Research on Affective-Social Variables Self-Concept Personality Motivation Social Development Values and Morals
Research on Cognitive Variables Intelligence Cognitive Style
Research on Learning
Meaningful Learning Practice
Feedback and Reinforcement Acquisition, Retention, and Recall of Information Transfer
Specific Studies
Stressing Oral Language Skills Listening Training
The Effect of the Written Word on Student Pronunciation Transfer of Learning Across Sense Modalities Prereading Period
Motivation in Classes Stressing Oral Skills Acquiring and Using Structure
Methodological Comparisons
Aptitude-Treatment Interaction
Future Research
Undoubtedly the prime source of knowledge for the teacher is her own classroom experience based on past procedures, performances, and results. However, she should realize that experience is not the only teacher. Research studies in second-language education and related fields are an additional source of valuable information, and the teacher should keep abreast of the latest findings. Empirical results can provide guidelines within which subjective interpretations can operate. Scientific teaching without the artful expression of the teacher's personality is lifeless and mechanical, but subjective teaching unaccompanied by periodic adjustments based on theory and research can be myopic, inefficient, and unproductive. Teaching practices should be continually reviewed in light of the latest research findings, and appropriate modifications should be made. The purpose of this chapter is to examine relevant research in areas related to second-language learning.
Scholars' use of the word experiment is often confusing. Many use experiment to refer to any undertaking in which "something new or different" is attempted. Others attach research significance to the word. Consequently, a great number of the articles published in journals and reviews are not scientific, comparative studies based on research design and statistical analysis but are subjective evaluations. Obviously, the teacher needs to read both types of articles, but she should be able to separate empirical research from personal preference. The discussion in this chapter deals primarily with empirical research.
RESEARCH ON AFFECTIVE-SOCIAL VARIABLES
Critics charge that schools have concerned themselves with students' cognitive development to the neglect of their psychological, emotional, and social growth. The questions to be answered with regard to affective-social variables contain four dimensions. First, what are the various student feelings, attitudes, values, and social relationships that can be identified? Second, how does each, separately and collectively, affect learning? Third, what can be done to promote the development of satisfactory affective and social characteristics? Fourth, how can the teaching-learning process be fitted to varying student needs?
These questions obviously cannot be discussed completefy in this brief review of related research. The issues are complex, and the concerted efforts of the teaching profession for an extended period of time will be required to
Research 69
attack selected problems and to arrive at some answers. Since affective factors and social interaction have not received the amount of attention devoted to the cognitive aspects of education in the past, research in this area is not so extensive, so easily undertaken, nor so readily accepted. Gaining consistent results in the affective area is rather difficult, and determining and controlling the exact variables involved are quite logically complex. Too, justifying one's preference for one instructional system or another or for one program or another on perceived student attitudes does not satisfy the scientific mind in search of empirical support for education practices.
It is now generally accepted that the separation of a student's cognitive capabilities from his emotional, psychological state is impossible. Mahmoudi and Snibbe (1974) conducted a comparative study in which they manipulated the teacher's expectations, actions, and attitudes in order to determine the extent to which student response conforms to the "self-fulfilling prophesy" implied in the teacher's actions. In their study, those students exposed to a high degree of warmth, love, acceptance, respect for the rights of others, and positive expectations of a good semester were characterized by increased achievement, decreased tension, and increased mental health.
Kohn and Rosman (1974) state that the student's social-emotional involvement in the class consists of three main factors: (1) interest and curiosity, (2) acceptance of classroom routine and rules, and (3) task orientation. The student may come to class with a natural desire to learn and to explore unknown material, or that interest may be developed in class. In addition to motivating interest, however, classroom achievement also depends on student willingness to participate within the limits of necessary classroom operational procedures and to work toward the completion of instructional goals. The ideal classroom goal is a situation in which all three factors work together to promote learning.
Research shows that students who have a good self-concept will achieve more in their studies. Alvord and Glass (1974) found a significant correlation between self-concept and achievement at the three grade levels included in their data. Other studies showed that the relationship between self-concept and achievement was reciprocal. A good self-concept improved achievement, and at the same time better grades enhanced the student's self-concept. Given the insecurity often experienced by second-language learners, one would suspect that a strong self-concept would facilitate second-language learning. In a study related directly to achievement in second-language learning, Prawer (1974, p. 9) concluded that the "self-concept as a foreign-language student and the foreign-language grade are mutually reinforcing variables, since the
self-concept is a composite of personal expectation, perceived feedback, and subjective reaction."
