
about personal details.
Can interact in a simple way but
communication is totally dependent on repetition, rephrasing
and repair.

Can link words or groups ofwords with very basic linear
connectors like “and” or “then”.

Pronunciation of a very limited
repertoire of learnt words andphrases can be understood withsome effort by interlocutors used
to dealing with speakers of thelanguage group concerned.
Can reproduce correctly alimited range of sounds as wellas the stress on simple, familiar
words and phrases.

A2+

A2

A1

Page 172 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Appendix 4 – Manual Table C4: Written assessment grid

C2

OVERALLRANGE

COHERENCE

ACCURACYDESCRIPTIONARGUMENT

Can write clear, highly accurate
and smoothly flowing complex
texts in an appropriate andeffective personal style
conveying finer shades ofmeaning.

Shows great flexibility informulating ideas in differing
linguistic forms to convey finer
shades of meaning precisely, togive emphasis and to eliminate
ambiguity. Also has a goodcommand of idiomatic
expressions and colloquialisms.

Can create coherent andcohesive texts making full andappropriate use of a variety oforganisational patterns and awide range of connectors andother cohesive devices.

Maintains consistent and highly
accurate grammatical control ofeven the most complex
language forms. Errors are rare
and concern rarely used forms.

Can write clear, smoothly
flowing and fully engrossing
stories and descriptions ofexperience in a style appropriate
to the genre adopted.

Can produce clear, smoothly
flowing, complex reports, articles
and essays which present acase or give critical appreciationof proposals or literary works.

Has a good command of a broad
range of language allowing
him/her to select a formulation toexpress him/herself clearly in an
appropriate style on a wide
range of general, academic,
professional or leisure topics
without having to restrict whathe/she wants to say. The
flexibility in style and tone issomewhat limited.

Can produce clear, smoothly
flowing, well-structured text,
showing controlled use oforganisational patterns,
connectors and cohesive
devices.

Consistently maintains a highdegree of grammatical accuracy;
occasional errors in grammar,
collocations and idioms.

Has a sufficient range oflanguage to be able to give clear
descriptions, express viewpoints
on most general topics, using
some complex sentence forms
to do so. Language lacks,
however, expressiveness andidiomaticity and use of more
complex forms is still
stereotypic.

Can use a number of cohesive
devices to link his/her sentences
into clear, coherent text, though
there may be some “jumpiness”
in a longer text.

Shows a relatively high degreeof grammatical control. Does notmake errors which cause
misunderstandings.

Can use a logical structure
which helps the reader to findsignificant points.
Can write clear, well-structured
and mostly accurate texts ofcomplex subjects.
C1

Can underline the relevantsalient issues, expand andsupport points of view at somelength with subsidiary points,
reasons and relevant examples,and round off with anappropriate conclusion.
Can write clear, detailed official
and semi-official texts on avariety of subjects related to his
field of interest, synthesising andevaluating information andarguments from a number ofsources.

B2

Can make a distinction between
formal and informal languagewith occasional less appropriate
expressions.

Can provide an appropriate andeffective logical structure whichhelps the reader to findsignificant points.
Can write clear, detailed, wellstructured and developed
descriptions and imaginative
texts in a mostly assured,personal, natural style
appropriate to the reader inmind.

Can write clear, well-structured
expositions of complex subjects,
underlining the relevant salientissues.

Can write clear, detailed
descriptions of real or imaginary
events and experiences marking
the relationship between ideas inclear connected text, andfollowing establishedconventions of the genre
concerned.

Can write an essay or report thatdevelops an argument
systematically with appropriate
highlighting of some significant
points and relevant supporting
detail. Can evaluate different
ideas or solutions to a problem.

Can write clear, detailed
descriptions on a variety ofsubjects related to his/her fieldof interest.
Can write a review of a film,
book or play.

Can expand and support point ofview with some subsidiarypoints, reasons and examples.

Can write an essay or reportwhich develops an argument,
giving some reasons in supportof or against a particular point ofview and explaining theadvantages and disadvantagesof various options.
Can synthesise information andarguments from a number ofsources.

Appendix 4 – Manual Table C4: Written assessment grid ►Page 173

OVERALLRANGE

COHERENCE

ACCURACYDESCRIPTIONARGUMENT

Can write straightforward
connected texts on a range offamiliar subjects within his fieldof interest, by linking a series ofshorter discrete elements into alinear sequence. The texts areunderstandable but occasional
unclear expressions and/orinconsistencies may cause abreak-up in reading.

Has enough language to get by,with sufficient vocabulary to
express him/herself with somecircumlocutions on topics suchas family, hobbies and interests,
work, travel, and current events.

Can link a series of shorter
discrete elements into a
connected, linear text.

Uses reasonably accurately arepertoire of frequently used“routines” and patterns
associated with more common
situations.
Occasionally makes errors thatthe reader usually can interpretcorrectly on the basis of thecontext.

Can write accounts ofexperiences, describing feelings
and reactions in simple
connected text.
Can write a description of anevent, a recent trip – real or
imagined.
Can narrate a story.
Can write straightforward,
detailed descriptions on a range
of familiar subjects within his
field of interest.

Can write short, simple essays
on topics of interest.
Can summarise, report and givehis/her opinion about
accumulated factual information
on a familiar routine and nonroutine matters, within his fieldwith some confidence.
Can write very brief reports to a
standard conventionalised
format, which pass on routine
factual information and statereasons for actions.

Uses basic sentence patterns
with memorized phrases, groups
of a few words and formulae inorder to communicate limited
information mainly in everyday
situations.

Can link groups of words withsimple connectors like “and”,“but” and “because”.

A2

Can write a series of simple
phrases and sentences linked
with simple connectors like“and”, “but” and “because”.
Longer texts may containexpressions and showcoherence problems whichmakes the text hard tounderstand.

Uses simple structures correctly,
but still systematically makes
basic mistakes. Errors may
sometimes cause
misunderstandings.

Can write very short, basic
descriptions of events, past
activities and personal
experiences.
Can write short simple imaginary
biographies and simple poems
about people.

A1

Can write simple isolated
phrases and sentences. Longer
texts contain expressions andshow coherence problems whichmake the text very hard or
impossible to understand.

Has a very basic repertoire ofwords and simple phrases
related to personal details andparticular concrete situations.

Can link words or groups ofwords with very basic linear
connectors like “and” and “then”.

Shows only limited control of afew simple grammaticalstructures and sentence patterns
in a memorized repertoire.
Errors may cause
misunderstandings.

Can write simple phrases andsentences about themselves
and imaginary people, where
they live and what they do, etc.

B1

Page 174 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Appendix 5 – Development and validation of the extended illustrativedescriptors
In this project, which ran from 2014 to 2017, descriptors were developed for areas that had not been
covered in the set of illustrative descriptors published in 2001 in the CEFR book, namely mediation,
online interaction, plurilingual and pluricultural competence, and reactions to creative text, including
literature.

The conceptual approach to mediation
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 than that presented in the 2001 CEFR text. CEFR Section 2.1.3 introduces mediation as
the fourth category for communicative language activities in addition to reception, interaction andproduction.
‘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 tocommunicate 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 oursocieties.’

This description is taken a stage further in CEFR Section 4.4:
‘In mediating activities, the language user is not concerned to express his/her own
meanings, but simply to act as an intermediary between interlocutors who are unable tounderstand each other directly, normally (but not exclusively) speakers of different
languages. Examples of mediating activities include spoken interpretation and writtentranslation as well as summarising and paraphrasing texts in the same language, when
the language of the original text is not understandable to the intended recipient.’

The focus in the text of the CEFR 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 Daniel Coste and Marisa
Cavalli, in line with the broader educational field, in their 2015 paper for the Council of Europe
Education, Mobility, Otherness: The mediation functions of schools. The full conceptualisation ofmediation is described in the report Developing Illustrative Descriptors of Aspects of Mediation for the
Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). In developing categories for mediation, theAuthoring Group used Coste & Cavalli’s distinction between:►

Relational Mediation: the process of establishing and managing interpersonal relationships inorder to create a positive, collaborative environment (for which six scales were developed),
and►Cognitive Mediation: the process of facilitating access to knowledge and concepts, particularly
when an individual may be unable to access this directly on his /her own, due perhaps to thenovelty and unfamiliarity of the concepts and/or to a linguistic or cultural barrier.

However, it is virtually impossible to undertake cognitive mediation without taking account of therelational 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:►

Mediating a text;►

Mediating concepts;►

Mediating communication, and►Mediation strategies.

Appendix 5 – Development and validation of the extended illustrative descriptors ►Page 175

Finally, consideration of cross-linguistic and cultural mediation led to an interest in the ability to exploit
a plurilinguistic or pluricultural repertoire, for which three additional scales were developed:►

Building on pluricultural repertoire;►

Plurilingual comprehension;►

Building on plurilingual repertoire.

The aim of developing descriptors for plurilingual and pluricultural competence linked to CEFR levels is
to encourage teachers to include the acquisition of plurilingual and pluricultural competence,
appropriate to the proficiency level of their learners, in their planning.

Methodology adopted
The methodology followed for the development and validation of the new scales was a multi-method,developmental research design, mirroring that undertaken in the original Swiss research (see CEFR
Appendix B), but on a larger scale. Like the original research the project followed three broad phases:►

initial research and development (intuitive phase);►checking and improving the categories and quality of the descriptors (qualitative phase), and,
finally,►calibrating the best descriptors to a mathematical scale and confirming the cut-offs between
the levels (quantitative phase).

The task took place from January 2014 until March 2016. Figure 11 (repeated on the next page)illustrates the process.

Preparatory work
The first step was to collect existing instruments and articles related to mediation; at this point themediation descriptors from Profile Deutsch and some other sources were translated into English. In aseries of liaison meetings with the authors of Education, mobility, otherness: the mediation functions ofin schools, Daniel Coste and Marisa Cavalli, a set of initial categories was developed and an initialcollection of descriptors for mediating text and mediating concepts was collected and drafted. The maincategories into which scales were grouped in the early stages were:►cognitive mediation, (facilitating access to knowledge, awareness and skills);►

interpersonal mediation (establishing and maintaining relationships; defining roles andconventions in order to enhance receptivity, avoid/resolve conflict and negotiate compromise),and►textual mediation (transmitting information and argument: clarifying, summarising, translatingetc.).

The full initial collection also included a number of draft scales related to aspects of institutional
mediation (e.g. integrating newcomers, dealing with stakeholders as an institution; developing andmaintaining institutional relationships), together with a number of scales on different aspects ofmediation by teachers – both aspects reflecting Coste & Cavalli’s focus on the mediation role ofschools. However, at the first consultative meeting, held in July 2014, there was a consensus thatthese 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 pluriculturalcompetences arose naturally from consideration of cross-linguistic mediation, particularly in the role ofintermediary. Work on phonology was undertaken because the existing CEFR scale for Phonologicalcontrol, alone amongst the CEFR illustrative scales, took an implied native speaker as a point ofPage 176 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

reference and set up unrealistic expectations (B2: Has acquired a natural pronunciation andintonation). This was considered incompatible with a plurilingual perspective. A ‘sounding board’
closely supported the work of the authoring group with input materials and feedback. 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
plurilingual/pluricultural competence and phonology started later, only some of the descriptors for theformer and none of those for the latter were included at this point. The phonology descriptors were first
tried out in a workshop in June 2015 and in consultation with phonology experts.

Qualitative validation
137 institutes had been recruited by this stage to take part in validation. This first task took place inFebruary-March 2015 during face-to-face workshops at these institutions, in which at least 990 people
took part. The task was a more systematic version of the one used in the 32 workshops that had takenplace in the phase of the original CEFR descriptor development. Participants discussed in pairs some
60 descriptors for 3–5 related areas, decided what area they were describing, rated them for (a) clarity,(b) pedagogic relevance and (c) relation to real world language use, and suggested improvements toformulation. Afterwards some 60 descriptors were dropped, including one entire scale. Very many of
the other descriptors were reformulated, usually being shortened, and two new scales (Spoken
translation of written text; Breaking down complicated information) were drafted at the suggestion ofworkshop participants. It was at this point that some of the detail being removed from descriptors was
put into examples for different domains (see Appendix 6). 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-December 2015.

Appendix 5 – Development and validation of the extended illustrative descriptors ►Page 177

Figure 11 – Multimethod developmental research design

Page 178 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Quantitative validation
189 institutions took part in the next phase, with a total
The Rasch Modelof 1294 participants from 45 countries. Again, eachparticipating institution organised a face-to-face
The Rasch model is named after a Danish
workshop. After familiarisation activities similar to thosemathematician, George Rasch. It is the mostrecommended in the Manual for Relating Examinations
commonly used of a family of probability models
to the CEFR, participants took part in a standardthat operationalize latent trait theory (also called
setting workshop in which, individually and after
item response theory: IRT). The model analyses
discussion, they assigned draft descriptors to CEFR
the extent to which an item ‘fits’ in the underlying
levels. The full range of CEFR proficiency bands fromconstruct (= latent trait) that is being measured. It
the initial CEFR descriptor research was used for thisalso estimates on a mathematical scale firstly
purpose (=10 bands from Pre-A1 to C2). Participantsdifficulty values (= how difficult each item is) andwrote their decisions on pdf print outs and only at thesecondly ability values (e.g. how competent eachend did they enter their considered, final, individual
person is in the trait in question). The model isdecisions into an online survey. In the analysis, firstly
used for many purposes but two of the main ones
the percentages of respondents assigning eachare:descriptor to each level and sublevel were calculated► building banks of items for tests;
and then a Rasch model scaling analysis was carriedout, as in the original CEFR descriptor research. To► questionnaire analysis.
conduct a Rasch analysis, one needs a matrix of linked
To analyse questionnaires, a variant called thedata, and each item (here descriptor) should ideallyrating scale model (RSM) is used. A multifacetedhave 100 responses. The matrix shown on the next
variant of the RSM can remove subjectivity frompage was used to create overlapping sets that wereassessors’ judgements. Detailed explanations are
distributed to different participating institutions. In thisavailable in the Reference Supplement to theway, this goal was met for all descriptor scales: theManual for Relating Examinations to the CEFR.
lowest number of respondents for any one scale being
151 and the highest 273.
The main advantage of the Rasch model is that,
unlike with classical test theory, the values
A matrix of this type was used for each of the validation
obtained are generalizable to other groups that canphases, with a conscious effort to target categories ofbe considered to be part of the same overall
descriptors to groups known to be interested in the
population (i.e. that sufficiently share the same
categories concerned. The advantages of the Rasch
characteristics).
analysis were firstly that it enabled those descriptors
that just didn’t work and those participants who justThe objective scaling and the potential
couldn’t complete the task to be identified andgeneralizability of the scale values obtained makes
excluded, and secondly that it gave each descriptor an
the model particularly suitable for determining atarithmetic value. That value could then be converted towhich level one should situate ‘Can do’ descriptors
the scale underlying the original CEFR descriptors by
on a common framework scale like the CEFR
using some original CEFR descriptors as ‘anchor
levels.
items.’
Results from the preliminary quantitative analysis werediscussed at a consultative meeting in July 2015. 36 descriptors were dropped and about halfrelegated to recalibration, usually after amendments. A major issue was a lack of descriptors at A1 andA2 for mediation and plurilingual/pluricultural competence. An effort was made to author these before
the following phase.
The main quantitative data collection then followed in an online survey conducted in English andFrench in October-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, for their different plurilingual personae and/or for people who they knew very well(partners, children etc.), and this resulted in 3503 usable responses from about 1,500 people. The task
was a slightly adapted replication of the one used in the calibration of the original CEFR descriptors,
which was based on teacher assessment with descriptors of a representative sample of students intheir classes. Two analyses were carried out: one global analysis with all the descriptors and one
second analysis in which each main category was analysed separately. Decisions about the level ofeach 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
two tasks: (a) assigning to levels, and (b) assessing learner performances in video clips (Can thelearner in the video do what is described in the descriptor). Different standard-setting techniques were
employed; again readers are referred to the report for details.

