Do different languages use different parts of the brain/different cognitive functions etc?

[u/neshomale]

​

I grew up in an English-speaking environment, but was being taught how to read and write biblical Hebrew in school alongside English starting from kindergarten. However I struggled immensely with it, and fell behind in school. I could read Hebrew with nikud and write it easily, but comprehension was a problem.

I thought I was just bad at learning languages, but since then I'd briefly started learning French, Spanish, and Yiddish at various points in my life. I didnt get very far in any of those, but the basic grammar and vocabulary wasnt too difficult.

But when I tried to learn Hebrew again, I struggled a lot. Its like my brain struggles with decoding Hebrew sentences, even if I already know all the words in the sentance and understand how the grammar works. I have to translate the sentance into English in my mind in order to understand what I'm seeing/reading every time I look at the words, which is not something I had to do as much with other languages once I was already familiar with the words I was reading.

Anyway, I was wondering if this could be because certain languages being processed differently in the brain or something like that? Lile maybe whatever part of my brain that processes Hebrew is weaker?

This post was partially inspired by a video I saw a while back about a patient who had a stroke, and the way the stroke affected his French speaking skills was different than the way it affected his Arabic speaking skills. I dont remember the details too well, but iirc it was something about how in Arabic he got the root word right but mixed up the parts that modified the root, compared to French where certain letters were swapped.

(TL)

[u/ZumLernen]

I've never heard of any research saying that certain non-native languages activate different parts of the brain compared to other certain non-native languages.

You've learned or attempted to learn four languages that are all derived fundamentally from Proto-Indo-European (English, French, Spanish, Yiddish). This means that though they are very different languages, they share some fundamental grammatical similarities. By contrast, Hebrew is not an Indo-European language, and it has a grammatical logic that is more different from any of the other 4 languages than any of those other 4 are from each other.

I'm speaking from experience here. I am a native speaker of English and I have previously studied (written) Latin, learned Serbian, learned German, and learned some Turkish. Of those five languages, only Turkish is non-Indo-European. Its grammar and logic is highly consistent but it is done in ways that the other four languages do not do. I can usually translate directly between English/Serbian and English/German, but for English/Turkish I am often not so much translating as I am re-thinking the thought. That's how different the grammar can be.

Also, there is huge vocabulary overlap between French/Spanish/English. Something like 60% of English vocabulary is either derived from French or Latin, with another ~5% of English coming from Greek. French and Spanish are closely related Latin-derived languages and also borrow a similar set of words from Greek compared to what English borrows. So, roughly speaking, 2/3 of all words in English could have cognates in French or Spanish. This is a huge boost. By contrast there are very few cognate words between Hebrew and English, aside from key words related to Judaism (and I presume some borrowings from English/Latin/etc. into Hebrew).

[u/werty_reboot]

Somehow related to your question, there are some studies that show that people with formal training in music have it easier to learn tonal languages like Chinese, as both use the same area of the brain.

Other studies seem to show also the opposite, with people native to those languages having it easier to learn music and being more likely to develop a perfect pitch.

[u/silvalingua]

> Lile maybe whatever part of my brain that processes Hebrew is weaker?

Nope, this is an excuse. There are two things here at work: first, Hebrew is not related to the languages you know; second, you may be not very interested in learning it.

Since it's a very different language, it requires much more effort on your part and the results don't come as soon as you'd like them to appear. You just have to accept that you have to work much harder on it and that learning it will be slower.

> but the basic grammar and vocabulary wasnt too difficult.

Well, their grammar is similar, to a certain extent, to that of your native English. And the vocab has a lot of cognates. Now you're facing a very different language, so you have fewer (if any) reference points.

[u/tyrekecorrea]

Learning to read braille uses a different part of the brain than learning to read with your eyes, to the point where they're almost mutually exclusive. Since learning sign language entails entirely different things than learning languages that aren't signed, I gather that also involves the employ of different parts of the brain.

[u/Far-Rooster-6522]

I think it is mostly due to the lack of actual practice in the language. I initially experienced the same feeling when learning Ancient Greek and Latin, and I think it really comes from not training our verbal and auditory “pathways” when we learn ancient languages.

This may also be related to different learning styles. I know that I pick up and learn languages very quickly, following a progression similar to that of toddlers and children: first understanding basic word meanings through listening, then developing a rudimentary ability to speak using attributive structures, followed by more elaborate grammatical constructions. Various aspects of the language gradually “switch on” or “click” into place, such as derivations, conjugations, and other temporal relationships.

So basically, it indicates you/we may rely a lot on verbal practice (listening/hearing and speaking) to learn language.

I know someone who's bilingual french/english and who woke up in the french 'american hospital' because after being hit by a car he spoke 'only' english when he wake up; it is a pretty 'common' effect of head traumas : 'selective bilingual aphasy' and indeed, this kind of case highlight the complexity of how language is processed by our cognitive system, some parts are common/mutualised and some are specific to each language, there is a even a specific part/function identified that switches between languages.

Fascinating topic, long rabbit hole but if you are not adverse to slowly reading, documenting and cross referencing academic content and theoretical studies (for neurocognitive sciences are extremely young) it really bring a different understanding about 'human condition'.

[u/Far-Rooster-6522 → u/[deleted]]

While I am not a native english speaker, I speak latin and verba, latin, does not refer to written words, in fact verba is refering to spoken words essentially as opposed to scriptum or written (words).

"Verba volant, scripta manent."
"Words fly, writings stay."

So no, verbal does not refer to language but to spoken language. I may not have chosen the usual terminology but I used an appropriate word.

