從系統功能語言觀點探討科學詞彙的歧義與解歧

Exploring Lexical Ambiguity and Disambiguation of Science Terminologies From the Lens of Systemic Functional Linguistics

10.6173/CJSE.201809_26(3).0003

陳世文(Shih-Wen Chen)；古智雄(Chih-Hsiung Ku)；楊文金(Wen-Gin Yang)

系統功能語言 ； 科學文本 ； 科學語言 ； 科學閱讀 ； 詞彙歧義與解歧 ； Systemic Functional Linguistics ； Science Text ； the Language of Science ； Science Reading ； Lexicon Ambiguity and Disambiguation

科學教育學刊

26卷3期（2018 / 09 / 01）

241 - 259

繁體中文

本文旨以系統功能語言的主述位結構觀點探討國中階段科學文本詞彙歧義類型、詞頻分布、解歧詞彙及解歧語境類別，以「氫」一詞為例，利用AntConc軟體檢索106學年度三個版本國中教科書中含「氫」的語句，由三位科教學者進行詞彙歧義及語境類型之分析。研究發現國中科學文本中「氫」含有「氫元素」、「氫氣」、「氫原子」、「氫的元素符號」四種意義，在八年級科學文本中出現次數最高，歧義類型最多，特別是在元素與化合物、氧化還原反應等單元中。此外，在科學文本中「氫」有九種的解歧詞彙，其構成六種解歧語境類型。多數解歧語境屬同句主位及同句述位，其次是前句主位及前句述位，後句主位及後句述位最少，顯示閱讀解歧上可先從相同小句之主位及述位解讀歧義，其次回溯至先前小句主位及述位尋找解歧線索，最後才是後面小句的主位及述位。最後根據研究結果提出文本編輯、科學閱讀及後續研究等方面之建議。

This present study aimed to explore the lexical ambiguities and the disambiguation contexts via the example of ＂Hydrogen＂ in secondary school science textbooks from the lens of Systemic Function Linguistics by the corpus-based analysis technique. Total seventy sentences including the lexicon ＂hydrogen＂ were selected from the corpus of science textbooks by the software ＂AntConc,＂ and then these sentences were semantically categorized into various meanings and contexts by three science education experts. The results showed that ＂Hydrogen＂ in science textbooks could be referred to four ambiguities: ＂hydrogen element,＂ ＂hydrogen gases,＂ ＂hydrogen atom,＂ and ＂element symbol of hydrogen.＂ These ambiguities appear frequently in the science textbooks of eighth grade. Moreover, night types of disambiguated words could help readers distinguish the ambiguities of ＂hydrogen.＂ They could be further characterized into six disambiguation contexts. Among these contexts, ST and SR appear most frequently, while FT and FR follow, then BT and BR are the least, which indicated that these contexts could provide disambiguating tracks for readers to understand the precise semantics of hydrogen through their sequences and structures. Finally, the suggestions of the lexicon ambiguity and disambiguation are provided to the textbook writing, science reading, and future research.

