Z. M. Bobur nomidagi andijon davlat universiteti chet tillar fakulteti ingliz tili va adabiyoti kafedrasi

Table 1
C2 - Has a very good command of a very broad lexical repertoire including idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms, shows awareness of connotative levels of meaning.
C1 - Has a good command of a broad lexical repertoire allowing gaps to be readily overcome with circumlocutions; little obvious searching for expressions or avoidance strategies. Good command of idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms.
B2 - Has a good range of vocabulary for matters connected to his or her field and most general topics. Can vary formulation to avoid repetition, but lexical gaps can still cause hesitation and circumlocution.
B1- Has a sufficient vocabulary to express him/herself with some circumlocutions on most topics pertinent to his/her everyday life such as family, hobbies and interests, work, travel and current events.
A2 -Has sufficient vocabulary to conduct routine, everyday transactions involving familiar situations and topics.
-Has a sufficient vocabulary for the expression of basic communicative needs.
- Has a sufficient vocabulary for coping with simple survival needs.
A1-Has a basic vocabulary repertoire of isolated words and phrases related to particular concrete situations.

Scores on vocabulary size measures and CEFR levels

The research literature contains several examples where vocabulary size estimates have been linked explicitly to the levels of the CEFR. Milton and Meara (2003) tested students taking and passing Cambridge exams at every level of the CEFR and estimated their vocabulary sizes using the XLex tests. These exams test all the 4 skills and vocabulary size is therefore linked to a learners’ level in the widest possible sense.
Milton and Alexiou (2009) used three different language versions of XLex and collected data from over 500 learners of English, Greek and French as second and foreign languages with a view to comparing the levels of vocabulary knowl­edge at each CEFR level. As broad a range of languages and learners as possible was sought and the authors drew on contacts from Vocabulary Research Group in order to collect the data from a variety of locations. The EFL learners in Hungary were drawn from 144 students in two schools in Szeged and the 88 EFL learners in Greece from a private language school in central Greece.
The learners of French in UK were 155 students at a comprehensive school in South Wales, and the learners of French in Spain were all 50 students of French at a Secondary school in northern Spain. The Greek learners of French were all 65 students of French at a private language school in central Greece. The learners of Greek as a second language comprised all 64 learners at a university centre in Thessaloniki. The CEFR levels were determined in this study by teachers who placed the learners being tested into streams for study at each of the CEFR lev­els. The mean scores and standard deviations collected from learners at each level are summarised in Table 6. The standard deviation scores are included to indicate the degree of overlap between the groups at each level.