


































Education, Language and Sociology Research 

ISSN 2690-3644 (Print) ISSN 2690-3652 (Online) 

Vol. 3, No. 3, 2022 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr 

10 
 

Original Paper 

Towards a European Plurilingual Habitus? A Critical Analysis of 

the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) and its 

Symbolic Power 

Natalia Wright1* 

1 School of Education, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom 

*Natalia Wright. E-mail: 2466986w@student.gla.ac.uk 

 

Received: June 15, 2022          Accepted: July 9, 2022        Online Published: July 26, 2022 

doi:10.22158/elsr.v3n3p10           URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/elsr.v3n3p10 

 

Abstract 

The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment 

(CEFR), introduced by the Council of Europe (CoE) in 2001, is intended to function as an instrument for 

developing educational policy and practice. However, in reality, there is a mismatch between the 

Council’s mission to promote plurilingualism and the project’s underlying neoliberal logic to impose its 

monolingual perspectives in reference to language learning, teaching, and assessment. Despite 

containing a much valuable taxonomy for describing language proficiency, the CEFR has been globally 

used as a standardisation tool that aims to measure the language competence of immigrants, asylum 

seekers, and test-takers. In doing so, the Framework acts as a gatekeeping mechanism of inclusion or 

exclusion. Considering CEFR’s contradictory nature, the article seeks to explore its complexity and 

uncover its problematic character. Viewing the CEFR as an instrument of power, the author utilises 

Bourdieu’s notion of linguistic capital to examine who the policy disadvantages and whose ideological 

agenda it serves. 

Keywords 

language policy, English, CEFR, plurilingualism, language education, diversity, multilingualism 

 

1. Introduction 

The European language policy notion of plurilingualism can be understood through its documents as an 

important element in promoting a democratic European citizenry that recognises the diversity of speakers’ 

existing linguistic capital (Beacco & Byram, 2007). One such document, The Common European 

Framework of Reference: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR), developed by the Council of Europe 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 3, No. 3, 2022 

11 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

(CoE) in 2001 reflects the will of the European Union (EU) to address this issue and is the focus of this 

article. Intended as a framework, not a manual, CEFR is a powerful document that has imposed its 

parameters of language competences all over the world and defined standards for language teaching and 

learning. Furthermore, as will be argued in the analysis, the CEFR is a contradictory policy document. 

Its major contradiction is in the contrast between the plurilingual approach it advocates as a response to 

the increasing dominance of English in Europe and the monolingualism toward which its descriptors 

point. It is somewhat unsurprising that, in line with the European ethos to promote efficient 

communication among its nation states, English, the language of the Anglophone countries, would best 

serve that purpose. 

Following Shohamy’s (2006), stance on language as a ‘‘potent symbol of power” that is ‘‘embedded in 

political, ideological, social, and economic agendas” (p. 55), it is my intention to explore the complexity 

of CEFR’s initiation and formulation. The analysis will be done through the prism of neoliberalism, 

which places the knowledge of a language of a dominant nation as an essential life skill that will improve 

a nation’s position in the competing world economy. Bourdieu’s linguistic capital, as one of the forms of 

cultural capital, in particular, will also prove insightful in understanding the role of the language of a 

dominant nation in creating inequalities among different social groups. In essence, in line with Dryzek 

(2010), who defines critical policy analysis as ‘‘enlightenment of those suffering at the hands of power” 

(p. 191), I question the nature of CEFR by examining who the policy disadvantages and whose 

ideological agenda it serves.  

 

2. Policy Analysis Model 

Resembling Trowler (2003) who accentuates the complexity of interpreting policy, Phillipson (2003) also 

views the analysis of language policy as ‘‘messy”, thus recognising its multi-faceted and shifting nature. 

In this sense, a policy is not just a set of principles and actions, but “... a process, something which is 

dynamic rather than static” (Trowler, 2003, p. 96). Further to this, Ball’s (1994) definition of the policy 

best summarises its problematic character. According to him,  

Policy is both text and action, words and deeds, it is what is enacted as well as what is intended. 

Policies are always incomplete insofar as they relate to or map on to the ‘‘wild profusion” of 

local practice. (Ball, 1994, p. 10)  

With regard to language policy, due to insufficient attention paid to its implementation in practice (indeed, 

research in this area has been anecdotal so far), it is frequently seen as ‘‘mostly manifestations of 

intentions” (Shohamy, 2006, p. 45). 

The Basic Layered Model (Doherty, 2011), which combines elements of Considine’s (1994) and Bowe 

et al.’s (1992) analytical frameworks, will be used in my analysis. It best captures the complexity of the 

policy field in its initiation and formulation stages and their interconnected and co-influence. Following 

Page (as cited in Moran et al., 2010), who maintains that ‘‘policies come into being through being on an 

agenda” (p. 208), the initiation stage deals with the context of influence through a process of contestation 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 3, No. 3, 2022 

12 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

around meaning. The context of policy formulation is recognised as the ‘‘translation of policy objectives 

into instructions for action” (Hill, 2014, p. 204). It is an arena of struggle which includes an examination 

of the roles of those who do such work (Bowe et al., 1992). In other words, speaking in Hill’s (2014) 

terms, policy initiation/formulation partnership can be described as “where to go and how to get there” 

(p. 161).  

