It is not uncommon for someone approaching language learning to want to know how long it will take for them to learn their target language. The answer to this type of question is a lot more nuanced than it might at first appear. Here’s why.
The Problem with the Question
The first problem with the question is determining what is meant by “knowing a language.” Novices often think in terms of fluency. The question is often framed as: “How long until I’m fluent in my target language?” with some vague idea of what it means to be fluent. Does this mean conversational on a basic level? What about more advanced topics beyond day-to-day communication, such as discussing abstract concepts about politics, art, and science? Is reading and writing included in your idea of fluency? If so, do you mean the ability to read a newspaper, or are we talking about literature as well? Do you mean the ability to write a social media post, or a university-level essay? “Fluency” has been used as a stand-in term for all of these things and more. To the point where its meaning has become nebulous.
Applying a More Specific Metric
Enter the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Before looking at how CEFR levels can help us measure progress, it’s worth understanding where the framework came from and why it exists.
A Brief History of the CEFR
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) didn’t appear out of nowhere. It is the product of several decades of work by the Council of Europe, an organization founded after World War II to promote cooperation, mobility, and mutual understanding across the continent. Language education was seen as a key part of that mission.
1960s – 1980s: The Foundations
The story begins in the 1960s, when the Council of Europe launched a series of language-teaching projects aimed at helping Europeans communicate across borders. These early initiatives emphasized practical, communicative ability rather than rote grammar, a shift that would later become central to CEFR.
In the 1970s and 1980s, the Council developed the influential Threshold Level descriptions (first for English, then for other languages). These documents outlined what learners should be able to do in real-world situations. They introduced the idea of “can-do” statements and functional language ability, which were the conceptual ancestors of today’s A1 – C2 descriptors.
1991: The Turning Point
The real push toward a unified framework came at a 1991 intergovernmental symposium in Rüschlikon, Switzerland. Educators and policymakers from across Europe agreed that language teaching lacked a common reference point. Different countries used different systems, making it difficult to compare qualifications or design consistent curricula.
The Council of Europe was tasked with creating a comprehensive, transparent, and internationally applicable framework for describing language proficiency.
1990s: Development of the Framework
Throughout the 1990s, researchers working with the Council of Europe developed:
- A scale of proficiency levels (eventually A1 – C2)
- Descriptors based on real learner performance
- A unified approach to teaching, learning, and assessment
Draft versions circulated widely for feedback, making the CEFR one of the most collaboratively developed educational frameworks in modern history.
2001: Official Publication
The first full edition of the CEFR was published in 2001, designated the European Year of Languages. It quickly gained traction because it offered a neutral, widely applicable scale, clear, behavior-based descriptors, and a way to compare qualifications across institutions and countries.
The European Union soon recommended its use, accelerating adoption across Europe and beyond.
2001 – Present: Global Standard
Today, the CEFR is used worldwide, not only in Europe but in Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. It has been translated into dozens of languages and adapted for curriculum design, textbook development, teacher training, standardized testing, and self-assessment tools.
In 2020, the Council of Europe released the CEFR Companion Volume, expanding descriptors for mediation, online communication, plurilingual competence, and sign languages.
The Organization Behind It
It’s important to note that the CEFR is not an EU project. It is a Council of Europe initiative, the same organization responsible for the European Court of Human Rights. The Council’s Language Policy Programme continues to maintain and update the framework.
The CEFR Proficiency Levels
A table listing the current levels, A1 – C2, along with a general description of what they represent, can be found here on the official CEFR website. Even as a mostly self-directed language learner, I find these guidelines to be instructive in assessing my level of proficiency with a target language. There are other, similar types of systems of assessment for languages proficiency, such as the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) guidelines, and the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) scale. My personal preference are the CEFR guidelines, yet any of these might be helpful to look at for those on a self-study path who are wanting to measure milestones and map out skills to develop in their target language(s) based on what they want to accomplish. I feel this approach is much more quantifiable than ambiguous notions of what it means to become “fluent.”
While CEFR helps define proficiency, the FSI data helps estimate how long it might take to get there.
So…How Long?
