How is DELF speaking marked: the scoring grid explained

What the DELF B2 speaking test is actually asking you to do

The production orale at B2 is not a conversation. It is a structured academic performance in two linked phases. First, you present a viewpoint based on a short trigger document, delivering a coherent argument of several minutes. Then the examiner challenges your position in an interactive debate.

What the section is measuring throughout is whether you can participate in formal discussion in French at a level appropriate to civic and professional life. That is what B2 means in the Common European Framework.

The format: 30 minutes of preparation time alone, then roughly 20 minutes in the room. The trigger document is short, typically one to three paragraphs of journalistic or opinion text. Your job is to extract a problem or debate from it and take a position on that debate.

The four marking criteria in plain language

The marking grid for B2 speaking covers four areas. Each feeds a different aspect of your score.

Criterion 1: presenting and defending a position

This criterion asks whether you can construct a coherent argument, support it with reasoning, and hold your position under challenge. It rewards a clear thesis, developed arguments (not just listed points), relevant examples, and the ability to reformulate when pressed.

A strong performance makes its position explicit early, organises the body around two or three supporting arguments each with development, and can respond to a counter-argument without abandoning the point. A weak performance states opinions without developing them or switches position entirely when the examiner pushes back.

Criterion 2: interaction with the examiner

This is specifically about the debate phase. Can you respond to questions precisely rather than deflecting? Can you ask for clarification when you need it? Do you maintain the register appropriate to a formal discussion?

Candidates sometimes treat the examiner's challenge as an obstacle rather than an opportunity. It is an opportunity: each challenge lets you demonstrate that you can nuance, concede a point without losing the argument, and develop a counter-point. These are exactly the behaviours this criterion rewards.

Criterion 3: range and accuracy of language

This criterion combines two things: the breadth of your lexical and grammatical repertoire, and how accurately you deploy it. At B2, the examiner wants to see vocabulary that goes beyond the everyday, correct use of a range of structures (relative clauses, subjunctive, conditional, passive), and discourse markers that show you are organising your speech rather than improvising.

The practical implication: do not play it safe. A candidate who limits themselves to simple structures to avoid errors receives a lower range score than one who attempts more complex language and makes occasional mistakes.

Criterion 4: pronunciation and fluency

This criterion covers two related things. Pronunciation: your speech should be consistently intelligible and show reasonably clear articulation, without requiring the listener to work to understand you. Fluency: the delivery should flow, with natural pausing at phrase boundaries rather than constant hesitation within phrases.

Heavy accents do not cost marks as long as the speech is clear. What does cost marks is fragmented delivery: long pauses mid-sentence, repeated reformulations of the same phrase, or audible hunting for vocabulary so frequently that it disrupts comprehension.

The examiner is not looking for a native speaker. They are looking for evidence of the four competencies. Prepare for each criterion, not just for "speaking French."

How a strong performance looks versus a weak one

Position construction (criterion 1)

Strong: "The document raises the question of urban mobility. I will argue that restricting private vehicles in city centres is both necessary and achievable, on three grounds: environmental impact, public health, and existing evidence from cities that have done it." The position is explicit, the structure is announced, and the grounds are named.

Weak: "I think cars are bad for cities. There are many reasons. First, pollution. Also, traffic is very bad. I agree with the document."

Debate phase (criterion 2)

Examiner: "But don't you think restricting cars would harm small businesses in the city centre?"

Strong response: "That concern is legitimate, and I would not dismiss it. The data from cities like Oslo suggests that pedestrianisation initially raised footfall in the affected areas rather than reducing it. I concede the transition period can be difficult, but the medium-term evidence supports the measure."

Weak response: "Yes, maybe. That is also a problem. Maybe it depends."

How to use the 30 minutes of preparation time

Most candidates underuse this time. They read the document, have a general sense of the topic, and then improvise. Improvisation at B2 produces A2 structure under pressure.

A productive 30-minute plan:

• Minutes 0 to 5. Read the document carefully twice. Identify the central issue, not the topic generally but the specific tension or question the text raises.
• Minutes 5 to 10. Decide your position. Write it in one sentence. Then write two or three arguments that support it, each in one sentence.
• Minutes 10 to 20. For each argument, write one concrete example or piece of reasoning that develops it. Also prepare the strongest counter-argument you can imagine so you are not caught off-guard.
• Minutes 20 to 28. Draft your opening sentence and your conclusion. These are the moments that carry disproportionate weight on first and last impression. Practise them once in your head.
• Minutes 28 to 30. Prepare a few connectors you will use: en premier lieu, de surcroit, cependant, néanmoins, en définitive. Having them ready prevents searching for them mid-sentence.

Common errors that cost marks

Not announcing the structure. French academic discourse conventions expect a plan. Starting with Je vais vous présenter trois arguments takes ten seconds and signals organisational competence.

Collapsing in the debate. When the examiner challenges you, many candidates agree immediately or produce vague hedging. A concession followed by a maintained position is more impressive than either capitulation or stubbornness: Certes, cet argument est recevable. Cependant, il faut noter que...

Speaking too fast to compensate for nerves. Speed is not fluency. Measured delivery with correct prosody scores higher than rushed delivery with consistent errors.

Using the same three connectors throughout. Mais, donc, aussi repeated six times signals a narrow range. Prepare variety.

Frequently asked questions

Does my accent matter?

Not significantly. Pronunciation is assessed on intelligibility and articulation, not on conformity to a particular regional standard. An intelligible non-native accent does not cost marks. What matters is that the examiner can follow you without effort.

Can I bring notes into the room?

Yes. Your preparation notes come with you. Use them as a framework to return to if you lose your thread, not as a script to read from. Reading from notes rather than speaking naturally is visible and affects your fluency score.

What happens if I disagree with the document's position?

Good. The point of the exercise is not to agree with the document but to take and defend a position. You can argue against the document, add nuance to it, or accept its premise and extend it. The criterion is whether you argue coherently, not whether you agree.

How long should my opening monologue be?

Aim for roughly five to seven minutes of structured presentation. Going much shorter leaves undeveloped arguments and suggests limited range. Going much longer may leave too little time for the examiner to probe effectively in the debate phase, which is also where criterion 2 is assessed.

Written by

Camille Fournier

Camille teaches French and coaches candidates through DELF preparation. She writes about exam technique: what each task is really marked on, and how to spend your time in the room.