A study by Brown and MacDougall (1973) reinforced the following hypotheses:
1. Given an opportunity to examine procedures for improving the self- concept of their students, teachers do modify classroom behavior, and this change in behavior does result in a more positive self-image on the part of their students.
2. Socioeconomic status does seem to affect teacher judgment of students.
3. The teacher's treatment of any given student in class tends to influence the other students' perception of that student.
Since personality is inseparably related to intelligence and cognitive style, it is to be expected that personality will exert an important influence on the learner's aptitudes, interests, and goals. Farnham-Diggory (1972) discusses the following seven personality characteristics as being critical in the classroom.
1. Persistence, Impulsivity, and Hyperactivity. The range on this factor is from that of the student who is able to stick with his task to that of one who is not able to do so.
2. Tolerance for Delay of Gratification. Rewards are necessary components of purposeful behavior, but some students need to be given immediate rewards while others are more willing to wait.
3. Anxiety and Defensiveness. The continuum on this personality factor extends from the student who is not at all concerned and who consequently fails to attend to her responsibilities in the learning situation to the student who is so burdened by his anxiety that his achievement is diminished. Anxiety that leads to improved performance is most likely not damaging to the personality.
4. Dependency and Growth. On the one hand, the teacher has to contend with the student's dependency needs, and on the other, she has the obligation to promote independence and growth in the students.
5. Assertiveness, Agressiveness, and Hostility. The classroom teacher has the task of toning down the dominant personalities in class without stunting their potential, while at the same time supporting the meek and timid in the growth of their own personalities.
6. Egocentrism and Self-Esteem. The individual's first task is to be confident in herself. The teacher's role is to assist in the development of an adequate and a realistic ego image. Once this prerequisite is attained, learning will be enhanced.
7. Feelings versus Behavior. The complex relationship between feelings and behavior is crucial to the establishment of a productive learning atmosphere
Research 71
in the classroom, but the underlying cause and effect of relationships influencing behavior is sometimes difficult to ascertain.
In one study students were permitted to choose a class in which they could follow the traditional lecture-objective examination format, an independent study project, or a small-group discussion class. After the selection, the researchers identified the dominant personality factors of each of the three groups. Students choosing the conventional class (86 percent) were characterized by a dislike for uncertainty, a lack of interest in many areas of knowledge and in the higher-level cognitive skills, a concern for what others think of them, a greater dependency need than the other students, a low interest in new and different experiences, a greater need for reassurance, a certain amount of caution and insecurity, a need for order and neatness, a feeling that they are not in control of their lives, and less perseverance than the other students. Those students who chose the independent study group (3 percent) were more intellectually curious, more desirous of breaking away from restraints, more determined and persevering, and more in need of autonomy. Those who enrolled in the small-group discussion sessions (11 percent) were in between the other two groups with three exceptions: they tended toward a greater interest in social interaction, a more serious academic attitude, and a greater desire for fun activities (Baker, Bakshis, & Tolone, 1974).
The way students react to success or failure has received considerable attention in educational research. Researchers have divided the reactions into two personality types: internal and external locus of control. Internals attribute success or failure to their own ability and effort; externals consider success or failure to be determined by outside forces over which they have little or no control. Internals blame themselves for failure, while externals fix the blame on external conditions. In this sense, external orientation serves as a type of ego defense device (Davis & Davis, 1972). In the learning situation, internals concentrate more on the information being presented while externals are more affected by social conditions in the classroom (Pines & Julian, 1972). Internals are more resistant to attempts to influence behavior than externals (Borden & Hendrick, 1973). Internals and externals seem to prefer different types of learning. Externals prefer chance situations; internals prefer situations in which their own ability is a factor in determining success or failure. Alegre and Murray (1974) state that verbal conditioning is greatest in externals and least in internals. Krovetz (1974) maintains that the cognitive processes are different for internals and externals: the former stressing internal processes and the latter external conditions.
Motivation is perhaps more widely mentioned at professional meetings, in professional journals, and in teacher conversations than any other student
characteristic. In spite of its obvious importance and the amount of attention motivation has received, not a great deal is known about the components of motivation nor about how to stimulate or enhance student motivation. Cofer and Appley (1964), in their book Motivation: Theory and Research, state that it is clear that a comprehensive, definitive psychology of motivation does not exist.