Appendix 5 – Development and validation of the extended illustrative descriptors ►Page 179

Collaborating to construct meaning
Encouraging conceptual talk
Relaying specific information in speech
Explaining data (graphs, diagrams, etc.) in speech
Processing text in speechInterpreting / acting as an intermediary
Translating a written text in speech
Facilitating collaborative interaction
Managing interaction
Resolving delicate situations and disagreements
Relaying specific information in writing
Explaining data (graphs, diagrams, etc.) in writing
Processing text in writing
Translating a written text in writing
Establishing a positive atmosphere
Linking to previous knowledge
Amplifying text
Streamlining text
Breaking down complicated information
Visually representing information
Adjusting language
Online conversation and discussion
Goal-oriented / online transactions and collaboration
Expressing a personal response to creative text (incl. literature)
Analysis and criticism of creative text (incl. literature)
Building on pluricultural repertoire and intercultural knowledge
Building on plurilingual repertoire
CEFR Cooperating in discussions
CEFR Sociolinguistic competence
CEFR Processing
CEFR Big Anchor
TOTAL
Other CEFR anchors included in the categories
Total CEFR anchors

3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
5
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

16
18
15
5
31
16
6
22
10
24
12
5
15
7
6
13
11
9
6
6
11
39
23
19
17
18
20
5
4
6
10

A

B

X
X

X

C

D

E

F

G

H

X
X
X

X
X

I

J

K

L

N

O

P

R

S

U

V

W

X
X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X

X

X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X

X

X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X

X

X
X

X

X
X

X
62

X
65

15

15

16

X
X

X

X
X
X

X

X

X

X

X
X
X
69

X
X

X
X
66

X
X
X
X

X

X

X
X

X
X
X

X

X

X

X
69

X
67

X
66

15

15

14

X
X
67
7
17

X
69
1
11

X
72

X
X
67

X
X
66

X
70

10

16

16

10

X
70
6
16

X
66
6
16

X

X
X
67

X
72

X
68

X
69

X
62

X
68

X
X
68

16

10

14

14

15

10

16

Figure 13 - Data Collection design used for each of the three validation phases (this precise distribution is Phase 2: Assigning to levels)
Page 180 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

T

X

X

X

Q

X
X

X
X

M

X
71
1
15

20

Further validation of plurilingual/pluricultural competence
Finally, an extra survey was carried out in February 2016 for three reasons. Firstly, it was anopportunity to include descriptors for reception strategies and plurilingual comprehension, mostly
adapted from the Miriadi project; secondly the task in the main online survey had not worked well for
plurilingualism so the extra survey reran 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 intwo completely separate parallel versions. 267 volunteers from among the project participants
completed one form, whilst 62 experts in plurilingual education completed the other. The results werethen contrasted. They proved identical from both teams and the calibrations to level were also
extremely compatible with the existing CEFR scale for sociolinguistic appropriateness.

Consultation and piloting
The development and validation described above were then followed by a process of consultation andpiloting in three phases:►

expert workshop;►

pre-consultation online survey with experts;►

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 in English and French between October 2016 and February 2017. There were
two parallel surveys of individuals and institutions. Some 500 individual informants completed thesurvey together with a number of invited institutions and curriculum or assessment agencies. Amongother questions, respondents were asked to state to what extent they found each of the new scales tobe helpful and to comment on the descriptors. All of 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 morepositive response. The most popular new scales concerned mediating a text, collaborating in small
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. Whilst 96% of the institutions found these two scales helpful or very helpful,
only 81/82% of individuals did so.
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 CLIL and
Language of Schooling), with over 90% of both individuals and institutions agreeing to some extent. 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 ofand presentation of the descriptors scales. The vast majority of the pilots selected descriptors fromrelevant scales in order to inform the design of communicative tasks in the classroom, and then usedthe 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 werecollaborating in small groups, mediating a text and plurilingual/pluricultural competence. In one pilot,
the two descriptor scales for online interaction were also presented in a separate survey of 1175 Italianteachers of English who were completing an online course in use of digital resources 8. 94.8% of the
respondents 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 Member States asking
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 initialteacher education – only half of the respondents saying it has been highly helpful. As might be
8"Techno-CLIL 2017", moderators: Letizia Cinganotto & Daniela Cuccurullo

Appendix 5 – Development and validation of the extended illustrative descriptors ►Page 181

expected, the dimensions of the CEFR most highly 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 whether they welcomed the new scales, the positive
response was highest for plurilingual/pluricultural competence (79%), followed by online interaction(75%), then mediation (63%) and literature (58%).

Incorporation of descriptors for sign language
The sign language project of the Zurich University of Applied Science (ZHAW, Winterthur)9 operated toa different timescale, with the research completed in September 2017, 18 months after the completionof the main descriptor project. Again, the sign language project followed a mixed methods,
developmental research design which combined intuitive, qualitative and quantitative analyses.
However, since the signing community is small, the sign language project took place on a smallerscale. The three main phases of the project are outlined in Figure 14.
The approach was entirely data-based. Rather than adapting existing CEFR descriptors to sign
language, the ZHAW project aim was to produce descriptors for aspects of signing competence basedon the study of videos of expert signers. The expert signers were videoed signing different types oftexts and these performances were then each discussed in a series of workshops with sign language
teachers, all sign language natives. The ZHAW Authoring Group then formulated descriptors of thebasis of comments and analysis from the sign language teachers. In this way a collection of over 300
descriptors was developed. As in the mediation project, there was no consideration of level at thisstage: the aim was to capture significant aspects of competence in words. As in the mediation project,descriptors were improved in an iterative process of consultation and workshops.
Also, 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 or with 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 fordifferent types of text (e.g. narrative, descriptive, explanatory, etc.). 10 However, very many of thedescriptors 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 weregrouped into sets by similarity. Three separate groups sorted the descriptors into piles that appeared
to describe related competences. A final categorisation was then negotiated. The characteristics ofeach set were then examined and refined, leading to the definition of categories for seven scales asfollows:
Linguistic competence►

Sign repertoire►

Diagrammatical accuracy

Pragmatic competence►

Text structure►

Setting and perspectives►

Presence and effect (Auftritt & Wirkung)►Signing fluency

Sociolinguistic competence:►

9

Sociolinguistic appropriateness and cultural repertoire

Authoring group: Jörg Keller, Petrea Bürgin, Aline Meili and Dawei Ni

10Keller, J., Meili, A., Bürgin, P., & Ni, D. (forthcoming). Deskriptoren zur gebärdensprachlichen Textstrukturierung im GER fürGebärdensprachen. DAS ZEICHEN.

Page 182 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Figure 14 – The phases of the sign language project
The final step was calibration to CEFR levels. To create a scale of descriptors, the Rasch model wasused, as in the mediation and phonology projects and the original CEFR descriptor project. However,this time it was videos of the descriptors being signed that provided the data. Videos were provided forthis purpose in both Swiss-German Sign Language and International Sign Language (ISL), the latter for
ISL signers from different European countries. Following a successful trial of the rating scale by the
project group, respondents to online surveys were asked to rate the degree of difficulty 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 thenremoved. Sample sizes and distributions of completed evaluations were then checked on the two maingroups (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 on a mean of 15 assessments per descriptor 11 in addition to the 53 from the
Swiss-German group.
As mentioned above whilst 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) are removed from the data. This step was followed in this project as in the main
project.12
The final step was to establish the cut-off between the CEFR levels on the sign language scale. To
facilitate this process, calibrated 2001 CEFR descriptors had been included to act as ‘anchor items’ totransform the 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
mediation project report and the phonology project report. However, unlike in those two projects, themathematical values of these CEFR ‘anchors’ were not credible, even when unstable anchors had
been removed. Therefore an alternative standard-setting method based on expert judgement wasused.13

11

While small, these values meet the minimum a priori requirements for 95% confidence intervals on difficulty parameters towithin +/- 1 logit (Linacre, 1994: Sample Size and Item Calibration Stability. Rasch Measurement Transactions 7(4), 328). The
Standard Error of Measurement for the sign language descriptors is greater than for the other descriptors, but calibration on thescale is intuitively sensible. In a few cases, descriptors within the margin of error to the next proficiency band have been moved
to that adjacent band on the basis of collective expert judgement.
12

Based on the conventional guidelines, raters with extreme outfit (greater than 2.0) were removed from the dataset. Bond, T., &Fox, C. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah: LEA. Wright, B., &Linacre, J. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions 8, 370–371.
The method used was a variant of the ‘Bookmark Method’ explained in the Council of Europe’s Manual for Relating
Examinations to the CEFR.
13

Appendix 5 – Development and validation of the extended illustrative descriptors ►Page 183

Finalisation
The feedback received in the various phases of validation, consultation and piloting between February
2015 and June 2017 was very helpful in identifying and eliminating less successful descriptors andscales, 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 aresuccessfully validated descriptors. They are available in Appendix 9. In itself this redundancy is a goodthing as it underlines the coherence of the calibration to levels, but it is not necessary to include all thedescriptors 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 ofEurope’s website.

Page 184 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Appendix 6 – Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities
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 Section 4.1.1. These examples are intended to assist educators in selecting activities appropriate to their learners for each
descriptor.
The examples were validated in a series of distance workshops carried out during Phase 3 of the validation, in November-December 2015.
ONLINE INTERACTIONONLINE CONVERSATION AND DISCUSSIONSITUATION (& ROLES)LEVELDESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONAL

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

in an online political or
philosophical discussion heldby friends/enthusiasts, such as
in an online book club forum.

as a moderator or contributor
in an online public policy forum

as a convenor for a union
online forum and / or website

as a lead contributor in an
online hang-out space for coresearchers at a university

in an online political or
philosophical discussion heldby friends/ enthusiasts, suchas in an online book clubforum.

participating in a chat thread
held in follow up to a publicpresentation

in inter-departmental chat in alarge corporation

as a student contributor to an
open online course or forum

in an online meeting to discuss
long term company strategy, in
an online professional
development session forteachers

as a student contributor to an
open online course or forum(e.g. a 'MOOC')

Can adapt his/her register according to the context of online interaction,
moving from one register to the other within the same exchange ifnecessary.

in a discussion on a social
networking site.

as a participant in an online
support group website forsocial or personal issues

during a staff committee
meeting held online to discuss
working conditions, or as aparticipant in an online focus
group meetingin an online forum for students
or teachers of the same
discipline

Can evaluate, re-state and challenge arguments in professional or
academic live online chat and discussion.

Not applicablein a special interest online
forum evaluating content andissuesas a consultant participating in
an online business or project
meeting

participating in an online
discussion forum for a college
debating society

C2

Can anticipate and deal effectively with possible misunderstandings(including cultural ones), communication issues and emotional reactions
occurring in an online discussion.
Can easily and quickly adapt his/her 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.
Can participate effectively in live, online professional or academic
discussion, asking for and giving further clarification of complex, abstract
issues as necessary.

C1

Appendix 6 – Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities ►Page 185

ONLINE INTERACTIONONLINE CONVERSATION AND DISCUSSIONSITUATION (& ROLES)LEVELDESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONAL

Can engage in online exchanges, linking his/her contributions to previous
ones in the thread, understanding cultural implications and reacting
appropriately.

in a discussion on a social
networking site.

as a participant in an online
support group website forsocial or personal issues

in inter-departmental chat in alarge corporationin an online forum for students
or teachers of the same
discipline

B2+

B2

in a special interest online
forum evaluating content andissuesduring a staff committee
meeting held online to discuss
working conditions, or as aparticipant in an online focus
group meeting

Can participate actively in an online discussion, stating and responding toopinions on topics of interest at some length, provided contributors avoid
unusual or complex language and allow time for responses.

in a critical discussion of arts ormusic with friends online

in a public online discussion
forum / comment thread heldby a broadcasting / news
agencyduring a staff committee
meeting held online to discuss
working conditions, or as aparticipant in an online focus
group meeting

Can engage in online exchanges between several participants, effectively
linking his/her contributions to previous ones in the thread, provided amoderator helps manage the discussion.

making contact online withremote friends and / or family
to catch up in detail on
personal news and plans

as a contributor to a forum
about a commercial software
or gaming website

during a staff committee
meeting held online, or as aparticipant in an online focus
group meetingin a discussion on a social
networking site.

in a special interest online
forum evaluating content andissuesin inter-departmental chat in alarge corporation

making contact online withremote friends and / or family
to catch up in detail on
personal news and plans

as a forum contributor to an
events website connected to a
public / cultural festival

as a contributor to a
departmental online social
events feed in a corporation

Can recognise misunderstandings and disagreements that arise in an
online interaction and can deal with them, provided that the interlocutor(s)are willing to cooperate.

as a participant in an online
support group website forsocial or personal issues

Can engage in real-time online exchanges with more than one participant,recognising the communicative intentions of each contributor, but may notunderstand details or implications without further explanation.
Can post online accounts of social events, experiences and activities,
incorporating embedded links and media and sharing personal feelings.
B1

Can comment on other people’s online postings (including embedded links
and media) and respond to further comments, provided interlocutors avoid
complex language.
Can post a comprehensible contribution in an online discussion on afamiliar topic of interest, provided that he/she can prepare the text
beforehand and use online tools to fill gaps in language and checkaccuracy.

Page 186 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

as a contributor to aprofessional development
forum.
as a contributor to reviews andissues area of a commercial
software or gaming website

as a participant in a simple
online focus group meetingas a contributor to university
student union social events
feedONLINE INTERACTIONONLINE CONVERSATION AND DISCUSSIONSITUATION (& ROLES)LEVELDESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONAL

B1

Can make personal online postings about experiences, feelings andevents and respond individually to the comments of others in some detail,though lexical limitations sometimes cause repetition and difficulty withformulation.

as a forum contributor to an
events website connected to a
public / cultural festival

as a contributor to aprofessional development
forum

in an online forum for students
studying the same subjects

as a contributor to an online
travel advice service

as a contributor to a simple
departmental online forum onfamiliar topics

in a Q&A section of a school
learning platform

A2+

Can introduce him/herself 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 thathe/she interacts with one interlocutor at a time.
Can make short descriptive online postings about everyday matters, social
activities and feelings, with simple key details.
Can comment on other people’s online postings, provided that they are
written in simple language, reacting to embedded media by expressing
feelings of surprise, interest and indifference in a simple way.
Can engage in basic social communication online (e.g. writing a simple
message on a virtual card for special occasions, sharing news andmaking/confirming arrangements to meet).
Can make brief positive or negative comments online about embedded
links and media using a repertoire of basic language, though he/she will
generally have to refer to an online translation tool and other resources.

public postings to a
festival/event website

A2

Can post online short simple statements about him/herself (e.g.
relationship status, nationality, occupation), provided he/she can selectthem from a menu and/or refer to an online translation tool.

A1

Pre A1

Not applicable

Can write very simple messages and personal online postings as a seriesof very short sentences about hobbies, likes/dislikes, etc., relying on theaid of a translation tool.

making contact online withremote friends and / or family also as a possible language
classroom simulation

Can use formulaic expressions and combinations of simple words to post
short positive and negative reactions to simple online postings and theirembedded links and media, and can respond to further comments withstandard expressions of thanks and apology.

making contact online withremote friends and / or family also as a possible language
classroom simulation

Can post simple online greetings, using basic formulaic expressions andemoticons.

on a social network site

public postings to a
festival/event website - also as
a possible language classroom
simulation

as a contributor to a simple
departmental social feed - also
as a possible language
classroom simulation

in a Q&A section of a school
learning platform - also as apossible language classroom
simulation
in a Q&A section of a school
learning platform - also as apossible language classroom
simulation

on a social network site

Not applicable

as a language classroom
simulation

Appendix 6 – Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities ►Page 187

ONLINE INTERACTION
GOAL-ORIENTED ONLINE TRANSACTIONS AND COLLABORATIONSITUATION (& ROLES)LEVELDESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONAL

Can resolve misunderstandings and deal effectively with frictions that arise
during the collaborative process.

Not applicableas the convenor for a social
intervention project organised
online e.g. by a NonGovernmental Organisation

as the facilitator in an online
collaborative project

as the lead researcher in acollaborative research
programme requiring online
qualitative data collection andevaluation

C2

Can provide guidance and add precision to the work of a group at the
redrafting and editing stages of collaborative work
Can coordinate a group who are working on a project online, formulating
and revising detailed instructions, evaluating proposals from teammembers and providing clarifications in order to accomplish the sharedtasks.

C1

Can deal with complex online transactions in a service role (e.g.
applications with complicated requirements), adjusting language flexibly to
manage the discussion and negotiation.

as voluntary moderator of an
online citizens' advice service
and/or question and answer
forum

as personal assistant, travel
agent, enrolment secretary foran educational institution

Not applicableCan participate in complex projects requiring collaborative writing andredrafting as well as other forms of online collaboration, following andrelaying instructions with precision in order to reach the goal.

as the convenor for a social
intervention project organised
online e.g. by a NonGovernmental Organisation

as a participant in a projectutilising online tools tocoordinate the introduction of
new procedures acrossmultiple locations

as a participant in acollaborative research
programme requiring online
data collection and evaluation

as a team leader in a social
intervention project organised
online e.g. by a NonGovernmental Organisation

leading group task(s) in an
online professional
development project, involving
collaborative work with aclearly defined goal

during a clearly structured
online collaborative activity at
school/university

Can deal with misunderstandings and unexpected problems that arise in
online collaborative or transactional exchanges by responding politely andappropriately in order to help resolve the issue.

reporting an public services
issue online to the local
council, e.g. a waste collection
issue

in an online staff meeting on
implementing new procedures

during a straightforward online
collaborative activity at
school/university

Can collaborate online with a group that is working on a project, justifying
proposals, seeking clarification and playing a supportive role in order toaccomplish shared tasks.

as a team leader in a social
intervention project organised
online e.g. by a NonGovernmental Organisation

leading group task(s) in an
online professional
development project, involving
collaborative work with aclearly defined goal

during a clearly structured
online collaborative activity at
school/university

Can deal effectively with communication problems and cultural issues thatarise in an online collaborative or transactional exchange by reformulating,clarifying and exemplifying through media (visual, audio, graphic).
Can take a lead role in online collaborative work within his/her area(s) of
expertise, keeping the group on task by reminding them of roles,
responsibilities and deadlines in order to achieve established goals.