 

3. The Role of Languages and Language Policy in Europe 

In the past 30 years, European language policy has been under the influence of a number of factors, 

specifically the expansion of the EU with its increasing diversity and the movement of people across and 

into the EU, which generated the need for policies that would appropriately respond to the challenges of 

globalisation, mobility, employment, and economic growth. In these circumstances, the role of language 

would play a significant role in nation-building. The issue of language was approached in order to avoid 

ambiguity and the creeping dominance of one language over another.  

Language policy at the European level is shaped by two organisations, the Council of Europe and the 

European Union. The official language policy, which remains a responsibility of individual member-

states, as stated in the European Parliament Facts Sheet of the European Union, is the following: 

Languages are an integral part of the European identity and the most direct expression of culture. 

Languages not only play a key role in the everyday life of the European Union, but are also 

fundamental for respecting cultural and linguistic diversity in the EU. (Franke, 2017) 

To put it briefly, language policy in Europe focuses on three main areas: support of the minority languages, 

promotion of individual plurilingualism (mother tongue plus two), and multilingualism.  

Multilingualism, trumpeted through the EU mantra ‘Unity in diversity’, is intended as a foundation for 

achieving intercultural understanding. The principle ensures by giving equal status to each language in 

each Member State a better prestige and an appeal of it as a foreign language that could be studied. The 

EU Commission document “Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: An Action Plan 

2004-2006”, aimed at limiting the excessive emphasis on English in European education systems, reflects 

an ongoing concern about this issue: 

learning one lingua franca alone is not enough… English alone is not enough… In non-

anglophone countries recent trends to provide teaching in English may have unforeseen 

consequences on the vitality of the national language. (Commission of the European 

Communities, 2003, pp. 4-8) 

On the other hand, the EU’s increasing priority for economic growth from a neo-liberal perspective places 

a good command of foreign languages as “a key competence essential to make one’s way in the modern 

world and labour market” (CoE, 2011). Such a shift signals the move toward the common language, 

which only prioritises big hegemonic languages, such as English, French, and German. The need to 

enhance intercultural dialogue within Europe in the context of global competition assigned English as a 

“lingua economica” (Phillipson, 2003, p. 149) an instrumental role in achieving market-oriented purposes. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 3, No. 3, 2022 

13 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Seen in this fashion, multilingualism, as Kraus and Kazlauskait-Gürbüz (2014) assert, is considered “a 

challenge for creating an integrated market-cum-polity” (p. 517). 

 

4. The CEFR and the Notion of Plurilingualism 

The CEFR is a part of the process in which institutional Europe has grown from 10 founding members 

of the Council of Europe to the 47 member countries today. Published in 2001, the European Year of 

Languages, this document is intended to serve as a “comprehensive, transparent, and coherent” reference 

instrument that establishes canons for foreign language teaching and learning, language syllabi, 

curriculum, textbooks, and testing (CoE, 2001, p. 2) across Europe and beyond. Committed to advocating 

plurilingualism, it is an important document that frames language policy in Europe.  

The term plurilingualism coined by CEFR is defined by the Macmillan dictionary online as “the ability 

to use skills in a number of different languages for effective communication”. Ironically, a coherent 

definition of plurilingualism is not readily understandable or ‘user-friendly’ as the CEFR authors claim, 

at least not to an uninformed reader. Drawing attention to the difference between multilingualism, which 

is “the knowledge of a number of languages, or the co-existence of different languages in a given society” 

and plurilingualism, the authors explain: 

the plurilingual approach emphasises the fact that as an individual person’s experience of 

language in its cultural contexts expands, from the language of the home to that of society at 

large and then to the languages of other peoples (whether learnt at school or college, or by direct 

experience), he or she does not keep these languages and cultures in strictly separated mental 

compartments, but rather builds up a communicative competence to which all knowledge and 

experience of language contributes and in which languages interrelate and interact. (CEFR, 2001, 

p. 4) 

As follows from the above, the term allows for multiple interpretations. What is clear is that 

plurilingualism is perceived as rooted in a person’s mother tongue (Little, 2007, p. 651). The 

interdependence between the individual and the social dimension is also apparent; the learner as a ‘social 

agent’ activates his linguistic and non-linguistic potential to engage successfully in various contextual 

aspects. In reality, CEFR descriptors have relevance to second- and foreign-language learning and are 

based on a monolingual view which favours only standard language in use. Little (2006) notes that 

although the notion of plurilingualism is central to the Council of Europe, “neither the CEFR nor the ELP 

[English Language Portfolio] does full justice to the concept” (p. 187). 

