Introduction

Learning a language is one of the most enriching things a person can do — and also one of the most misunderstood. In an age of language apps, TikTok polyglots, and soundbite promises of “fluency in 30 days,” it’s easy to lose sight of the reality: becoming proficient in a second language takes time, consistency, and the right conditions. For learners in school systems like the UK, this journey is even more complex, shaped by external constraints and the inherent properties of the target language. So how long does it really take to learn a language? And why do some languages seem much harder than others?

This article draws on research from the Foreign Service Institute (FSI), CEFR, and classroom-based studies to explore what affects the pace of language acquisition. It also offers a grounded, realistic picture of what learners and teachers can expect — particularly in contexts where input is limited and achievement targets are set high.

What Does “Proficiency” Really Mean?

Proficiency, in the context of language learning, is not a vague sense of “being good at it.” It refers to a learner’s ability to understand and use the target language accurately and fluently across listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Most countries and education systems in Europe (including the UK) define proficiency using the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), which spans six levels:

CEFR Level	Description	Estimated Guided Learning Hours
A1	Beginner: basic everyday expressions	90–100
A2	Elementary: simple tasks, routine exchanges	180–200
B1	Intermediate: deal with familiar topics	350–400
B2	Upper Intermediate: interact with fluency	500–600
C1	Advanced: complex ideas, nuanced discourse	700–800
C2	Mastery: near-native precision and style	1,000+

According to Council of Europe (2001) guidelines and subsequent classroom-based research (North, 2014), these estimates are based on well-structured and consistent instruction. In practice, real-world learners — especially adolescents in school systems — often take significantly longer due to fragmented exposure, limited hours, and inconsistent practice. 

In theory, reaching B1 level proficiency requires approximately 350–400 guided learning hours (Council of Europe, 2001). However, in England, current constraints in curriculum time, coupled with recent reforms such as the reduced lexical scope of GCSE word lists (e.g. the 2024 MFL Subject Content), mean that learners have access to far fewer vocabulary items than would typically be required to support full B1-level interaction.

If we consider that most students receive around 2.5 hours per week over five years of Key Stage 3 and 4 (roughly 36 weeks per year), this only amounts to around 450 contact hours — and that’s an optimistic estimate that doesn’t account for absences, disruptions, or limited practice time. Even with full attendance, much of this time is spent revisiting basic content, rehearsing exam techniques, and teaching to the test.

Research by Graham et al. (2017) and Mitchell & Marsden (2019) shows that in the current climate, learners in England rarely exceed A2, and only a small subset achieve even partial B1 functionality by the end of GCSE.

One important lens researchers use to evaluate developing proficiency — especially in speaking and writing — is the CAF framework, which breaks performance down into Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency. Studies applying CAF (e.g., Housen, Kuiken & Vedder, 2012) have shown that genuine B1-level production requires a level of automaticity and flexibility rarely seen in GCSE learners, who are often trained in short, memorised chunks with limited scope for spontaneous, accurate, or complex output.

How Long Does It Typically Take?

The most widely cited estimates come from the Foreign Service Institute (FSI), which trained US diplomats in foreign languages and ranked languages into categories based on the average number of guided learning hours required to reach Professional Working Proficiency (B2–C1 on the CEFR scale) for English-speaking adults.

FSI Category	Language Examples	Hours to Proficiency
Category I – Easy	French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese	600–750 hours
Category II – Moderate	German, Swahili, Indonesian, Malay	750–900 hours
Category III – Difficult	Russian, Turkish, Polish, Romanian, Greek, Hindi	1,100 hours
Category IV – Very Difficult	Arabic, Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese, Korean	2,200+ hours

These figures are based on full-time, intensive study environments typical of diplomatic or military training — around 25 hours of instruction per week, plus self-study and immersion, over a period of several months to a few years. They reflect a scenario where language learning is the learner’s primary focus, and the teaching methods are structured, high-quality, and consistent.

In contrast, learners in school systems — like secondary students in the UK — operate under very different conditions. Time on task is far more limited, often fragmented, and diluted by competing curricular demands. As such, these FSI estimates should be interpreted as best-case scenarios rather than realistic expectations for the average school learner.

Moreover, the FSI’s classifications are based on distance from English and do not account for variables such as learner motivation, teaching quality, or access to authentic input — all of which have been shown to significantly influence rate of progress (Muñoz, 2014; Lightbown & Spada, 2013).

