Language: Costs and Comprehension

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by whswhs

So I would let a player take Broken/None, Accented/None, Native/None, Accented/Broken, or Native/Broken; but I wouldn't let them take Native/Accented, because there's no real description of what that means.

I fully do agree on the fact that Native/Accented sounds weird. But Accented/Accented is good, in my humble opinion. It is probably what best corresponds to my English level.

Thinking a bit more about it, someone Native/Accented could be a native that lacks some vocabulary (mainly used in written language) and makes a lot of spelling mistakes when he writes.

For Chinese and Japanese, it may be someone who just doesn't know all the required ideograms to read without penalty ...

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Accented is actually a really terrible name for this level of fluency, even for spoken languages - you can have Accented fluency and speak "without" an accent (by taking the Accent perk for example), and of course even people with Native fluency speak with *some* accent - many native English speakers use something other than Received Pronunciation (or Midland/General American)

Yes. That is why I prefer using "Fluent" than "Native" for non native speakers who have the native level language, but not the perk to remove the accent.

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by whswhs

And are there cases of people who, for example, speak perfectly grammatical English, but write it with the character French or Japanese or Russian errors? Or do those errors always reflect a lack of spoken fluency manifesting itself in writing?

It may also come from the fact that spoken language is usually more "permissive" than written one. People often do language errors when speaking that they wouldn't do when writing. The most common in French is the "ne ... pas". "J'y suis pas allé" (I didn't go there) is satisfactory for spoken French but not for written French, when once should write "Je n'y suis pas allé".

But I do agree with you on the fact that if someone speaks like a book (I don't know if that idiom does exist in English: speaks perfectly grammatical language) he may logically be able to write like a book. Except for Chinese and Japanese: he can lack some important ideograms or Kanji.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Gollum

It may also come from the fact that spoken language is usually more "permissive" than written one. People often do language errors when speaking that they wouldn't do when writing. The most common in French is the "ne ... pas". "J'y suis pas allé" (I didn't go there) is satisfactory for spoken French but not for written French, when once should write "Je n'y suis pas allé".

Yes, I remember when I saw a theater showing "L'Une chante, l'autre pas" and was confused by it not being "l'autre ne chante pas"; indeed I wondered if "pas" was a verb there, as I had never been told in my French classes about the shorter construction. Then there is the odd parallelism that gives us "Moi, je vais" and "Nous, on va" (instead of "Je vais" and "nous allons")—or so I have been seen described.

I would note, by the way, that my academic French is much better than my colloquial French. I've been reading Cuvier's La Regne animal in the original, and while I have to look up words, especially anatomical ones, I can read it at a tolerable speed and what I'm reading makes sense. But I would really struggle if I had to converse in French.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Gollum

I fully do agree on the fact that Native/Accented sounds weird. But Accented/Accented is good, in my humble opinion. It is probably what best corresponds to my English level.

Thinking a bit more about it, someone Native/Accented could be a native that lacks some vocabulary (mainly used in written language) and makes a lot of spelling mistakes when he writes.

For Chinese and Japanese, it may be someone who just doesn't know all the required ideograms to read without penalty ...

That is an interpretation that has occurred to me, also, thinking of the thousand or so kanji that are taught in Japanese elementary schools. And I suppose you could stretch it for Americans who can get through a newspaper or a simple novel, but have never learned how to figure out long or unfamiliar words, and assimilate them to more familiar words. For example, C's father refers to having undergone "prostrate surgery."

But I think all of that is plausible additions to the rules, rather than actual RAW. Which isn't to say that I wouldn't consider allowing it. Though you could also represent the pronunciation issues as a quirk. Or even as the typical state of widely read people, who are likely to have many eye words that they've never said aloud or heard anyone else say aloud.

[Kelly Pedersen]

I think that I'd peg a couple of issues as signs of someone with Native spoken but Accented written fluency: first, written grammar that doesn't hurt meaning, but still reads as "wrong" to native readers, and second, knowledge of register shifting.

