key concepts in elt

Proficiency
Claudia Harsch

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/71/2/250/2447425 by guest on 19 November 2023

The notion of ‘proficiency’ is generally taken for granted in ELT. It is
widely assumed that proficiency is the goal of language learning and
teaching, as is suggested, for example, by the title of the Cambridge
‘Certificate of Proficiency in English’ (CPE), now known as ‘Cambridge
English: Proficiency’, with its history of over a hundred years (Weir,
Vidakovic, and Galaczi 2013). Another assumption is that levels of
proficiency can be identified, at least in broad terms, as implied by the
typical division of classes or coursebooks into ‘elementary’, ‘intermediate’
(lower and upper), and ‘advanced’ levels.
Thus, it is worth unpacking the notion of ‘proficiency’, due to the
fundamental role it plays in language teaching, learning, and assessment.
It is generally recognized that the concept of proficiency in a second or
foreign language comprises the aspects of being able to do something
with the language (‘knowing how’) as well as knowing about it (‘knowing
what’). Accordingly, language proficiency encompasses a language
learner’s or user’s communicative abilities, knowledge systems, and
skills (for example Canale 1983). One widely accepted definition states
that proficiency refers to ‘what someone can do/knows in relation to the
application of the subject in the real world’ (Council of Europe 2001: 183).
Serious thought began to be given to the concept of language proficiency
in the 1970s, when researchers were striving to conceptualize what it is that
is elicited in language tests and to make tests more ‘communicative’, that
is, related less to knowledge about and more to skills in ‘how to do things’
with language (cf. the overview in Harsch 2014). Their efforts were related
to the general development of successive models of communicative
competence (for example Hymes 1972; Canale and Swain 1981) and to
considerations with regard to capturing the nature of actual ‘language
performance’.
Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) influential conceptualization of language
proficiency built on the earlier work of Hymes (ibid.) and Canale and Swain
(ibid.). While the two earlier models described different aspects of what is
needed to communicate appropriately in a language, that is, sociolinguistic
and discourse competences besides linguistic knowledge (for example
grammar and vocabulary), Bachman and Palmer ‘s (ibid.) model is more

ELT Journal Volume 71/2 April 2017; doi:10.1093/elt/ccw067 250

© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
Advance Access publication September 19, 2016
comprehensive and better related to actual performance. It specifically
acknowledges the intertwinedness of pragmatic, textual, strategic, and
grammatical competences and their mutual dependence on context,
persons, and purpose. According to this conceptualization, proficiency
can be regarded as the purposeful and appropriate application of one’s
communicative competences.
In parallel with this line of relatively applied linguistic work, research was
being undertaken in the educational domain which resulted in another
way of conceptualizing proficiency, in terms of Basic Interpersonal
Communication Skills (BICS) versus Communicative Academic Language
Proficiency (CALP) (Cummins 1979). BICS are skills needed to interact
with other people in everyday situations, while CALP refers to academic

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/71/2/250/2447425 by guest on 19 November 2023

knowledge and skills acquired in formal schooling, thereby denoting a
kind of proficiency which is needed for academic tasks such as comparing,
contrasting, or evaluating.
In the 1980s, an important debate arose in the language testing
community regarding whether proficiency is unitary or divisible. The
debate was instigated by Oller’s (1979) claim that there is one unitary factor
underlying all language use, in other words that proficiency is indivisible
(as represented, in cruder terms, in the way coursebooks assume that
‘levels’ apply across all skills equally). This claim was refuted, for example
by Palmer and Bachmann (1981), who regarded proficiency as a divisible
concept, as something which could be broken down into smaller parts,
such as different skills (for example speaking or writing) and different
aspects of competence (for example pragmatic or linguistic competences).
The 1980s, then, saw the emergence of conceptualizations of proficiency
which acknowledged its complex, multifaceted nature (Oller 1983).
Nowadays, a relatively complex and multidimensional conceptualization
of language proficiency tends to underlie the teaching, learning, and
assessment of foreign languages, one which acknowledges that there
are different communicative skills, communicative strategies, and a
variety of linguistic competences (for example vocabulary, grammar,
socio-pragmatic). This complex conceptualization is represented in one
of the most influential frameworks for language teaching, learning, and
assessment, the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) for
Languages (Council of Europe op.cit.). The CEFR describes six ascending
levels of proficiency, replacing previous ‘elementary’, ‘intermediate’,
and ‘advanced’ labels with a set of letters and numbers (A1, A2, B1, B2,
C1, C2). Since its publication in 2001, the CEFR has strongly influenced
many foreign language classrooms, coursebooks, curricula, and tests, as
well as learners more directly by way of the European Language Portfolio.
One noteworthy aspect is that the CEFR describes proficiency on
different layers of specificity and abstractness. On the top layer, a general,
abstract overall perspective on proficiency is presented1 while successive
layers break proficiency down into levels of ever-increasing specificity,
thereby distinguishing oral and written forms of productive, interactive,
and receptive skills, and communicative strategies as well as linguistic
competences such as vocabulary, grammar, and orthography. Depending
on the focus of teaching, learning, or assessment, the proficiency

