I mean, the grammar and vocabulary sections are supposed to suggest how much productive ability you have. Obviously that’s a massively flawed indicator, but just like the JLPT doesn’t test speaking or writing abilities – which are on the CEFR – directly, the CEFR doesn’t explicitly consider knowledge of grammar and vocabulary. Such knowledge is hard to map to the CEFR, but it’s not worthless either. You can’t disregard it entirely.
This I agree with though. I myself was quite miffed when I found out the N1 was only C1 at best. I do think that the final mapping will look more like this though:
JLPT |
CEFR |
N5 |
A1.1-A1 |
N4 |
A1-A2 |
N3 |
A2-B1 |
N2 |
B1-B2 |
N1 |
B2-C1 |
The exact CEFR level printed on the certificate will probably depend on the score, but I just think that to be fair, N3 isn’t that low of a level, even if we’re working on a ‘can do’ basis like the CEFR does. I really think that at N3, you’re able to understand most of common sentence structure, and that’s more than what happens at the A2 level in most languages. Given that fact, I think people shouldn’t be too discouraged, though your overall point (that the JLPT levels may not be as high on the CEFR scale as people hope) still stands.
On the other hand, maybe this might spark demand for better Japanese teaching and more advanced resources? I personally think that there are two big reasons why the JLPT can get away with a barely-C1-equivalent N1 level:
- Nobody knows what it really means and for a lot of foreign learners, the N1 is the Holy Grail of Japanese learning
- Most Japanese learning resources stop at the N2 level, and I only know of two textbooks that are at the N1 level
In other words, there are lots of misconceptions out there, and it’s additionally ridiculously hard to acquire ready-made study materials for the N1 level, which is just a strong B2/low-to-mid C1. In contrast, for many European languages, the highest level for courses is C1-C2, and textbooks are widely available even at that level. Perhaps if more people realise how far behind Japanese materials are, there will be a push for more publishers and authors to produce C1-C2 material. I’m being really idealistic here, but it would be great if this turned out to be a moment of reckoning for the Japanese learning and teaching community.
One last thought: honestly, while I’m not sure how self-learners feel about this (I learnt Japanese almost entirely on my own, but as a native Chinese and English speaker, I know I’m not a typical self-learner), I think a big part of why people would feel ‘let down’ upon seeing CEFR ratings for the JLPT is that they took a lot of time to get to whatever level they’re at. However, from my observations in a university Japanese classroom (knowing that most commercial Japanese language centres move at a similar pace), the real reason for this situation – at least, for people who aren’t self-learners – is that modern Japanese teaching atomises knowledge – no attempt is made to link related ‘grammar points’ or words – and moves at a snail’s pace in classrooms full of unresponsive students who expect to make good progress with just one class a week. I’m not indicting Japanese learners for being ‘lazy’ here; I’m saying that the way Japanese is taught is wrong, as is the mindset students are encouraged to have.
Do I intend to try to create an alternative? Yes. How long will it take me? I’m not sure, but the main difficulty is that I’ve come to realise that a lot of things – especially really dry, technical information about key language features – are better explained in person than in text, and should be mixed with more exciting activities. Anyhow, what I’m saying is that Japanese needs to be taught in a more participative, intuitive manner that allows students to see Japanese as a coherent whole and allows teachers to move much faster by confirming that students have understood (through their participation), instead of belabouring simple concepts and wasting valuable time. With that, learning Japanese will become much less cumbersome, and people will also be less disappointed with their results after a given period, since they will no longer be artificially encouraged to overestimate the amount of effort needed.