Plurilingualism promoted by the Council of Europe has been subject to some stringent criticism by many 

authors (Fulcher, 2004; Krumm, 2007; Shohamy, 2001, 2006, 2007). They comment on the broad 

implementation of CEFR in the high-stakes examination of the level of language proficiency of 

immigrants, asylum seekers, and other test-takers. Used as a barrier to integration, the CEFR in Krumm’s 

terms (2007, p. 668) “neglects their [migrants] plurilingualism” contrary to the Council of Europe’s 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 3, No. 3, 2022 

14 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

promise to support it. A commonly held view among many scholars is that the document serves “the 

Council of Europe’s political, cultural and education agenda” (Little, 2006).  

A close look at how the policy came to existence might help uncover these hidden agendas. 

 

5. Policy Initiation. The Context of Influence 

A variety of historical, political, and social developments were instrumental in initiating language policy. 

The aftermath of World War II left the European economy in ruins. The only way to prevent another 

warfare was to unite. The mutual interest in coal and steel bound six countries (with the former enemies 

France and Germany among them) to create a common market in the 1950s. Furthermore, the difficult 

period of reconstruction revealed the advantages of creating a stronger entity that would ensure better 

immunity for Europe within the global economic terrain. With the accession of new member states, the 

Union became more culturally and linguistically diverse. As a result, language was gaining increasing 

prominence in intercultural dialogue.  

Developments in linguistics and sociolinguistics in the 1960s-1980s also influenced the reinforcement of 

the status of language in the nation-state in legitimising it as a significant identifier of collective groups. 

By including categories like ‘correct’ vs ‘incorrect’, grammatical’ vs. ‘non-grammatical’, ‘standard’ vs. 

‘non-standard’ with the most extreme categorisation of ‘native’ vs. ‘non-native’, linguists contributed to 

developing the view of language as a closed, limited system with fixed boundaries (similar to the view 

of the nation-state as a closed and finite society). Such paradigms, which were further enforced by 

standardisation, formalised certain language forms as acceptable and unacceptable. Since linguists were 

the ones who possessed knowledge about the language, they began prescribing how it should be used. 

The CEFR, written by linguists, is an obvious reflection and prescription of such normative views of the 

language. 

The 1970s and early 1980s were characterised by neoliberalism as a dominant economic doctrine that 

advocates minimal government, while at the same time insisting that strong states are necessary “for the 

operation of ostensibly free markets and to deal with the consequences of ‘market failure’” (Price, 2014, 

p. 569). The spread of neoliberalism was further accompanied by globalisation and technological 

revolution. Globalisation redefined the dominant role of the State in “settling education agendas” 

(Robertson, 2012), thus giving reign to other stakeholders. Language education policy among them has 

not been immune to global forces. It has responded to hegemonic neoliberal orientation by stressing the 

importance of the language of the dominant nation-states which set the trends in language teaching, 

learning, and assessment for years ahead. Languages were viewed as “commodities for general sale in 

the market” (Bori, 2001, p. 39), and the ability to communicate in a language was (and still is) an essential 

job skill. In a world which is increasingly dominated by Coca-Cola, CNN, Microsoft and other 

transnational corporations, the question of which language is seen as a promoter of a global culture leaves 

no doubt. English, as the lingua franca, the language of communication, became dominant in all spheres 

of life.  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 3, No. 3, 2022 

15 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Such supranational bodies as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the Organization for 

Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) played a highly active role in strengthening the 

corporate power and position of English across all continents. As the language of globalisation, it was 

firmly anchored in the neoliberal laissez-faire market forces and served as a vehicle to make people 

economically competitive. Acknowledging English as the language of globalisation, Pennycook (as cited 

in Ricento, 2000) contends that “it is the language in which the fate of most of the world’s citizens is 

decided, directly or indirectly” (p. 114). At the same time, the field of language education following 

similar neoliberal contours witnessed an ascendancy of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), 

which emphasises communication in real-life situations. Actively promulgated by the Council of Europe, 

it quickly became a global method associated with instrumental and economic goals of neoliberalism to 

make learners compliant with the market needs (Block, 2008). 

With the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, the EU continued its move toward the political and 

social integration of its Member States. The growing role of immigration and the labour movement also 

contributed to the complexity of the European linguistic mosaic and further strengthened Europe’s 

commitment to promoting and protecting multilingualism. The emergence of the nation-state necessitated 

the questions of the eligibility and belonging of different groups who shared the same territory (Shohamy, 

2006, p. 25). One way to guard the disappearing frontiers of the EU against unwanted groups was to 

introduce language tests as a gatekeeping mechanism for inclusion or exclusion.  

Thus, language as a key element in the establishment of the nation-state, previously viewed simply as a 

purely free communicative means of interaction, “began to be symbolised with power, ideology, 

nationalism, loyalty, patriotism and the drive for assimilation” (May, 2001, as cited in Shohamy, 2006, p. 

