A Brain for Numbers, Not Words: Why Some People Just Can't Learn a Foreign Language

The ability to learn foreign languages is largely genetically determined and separable from general intelligence — one third of the genetic influence is entirely independent of IQ. Neuroscientific research has identified specific brain networks, genes (FOXP2, CNTNAP2), and structural factors (the arcuate fasciculus, phonological memory) that determine linguistic talent independently of cognitive ability. The article criticizes the Czech education system for blanket language requirements that may unfairly hold back technically gifted students, and compares approaches taken abroad.

A third of the genetic influence on the ability to learn a foreign language is entirely independent of intelligence. Yet the Czech Republic erects language requirements as an absolute gateway to education at every level — from primary school to university.

A student, "Adam," at Jan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem (UJEP) was handling a technically oriented field of study without major problems. In his third year he ran into a compulsory foreign-language examination. After several unsuccessful attempts, it was clear he would not pass. Only then did specialized diagnostic testing reveal that his errors had a character typical of specific learning disabilities. The UJEP counselling centre cites this case as an illustration of a broader problem: students with increased support needs most often run into trouble precisely with foreign languages, not with the specialist subjects of their field. [1]

Adam is not an isolated case. He is a symptom of a system that treats language competence as a universal skill that every educated person must demonstrate. Yet neuroscientific research over the past two decades shows something fundamentally different: the ability to learn foreign languages is to a large extent genetically determined, separable from general intelligence, and determined by a brain architecture the individual cannot influence. A person with an IQ of 130 and a weak phonological memory may repeatedly fail at languages, while a linguistic savant with an IQ below 60 communicates in fifteen to twenty languages.

The question the Czech education system has not yet posed is this: how many future top scientists, engineers, and programmers do we filter out with a language sieve, without ever measuring it?

The relationship between intelligence and the ability to learn languages is one of the best-researched paradoxes in cognitive psychology. A key study was carried out by Fred Genesee at McGill University as early as 1976: among Anglophone pupils in French immersion programmes, IQ correlated with reading and a written test, but did not correlate with listening comprehension or with interpersonal communication. [2] Pupils with below-average IQ in an immersion environment communicated just as effectively as pupils with above-average IQ. This finding held across all grades and types of programme.

A meta-analysis by Shaofeng Li (2016) covering 66 studies set the correlation between language aptitude measured by hybrid tests and intelligence at r = 0.50. [3] This means that IQ explains roughly 25 % of the variance in language aptitude — the remaining 75 % is independent of intelligence. For the MLAT (Modern Language Aptitude Test) the correlation is higher, r = 0.64, but still far from identical.

Neuroscientific research confirms this dissociation at the level of brain architecture. Evelina Fedorenko of MIT identified a domain-specific fronto-temporal language network that is separate from the domain-general fronto-parietal network responsible for mathematics, logic, and working memory. [4] These networks do not co-activate. Patients with Williams syndrome show low IQ but preserved language abilities; patients with specific language impairment have normal IQ but impaired language. This is what is known as a double dissociation — the strongest evidence neuroscience offers for the separability of two cognitive systems.

The most dramatic illustration is the case of "Christopher" — a linguistic savant studied by Neil Smith and Ianthi-Maria Tsimpli at University College London. With a non-verbal IQ in the 40–60 range (a level that in classical tests would suggest "ineducability"), Christopher communicated in fifteen to twenty languages. [5] He could not take care of himself in everyday life, yet he translated between a number of typologically distinct languages. At the same time, his language ability in English indicated an IQ over 120. His case represents a dramatic double dissociation: language ability can exist almost independently of general intelligence.

The decisive breakthrough in understanding linguistic talent came from functional magnetic resonance imaging studies at the EvLab project at MIT and Harvard. Jouravlev, Mineroff, Blank, and Fedorenko (2021) scanned 17 polyglots — nine of them hyper-polyglots commanding 10 to 55 languages — and compared them with 217 control subjects. [6] The result was surprising: the polyglots showed smaller and less extensive activation of the language network when processing their native language. Their brains worked more efficiently, with lower "costs" in neural activity per unit of language processing. This difference was functionally selective — it appeared exclusively in the language network, not in the cognitive-control network nor in the resting-state network.

A follow-up study by Malik-Moraleda et al. (2024) with 34 polyglots showed that language-network activity rises with the level of command of a given language, with one exception: the native language elicited roughly 25 % lower activation than other well-mastered languages. [7] This suggests the highest cognitive efficiency for the language acquired earliest.

