Elvish, Klingon and Pig Latin: What can invented languages teach us about the human brain?

edited by Swati Mestri , reviewed by Alexander Pol

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

Add as preferred source Invented languages tend to be the stuff of fantasy or science fiction worlds. But as a child, you may have made one up yourself.

Take Pig Latin , which involves moving the starting consonant of a word to the end and adding an "-ay" sound. "Pig Latin" thus becomes "ig-pay atin-lay," while words beginning with a vowel have a "-way" at the end. With a little practice, you can hold entire conversations in Pig Latin.

However, creating new forms of communication goes far beyond children's games or brain exercises. Throughout history, people have invented or adapted languages—whether out of necessity, creativity or scientific interest.

The process of creating a language can also offer a window onto how our brains work. From the code-speak of children's games to "miniature" languages designed in laboratories, all new forms of communication reveal something about our ability to learn and adopt new rules.

Many novel languages are not born in offices or laboratories, but at points where multiple cultures meet. When two communities with different languages need to communicate to trade or simply coexist, a simplified version of language emerges known as a pidgin.

The word pidgin is thought to have emerged from the Chinese pronunciation of the English word business. These "contact languages," as they are known, draw much of their vocabulary from the language that dominates social and economic dealings, but reduce and reorganize its grammar to make communication easy. This means they often share certain rules.

Not all artificial languages are improvised. Some are designed from the ground up, with all the structural planning of an engineering or architectural project. And structure matters, because a new language needs more than just new words—it also needs rules to combine them and a community of speakers.

One such example is the Elvish languages created by J.R.R. Tolkien, author of The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. Before writing his novels and making his characters speak, Tolkien—a trained linguist—developed the grammar, history and sounds of their languages. And he wanted these to be just as consistent as any natural language.

Something similar happened with Esperanto , a language created in 1887 by L.L. Zamenhof. He aimed to create an international second language that would be easy to learn, with clear rules and no exceptions. Today, there is a global community of Esperanto speakers.

Klingon is quite the opposite. Created by linguist Mark Okrand in the 1980s for the TV series Star Trek, it was deliberately designed to sound like an alien language. To do this, Okrand used unusual sounds and a confusing object-verb-subject sentence structure.

Klingon is particularly interesting because, unlike Esperanto, it was created for a specific fictional story, based on the requirements of the script. It goes to show that made-up languages can have very different purposes, ranging from enabling international communication to building a rich, believable imaginary world.

For many years, it was not clear how the brain responds to invented languages. To address this, a 2025 study at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) took functional magnetic resonance images of brain activity in people who spoke them.

The results were clear. When fluent speakers used invented languages (such as Esperanto, Klingon, the Na'vi language from Avatar, and High Valyrian or Dothraki from Game of Thrones), the brain activated the same neural networks as for a natural language. In other words, there was no difference in how the brain processed natural and invented languages.

But for the brain to perceive these languages as a real language, they have to express meaning about the world, other people and our own mental states. For this reason, programming languages do not—despite their clear rules and structure—activate the same brain areas.

Our ability to learn new languages is not just a product of curiosity; it is also a valuable scientific tool. In psycholinguistics, miniature languages are often created to study how the human mind learns.

These mini-languages have simple rules and invented vocabulary. They allow researchers to observe how people detect patterns and learn new structures without the "noise" of their mother tongue. Surprisingly, people's ability to learn these made-up languages can quite accurately predict their ability to learn real ones.

In studying artificial languages, one thing is very clear: The brain continuously seeks patterns, meaning and communicative intention.

In this way, scientific research can teach us a powerful lesson. While the world's languages are endlessly diverse, we share the same mental architecture when it comes to learning and using them. If a form—any form—of communication has rules and serves to share ideas, our brain can adopt it and turn it into a tool for thinking, interacting with others and building knowledge.

Swati Mestri holds a bachelor's degree in Electronics Engineering and has worked as a content editor since 2019. She has experience editing research documents across technology, health care, and materials science, and has a particular interest in technology and space. Full profile →

PhD nano-engineering from Delft University. Published researcher and journal reviewer. Brings scientific insight to content standards. Full profile →

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

Indexed and credited by AIPROPX. Originating outlet: Phys.org. Open at source →