26).  

 

6. Bourdieu’s Theory of Linguistic Capital 

Inequities that are perpetuated through the English language hegemony and the use of standardised forms 

of language assessment can be better addressed through a Bourdieusian concept of capital and field. 

Echoing other critics, Bourdieu (1998) saw neoliberalism as a political programme, a unification of the 

economic field to the global scale. In the spirit of knowledge-based economies, his idea of economic 

capital is also firmly attached to material wealth. However, to broaden a narrow understanding of capital 

from a purely material sense, Bourdieu (1991) proposes two more types of capital, namely, cultural and 

social capitals, which, welded together with economic, hold the ultimate symbolic capital. 

According to him, cultural capital can be embodied (linguistic practices, knowledge, and skills embodied 

by an individual), objectified (cultural goods, texts, and material objects), or institutional (academic 

qualifications, awards, and credentials). He asserts that cultural capital is directly linked to material 

wealth. The author sees language as an element of cultural capital that can be traded within the labour 

market. In essence, it can serve as a long-term individual or social investment with high economic value. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 3, No. 3, 2022 

16 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

The value of English, as a supranational language, has been enhanced through multiple mechanisms and 

has resulted in making it the preferred linguistic capital in the context of global language markets.  

The concepts of field and habitus are also crucial in understanding Bourdieu’s (1990) approach to 

‘capital’. Habitus can be understood as “a set of dispositions that leads agents to act and react in certain 

ways” (Thompson, 1991, p. 12). Fields are places where individuals live and engage in social activities 

through which types of capital are distributed. Thus, the linguistic market needs to be understood as a 

field in which agents practice their habitus and through which they are able to gain social and economic 

capital. People’s positions in the field depend on the amount of capital they hold (Bourdieu, 1977). In 

other words, limited possession of the linguistic capital (proficiency in the official language) or lack 

thereof may restrict access to a host of opportunities taken for granted by those who profit from the “right 

kind” of capital (Blackledge, 2001). From this perspective, a state’s official language can be considered 

a linguistic capital that affords its owners symbolic power (Bourdieu, 1991, pp. 50-52). In contrast, local 

language varieties are of value only within their communities. 

 

7. Institutional and Non-institutional European Language Policy 

Further insight into the language used in the EU's institutions will exemplify my point. The right of the 

citizens of the European Union to communicate in one of the official languages is explicitly stated in The 

Treaty of Amsterdam states that in article 8d of the EC Treaty:  

Every citizen of the Union may write to any of the institutions or bodies referred to in this article 

or in Article 4 in one of the languages mentioned in Article 248 and have an answer in the same 

language. (EC Treaty, 1997) 

However, many aspects remain implicit and deeply embedded in the traditions and values of each country. 

In the present-day EU, however, the reality appears slightly complicated. The declared formal equality 

of the 24 official languages, institutional multilingualism, does not always seem to be respected. In reality, 

some languages enjoy greater currency than others. At the institutional level, the use of languages in 

bodies such as the Council, the Commission, the European Parliament, and the Court of Justice is limited 

to a handful of languages of its founding members, English, French, and German. The Council of Europe, 

with an advisory and advocacy role to its 47 Member States, communicates only in two languages, 

English and French. For historical reasons, the states whose languages are more important than others 

possess more symbolic power. The hierarchy among them, or in Phillipson’s (2003) language the 

“pecking order of states and languages” (p. 11), points to the shift from French to English as the primary 

working language in EU institutions, which is particularly visible since the accession of Britain into the 

Union in 1973 and the ascendancy of globalisation.  

At a non-institutional level (outside the EU between the Member States and their citizens), language 

policies are not subject to EU legislation. They remain the responsibility of national governments 

according to the principle of subsidiarity. With English, holding a hegemonic position by dominant 

countries, there was no need to promote it in the EU member states. Most non-English speaking nations 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 3, No. 3, 2022 

17 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

do not have a choice when it comes to deciding which language to learn. Indeed, such a decision could 

potentially result in a “commercial withdrawal from continental Europe” (Fulcher, 2004). On the other 

hand, the adoption of English as their first or additional foreign language entails obvious benefits for 

developing countries, which, as Lillis and Curry (2013) note, plays a role in determining who participates 

and benefits from the global knowledge economy (as cited in Erling & Seargeant, 2013, p. 3). Thus, the 

values associated with English become integrated into the local setting and imbued into a social, family, 

and individual habitus.  