1. 蕭惠貞、陳昱蓉(2014)。漢語詞彙歧義探究與教學應用。華語文教學研究，11(2)，1-30。
   連結：
2. Anthony, L.(2018).Anthony, L. (2018). AntConc (Version 3.5.7) [Computer software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University..
3. Apresjan, J. D.(1974).Regular polysemy.Linguistics,142,5-32.
4. Azuma, T.,Van Orden, G. C.(1997).Why safe is better than fast: The relatedness of a word's meanings affects lexical decision times.Journal of Memory and Language,36(4),484-504.
5. Baker, P.(2006).Using corpora in discourse analysis.London:Continuum.
6. Caffarel, A.(Ed.),Martin, J. R.(Ed.),Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.(Ed.)(2004).Language typology: A functional perspective.Amsterdam, The Netherlands:John Benjamins.
7. Duffy, S. A.,Morris, R. K.,Rayner, K.(1988).Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading.Journal of Memory and Language,27(4),429-446.
8. Fang, Z.(2005).Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective.Science Education,89(2),335-347.
9. Fodor, J. A.(1983).The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
10. Geeraerts, D.(1993).Vagueness's puzzles, polysemy's vagaries.Cognitive Linguistics,4(3),223-272.
11. Halliday, M. A. K.(Ed.),Martin, J. R.(Ed.)(1993).Writing science: Literacy and discursive power.Pittsburgh, PA:University of Pittsburgh Press.
12. Halliday, M. A. K.,Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.(2004).An introduction to functional grammar.London:Hodder Arnold.
13. Klepousniotou, E.(2002).The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy in the mental lexicon.Brain and Language,81(1-3),205-223.
14. Klepousniotou, E.,Titone, D.,Romero, C.(2008).Making sense of word senses: The comprehension of polysemy depends on sense overlap.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,34(6),1534-1543.
15. Lyons, J.(1977).Semantics.London:Cambridge University Press.
16. Martin, J. R.,Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.,Painter, C.(2010).Deploying functional grammar.Beijing, China:Commercial.
17. McClelland, J. L.,Rumelhart, D. E.(1981).An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings.Psychological Review,88(5),375-407.
18. Norris, S. P.,Phillips, L. M.(2003).How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy.Science Education,87(2),224-240.
19. Onifer, W.,Swinney, D. A.(1981).Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias.Memory & Cognition,9(3),225-236.
20. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016, May). PISA 2018 Draft analytical frameworks. Retrieved December 30, 2017, from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/PISA-2018-draft-frameworks.pdf
21. Pearson, P. D.(2010).Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other.Science,328(5977),459-463.
22. Pustejovsky, J.(1995).The generative lexicon.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
23. Ravin, Y.(Ed.),Leacock, C.(Ed.)(2000).Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches.Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.
24. Rayner, K.,Frazier, L.(1989).Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words.Journal of Experiment Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition,15(5),779-790.
25. Rayner, K.,Pacht, J. M.,Duffy, S. A.(1994).Effects of prior encounter and global discourse bias on the processing of lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations.Journal of Memory and Language,33(4),527-544.
26. Rodd, J.,Gaskell, G.,Marslen-Wilson, W.(2002).Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access.Journal of Memory and Language,46(2),245-266.
27. Sereno, S. C.,O'Donnell, P. J.,Rayner, K.(2006).Eye movements and lexical ambiguity resolution: Investigating the subordinate-bias effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,32(2),335-350.
28. Tognini-Bonelli, E.(2001).Corpus linguistics at work.Amsterdam, The Netherlands:John Benjamins.
29. Tuggy, D.(1993).Ambiguity, polysemy and vagueness.Cognitive Linguistics,4(3),273-290.
30. Unsworth, L.(2001).Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice.Philadelphia, PA:Open University Press.
31. van der Schoot, M.,Vasbinder, A. L.,Horsley, T. M.,Reijntjes, A. H. A.,van Lieshout, E. C. D. M.(2009).Lexical ambiguity resolution in good and poor comprehenders: An eye fixation and self-paced reading study in primary school children.Journal of Educational Psychology,101(1),21-36.
32. Wellington, J.,Osborne, J.(2001).Language and literacy in science education.Philadelphia, PA:Open University Press.
33. 史家瑩編(2017)。國民中學自然與生活科技二上。臺南市:翰林。
34. 史家瑩編(2017)。國民中學自然與生活科技一上。臺南市:翰林。
35. 史家瑩編(2017)。國民中學自然與生活科技二下。臺南市:翰林。
36. 林英智編(2017)。國民中學自然與生活科技一上。新北市:康軒文教。
37. 林英智編(2017)。國民中學自然與生活科技三上。新北市:康軒文教。
38. 林英智編(2017)。國民中學自然與生活科技二下。新北市:康軒文教。
39. 高佩如、李佳穎、蔡介立(2011)。語境預測力對中文一詞多義處理歷程的影響：來自眼動研究的證據。第十二屆漢語詞彙語義學研討會，臺北市:
40. 郭重吉編(2017)。國民中學自然與生活科技二上。臺南市:南一。
41. 郭重吉編(2017)。國民中學自然與生活科技二下。臺南市:南一。
42. 郭重吉編(2017)。國民中學自然與生活科技三上。臺南市:南一。
43. 郭重吉編(2017)。國民中學自然與生活科技三下。臺南市:南一。
44. 楊芝瑜、柯華葳、張毓仁(2012)。記憶廣度及語境效應對閱讀歧義詞彙的影響：來自眼動的證據。教育與心理研究，35(3)，1-36。

1. 楊文金,黃仲義,陳世文(2021)。我國國民中小學科學教科書科學詞彙之差異比較。教科書研究，14(1)，1-29。
2. 鄭鈐華,張凌嘉,吳昭容(2021)。從算式或文字閱讀數學科普文章：共變數分析與階層線性模式的比較。教育科學研究期刊，66(1)，107-139。