B2+

B2

as a project manager utilising
online tools to coordinate theintroduction of new systems
across multiple remote sites

Can engage in online collaborative or transactional exchanges within
his/her area(s) of expertise that require negotiation of conditions andexplanation of complicated details and special requirements.

Page 188 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

ONLINE INTERACTION
GOAL-ORIENTED ONLINE TRANSACTIONS AND COLLABORATIONSITUATION (& ROLES)LEVELDESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

B1+

B1

A2+

A2

A1

Pre A1

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONAL

Can engage in online transactions that require an extended exchange of
information, provided the interlocutor(s) avoid complex language and arewilling 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.

reporting an public services
issue online to the local
council, e.g. a waste collection
issue

participating in a wellstructured online seminar
introducing straightforward newprocedures

during a straightforward online
collaborative activity at
school/university

Can engage in online collaborative or transactional exchanges that require
simple clarification or explanation of relevant details, such as registering
for a course, tour, event or applying for membership.

making a tour booking orenrolling in an association or
event online

Can interact online with a partner or small group working on a project,provided there are visual aids such as images, statistics and graphs toclarify more complex concepts.
Can respond to instructions and ask questions or request clarifications inorder to accomplish a shared task online.

as a member of a community
group organising
environmental improvement

Can use formulaic language to respond to routine problems arising in
online transactions (e.g. concerning availability of models and special
offers, delivery dates, addresses, etc.).

ordering goods, online, withuse of a chat window

completing simple
interdepartmental orders andrequests

enrolling on a course online

Can interact online with a supportive partner in a simple collaborative task,
responding to basic instructions and seeking clarification, provided there
are some visual aids such as images, statistics, or graphs to clarify theconcepts involved.

assisting simple online
planning and promotion of apublic event such as a street
party

during a teacher-guided online
collaborative activity at school

Can make simple online transactions (such as ordering goods or enrollingon a course) by filling in an online form or questionnaire, providing
personal details and confirming acceptance of terms and conditions.

ordering goods, online

enrolling on a course online

Can respond to simple instructions and ask simple questions in order toaccomplish a shared task online with the help of a supportive interlocutor.

Not applicableduring a teacher-guided online
collaborative activity at school

Can complete a very simple online purchase or application, providing
basic personal information (such as name, e-mail address or telephone
number).

ordering goods by completinga simple order form withfamiliar words and illustrations

completing a simple interdepartmental form with familiar
words and illustrations

Can make selections (e.g. choosing a product, size, colour) in a simple
online purchase or application form, provided there is visual support.

ordering goods by completinga simple tick-box order form
with familiar words andillustrations

completing a simple interdepartmental tick-box form withfamiliar words and illustrations

enrolling on a course online,
but likely only as a language
classroom simulation

Appendix 6 – Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities ►Page 189

MEDIATING A TEXTRELAYING SPECIFIC INFORMATION IN SPEECHTEXT (& DISCOURSE ENVIRONMENT)LEVEL

DESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONALC2

No descriptor available: see C1
Can explain (in Language B) the relevance of specific information given in aparticular section of a long, complex text (written in Language A).

in an article, website, book ortalk face-to-face / online
concerning current affairs or an
area of personal interest orconcernfrom presentations at public
meetings, from public
documents explaining policychanges, political speeches

a business report, article,
regulation or workplace policy

an article, book, reference
book or lecture/presentation

Can relay (in Language B) which presentations given in (Language A) at aconference, which articles in a book (written in Language A) areparticularly relevant for a specific purpose.

webtalk / self help groupexplanations (e.g. how to
repair your printer); articles
related to a particular theme orcurrent issue of interest

presentations at public
meetings, from public
documents explaining policychangesa trade fair, a professional
conference, reports andnewspaper articles – in relation
to a particular projectan academic conference,various webtalk sites, fromacademic books and journals –in relation to a particular
project

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

a notice, announcement, letteror email outlining policies,
regulations or procedures
related to housing, insurance,
rent/mortgages, employment or
health carea notice or announcement
made by a public authority or
facility like a library, swimming
pool, etc. outlining regulations
or procedures

a letter, email or notice
outlining why a meeting had tobe cancelled, whether
someone is for or against an
idea and why, workplacepolicies or regulations

a letter, email or notice
outlining university policies,
procedures or regulations

Can relay (in Language B) the content of public announcements andmessages spoken in clear, standard (Language A) at normal speed.

on the radio or TV

in a station, airport, sports
stadium, at politicalrallies/events, alerts, warnings
or instructions which may be
given at an accident site orconstruction zone

at a trade fair or conference, ata factory, warehouse, refinery,on a ship, during safety drills

during a university
event/lecture, which may takeplace in a large auditorium

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

on the radio or TV, from apasser-by such as travel/routeinformation, instructions from afriend over the phone on how
to get to a party

instructions at airports, stations
and on planes, buses andtrains or on how to use simple
equipment such as a hotel
safe; directions on how to getfrom X to Y, a travel itinerary

instructions given in a meetingon how to perform a work task,
or operate simple equipment;
instructions, particularly on
safety procedures, given at a
trade fair or conference, at afactory, warehouse, ship

academic regulations,policies/procedures,
course/assignment
requirements given by aprofessor/teacher; instructions
given on how to use simple
research tools to complete aschool task or on how
to conduct a simple experiment

C1

B2

B1

Page 190 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

a press conference, on various
web talk sites, in relation to aparticular issue

MEDIATING A TEXTRELAYING SPECIFIC INFORMATION IN SPEECHTEXT (& DISCOURSE ENVIRONMENT)LEVEL

DESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONAL

Can relay (in Language B) specific information given in straightforward
informational texts (such as leaflets, brochure entries, notices and lettersor emails) (written in Language A).

leaflets, brochures,
guidebooks, websites, thedetails of a housing agreement

leaflets, information panels inmuseums, galleries, notices
identifying immediate publichazards, club/association
rules, travel itinerary, the timeand place of club/association
meeting, information about asale or promotion

possible products that meet arequirement, the terms of acommercial offer, equipment
operational instructions, safety
procedures

school policies & regulations, acourse outline, steps involvedin completing an
assignment/school task, a listof assignments as well as theircriteria, notices, exam
regulations, the conditions forparticipation in an exchange
program

Can relay (in Language B) the point made in a clear, spoken
announcement (made in Language A) concerning familiar everyday
subjects, though he/she may have to simplify the message and search forwords.

on the TV or radio,announcements about
weddings, births and changes
to circumstances

weather reports, train platformchanges, how to purchasetickets for an event

announcements aboutchanges to job responsibilities,
information about newworkplace procedures

information about an upcoming
test at school such as when it
is and what will be tested;details about an upcoming
school trip

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

news about how the family isfrom a personal letter or email

leaflets, information panels inmuseums, galleries, notices
identifying immediate publichazards, travel itinerary, thetime and place ofclub/association meeting,information about a sale orpromotion

possible products that meet arequirement, safety
procedures, location, date
& time of a meeting stated inan email/letternews about school activities
from a flyer or leaflet

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

announcements of personal
interest such as weddings,
births, changes to employment
for living circumstances, simple
messages left for family orhousemates about meetingtimes or requests to complete
a task such as take out the
rubbishat airports, stations and onplanes, trains and buses about
the route, time of arrival or
departure, changes in platformor gate, weather forecasts

simple messages left bycustomers or colleagues forothers, announcements aboutchanges to job procedures

information about a school trip
or exchange programme,
messages about school
opening/closing times in
response to inclement weather,
information about class tasks
or homework

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

a recipe, how to use a basic
household appliance, how toassemble a piece of furniture

how to get from X to Y,
directions provided by a traffic
or parking official

how to operate officeequipment such as changing
the toner on a photocopier or
downloading software

instructions concerning ahomework assignment, or asimple experiment

B1

A2+

A2

Appendix 6 – Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities ►Page 191

MEDIATING A TEXTRELAYING SPECIFIC INFORMATION IN SPEECHTEXT (& DISCOURSE ENVIRONMENT)LEVEL

DESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONAL

Can relay (in Language B) simple, predictable information about times andplaces given in short, simple statements (spoken in Language A).

TV schedule announcements
about upcoming programmes
of interest

the location and starting time ofan event/performance, travel
itineraries

the location andstarting/finishing time of ameeting; information about
work hours, breaks, thelocation of toilets, drink
machines

the location and timings of aschool excursion or afterschool activity, location of
canteen, toilets and water
fountains

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

restaurant reservations, dinnerinvitations including date andtime

notices on bulletin boards/walls
about when a store
opens/closes, the location of
the toilets

a meeting location and timefrom an email

school timetable, the meeting
location for a school trip

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

the name, address and phone
number of a restaurant,
restaurant menus including
prices and main ingredientsthe name and address of ashop, the prices of goods,
timetables, travel itineraries,
performance information
schedule, seating availability,
price, etc.

Not applicable

the location of a school, thecost of a uniform or schoolsupplies, the destination andcost of a school trip, school
timetables

A1

Pre-A1Page 192 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

MEDIATING A TEXTRELAYING SPECIFIC INFORMATION IN WRITINGTEXT (& DISCOURSE ENVIRONMENT)LEVEL

DESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONALC2

No descriptor available: see B2+

C1

No descriptor available: see B2+
Not applicablefrom a press conference, onvarious web talk sites, in
relation to a particular issue

from a trade fair, a professional
conference, in relation to aparticular projectfrom an academic conference,on various webtalk sites, in
relation to a particular projectCan relay in writing (in Language B) the relevant point(s) contained inpropositionally complex but well-structured texts (written Language A)
within his/her fields of professional, academic and personal interest.

public regulations such as
housing or tax laws, a notice orannouncement made by apublic authority

from a business report,
regulation or workplace policy

information from an article,
website, notes taken from a
lecture, or a presentationdelivered by a university
professor

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

in relation to a particular issue
that is the subject of acommunity meetingfrom a report, business article

information from an article,
book or journal for a classmate
or a professor

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

from a clubfrom a business meetingof a meeting of student
representatives

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.

B2+

B2

B1

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

a rental agreement, insurance
policy for a friend or family
memberterms and conditions for a tripor service

in a circular sent to employees,
in a letter from a partner giving
notice or stating new
conditions; in a complaint

in a circular sent by a school
principal to parents, in a reply
from an organization to arequest for information sent
during a projectCan relay in writing (in Language B) specific information points containedin texts (spoken in Language A) on familiar subjects (e.g. telephone calls,
announcements, and instructions).

a short message, an email to afriend mentioning the reason
her/she will be latea notice or announcement
made by a public authority

customer orders, queries orcomplaints, changes to work
schedule or procedures, how
to operate office equipmentchanges to school
opening/closing times as aresult of inclement weather,changes to class location or
meeting place for a class trip

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

instructions on how to use
household appliances takenfrom a manual, messages forfamily or housemates sent inan email, information emailed
about when and where to meeta friend/family member

from emails, letters about
events or schedules

quantities and delivery times
from an emailed order, tasks
and deadlines for the person
concerned from the minutes toa meeting, relevant steps insimple user instructions for apiece of equipment

email instructions about aschool trip, a task assignment
or details of course
requirements taken from acourse syllabus

Appendix 6 – Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities ►Page 193

MEDIATING A TEXTRELAYING SPECIFIC INFORMATION IN WRITINGTEXT (& DISCOURSE ENVIRONMENT)LEVEL

DESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONAL

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

a message on the time andplace of a meeting, a request
to complete a household tasksuch as start preparing a mealor take out the garbage

queue at the embassy, to relay
spoken announcement by text
to a fellow refugee; answeringmachine: request for call backfrom an administration or
public office, bank

simple customer orders,queries or complaints,
telephone message for acolleague, changes to work
procedures

about school timetable orschedule changes

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

from newspapers, instructions
on appliances or medicine

brochures, websites, adverts,
posters, schedules

about a work task, instructions
on how to operate simple
equipment, about safety
procedures, job requirements
posted in an advertisement

about a school task, test or
homework assignment foundon a course syllabus, how to
do a simple experiment in ascience class from a handout,
about a museum visit or otherschool trip described on aleafletCan list (in Language B) the main points of short, clear, simple messages
and announcements (given in Language A) provided that speech is clearlyand slowly articulated.

simple telephone messages forfamily or housemates,
announcements of personal
interest for family or friends

directions relating to how to getfrom X to Y, which train
platform or flight gate and at
what time, about a train delay

telephone message for acolleague, changes to work
procedures

school timetables, schedulesor opening/closings, task roles
as part of a group assignment,
homework assigned

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

household manuals,
instructions on how to preparea mealadvertisements, prospectuses,
brochures, leaflets, travel
itineraries, timetables,
directions

manuals instructions on how to
operate simple equipment,
about safety procedures, job
requirements posted in an
advertisement

textbooks, class readings,
about a school task, test or
homework assignment, how to
do a simple experiment in ascience class, about amuseum visit or other schooltrip

Can list (in Language B) names, numbers, prices and very simple
information of immediate interest (given in Language A), provided that the
speaker articulates very slowly and clearly, with repetition.

from a TV channel repeatedly
demonstrating productsannouncements about when astore opens/closes

a short, simple telephonemessage for a colleague

a simple, short telephonemessage about a change to atimetable, schedule or meetingpoint

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

the name, address and phone
number of a restaurant,
restaurant menus including
prices and main ingredientsthe name and address of ashop, the prices of goods,
timetables, travel itineraries,
performance information
schedule, seating availability,
price, etc.

Not applicable

the location of a school, thecost of a uniform or schoolsupplies, the destination andcost of a school trip, school
timetables

B1

A2+

A2

A1

Pre A1Page 194 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

MEDIATING A TEXTEXPLAINING DATA IN SPEECH (GRAPHS, DIAGRAMS ETC.)TEXT (& DISCOURSE ENVIRONMENT)LEVEL

DESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONAL

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

diagrams/visual data on topics
of personal interest such as
medical research orenvironmental data for family or
friends; economic data
presented graphically toaccompany a newspaper article

diagrams/visual data from
corporate or public sector
reports that is relevant for acommunity policy or planningmeeting; data included inpresentations at public
meetings

detailed analysis of financial,market survey or government
diagrams/visual data presented
in a meeting

diagrams/visual data frompublished academic research orcollected as part of a research
project presented in a lecture or
academic conference /roundtable eventa diagram in an article ofpersonal interest; a process
diagram for a household device
or piece of leisure software,
explained to a friend or family
memberdiagrams/visuals from corporate
or public sector reports that isrelevant for a community policy
or planning meetinggraphs, charts and tables
referenced in employee trainingor company reports

graphs, bar charts or diagramsin a formal class presentation,
at secondary school / college /university

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

trends represented inhousehold bills or personal
finances, explained to a friendor family member

weather report (statistics& trends) when determining thebest dates for a community
event, basic financial trends
presented during acommunity/club meeting,diagrammatic displays in ascience museum

trends represented in a graph orbar chart during a businessmeeting or responsibilities
represented in an organogramof a company used for
employee training

general trends found in graphs,
bar charts or diagrams, used inpair or group work at secondary
school / college / university

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 inspeech.

a weather map consulted whenplanning outdoor activities, themain features of a household
device shown in a diagram,
identified to a friend or family
memberhistoric weather data when
determining the best dates for acommunity event, basic
financial trends presented
during a community or clubmeeting, a bus or metro routemap, or a floor plan of a building
or shopping centre

a flow chart representing asimple work process or activity
such as changing thephotocopier ink or the basicroles and responsibilities
represented in an organogramof a company

features of graphs, bar charts ordiagrams such as population/
weather changes over time,used in pair or group work at
secondary school / college /university

C2

C1

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

B2

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 his/her fields of interest.