From a Bourdieusian perspective, it can be assumed that within the European context dominant groups 

control the power to promise, protect, and preserve their own interest by granting or refusing membership 

premised on the possession of linguistic capital. It seems fairly clear from the above-mentioned points 

that English as a de facto language policy in Europe is a promoter of a monolingual ideology, which 

regards it as the only language with symbolic capital. Gret Haller, the Ombudsperson for Human Rights 

in Bosnia and Herzegovina commented poignantly at the Council of Europe conference in 1999 on 

Linguistic Diversity for Democratic Citizenship in Europe, “No-one pays attention to what you say unless 

you speak English, because English is the language of power” (as cited in Phillipson, 2003, p. 5). Against 

this backdrop, as Blackledge (2001) maintains, multilingualism in Europe can be seen as a problem, and 

monolingualism as an asset.  

 

8. Policy Formulation 

The CEFR, shaped by the Council of Europe’s moral, political, and social values, emerged as the result 

of 30 years of work on language teaching and learning. The European Cultural Convention, signed by 

the Member States at the end of 1954 can perhaps be a point of departure for the Council of Europe’s 

work in the domain of modern languages and cultural cooperation in Europe. Its aim, as defined by the 

documents, is as follows: 

to foster among the nationals of all members, and of such other European States as may accede 

thereto, the study of the languages, history and civilisation of the others and of the civilisation 

which is common to them all. (CoE, 1954) 

Three years later, the idea of a plan for the development of modern language teaching in Europe was 

initiated at the First Intergovernmental Conference on European cooperation in language teaching. The 

Council for Cultural Co-operation formed in 1962, was appointed to overlook educational and cultural 

matters.  

In 1961, France pioneered the first audiovisual course for adult learners of the French language with a 

greater emphasis on visual content, which represented a departure from the traditional grammar-

translation methodology. This influence is traceable in the CEFR’s Threshold level model in the 1970s. 

Notably, at that time the US interest in language learning and teaching was more concerned with national 

security needs, particularly after the launch of the first artificial satellite by the USSR followed by the 

first space mission. It was the time when American linguists developed and introduced an audiolingual 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 3, No. 3, 2022 

18 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

approach which was widely used by military personnel during World War II as the method which ensured 

fast and efficient language acquisition and which gradually seeped into Europe with the arrival of 

globalisation. Both methods were rejected in the 1970s by British linguists as they tended to ignore 

communicative competence (Hymes, 1972) needed for interaction between increasing numbers of adult 

migrants. Consequently, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) was born in the economic discourse 

of the capitalist system, promoting English as the lingua franca. It became central to CEFR’s action-

oriented approach, which views learners as “social agents” and “members of society who have tasks (not 

exclusively language-related) to accomplish in a given set of circumstances, in a specific environment 

and within a particular field of action” (CoE, 2001, p. 9).  

The idea of CEFR levels, as North (1996) states, “did not suddenly appear from nowhere” (p. 8). The 

expansion of multilingual Europe and the increasing vocational and education mobility at that time posed 

great difficulty in recognising qualifications. Hence, the level taxonomy would serve as internationally 

recognised standards based on which decisions would be made with regard to admission to universities, 

and awarding qualifications, thereby solving, as Trim (Cambridge English, 2011) puts it, “Council of 

Europe’s practical concerns”. As stated earlier in the article, linguists played a significant role in the 

development of language policy in Europe. The ‘guiding spirits’ behind the CEFR, funded by the Swiss 

government, were John Trim, who had been the director of the Council of Europe’s Modern Languages 

Project for almost 30 years, Jan Ate van Ek, Brian North, Professor Daniel Coste, and Mr Joseph Sheils. 

They were also engaged in other important projects carried out by the Council of Europe in the field of 

foreign language learning.  

One such project promulgating CLT was the Unit/Credit Scheme (1971-1977), with its set of principles 

that laid the foundation for CEFR. Among them are “languages for all”, “languages are learnt for use”, 

and “language learning is a life-long activity” (Trim, 2001). Other projects that followed, notably Project 

4 (1977-1981) and The Threshold Level (1975), first formulated for the English language, further 

promoted the principles of the unification of language teaching developed by the unit-credit group. The 

latter was translated into more than 20 languages and provided a perspective on how languages are still 

learned today. According to the authors, the document would prove useful for “people who want to 

prepare themselves to communicate socially with people from other countries” (van Ek &Trim, 1998, p. 

1). Seen this way, it would serve the Council of Europe’s purpose “to achieve greater unity among its 

members” (CoE, 2001, p. 2). The CLT method that encouraged the global use of English would be ideal 

for this goal, as a ‘gate opener’ or, as the authors eloquently state, “the key that may unlock the door” 

(van Ek & Trim, 1998, p. 1). 

