Introduction

Not all grammar is created equal—especially in a second language. Some structures are quickly picked up by learners and used fluently in no time. Others seem to sit on the syllabus for years without ever quite sticking—confusing learners, stalling fluency, and clogging up precious curriculum time.

This article is motivated by an imminent workshop I will be delivering on curriculum design, where I’ll be examining how the sequencing of grammar content can either support or sabotage learnability. I wanted to create a resource that doesn’t just critique what’s wrong with many existing syllabi, but offers a concrete, research-informed way forward.

What follows is a ranked comparison of grammatical structures in French, German, Spanish, and Italian, focusing specifically on how easy or hard they are for English-speaking learners to acquire. Based on decades of classroom experience, psycholinguistic insights, and cognitive load principles, these rankings aim to provide teachers and curriculum designers with a practical tool for smarter sequencing, more efficient retrieval practice, and more learner-sensitive instruction.

Why Rank Grammar Structures?

There are three strong reasons why this matters:

1. Not all structures are equally learnable. Some map neatly onto English equivalents and are high-frequency in the input. Others are morphologically opaque, cognitively demanding, or structurally alien.
2. Most textbooks get the order wrong. They often follow grammatical logic (e.g. “start with the present tense, then do the perfect”) rather than processing logic (e.g. “start with what’s easy to acquire”).
3. Knowing the difficulty allows for better scaffolding. You can frontload easier forms, spiral in trickier ones slowly, and revisit the hardest repeatedly, in low-stakes, high-frequency formats.

French Grammar Structure Ranking (Easiest to Hardest)

Structure	Example	Ease	Rationale
Subject Pronouns	Je, tu, il/elle	Very Easy	Frequent, maps well onto English, used early
Articles	le, la, un, une	Easy	Similar to English but with gender nuance
Regular -ER Verbs	parler → je parle	Easy	Highly regular and frequent
Adjective-Noun Agreement	un livre intéressant	Moderate	Agreement and position differ from English
Noun Gender	le fromage vs la salade	Moderate	Must be memorised; not intuitive
Prepositions	sur, sous, dans	Moderate	Not always 1:1 with English
Negation	Je ne sais pas	Moderate	Word order differs; ‘ne’ often dropped
Reflexives	Je me lève	Tricky	Less used in English; pronoun placement is hard
Passé Composé (avoir)	J’ai mangé	Tricky	Different from English past system
Question Inversion	Parlez-vous…?	Tricky	Structure is alien to English speakers
Passé Composé (être)	Elle est allée	Hard	Agreement and verb selection issues
Object Pronouns	Je le vois / Je lui parle	Hard	Placement and type confusing
Relative Pronouns	que, qui, dont	Hard	Syntax is different and abstract
Subjunctive	Il faut que tu viennes	Very Hard	No English equivalent; low frequency
Imperfect vs PC	Je faisais vs J’ai fait	Very Hard	Requires abstract understanding of aspect
Y / En	J’en veux	Very Hard	No English equivalent; opaque usage

German Grammar Structure Ranking (Easiest to Hardest)

Structure	Example	Ease	Rationale
Subject Pronouns	ich, du, er/sie/es	Very Easy	Similar to English
Regular Verb Conjugation	spielen → ich spiele	Easy	Predictable and frequent
Noun Capitalisation	der Hund	Easy	Visual aid but conceptually irrelevant
Def./Indef. Articles	der, die, das / ein, eine	Moderate	Gender + case make it harder
Verb-second Rule	Ich spiele Fussball	Moderate	New to English speakers but logical
Modal Verbs	kann, darf, muss	Moderate	Exist in English but word order adds complexity
Gender of Nouns	der Tisch vs die Lampe	Moderate	Needs memorisation, not rule-governed
Separable Verbs	aufstehen → Ich stehe auf	Tricky	Verb splitting causes comprehension issues
Perfect Tense	Ich habe gegessen	Tricky	Similar to French PC; auxiliary choice critical
Cases (Nom/Acc)	der Mann / den Mann	Hard	Requires awareness of function in sentence
Relative Clauses	Der Mann, der…	Hard	Syntax and agreement are difficult
Subordinate Word Order	…, weil ich müde bin	Hard	Verb-final structure is alien
Dative Case	dem Mann	Very Hard	Concept and forms unfamiliar
Subjunctive II	Ich hätte gern	Very Hard	Low frequency; unfamiliar structure
Genitive Case	des Mannes	Very Hard	Rare, formal, complex endings

