The way the question is framed is a tad confusing to me. The historical development of writing systems by humans is unambiguous, in that the spoken language came first and then writing systems later. So the idea that learning a spoken language is easier/harder due to its writing system is a strange mismatch of not-really dependent factors.

Insofar as Japanese, Mandarin, and Cantonese are concerned, my cursory understanding is that Japanese uses a different ordering for nouns and verbs, while the latter two have more similar ordering to English, Korean, Vietnamese, and western European language. Someone should fact check that.

That said, English is not a pinnacle example of a alphabetic language, because it has so many loanwords that its pronunciation system strains to logically capture all its rules. The romance languages do a more decent job of matching the written language to the spoken language.

At bottom, learning to speak a foreign language can be done without learning its writing system. When speakers can't write the language, it is called illiteracy. But to learn a writing system without its spoken language, there are few examples, because every writing system conceived by humans always encoded some aspect of the spoken language's grammar. Pre-1900 Vietnamese using the Chinese script is not fully comprehensible to a Japanese reader, as an example.