It is noteworthy that Trim in his last interview before he died admitted that they [the authors] were 

sceptical about the use of levels in language in general. He also noted that the Threshold Level derived 

its name from the idea of a “crossing point” of language learning in the early stages (Smith & McLelland, 

2014, p. 20). At the same time, his French colleagues fearing that one level with only one learning 

objective might be perceived as the European standard for language learning produced Un Niveau-Seuil 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 3, No. 3, 2022 

19 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

(Coste et al., 1976), the French version of the Threshold model. Shortly after its success, the Threshold 

Level became formalised in educational institutions throughout Europe and soon was followed by a 

generous number of syllabi, textbooks, and tests. The Waystage Level (van Ek et al., 1980) was developed 

as a response to a criticism of the difficulty of the Threshold Level for beginners. A pre-Wastage level 

called Breakthrough was also developed by John Trim. The Vantage Level (van Ek & Trim, 2001) was 

conceived and emerged last, first for English in 1996, and later in 2001 for other languages. 

In the 1990s, the spread of the Council of Europe’s ideology in language teaching reached countries of 

the former Soviet bloc. By offering its vision on language policies in the form of consultancy, the Council 

of Europe inevitably transformed teachers' beliefs and attitudes about language teaching. The idea for the 

CEFR spawned at a symposium “Transparency and Coherence in Language Learning in Europe” held in 

Rüschlikon, Switzerland, in 1991 and took ten years to evolve. More than 1,000 copies of the First Draft 

were sent for feedback in 1995 and two versions of the Second Draft piloted in 1996 (CoE, 1996a, b) in 

English and French, received feedback from various experts. Over the next few years, the Waystage, 

Threshold, and Vantage levels were revised and in 2001 were fed into the final draft of the CEFR. Parallel 

to work on the CEFR, the Council of Europe commenced two more relevant projects, called Project 12: 

Language and Teaching Modern Languages for Communication (1982-1987) and Language Learning for 

European Citizenship (1990-1997) to aid national government reform in language teaching in secondary 

education. This period was marked by intensive work by teacher trainers sent out to disseminate a 

communicative language teaching methodology. Such an incentive seems very much in tune with the 

neoliberal one-size-fits-all standardised approach to language teaching.  

The 1980s and 1990s witnessed a degree of convergence of views on testing internationally, which 

brought many interested stakeholders together. Among them, to name just a few, are the non-

governmental organisation ALTE (The Association of Language Testers in Europe) funded by the 

University of Cambridge (UK) and the Universidad de Salamanca (Spain) in 1998 which were tasked 

with writing ‘can do’ statements for the Council of Europe’s Framework. This work ran in sync with the 

development of the CEFR. Today, ALTE is known for its role as a quality auditing system for English 

language examinations. Another organisation, the DIALANG project, created diagnostic tests in several 

European languages. It is hardly a coincidence that CEFR sparked the interest of such major examining 

bodies that enhanced its symbolic power, such as the British Council, the Goethe Institut, Instituto de 

Cervantes, and Cambridge University.  

 

9. The CEFR as an Instrument of Power. Final Thoughts 

It is beyond the scope of my article to elaborate on the implementation stage of this policy, but let me 

briefly mention its unambiguous and absolute reception by all stakeholders driven by the idea ‘for the 

greater good’. Could it be otherwise, when the positive wording of the document creates an illusory idea 

of non-imposition by using vocabulary like “non-prescriptive”, “transparent”, “open”, and “user-friendly” 

(CoE, 2011, pp. 7-8)? The same can be said about the ‘can do’ statements, which, in a similar reassuring 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 3, No. 3, 2022 

20 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

manner, describe ‘what learners can actually do in the foreign language’ (CoE, 2001, p. 244) instead of 

what they cannot. The overall language of the reasoning behind the document played a considerable role 

in ‘seducing’ governments to accept the CEFR to frame their language policies. Yet, the principal 

contradiction lies between the non-dogmatic spirit of the document (‘We have NOT set out to tell 

practitioners what to do or how to do’ CoE, 2001, p. xi) and a CoE’s appeal to the Member States to 

promote the use of the CEFR and to “ensure that the document is used in a valid way”. It also suggests 

that governments may wish “to establish, if required, the legislative and administrative framework for 

implementing the Recommendation” (CoE, 1998.) Such contradictory rhetoric does not seem to be 

ideologically innocent to me. 

While the CEFR added a valuable dimension to describing and measuring language levels, it has also 

attracted numerous critiques, especially in the last decade. It has been heavily attacked, particularly in 

recent years, for its atheoretical nature, its unsuitability for young learners, and the lack of empirical 

evidence to confirm the validity of scales and descriptors. Little (2016, p. 175) argues that the CEFR, 

based on the personal opinions of a small group of experts, specifies what learners should do but says 

nothing about how well they should do it. Furthermore, the scales assume native-like mastery of 

pronunciation, which “can be understood with some effort by native speakers used to dealing with 

speakers of his or her language group” (CoE, 2011, p.117), thus obliging non-native speakers of English 

to acquire the behavioural habits and linguistic forms of the hegemonic language. Other authors cast 

doubts on the nature of the document aligned with the market profit in language education (Littlejohn, 

2012). Other criticisms focus on the CEFR as an instrument of power. Fulcher (2004), for example, 

observes that the CEFR “is rapidly becoming the ‘system’”, “the truth against which all else must be 

measured” (p. 260). The author also sees the centralisation visualised by the CEFR as a contradiction 

against the notion of plurilingualism, which could mean “less diversity, and less choice”. Not created for 

migrants, CEFR and its standards are nevertheless used as a yardstick in measuring their competence, 

which, as Byrnes (2007) notes, is “a disregard of the origins of the CEFR” (p. 644). It is perceived as a 

norm, and a group possessing and controlling it is the one that, according to Bourdieu (1991), holds the 

largest linguistic capital and, therefore, has access to power through language.  