Noar (1972, p. 3) lists two emotional needs that are crucial to motivation in classroom instruction. First, the student must be accepted, and second, he must achieve. Motivation in the classroom involves each individual's efforts to satisfy these two needs. She expresses these needs saying, "In addition to finding acceptance in life, every human being, especially as he is growing up, must have experiences in which he achieves, accomplishes, is successful."
Achievement motivation in the school consists of three components: cognitive drive, ego-enhancement, and affiliation. Cognitive drive involves the need to know and understand one's surroundings. Ego-enhancement consists of the individual's need for a sense of adequacy and self-esteem. According to Ausubel and Robinson (1969, p. 359): "On the average, ego-enhancement motivation seems clearly the strongest motivation available during the active portion of an individual's academic and vocational career." Affiliation denotes individuals' need for social approval from their group (Ausubel & Robinson, 1969). As learners attempt to cope with their situation, their motivation may vary from inadequate to the point of being apathetic to a maximally efficient level or to so high that their achievement is hindered (Mouly, 1973, p. 338). McClelland and Watson (1973) found that students high in need for social power sought to distinguish themselves publicly and took higher risks to do so.
Not all students are motivated by the certainty of success. The reaction to programmed instruction is a good example of the boredom that can result for some students when the certainty of a correct response is a basic characteristic of the learning materials. Atkinson has theorized that achievement-oriented students perfer a learning task in which there is a moderate ratio between success and failure. On the other hand, students who anticipate a possible failure choose tasks with either a high or a low chance of success (Machr & Sjogren, 1971). Students high in achievement motivation tend to relax after success and to work harder after failure. Students high in need to avoid failure do poorer work after failure and better work as a result of success. Highly motivated students should experience challenge and occasional failure. Students high in need to avoid failure should receive much positive feedback and encouragement. Research does not support the use of either positive or negative feedback in all cases for all types of students (Weiner, 1969). Not all students are motivated by the same system of rewards and punishment. Introverts tend to respond with maximum effort when praised. Extroverts do their best in response to criticism (Lipe & jung, 1971).
Some students are generally motivated intrinsically; others extrinsically. Schwartz (1972) lists the intrinsic motivators as anxiety, need to achieve, self-concept, and aspirations; and the extrinsic motivators as sociocultural influences and social reinforcers. She adds that intrinsic motivation for learning reaches its peak during the preschool years. Intrinsic models of motivation emphasize plans, cognitive drive, and need to avoid failure as well, while extrinsic theories stress response reinforcement and behavior modification.
Weiner (1969) lists four basic theoretical positions regarding motivation.
1. Associative theory , which postulates specific responses connected to certain stimuli.
2. Drive theory , which postulates drives triggered by a need to correct some type of imbalance in the organism.
3. Cognitive theory , which stresses purposive behavior based on plans, cognitive drive, level of aspiration, need for achievement, and need to avoid failure.
4. Psychoanalytic theory , which is a psychological theory of motivation stressing internal processes.
The student does not learn in isolation. Her classroom behavior and achievement are influenced by her home life and her social status in the community, the school, and the classroom. Her acceptance of the teacher and the other students and their acceptance of her constitute a major factor in the enthusiasm and willingness with which she participates in the classroom activities. The social climate of the class will play a major role in the success of the class to further the process of socialization of individual members and in academic achievement.
Several factors affect the social relationships within the class itself. Some students hold the teacher in high esteem; some students prefer to learn in group activities with their own peers; and others are inclined toward more independent types of activities (Johnson & Johnson, 1974). In an investigation of cooperative and competitive classroom atmospheres, Wheeler and Ryan (1973) reported more favorable student attitudes in the cooperative class, although the results did not indicate any significant difference between the two groups on achievement. Levenson and LeUnes (1974) found that student reaction toward the instructor is influenced by similarity or dissimilarity of attitudes. Brown and Richard (1972) reported an interdependence between self-concept and social responsibility.
Student values are as varied as the other components of individuality. Some students do not value an education at all; some students conceive of school as
a means toward a better job; and others place a high value on the intellectual aspects of education (Johnson & Johnson, 1974). A wide disparity exists among students as to what is important to them and how they accomplish their goals.