Taken together, the FSI framework is best viewed as a useful guideline for comparing relative difficulty, not absolute timelines. For most learners in non-immersive settings, the number of hours required to achieve the same levels of proficiency is likely to be significantly higher.

What Makes a Language Intrinsically Harder?

Not all languages are created equal in terms of learnability — especially for English speakers. Several linguistic and cognitive factors play a major role in determining how quickly a learner can internalise a new language system.

Orthographic Distance – How different is the writing system?

Languages like Mandarin, Arabic, and Japanese use writing systems that differ significantly from the Roman alphabet. Learning to decode and produce logographic characters (e.g. 汉字 in Chinese) or abjads (where vowels are omitted, as in Arabic) increases the cognitive load.

Phonological Complexity – How hard is it to pronounce and distinguish sounds?

Languages with a high number of phonemes, unfamiliar consonant clusters, or tonal variation can be harder to acquire. For instance, Mandarin Chinese has four lexical tones, meaning the pitch pattern of a syllable changes the word’s meaning. Meanwhile, Arabic includes sounds like the pharyngeal fricatives /ʕ/ and /ħ/ which don’t exist in English.

Morphological Complexity – How many forms do words take?

Highly inflected languages like Russian or Polish require learners to memorise numerous case endings, gender rules, and verb conjugations. This contrasts with relatively analytic languages like English or Mandarin, where word order plays a bigger role than word form.

Syntactic Distance – How different is the sentence structure from English?

Languages with subject-object-verb (SOV) word order, like Japanese and Korean, or those with flexible word order, pose difficulties for English speakers used to the relatively rigid subject-verb-object (SVO) pattern. Embedded clauses, topic-prominent constructions, and honorific systems further complicate the learner’s task.

Lexical Similarity – How much vocabulary is familiar?

Languages that share cognates with English (due to Latin or Germanic roots), like French or Spanish, offer a significant head start. In contrast, languages from different families — like Korean or Hungarian — offer few lexical connections and require learning thousands of entirely new word forms.

Environmental, Learner, Curriculum and Methodological Factors That Prolong the Process

Beyond the linguistic complexity of a given language, numerous external and internal factors significantly influence how long it takes to become proficient — often extending the process well beyond theoretical estimates.

Learning Environment

Many students in mainstream education are limited by the constraints of the school timetable. Language learning is typically allotted no more than two or three sessions a week, and even that is subject to cancellations, assessments in other subjects, or pastoral disruptions. Additionally, exposure to the language outside the classroom is often minimal, especially in predominantly monolingual environments like the UK, where daily encounters with the target language are rare.

Teaching Contact Time

Teaching contact time is arguably the most significant structural factor limiting progress in mainstream language classrooms. Research by Muñoz (2014) and Graham et al. (2017) shows that consistent, high-frequency exposure to the target language is essential for building automaticity and long-term retention. Yet in the UK, learners typically receive as little as two to three hours per week — far below the threshold required to consolidate grammar, expand vocabulary, and develop fluency. These limitations are compounded by frequent timetable interruptions, non-specialist teaching in earlier years, and limited opportunities for structured retrieval practice. In such low-input settings, progress is inherently slow and fragile unless significantly supplemented through immersion, digital exposure, or extracurricular reinforcement.

Learner Variables

Individual differences such as working memory, motivation, learning strategies, prior knowledge of other languages, and even learner beliefs about language learning (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011) play a significant role. Learners who are motivated, self-regulated, and have access to technology-enhanced tools progress more quickly than those with lower levels of engagement and confidence. However, most classroom learners remain largely dependent on the teacher and textbook.

Curriculum Design

In recent years, curriculum reforms have introduced more ambitious intentions (such as the MFL Pedagogy Review’s call for a ‘rich diet’ of language), but these often clash with restricted word lists, excessive focus on grammar manipulation, or high-stakes exam pressures. In practice, much teaching time is still devoted to exam rehearsal, leaving little room for meaningful communicative interaction or vocabulary expansion.

Methodology and Input

Finally, the method of delivery matters immensely. Approaches rooted in traditional PPP (presentation–practice–production) are less effective than those based on input-rich, communicative, or task-based instruction (Ellis, 2003). Learners need repeated exposure to comprehensible input, scaffolded output opportunities, and structured retrieval of key language forms. When methodology relies too heavily on isolated grammar exercises or rote translation, progression slows.

