Well, since I blogged the experience, I may as well give you all the follow-up.
Today we got the results of the Arabic language proficiency tests that we took two weeks ago, and I’m left wanting more. Since I wrote the post from my perspective as the terrorized victim of a Kafka-esque experiment, I may not have mentioned that I was doing this as a guinea pig for people training to be testers. Basically, what would happen is that the interviews were conducted with the group — instructors and students — watching, and then after each individual interview was done, there would be discussion about each interviewer’s technique, what was done right, what was done wrong, etc.
The reason I’m explaining this is that I got only a partial result. Since the aim of the interview is to test one’s language proficiency, they establish a “floor” — this is basically where they can stop screwing around with trying to establish your language aptitude with broad swaths and actually begin engaging you in real exercises. The idea is that they then move you up the scale, increasing the difficulty until communication breaks down — either the point where you just don’t know the vocabulary and grammar, or the point where you’re unable to respond. The highest point at which you can negotiate communication successfully is generally considered your ACTFL level (American Council on Teaching Foreign Languages, they’re the ones who came up with this in the first place).
The reason that I only got a partial score is that my tester established a floor, but didn’t escalate the level of difficulty to establish the upper end of my language ability. Hence, they can tell me that I’m no lower than “Advanced-Low,” but can’t tell me what my overall score actually is because the conversation remained at Advanced-Low for the remainder of the interview.
What this means:
Speakers at the Advanced-Low level are able to handle a variety of communicative tasks, although somewhat haltingly at times. They participate actively in most informal and a limited number of formal conversations on activities related to school, home, and leisure activities and, to a lesser degree, those related to events of work, current, public, and personal interest or individual relevance.
Advanced-Low speakers demonstrate the ability to narrate and describe in all major time frames (past, present and future) in paragraph length discourse, but control of aspect may be lacking at times.
They can handle appropriately the linguistic challenges presented by a complication or unexpected turn of events that occurs within the context of a routine situation or communicative task with which they are otherwise familiar, though at times their discourse may be minimal for the level and strained. Communicative strategies such as rephrasing and circumlocution may be employed in such instances.
In their narrations and descriptions, they combine and link sentences into connected discourse of paragraph length. When pressed for a fuller account, they tend to grope and rely on minimal discourse. Their utterances are typically not longer than a single paragraph. Structure of the dominant language is still evident in the use of false cognates, literal translations, or the oral paragraph structure of the speaker ’s own language rather than that of the target language.
Reading through the criteria, I would suspect that, were I to take the test again under optimal circumstances, I would come out at Advanced-Mid, which is the step above my “floor,” but it’s impossible to say for sure without actually taking the test, which I won’t do again until I recover from the last time …
And now I know!