Structural changes in the brain were documented by the pioneering study of Mechelli et al. (2004) in the journal Nature: learning a second language increases grey-matter density in the left inferior parietal cortex, with the degree of remodelling depending on the level attained and the age at which learning began. [8] White matter plays a key role, especially the arcuate fasciculus connecting Broca's and Wernicke's areas. López-Barroso et al. (2013) in the journal PNAS demonstrated that word learning is mediated by the left arcuate fasciculus and that individual differences in its microstructural integrity explain differences in the ability to learn new words. [9]

Working memory represents another fundamental factor. A meta-analysis by Linck et al. (2014, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review) covering 79 samples and 3,707 participants found a reliable positive association between working memory and second-language outcomes (ρ = 0.255). [10] Working memory is largely heritable, and its capacity varies markedly between individuals — independently of IQ.

Genetic research into language abilities was launched by the discovery of the FOXP2 gene in the KE family. Lai, Fisher, Hurst, Vargha-Khadem, and Monaco (2001) identified, in the journal Nature, a point mutation in the FOXP2 gene on chromosome 7q31 that matched perfectly all fifteen affected members of a three-generation family suffering from a severe speech and language disorder. [11] Enard et al. (2002) subsequently demonstrated that the human FOXP2 protein differs from the chimpanzee one at two amino-acid positions and that these changes were subject to positive selection during the last roughly 200,000 years of human evolution. [12]

The CNTNAP2 gene on chromosome 7q35 is a direct regulatory target of FOXP2. Vernes et al. (2008) in the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrated that FOXP2 binds to CNTNAP2 and dramatically reduces its expression, and that multiple substitutions in CNTNAP2 are associated with specific language impairment. [13] Whitehouse et al. (2011) confirmed that CNTNAP2 variants affect early language development in 1,149 children from the general population. [14] Other significant genes are KIAA0319 and DCDC2 (neuronal migration, reading) and CMIP and ATP2C2 (phonological short-term memory). [15] [16]

Twin studies provide the strongest evidence for the heritability of language abilities. Rimfeld, Dale, and Plomin (2015) analysed 6,263 twin pairs in Translational Psychiatry and found heritability of 53–62 % for various second languages. [17] The crucial point is the distribution of the genetic influence: one third is shared with intelligence, one third with the native language independently of intelligence, and one third is entirely unique to second-language learning. Dale, Harlaar, Haworth, and Plomin (2010) found heritability of 0.67 in an earlier study of 604 twin pairs. [18] The largest genome-wide association study of language abilities (Eising et al., 2022, PNAS) estimated single-nucleotide-substitution heritability at 13–26 % and found molecular links to the neural architecture of the brain's language regions. [19]

In other words: there exist specific genes for the ability to learn a foreign language that have nothing to do with IQ. A student may inherit exceptional spatial thinking, analytical abilities, and working memory for mathematics — and at the same time inherit a weak phonological memory, low phonemic-coding ability, and unfavourable variants of the CNTNAP2 or CMIP genes.

Seemingly counterintuitively, it may be precisely the traits typical of highly intelligent individuals — conscientiousness and analytical thinking — that act as an active obstacle to achieving language fluency.

Ullman's declarative/procedural model (2001, Nature Reviews Neuroscience) explains why. The mental lexicon depends on declarative memory (temporal lobe), whereas mental grammar depends on procedural memory (frontal cortex, basal ganglia). [20] When learning a second language, adults initially rely more on declarative memory — conscious, rule-based learning. Fluency, however, requires a transition to the procedural system. Highly intelligent individuals may excel in the declarative phase (memorizing rules) but "get stuck" in it and never achieve automatic fluency.

Gregersen and Horwitz (2002, Modern Language Journal) found that anxious language learners exhibit significantly more perfectionist traits — higher personal standards, more procrastination, greater fear of evaluation, and greater concern about errors. [21] Flett et al. (2016) proposed a multifaceted model of perfectionism in language anxiety: maladaptive perfectionism (unrealistic standards combined with fear of failure) creates a vicious circle — fear of errors leads to avoidance of speaking, that to less practice, and that to slower learning. [22] Intelligent individuals with high standards are more susceptible to this circle.

Guiora et al. (1972, 1980) introduced the concept of language ego permeability. [23] The degree to which an individual is able to "let go" of their native-language identity and adopt a new language identity correlates with better pronunciation and a willingness to acquire a new sound system. Guiora's experiments even demonstrated that alcohol and Valium improved pronunciation in a second language — interpreted as a lowering of the ego's defensive mechanisms. Highly intelligent, analytically oriented people may have "thick ego boundaries" that make them resistant to "sounding stupid" in a new language.

