This article covers the most essential aspects of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), a scheme designed to determine the level of an individual’s language skills.

While this article first introduces the reader to the CEFR in a detailed chapter, its primary objective is to present a set of valid arguments demonstrating the CEFR’s ineffectiveness in fulfilling its purposes.

To achieve that, I am highlighting various limitations and presenting a series of evidence that proves that the CEFR does not reflect real life authentically.

Without delving into redundant historical details, it is important to note that the CEFR was first introduced in the European Union in 2001. However, it has become a globally adopted method to assess examinees since then.

Before exploring the article’s main objective, it seems vital to embark on what this article intends to critisise.

The CEFR recognises six levels of language skills, each of which is named using a letter either A, B or C followed by a number either 1 or 2 put together. A1 stands for the lowest and C2 represents the highest language proficiency possible.

Before scrutinising the CEFR levels one by one, I would like to clearly state that the following breakdown of the CEFR levels that I present in this article is based on the website of the Council of Europe that is publicly accessible by clicking here. (The Council of Europe is the continent's leading human rights organisation. It includes 46 member states, 27 of which are members of the European Union.)

I formed the table found on the Council’s website into flowing text, using the same exact wording so that when it comes to analysing and criticising the levels in later sections, that makes it possible to use the original composition in the way that it is used to pigeonhole language users.

A-levels embody a basic language user’s knowledge where being on the A1 level means that one can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases, more specifically, an A1-level user can

• introduce him/herself and others and can ask,

• answer questions about personal details such as where he/she lives,

• and interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help.

When a user reaches A2 level, they can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most immediate relevance, more precisely, they can

• communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar and routine matters.

• describe in simple terms aspects of his/her background, immediate environment and matters in areas of immediate need.

B-levels indicate that a user can use the language more independently. 

B1 level users can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc.

To be more precise, B1 level language users can

• deal with most situations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken, 

• produce simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of personal interest. 

• describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes & ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans.

Reaching level B2 indicates that a language user can understand the main ideas of complex texts on both concrete and abstract topics, including technical discussions in his/her field of specialisation.

To elaborate on that, a language user arriving at the B2 level suggests that they can 

• interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without strain for either party. 

• produce clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects and explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options.

C-level users are considered proficient users where level C1 implies that a language user can understand a wide range of demanding, longer texts, and recognise implicit meaning.

To be more detailed, C1 level users can 

• express him/herself fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions. 

• use language flexibly and effectively for social, academic and professional purposes. 

• produce clear, well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects, showing controlled use of organisational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices.

Finally, the highest proficiency level, level C2 represents those who can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read.

Furthermore, C2 level users can

• summarise information from different spoken and written sources, reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation.

• express him/herself spontaneously, very fluently and precisely, differentiating finer shades of meaning even in more complex situations.

In this section of the article, I might be using a more informal tone when asserting my subjective thoughts on the matter.

“Subjective thoughts” is an expression that I would use as my first criticism towards the CEFR levels. Although the illustrations of CEFR levels seem to be thoroughly outlined in the descriptor, it comes down to the examiner which CEFR level they assign a person to.

It implies that one’s assessment can be biased, even involuntarily, and, therefore, without any malicious intention. Each individual assesses one’s skills based on their personal preference when it comes to the use of vocabulary in a written piece or a spoken presentation.

To clarify, the CEFR levels do not clearly specify which word is considered to be assigned to which CEFR level, therefore, even if a language user incorporates certain words in their written or spoken language, they cannot unquestionably expect to be classified as a certain level of language user.

Language exams, for example, are designed to test examinees’ language skills. Whenever one is assessed, they demonstrate their skills to examiners, not themself. However, it is rather a verification process that requires preparation and this statement begs the question: 

How could one prepare for a language exam that could prove their language skills when a descriptor is the only relevant reference point that is so vague that it can be read in several ways based on the current examiner’s personal interpretation?

In the case of assessing reading and listening skills, it would also be a bit helpful if CEFR levels could determine which words should one be familiar with out of the tens of thousands that exist in a language. Otherwise, it might seem absolutely impossible to tell which ones’ meaning an examinee should know about in order to be able to understand the text they read or hear.

However, word use is not the only aspect that is too abstract to be assessed impartially. The decision whether a sentence structure shows a lower or higher proficiency is also problematic. Sentences can be formed in several ways, and whether the one that the examinee picks during their exam is surely reaches the level of their exam cannot be clearly determined based on the descriptor.

At the end of the day, it should come down to whether the examinee chose a sentence structure that conveys the intended meaning of their thoughts unmistakably, even if it might not be one that satisfies the examiner’s personal preference.

The use of grammar is the only determining factor that can be seen as an objective one. It can be since all the variations of grammar rules that are widely accepted are well-documented. If a sentence is constructed with a few grammar rules misused, it can clearly be explained and proven with factual evidence. 

However, it is still not clearly stated which grammar rules are assigned to which CEFR levels. There are simply no universal rules for that either. However, on the Council of Europe’s website, there is a document, a core inventory developed by the British Council, and it categorises grammar rules and assign them to the corresponding CEFR level. Nevertheless, whether it is globally recognised and applied seems unclear. (Click here to access the document in question.)

It is also worth noting that it is true that the complexity of grammar rules can vary, so it seems possible to categorise grammar rules according to their difficulty level. However, it says more about the complexity of certain situations, not their linguistic hardships. The more complex a situation is, the more complex grammar rules are needed to express thoughts about it. 