The first would be a bunch of stuff that gets mostly characterized as being overly pedantic when you point it out, things like using the wrong version of a homophone (they're, their, and there, for example), incorrect capitalization (missing capitalization at the start of a sentence or on a word like "i", or Using Capitalization Unnecessarily), or incorrect punctuation (ending a question with a period, or failing to put in any punctuation at all at the end of a sentence). Many of these kind of things don't actually significantly harm others' comprehension (we can usually tell which version of their/they're/there someone means from context, for example), but, in aggregate, contribute to a perception by native readers of ignorance, or at least excessive disregard for writing well.

The other thing, register shifting, is about how different styles of writing are appropriate in different circumstances, and how a skilled native writer knows how to switch between them when appropriate. For example, in a text message or in an instant message conversation between friends, the phrase "LOL 4sure. BRB, getting food." is perfectly acceptable, whereas if it appeared in a letter sent to a business partner, it would be attrociously out of place. A native writer knows how to switch between these and other styles, and when to do so. Note, this can come from either end of the formality scale, too - someone who can only write as if they were composing a message to be sent to their CEO is just as limited as someone who can only write like they're chatting to a friend over IM.

Anyway, I feel like some combination of these things are enough to justify someone with Native spoken comprehension, but only Accented written. Many of the quirks and errors involved in the grammar stuff simply have no corresponding issues in spoken speech, while the styles involved in spoken vs. written register-shifting are different enough that someone can be competent to do so while speaking, but not while writing.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by whswhs

But aside from "Accented" being a poor label, we don't really have a separate definition of what it means for written language.

We don't need one, it's right there in the RAW:

Accented: You can communicate clearly, even under stress. However, your speech and writing are idiosyncratic, and it is obvious that this is not your native language.

(Emphasis mine)

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

We don't need one, it's right there in the RAW:

Accented: You can communicate clearly, even under stress. However, your speech and writing are idiosyncratic, and it is obvious that this is not your native language.

(Emphasis mine)

Here's another indication that this is how the rules should be interpreted:

Originally Posted by PU2-Perks:13

One-Way Literacy†
This works like One-Way Fluency, above, but for written
language. For instance, One-Way Literacy (Reads French)
would let you read French at the Accented level but not write
it, while One-Way Literacy (Writes French) would do just the
opposite.

[Celjabba]

The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
is a useful tool to assess degree of literacy (written or spoken).
https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommon...0000168045bb52


I would say that
*Gurps-Broken map to A0-A1
*Gurps-Native (which should really be called Fluent) map to C1-C2.
*Gurps-Accented (which could be better called intermediate) is anything between.

A good example of Gurps-Accented written language would be the output of google translate between major languages. It is clearly better than broken (in most cases), but ...

In written output, there is a clear difference between a non-native writer and a native writer, even if both are at Gurps-native or both are at Gurps-accented level, but it is probably below Gurps level of details. Accent are obvious in verbal speaking, but saying that someone write accented because he is a foreigner or because he is uneducated ... the important bit is the penalty to rolls when at accented level. The rest is just background.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by whswhs

But aside from "Accented" being a poor label, we don't really have a separate definition of what it means for written language. If you have Broken, you read slowly and painfully and have a limited written vocabulary. If you have Accented or Native, you read perfectly well; your only limitations come from the limitations on your use of the spoken language.

I think you've confused two different kinds of language use - speaking/writing has perfectly good descriptions of what Accented means (your performance is idiosyncratic, and you get skill penalties). It's listening/reading which doesn't specify very clearly (though you'd still take the skill penalty if you ever needed to roll for them). You're equating Spoken fluency with speaking, but Written with reading, crossing the two.

Edit: I think the clearest way to connect that skill penalty to an intuitive model of comprehension is to think of Accented as allowing you to understand something as well as a native with 1 (or 2) points lower IQ (or relevant skills) would. Going by the model in Aging, Accented comprehension lets you hear and read a language about like you did your native tongue when you were about 12 or 13.