Spanish Grammar Structure Ranking (Easiest to Hardest)

Structure	Example	Ease	Rationale
Subject Pronouns	yo, tú, él/ella	Very Easy	Directly map to English
Articles	el, la, un, una	Easy	Minor gender complexity
Present Tense -AR Verbs	hablar → hablo	Easy	Highly regular and frequent
Gender of Nouns	el libro / la casa	Moderate	Must be memorised; fewer exceptions than French
Adj.-Noun Agreement	una chica inteligente	Moderate	Like French; post-noun placement is new
Questions (no inversion)	¿Hablas tú español?	Moderate	No inversion; punctuation new
Future Tense	hablaré	Moderate	Easy to form; regular but new endings
Reflexives	me levanto	Tricky	Word order and pronoun use are tricky
Personal ‘a’	Veo a Juan	Tricky	Not present in English
Preterite Tense	hablé	Hard	Many irregulars; aspect differs from English
Imperfect Tense	hablaba	Hard	Subtle use rules
Dir./Indir. Object Pronouns	lo/la, le	Hard	Order and meaning are confusing
Ser vs Estar	es / está	Very Hard	Conceptually difficult; no English equivalent
Subjunctive Mood	Espero que vengas	Very Hard	Abstract; no equivalent in English
Gustar-type Verbs	Me gusta	Very Hard	Syntax reversed from English; abstract

Italian Grammar Structure Ranking (Easiest to Hardest)

Structure	Example	Ease	Rationale
Subject Pronouns	io, tu, lui/lei	Very Easy	Same as English
Articles	il, la, un, una	Easy	Very transparent
Present Tense -ARE Verbs	parlare → parlo	Easy	Highly regular
Questions	Parli italiano?	Easy	No inversion; similar to Spanish
Noun Gender	il libro / la casa	Moderate	Binary gender system is regular
Adjective-Noun Agreement	una macchina rossa	Moderate	Like French/Spanish
Past Tense (PP)	ho parlato	Moderate	Similar to French PC
Future Tense	parlerò	Moderate	Formed easily but used less often
Reflexive Verbs	mi sveglio	Tricky	Similar difficulty as other Romance langs
Prep. with Articles	del, nel, al	Hard	Contracted forms are hard to memorise
Essere vs Avere	è andato / ha parlato	Hard	Verb type memorisation needed
Direct/Indirect Pronouns	lo/la, gli/le	Hard	Order and clitics confusing
Imperfetto vs Passato P.	parlavo vs ho parlato	Very Hard	Requires deep conceptual clarity
Subjunctive	Penso che sia…	Very Hard	Abstract, formal, late acquired
Piacere-like Verbs	Mi piace	Very Hard	Reverse logic compared to English

How Were the Rankings Created? Criteria Explained

These rankings were developed using a synthesis of cognitive and linguistic factors. The key criteria include:

1. Morphological Transparency – Regular forms are easier than irregular or fused ones
2. Cognitive Load – Multi-step structures overload working memory
3. Cross-linguistic Similarity – Closer structures to English are easier
4. Input Frequency and Salience – The more frequent and noticeable, the easier
5. Syntactic Complexity – Clauses, inversion, and clitics raise difficulty
6. Communicative Utility – Useful structures are prioritised naturally by learners
7. Learnability as Chunks – Lexicalised chunks enable earlier acquisition

Curriculum Design Implications

1. Frontloading highly learnable structures
Begin with grammatical items that are high in communicative value, morphologically regular, and frequently encountered in input. These include subject pronouns, regular present tense verbs, and basic prepositions—forms that map well onto English and require minimal cognitive effort. Introducing such structures first allows learners to experience early success, build confidence, and lay the foundation for fluency before more taxing constructions are introduced.