I’ve discussed the advantages of applying guidelines as a metric for self-assessment, but I haven’t touched on the initial question of length of time to acquire proficiency levels once you know what those levels might look like. For this, I find information from the Foreign Service Institute to be instructive.
Why Look at FSI Data?
Under the US Department of State is the Foreign Service Institute (FSI), which runs the School of Languages. This is where government employees in foreign affairs go to undertake intensive and rigorous training in foreign language learning that relates to their jobs (e.g. diplomats). My understanding is that this is an accelerated course, where they spend hours every day in class, and then additional hours outside of class working with the language.
FSI has been doing this for decades. They publicly release what they consider to be the typical number of classroom hours to reach “proficiency” in a foreign language for native English speakers.
How FSI Categorizes Languages
They classify languages under several categories based on increasing levels of difficulty for native English speakers. For example, Spanish, French, Romanian (and others) are what they call Category I languages, German, Indonesian, Swahili (and others) are Category II, Greek, Farsi, Hebrew (and others) are Category III, Chinese (Cantonese and Mandarin), Arabic, Japanese, and Korean are Category IV.
For Category I languages (like Spanish), the estimate to reach “proficiency” is given as being between 552 and 690 classroom hours, completed over roughly 24 to 30 weeks. Like I said, it is an accelerated course (which you can see if you crunch those numbers). Nevertheless, for someone studying a language on their own, these statistics can be useful even if you study at a less accelerated pace.
What FSI Means by “Proficiency”
What is important to note, is that the time estimates are based on the number of classroom hours. In practice, their students also do several hours of homework and self‑study each day, so the total exposure to the language is even higher. As mentioned above, the number of classroom hours to reach proficiency for Category I languages according to FSI is between 552 and 690 hours. If you consider the role of a diplomat traveling to a foreign country and think about the level of communication they will need to perform, this will give you at least a basic idea of what is meant by language proficiency in this program. I assume this would be something roughly along the lines of a B2/C1 in the CEFR scale.
Using FSI Hours to Estimate Your Own Timeline
Measuring by hours, rather than days, weeks, months, or years, makes a lot of sense to me. Consider someone who tells you they have spent three months studying Spanish. What does that mean? How is that quantified? Did they spend five minutes a day on Dulolingo? Did they cram four hours of hard study on the weekends, but didn’t work with the language at all during the week? Did they do an intensive in-country visit where they were speaking in their target language with native speakers every day? Three months studying Spanish could be describing any one of these scenarios, and thus, could indicate significantly different outcomes in terms of proficiency levels gained.
Compare this to someone who tells you they have spent 200 hours studying Spanish. Say we estimate a target of 650 hours for a Category I language to reach a decent level of proficiency. This would suggest around 450 hours to go before reaching that goal. All other things being equal (the quality and efficiency of the study time, as well as working on all areas: reading, writing, listening, and speaking), if someone spent an hour a day of solid study (assuming 7 days a week), they would be looking at roughly 450 days, or about 15 months, to hit the 650 hour mark. Two hours a day would cut that time in half. Thirty minutes a day would double it.
Why Hours Are a Better Metric Than Days
I find it helpful to give me a goal and set a number of hours to reach that goal as opposed to aimlessly meandering around with a language and wondering how long it might take to gain proficiency with it.
Logging hours makes more sense to me than logging days. I might have a 30 day streak, but it makes a difference whether I’ve spent 15 minutes with the language or an hour with the language for each of those days. In the first example, that would be 7.5 hours. In the second, that would be 30 hours. So, counting days is not the best gauge to measure what you are doing if you don’t factor in the time spent for each of those days.
Building a Routine That Actually Works
Though I do feel it is important to have a daily routine. Doing 15 minutes every day for 30 days is probably better than cramming 3 hours in one day, and then nothing for several days, and then some other amount of time for the rest. But if you manage to build a daily habit/routine, and then log the hours you are actively studying your target language, these FSI guidelines might be of interest to you.
In the end, learning a language isn’t about chasing “fluency” but about building skills over time. Frameworks like CEFR and hour-based estimates like those from FSI give us clearer targets, but the real progress comes from consistent, intentional practice.