Teacher Expertise and Confidence

The skills and confidence of the teacher have a profound impact on the learner’s experience. Many secondary MFL teachers report gaps in their training — especially when it comes to spontaneous speaking, teaching phonics, and recycling vocabulary effectively (Tinsley & Doležal, 2018). When confidence is low, teachers may default to safer, less dynamic methods such as worksheets or rote grammar tasks, which limit opportunities for interaction and personalisation.

Assessment Systems and Accountability Pressures

The nature of assessment also plays a role. In the UK, GCSE and A-level exams remain heavily focused on discrete grammatical accuracy and tightly controlled writing tasks. This emphasis often narrows the scope of what is taught and assessed. As a result, authentic communication, fluency, and risk-taking — which are critical for long-term language development — are often deprioritised in favour of predictable exam outcomes.

Parental and Societal Attitudes

Finally, the broader social and cultural context cannot be ignored. In a largely monolingual society, languages are sometimes perceived as non-essential. Without strong parental support or visible social value attached to language learning, students may approach the subject with limited motivation. Research has shown that learner belief in the usefulness of the subject is a key predictor of sustained engagement (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011).

Summary Tables: Ranking Intrinsic and Extrinsic Factors

Intrinsic Linguistic Factors Affecting Learning Difficulty (Ranked by Impact)

Factor	Description	Relative Impact	Sources
Morphological complexity	Number of inflections, cases, and verb forms	High	Karlsson (2008); Odlin (1989)
Orthographic distance	Difference in writing systems and scripts	High	DeFrancis (1984)
Phonological complexity	Unfamiliar sounds, tones, and consonant clusters	High	Wong & Perrachione (2007)
Syntactic distance	Word order differences and sentence structure	Moderate–High	Odlin (1989)
Lexical similarity	Degree of shared vocabulary with English	Moderate	Nation (2001)

Extrinsic Learning Factors Affecting Attainment (Ranked by Impact)

Factor	Description	Relative Impact	Sources
Contact time and curriculum constraints	Limited instructional hours and fragmented delivery over the school year	High	Graham et al. (2017); Mitchell & Marsden (2019)
Methodology and input quality	Emphasis on grammar over meaningful interaction	High	Ellis (2003); Lightbown & Spada (2013)
Assessment pressure	Teaching to the test and focus on form over function	High	Tinsley & Doležal (2018); Mitchell et al. (2019)
Teacher expertise	Confidence and training in modern pedagogy	Moderate–High	Tinsley & Doležal (2018)
Learner motivation & autonomy	Individual differences in engagement and regulation	Moderate	Dörnyei & Ushioda (2011)
Exposure beyond the classroom	Access to authentic input and real-world communication opportunities	Moderate	Muñoz (2014)
Societal and parental support	Perceived value of language learning in wider cultural and family environment	Moderate	Dörnyei & Ushioda (2011)

Conclusion

Learning a language is not a sprint — it’s a marathon with detours, plateaus, and the occasional uphill struggle. Despite what catchy slogans and language apps suggest, becoming proficient in a second language takes time, practice, and above all, meaningful exposure. While frameworks like the CEFR and FSI provide useful benchmarks, they must be interpreted through the lens of the learner’s context — including how the language is taught, how often it’s used, and how strongly it’s valued both inside and outside the classroom.

The good news? Every hour spent meaningfully engaged with a language — whether reading, listening, speaking, or thinking — builds momentum. And while reaching fluency might take longer than hoped, especially in classroom settings with limited input, the benefits far outweigh the effort. Multilingual learners outperform their monolingual peers in metalinguistic awareness, memory, cultural knowledge, and even career opportunities. The journey might be long, but it is unquestionably worth it.

References

• Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge University Press.
• Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and Researching Motivation. Routledge.
• Ellis, R. (2003). Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford University Press.
• Graham, S., Courtney, L., & Tonkyn, A. (2017). Motivational challenges experienced by lower-level learners of French at Key Stage 4. The Language Learning Journal, 45(2), 228–243.
• Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. John Benjamins.
• Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How Languages are Learned (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Mitchell, R., Bryne, C., & Marsden, E. (2019). Foreign Language Learning: Research, Policy and Practice. Palgrave.
• Muñoz, C. (2014). Exploring young learners’ foreign language learning awareness. Language Awareness, 23(1-2), 24–40.
• Nation, P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge University Press.
• North, B. (2014). The development of a common framework scale of language proficiency. Peter Lang.
• Odlin, T. (1989). Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning. Cambridge University Press.
• Tinsley, T., & Doležal, N. (2018). Language Trends 2018: Language teaching in primary and secondary schools in England. British Council.