B1+

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

B1

A2+

A2

No descriptor available

A1

No descriptor available

Pre-A1

No descriptor available

visual data included inpublished academic research orcollected as part of a research
project presented in a lecture or
academic conference /roundtable event

Appendix 6 – Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities ►Page 195

MEDIATING A TEXTEXPLAINING DATA IN WRITING (GRAPHS, DIAGRAMS ETC.)TEXT (& DISCOURSE ENVIRONMENT)LEVEL

DESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONAL

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

Not applicableNot applicabledata from an end of year
company financial report ormarket research report or fromresearch and development
activities for senior
management or a corporate
reportas part of a PhD thesis or
masters dissertation which
includes empirical data

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

diagrams/visual data on topics
of personal interest such as
medical research orenvironmental data for family
or friends; economic data
presented graphically toaccompany a newspaper
articlediagrams/visuals from
corporate or public sector
reports that is relevant for acommunity policy or planningmeeting; data included inpresentations at public
meetings

detailed analysis of financial,market survey or government
diagrams/visual data presented
in a meeting

visual data included inpublished academic researchor collected as part of a
research project presented in a
lecture or academic
conference / roundtable event

Can interpret and present reliably in writing (in Language B) detailed
information from diagrams and visually organised data in his fields ofinterest (with text in Language A).

instructions and diagram left
for a house sitter to operate acomplex appliancehealth and safety procedure for
instance at a hospital, in afactory, library, etc.

an internal (company)
report/memo on the significant
points contained in a visual
attachment such as a graph,bar chart or numeric table

written assignment
accompanying technical visual
information provided for aschool or university project

Can interpret and present in writing (in Language B) the overall trends
shown in simple diagrams (e.g. graphs, bar charts) (with text in LanguageA), explaining the important points in more detail, given the help of adictionary or other reference materials.

trends represented inhousehold bills or personal
finances, for family members

simple weather data or basic
financial data posted as part ofan online discussion for acommunity or club event

an email describing the mainfeatures of a visual attachment
such as a graph or bar charta simple class assignment
summarising survey,
demographic or data

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

an email giving simple local
directions represented on anaccompanying map

simple demographic or
information or trends posted on
an online community /clubdiscussion forum

instructions for a simple officeprocedure represented in aflow charta simple written narrative
accompanying a picture or
pictures as a classroom
assignment

C2

C1

B2

B1+

B1
A2

No descriptor available

A1

No descriptor available

Pre-A1

No descriptor available

Page 196 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

MEDIATING A TEXTPROCESSING TEXT IN SPEECHTEXT (& DISCOURSE)

LEVEL

DESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONALC2

Can explain (in Language B) inferences when links or implications are notmade explicit (in Language A), and point out sociocultural implications of
the speaker/writer’s form of expression (e.g. understatement, irony,sarcasm).

discussions, current affairs
programmes, books,
newspaper articles,
commentaries and editorials,
specialised articles, or otherpublications addressed to a
general educated readershipcontributions at a town hallmeeting, a publicdebate/lecture, a forum
discussion, a political meeting,a political tract, a public policy
document, a legal opinion, apolitical speechpresentation at a conference,
seminar or meeting, aprofessional publication, atechnical report, a press
statement or conference

a lecture at an academic
conference, web talks,
instructional material,textbooks, papers in academic
journals, reference books

Can summarise in Language B) long, demanding texts (in Language A).

current affairs programmes,
articles in a magazine ornewspapera forum discussion involving
several participants, politicalspeeches, sermons, opinions
and documentsa presentation at a conference,
seminar or meeting, a report,
contract, regulations

a web talk, a lecture at an
academic conference orseminar, academic articles andbooks

Can summarise (in Language B) discussion (in Language A) on matterswithin his/her academic or professional competence, elaborating andweighing up different points of view and identifying the most significant
points.

discussions, current affairs
programmes,

a forum discussion involving
several participantsa meeting or seminara forum discussion, round tableor colloquium involving several
participants

Can summarise clearly in well-structured speech (in Language B) the
main points made in complex spoken and written texts (in Language A).in
fields of specialisation other than his/her own, although he/she may
occasionally check particular technical concepts.

newspaper editorials andcommentaries, TV news andcurrent affairs programmes

laws, public legal documents,
regulations, presentations,speeches, sermonsa technical report addressed toa specialized audience, abusiness letter, a contract, a
regulation, conference
presentations

instructional material, atextbook, a reader, adictionary, a paper in an
academic journal, lectures,conference presentations anddiscussions, web talks

Can explain (in Language B) subtle distinctions in the presentation of facts
and arguments (in Language A).

discussions, current affairs
programmes, books,
newspaper articles,
commentaries and editorials,
specialised articles, or otherpublications addressed to a
general educated readershipcontributions at a town hallmeeting, a publicdebate/lecture, a forum
discussion, a political meeting,a political tract, a public policy
document, a legal opinion, apolitical speechpresentation at a conference,
seminar or meeting, aprofessional publication, atechnical report, a press
statement or conference

a lecture at an academic
conference, web talks,
instructional material,textbooks, papers in academic
journals, reference books

Can exploit information and arguments from a complex spoken or written
text (in Language A) to talk about a topic (in Language B), glossing withevaluative comments, adding his/her opinion, etc.

books, newspaper articles,
commentaries and editorials,
specialised articles; TV news
and current affairs
programmes, talk showsa political tract, a public policy
document; a forum discussion,presentation, a politicalspeech, sermon

technical reports, professional
articles, specifications,contracts

instructional material, atextbook, a reader, a paper inan academic journal, lectures,conference presentations anddiscussions, web talks

Can explain (in Language B) the attitude or opinion expressed in a spoken
or written text (in Language A) on a specialised topic, supporting
inferences he/she makes with reference to specific passages in theoriginal.

books, newspaper articles,
commentaries and editorials,
specialised articles; TV news
and current affairs
programmes, talk shows

C1

Appendix 6 – Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities ►Page 197

MEDIATING A TEXTPROCESSING TEXT IN SPEECHTEXT (& DISCOURSE)

LEVEL

DESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONAL

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

a discussion on familyoccasions, TV news andcurrent affairs programmes,
talk showspresentations, (political)
speeches, sermons

conference presentations

lectures, conference
presentations and discussions,
web talksa formal discussion among
several participantsin meetings, briefing ororientation sessions

a panel at an academic
conference involving several
speakers

Can synthesise and report (in Language B) information and argumentsfrom a number of spoken and/or written sources (in Language A).

on current affairs: web talk orinterview, TV news andanalysis, documentaries,
articles

at a town hall or politicalmeeting: news items,
interviews or documentaries on
the issue at handin a report, at a meeting: media
coverage of a company
announcement/policy/incident
sessionwhen undertaking a project:
web talks, lectures, vox pop
interviews, surveys, blogs,
documentaries

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

books, newspaper articles,
commentaries and editorials,
specialised articles, or otherpublications addressed to a
general educated readershipa political tract, a public policy
document, a novel, short story

technical reports, professional
articles, specifications,contracts

papers in academic journals,
reference books, novels, shortstoriesa political tract, a public policy
document

technical reports, professional
articles, specifications,contracts

papers in academic journals,
reference books

Can recognise the intended audience of a spoken or written text (inLanguage A) on a topic of interest and explain (in Language B) the
purpose, attitudes and opinion of the author.

from websites, current affairs
programmes, documentaries;
newspaper articles andeditorials

in interviews, announcements,
policy statements

presentations at conferences,
reports, specialised articles

talks by visiting speakers, websites and web talks,
documentaries, articles

Can summarise (in Language B) extracts from news items, interviews or
documentaries containing opinions, argument and discussion sources (inLanguage A).

in an informal discussion withfriends, chat through the social
media

an informal discussion in a
public place such as an airport
or a restaurantin team or strategy meetings

as part of a group project

Can summarise and comment (in Language B) on the plot and sequenceof events in a film or play (in Language A).

in an informal discussion withfriends

Not applicableNot applicablein a lesson, as part of a project

Can summarise (in Language B) the main points made in long spoken
texts (in Language A) on topics in his/her fields of interest, provided thatstandard language is used and that he/she can check the meaning ofcertain expressions.

long telephone calls, TV
current affairs programmes,
documentaries, web talks

speeches, talks at public
meetings

a presentation or lecture,
relevant documentaries orcurrent affairs programmes

university lectures, relevant
documentaries or current
affairs programmes, web talks

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

discussions with friends,
documentaries, shortnarratives, articles innewspaper or magazines

a talk at a public meeting, aninterview, public notices

presentations or discussions atconferences, seminars or
meetings, - newspaper articles

web talks, documentaries andarticles of academic relevance,
short narratives

Can collate short pieces of information from several sources (in LanguageA) and summarise them (in Language B) for somebody else.

informal discussions,prospectuses, advertisements,
programmes in theatres, song
lyricspublic notices andannouncements, notes frommeetings, relevant reports innewspapers and magazines

reports, meetings, letters andemails, notes from meetings,
press coverage

web talks, instructions forcarrying out tasks, articles on
related topic

B2+

B2

B1+

Can summarise (in Language B) the main points of complex discussions(in Language A), weighing up the different points of view presented.

Can summarise (in Language B) the important points made in longer,
spoken and written complex texts (in Language A) on subjects of current
interest, including his/her fields of special interest.

Page 198 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

MEDIATING A TEXTPROCESSING TEXT IN SPEECHTEXT (& DISCOURSE)

LEVEL

DESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONAL

Can summarise (in Language B) the main points made in clear, wellstructured spoken and written texts (in Language A) on subjects that arefamiliar or of personal interest, although his/her lexical limitations cause
difficulty with formulation at times.

personal letters, short articles,
brochures, advertisements

short articles, short official
letters, public statements andnotices, regulations, leaflets,
event programmes

presentations anddemonstrations, reports,business letterstalks by visiting speakers, web
talks, descriptions, narratives,
text book entries, websites,
news summaries, short articles

Can summarise simply (in Language B) the main information content ofstraightforward texts (in Language A) on familiar subjects (e.g. a shortwritten interview or magazine article, a travel brochure).

a short written interview ormagazine article, a travel
brochure, letters, emails,
newspaper news summaries

reports, business letters andemailsdescriptions, narratives, text
book entries, websites, news
summaries, short articles

Can summarise (in Language B) the main points made during a
conversation (in Language A) on a subject of personal or current interest,
provided that the speakers articulated clearly in standard language.

a conversation exchanging
news and talking about plans,
news exchanged at a wedding

points made an informal
conversation with a public
officiala consultation with an expert,
an auditor, a consultant

what an authority consulted
said in relation to a request,
what a person interviewed for a
project said

Can summarise (in Language B) the main points made in long texts(delivered orally in Language A) on topics in his/her fields of interest,
provided that standard language is used and that he/she can listen several
times.

long telephone calls, TV
current affairs programmes,
documentaries, web talks

speeches, talks at public
meetings

a presentation or lecture, around table discussion,
relevant documentaries orcurrent affairs programmes

university lectures, relevant
documentaries or current
affairs programmes, web talks

Can summarise (in Language B) the main points or events in TV
programmes and video clips (in Language A), provided he/she can view
them several times.

a scene in a film, novella or sitcoma current affairs programme on
the subject of a public meetinga news extract, interview or
public statement relevant to theinstitutiona scene in a documentary, aninterview

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 that the topics concerned are familiar and the delivery is slow andclear.

in an informal discussion withfriends, chat through the social
media

an informal discussion in a
public place such as an airport
or a restaurant

Non applicableas part of a project involving
collecting information frommedia sources

Can report in simple sentences (in Language B) the information containedin clearly structured, short, simple texts (written in Language A) that haveillustrations or tables.

“who, when, where”
information in a news item

options for a concert or sport
event, information in notices
and posters, timetables, graffiti,
programmes, tickets

the details of a work schedule

an illustrated story, a simple
informational text about acountry, with tables of
information

Can summarise (in Language B) the main point(s) in simple, short
informational texts (in Language A) on familiar topics.

“who, when, where”
information in a news item,
website/brochure descriptions,simple guide entries

information panels inmuseums, institutional leaflets– hospital, police

reports of annual financial
performancedetails of tasks andassignments, descriptions ofcourses or examinations

weather reports, very simple
assembly instructions

information about times andprices of transport, availabilityof services

Not applicable

A2

Can convey (in Language B) the main point(s) contained in clearlystructured, short, simple spoken and written texts (in Language A),
supplementing his/her limited repertoire with other means (e.g. gestures,
drawings, words from other languages) in order to do so.

weather reports, shortillustrated descriptions ofplaces, very simple picturestoriesA1

No descriptor available

Pre-A1

No descriptor available

B1

A2+

Appendix 6 – Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities ►Page 199

MEDIATING A TEXTPROCESSING TEXT IN WRITINGTEXT (& DISCOURSE ENVIRONMENT)LEVEL

DESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONALC2

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

discussions, current affairs
programmes, books,
newspaper articles,
commentaries and editorials,
specialised articles, or otherpublications addressed to a
general educated readershipcontributions at a town hallmeeting, a public debate, aforum discussion, a politicalmeeting, a political tract, apublic policy document, a legal
opinionpresentation at a conference,
seminar or meeting, aprofessional publication, atechnical report, a conference

a lecture at an academic
conference, web talks,
instructional material,textbooks, papers in academic
journals, reference books

Can summarise in writing long, complex texts, interpreting the content
appropriately, provided that he/she can occasionally check the precise
meaning of unusual, technical terms.

discussions, current affairs
programmes, books,
newspaper articles,
commentaries and editorials,
specialised articles, or otherpublications addressed to a
general educated readershipcontributions at a town hallmeeting, a public debate, aforum discussion, a politicalmeeting, a political tract, apublic policy document

presentation at a conference,
seminar or meeting, aprofessional publication, atechnical report, a conference,business proposals

a lecture at an academic
conference, web talks,
instructional material,textbooks, papers in academic
journals

contributions at a town hallmeeting, a public debate, aforum discussion, a politicalmeeting, a political tract, apublic policy document, a legal
opinionpresentation at a conference,
seminar or meeting, aprofessional publication, atechnical report, a conference

a lecture at an academic
conference, web talks,
instructional material,textbooks, papers in academic
journals, reference books

Can summarise in writing (in Language B) the main content of wellstructured but propositionally complex spoken and written texts (inLanguage A) on subjects within his/her fields of professional, academic
and personal interest.

a discussion on familyoccasions, TV news andcurrent affairs programmes,
talk showspresentations, speeches,
sermons

conference presentations

lectures, conference
presentations and discussions,
web talks

Can compare, contrast and synthesise in writing (in Language B) the
information and viewpoints contained in academic and professional
publications (in Language A) in his/her fields of special interest.

Not applicablepublic policy documents

professional journals andnewspapers, policy
documents, technical reports

academic articles, reviews,
books

Can explain in writing (in Language B) the viewpoint articulated in acomplex text (in Language A), supporting inferences he/she makes withreference to specific information in the original.

documentaries, current affairs
programmes, articles in a
magazine or newspaper,
novels, short stories, plays

a forum discussion involving
several participants, blogs,
speeches, sermons, legal
pleas, opinions anddocuments, policy documentsa presentation at a conference,
seminar, meeting, briefing
session or press conference, areport, contract, regulations,articlesa web talk, a lecture, anacademic seminar, academic
papers and books, novels,
short stories, plays

documentaries, current affairs
programmes, articles in a
magazine or newspaper,
novels, short stories, plays

a forum discussion involving
several participants, blogs,
speeches, sermons, legal
pleas, opinions anddocuments, policy documentsa presentation at a conference,
seminar, meeting, briefing
session or press conference, areport, contract, regulations,articlesa web talk, a lecture, anacademic seminar, academic
papers and books, novels,
short stories, plays

C1

B2+

B2

B1+

Can summarise in writing a long and complex text (e.g. academic or
political analysis article, novel extract, editorial, literary review, report, or
extract from a scientific book) for a specific audience, respecting the styleand register of the original.

Can summarise in writing (in Language B) the main content of complex
spoken and written texts (in Language A) on subjects related to his/herfields of interest and specialisation.
Can summarise in writing (in Language B) the information and arguments
contained in texts (in Language A) on subjects of general or personal
interest.

Page 200 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Can summarise in writing (in Language B) the main points made instraightforward informational spoken texts (in Language A) on subjects
that are of personal or current interest, provided spoken texts are deliveredin clearly articulated standard speech.

a telephone call, a web talk,news bulletins, documentaries,
personal letters, informational
brochures, short articles

a presentation at a public
meeting, public statements ornoticesa video-recorded presentation
at a meeting, a briefing session
for a task, reports andbusiness lettersan orientation session,
instructions for an assignment
a talk by a visiting speaker,
narratives and short articles

Can summarise in writing (in Language B) the main points made instraightforward informational written texts (in Language A) on subjects thatare of personal or current interest.
Can paraphrase short written passages in a simple fashion, using theoriginal text wording and ordering.

personal letters, short articles,
brochures, advertisements,
website texts

short official letters, publicstatements and notices,
regulations, leaflets providing
information about changes toservices, event programmes

reports, business lettersnarratives, text book entries,
websites, news summaries,
short articles“who, when, where”
information in a news item,
website/brochure descriptions,simple guide entries

information panels inmuseums, institutional leaflets– hospital, police

notices, regulations,
instructions for a task

A2+

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

details of tasks andassignments, descriptions ofcourses or examinations,
textbook extracts

letters with news

public notices, guidebook
entriesA2

Can use simple language to render in (Language B) very short texts
written 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 hand-written format.

simple work instructions suchas how to change the ink on a
printer

simple, short narratives,
general academic regulations
such as for an exam

letters with news

public notices, transportation
information

simple instructions and reports
on subjects in his/her field

simple narratives, academic
regulations

A1

Can, with the help of a dictionary, render in (Language B) simple phrases
written in (Language A), but may not always select the appropriate
meaning.
Can copy out single words and short texts presented in standard printed
format.