Student actions are determined to a large extent by their moral development. The most recent models postulate an increasingly complex moral system related quite closely to the individual's cognitive growth. Rest (1973) did a study to investigate the hierarchical development of moral judgment as postulated by Kohlberg. The results supported the thesis that each stage of moral development is cognitively different from and more cognitively complex than the preceding stage, that each succeeding stage is more conceptually adequate for the individual, that there are upper limits as to what moral principles the individual can comprehend, and that there are lower limits as to what moral guidelines are acceptable to an individual. This study indicates that the teacher should be cognizant of varying levels of moral judgment in the classroom.
Cognition refers to the individual's intellectual operations by which knowledge is gained about ideas or perceptions. The term encompasses all the internal processes activated during perceiving, comprehending, practicing, organizing, storing, recalling, transferring, and manipulating information. Obviously, the concept of cognition is directly related to internal theories of learning. External theories focus on stimuli and the resultant responses.
The concept of intelligence remains an area of disagreement among psychologists and ordinary people alike. Just what intelligence is has not been settled to everyone's satisfaction. There are at least four major viewpoints. Biologists see intelligence in the evolutionary sense as "adaptation to the environment." The ordinary person's view is that intelligence is "the ease of learning new structures and skills." Piaget has conceptualized intelligence as the "coordination of mental operations that facilitate adaptation to the environment." Guilford has postulated a multifaceted model of intelligence consisting of the "interaction of different types of mental processes and contents to produce various mental products" (Kagan, 1971, pp. 655-57).
Although there is no general agreement as to the definition of intelligence, psychologists do agree in two areas. (1) Cognitive abilities grow, and (2) cognitive abilities may vary from individual to individual. Cognitive growth has some generally recognized characteristics. First, the child's horizon expands
Research 75
intellectually and temporally from his immediate surroundings to more distant contexts. Second, the child acquires an increasingly expanded capacity to deal with symbols, especially abstract symbols. The best example of this ability is his use of language. Third, the child's memory grows. Fourth the child's mental growth is characterized by a gradual increase in his ability to reason (Mouly, 1973).
Individual differences in intelligence are present at birth and are distinguishable variables thereafter. One study reported measurable individual difference in the "general amount of reactivity and speed of reactivity to stimulation" at birth (Stiles & McCandless, 1969, p. 121). Ausubel and Robinson (1969) cite a table prepared by Merrill that indicates that approximately one half the IQ scores fall between 90 and 110. Only a small number of people score higher than 140 or lower than 60. The fact that intellectual ability varies from individual to indivdual is indicated not only by direct measures such as standardized intelligence tests, but also by studying individual performances on tasks involving mental operations. Klausmeier and Ripple (1971, p. 445) provide the following description: "On all the [intellectual] . . . behaviors, the children of low IQ were less effective than were those of high IQ. More important, the differences in behavior give clues as to why failure was experienced more frequently by the children of low IQ. For example, more children of high than low IQ used a logical approach, noted and corrected mistakes, and verified solutions. More children of low than high IQ made random approaches to the problem, offered incorrect solutions, and did not persist in attempts at solving the problem."
Not only is there a wide range of intellectual abilities, there is also a definite variability in the way individuals employ their intelligence as they approach learning situations. The evidence is overwhelmingly in support of individual cognitive styles in learning. Some learners are more analytical than others. The trend as one matures is to become more analytical, but individual differences never completely disappear. The less analytical learner is "more impulsive and more susceptible to immediate perceptual experiences" and more "impatient for answers." The more analytical thinker is "more independent." This description implies a basic connection between cognitive style and personality (Stiles & McCandless, 1969). Thorsland and Novak (1974) report that individual differences in adopting an intuitive or analytical approach to the solution of a problem can be identified. Students high in both have a significant advantage over others, who must compensate in some way to learn the material.
Some learners are field-dependent while others are field-independent. The former are more dependent on their surrounding circumstances, while
the latter are more independent in their thinking and in their actions. Walters and Sieben (1974) quote various studies reporting that field-dependent children are less ambitious, less persevering, less theoretical, more dependent, more likely to accept external authority, and less tolerant of ambiguity. The authors add that field-dependent children do better in a class that provides a great deal of guidance and support, while field-independent children seem to learn better in an open, self-directed environment. The suggestion was made that teaching styles be adjusted to learning requirements of the students.
