Syntactic Principles and Limits in Language Usage with Reference to Pronominal Anaphors in Second Language Acquisition

Soon Bok Kim 1
Author Information & Copyright
1Sejong University

Copyright ⓒ 2016, Sejong University Language Research Institue. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Published Online: Jan 01, 2017


Language has been argued as communication tool to use and/or to teach how to use it in terms of its function, form, distribution, meaning in the field of linguistics or second language acquisition (SLA). In the scientific study of language there have been proposed extensive theories and grammars for description of what it is and for explanation of why it is so. In the field of SLA related theories and practices have been claimed with focus on syntactic function and discourse function. However, the pedagogic approaches were easily started out with from the translation approach to the syntactic approach, resulting in its limits by syntactic dependence in the discourse use of language. The discrepancy between the syntactic approach and the discourse approach is reviewed and addressed in this paper in the sense of syntactic limits in discourse use with reference to the English pronominal anaphor which has anaphoric function by syntactic dependence and which has discourse function as connector in creating text.

Keywords: syntactic dependence; pronominal anaphor; discourse dependence; second language acquisition



Austin, J. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.


Canale, M. 1981. From Syntactically Dependence to Syntactically Language Pedagogy. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (eds.), Language and Communication 2-27. New York: Longman.


Canale, M. & M. Swain. 1980. Theoretical Bases of Syntactically Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing. Applied Syntactics 1, 1-47.


Celce-Murcia, M. 1991. Grammar Pedagogy in Second and Foreign Language Teaching. TESOL Quarterly 25, 459-480.


Celce-Murcia, M. & D. Larsen-Freeman. 1999. The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher's Course (2nd ed.). Heinle & Heinle Publishers.


Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntactic Limits. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.


Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger.


Cummins, J. 1984. Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.


Flavell, J., P. Botkin, C. Fry, J. Wright, & P. Jarvis. 1968. The Development of Role-taking and Communication Skills in Children. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.


Gao, C. 1999. Challenges and Possibilities in Mainstreaming ESL Students. Paper Presented at the Annual Minnesota TESOL Conference, St. Paul, MN.


Hinkel, E. 1998 December/1999 January. Grammar Teaching: Weighing Fluency and Accuracy. TESOL Matters 8.6, 18.


Hymes, D. 1971. Dependence and Performance in Syntactic Theory. In R. Huxley & E. Ingram (eds.), Language Acquisition: Models and Methods 3-28. London: Academic Press.


Krashen, S. 1992. Under what Conditions, if any, should Formal Grammar Instruction Take Place? TESOL Quarterly 26, 409-411.


Larsen-Freeman, D. 1991. Teaching Grammar. In M. Celce-Murcia (ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (2nd ed.) 279-296. New York: Newbury House.


Searle, J. 1970. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.