Pre-A1

No descriptor available

B1

Appendix 6 – Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities ►Page 201

MEDIATING A TEXTTRANSLATING A WRITTEN TEXT IN SPEECHTEXT (& DISCOURSE ENVIRONMENT)LEVEL

DESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONAL

specialized magazine articles
and reports on matters of
personal interest

public policy document,
declarations, rules orregulations

professional publications,
technical reports, contracts,press releases

academic projects and related
documents

C2

Can provide fluent spoken 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 the nuances and implications associated with
them.

C1

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

B2

Can provide spoken translation into (Language B) of complex texts writtenin (Language A) containing information and arguments on subjects within
his/her fields of professional, academic and personal interest.

newspaper or magazine
articles on current issues of
personal interesta technical reports related to
his/her profession

academic regulations of
information e.g. on paper
writing conventions

B1+

Can provide spoken translation into (Language B) of texts written in(Language A) containing information and arguments on subjects within
his/her fields of professional, academic and personal interest, provided
that they are written in uncomplicated, standard language.

texts accompanying artworks
at a museum or exhibition,municipal regulations such as
recycling, parking, etc.

B1

Can provide an approximate spoken translation into (Language B) of clear,well-structured informational texts written in (Language A) on subjects thatare familiar or of personal interest, although his/her lexical limitations
cause difficulty with formulation at times.

emails or letters with news
from friends/relatives

simple reports such as awitness statement to an
accidenta CV and presentation letterfrom a job or internshipapplicantbrochure(s) describing
extracurricular activities
available including conditions

notices about changes topublic services such as parking
regulations or rubbish
collection

an extended CV andpresentation letter from a job orinternship applicant

A2+

Can provide an approximate spoken translation into (Language B) of short,
simple everyday texts (e.g. brochure entries, notices, instructions, lettersor emails) written in (Language A).
Can provide a simple, rough, spoken translation into (Language B) ofshort, simple texts (e.g. notices on familiar subjects) written in (Language
A), capturing the most essential point.

labels on food products orelectronic devices, instructions
on how to use a medicine

instructions on how topurchase a travel card

basic health and safety
regulations at the work place

notices on books orcourse/class exchanges

Can provide a simple, rough spoken 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).

personal news in emails andletters

directions, notices, information
on posters

notices, instructions, basic
health and safety regulations

exam instructions

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

Not applicableA1

signs and notices, posters,
programmes, leaflets, etc.

signs and notices, posters,
leaflets, etc.

signs and notices, posters,
timetables

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

A2

Page 202 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

MEDIATING A TEXTTRANSLATING WRITTEN TEXT IN WRITINGTEXT (& DISCOURSE ENVIRONMENT)LEVEL

DESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONAL

letters, newspaper articles,
commentaries and editorials,
specialised articles, or otherpublications addressed to a
general educated readershipa political tract, a public policy
document, a legal opinion

professional publications,
technical reports, contracts,press releases

an academic paper

C2

Can translate into (Language B) technical material outside his/her field ofspecialisation written in (Language A), provided subject matter accuracy ischecked by a specialist in the field concerned.

letters, articles in a magazineor newspaper, short stories

speeches, sermons, policy
documents

scientific, technical, financial or
project reports, regulations,articles and other professional
publications

academic papers and books,
literary criticism

C1

Can translate into (Language B) abstract texts on social, academic andprofessional subjects in his/her field written in (Language A), successfully
conveying evaluative aspects and arguments, including many of theimplications associated with them, though some expression may be overinfluenced by the original.

B2+

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

letters, articles in a magazineor newspaper, some colloquial
writings

B2

Can produce translations into (Language B, which closely follow thesentence and paragraph structure of the original text in (Language A),
conveying the main points of the source text accurately, though thetranslation may read awkwardly.

letters with news, articles ofgeneral interest

B1+

Can produce approximate translations from (Language A) into (LanguageB) 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.

B1

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

A2

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

A1

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

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

academic papers and books,
novels, short stories, plays

public documents describing
general regulations, guidebook
entries, statements of opinion

straightforward letters,
instructions, reports on
subjects in his/her fieldstraightforward narratives,
general academic regulations

straightforward letters,
instructions, reports on
subjects in his/her field
general academic regulations

letters with news

public notices, guidebook
entries

simple work instructions suchas how to change the ink on a
printer

simple, short narratives,
general academic regulations
such as for an exam

public notices, transportation
information

simple instructions and reports
on subjects in his/her field

simple narratives, academic
regulations

Appendix 6 – Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities ►Page 203

MEDIATING A TEXTNOTE-TAKING (LECTURES, SEMINARS, MEETINGS ETC.)TEXT (& DISCOURSE ENVIRONMENT)LEVEL

DESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONAL

Can, whilst continuing to participate in a meeting or seminar, create
reliable notes (or minutes) for people who are not present, even when thesubject matter is complex and/or unfamiliar.

Not applicable

at a public meeting, at thecommittee meeting or a club or
association, during a seminaron a topic of interest

at a management meeting, a
training seminarin a seminar or discussion
forum

at a management meeting,professional conference ortraining seminarin a seminar or discussion
forum, whilst attending a
lectureCan take detailed notes during a lecture on topics in his/her field ofinterest, recording the information so accurately and so close to theoriginal that the notes could also be used by other people.

during a public lecture on a
topic of interest

at a professional conference ortraining seminarwhilst attending a lecture,
watching web talkCan make decisions about what to note down and what to omit as thelecture or seminar proceeds, even on unfamiliar matters.

at a public meeting, at thecommittee meeting or a club or
association, during a seminaror lecture on a topic of interest

at a management meeting,professional conference ortraining seminarin a seminar or discussion
forum, whilst attending a
lectureC2

Is aware of the implications and allusions of what is said and can makenotes on them as well as on the actual words used by the speaker.
Can make notes selectively, paraphrasing and abbreviating successfully tocapture abstract concepts and relationships between ideas.

C1

B2

B1+

Can select relevant, detailed information and arguments on complex,
abstract topics from multiple spoken sources (e.g. lectures, podcasts,
formal discussions and debates, interviews etc.), provided that standard
language is delivered at normal speed in one of the range of accentsfamiliar to the listener.

in researching a topic of
personal interestin researching an area for an
association, pressure group,
political party etc.

in researching an area for areport or presentationin researching an area for apaper or seminar presentation

Can understand a clearly structured lecture on a familiar subject, and cantake notes on points which strike him/her as important, even thoughhe/she tends to concentrate on the words themselves and therefore tomiss some information.

Not applicableduring a public lecture on a
topic of interest

at a professional conference ortraining seminarwhilst attending a lecture,
watching web talkCan make accurate notes in meetings and seminars on most matters likely
to arise within his/her field of interest.

at a public meeting, at thecommittee meeting or a club or
association, during a seminaron a topic of interest

at a management meeting, a
training seminarin a seminar or discussionforum

Can take notes during a lecture, which are precise enough for his/her own
use at a later date, provided the topic is within his/her field of interest andthe talk is clear and well structured.

during a public lecture on a
topic of interest

at a professional conference ortraining seminarwhilst attending a lecture,
watching web talkduring a public lecture on a
topic of interest

at a professional conference ortraining seminarwhilst attending a lecture,
watching web talkat a public meeting, at thecommittee meeting or a club or
association, during a seminaron a topic of interest

at an internal meeting, a
training seminarin a seminar or discussionforum

Can take notes as a list of key points during a straightforward lecture,provided the topic is familiar, and the talk is both formulated in simple
language and delivered in clearly articulated standard speech.
B1

Can note down routine instructions in a meeting on a familiar subject,provided they are formulated in simple language and he/she is given
sufficient time to do so.

Page 204 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Not applicableMEDIATING A TEXTNOTE-TAKING (LECTURES, SEMINARS, MEETINGS ETC.)TEXT (& DISCOURSE ENVIRONMENT)LEVEL

DESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

A2+

Can make simple notes at a presentation demonstration where the subject
matter is familiar and predictable and the presenter allows for clarificationand note-taking.

A2

No descriptors available

A1

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONAL

at a fair/shopping centre
demonstration of a new
product of interest

at a professional conference,
fair or training seminar

Not applicable

Appendix 6 – Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities ►Page 205

MEDIATING A TEXTEXPRESSING A PERSONAL RESPONSE TO CREATIVE TEXTS(INCLUDING LITERATURE)TEXT (& DISCOURSE ENVIRONMENT)LEVEL

DESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONALC2

No descriptor available: see C1
Can describe in detail his/her personal interpretation of a work, outlining
his/her reactions to certain features and explaining their significance.

a novel or short story just read,a play, film, musical or othershow just seen, paintings or
sculptures in a gallery, culturalartefacts in a museum – indiscussion with friends

a novel, short story, play,
poem, read or studied amember of a cultural circle
organised by a cultural instituteor club

in socialising with foreign
partners or clients: casual
discussion of the literature, film
industry, major culturalartefacts of the other person’scountrya novel, poem, play, short storyor other classical orcontemporary work studied in a
literature course

Can outline his/her interpretation of a character in a work: their
psychological/emotional state, the motives for their actions and theconsequences of these actions.

a novel or short story just read,a play, film, or musical justseen,– in discussion withfriends

C1

Can give his/her personal interpretation of the development of a plot, thecharacters and the themes in a story, novel, film or play.
Can give a clear presentation of his/her reactions to a work, developing
his/her ideas and supporting them with examples and arguments.
B2

Can describe his/her emotional response to a work and elaborate on theway in which it has evoked this response.

a novel or short story just read,a play, film, musical or othershow just seen, paintings or
sculptures in a gallery, culturalartefacts in a museum – indiscussion with friends

Can express in some detail his/her reactions to the form of expression,style and content of a work, explaining what he/she appreciated and why
Can explain why certain parts or aspects of a work especially interested
him/her.
Can explain in some detail which character he/she most identified with andwhy.
Can relate events in a story, film or play to similar events he/she has
experienced or heard about.
B1

Can relate the emotions experienced by a character in a work to emotions
he/she has experienced.
Can describe the emotions he/she experienced at a certain point in astory, e.g. the point(s) in a story when he/she became anxious for acharacter, and explain why.
Can explain briefly the feelings and opinions that a work provoked in
him/her.
Can describe the personality of a character.

Page 206 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

a film or other cultural / artistic
artefact at a screening or
exhibition organised by acultural institute or cluba more straightforward novel or
short story read as a memberof a foreign language reading
circle organised by a teacher
or cultural instituteNot applicablein socialising with foreign
partners or clients: casual
discussion of the literature, film
industry, major culturalartefacts of the other person’scountrya novel, poem, play, short storyor other literary work studied inclass

Not applicablea simpler short story or novel
just read, a film, musical orother show just seen,– withfriends

in socialising with foreign
partners or clients: casual
discussion of/references toheritage literature (e.g.
Cervantes, Shakespeare etc.)studied at school or works ofwell-known film stars

a simpler short story, fairy/folk
tale or extract from a novel
read in class or for homework,a video story watched in classMEDIATING A TEXTEXPRESSING A PERSONAL RESPONSE TO CREATIVE TEXTS(INCLUDING LITERATURE)TEXT (& DISCOURSE ENVIRONMENT)LEVEL

DESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONAL

Not applicableNot applicableNot applicablea simple story, fairy/folk tale orpoem read in class

A2

Can express his/her reactions to a work, reporting his/her feelings andideas in simple language.
Can describe a character’s feelings and explain the reasons for them.
Can say in simple language which aspects of a work especially interested
him/her.
Can say whether he/she liked a work or not and explain why in simple
language.
Can select simple passages he/she particularly likes from work of literature
to use as quotes.

A1

Can use simple words and phrases to say how a work made him/her feel.

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Appendix 6 – Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities ►Page 207

MEDIATING A TEXTANALYSIS AND CRITICISM OF CREATIVE TEXTS (INCL. LITERATURE)TEXT (& DISCOURSE ENVIRONMENT)LEVEL

DESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONAL

Not applicablein writing a review of a novel,film, writer’s or artist’s life workfor the journal or blog of acultural circle organised by acultural institute or club

Not applicablea novel, poem, play, short storyor other classical orcontemporary work studied in a
literature course

C2

Can give a critical appraisal of work of different periods and genres(novels, poems, plays), appreciating subtle distinctions of style and implicit
as well as explicit meaning.
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 rhetoricaldevices are exploited in a work for a particular purpose and give areasoned argument on their appropriateness and effectiveness.
Can give a critical appreciation of the deliberate breach of linguistic
conventions in a piece of writing.

C1

Can critically appraise a wide variety of texts including literary works ofdifferent periods and genres.
Can evaluate the extent to which a work meets the conventions of its
genre.
Can describe and comment on ways in which the work engages theaudience (e.g. by building up and subverting expectations).
a novel or short story just read,a play, film, musical or othershow just seen, paintings or
sculptures in a gallery, culturalartefacts in a museum – indiscussion with friendsa more straightforward novel or
short story read as a memberof a foreign language reading
circle organised by a teacher
or cultural instituteNot applicablea novel, poem, play, short storyor other literary work studied in
class

B2

Can compare two works, considering themes, characters and scenes,
exploring similarities and contrasts and explaining the relevance of theconnections between them.
Can give a reasoned opinion about a work, showing awareness of thethematic, structural and formal features and referring to the opinions andarguments of others.
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.

B1

Can point out the most important episodes and events in a clearlystructured narrative in everyday language and explain the significance of
events and the connection between them.
Can describe the key themes and characters in short narratives involving
familiar situations that are written in 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 are written in high frequency everyday language.

A1

No descriptors available

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

Page 208 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

a simpler short story, fairy/folk
tale or extract from a novel
read in class or for homework
Not applicableNot applicableNot applicablea simple story, fairy/folk tale orpoem read in classMEDIATING CONCEPTS
FACILITATING COLLABORATIVE INTERACTION WITH PEERSSITUATION (& ROLES)LEVELDESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONALC2

No descriptor available: see C1

C1

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

during an exchange withfriends, family members,colleagues met in informal
circumstances to discuss anissue he/she is aware of

as a member/chair/moderator
at a community meeting, anassociation meeting; afundraising event; a QA
session in a publicpresentation of a project, forinstance for a newbuilding/facility

as a chair/member of a groupduring focus groups meetings;
during a relatively
straightforward business
transaction; during programmemeetings; during committee
meetings

as a lecturer/instructor at aconference during Q/A time;
during a previously organizeddebate in a class at
school/university; in communityof practice work for teacher
development

Can develop the interaction and tactfully help steer it towards aconclusion.
Can, based on people’s reactions, adjust the way he/she formulates
questions and/or intervenes in a group interaction.
B2+

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’sview(s) in a plenary.

at community meetings dealing
with a specific issue, withvisual support

during a collaborative task in aclass at school/university; incommunity of practice work forteacher development

at a community meeting
dealing with a straightforward
issue, with visual support

during a simple collaborative
task in a class at
school/university; in communityof practice work with thesupport of other teachers

Can ask questions to stimulate discussion on how to organise
collaborative work.
B2

Can help to define goals for teamwork and compare options for how toachieve them.
Can refocus a discussion by suggesting what to consider next, and how toproceed.

B1+

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

Can collaborate in simple, shared tasks and work towards a common goalin a group by asking and answering straightforward questions.
B1

Can define the task in basic terms in a discussion and ask others tocontribute their expertise and experience.
Can invite other people in a group to speak.

during an exchange withfriends, family members,colleagues met in informal
circumstances to choose
among possible solutions to a
problemduring a short exchange withfriends, family members,colleagues met in informal
circumstances, for instance to
ask for advice before choosing
among possible solutions to a
problemduring a relatively
straightforward business
transaction; during committee
meetings between colleagues
as a chair/member of a groupduring focus groups meetings;
during a relatively
straightforward business
transaction; during committee
meetings

Appendix 6 – Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities ►Page 209

MEDIATING CONCEPTS
FACILITATING COLLABORATIVE INTERACTION WITH PEERSSITUATION (& ROLES)LEVELDESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONAL

Can collaborate in simple, shared tasks, provided that other participants
speak slowly and that one or more of them help him/her to contribute andto express his/her suggestions.

during a short exchange withfriends, family members

Not applicableA2+

during a straightforwardbusiness transaction

during a simple collaborative
task in a class at
school/university

A2

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

A1

No descriptor available

Pre-A1

No descriptor available

Page 210 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

MEDIATING CONCEPTS
COLLABORATING TO CONSTRUCT MEANINGSITUATION (& ROLES)LEVELDESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONALC2

Can guide the discussion effectively, summarizing, evaluating and linking
the various contributions in order to create agreement for a solution or way
forward.

during an exchange withfriends, family members,colleagues met in informal
circumstances to discuss anissue he/she is aware of

as a chair/moderator at a
community meeting, anassociation meeting; afundraising event; a QA
session in a publicpresentation of a project, forinstance for a newbuilding/facility

as a chair/ moderator of agroup during focus groups
meetings; during a business
transaction; during programmemeetings; during committee
meetings

as a lecturer/instructor at aconference during Q/A time;
during a previously organizeddebate in a class at
school/university; in communityof practice work for teacher
development

Can frame a discussion to decide a course of action with a partner orgroup, reporting on what others have said, summarising, elaborating andweighing up multiple points of view.
C1

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

at community meetings dealing
with a specific issue, withvisual support

Can highlight inconsistencies in thinking, and challenge other’s ideas in
the process of trying to reach a consensus.