The manner in which information is received varies from student to student. Mouly (1973) refers to Klein's distinction between sharpeners, learners who are flexible in the face of new evidence or new situations, and levelers, learners who seem unable to change their previous mental set.
In his review of concept formation, Sax (1969) quotes a study which found that bright children learn by using hypotheses in the development of concepts. Children of average intelligence learn by developing stimulus-response associations. Jensen suggests what he terms Level I learners, who learn best by mechanistic methods, and Level II learners, who learn best by following a mentalistic approach (Weiner, 1972). King, Roberts, and Kropp have hypothesized that students scoring high on an inference test should do best learning deductively while those students with high scores on a word-grouping test would learn better inductively (Weiner, 1972). Lower ability students need instruction that forces them to pay attention to and to differentiate among details. Higher ability students prefer instruction involving the manipulation of symbolic materials and concepts (Salomon, 1972).
Research evidence indicates that individuals have different perceptual styles: they prefer to learn with different kinds of sensory information (Temple, 1974). An extension of this preference is the effect the type of perception has on the processing of the information being acquired. Bernstein (1974) refers to several studies that have investigated visually minded versus nonvisually minded thinkers. The results support the thesis that some individuals think and remember visually while others use language cues. That there is a difference between the two types of thinkers is supported by physiological evidence—the brain waves of visual and nonvisual thinkers are different. Efforts to improve student ability in a nonpreferred mode have been largely unsuccessful. The implication of this research is that some students may learn more efficiently with abstract explanations while others need to visualize the problem.
Some individuals are more capable of handling complex abstract concepts than others. In a study examining the level of mental operations attained by disadvantaged students at the junior high and high school levels, Nordland, Lawson, and Kahle (1974) reported that of the junior high students in their sample 86.4 percent were operating at the concrete operational level or below. In the senior high sample 86.8 percent were at the concrete operational level
or below. These results point out the variability of the students' capabilities of handling abstract concepts and mental operations. Both at the junior high and high school levels, large numbers of students remain at a level at which concrete examples and representations of material to be learned are necessary.
Cognitive style is a product of both cognitive and affective factors. After reviewing the relevant research, Cordon (1969) stated that cognitive style is a direct outgrowth of one's life experiences. The cognitive style of students coming from a low socioeconomic class, for example, is more visual, kinesthetic, concrete, short-term in outlook, and less able to delay gratification than that of students from an upper socioeconomic class. Ramirez and Price- Williams (1974) obtained results that indicated that members of groups which emphasize respect for family and authority, group identity, and shared family and friends tended to be more field-dependent. Individuals from groups which stress questioning of convention and individuality tended to be more field independent. They also found that teachers tend to give higher grades to those students having a cognitive style matching that of the teacher. Denny (1974) lists three aspects of cognitive style, all of which involve affective as well as cognitive variables: (1) conceptual style—analytic, relational, and inferential; (2) cognitive tempo—impulsive or reflective; and (3) attentional styles— constriction versus flexibility, i.e., more versus less easily distracted.
Cognitive style refers not only to how the individual processes information but also to the number of ideas generated. Those students who have a high degree of fluency in their thoughts, who are flexible in considering alternatives, and who can then elaborate from the initial idea to more complex constructs are said to be creative. Coor (1974) states that highly creative students respond more, generate more information, work more productively on hypotheses, and are better able to view their own work objectively and to criticize it than noncreative students. Studying the relationship of creativity to course grade in a second-language class, Chastain (1975) found that in many cases there was a significant correlation between student creativity scores and student grades in a second-language course.
The concepts of meaningful learning in general and meaningful verbal learning in particular are of rather recent formulation. Meaningful learning is learning that is understood by the student and that he can relate to his previous knowledge. Meaningful learning has been a major target of speculation and
78 Part One: Theory
research in recent years. Ausubel (1968, p. 504) states, "Providing guidance to the learner in the form of verbal explanation of the underlying principles almost invariably facilitates learning and retention and sometimes transfer as well. Self-discovery methods or the furnishing of completely explicit rules, on the other hand, are relatively less effective." Based on the results of this research, learning by discovery is not held in such high esteem at present as it was earlier. In discovery learning, the student learns, or "discovers," the basic content and principles for himself by studying instances or examples of what he is to learn. In fact, Ausubel (1968, p. 497) asserts," . . . Actual examination of the research literature allegedly supportive of learning by discovery reveals that valid evidence of this nature is virtually nonexistent."