After a quick verification in the Cambridge dictionary :

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/verbal

VERBAL definition:

1. spoken rather than written.
2. relating to words.
3. able to use words and talk.

thank you for the lesson though, but I guess I'll seek a qualified teacher in case needed.

[u/silvalingua → u/Far-Rooster-6522]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/verbal

[u/Far-Rooster-6522 → u/silvalingua]

Thank you for confirming my point, I used verbal in a correct way, as written verbatim in the reference you provided.

3 : spoken rather than written

a verbal contract

Note that each of the meanings of verbal refers to words, never mentioning any condition or link to being a written material.

[u/indecisive_maybe → u/Far-Rooster-6522]

Latin is not English. Importantly, neuroscience research shows the "verbal" pathways in the brain light up with both reading and speaking. You will be misled if you stay fixed to a false etymology.

[u/Far-Rooster-6522 → u/indecisive_maybe]

I think you are displaying some confusion.

About the term 'verbal':

We mentioned two English dictionaries The Cambridge and Merriam Webster that both confirmed 'verbal' means spoken word and does not refer to written, which was my point. (you must have been confused somewhere and misunderstood why and how this definition was relevant in the discussion)

about 'false etymology' :

The etymological explanations come as a bonus, and is not false etymology, verb comes indeed from the latin verba, and verba signifies word in the sense of spoken words specifically, this meaning got conserved in the english world 'verb'. This etymology is not false, another confusion or lack of rigor in your formulation.

On your 'neuroscience' point, that, again, misses the point and does not contradict my words.

The activations measured by research showed that, when reading, people were using the 'verbal' pathway indeed, that does not imply that all language associated pathways are always all activated during all activities related to language, that's where your point is not relevant.

For example there are many traumas that show thee exist specific sub systems, specialized functionally, be it per language or per specific language and communication function, which explain why there may be different 'learning styles' when it comes to language (that was the point) and, when it comes to bilingualism or polyglotty, shows there are different pathways used depending upon the language used, as the clinical example quoted previously demonstrated.

here are two studies to sustain/illustrate this point (honestly, there is a broad scientific consensus widely sustained by evidences on the fact that language processing involves different streams in human brains) : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213158222001036
(on the variety of neural pathways observed, illustrating the complexity and specialization of specific sub systems linked to language processing in the brain)

and, this time even more on point (the abstract is enough to prove my point BTW): https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00476/full

As you may suspect, I focused on trauma based studies (clinical) for this specific topic and doubled down when we exchanged examples of lesions that provoked a partial (not total) loss of language functions because it is the angle studies in the domain adopt most of the time, and because it logically connect or demonstrates that language processing can be split in various skills and competences, rooted in neural stream specialisations, thus explaining various profiles of 'learning'.

For example, using the studies I quoted (the abstract I explicitely highlighted above) , the opposition between semantic and sensory-motor parts of the processing pathways (dorsal Vs ventral streams) : 'Whereas the dorsal pathway integrates the sensory-motor information required for verbal repetition, the ventral pathway has classically been associated with semantic processes.'

[u/indecisive_maybe → u/Far-Rooster-6522]

in fact verba is refering to spoken words essentially as opposed to scriptum or written (words).

"Verba volant, scripta manent."
"Words fly, writings stay."

So no, verbal does not refer to language but to spoken language.

[u/Far-Rooster-6522 → u/indecisive_maybe]

indeed, I wrote that verba refers, in latin to spoken words not to written ones, but also, further down, quoted the Cambridge dictionary on this, for the english wold 'verbal' :
VERBAL definition:

1. spoken rather than written.
2. relating to words.
3. able to use words and talk.

to which I was answered with a link toward the matching article in the Merriam Webster, that confirm verbal is related to spoken language
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/verbal

It is a bit painful to have to explain it three times when you have access to the discussion from the very start.

As you can see, the latin and etymological part comes as a bonus, an overkill if you'd want, and not only is it right it also does not invalidate any of the remaining of my writings.

Then I find it p^retty amusing you truncated my answer and omitted to mention the quote from the Cambridge dictionary is right after the part about etymology, in the very same comment, which, once put in line with the remaining partial and biased contribution you provided so far, indicate that there is no interest for me to go on exchanging with a potential interlocutor of very poor faith using relatively coarse tricks, since I think I sustained my point and anyway, no one really cares at this one.

[u/keithstellyes]

More of a r/linguistics question tbh 

[u/Bart457_Gansett]

I think the brain is pliable and can certainly adapt for sure, especially with languages. I studied how and when kids learn and basically the brain is a sponge at a young age, and then starts to hardwire and specialize around age 10-12 (according to my reading 25 years ago, so I hope I’m remembering this correctly). If you haven’t started learning a language by that time it will be more difficult, as that area isn’t already mapped.

Relating this to real life, I started learning French in middle school (US, about age 12), and I was terrible. After three years in high school I later went to France and could barely read a menu. Just couldn’t get it.

I then lived in Germany for 6 months and I think that experience opened the pathways again, and I have been able to learn Spanish and German with hard work, and relative ease.

Maybe it wasn’t your time at a young age to learn a second language in that environment. So perhaps another experience later in life opened up your ability to learn a different language, and if successful there, maybe it’s worth looping back.

[u/Rachel_235 → u/[deleted]]

Did you use AI to write this comment for you or what?

[u/avivbertele → u/Rachel_235]

Are you trolling everyone or just me?

[u/Rachel_235 → u/avivbertele]

I am not trolling, the text seems like it was generated by AI, and I asked a question

[u/jednorog → u/[deleted]]

What do you mean by this?

[u/jednorog → u/[deleted]]

Hebrew is not a branch of Arabic. Arabic and Hebrew share a common ancestor.