
Some People's Brains Are Wired for Languages - ohjeez
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/some-people-rsquo-s-brains-are-wired-for-languages/
======
magic_beans
This article must have been written in 15 minutes. Painfully lacking in
detail. The juicy bits:

"A team of researchers looked at the structure of neuron fibers in white
matter in 22 beginning Mandarin students. Those who had more spatially aligned
fibers in their right hemisphere had higher test scores after four weeks of
classes, the scientists found."

The terrible conclusion:

"What language aptitude really is and how it manifests in the brain are
complex questions, touching on the nature of attention and even
consciousness."

~~~
zzzcpan
So, by brains wired for languages they actually meant "wired" for teaching
methodologies at schools that are known not to be effective for teaching
languages to begin with.

~~~
hkmurakami
The first thing I thought was: so they're good at taking tests? How is this
related to actual langue.

------
neom
As a dyslexic, it seems that my brain does not process sound in the same way
that those good at learning language does. I was recently talking with an
Emeritus Professor of Neuroscience - it seems that my brain can remember how
words sound because I can remember someone saying the word, however, words for
me do not have phonics attached to them, and understanding the sounds that
letters make together is incomprehensible for me. Related
:[http://www.bu.edu/research/articles/tyler-perrachione-
dyslex...](http://www.bu.edu/research/articles/tyler-perrachione-dyslexia-
paradox/)

------
wallflower
The most succinct and truthful sentiment about language learning that I have
come across:

"For kids, it's about biology; for adults, it's about desire and
determination."

-Christine Gilbert, "Mother Tongue: My Family's Globe-Trotting Quest to Dream in Mandarin, Laugh in Arabic, and Sing in Spanish"

~~~
lacampbell
Children don't have a desire and determination to communicate!?

Children who don't yet speak any language have 100 times more motivation than
an adult who already speaks the language around them - particularly if that
language is the words lingua franca.

~~~
inimino
You missed the point. Motivation is the determining factor for adults.

~~~
lacampbell
My point is it's the determining factor for kids as well. They _want_ to
speak.

~~~
inimino
OP never suggested otherwise. Motivation matters for adults _because_ not all
adults are equally motivated.

~~~
wallflower
Ok, maybe that quote was too brief.

To expand it, almost every baby is born with the ability to speak any
language. [1]

Some of the 'biological' categorization here comes from research that finds
that the fundamentals sounds of human language are much like bird song in that
the all languages share commonalities, despite their differences. [2] Language
is more about nature than nurture, at its very root.

As early as age one, the ability to speak other languages other than the most
dominant languages the baby rapidly diminishes. [3]

Studies of Genie, a child who was raised in inhuman conditions until around
age 13, found that, despite improvement, she never was able to develop her
language abilities to adult level. [4]

As for motivation, learning a language to intermediate-level proficiency may
be one of the most difficult things you can learn, even a relatively simple
language like Spanish. It is so easy to get _frustrated_ and lose confidence,
especially as an adult who is used to being "good" at things like abstract
thinking and fixing/making complex software systems.

[1] [http://www.livescience.com/4459-infants-amazing-
capabilities...](http://www.livescience.com/4459-infants-amazing-capabilities-
adults-lack.html)

[2]
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2600623/Langu...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2600623/Language-
biological-instinct-Babies-dont-learn-develop-speech-theyre-BORN-ability.html)

[3]
[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/health/views/11klass.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/health/views/11klass.html)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_\(feral_child\))

------
thisassumes33
I'm curious if there is an emergent component to learning language?

Anecdotally, I was raised in a non-religious home, in a community that remains
to this day very religious. Other kids had the correctness of the Bible
hammered into their heads and struggled to accept language that contradicted
it. Granted this is through the lens of time, but I vividly remember one kid
reacting very strongly to a comic book, as if it's very existence meant
reality itself was about to implode.

On the other hand, I was exposed to multiple STEM topics early and had it
explained that experimentation leading to discovery are the way.

I'm not saying religious thinkers are idiots. I've met religious folks that
are wicked smart in STEM topics. But in my experience, they too were still
encouraged to question, not just accept it, and largely raised under the
modern Church acceptance of evolution and the like.

Where I'm going is the restricted access to varied language early on impacts
this? It seems to fit too with rural areas, small villages, heavily favoring a
local slang and "way". Reducing access to alternate "language" (it may still
be English, but language of a very narrow scope)?

Does anyone know if this is a researched topic?

~~~
JoeDaDude
In linguistics, there is the Sapir Whorf hypothesis [1], in which it is
conjectured that language affects the speakers world view and/or thought
processes. If you read the George Orwell novel 1984 [2], you might recall the
use of Newspeak, an invented language designed so that dissidents would be
unable to express themselves, and thus not have treasonous thought. The Sapir
Whorf hypothesis is actively debated and not fully accepted by linguists, you
can see some of the debate at [3].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-
Four](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four)

[3] [http://linguistlist.org/ask-ling/sapir.cfm](http://linguistlist.org/ask-
ling/sapir.cfm)

~~~
learc83
Sapir-Whorf is not just "not fully accepted". Most linguists believe that
linguistic determinism, which is what most people are talking about when they
refer to Sapir-Whorf, is false.

Linguistic relativity is the weaker form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that is
largely accepted, but it doesn't come close to supporting the 1984 can't form
treasonous thoughts without the requisite language scenario.