Recent studies have obtained results supporting the desirability of verbal receptive learning over discovery learning. In verbal receptive learning, students listen to prepared explanations of rules and principles to be learned. Chalmers and Rosenbaum (1974) stated that students can learn concepts by observation and that there is less error on a transfer task. The assumption was made that learning by observation results in greater flexibility. In a study with first-, third-, and sixth-grade pupils, the pupils learned rules at all levels of difficulty faster than pupils taught by discovery methods and were superior in all measures of retention and transfer. Francis (1975) adds, however, that discovery learning in the past has been found to facilitate the discovery of new rules and that, in general, motivation has been higher in discovery learning.
The acquisition of new behavior or new knowledge apparently depends a great deal upon how the individual perceives the task or material to be learned. Perception, in turn, is colored and influenced by the individual's past learning. For learning to be most efficient, perception must be meaningful. Witkin (1969, p. 53) quotes Gould's definition of perception as "sensory experience which has gained meaning or significance. When, as the result of learning experience, one understands the relationships of objects which were previously merely raw, undifferentiated sensory experiences, he is said to perceive these objects." Egan and Greeno (1973) determined that (1) more skills were necessary to learn by discovery than by rules; (2) material learned by discovery is integrated into the cognitive network, while material learned by rules results in the addition of new structure; and (3) students who do not have the needed related abilities for discovery learning do better learning with rules. Gagne (1970) says that ". . . The most dependable condition for the insurance of learning is the prior learning of prerequisite capabilities."
Meaningful perception implies cognitive interpretation by the individual. Beyond the level of perception, cognition plays an even greater role. Briggs and Hamilton (1964, p. 596) state: "There is increasing evidence that, for meaningful learning, the roles of overt responding, practice, and reinforcement can be overemphasized, to the neglect not only of subsumption and
other cognitive processes. . . Z' 1 Anderson (1970, p. 353) describes attention as involving both awareness and encoding of stimuli. He recognizes that "students tend to follow a principle of least effort" and that "when it is possible to short-circuit the instructional task, students will often fail to learn what a lesson is intended to teach them." He suggests that teachers should structure the "characteristics of instructional tasks so as to force students to do all the processing required for learning" (Anderson, p. 363).
Various studies support an emphasis on meaning in learning. The results of Dawson's study (1967) indicated that classical conditioning in humans is inevitably accompanied by an awareness of relationships. Mascolo (1967) found that students in courses in which the material is organized around key concepts do much better than students in courses in which the content is not so organized. After a review of the literature for the last fifty years and a study of his own, Dubois (1967) concluded that most results favor deduction in learning. Ausubel (1969, p. 132) supports the use of "advance organizers" in meaningful learning. He says, "The use of expository organizers to facilitate the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material is based on the premise that logically meaningful material becomes incorporated most readily and stably in cognitive structure insofar as it is subsumable under specifically relevant existing ideas. It follows, therefore, that increasing the availability in cognitive structure of specifically relevant subsumers—by implanting suitable organizers—should enhance the meaningful learning of such material. Research evidence . . . , in fact, confirms this supposition." Studies by Slock (1975) and Young (1975) found that students studying with materials containing advance organizers were superior in achievement and retention to students studying materials without advance organizers.
Some authors feel that the success of induction or deduction in learning depends on individual learning preferences. Frederick and Klausmeier (1970) describe the theories of Messick, who feels that individuals have different cognitive styles or information-processing habits. In an investigation of this topic by Laughlin (1969), the data indicated that the receptive learning is more effective for a "more difficult conceptual task" but that the opposite is true for tasks that are less difficult.
How important is meaningful learning in the acquisition of language? On the basis of his findings, Smith (1969, p. 4784-B) concluded that the S-R model is inadequate and that "language is better typified as the acquisition of 'rules.'" Rutherford (1968) stated that the central task of the second-language teacher is to make the students aware of the deep structures in the language. Studies by Blumenthal (1967), Blumenthal and Boakes (1967), and Johnson
(1965), all support the hypothesis that the native speaker's language ability is based on an intuitive knowledge of rules.