B2+

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

in helping a friend plan how toresolve a financial or family
problem, when planning afamily event such as a wedding
or anniversary party

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

when planning a complicatedouting, holiday or project withfamily and friends

as a member/ chair/ moderator
of a planning meeting for a(political) campaign or project
and/or an event set up by a
club

in completing a group problemsolving task or project or in aclass debate
as a chair/member of astrategy meeting or projectplanning meeting

when organising a groupassignment such as writing acollective review or designing a
research project, in planning
an exchange visit or project

as a member of a strategy
meeting or project-planningmeeting; during collaborative
work on a project

when planning, withclassmates/colleagues, agroup assignment or project,
an educational outing or
exchange visit

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

B2

Can further develop other people’s ideas and opinions.

a conversation with family or
friends to plan a themed or
staged social event such as a(surprise) party

as a member of a club in acommunity meeting to organisea public event

Can present his/her ideas in a group and pose questions that invite
reactions from other group members’ perspectives.

in a discussion with family or
friends of strongly differing
ideas what to do on holiday,
during a family reunion, ahouse renovation

at a community meeting
seeking a solution to a local
social problem such as
security, vandalism, traffic
conditions, lack of green areas
and/or of amenities/services

in completing a group problemsolving task or project or in aclass debate; in community ofpractice work for teacher
development

Appendix 6 – Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities ►Page 211

MEDIATING CONCEPTS
COLLABORATING TO CONSTRUCT MEANINGSITUATION (& ROLES)LEVELDESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONAL

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

in a discussion with family or
friends of strongly differing
ideas what to do on holiday,
during a family reunion, ahouse renovation, during adomestic dispute between
housematesat a community meeting
seeking a solution to a local
social problem such as
security, vandalism, traffic
conditions, lack of green areas
and/or of amenities/services

as a member of a strategy
meeting or project-planningmeeting; during collaborative
work on a projectin completing a group problemsolving task or project or in aclass debate; in community ofpractice work for teacher
development

in a discussion with flatmatesor friends about how to reorganise arrangements in anapartment, how to repair
something, how to organise an
event

in attending a public
consultation meeting about
local issues such as transport,
planning applications orcommunity policy / events

at a project-planning meeting;during collaborative work on a
projectin completing a group problemsolving task or project or in aclass debate

B1+

Can organise the work in a straightforward collaborative task by stating theaim and explaining in a simple manner the main issue that needs to beresolved.
Can use questions, comments and simple reformulations to maintain thefocus of a discussion.
Can organise the work in a straightforward collaborative task by stating theaim and explaining in a simple manner the main issue that needs to beresolved.
Can use questions, comments and simple reformulations to maintain thefocus of a discussion.

B1

Can ask a group member to give the reason(s) for their views.
Can repeat back part of what someone has said to confirm mutual
understanding and help keep the development of ideas on course.

A2+

Can ensure that the person he/she is talking to understands what he/shemeans by asking appropriate questions.

Not applicableduring collaborative work on a
projectin completing a group problemsolving task or projectA2

Can make simple remarks and pose occasional questions to indicate thathe/she is following.
Can make suggestions in a simple way in order to move the discussion
forward.

in a discussion of options foran evening out, whenorganising a party or when
deciding on house rules

A1

No descriptor available

Pre-A1

No descriptor available

B2

Page 212 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

MEDIATING CONCEPTS
MANAGING INTERACTIONSITUATION (& ROLES)LEVELDESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONAL

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

Not applicable

Can recognise undercurrents in interaction and take appropriate steps
accordingly to guide the direction of the talk.

during a short exchange withfriends, family members met in
informal circumstances

as a member/ chair/ moderator
at a community meeting; at apolitical/ volunteer/ charity/
association meeting, sports
events, at a local, regional,
national, international levelCan organise a varied and balanced sequence of plenary, group andindividual work, ensuring smooth transitions between the phases.

Not applicableat consultation
meetings/sessions on
policy/structure change in an
organization; at professional
development sessions; during
work on complex collaborative
projects within anotherbusiness, a partnering
institutions

during activities implying
group/pair work, collaborative
tasks, jigsaw, think/pair/share,
project work at
school/university or in teacher
education; parent/student
assembly, organizing for
instance a protest/opposition, aschool trip; at a PhD workshop

C2

C1

B2+

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

at a meeting on procedures,
during collaborative work on a
project

Can organise and manage collaborative group work efficiently.

at consultation
meetings/sessions on
policy/structure change in an
organization; at professional
development sessions; during
work on complex collaborative
projects within anotherbusiness, a partnering
institutions

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

at a meeting on procedures,
during collaborative work on a
project

Can intervene supportively in order to focus people’s attention on aspectsof the task by asking targeted questions and inviting suggestions.

B2

Can explain the different roles of participants in the collaborative process,giving clear instructions for group work.
Can explain ground rules in collaborative discussion in small groups thatinvolves problem solving or the evaluation of alternative proposals.

Not applicable

as a member/ chair/ moderator
at a community meeting; at apolitical/ volunteer/ charity/
association meeting, sports
events, at a local, regional,
national, international levelat consultation
meetings/sessions on
policy/structure change in an
organization; at professional
development sessions; during
work on complex collaborative
projects within anotherbusiness, a partnering
institutions

during activities implying
group/pair work, collaborative
tasks, jigsaw, think/pair/share,
project work at
school/university or in teacher
education; parent/student
assembly, organizing for
instance a protest/opposition, aschool trip; at a PhD workshop

as a chair/member of a groupduring focus groups meetings;
during committee meetings

Appendix 6 – Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities ►Page 213

MEDIATING CONCEPTS
MANAGING INTERACTIONSITUATION (& ROLES)LEVELPERSONAL

DESCRIPTORSPUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONAL

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

as a member /chair /moderator
at a community meeting with a
specific, clearly-defined goal;
at a festival working with agroup, with a specific goal

at a meeting on procedures,
during collaborative work on a
project

during a clearly structured
collaborative activity at
school/university

B1+

Can allocate the turn in a discussion, inviting a participant to saysomething.

residents meeting to agree
routine terms of upkeep etc.

as a team member at themeeting of a small task force

B1

Can give simple, clear instructions to organise an activity.

as a member/ chair/ moderator
at a community meeting with a
specific, clearly-defined goal;
at a festival working with agroup, with a specific goal

at a meeting on procedures,
during collaborative work on a
project, at a staff meeting on
introducing newprocedures/equipment, with an
outline

B2

A2

Can give very simple instructions to a cooperative group who help withformulation when necessary.

A1

No descriptor available

Pre-A1

No descriptor available

Page 214 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

MEDIATING CONCEPTS
ENCOURAGING CONCEPTUAL TALKSITUATION (& ROLES)LEVELDESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONALC2

Can effectively lead the development of ideas in a discussion of complex
abstract topics, guiding the direction of the talk by targeting questions andencouraging others to elaborate on their reasoning.

when discussing social andpolitical issues with friends andrelativesat a community meeting when
discussing details of an actionplanwhen taking the lead during
project team meetings andbrainstorming sessions

when leading a seminar, givinga lesson, engaging in classdebates or discussions

C1

Can ask a series of open questions that build on different contributions inorder to stimulate logical reasoning (e.g. hypothesising, inferring,
analysing, justifying, and predicting).

B2+

Can encourage members of a group to describe and elaborate on theirthinking.
Can encourage members of a group to build upon one another’s
information and ideas to come up with a concept or solution.

B2

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 underdiscussion.

when leading a seminar, givinga lesson, engaging in classdebates or discussions; as alecturer/instructor at aconference during Q/A time

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

when discussing films, plays
and other forms ofentertainment withfriends/relatives

in attending a public
consultation meeting about
local issues such as transport,
planning applications orcommunity policy / events

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

Not applicableNot applicable

Can ask questions to invite people to clarify their reasoning.

when discussing social andpersonal issues with friends
and relatives

in attending a public
consultation meeting about
local issues such as transport,
planning applications orcommunity policy / events

Can ask what somebody thinks of a certain idea.

when discussing options withfamily, friends or housemates
for an evening out, whenorganising a party

at a community meeting

during team meetings; during
collaborative work on a project

when engaging in simple classdiscussions

A1

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

in a discussion of options foran evening out

Not applicableNot applicablein a simple group activity

Pre-A1

No descriptor available

B1+

B1

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

A2

during project team meetingsand brainstorming sessions;
during collaborative work on a
project

when engaging in classdebates or discussion

in simple class debates ordiscussions with (fellow)
students

Appendix 6 – Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities ►Page 215

MEDIATING COMMUNICATIONFACILITATING PLURICULTURAL SPACESITUATION (& ROLES)LEVELDESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONAL

in multicultural gatherings orcelebrations of personal
relevance with friends and/or
familyduring a multiculturalcommunity meeting, when
shopping, travelling or dealing
with public affairs in a
multicultural environment

during a meeting at senior
management level in a
multinational setting

at a seminar in a multicultural
educational setting

C2

Can mediate effectively and naturally between members of his/her own
and other communities, taking account of sociocultural and sociolinguistic
differences.

Can anticipate how people might misunderstand what has been said or
written and help to maintain positive interaction by commenting on andinterpreting different cultural perspectives on the issue concerned.

when breaking/delivering news
on delicate issues from third
parties

at multicultural guidance andcounselling concerning e.g.
marriage, divorce, childcustodywhen discussing the terms of amultilateral contract, when
explaining the laws or
regulations in another country.

when teaching a university
course to a multicultural class

Can exploit knowledge of socio-cultural conventions in order to establish
agreement on how to proceed in a particular situation unfamiliar to
everyone involved.

in multicultural gatherings orcelebrations of personal
relevance with friends and/or
familyduring a multiculturalcommunity meeting, when
shopping, travelling or dealing
with public affairs in a
multicultural environment

during a meeting at senior
management level in a
multinational setting

at a seminar in a multicultural
educational setting

Can, in intercultural encounters, demonstrate appreciation of perspectives
other than his/her own normal worldview, and express him/herself in a way
appropriate to the context.

when discussing with friends
and/or relatives social or
personal issues or ways ofaction in an informal
multicultural setting

when interacting withindividuals and/or groups in theneighbourhood

helping colleagues from adifferent cultural backgroundthrough work-related problems

in supporting inclusive
education

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.

in potentially conflicting private
situations involving persons
from different cultures orbackgrounds

in peer interaction at public
events, such as festivals, talks,demonstrations

when discussing theimplementation of internationalcommercial policies withcolleagues

as an instructor when dealing
with conflicts between students
on an international campus

when presented or introducing
someone into a new group offriends/people sharing interests

in peer interaction at public
events, such as festivals, talks,demonstrations

when escorting colleagues
from other countries aroundtown or company premises

as an instructor when teachinga multicultural primary class atintercultural centres

Can guide a sensitive discussion effectively, identifying nuances andundercurrents.

at a seminar in a multicultural
educational setting

Can act as mediator in intercultural encounters, contributing to a sharedcommunication culture by managing ambiguity offering advice andsupport, and heading off misunderstandings.
C1

B2+

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.

Page 216 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

when conducting / moderatinga public debate on multiculturalissuesMEDIATING COMMUNICATIONFACILITATING PLURICULTURAL SPACESITUATION (& ROLES)LEVELDESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONAL

Can work collaboratively with people who have different culturalorientations, discussing similarities and differences in views andperspectives.

when organising sharedactivities with friends orroommatesin joint activities with travel
mates during a trip, in peerinteraction at public events,
such as festivals, talks,demonstrations

in discussions with colleagues
about simple tasks, working
hours, holidays

with schoolmates in academic
activities

during a multiculturalcommunity meeting

when discussing theimplementation of internationalcommercial policies withcolleagues

at a seminar in a multicultural
educational setting

B2
Can, when collaborating with people from other cultures, adapt the way
he/she works in order to create shared procedures.

Can support communication across cultures by initiating conversation,
showing interest and empathy by asking and answering simple questions,and expressing agreement and understanding.

in everyday conversations withfriends and relatives fromdifferent cultural backgrounds

during holidays, with locals

between colleagues during
work-related telephoneexchanges or conversations

with schoolmates in off-school
activities

Can act in a supportive manner in intercultural encounters, recognising thefeelings and different world views of other members of the group.

when organising sharedactivities with friends orroommates

during a multiculturalcommunity meetingin discussions with colleagues
about simple tasks, working
hours, holidays

at a seminar in a multicultural
educational setting

in a simple informal
conversation between
friends/relatives and visitorsin simple exchanges andconversations at restaurants

when introducing newcomers
into the workplace

as an instructor whenwelcoming students into theschool’s sports team

B1

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

A2

Can contribute to an intercultural exchange, using simple words to ask
people to explain things and to get clarification of what they say, whilst
exploiting his/her limited repertoire to express agreement, to invite, tothank etc.

A1

No descriptor available

Pre-A1

No descriptor available

B1+

Appendix 6 – Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities ►Page 217

MEDIATING COMMUNICATIONACTING AS INTERMEDIARY IN INFORMAL SITUATIONS (WITH FRIENDSAND COLLEAGUES)SITUATION (& ROLES)LEVELDESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONAL

in a discussion withfriends/relatives, guests/hosts
about e.g. politics, literature
at a gathering with guests,

during a public lecture, at apolitical rally or meeting, at a(religious) ceremony

C2

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

at a management meeting, asocial or cultural event during awork-related visit in anothercountry

at a school event such as anawards evening with parents,
at welcome address orpresentation to visiting guests
from other schools, inwebinars, debates anddiscussions

Can communicate fluently in (Language B) the sense of what is said in(Language A) on a wide range of subjects of personal, academic andprofessional interest, conveying significant information clearly andconcisely as well as explaining cultural references.

interpretation, at a formal
gathering with guests, ofcomplex ceremonies,
statements, conversations, or
discussions

during discussions onorganisational matters such as
international conferences or
events, contract negotiations

during an interview as part of a
research project, at aconference or seminar

Can mediate (between Language A and Language B), conveying detailed
information, drawing the attention of both sides to background informationand sociocultural cues, and posing clarification and follow-up questions orstatements as necessary.

with visiting guests / relatives
from another country

at a public meeting, at anintercultural eventwith visiting partners or clients,
in a discussion in aninternational team aboutorganisation, project andresource planningin a parent-teacher meeting todiscuss a child’s school
performance, of an academic
on their specialised field

Can communicate in (Language B) the sense of what is said in a welcome
address, anecdote or presentation in his/her field given in (Language A),interpreting cultural cues appropriately and giving additional explanations
when necessary, provided that the speaker stops frequently in order to allow
time for him/her to do so.

in discussions with relatives /friends on matters such as
studying or working abroad

during a guided visit

during a visit to company /factory / university premises

in a parent-teacher meeting todiscuss a child’s school
performance; during a school
exchange with visiting
principals, teachers/students

Can communicate in (Language B) the sense of what is said in (LanguageA) on subjects within his/her fields of interest, conveying and whennecessary explaining the significance of important statements andviewpoints, provided the speaker stops frequently to allow him/her to doso, and gives clarifications if needed.

in a conversation withfriends/relatives, guests/hosts
about important current affairs

during a guided visit at e.g. an
exhibition

at dinner with visitingcolleagues

at a school event or parents'
day

B1+

Can communicate in (Language B) the main sense of what is said in(Language A) on subjects within his/her fields of interest, conveying
straightforward factual information and explicit cultural references,provided that he/she can prepare beforehand and that the speakers
articulate clearly in everyday language.

in everyday conversations withfriends and relatives about e.g.
family, work, daily eventsin casual conversations withother travellers during a trip or
holiday about e.g. travel,
hobbies, interestsin everyday conversations withcolleagues/ workmates about
e.g. interests, work, daily
eventsduring a school exchange –incoming and outgoing, in aparent-teacher meeting todiscuss a child’s school
performance

B1

Can communicate in (Language B) the main sense of what is said in(Language A) on subjects of personal interest, whilst following important
politeness conventions, provided that the speakers articulate clearly instandard language and that he/she can ask for clarification and pause toplan how to express things.

