CEFR Language description versus prescription

As discussed in section 3.5.2, attitudes to language may be expressed in prescriptive terms, where prescription entails value judgments related to correctness in language use. This view represents the position of public opinion (e.g. non-linguists). What has not yet been discussed is the role of description in language, which is typically the position taken by linguists who study language as a science. In this section, I briefly discuss description and prescription from a linguistic perspective, after which my aim is to examine the CEFR from these points of view in section 5.3.

From a linguistic perspective, language is studied through description, not prescription. All introductory textbooks on linguistics point out that linguistics is a descriptive science:

First, and most important, linguistics is descriptive, not prescriptive. A linguist is interested in what is said, not what he thinks ought to be said. He describes language in all its aspects, but does not prescribe rules of ‘correctness’.

(Aitchison 1978: 13) Consequently, the attitude of the linguist has little, if any, impact on the general public in terms of correct usage of language. Instead, authority is found in dictionaries, grammars, and similar reference books. The aim of linguists is to study language as objectively as possible. Modern linguists still agree that all forms of language are equal in principle.

Moreover, modern linguistics is based on a concept introduced by de Saussure (1915), the doctrine of arbitrariness. De Saussure realized that the linguistic forms that represent items in the real world do not necessarily have an inherent relationship to those referents. Thus, a term such as ‘cat’ in English is no better or worse way of referring to felines than equivalents in other languages. One can apply the same argument to grammatical systems. In short, if one wants to define a grammatical system with accurate descriptions, it would be difficult to form them based on value judgments of different languages and dialects. Hence, from the point of view of a linguist, it is not possible to show that one language or dialect is better than another based solely on linguistic grounds. In short, linguists do not participate in value judgments about language, whereas ordinary people (i.e. non-linguists) do.

Another concept perceived by De Saussure that is at the roots of modern linguistics is ‘langue’ (meaning language) and ‘parole’ (meaning speech). In de Saussure’s dichotomy, langue approximately means language system and parole language use. A similar distinction was introduced in Chomsky (1965) as competence (the underlying rules of language innate in native speakers) and performance (actual language use). In both systems, langue, competence represents an abstract language system. In practice, much linguistic research has focused on the abstract element, giving consideration to universal ability to acquire a complex language system as opposed to researching the value judgments of particular usages considered important by public opinion.

At the level of language system, it would be difficult to argue that one language or dialect is linguistically superior to another. Nevertheless, a popular belief held by non- linguists is that official languages or standard varieties are superior to other forms (Collins 1999). Some also believe that linguistic superiority is the reason why one language spreads at the expense of another. At the level of language system, there is no way to demonstrate such a claim. Such claims are socially or politically motivated. Hence, one of the tasks of the sociolinguist is to explain why linguistic differences that are arbitrary are assigned social values. A challenging task for sociolinguists is to explain why people continue to use a non-standard dialect or variety when they acknowledge that the standard is the only correct form.

In light of these two views to language, let us consider the CEFR. By nature, is it descriptive or prescriptive? The CEFR appears to be primarily descriptive in nature with its scales being organized around language function rather than language form. Furthermore, the Framework acknowledges that language is in a continuous state of evolution as it is regularly used to meet the varying needs of its users for communicative purposes. It further acknowledges that no user of any complex and diversified language ever completely masters it (Europe 2001: 109). This view reflects the situation as it actually is in the real world. In spite of this, many nation states have set a standard language – a prescribed form that never reached the level of exhaustive detail (ibid) or even agreement among various authorities on what is ‘correct’ language (Milroy and Milroy 1999). Moreover, the linguistic description followed the same model employed for the corpus in use for the dead classical languages, a model abandoned by most linguists since they support describing language in use as it exists as opposed to what some authority thinks it should be (ibid).

However, none of the alternatively proposed models ever became generally accepted. Even though much work has been completed on linguistic universals, it has not produced results that directly benefit language learning, teaching, and assessment. The majority of descriptive linguists tend to practice codifying language, where they relate form and meaning using terminology that differs from the traditional models of description. This approach is also adopted in the CEFR:

It attempts to identify and classify the main components of linguistic competence defined as knowledge of, and ability of use, the formal resources from which well- formed, meaningful messages may be assembled and formulated.

The scheme includes parameters and categories which may be useful in describing linguistic content and as a basis for reflection. Moreover, practitioners are free to use some other frame of reference if they wish. In that case, they need to specify the theory and practice which they are following. In this sense, the CEFR appears to free itself from prescriptivism. Although intended as a framework with the aim to provide a common frame of reference for an extensive range of contexts for language learning and assessment, closer examination of what the CEFR contains points toward prescriptivism (discussed in 3.5.2) and native-speakerism (discussed in 3.5.3) as the primary guiding principles upon which its ideological base resides.

With prescriptivism and native-speakerism at its roots, the CEFR can be viewed as a hierarchical scheme that treats language learning and assessment in decontextualized terms, where language is measured in relation to a set of predetermined and fixed norms. Close inspection of the Framework appears to imply that language assessment is largely depicted by a culture of 'correctness' as defined by NS norms, as illustrated in sections 5.3.2 and 5.3.3. The concerns here are with ‘NS normativity’ as related to NS language ideologies and with the prescriptive attitudes to language 'correctness', which largely pertain to standard language ideologies where prescriptive judgments about 'correct' and 'incorrect' use of language are imposed by those above, referred to as the language guardians or gatekeepers (cf. Milroy and Milroy 1999; Jenkins 2007). Such views relate to language standardization, which is based on the acceptability rules of NS written language. In this respect, a number of descriptors in assessment scales, such as those in the CEFR, may be counter-productive for assessing English as an international language (Seidlhofer 2003).