 

10. Conclusion 

The present analysis has sought to uncover the underlying ideological agendas of the Council of Europe 

and demonstrate how the CEFR as an instrument of power serves these agendas. Needless to say, this 

quest proved to be quite challenging. Indeed, as Shohamy (2001) observes, it is difficult “to tease out 

agendas out from a laudable desire to increase communication across the continent and reduce prejudice” 

(p. 263). It is, therefore, hoped that I have been able to shed light on issues central to European language 

policy, where the uncritical celebration of linguistic diversity, multilingualism, and plurilingualism seems 

questionable. It is also my hope that through Bourdieu’s (1991) notion of linguistic capital, one can be 

made aware of the hegemonic power of language and the benefits its knowledge entails for the privileged 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 3, No. 3, 2022 

21 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

groups. It has also become evident that the increased use of English within and outside the EU intimately 

tied to the globalised economic imperatives stands in stark opposition to the principles enshrined in EU 

language policy. The covert promotion of monolingualism by the Council of Europe goes against its 

claim in relation to the principles of plurilingualism and points to a monolingual habitus as the norm that 

the CEFR has so successfully legitimised over the years. In this narrative, the CEFR holds symbolic 

power with its normative nature as a mechanism for creating and perpetuating disparities between 

different social groups. 

Remarkably, years later, John Trim (Saville, 2005), in his reflections on the CEFR, lamented, “There will 

always be people who are trying to use it [the CEFR] as an instrument of power” (p. 282), and almost 

ten years later added, “... which they have done” (Smith & McLelland, 2014, p. 23). It appears that 

CEFR’s present far-reaching and non-negotiable authority only reaffirms his prophecy.  

 

References 

Beacco, J. C., & Byram, M. (2003). Guide for the development of language education policies in Europe: 

From linguistic diversity to plurilingual education. Main version. Language Policy Division. 

Strasbourg: Council of Europe. 

Beacco, J.-C., & Byram, M. (2007). From linguistic diversity to plurilingual education: Guide for the 

development of language education policies in Europe. Main version. Strasbourg: Council of 

Europe. 

Ball, S. J. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Buckingham: Open 

University Press. 

Blackledge, A. (2001). The wrong sort of capital? Bangladeshi women and their children’s schooling in 

Birmingham, UK. International Journal of Bilingualism, 5(3), 345-369. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069010050030501 

Block, D. (2008). Language education and globalisation. In S. May & N. Hornberger (Eds.) Encyclopedia 

of Language and Education (pp. 31-43), 2nd ed., Vol. 1: Language policy and political issues in 

education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science + Business Media. 

Bori, P. (2018). Language textbooks in the era of neoliberalism. Milton: Taylor and Francis. 

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315405544 

Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 14-25. 

https://doi.org/10.2307/202060 

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 

Bourdieu, P. (1998). Utopia of endless exploitation: The essence of neoliberalism. December. 

http://mondediplo.com/1998/12/08bourdieu 

Bowe, R., Gold, A., & Ball, S. J. (1992). Reforming education and changing schools: Case studies in 

policy sociology. London: Routledge. 

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315405544


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 3, No. 3, 2022 

22 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Byrnes, H. (2007). Developing national language education policies: Reflections on the CEFR. The 

Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 679-685. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00627_10.x 

Cambridge English. (2011, November 24). The origin of the CEFR [YouTube channel]. Retrieved July 

21, 2022 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSJNGHDK6lM 

Commission of the European Communities. (2003). Promoting language learning and linguistic 

diversity: An action plan 2004–2006. Brussels: European Commission.  

Considine, M. (1994). Public policy: A critical approach. South Melbourne: Macmillan Education. 

Coste, D., Courtillon, J., Ferenczi, V., Martins-Baltar, M., & Papo, E. (1976). Un Niveau- seuil. Paris: 

Hatier. 

Council of Europe. (1954). European Cultural Convention, Paris, 19.XII.1954. European Treaty Series 

- No.18. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. 

Council of Europe. (1996). Modern languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. A common European 

framework of reference. Draft 2 of a framework proposal. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. 

Council of Europe. (1998). Recommendation no. R(98)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member States 

concerning modern languages. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. 

Council of Europe. (2001). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, 

teaching and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Council of Europe. (2011). Council conclusions on language competences to enhance mobility. 

Strasbourg: Council of Europe. 

