Re: [lojban] Chess-and-Tetris Hypothesis

[Michael van der Gulik <mikevdg@gulik.co.nz>]

Yanis Batura wrote:

> Hypothesis 1: Expression of implicit relation between words in a
> sentence, relying on a context, the feature of natural-language texts,
> doesn't require thinking.
>
>
> Hypothesis 2: Explicit, hierarchical, formula-like expression of
> relations between words in sentences requires thinking and doesn't get
> accustomed to.
>
>
> HYPOTHESIS 3 (Chess-and-Tetris hypothesis): THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
> BETWEEN NATURAL-TYPE LANGUAGES AND NON-NATURAL-TYPE LANGUAGES LIKE
> DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TETRIS AND CHESS. HUMAN BRAIN WILL NEVER GET
> ACCUSTOMED TO NON-NATURAL-TYPE LANGUAGES TO THE GRADE WHEN IT WON'T
> THINK WHILE SPEAKING THEM.
>
I don't agree.

The human brain is a neural network, and as such, it is particularly
good at recognising patterns. Over time, patterns are easier to work
with as the neurons do their magic. When learning or speaking a
language, our brains are constantly on the lookout for patterns.

One thing I discovered when I learned Dutch is that it isn't the actual
words that I needed to remember, but the phrases they're used in. My
brain can piece together phrases much easier (being at a higher level of
abstraction) than words.

As Lojban is learned, we'll also pick out the phrases used such as 
"...goi ko'a... ko'a cu..." This phrase is fairly recognisable by my
standards and is no worse than any other form of back-reference (such as
the previous "this" in this sentence) in natural languages. As a
Lojbanic beginner, I find the "...goi ko'a..." construct invaluable.

Michael.