Once again, I have to deal with the old controversy of the CEFR levels. As we have seen in the classroom, there are institutions which clearly value good pronunciation, fluency and lack of mistakes over merits regarding lexical accuracy, semantic nuance and range of grammatical structures. Otherwise Cambridge University wouldn’t post so many videos showcasing precisely the same type of candidates: Central European teens with excellent accents, a decent degree of fluency even if they have rather limited resources in terms of grammar and vocabulary (by "limited" I mean "intermediate"). Technically, there’s nothing wrong with that. Fluency, pronunciation, consistency and ability to perform tasks are the very foundations upon which a learner may later on build a better vocabulary as well as a more diverse range of structures. They can justify a pass. Unfortunately, we at EOI, try to concoct a different kind of potion, as it were.
Let’s face it, most of our examinees tend to be speakers
whose pronunciation hardly includes any specifically English sounds. I am fully
aware that excellent enunciation is not a requirement to pass the exam but a
certain degree of intelligibility is, of course, necessary. Sadly, many candidates
don’t seem to care that they are not able to pronounce minimal pairs such as beer
and bear or beard and bird. Also they often focus on idioms and fixed
expressions and neglect the skills that would allow them to be truly fluent and sound natural (e.g. fillers,
vague phrases, etc.). So, what should you do?
In my opinion the right mix should consist of a certain level of
precision (which will allow a speaker to say sweatshop when needed), natural
combinations (collocations, lexical chunks), the kind of grammar range which
does not make your speech boring, a pronunciation that is always understandable
by speakers of other languages (not only Spaniards who are used to their own accent) and a good enough degree of fluency.
As for the "fancy stuff", I don’t believe that you need uncommon words
(nonplussed, educationalist, interlocutor). Also, you don’t need to plug idioms
into your speech just to show off. There are lots of grammatical structures (inversions,
subjunctives, etc.) that are unlikely to come up in a regular conversation. That
said, I believe that general impressions do matter, which is why I’ve decided
to share with you some dead giveaways that let an examiner realize that you are
an advanced speaker.
- You can hesitate or hedge whenever it’s necessary (you know, that kind of thing, the thing is…)
- You know the right word (surveillance, echo chamber, picturesque).
- You show range: i.e. you can choose among a number of expressions (it was hard to swallow, I couldn’t believe my eyes, I got the shock of my life)
- You use collocations (I tended my resignation)
- You can comment on your own statements/opinions (…which is unusual even by European standards)
- You can express how you feel about situations (I am utterly mortified, I have mixed feelings about this)
- You can speculate (she must have worked hard, I would have made a great dad)
I suggest you watch the video below in which David
Letterman interviews Daniel Tammet, a savant who, among other things, can recite
pi (3,14…) to 22,000 decimal places. In this clip you will see Daniel describe
himself and discuss his abilities. You will also find great material you can incorporate:
- Lexical chunks (I was recently diagnosed with Asperger’s, only a handful of people)
- Accurate words (lanky, wobbly)
- Technical terms (synesthesia, epilepsy, high-functioning form of autism)
- Collocations (commit to memory)
- Elegant expressions (I have established my ignorance on the topic; at the expense of social interaction; let’s dwell now on what this has left you with)
- Polite formulas (thank you, that’s very kind of you to say)
- Differences in pronunciation (note how Daniel pronounces Asperger's with the stress on the second syllable, whereas David Letterman places the stress on the first syllable)