Roughly 60 % of the world's population uses two or more languages in everyday life. According to available estimates, about 40 % of people are monolingual, 43 % bilingual, 13 % trilingual, and around 3 % speak four or more languages.

In Europe, according to Eurobarometer 540 (2024, 26,523 respondents across the 27 EU member states), 59 % of Europeans can hold a conversation in at least one foreign language, 28 % in two, and 11 % in three or more. [24] Among young Europeans (15–24) the figure is 79 % for one foreign language. The most multilingual EU countries are Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Latvia (over 95 %); the least language-proficient are Hungary, Romania, and Poland (under 40 %).

In Africa, multilingualism is the norm — an estimated 50 % of the population is multilingual, with many individuals speaking three to five languages. In the USA, by contrast, roughly 75 % of inhabitants are monolingual. According to the Ethnologue database (28th edition, 2025) there are approximately 7,168 living languages in the world, 44 % of which are endangered. [25]

A study by Hartshorne, Tenenbaum, and Pinker (2018, Cognition) with 669,498 participants — to date the largest study of its kind — brought a fundamental revision of the critical-period hypothesis: the ability to learn a language remains high until the age of 17–18, much longer than Lenneberg assumed in the 1960s. [26] To achieve native-level grammar, however, one must begin by about the age of ten. After 17–18 there is a marked decline, though it is unclear whether the cause is biological or social.

Czech education imposes language requirements at every step. In primary school the first foreign language is compulsory from the 3rd grade (target level A2); the second foreign language was added from the 2013/2014 school year, no later than the 8th grade (level A1). [27] In 2023 the Czech School Inspectorate noted that roughly 60 % of foreign-language teachers in primary schools would agree with abolishing the compulsory second foreign language, and that fewer than half of pupils would choose it voluntarily. [28]

The new Framework Educational Programme for Basic Education, approved at the end of 2024, further increases this burden: English will be compulsory from the 1st grade with a target level of B1, and the second language will move to the 7th grade. [29]

In secondary school, the maturita (school-leaving) examination in a foreign language is not absolutely compulsory — as the second subject of the common part, a student may choose mathematics instead of a foreign language. In practice, however, roughly 79 % of maturita candidates choose English. [30] The didactic test in English corresponds to level B1, lasts 110 minutes, and the pass threshold is 44 %. [31]

At universities there is no nationwide statutory requirement, but in reality a foreign language (typically English at level B1–B2) is a compulsory part of the curriculum at the vast majority of faculties and a condition for being admitted to the state final examination. [32]

The failure rate in the maturita didactic test in English is on the whole relatively favourable — 3.5 % in the spring 2025 session (approximately 2,100 students out of the 60,800 who sat it). [30] One must, however, distinguish the overall failure rate in English from the overall failure rate in the state maturita as a whole, where the differences between types of school are abyssal: grammar schools (gymnázia) show 1–2 %, secondary vocational training schools 24 %, and post-secondary follow-up study 37 %. [33] In German, the failure rate in the didactic test is 22 %, and at vocational schools it exceeds 40 %. [33] It is precisely the technically oriented students of vocational schools who are disproportionately affected by language requirements.

The system of adjusting the conditions of the maturita examination (PUP MZ) offers students with specific learning disabilities three levels of support: from a mere 25 % increase in time (group 1), through formal modifications of the test plus 50 % extra time (group 2), to content modifications and a doubling of time (group 3). [34]

What is crucial, however, is what PUP MZ does not allow: waiving the examination or omitting content. CERMAT explicitly states that granted adjustment of conditions in no way includes the waiver of certain tasks, an easing of the examination, or the omission of certain content. [34] Experts and parents consider group 1 inadequate — some pupils fail the maturita because of this and discover too late that they needed a higher degree of adjustment. [35]

In primary school the situation is, seemingly paradoxically, more flexible: within an individual education plan the second foreign language can be replaced by other support. [36] At the maturita and at university this option does not exist.

International comparison shows a broad spectrum of approaches.

