Constructed languages are processed by the same brain mechanisms as natural languages

S Saima Malik-Moraleda (Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) M Maya Taliaferro (Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) S Steve Shannon (McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) N Niharika Jhingan (Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) S Sara Swords (Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) D David J. Peterson (Private address) P Paul Frommer (Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California) M Marc Okrand (Private address) J Jessie Peterson (Private address) R Ramsey Cardwell (Duolingo English Test, Duolingo) C Cassie Freeman (Duolingo Learning Science, Duolingo) E Evelina Fedorenko (Brain and Cognitive Sciences Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

Abstract

What constitutes a language? Natural languages share features with other domains: from math, to music, to gesture. However, the brain mechanisms that process linguistic input are highly specialized, showing little response to diverse nonlinguistic tasks. Here, we examine constructed languages (conlangs) to ask whether they draw on the same neural mechanisms as natural languages or whether they instead pattern with domains like math and programming languages. Using individual-subject fMRI analyses, we show that understanding conlangs recruits the same brain areas as natural language comprehension. This result holds for Esperanto (n = 19 speakers) and four fictional conlangs [Klingon (n = 10), Na’vi (n = 9), High Valyrian (n = 3), and Dothraki (n = 3)]. These findings suggest that conlangs and natural languages share critical features that allow them to draw on the same representations and computations, implemented in the left-lateralized network of brain areas. The features of conlangs that differentiate them from natural languages—including recent creation by a single individual, often for an esoteric purpose, the small number of speakers, and the fact that these languages are typically learned in adulthood—appear to not be consequential for the reliance on the same cognitive and neural mechanisms. We argue that the critical shared feature of conlangs and natural languages is that they are symbolic systems capable of expressing an open-ended range of meanings about our outer and inner worlds.

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 122, Issue 12
Published March 25, 2025
ISSN 0027-8424
Publisher National Academy of Sciences

Authors (12)

S

Saima Malik-Moraleda

Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

M

Maya Taliaferro

Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

S

Steve Shannon

McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

N

Niharika Jhingan

Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

S

Sara Swords

Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

D

David J. Peterson

Private address

P

Paul Frommer

Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California

M

Marc Okrand

Private address

J

Jessie Peterson

Private address

R

Ramsey Cardwell

Duolingo English Test, Duolingo

C

Cassie Freeman

Duolingo Learning Science, Duolingo

E

Evelina Fedorenko

Brain and Cognitive Sciences Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology