A Comparative Study Of Pragmatic Scales In CEFR,CLB And CSE

Language proficiency scale is a set of standards for assessing and grading people’s language ability.The well-established language proficiency scales include Interagency Language Roundtable Scale(ILR),American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages(ACTFL),Canadian Language Benchmarks(CLB),International Second Language Proficiency Ratings(ISLPR),Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:Learning,Teaching,Assessment(CEFR)and the recently issued China’s Standards of English Language Ability(CSE).CEFR and CLB are comparatively more influential around the world,while CSE is the first English proficiency scale for the Chinese English learners.Pragmatic scales are indispensable parts of CEFR,CLB and CSE.However,up to now,there are no comparative studies concerning pragmatic scales in CEFR,CLB and CSE.The present study,by means of literature study and comparison,aims to explore the pragmatic scales in CEFR,CLB and CSE,focusing on their terminologies,description dimensions and reference levels.This study may provide a clear,comprehensive,and deep insight into the nature of pragmatics and,the relationship of competence,knowledge,and ability.It will contribute to facilitating further academic dialogue among CEFR,CLB and CSE.The major findings of this study are as follows: Firstly,different pragmatic views are reflected in the terminologies of pragmatic scales in CEFR,CLB and CSE.A broad pragmatic view is reflected by the terminologies of pragmatic competence in CEFR for a large range of contents,the concepts of the action-approach and the learners as social agents,and a large range of factors required for the performance of pragmatic competence.A comprehensive pragmatic view is reflected by the terminologies of pragmatic knowledge in CLB for the static functional and sociolinguistic knowledge,and a large range of categories of meanings,intentions,and characteristics of settings.And a narrow pragmatic view is reflected by the terminologies of pragmatic ability in CSE for the intentions of language learners and users,and it is kind of isolated and narrow term as for its relation to language ability.Secondly,different understandings of the relationship among competence,knowledge and ability are reflected by different dimensions of pragmatic description for the pragmatic scales in CEFR,CLB and CSE.There are no clear distinctions among competence,knowledge and ability in CEFR and CLB,while there is some distinction among them in CSE.With regard to CSE,ability is an umbrella term for competence and knowledge lays the foundations for the comprehension and expression abilities.In addition,the manner of “Can Do” statement as descriptors is adopted in pragmatic scales in CEFR and CSE and the manner of “Verb + ” statement as descriptors is employed in pragmatic knowledge standards in CLB.Thirdly,different reference levels are designed for the pragmatic scales in CEFR,CLB and CSE.There are respectively six,twelve and nine levels in CEFR,CLB and CSE,and there are three stages for all the pragmatic scales with different highlighting points in CEFR,CLB and CSE,but no the reasons are provided.Although the reference levels in CEFR are established,there remains flexibility in the addition of some extra level in line with a particular situation.Meanwhile,the reference levels are all viewed as a continuum of language proficiency,providing significant references for learning,teaching and assessment.This study provides insightful implications for designing integrated English pragmatic instructions for China’s English language learners and users,focusing on the comprehension and expression of intentions,the relationship between knowledge,ability,and the criterion to judge its acceptability,and the whole continuum of nine levels in CSE.In addition,“Can Do”descriptors in pragmatic ability scales of CSE also benefit the English pragmatic activity designing across different levels of education.