The United Kingdom represents the most liberal model: a foreign language is compulsory only up to age 14, at GCSE (age 16) it is optional, and no British university requires a foreign language for admission. [37] Only about 45 % of pupils choose a language at GCSE. UCL was historically the only university with a language graduation requirement, but it suspended it in 2021. [38]

The USA offers the most developed system of substitutions for students with learning disabilities. The federal ADA and Section 504 laws require reasonable accommodations. Universities such as Columbia, the University of Washington, and the University of Georgia allow students with a documented learning disability to fulfil the language requirement through substitute courses — linguistics, foreign culture, or international studies. [39] [40] [41] The student must still earn the same number of credits but need not demonstrate language proficiency. Some schools, moreover, accept American Sign Language as a full substitute.

Germany offers alternative educational paths: the vocational school-leaving certificate (Fachabitur) requires only one foreign language and allows study at universities of applied sciences, while the classical school-leaving certificate (Abitur) requires two languages. [42] The system of compensating for disadvantage (Nachteilsausgleich) provides modifications to examination conditions but not exemption from the subject. [43]

Finland has some of the strictest requirements (two compulsory languages beyond the mother tongue) but addresses students' difficulties through a three-tier support system rather than exemptions. [44]

A special case is Ireland, which is the only country to offer a formal system of exemptions from Irish for students with dyslexia — the student must score at or below the 10th percentile in a reading test. [45]

One of the main arguments for compulsory language education — the cognitive advantage of bilingualism — rests on shaky foundations. Meta-analyses in recent years have shown that the so-called "bilingual advantage" in executive functions approaches zero once corrected for bias in favour of positive results. Lehtonen et al. (2018, Psychological Bulletin) found no strong or coherent evidence. Gunnerud et al. (2020) set the overall effect in children at a mere g = 0.06. [46] Paap (2024) labelled the entire hypothesis a textbook example of the replication crisis in cognitive science. [47]

Bilingualism has undisputed communicative, cultural, and social benefits. Claims of cognitive advantages such as "improved working memory" or "delayed dementia," however, are not reliably substantiated.

The economic benefits of language skills are real but, in the context of the problem, modest. In the USA the wage premium for bilingualism is only 2–3 % after controlling for cognitive ability. [48] In Germany it is markedly higher — around 9 %, and for advanced levels up to 24 %.

The argument that machine translation will gradually reduce the need for language skills has support in the data. A CEPR study (Frey and Llanos-Paredes, 2025) demonstrated that regions with higher use of machine translation recorded a decline in demand for foreign-language skills in the labour market. [49]

The objections to easing language requirements have a legitimate core.

First, English is effectively the language of international science and technology. A scientist or engineer who cannot read the technical literature in English is professionally disadvantaged. This objection is legitimate, but it overlooks a key distinction: the ability to understand a technical text is a different skill from the ability to pass the maturita test in English. Many technically competent people read English manuals and technical forums daily without reaching B1 in spoken communication.

Second, language education has a cultural and social value that exceeds its economic benefit. Learning languages opens perspectives, builds the capacity for empathy, and provides access to other cultures. This is true, but it also holds for art history, philosophy, or music — and these are not a condition for obtaining a university degree in computer science.

Third, there is a fear of a "slippery slope": if we allow exemptions from languages, where will it end? This objection has procedural support, but the American and Irish systems show that clearly defined conditions for substitutions and exemptions have worked for decades without abuse.

On the basis of international practice and neuroscientific findings, concrete reform proposals can be formulated.

A system of substitutions on the American model. Students with documented low language aptitude or specific learning disabilities could replace the language requirement with substitute courses — linguistics, cultural studies, or programming. This is not a waiver but a substitution.

Restoration of multi-level maturita tests. The Czech maturita had two levels of difficulty in 2011–2013. [50] A return to this model would allow differentiation: grammar-school students would sit the higher level, vocational-school students the lower. The current single B1 level is trivial for grammar schools and unattainable for some vocational schools.

A formal system of exemptions on the Irish model. For students with a diagnosed specific learning disability affecting language learning, there should be a possibility of exemption conditional on a standardized diagnostic process.

Separation of the language requirement from access to higher education. In technical and natural-science fields, the language requirement should not be a condition for obtaining a degree but an optional part of the curriculum. The student should have the option to demonstrate the ability to work with English-language technical literature by an alternative means.

Systematic data collection. The Czech Republic urgently needs research quantifying the impact of language requirements on the educational trajectories of students with different cognitive profiles. CERMAT should publish maturita results broken down by students with PUP MZ, and the Ministry of Education (MŠMT) should track the reasons for non-completion of study in relation to language subjects.