Proficiency 251
 model in the CEFR allows teachers to focus on different degrees of
specificity, ranging from diagnostic information on a very detailed level to
generalized information on a learner’s overall level of proficiency.
While the widespread use of the CEFR implies a relative degree of harmony
about how proficiency is currently conceived, the CEFR’s conceptualization
is not without critics. Hulstijn (2011a,b), for instance, critiques it for not
differentiating between what he calls Basic Language Cognition, referring
to aspects such as pronunciation and vocabulary needed for social
interaction, and Higher Language Cognition, referring to more academic
language usage such as summarizing texts or giving a presentation.
Hulstijn’s critique chimes with Cummins’ earlier work on BICS and CALP
(Cummins 1979, 2008). Hulstijn’s and Cummins’ conceptualizations have

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/71/2/250/2447425 by guest on 19 November 2023

in common that they can inform higher-order learning and teaching goals
in the ELT classroom. They show that proficiency is a concept which can
be viewed from different angles, even when there is such a dominant
conception of it as portrayed in the CEFR. Hence, ongoing research will
add to and continue to enhance our understanding of what proficiency
encompasses and how it can best be modelled.

Note Cummins, J. 2008. ‘BICS and CALP: empirical and

1 To give an example, the Global Scale B1 description
(Council of Europe op.cit.: 24) reads as follows: ‘Can
understand the main points of clear standard input
on familiar matters regularly encountered in work,
school, leisure, etc. Can deal with most situations
likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the
language is spoken. Can produce simple connected
text on topics which are familiar or of personal
interest. Can describe experiences and events,
dreams, hopes and ambitions and briefly give
reasons and explanations for opinions and plans’.
References
Bachman, L. F. and A. S. Palmer. 1996. Language
Testing in Practice: Designing and Developing Useful
Language Tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Canale, M. 1983. ‘On some dimensions of language
proficiency’ in J. Oller (ed.). Issues in Language Testing
Research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Canale, M. and M. Swain. 1981. ‘A theoretical
framework for communicative competence’ in
A. S. Palmer, P. Groot, and G. Trosper (eds.).
The Construct Validation of Tests of Communicative
Competence. Washington, DC: TESOL.
Council of Europe. 2001. A Common European
Framework of Reference for Language Learning and
Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. 1979. ‘Cognitive/academic language
proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum
age question and some other matters’. Working Papers
on Bilingualism 19: 121–9.
theoretical status of the distinction’ in B. Street
and N. Hornberger (eds.). Encyclopedia of Language
and Education. New York, NY: Springer Science +
Business Media LLC.
Harsch, C. 2014. ‘General language proficiency
revisited: current and future issues’. Language
Assessment Quarterly 11/2: 152–69.
Hulstijn, J. H. 2011a. ‘Language proficiency in native
and nonnative speakers: an agenda for research
and suggestions for second-language assessment’.
Language Assessment Quarterly 8/3: 229–49.
Hulstijn, J. H. 2011b. ‘Explanations of associations
between L1 and L2 literacy skills’ in M. S. Schmid and
W. Lowie (eds.). Modeling Bilingualism: From Structure
to Chaos. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hymes, D. 1972. ‘On communicative competence’
in J. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.). Sociolinguistics.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Oller, J. 1979. Language Tests at School: A Pragmatic
Approach. London: Longman.
Oller, J. 1983. ‘A consensus for the eighties?’ in
J. W. Oller (ed.). Issues in Language Testing Research.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Palmer, A. S. and L. F. Bachman. 1981. ‘Basic concerns
in test validation’ in J. C. Alderson and A. Hughes
(eds.). ELT Documents 111—Issues in Language Testing.
London: British Council.
Weir, C. J., I. Vidakovic, and E. Galaczi. 2013. Measured
Constructs: A History of the Constructs Underlying
Cambridge English Language (ESOL) Examinations
1913–2012. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

252 Claudia Harsch

The author
Claudia Harsch is a Professor at the University of
Bremen, specializing in language learning, teaching,
and assessment. She has worked in Germany and in
the United Kingdom and is active in teacher training
worldwide. Her research interests focus on areas
Proficiency
such as language assessment, educational evaluation
and measurement, intercultural communication,
and the implementation of the CEFR. Claudia is the
current President of the European Association of
Language Testing and Assessment.
Email: harsch@uni-bremen.de
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/71/2/250/2447425 by guest on 19 November 2023
253