C1

B2+

B2

Page 218 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

MEDIATING COMMUNICATIONACTING AS INTERMEDIARY IN INFORMAL SITUATIONS (WITH FRIENDSAND COLLEAGUES)SITUATION (& ROLES)LEVELDESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONAL

in a conversation between
friends/ relatives and visitors tomake arrangements for an
outinginterpreting on the telephone
for relatives and friends when
applying for a service such as
internet or utilities

at a restaurant with guests,
conversing about background,hobbies, education
at a public office offering
services such as a licensing
officeat the workplace to organize aleaving party
during a visit from a clientwith a new student from his/hercountry of origin

A2+

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 that the speakers
articulate clearly in standard language and that he/she can ask for
repetition and clarification.

during introduction of avisitor/guest to family/friends’
circles

at a public office offering
services such as a licensing
officeduring a visit from a clientA2

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 that the speakers
help with formulation.

A1

No descriptor available

Pre-A1

No descriptor available

Appendix 6 – Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities ►Page 219

MEDIATING COMMUNICATIONFACILITATING COMMUNICATION IN DELICATE SITUATIONS &DISAGREEMENTSSITUATION (& ROLES)LEVELDESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONAL

Can deal tactfully with a disruptive participant, framing any remarks
diplomatically in relation to the situation and cultural perceptions.

in a disagreement between
friends or family members
discussing personal or social
issuesin a situation with intercommunal conflict tensions

in collaborative work that takes
a difficult turnin cases of disruptiveclassroom behaviourin negotiations, in discussions
about cuts and restructuringin cases of bullying or
racial/gender-aggravatedschool violencein a disagreement between
housemates about houserules, when discussing withrelatives responsibilities andmeasures concerning child or
elderly careduring an incident on a
package holiday or a public
event

in the resolution oforganizational and functional
conflicts

in dysfunctional group work,when organising and managing
peer mediation, or in adisagreement between two
groups of students

in a disagreement between
housemates about houserules, when discussing withrelatives responsibilities andmeasures concerning child or
elderly careduring an incident on a
package holiday or a public
event

in the resolution oforganizational and functional
conflicts

in arguments affecting third
parties at restaurants, cinemas
or other public places

when dealing with everyday
negative interactions between
employees

in mediating in dysfunctionalgroup work, when organisingand managing peer mediation,or in a disagreement between
two groups of students

in disputes regarding an
accident

at collective bargaining or
labour arbitration

helping others with complaints
about bills or services atshops, transport, banks

at minor disputes at theworkplace

Can outline the main points in a disagreement with reasonable precisionand explain the positions of the parties involved.

in arguments affecting third
parties at restaurants, cinemas
or other public places

when dealing with everyday
negative interactions between
employees

Can summarise the statements made by the two sides, highlighting areasof agreement and obstacles to agreement.

as a member/ chair/ moderator
at a community meeting todiscuss social policies or safety
and security problems

during preparatory meetings to
examine and revise an agenda
or an action plan

C2

Can confidently take a firm but diplomatic stance over an issue ofprinciple, while showing respect for the viewpoint of others.

Can demonstrate sensitivity to different viewpoints, using repetition andparaphrase to demonstrate detailed understanding of each party's
requirements for an agreement.
C1

Can formulate a diplomatic request to each side in a disagreement todetermine what is central to their position, and what they may be willing togive 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 tominimise embarrassment or offense.

B2+

Can help the parties in a disagreement better understand each other byrestating and reframing their positions more clearly and by prioritisingneeds and goals.
Can formulate a clear and accurate summary of what has been agreed
and what is expected from each of the parties.
Can, by asking questions, identify areas of common ground and inviteeach side to highlight possible solutions.

B2

Page 220 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

in disputes withlandlords/tenants over e.g.
financial responsibility fordamage in a flat,

MEDIATING COMMUNICATIONFACILITATING COMMUNICATION IN DELICATE SITUATIONS &DISAGREEMENTSSITUATION (& ROLES)LEVELDESCRIPTORSPERSONAL

PUBLICOCCUPATIONALEDUCATIONAL

B1+

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
him/her and the parties speak clearly.

in arguments affecting third
parties at restaurants, cinemas
or other public places

when dealing with everyday
negative interactions between
employees

when dealing with everyday
negative interactions between
classmates

B1

Can demonstrate his/her understanding of the key issues in adisagreement on a topic familiar to him/her and make simple requests forconfirmation and/or clarification.

in arguments between
flatmates over household
responsibilities or home
improvements

A2

Can recognise when speakers disagree or when difficulties occur ininteraction and adapt memorised simple phrases to seek compromise andagreement.

A1

Can recognise when speakers disagree or when someone has a problem
and can use memorised simple words and phrases (e.g. “I understand” “Areyou okay?” to indicate sympathy.

Pre-A1

No descriptor available

Appendix 6 – Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities ►Page 221

Appendix 7 – List of changes to specific 2001 Descriptors
OVERALL LISTENING COMPREHENSIONC2

Can understand with ease virtually Has no difficulty with any kind of spoken language, whether live or broadcast, deliveredat fast native natural speed.

UNDERSTANDING CONVERSATION BETWEEN OTHER NATIVE SPEAKERS
B2+

Can keep up with an animated conversation between native speakers of the target language.

B2

Can with some effort catch much of what is said around him/her, but may find it difficult to participate effectively in
discussion with several native speakers of the target language who do not modify their language speech in any way.

LISTENING 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 COMPREHENSIONC2

Can understand and interpret critically virtually all forms of the written language including abstract, structurally complex, or
highly colloquial literary and non-literary writings.

OVERALL SPOKEN INTERACTION
B2

Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction, and sustained relationships withspeakers of the target language native speakers quite possible without imposing strain on either party. Can highlight thepersonal significance of events and experiences, account for and sustain 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 his/her
own field, given an opportunity to adjust to a non-standard less familiar accent or dialect.

CONVERSATION
B2

Can sustain relationships with speakers of the target language native speakers without unintentionally amusing or irritatingthem or requiring them to behave other than they would with another native proficient speaker.

INFORMAL DISCUSSION (WITH FRIENDS)
B2+

Can keep up with an animated discussion between native speakers of the target language.

B2

Can with some effort catch much of what is said around him/her in discussion, but may find it difficult to participate
effectively in discussion with several native speakers of the target language who do not modify their language speech in any
way.

FORMAL DISCUSSION (MEETINGS)
C2

Can hold his/her own in formal discussion of complex issues, putting an articulate and persuasive argument, at no
disadvantage to native other speakers.

INTERVIEWING AND BEING INTERVIEWEDC2Can keep up his/her 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 other speakers.

SOCIOLINGUISTIC APPROPRIATENESS
C2

Can mediate effectively and naturally between speakers of the target language and of his/her own community of origin,taking account of sociocultural and sociolinguistic differences.

C2

Appreciates virtually all the sociolinguistic and sociocultural implications of language used by native proficient speakers of
the target language and can react accordingly.

B2

Can sustain relationships with speakers of the target language native speakers without unintentionally amusing or irritatingthem or requiring them to behave other than they would with another native proficient speaker.

SPOKEN FLUENCY
B2Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with speakers of the target language
native speakers quite possible without imposing strain on either party.

Appendix 7 – List of changes to specific 2001 Descriptors ►Page 223

Appendix 8 – Sources for new descriptors
Abbe, A., Gulick, L.M.V. & Herman, J.L. (2007). Cross-Cultural Competence in Army Leaders: A
Conceptual and Empirical Foundation. Arlington, VA: United States Army Research Institute for the
Behavioral and Social Sciences. In Barrett CDCID collation
Association of American Colleges and Universities: Intercultural Competence and Knowledge Value
Rubric https://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/intercultural-knowledge
Alexander, R. (2008) Culture, dialogue and learning: an emerging pedagogy, in Mercer N. and S.
Hodgkinson (Eds.) Exploring Talk in Schools (91–114). London: Sage. https://uk.sagepub.com/engb/eur
Alte Can Do Statements 2001. Appendix D in the CEFR
AMMKIA: Finnish Project (Sauli Takala: unpublished)
Alberta, Government of (2005). Alberta Teachers of English as a Second Language Section 7:
Intercultural Communicative Competence: ATESL Adult ESL Curriculum Framework. Alberta: Alberta
Teachers of English as a Second Language. Figure 2. Adapted Intercultural Knowledge and Skills
Strand of the Massachusetts Curriculum Framework. https://www.atesl.ca/
Autobiography of Intercultural Encounters: Notes. www.coe.int/lang-autobiography
Barrett, M. (2013). Intercultural competence: A distinctive hallmark of interculturalism? In M. Barrett(Ed.), Interculturalism and Multiculturalism: Similarities and Differences (pp.147-168). Strasbourg:
Council of Europe Publishing.
Barrett, M., Byram, M., Lázár, I., Mompoint-Gaillard, P. & Philippou, S. (2014). Developing InterculturalCompetence through Education. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Barrett, M. (2014). Competences for democratic culture and intercultural dialogue (CDCID). 3rd
meeting of the Ad hoc group of experts, Strasbourg, Council of Europe, Agora Building (Room G04),
16–17 June 2014. Phase One of CDCID: Collation of Existing Competence Schemes. CDCID 3/2014 Doc.4.0
Beacco, J-C., De Ferrari, M., Lhote, G. & Tagliante, C. (2006) Niveau A1.1 pour le françai /référentiel
DILF livre. Paris: Didier.
Beacco, J-C., Porquier, R. and Bouquet, S. (2004) Niveau B2 pour le français : Un réferentiel. Paris:
Didier.
BULATS Summary of Typical Candidate Abilities (global scale)
http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/exams-and-tests/bulats/
Byram, M. (1997) Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Cleveland:
Multilingual Matters
Cambridge Assessment Scales for Speaking
Cambridge Common Scale for Writing: Overall Writing Scales. Available in, e.g. Cambridge English:
Business English Certificates: Handbooks for Teachers.
Cambridge Overall Speaking Scale
Cambridge Overall Writing Scale
CARAP/FREPA: A Framework of Reference for Pluralistic Approaches. http://carap.ecml.at/
CEFR-J project for Japanese secondary school learners of English, 2011.
Negishi, M., Takada, T. & Tono, Y. (2013). A progress report on the development of the CEFR-J. In:
Galaczi, E. D. & Weir, C. J. (2013) (Eds.) Exploring Language Frameworks: Proceedings of the ALTE
Krakow Conference, July 2011 (pp. 135–163). Cambridge. Studies in Language Testing Series 36,
Cambridge University Press.
Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington D.C: Descriptors form translation collected in 1992 andincluded in the bank of descriptors for the CEFR descriptor research, but never used.

Page 224 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

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 in European Language. www.coe.int/portfolio
Corcoll López, C. & González-Davies, M. (2016) Switching codes in the plurilingual classroom, ELT
Journal 70, 1 January 2016, 67–77.
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010) Translanguaging in the Bilingual Classroom: A Pedagogy for
Learning and Teaching? Modern Language Journal, 94, I, 103–115.
Dunbar, S. (1992) Integrating language and content: A case study. TESL Canada Journal, 10, 1, 62–
70.
Eaquals (2008) Eaquals Can Do SIP: Eaquals/Alte Portfolio Descriptor Revision. www.eaquals.org
ELTDU (1976). Stages of Attainment Scale. Oxford: English Language Development Unit, Oxford
University Press.
English Profile. Published in Green, A. (2012) Language Functions Revisited: Theoretical and empiricalbases for language construct definition across the ability range. English Profile Studies, Volume 2,
Cambridge: UCLES/Cambridge University Press.
EPOSTL: Newby, D., Allan, R., Fenner, A., Jones, B., Komorowska, H. & Soghikyan, K. (2006). The
European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages, EPOSTL.
European Profiling Grid, EPG-Project. www.epg-project.eu
Eurocentres adaptation of ELTDU scale
European Language Portfolio Serial No 1 (Prototype based closely on CEFR/Swiss projectdescriptors).
Schneider, G., North, B. and Koch, L. (2000). A European Language Portfolio, Berne: Berner Lehrmittel
und Medienverlag.
Fantini, A.E. & Tirmizi, A. (2006). Exploring and Assessing Intercultural Competence. World Learning
Publications, 1.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington D.C: Descriptors form translation collected in 1992 andincluded in the bank of descriptors 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 for Sustainable Democratic Societies’, Graz, Austria. 5–7 December 2007. In Barrett
CDCID collation
GCSE: UK General Certificate of Secondary Education : English: assessment criteria
Gollob, R., Krapf, P. & Weidinger, W. (Eds.) (2010). Educating for Democracy: Background Materials
on Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education for Teachers. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Green, A. (2012) Performance conditions added to descriptors. Appendix to Language Functions
Revisited: Theoretical and empirical bases for language construct definition across the ability range.
English Profile Studies Volume 2, Cambridge: UCLES/Cambridge University Press.
Grindal, K. (1997). EDC: Basic Concepts and Core Competences: The Approach in Norway.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
GSE (Global Scale of English: Pearson) www.english.com/gse
Hardman, F. (2008): Teachers’ use of feedback in whole-class and group-based talk, in Mercer N. and
Hodgkinson (Eds.). Exploring Talk in Schools (pp.131–150). London, Sage.
HarmoS: EDK (Schweizerischer Konferenz der Kantonalen Erziehungsdirektoren) (2008). Projekt
Bildungsstandards HarmoS: Vorschläge für Basisstandards Fremdsprachen.
www.edk.ch/dyn/11659.php
Himmelmann, G. (2003). Zukunft, Fachidentität und Standards der politischen Bildung. (Unpublishedmanuscript). Braunschweig: TU Braunschweig, Institut für Sozialwissenschaften. [Summarised in
Byram, 2008.]

Appendix 9 – Supplementary descriptors ►Page 225

Hodel, Hanspeter, Pädagogischer Hochschule Luzern: Descriptors for Literature 2007: Personalcommunication. Descriptors for Literature 2013 (Work in progress in HarmoS-related national projecton objectives for school years)
Huber, J., Mompoint-Gaillard, P. & Lázár, I. (Eds.) (2014). TASKs for Democracy: Developing
Competences for Sustainable Democratic Societies. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
ICCinTE: Intercultural communication training in teacher education. Lázár I with Huber-Kriegler, M.,
Lussier, D., Matei, G.S. & Peck C. (Eds.), Developing and assessing intercultural communicativecompetence - A guide for language teachers and teacher educators, Strasbourg/Graz: Council ofEurope Publishing
INCA Project (2004): Intercultural Competence Assessment. INCA Assessor Manual.
ec.europa.eu/migrant-integration/librarydoc/the-inca-project-intercultural-competence-assessment
Interagency Language Roundtable Scale of Proficiency. www.govtilr.org/skills/ILRscale1.htm
Jørgensen, J.N. Karrebæk, M., S., Maden, L.M. & Møller, J.S. (2011) Polylanguaging in
Söuperdiversity, Diversities, 13, 2, 22–37. www.unesco.org/shs/diversities/vol13/issue2/art2
Karwacka-Vögele, K. (2012). Towards indicators for intercultural understanding. In J. Huber (Ed.),Intercultural Competence for All: Preparation for Living in a Heterogeneous World (pp. 51-60).
Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
King, J. and Chetty, R. (2014). Codeswitching: Linguistic and literacy understanding of teaching
dilemmas in multilingual classrooms, Linguistics and Education 25, 40-50.
Koch, L. co-author of Swiss ELP 2000 (CH-2000). Proposed additional descriptors for reading in asecondary school context (unpublished).
Lenz, P. and Berthele, R. (2010) Assessment in Plurilingual and Intercultural Education, Satellite Study
No 2, Guide for the development and implementation of curricula for plurilingual and intercultural
education. Document prepared for the Policy Forum The Right of Learners to Quality and Equity in
Education – The role of linguistic and intercultural competence, Geneva, Switzerland, 2–4 November
2010, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Lewis, G., Jones, B. ,and Baker, C. (2012): Translanguaging: developing its conceptualisation andcontextualisation, Educational Research and Evaluation, 18, 7, 655–670.
Lici Project. Handbook: Language in Content Instruction.
Lingualevel/IEF (Swiss) project for 13-15 year olds, 2009. www.lingualevel.chLüdi, G. (2014) Dynamics and management of linguistic diversity in companies and institutes of higher
educations: Results from the DYLAN project. In Gromes, P. and Hu, A. (Eds.). Plurilingual education:
Policies – practices – language development (113–118), Studies on Linguistic Diversity 3, Hamburg:
John Benjamins.
Mercer, N. and Dawes, L. (2008): The value of exploratory talk, in Mercer N. and S. Hodgkinson (Eds.).
Exploring Talk in Schools (55–72), London: Sage.
Neuner, G. (2012). The dimensions of intercultural education. In J. Huber (Ed.), InterculturalCompetence for All: Preparation for Living in a Heterogeneous World (pp. 11-49). Strasbourg: Councilof Europe.
National Institute for Dispute Resolution (1995): Performance-Based Assessment: A Methodology, foruse in selecting, training and evaluating mediators, Washington DC.
North-South Centre of the Council of Europe (2010). Global Education Guidelines: A Handbook for
Educators to Understand and Implement Global Education. Lisbon: North-South Centre of the Councilof Europe.
Oatley, K. (1994). A taxonomy of the emotions of literary response and a theory of identification in
fictional narrative, Poetics, 23, 53–74
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2005). The Definition and
Selection of Key Competences: Executive Summary. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development/DeSeCo.