2. Delaying morphosyntactically complex structures
Complex structures—such as object pronouns, agreement systems, and multi-clause constructions—often require learners to process several elements simultaneously. When these are introduced too early, especially before simpler elements are automatised, they can overload working memory and lead to fossilisation or avoidance. By delaying these until learners have proceduralised foundational grammar, we reduce overload and increase accuracy.

3.Teaching difficult forms as lexicalised chunks first
Research has shown that learners often acquire formulaic expressions before internalising grammatical rules (Wray, 2002). Therefore, difficult grammar should initially be taught through high-frequency chunks (e.g., il faut que tu viennes, me gusta, je le vois) that carry meaning and communicative value. Once familiarity and fluency with these chunks are established, explicit instruction can follow to unpack and generalise the underlying rules.

4. Spiralling, not linearity
Language acquisition is not linear. Structures need to be revisited repeatedly, each time in richer contexts and with slightly increased complexity. For example, adjective agreement might be taught early with colours, then revisited with more abstract adjectives, then recontextualised in past tense narratives. This spiralling approach facilitates depth of understanding and long-term retention by strengthening memory traces over time.

5. Grammar in context, not isolation
Grammar taught through disconnected rules and worksheets is unlikely to transfer to spontaneous use. Instead, instruction should embed grammar within meaningful, communicative tasks—stories, dialogues, songs, video clips, reading passages—where the forms are used naturally. This contextualisation improves noticing, supports comprehension, and makes grammar feel purposeful rather than abstract.

6. Using ease rankings for prioritised retrieval
Retrieval practice is essential for retention, but not all grammar should be practised equally or at the same time. Use the difficulty rankings to determine what gets recycled early and often (e.g., regular present tense verbs), and which items require more spaced, scaffolded practice (e.g., subjunctive, object pronouns). Prioritising retrieval based on difficulty ensures optimal use of classroom time and helps prevent regression.

7. Creating processing pathways aligned with natural input noticing
Learners are more likely to acquire structures that they frequently notice in the input. Therefore, we should sequence grammar not just by textbook logic but by salience and perceptual availability. For instance, learners naturally notice je veux and yo tengo long before they are ready to notice il en a or me hubiera gustado. Curriculum design should harness this input-driven order, making the most of natural noticing mechanisms before introducing abstract form-focused explanations.

Conclusions

Grammar isn’t hard in general—it’s hard in specific, predictable ways. And once we understand those patterns, we can teach in ways that honour how the mind actually learns.

Too often, we let tradition dictate our sequencing—present tense first, subjunctive last, and everything else wedged in between in neat grammatical boxes. But language acquisition is messy, non-linear, and deeply sensitive to input, salience, and processing demands. By aligning our teaching with what learners can actually notice, process, and retain, we stop fighting the brain and start working with it.

These rankings, grounded in research and refined through years of classroom practice, are not prescriptive dogma. They are a call to reflection—a challenge to rethink pacing, priority, and pedagogy in the service of fluency, not formality.

If we want learners to succeed, we must meet them where they are—and scaffold them, sensitively and strategically, toward where they can go.

References

• DeKeyser, R. (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge University Press.
• Ellis, N. C. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 164–194. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml015
• Ellis, R. (2002). Grammar teaching—Practice or consciousness-raising? In R. Ellis (Ed.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 167–174). Cambridge University Press.
• Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Lawrence Erlbaum.
• VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Ablex Publishing.
• Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press.
• Byrnes, H. (2005). Constructing Curricula in Collegiate Foreign Language Departments. In H. Byrnes, H. Maxim (Eds.), Advanced foreign language learning: A challenge to college programs. Heinle.
• Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Longman.