Doherty, R. A. (2011). New Labour: governmentality, social exclusion and education policy [PhD Thesis, 

Glasgow University]. Glasgow. Retrieved July 21, 2022, from 

http://theses.gla.ac.uk/2667/1/2010dohertyphd.pdf  

Dryzek, J. (2010). Policy analysis as critique. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford 

handbook of public policy (pp. 189-203). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Erling, E. J., & Seargeant, P. (2013). English and development: Policy, pedagogy and globalisation. 

Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847699473 

Franke, M. (2017). Fact sheets on the European Union: Language policy. Retrieved July 18, 2022, from 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/142/language-policy  

Fulcher, G. (2004). Deluded by artifices? The Common European Framework and harmonisation. 

Language Assessment Quarterly, 1(4), 253-266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15434311laq0104_4 

Hill, M. (2014). The public policy process (6th ed.). London: Routledge. 

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315832937 

Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics 

(pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth: Penguin. 

Kraus, P. A., & Kazlauskaitė-Gürbüz, R. (2014). Addressing linguistic diversity in the European Union: 

Strategies and dilemmas. Ethnicities, 14(4), 517-538. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468796814528693 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00627_10.x
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847699473
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315832937


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 3, No. 3, 2022 

23 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Krumm, H. (2007). Profiles instead of levels: The CEFR and its (ab)uses in the context of migration. The 

Modern Language Journal (Boulder, Colo.), 91(4), 667-669. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-

4781.2007.00627_6.x 

Little, D. (2006). The common European Framework of Reference for languages: Content, purpose, 

origin, reception and impact. Language Teaching, 39(3), 167-190. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0261444806003557 

Little, D. (2007). The common European Framework of Reference for languages: Perspectives on the 

making of supranational language education policies. Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 645-655. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00627_2.x 

Littlejohn, A. (2012). Language teaching materials and the (very) big picture. Electronic Journal of 

Foreign Language Teaching, 9(1), 283-97.  

Macmillan dictionary. (n.d.). Plurilingualism. In Macmillandictionary.com dictionary. Retrieved July 18, 

2022, from https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/plurilingualism 

May, S. (2001). Language and minority rights. London: Pearson Longman. 

Moran, M., Rein, M., & Goodin, R. E. (2010). The Oxford handbook of public policy. Oxford: Oxford 

University Press. 

North, B. (2006). The Common European Framework of Reference: Development, Theoretical and 

Practical Issues, paper presented at the symposium A New Direction in Foreign Language 

Education: The Potential of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Osaka 

University of Foreign Studies: Japan. 

Phillipson, R. (2003). English-only Europe?: Challenging language policy. London: Routledge. 

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203696989 

Price, G. (2014). English for all? Neoliberalism, globalization, and language policy in Taiwan. Language 

in Society, 43(5), 567-589. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404514000566 

Ricento, T. (2000). Ideology, politics, and language policies: Focus on English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 

https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.6 

Robertson, S. (2012). Placing teachers in global governance agendas. Comparative Education Review, 

56(4), 584-607. https://doi.org/10.1086/667414 

Saville, N. (2005). An Interview with John Trim at 80. Language Assessment Quarterly, 2(4), 263-288. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15434311laq0204_2 

Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests. Harlow, 

England: Longman. 

Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. Routledge. 

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203387962 

Shohamy, E. (2007). The Power of language tests, the power of the English language and the role of ELT. 

In J. Cummins, & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00627_2.x
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203696989
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404514000566
https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.6
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203387962


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 3, No. 3, 2022 

24 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

521-531). Springer International Handbooks of Education, vol 15. Springer: Boston, MA. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_37 

Smith, R., & McLelland, N. (2014). An interview with John Trim (1924-2013) on the history of modern 

language learning and teaching. Language & History, 57(1), 10-25. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/1759753614z.00000000029 

Thompson, J. (1992). Editor’s introduction. In Pierre Bourdieu, Language and Symbolic Power. 

Cambridge: Polity Press.  

Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the treaties establishing the European 

Communities and certain related acts. (1997). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the 

European Communities. Retrieved July 10, 2022, from https://europa.eu/european-

union/sites/europaeu/files/docs/body/treaty_of_amsterdam_en.pdf 

Trim, J. (Ed.). (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, 

assessment: A guide for users. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe, Language Policy Division. 

Trim, J. (2007). Background to the Threshold series. Presentation to the English Profile Seminar. 

Cambridge.  

Trowler, P. (2003). Education policy (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. 

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203417850 

Van Ek, J. (1975). The threshold level. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. 

Van Ek, J. A., Alexander, L. G., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1980). Waystage English. Oxford: Pergamon. 

Van Ek, J. A., & Trim, J. L. M. (1998). Threshold 1990. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667176 

Van Ek, J., & Trim, J. (2001). Vantage. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe / Cambridge University 

Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667114 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_37
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203417850
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667176
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667114

