kent.karlsson14 at telia.com
Thu Nov 26 17:47:16 CET 2015
Den 2015-11-26 14:23, skrev "Philip Newton" <philip.newton at gmail.com>:
> On 26 November 2015 at 12:19, Kent Karlsson <kent.karlsson14 at telia.com> wrote:
>> So, instead of "-simple" or "-basic", something along the lines of:
>> (referring to the CEFR levels) would be my preference.
> How about "-cefrb1 .. -cefrc2" to make it more explicit that "B1" etc.
> refer to CEFR levels?
Maybe, except that it looks like alphabet soup and thus extra prone to
> Since it's a European thing, it might not be immediately obvious to
> everyone what "B1 level" is.
It's not altogether a European thing. According to the Wikipedia article:
"Canada increasingly uses the CEFR in a few domains. CEFR-compatible exams
[..] are administered. Universities increasingly structure their courses
around the CERF levels. Larry Vandergrift of the University of Ottawa has
proposed Canadian adoption of the CEFR [...]"
-standards/ (referenced from the Wikipedia page):
"The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) plays a
central role in language and education policy **worldwide**. [...]"
Arbitrarily picking the Vietnamese Wikipedia version, and Google translating
that (thus the bad English in the quote) I get:
"[...] abbreviated as CEFR or CEF, is a Rules to describe the level of
students learning foreign languagesin Europe and are becoming more widely
used in many other countries (eg, Colombia and the Philippines)."
(I had hoped for it saying "in Vietnam"...)
The CEFR levels are also used by the United Nations,
"The CEFR is a major development in language teaching and learning. It has
contributed to the setting of common standards for establishing goals and
measuring achievement; [...]
The framework is based on practical, comprehensible “can do” statements that
cover elements of communicative competences for the six levels [...]
For example, the United Nations proficiency examination for each of the six
official languages includes questions at the B2 and C1 levels."
What I would NOT like to see is a proliferation of such level systems being
given subtags in LSR. That would be utterly unhelpful. (Plus: The ones more
heavily based on numbers (usually 0-5) are especially confusing since the
same numbers mean different levels in different systems, indeed some systems
even reverse the scale with 1 being highest and higher numbers meaning lower
proficiency.) So I'm trying to pick the "winning horse" here, as well as
something that is not altogether confusing.
More information about the Ietf-languages