The Czech education system treats language proficiency as a uniformly compulsory and uniformly testable skill. Neuroscientific research, however, shows that language aptitude is 53–67 % heritable, [17] [18] one third entirely independent of intelligence and determined by the morphology of brain structures that the individual cannot influence. Turker and Reiterer (2021) proposed the first neuro-cognitive model of language aptitude, according to which individual differences in the morphology of the auditory cortex — largely genetically and prenatally predetermined — constrain individual neural plasticity for language learning. [51]

A system that does not allow highly intelligent students with low language aptitude an alternative path to education is in fact carrying out a selection by neurological profile, not by intellectual potential.

Among the students who repeatedly fail the maturita in English or do not finish university because of a language examination there may be future top scientists, engineers, and programmers — people whose brains are adapted for types of cognitive work other than phonemic coding and the memorization of grammatical patterns. But we do not know that. Because we do not measure it.

The article is based on primary scientific sources (peer-reviewed studies and meta-analyses) and official data from Czech institutions (CERMAT, MŠMT, ČŠI, UJEP). No systematic study quantifying the "lost talent for natural-science and technical fields" due to language barriers in the Czech academic environment was found — this is an identified gap in the professional literature. The data on maturita failure rates are for the spring 2025 session. The bilingual advantage is presented with both sides of the debate stated. The reform proposals are derived from existing international practice, not from hypothetical models.

[1] UJEP Counselling Centre. Students with specific learning disabilities — basic terminology, impacts on education, specific needs. poradenske-centrum.ujep.cz.

[2] Genesee, F. (1976). The role of intelligence in second language learning. Language Learning, 26(2), 267–280.

[3] Li, S. (2016). The construct validity of language aptitude: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(4), 801–842.

[4] Fedorenko, E. et al. (2011). Functional specificity for high-level linguistic processing in the human brain. PNAS, 108(39), 16428–16433. Cf. Amatuni, A., Diez, I., Kharas, N. et al. (2024). Functional dissociation of the language network and other cognition in early childhood. PMC11184366.

[5] Smith, N. V., Tsimpli, I.-M. (1995). The Mind of a Savant: Language Learning and Modularity. Blackwell. Updated in Smith, N. V. et al. (2011). Signs of a Savant. Cambridge University Press.

[6] Jouravlev, O., Mineroff, Z., Blank, I. A., Fedorenko, E. (2021). The small and efficient language network of polyglots and hyper-polyglots. Cerebral Cortex, 31(1), 62–76. PubMed: 32820332.

[7] Malik-Moraleda, S., Jouravlev, O. et al. (2024). Functional characterization of the language network of polyglots and hyperpolyglots with precision fMRI. Cerebral Cortex, PMC9882290.

[8] Mechelli, A. et al. (2004). Structural plasticity in the bilingual brain. Nature, 431, 757.

[9] López-Barroso, D. et al. (2013). Word learning is mediated by the left arcuate fasciculus. PNAS, 110(32), 13168–13173.

[10] Linck, J. A. et al. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(4), 861–883.

[11] Lai, C. S. L., Fisher, S. E., Hurst, J. A., Vargha-Khadem, F., Monaco, A. P. (2001). A forkhead-domain gene is mutated in a severe speech and language disorder. Nature, 413, 519–523.

[12] Enard, W. et al. (2002). Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language. Nature, 418, 869–872.

[13] Vernes, S. C. et al. (2008). A functional genetic link between distinct developmental language disorders. New England Journal of Medicine, 359(22), 2337–2345.

[14] Whitehouse, A. J. O. et al. (2011). CNTNAP2 variants affect early language development in the general population. Genes, Brain and Behavior, 10(4), 451–456.

[15] Newbury, D. F. et al. (2009). CMIP and ATP2C2 modulate phonological short-term memory in language impairment. American Journal of Human Genetics, 85(2), 264–272.

[16] Scerri, T. S. et al. (2011). DCDC2, KIAA0319 and CMIP are associated with reading-related traits. Biological Psychiatry, 70(3), 237–245.

[17] Rimfeld, K., Dale, P. S., Plomin, R. (2015). How specific is second language-learning ability? A twin study. Translational Psychiatry, 5, e638.

[18] Dale, P. S., Harlaar, N., Haworth, C. M. A., Plomin, R. (2010). Two by two: A twin study of second-language acquisition. Psychological Science, 21(5), 635–640.

[19] Eising, E. et al. (2022). Genome-wide analyses of individual differences in quantitatively assessed reading- and language-related skills in up to 34,000 people. PNAS, 119(35), e2202764119.

