Definition:

Can-do statements are positively framed descriptions of communicative ability that specify what a language learner is capable of doing with the language at a particular proficiency level. They are expressed as first-person performance claims: “I can understand familiar words and very basic phrases concerning myself, my family, and immediate surroundings.” (CEFR A1, Listening). Can-do statements are the central operational instrument of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and are widely used in curriculum design, self-assessment, teacher assessment, and standardized test reporting. Their defining feature is a positive orientation — they describe abilities, not deficits.

In-Depth Explanation

Can-do statements operationalize the CEFR’s action-oriented approach: language proficiency is defined by what a learner can accomplish as a communicative agent, not by what grammatical structures they have mastered. The positive framing — “I can…” rather than “I cannot yet…” — is a deliberate design choice to emphasize growth. For Japanese learners, can-do frameworks appear directly through the Japan Foundation’s JF Standard, which maps Japanese-specific communicative tasks to CEFR levels, providing a more granular and culturally grounded alternative to JLPT level labels alone.

Origins in the CEFR

The CEFR (Council of Europe, 2001; revised 2018) organizes language proficiency into six levels (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2) and describes each level through hundreds of can-do statement descriptors across:

• Language activities: reception (listening, reading), production (spoken/written), interaction, mediation
• Domains: personal, public, educational, professional
• Strategies: planning, compensating, monitoring

The can-do formulation emerged from the action-oriented approach — the philosophical commitment that language proficiency is defined by what you can do as a social agent, not by abstract structural knowledge.

Structure of Can-Do Statements

Can-do statements follow the pattern:

“I can [action verb] + [task/context] + [specification/condition]”

Examples by level:

Using Can-Do Statements

Self-assessment: Learners rate themselves against can-do descriptors to build metacognitive awareness of their proficiency profile. The CEFR’s European Language Portfolio (ELP) formalizes this.

Teacher assessment / progress tracking: Teachers use can-do checklists to document learner progress over time — especially useful for recording speaking/interaction abilities that don’t reduce to test scores.

Curriculum and course design: Can-do statements serve as learning objectives — course designers specify which can-do levels are targeted by different levels of a curriculum sequence.

Test reporting: Many standardized tests map their scores to CEFR can-do levels:

• IELTS, TOEFL iBT, Cambridge exams all publish CEFR alignments
• This allows score recipients to understand what the score-holder can actually do with the language

Can-Do Statements in Japanese Language Learning

For learners of Japanese, can-do frameworks are applied in:

• JF Standard (The Japan Foundation): A customized version of CEFR for Japanese, published by the Japan Foundation, with can-do descriptors across CEFR levels for Japanese-specific contexts
• JLPT alignment: Although JLPT reports a level (N5–N1), the Japan Foundation maps JLPT levels to approximate CEFR/can-do levels
• CEFR-J: A refined CEFR adaptation for the Japanese EFL context, with additional sub-levels (A1.1, A1.2, A1.3) for beginner granularity

Criticisms and Limitations

• Granularity loss: Collapsing all proficiency features into a single can-do level obscures uneven profiles (a learner might be B2 in reading, A2 in speaking)
• Self-assessment reliability: Learners at lower proficiency levels often over-estimate ability (Dunning-Kruger); higher-level learners may under-estimate
• Cultural and context differences: Can-do statements developed for European languages don’t always transfer well to languages with very different pragmatic norms (Japanese politeness registers, Arabic diglossia)
• Performance vs. knowledge: Can-do statements describe observable performance; they don’t capture underlying competence development that hasn’t yet appeared in performance

History

• 1970s–1980s — Council of Europe functional specifications. The Council of Europe’s work on communicative language teaching produces notional-functional syllabuses and threshold level descriptors (van Ek, 1975), establishing the functional benchmark model behind the CEFR.
• 2001 — CEFR published. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages formalizes six levels (A1–C2) described entirely through can-do descriptors; rapidly adopted across European national curricula.
• Parallel — ACTFL can-do benchmarks. The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages develops parallel can-do benchmarks aligned to its own proficiency scale, extending the descriptor approach to North American language education.
• 2018 — CEFR Companion Volume. Extends the original can-do framework to include mediation descriptors, online interaction, and plurilingual competences.

Common Misconceptions

“Can-do statements describe what learners know.” Can-do statements describe communicative performance in context — what learners can do with language — not their underlying linguistic knowledge. A learner might meet a can-do criterion in familiar topic areas but fall short in unfamiliar ones, highlighting that can-do statements are contextual performance indicators rather than general competence claims.

“If a learner achieves the B2 can-do statements, they are B2 in all contexts.” Can-do performance is highly domain-sensitive. A learner may meet B2 descriptors in their professional domain but perform at B1 in casual conversation or formal academic writing. The CEFR acknowledges this with the concept of partial competences and domain-specific proficiency profiles.

Criticisms

• Descriptor vagueness: Terms like “can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters” require substantial interpretive work to apply consistently, producing significant inter-rater reliability challenges.
• Self-assessment bias: Learners at lower proficiency levels tend to over-estimate ability; higher-confidence learners may under-estimate. Accuracy of self-assessment using can-do statements varies considerably.
• Positive framing hides gaps: Can-do statements systematically obscure what learners cannot do, making them less useful for diagnostic purposes than deficit-aware frameworks.

Social Media Sentiment

Can-do statements appear in language learning communities primarily as goal-setting and level-benchmarking tools. Learners use CEFR can-do descriptors to self-assess and announce level milestones — “I think I’m B1 now because I can do X” is a common Reddit and YouTube community discussion pattern. Japanese language learners often use JLPT levels alongside CEFR can-do language, sometimes conflating them. Language teachers in online professional communities discuss the practical application of can-do frameworks for curriculum design and portfolio assessment, though the reliability critiques also appear in these discussions.

Last updated: 2026-04

Practical Application

Can-do statements are most useful for learners as goal-setting scaffolds and progress benchmarking tools. Identifying the specific can-do descriptors at the next level provides concrete learning targets more useful than abstract level labels. For teachers, can-do frameworks support backwards design: identifying what communicative tasks students should be able to perform by course end, then designing instruction to build that capability.

Related Terms

• CEFR
• Language Assessment
• Proficiency Test
• Formative Assessment
• Summative Assessment
• Communicative Competence

See Also

• Sakubo – Study Japanese

Research

• Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge University Press.
  Summary: The foundational document establishing the six CEFR levels through can-do descriptors; primary source for understanding the theoretical basis, level specifications, and scale development methodology underlying all can-do statement frameworks.
• Little, D. (2009). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Content, purpose, origin, reception and impact. Language Teaching, 42(3), 381–393.
  Summary: Reflective overview of the CEFR’s development and impact by one of its key developers; addresses both achievements of the can-do approach and critiques emerging from implementation in national curricula, testing, and self-assessment.
• Borghetti, C., & Lütge, C. (2017). Can-do statements as a teaching and learning tool in plurilingual settings. Language and Intercultural Communication, 17(2), 155–171.
  Summary: Examines can-do statement utility in multilingual educational contexts, addressing the gap between theoretical aspirations and practical application in diverse classroom and assessment settings.