楊文金Yang, Wen-Gin李哲迪Lee, Che-Di2019-09-052007-8-282019-09-052006http://etds.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&s=id=%22GN0887450031%22.&%22.id.&http://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw:80/handle/20.500.12235/104719摘 要 本研究旨在分析漢語中高中學生和物理教科書將力建構為實在的語言基礎。 根據理論的探討，在語言層面，理論事物之實在透過兩種方式而建構。其一是語言性事實：事物之實在透過一套談論它的話語而不證自明。其二是合法化：事物之實在透過指出「科學語詞真的有所指，或與別的語詞有所別（對這兩者產生懷疑即為合法性危機）」而證成。理想上，在合法化的論證過程中使用的語言策略是展示隱喻事件和技術事件間的轉換（即技術性建構）。根據系統功能語言學，理論事物會以名詞形式作為語法的物件而參與在事件中，此類事件是為隱喻事件；理論事物的話語則是表達隱喻事件時需依循的詞彙語法。在技術事件中，理論事物以與經驗形式一致的語法形式來表達。藉由技術性建構，理論事物轉換為一致式表達，從而獲得其日常意義而成為可理解的。 實徵研究發現：在語言性事實的方面，教科書和高中學生建構了有別於常識力的科學力話語；但在合法化的方面，則幾乎沒有出現技術性建構。 對科學教科書語料庫和中研院平衡語料庫的內容分析，以及對學生 (N=72)的凱利方格問卷調查顯示：漢語中存在科學力和常識力兩種話語；雖然兩種話語有邊界模糊的現象，但高中學生能區別之；與高一學生相比，高三學生的兩種話語更趨於約定用法。這表示力的語法性存在已在高中學生群體中建立。 然而，在合法化方面，課文分析和學生(N=15)晤談結果顯示：課文沒有適當說明「力」的所指，而且「力」與「作用」之間以及「作用」與技術事件中對應的語詞之間沒有恰當銜接；對接觸力的「接觸」之所指也沒有說明；總結而言，課文沒有進行技術性建構。另外，本研究使學生(N=15)在彈簧秤測量情境中解釋測量結果並接受詢問，從而使之處於合法性危機。以Toulmin的論證架構為基礎，對學生的回答所做的分析顯示：雖能運用各種語言策略，但學生無法將隱喻事件拆解為技術事件，指出「力」之所指，藉以進行有效的論證。對學生而言，「力」是空洞的存在。 本研究從語言性事實和合法化的角度切入，藉由語言分析來探究概念學習。結論對此研究取徑在相關研究中的意義提出說明，並在此研究基礎上對科學課程、教學、師資培育與未來研究提出建議。　　 Abstract The linguistic bases on that senior high school students and physical textbooks rely to construct force as reality in Chinese are investigated. On the linguistic stratum, a theoretical entity can be constructed as reality by two ways. One is by linguistic facts. An entity’s reality is self-evident because of the discourse talking about it. The other is by legitimation. An entity’s reality is justified by showing that the scientific term does have signification or the signified of it is different from ones of other terms (Anyone who doubts these two claims is in legitimation crises). In legitimation, the linguistic strategies used in argument ideally are the transformation between metaphoric events and technical events (i.e., technicality construction). According to systemic functional linguistics, theoretical entities participate in events as grammatical objects with the form of noun. These events are called as “metaphorical events” following the lexico-grammar known as “discourses”. In technical events, the grammatical forms of theoretical entities are congruent to the experiential forms. Through technicality construction, theoretical entities are transformed into congruent expressions. And then they obtain the meaning resided in everyday language and become understandable. Empirical findings show that on linguistic facts, textbooks and senior high school students do construct the scientific-force discourse, which is different from common-sense-force discourse, and on legitimation, there is hardly technicality construction. The content analysis on the corpuses of science textbooks and of the Academia Sinica Balanced Corpus of Modern Chinese and the questionnaire survey on 72 students through “Linguistic Expressions Questionnaire” with the structure of Kelly’s Repertory Grid both show that: (1). There are two kinds of discourses. One is for scientific force and the other is for common-sense force. (2). Senior high school students can distinguish these two discourses with an ambiguous boundary. And (3). the discourses of 15th grade students are more coincident with the conventional usage than ones of 13th grade students. These indicate that the grammatical existence of force has been built in the group of senior high school students. However on the aspect of legitimation, the analysis on texts of science textbooks and the interviews on 13th grade 15 students having read the texts shows: (1). The reference of “force” does not be properly interpreted by these texts. The cohesions between “force” and “action” and between “action” and the corresponding expression in technical events are not properly built up. (2). The reference of “contact” in “contact force” does not be interpreted either. In sum, there is no technicality construction in the science texts. Furthermore, 13th grade 15 students were interviewed and asked to interpret the results of measurement using spring scale so that they were situated in the legitimation crises. The analysis by applying the Toulmin’s framework of argumentation finds that varieties of linguistic strategies are identified but students cannot correctly unpack metaphoric events into technical events so as to refer the signification of “force” and make effective argumentations. For them, force is a hollow reality. By choosing the viewpoints of linguistic facts and of legitimation, the investigation on concept learning through linguistic analysis is conducted. The meanings of this approach in related studies and some suggestions about science curriculum, teaching, teacher education, and further research are brought up as conclusion.系統功能語言學語法隱喻技術性建構話語合法化科學課文凱利方格法論證概念學習Systemic Functional LinguisticsGrammatical MetaphorTechnicality ConstructionDiscourseLegitimationScience TextsKelly's Repertory Grid Technique (RGT)ArgumentationConcept Learning