For instance, speaking about one’s past regrets indeed requires more complex grammar rules than providing factual information and stating what is currently happening. The first one requires the use of more complex grammar rules since talking about past regrets means expressing thoughts that are unrealistic, and, therefore, these thoughts are more challenging to picture and fathom, so it is not even the sentence structure that throws difficulties in the way of conveying these ideas, but the ideas themselves.

On the other hand, even if vocabulary and grammar rules were clearly assigned to certain CEFR levels and they were applied according to the same categorisation worldwide, it would not change the fact that CEFR levels completely ignore the true purposes of communication and language use, which is either to manage certain areas of life that involve fact-based and straightforward verbal communication, or to connect with others on a deeper emotional level.

More specifically, the true purposes of any language are 

• being able to state our needs and hopes and dreams and being able to listen to other people’s needs and hopes and dreams,

• sharing our thoughts and beliefs on topics we are interested in and/or we have relevant experiences with, and listening to what our listener(s) has/have to say about them,

• expressing our emotions with words whether they are positive or negative and pay attention to others when they talk about their feelings,

• telling a story about something that happened to us whether it is a happy one or a sad one and listening to what happened in other people’s lives,

• claiming and listening to factually true information on any topic that might or might not be interesting to the people involved in the conversation,

• participating in entertaining activities that require a certain level of one- or two-way communication such as listening to songs with lyrics, watching a movie or TV show, reading the news, going to the theatre, playing board games, etc.

• making and completing requests and directions at our workplace

• managing our everyday life duties and activities such as seeing the doctor, going to a restaurant, shopping for groceries, etc.

Although the list might not be fully exhaustive, it showcases diverse real-life instances where language is applied to establish some form of verbal communication with other human beings.

However, to achieve the aims of a language mentioned above, it is challenging to determine which exact words and grammar rules should be used due to the diverse collection that one can choose from when it comes to speaking and writing tasks, and it is also difficult to decide which words and grammar rules should be comprehended in order to be able to complete reading and listening tasks with flying colours.

Consequently, CEFR levels completely ignore the complexity of real life when it comes to either vocabulary or grammar.

For instance, people do not choose grammar rules to use when they want to express their thoughts. It is the other way around. They have thoughts that they want to transmit to other people and they pick necessary grammar rules to these thoughts, doing that sometimes consciously and other times involuntarily. 

Also, the majority of people have their own supply of words that they lean to based on their personal preference. However, there are words that are considered “overused” because they are more common in everyday life. For example, the word ‘beautiful’ is one that is pigeonholed in this category, meanwhile ‘stunning’ and ‘georgeous’ and ‘appealing’ are considered a higher proficiency, not clearly stated which CEFR levels, but higher level ones. Now I have a rhetorical question about this.

Why do more uncommon words mean that one uses a language on a higher level? Uncommon words imply that they occur more infrequently amongst people, which implies that fewer people understand them on the same level compared to a more usual synonym.

One would think that language should be a tool designed to bringing humans closer to each other, meanwhile, CEFR levels imply that the fewer people can understand you, the better user of a language you are.

One would also think that if people were better educated, it could familiarise them with words that are less common today, however, history proves how a couple of linguists have tried to forcefully and unsuccessfully change the way the majority of language users practise a language. Instead, language has its natural flow, and forcing crowds to follow a bunch of people’s directives does not seem viable.

A counterargument could be that language exam organisers, language tutors and book publishers try their very best to clarify the CEFR levels. Their language learning materials might help since they state which words and grammar rules will probably be used in the reading and speaking texts of a language exam paper and they make lists of words or grammar rules that would clearly assign words and grammar rules to certain levels.

However, they are also based on subjective views, so we are already back to square one. Even if the language exam organiser institution publishes a copy about their own type of language exam, it might happen that the book has a different authors than the people who compose a current language exam’s tasks. I am not claiming that they ignore their own publication’s content, I am simply implying that it is unrealistic that a human being creates texts based on a list of thousands of words, for example.

Furthermore, assuming that it is possible to create language exams based on a list of words used in tasks, it simply proves that an examinee complies with a few people’s views on the language, and if they took another type of language exam, there might be a different outcome.

On the other hand, there might be overlaps regarding expectations amongst types of language exams. However, there are no universal rules to assess one’s language skills, meanwhile, as stated above, language exams focus on their unique standarised assessment kit that should test objectively and fairly, yet, this is the one thing these kits cannot accomplish.

It is also vital to remember that there are aspects of real life that would require two people to know each other way better to be able to share information about one another. No one is going to open up about their deepest thoughts to anyone during an oral language exam, no matter how familiar they are with grammar rules and how wide of a vocabulary they possess.

That is why, of course, most language exams are about clichés and individually irrelevant information. I would not call that real communication. Therefore, it is worth reminding ourselves that communication is about a human being’s psyche, it is not only about words and grammar rules and common observations and overused opinions that lack original thoughts.

Based on the arguments presented in this article, more especially in the last few paragraphs, it might seem that these critical words are pointed at language exams instead of the CEFR itself. Although these topics are indeed intertwined in several ways, the reasons as to why language exams no longer reflect real life are discussed in another article that you can find if you click here.

While finishing this article up, there is only one question left unanswered. On the CEFR level scale, which level could my article be assigned to? To be blunt, I do not care as long as you, my reader, understand all of my thoughts in it and we can have a thriving discussion about the topic. A discussion that both of us can enjoy because that is what verbal human interaction is all about.

I genuinely believe that such complex areas of life like communication cannot be completely regulated, and that is where the ineffectiveness of CEFR levels originates. When it comes to assessing each other’s language skills, we should focus on getting to know the person whom we are assessing instead of focusing on ticking boxes on a standardised checklist.