|
 |
Level D1 on the CEFR | ||
Tags: Native Fluency | CEFR Language Levels | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5431 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes  Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 9 of 50 25 March 2011 at 4:39pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
Although I agree that deciphering poorly written texts is not an indication of higher proficiency, I think the issue here isn't about bad writing. It's about complexity of language. I can't assess the German examples, but I wouldn't call the English examples bad writing. Much literary writing is quite complex, especially if it is a bit old. Shakespeare is not easy, even for native speakers, but it's not bad writing. I think the main reason the examples given here are especially difficult for non-native speakers (and even for some native speakers) is that they require a vast store of cultural, social, historical and even linguistic references to grasp the intentions of the authors. This storehouse of knowledge comes with experience and, very importantly, university education. In the same vein, try reading a decision of any supreme court. Unless you're a lawyer, it will be very tough slogging. By the same token, any sort of very technical language is difficult for non-specialists. 4 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| Arekkusu Hexaglot Senior Member Canada bit.ly/qc_10_lec Joined 5382 days ago 3971 posts - 7747 votes Speaks: English, French*, GermanC1, Spanish, Japanese, Esperanto Studies: Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Estonian | Message 10 of 50 25 March 2011 at 5:00pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
Then it's not linguistic knowledge that's in question, but general knowledge. Certainly, it wouldn't be reasonable to expect a language test to measure that. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| Splog Diglot Senior Member Czech Republic anthonylauder.c Joined 5670 days ago 1062 posts - 3263 votes Speaks: English*, Czech Studies: Mandarin | Message 11 of 50 25 March 2011 at 5:08pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
It depends on what writing is for. If it is to get your message across to the reader, then the examples earlier in the thread were certainly "bad writing". They were written deliberately in a confusing way, which is a sign of a writer either not caring for their audience or desperate to appear intellectual. It is this type of bad writing style that puts me off the work of, say. Umerto Eco. A writer who cares for their audience, or is sufficiently confident in the actual content (rather than form) of their message adheres to Plain Language 5 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| Sprachprofi Nonaglot Senior Member Germany learnlangs.comRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 6471 days ago 2608 posts - 4866 votes Speaks: German*, English, French, Esperanto, Greek, Mandarin, Latin, Dutch, Italian Studies: Spanish, Arabic (Written), Swahili, Indonesian, Japanese, Modern Hebrew, Portuguese | Message 12 of 50 25 March 2011 at 5:17pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
LLF, explain this sentence to me by PM:
Explain, don't translate. It's not even the most difficult sentence. Arekkusu, it depends on the goal. If the goal is communicating information, then the clearer the better. However, satire (and literature in general) is not about communicating information, and I wouldn't call it unnecessarily difficult for its purpose. 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5431 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 13 of 50 25 March 2011 at 5:43pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
I actually agree to some extent with this assertion. The problem when testing at high levels is how do you separate testing for the pure ability to manipulate language structures from the ability to discuss certain topics in a complex and meaningful way. If you look at the CEFR definitions, they do not relate to specific language structures. They relate to the ability to do progressively complex tasks. There's a problem here. Couldn't one accomplish somewhat complex tasks without using advanced language structures? For example, could one speak French very well and not use the simple future tense nor the subjunctive at all? Sure. Does using the passé simple in a conversation indicate better linguistic performance? Maybe. Should we reduce language tests to pure manipulation of structures where we do not require any sort of cultural knowledge? It's certainly doable. The real difficulty is usually in the testing of oral comprehension or performance. Suppose the examiner asks you, "Do you think we should be using more renewable energy sources or more nuclear power plants?", how do you answer that? What is the examiner looking for? Basically, he or she is looking at how you are able to express opinions and thoughts, as compared somewhat to a native speaker, about a subject that is in the news. If you know no history, no geography, no economics, or nothing about how energy is produced, you're in serious trouble. You may know all the grammatical intricacies of the language and have nothing to say. 3 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| Juаn Senior Member Colombia Joined 5346 days ago 727 posts - 1830 votes Speaks: Spanish* | Message 14 of 50 25 March 2011 at 6:51pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
The above paragraph is perfectly transparent to me, but this kind of material is much harder to appreciate than it is to understand and should not be the standard by which language competence is measured. Literature such as this, which seeks to astound its audience by its deliberate bending of language for superficial effect does not represent the summit of a language - eloquence, elegance, precision, and most of all, substance, do. A full appreciation and comprehension of Dickens, Hugo or Goethe would constitute your D level. What is quoted here is but a tangent of questionable linguistic and literary worth, not the end of the road of learning a language. Regarding German, I'll consider myself at D level when I can read Hegel or Habermas with the same ease as I do Hume or Charles Taylor.
I'll have a crack at it, though knowing who or what is being discussed would help: It is said that the success of someone (feminine or plural?) perhaps from a low social condition, uneducated, or plainly dim-witted, is not an example of the arduously achieved supposed astonishing deeds or products of someone named Carmen Nebel, but rather the kindness of a simple soul or simple feelings. That is, that their redemption results not from extraordinary exertion but simple mercy, compassion or soulfulness. or, if the topic is more pedestrian: The success of this Carmen Nebel, probably some sort of punk, is due not to anything extravagant but to simpleness. Or, the success of an unnamed punk is not the product of Carmen's great surprises but ordinariness. This without looking at the article but going just by the sentence you provide. Context is key. Edited by Juаn on 25 March 2011 at 9:02pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| LLF Groupie United Kingdom Joined 5581 days ago 66 posts - 72 votes Speaks: English* | Message 15 of 50 25 March 2011 at 9:06pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
No, I can't make much sense of that (though I can guess a little). However, one need not have total understanding of a text to be able to understand the gist. So I think your challenge was a bit too vague to be entirely useful. Now, of course, tricky articles like this require a lot of cultural background, if they are to be fully understood, so although I personally agree that there is a huge expanse of language out beyond C2, I suspect it would be impossible to separate out the cultural knowledge from the linguistic, and it would be impossible to codify it into a formal D2 qualification. OK, my guess as to your challenge sentence above: Carmen Nebel is a Moderatorin who specialises in TV surprises (I guess, after a little googling), and the sentence says that the success of this form of music (Dumpfmucke) is not due to that kind of media exposure, but due to the fact that there are a lot of simple minded people who are happy to accept this kind of third rate rubbish. How did I do ? 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| Sprachprofi Nonaglot Senior Member Germany learnlangs.comRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 6471 days ago 2608 posts - 4866 votes Speaks: German*, English, French, Esperanto, Greek, Mandarin, Latin, Dutch, Italian Studies: Spanish, Arabic (Written), Swahili, Indonesian, Japanese, Modern Hebrew, Portuguese | Message 16 of 50 25 March 2011 at 9:09pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
|
I believe I said already that this text is not particularly brilliant. It does not
compare to great literature or philosophical treatises any more than it compares to a German contract. However, in exchange, you also don't need to have a university education or a special background in order to understand it; it's written for the average German native speaker to enjoy. That is what drew my attention to it: because it's easy enough for the general public but difficult for any non-natives. Goethe, Kant, legal texts etc. are difficult for native speakers and non-natives alike. Anyway, really digressing from the topic here. Does anyone know of similar texts in other languages? Jinx' first text qualifies, I think, unless the English native speakers in this forum say that it's as difficult for them... 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