Page 226 ► CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors

Pierce, K.M. and Gilles, C. (2008). From exploratory talk to critical conversations, in Mercer N. and S.
Hodgkinson (Eds.) Exploring Talk in Schools (pp. 37–54). London: Sage.
PISA: Thompson, S., Hillman, K. and De Bortoli, L. (2013) A Teachers Guide to PISA Reading
Literacy. Victoria: ACER.
Profile Deutsch: Glaboniat, M., Müller, M., Rusch, P., Schmitz, H. and Wertenschlag, L. (2005) Profile
deutsch A1 - C2. Lernzielbestimmungen, Kannbeschreibungen, Kommunikative Mittel. München:
Langenscheidt.
Project Miriadi. Skills reference data on multilingual communication in intercomprehension).
(Mutualisation et Innovation pour un Réseau de l'Intercompréhension à Distance)
Purves, A. C. (1971): The Evaluation of Learning in Literature, in Bloom, B.S., Hastings, J. T. and G.F
Madaus (Eds.) Handbook of Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 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.
Trim, J. L. M: C1 Level Can Do Specifications for Profile Deutsch, translated by J.L.M. Trim. 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, Cambridge:
UCLES/Cambridge University Press.
Tuning Educational Structures in Europe (nd-a). Approaches to Teaching, Learning and Assessment inCompetences Based Degree Programmes. www.unideusto.org/tuningeu/teaching-learning-aassessment.html#process
Tuning Educational Structures in Europe (nd-b). Generic Competences.
www.unideusto.org/tuningeu/competences/generic.html
Tuning Educational Structures in Europe (nd-c). Education - Specific Competences.
hwww.unideusto.org/tuningeu/competences/specific/education.html
Vacca, J. S. (2008) Scaffolding is an effective yechnique for teaching a social studies lesson about
Buddha to sixth graders, Journal Of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 51, 8, 652–658.
Vollmer, H. and Thürmann, E. (2016): Language Sensitive Subject Teaching: A Checklist. In Handbook
on the Language Dimension in all School Subjects, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Translated and shortened from Thürman, E. and Vollmer, H. (2012), Schulsprache undSprachsensibler Fachunterricht: Eine Checkliste mit Erläuterungen. Also in: Röhner, Charlotte &Hövelbrinks, Britta (eds.): Fachbezogene Sprachförderung in Deutsch als Zweitsprache. Weinheim:
Juventa, pp. 212–233.
Walqui, A. (2006): Scaffolding Instruction for English Language Learners: A Conceptual Framework,
The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9, 2, 159–180.
Webb, N. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 1, 1–28.
Zwiers, J. (2008). Building Academic Language. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Appendix 9 – Supplementary descriptors ►Page 227

Appendix 9 – 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 either
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. The will be added to the bank ofsupplementary descriptors on the Council of Europe website.

Scales
INTERPRETING
Note: As in any case in which mediation across languages is involved, users may wish to complete the descriptor by specifying thelanguages concerned, as in this example for a C2 descriptor:
Can provide almost completely accurate simultaneous or consecutive interpretation into French of complex, formal discourse inGerman, conveying the meaning of the speaker faithfully and reflecting the style, register and cultural context without omissions oradditions.

C2

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 cultural context without omissions oradditions.
Can, in informal situations, provide simultaneous or consecutive interpretation in clear, fluent, well-structured language on awide 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 nuancesand cultural allusions on top of the main message, though expression may not always reflect the appropriate conventions.

C1

Can provide consecutive interpretation fluently on a wide range of subjects of personal, academic and professional interest,
passing on significant information clearly and concisely.

B2

Can mediate during an interview, conveying complex information, drawing the attention of both sides to backgroundinformation, and posing clarification and follow-up questions as necessary.
Can provide consecutive interpretation of a welcome address, anecdote or presentation in his/her field, provided that the
speaker stops frequently in order to allow time for him/her to do so.
Can provide consecutive interpretation on subjects of general interest and/or within his/her field, passing on importantstatements and viewpoints, provided the speaker stops frequently to allow him/her to do so, and gives clarifications if
necessary.
Can, during an interview, interpret and convey detailed information reliably and provide supporting information, althoughhe/she may search for expressions and will sometimes need to ask for clarification of certain formulations.

B1

Can, during an interview, interpret and convey straightforward factual information, provided that he/she can prepare
beforehand and that the speakers articulate clearly in everyday language.
Can interpret informally on subjects of personal or current interest, provided that the speakers articulate clearly in standard
language and that he/she can ask for clarification and pause to plan how to express things.

A2

Can interpret informally in everyday situations, conveying the essential information, provided that the speakers articulate
clearly in standard language and that he/she can ask for repetition and clarification.
Can interpret informally in predictable, everyday situations, passing back and forth information about personal wants andneeds, provided that the speakers help with formulation.
Can interpret simply in an interview, conveying straightforward information on familiar topics, provided that he/she canprepare 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 particular situation.

Pre-A1

No descriptors available

PHONOLOGICAL CONTROL: SOUND RECOGNITIONC2

Can consciously incorporate relevant features of regional and socio-linguistic varieties of pronunciation appropriately.

C1

Can recognise features of regional and socio-linguistic varieties of pronunciation and consciously incorporate the mostprominent of them in his/her speech.

B2

Can recognise common words when pronounced in a different regional variety from the one(s) he/she is accustomed to.

B1

Can recognise when his/her comprehension difficulty is caused by a regional variety of pronunciation.

Individual Descriptors
ONLINE CONVERSATION AND DISCUSSIONC2

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 his/her ideas and opinions with precision in an online discussion on a complex subject or specialised topic
related to his/her 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 to share experiencesand 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 andexperiences and responding flexibly to further comments.
Can repair possible misunderstanding in an online discussion with an appropriate response.

B1

Can initiate, maintain and close simple online conversations on topics that are familiar to him/her, though with some pauses
for real-time responses.

A2

Can post online how he/she is feeling or what he/she is doing, using formulaic expressions, and respond to further
comments with simple thanks or apology.

Pre-A1Can establish basic social contact online by using the simplest everyday polite forms of greetings and farewells.

GOAL-ORIENTED ONLINE TRANSACTIONS AND COLLABORATIONC1

Can deal effectively with communication problems and cultural issues that arise in online collaborative or transactional
exchanges, by adjusting his/her 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 and encouraging
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 order to create apositive 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 he/she greets and welcomes people and asks them a series of questions that
demonstrate interest.

PROCESSING TEXT IN SPEECH
C1

Can summarise clearly and fluently in well-structured language the significant ideas presented in complex texts, whether or
not they relate to his/her own fields of interest or specialisation.
Can summarise in clear, fluent, well-structured speech the information and arguments contained in complex, spoken or
written texts on a wide range of general and specialised topics.

B2+

Can summarise clearly in well-structured speech the information and arguments contained in complex spoken or written
texts on a wide range of subjects related to his/her fields of interest and specialisation.
Can clarify the implicit opinions and purposes of speakers, including attitudes.

B1+

Can summarise and comment on factual information within his/her field of interest.

PROCESSING TEXT IN WRITING
B1

Can summarise in writing the main points made in straightforward informational texts on subjects that are of personal or
current interest.
Can summarise in writing the main points made in spoken or written informational texts on 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 (e.g. in mind maps, tables, flowcharts, etc.),
facilitating understanding by highlighting and explaining the relationship between ideas.
Can represent information visually (with graphic organisers like mind maps, tables, flowcharts, etc.) to make 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 (e.g. a mind map, pie chart, etc.) in order to help people
understand the concepts involved.
Can make the key points of abstract concepts more accessible by representing information visually (e.g. in mind maps,
tables, flowcharts, etc.).
Can visually represent a concept or a process in order to make relations between information explicit (e.g. in flowcharts,
tables showing cause-effect, problem-solution).

B1

Can communicate the essential points of a concept or the main steps in a straightforward procedure by using a drawing orgraphic 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.

EXPRESSING A PERSONAL RESPONSE TO CREATIVE TEXTS (INCLUDING LITERATURE)
B1+

Can relate the emotions experienced by a character in a work to emotions he/she has experienced.

A2

Can explain in simple sentences how a work of literature made him/her feel.

ANALYSIS AND CRITICISM OF CREATIVE TEXTS (INCLUDING LITERATURE)
C2

Can analyse complex works of literature, identifying meanings, opinions and implicit attitudes.
Can explain the effect of rhetorical/literary devices on the reader, e.g. the way in which the author changes style in order toconvey different moods.

FACILITATING COLLABORATIVE INTERACTION
B2+

Can invite participation, introduce issues and manage contributions on matters within his/her academic or professional
competence.

B2+

Can keep a record of ideas and decisions in group work, discuss these with the group and structure a report back to aplenary.

B2

Can intervene to support collaborative problem solving initiated by another person.

B1

Can invite other people in a group to speak.

COLLABORATING TO CONSTRUCT MEANING
B2+

Can summarise and evaluate the main points of discussion on matters within his/her academic or professional competence.
Can encourage people to contribute to a discussion, building upon one another’s information and ideas to come up with aconcept or solution.

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.
Can give clear instructions to organise pair and small group work and conclude them with summary reports in plenary.

ENCOURAGING LOGICAL THINKING

B2+

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 small group discussion to ensure that ideas are not only exchanged but are used to build a line of argument or
enquiry.

B2

Can present information and instruct people to use it independently to try and solve problems.

A1

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

FACILITATING PLURICULTURAL COMMUNICATIONC1

Can recognise different communication conventions and their effect on discourse processes, adjust the way he/she speaks
accordingly, and help to establish related ‘rules’ to support effective intercultural communication.
Can interact flexibly and effectively in situations in which intercultural issues need to be acknowledged and tasks need to becompleted together, by exploiting his/her capacity to belong to the group(s) whilst maintaining balance and distance.

B2+

Can project him/herself empathetically into another person’s perspective and ways of thinking and feeling so as to respond
appropriately with both words and actions.

B2

Can establish a relationship with members of other cultures, showing interest and empathy through questioning,
expressions of agreement and identification of emotional and practical needs.
Can encourage discussion without being dominant, expressing understanding and appreciation of different ideas, feelingsand viewpoints, and inviting participants to contribute and react to each other’s ideas.
Can help to create a shared understanding based on his/her appreciation of the use of direct/ indirect and explicit/ 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 whilst minimising embarrassment
or offense.
Can use repetition and paraphrase to demonstrate detailed understanding of each party's requirements for an agreement.
Can explain the background to a delicate situation or disagreement by repeating and summarising statements 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 respective lines 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 disadvantagesof each solution.
Can evaluate the position of one party in a disagreement and invite them to reconsider an issue, relating his/herargumentation 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 and explaining visual
representations (e.g. diagram/chart, tables, flowcharts).
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, and by recapitulating
at key points.

ADAPTING LANGUAGE
C1

Can make information in a complex written text (e.g. a scientific article) more accessible by presenting the content in adifferent 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.

B2

Can make difficult concepts in a complex spoken or written text more comprehensible through paraphrasing.

B1+

Can use paraphrasing to explain the content of a spoken or written text on a familiar topic in a simplified, more concreteform.

AMPLIFYING A DENSE TEXT
B2

Can support understanding of unfamiliar language in a text by providing additional examples that contain similar language.

STREAMLINING A TEXT
C1

Can rewrite a complex source text, reorganising it in order to focus on the points of most relevance to target audience.

B2

Can distil the relevant information from different parts of the source text in order to guide the recipient to understanding theessential points.
Can distil information from different parts of the source text in order to make accessible contrasting information andarguments 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.

High
B2+

Can exploit his/her awareness of similarities and differences between cultures for successful intercultural communication inboth the personal and professional domains.

High
B2+

Can engage appropriately in communication, following the main verbal and non-verbal conventions and rituals appropriate
to the context, coping with most difficulties that occur.

B2

Can recognise cultural stereotypes – favourable and discriminatory – and describe how they influence his/her own oranother’s behaviour.
Can analyse and explain the balance that he/she personally maintains in the adjustment process between acculturation andpreserving his/her own culture(s).
Can adapt his/her behaviour and verbal expression to new cultural environments, avoiding behaviours that he/she is aware
may be viewed as impolite.
Can explain his/her interpretation of culturally-specific opinions, practices, beliefs and values, pointing out similarities anddifferences to his/her own and other cultures.
Can, in intercultural encounters, acknowledge otherness, appreciate things from perspectives other than his/her own normal
worldview, and express him/herself sensitively.
Can engage appropriately in communication, following the main verbal and non-verbal conventions and rituals appropriate
to the context, coping with most difficulties that occur.
Can work collaboratively with people who have different cultural orientations, discussing similarities and differences in views
and perspectives.

B2

Can comment on cultural differences, comparing them in depth with his own experience and traditions.
Can interact effectively in a situation in which intercultural issues need to be acknowledged in order to solve a task cooperatively.
Can enquire about relevant cultural norms and practices while collaborating in an intercultural encounter and then apply theknowledge gained under the constraints of real-time interaction.

PLURILINGUAL COMPREHENSIONA2

Can exploit easily identifiable vocabulary (e.g. international expressions, words with roots common to different 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 his/her plurilingual repertoire for rhetoric 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 listeners who didn’t understand it.

B2

Can follow a conversation happening around him/her in a language or languages in which he/she has receptivecompetence, and express his/her contribution in a language that is understood by one or more of the interlocutors.
Can support understanding and the development of ideas in multilingual group work in which participants are using different
languages in his/her plurilingual repertoire flexibly.
Can manage interaction in two or more languages in his/her 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 astory/incident in one language in his/her plurilingual repertoire and then explaining it in another.
Can exploit, and explain if necessary, an expression from another language in his/her plurilingual repertoire for a concept for
which such a suitable expression appears not to exist in the language being used.

B1

Can use an apt word from another language that the interlocutor speaks, when he/she cannot think of an adequate
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 something 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 the proposition being put to a vote, formulating it more simply with the relevant vocabulary.
Can express clearly and precisely what he/she wants to, despite any vocabulary limitations.
Can modify lexical signs.

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).
Can describe in simple sentences the places he/she visited on holiday.
Can describe things with paraphrase, without knowing what they are called.

A2+

Can explain something comprehensibly.

A2

Can indicate animals with lexical signs.
Can correctly perform newly lexicalized signs, e.g. for persons or colours.

A1

Can employ simple mouth shapes appropriate to the context.

DIAGRAMMATICAL ACCURACY
C1

Can manually imitate the movements of objects/living beings (e.g. the gait of different animals).

B2+

Can express comparisons (the same as ..., different to ...).

B1+

Can form the plural with classified signs.

B1

Can use different ways of expressing negation.

SIGN TEXT STRUCTURE
B2+

Can tell a story from beginning to end, without leaving out parts of it.
Can, when describing something, name large unmoveable objects before small unmoveable objects, and introduce any
moveable objects after the unmoveable ones.

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 totoe).
Can answer key questions on a text clearly.

SETTING AND PERSPECTIVES
Above
C2

Can employ a variety of different signing forms and techniques in an artistic way.

C1

Can associate events presented with particular feelings (sunrise - feeling happy). Feelings as a reaction to the environment.

B2

Can recruit people for an event, so that they register for it.

B1+

Can establish the necessary conditions for a text (lighting, background, atmosphere of the room).

A2

Can convey emotions with mimic.

SOCIOLINGUISTIC APPROPRIATENESS AND CULTURAL REPERTOIRE
B2+

Knows the procedure followed in elections and referendums in his/her own country.
Can designate the people who are important for sign language and their functions (also internationally).
Can make (indirect) reference to important dates, persons and institutions in his/her country.

B1+

Can discreetly refer to people who are present by, for example, using a smaller signing space or by holding a hand in frontof 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 his/her country.

B1

Knows the names of relevant government departments and political parties in his/her country.
Knows the organisations that are most important for deaf people (e.g. the national council for the deaf, associations).
Knows the language situation in his/her country (e.g. in Switzerland: 3 sign languages; 5 dialects of Swiss-German Sign
Language (DSGS).