[20] Ullman, M. T. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: the declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(2), 105–122.

[21] Gregersen, T., Horwitz, E. K. (2002). Language learning and perfectionism: Anxious and non-anxious language learners' reactions. Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 562–570.

[22] Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Su, C., Flett, K. D. (2016). Perfectionism in language learners. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 31(2), 83–99.

[23] Guiora, A. Z. et al. (1972). The effects of experimentally induced changes in ego states on pronunciation ability. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 13(5), 421–428. Updated: Guiora et al. (1980). Language Learning, 30(2), 351–363.

[24] Eurobarometer 540 (2024). Europeans and their languages. European Commission, 26,523 respondents, 27 member states.

[25] Ethnologue (2025). Languages of the World, 28th edition. SIL International.

[26] Hartshorne, J. K., Tenenbaum, J. B., Pinker, S. (2018). A critical period for second language acquisition. Cognition, 177, 263–277. N = 669,498.

[27] MŠMT (2017). Framework Educational Programme for Basic Education. edu.cz.

[28] Czech School Inspectorate (2023). Press release: Teaching of a further foreign language. csicr.cz.

[29] iROZHLAS (2024). English from the first grade. The Ministry of Education raises the required level of languages and mathematics. 30 December 2024.

[30] MŠMT (2025). Results of the spring 2025 maturita exams. msmt.gov.cz, press release 15 May 2025.

[31] CERMAT (2025). Foreign language — examination of the common part. maturita.cermat.cz.

[32] VysokeSkoly.cz. What is the situation with foreign languages at universities? vysokeskoly.cz.

[33] ČTK/České Noviny (2025). 12 percent of students failed the state maturita this year, twice as many as last year. ceskenoviny.cz, 15 May 2025. Note: The failure-rate figures of 24 % (secondary vocational training schools) and 37 % (follow-up study) refer to the overall failure rate in the didactic tests, not specifically to English.

[34] CERMAT (2025). Adjustments to examination conditions. maturita.cermat.cz.

[35] EDUin. Dyslexia, what (not only) to do with it at the maturita. eduin.cz.

[36] NPI ČR / Inkluze v praxi. Teaching of a second foreign language: what can it be replaced by? inkluzevpraxi.cz.

[37] Wikipedia. Language education in the United Kingdom. Verified: UCL IoE Blog (2024).

[38] UCL IoE Blog (2024). Opportunity for all? Which pupils are studying languages in England and why?

[39] University of Washington. Foreign Language Culture Course Substitution. depts.washington.edu.

[40] University of Georgia. Foreign Language Accommodations and Waivers. osas.franklin.uga.edu.

[41] Columbia University Health. Foreign Language Substitution or Modification. health.columbia.edu.

[42] Wikipedia. Abitur. Verified: UCAS Qualification Information Profiles.

[43] Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt. Adjustments to compensate for disabilities. ku.de.

[44] Sanako (2024). Foreign language teaching in Finland's world-leading education system. sanako.com.

[45] Dyslexia Ireland. Irish Exemption. dyslexia.ie.

[46] Gunnerud, H. L. et al. (2020). Is bilingualism related to a cognitive advantage in children? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(12), 1059–1083. PubMed: 32914991.

[47] Paap, K. R. (2024). The Bilingual Advantage in Executive Functioning Hypothesis. Routledge.

[48] Saiz, A., Zoido, E. (2005). Listening to what the world says: Bilingualism and earnings in the United States. Review of Economics and Statistics, 87(3), 523–538.

[49] Frey, C. B., Llanos-Paredes, E. (2025). Lost in translation: AI's impact on translators and foreign language skills. CEPR VoxEU Column.

[50] VysokeSkoly.cz. 10 years of state maturitas: long preparations and two levels. vysokeskoly.cz.

[51] Turker, S., Reiterer, S. M. (2021). Examining individual differences in language learning: A neurocognitive model of language aptitude. Neurobiology of Language, 2(3), 389–415. MIT Press.

Transparency of creation

The concept, structure, and editorial line of the article are the work of the author, who prepared the content outline, established the key theses, and directed the entire creative process. Generative AI (Claude Opus 4.6, Anthropic) was used as a tool for research, fact-checking, and elaborating the author's draft.

The author verified the key findings and approved the final wording. No part of the text was published without conscious authorial control. Factual data were verified against the publicly available sources cited in the text.

The procedure complies with the transparency principles of EU Regulation 2024/1689 (AI Act). #poweredByAI