科學文本的功能不僅是說明概念的定義，同時也需要解釋概念之間的關係，而級位與分體就是兩種概念之間主要的語意關係，級位關係是指主類與次類間的類屬關係，分體關係則指整體與部分間的組成關係，為了體現級位與分體關係，科學文本會以不同的論述方式來描述，本文目的即在探討科學文本中描述級位分體關係的論述方式以及師生對級位分體論述的語意理解。本研究首先以STAR程式分析現行國中科學教科書物質組成與分類主題的內容，瞭解科學文本描述級位分體關係之論述方式。接著選取國中與高中學生各65與78位，以及科學教師7位，共150位師生作為研究對象，以「物質與原子」文本作為實驗文本，依其內容設計物質與原子語意論述問卷作為測驗工具，師生閱讀文本內容後填答問卷，最後以凱利方格技術（RGT）探討師生之語意理解及比較兩者之理解差異。
研究發現科學文本體現級位分體關係的論述方式相當多元。在語式方面，有解構、組合、確認、含攝、列舉、範疇以及符號等七種用於描述級位分體關係的語式類型，在詞彙層次方面，文本更可透過過程、關係元、修辭以及過程修辭等四種詞彙角色來描述，其中某些論述方式具有雙重語意關係的指涉性質，導致語意關係的體現較為模糊，這類論述稱為內隱論述，而「過程+修辭」的論述方式較能清楚體現語意關係，稱為外顯論述。
師生對於級位關係的理解較具共識，他們能夠明確地辨識出級位關係與分體關係的語意差異，同時也瞭解分體關係中具有混合分體的語意，但科學教師比國中學生更進一步分化出混合分體與鍵結分體，甚至是單一成分與多重成分的混合分體。此外，根據科學教師與學生對級位分體論述的語意理解，「是、一種」與「組成、構成」適合用於描述級位與分體關係，而「混合而成」與「化合成、結合成」適合用於描述混合分體與鍵結分體，同時也指出包含、含、有、分為、分成、一部分等論述方式所指涉的語意關係較為模糊，顯示它們並非體現級位分體關係理想的論述方式。
最後，根據研究結論與建議，促使科學教師與教科書編者思考在科學教學或是文本編輯上如何使用不同論述來清楚表達概念之間的級位分體關係，以增進學生的語意理解。

The functions of science textbooks are not only to introduce the definitions of science concepts, but also to explain the relations between concepts for students. Hyponymy and meronymy(H-M) are two main semantic relations that usually embedded in the discourses of science textbooks. The purposes of this study were to explore the discourses semantics which embodied the H-M relations in science textbooks, and teachers and students’ comprehension of the H-M discourses semantically. The theme of “composition and category of matter” in secondary science textbooks was excerpted and analyzed by the STAR program to understand the discourses which described H-M relations. A total of 150 participants which included 65 8th and 78 11th grade students and 7 secondary school science teachers were asked to read the treatment text which excerpted from the topic of “matter and atom”. They were then asked to fill out a questionnaire which designed by the Repertory Grid Technique(RGT) for exploring their differentiations of H-M relations and the comprehension of H-M discourse semantically.
The results showed that the H-M discourses in science textbooks were diverse. These discourses could be sorted into seven semantic modes: decomposition, composition, identification, subsumption, enumeration, categorization, and symbolization. They also could be represented into different lexicon roles: process, relator, modifier and process-modifier in SFL to embody H-M relations. Additionally, some discourses showed the H-M relations indefinitely were called “implicit discourse”, but some indicated the H-M relations clearly were called “explicit discourses”.
Teachers and students had high consensus on hyponymy relation. They could definitely distinguish the semantic differences the differences of semantics between hyponymy and meronymy. They could also understand that the meronymy implied a blending meaning. Teachers, however, could classify meronymy into blend and bond meronymy, the mono-blend and multi-blend meronymy even better than students did. Furthermore, teachers and students argued that [is, is a kind of] and [composite, comprise] were proper to represent the H-M relations, and [mix] and [combine] were proper for blend and bond meronymy. They also suggested that some lexicons, such as [include, contain, have, divide into, divide as, is a part of], represented H-M relations ambiguously, which meant they were not the ideal discourses to indicate these two relations.
Finally, these results could recommend that science teachers and science textbooks editors pay attention to the issue of H-M discourses in science textbooks, and to think how to deploy these discourses to definitely represent the H-M relations for facilitating students’ comprehension semantically.

中文部份：
方琰（1998）：語境、語域、語類。余渭深編：語言的功能－系統、語用和認知。四川：重慶大學出版社。
王心詠、黃台珠（1997）：教學轉變中的反省及行動：一位國中生物教師的個案研究，科學教育學報，3，115-160。
史家瑩主編（2004）：國民中學自然與生活科技第一冊至第六冊。台南：翰林出版社。
呂叔湘（1980）：現代漢語八百詞。北京：商務印書館。
李宜靜（1996）：教學實務與班級經營:一位國中生物教師的個案研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
李哲迪（2006）：高中物理教科書與學生關於力的話語與合法化的語言策略。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文，未出版。
周佩儀 (2003)：教科書研究的現況分析與趨勢展望。載於中華民國課程與教學學會主編，教科書之選擇與評鑑，187-207。高雄：復文出版社。
林昆範（2005）：國小部編本國語教科書字形與編排之研究。國立編譯館館刊，33(4)，18-29。
林俊智(2003)：以系統功能語言學觀點探討不同課文結構對科學文章的理解—以溫度與熱為例。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
林英智主編（2004）：國民中學自然與生活科技第一冊至第六冊。台北：康軒文教事業股份有限公司。
林陳涌、楊榮祥（1998）：利用凱利方格晤談法探討教師對科學本質的觀點--個案研究，科學教育學刊，6(2)，113-128。
胡壯麟、朱永生、張德祿、李戰子（2005）：系統功能語言學概論。北京：北京大學出版社。
胡哲生、毛禮興（2005）：產業網路觀點下的教科書出版業經營策略分析。國立編輯館館刊，33(4)，2-17。
翁育誠(2004)：以蘊含序列與詞彙密度兩種結構探討科學課文結構與閱讀理解的關係－以溫度與熱為例。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
翁敏婷（2000）：國中生理化學習環境知覺及其與學術地位、自我效能關係之探討。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
張身華（譯）（1968）：邏輯概論(Introduction of logic)，Copi I. M.著。台北：幼獅。
梁玉玲、楊靜寬、王稼鈞（譯）（1994）：女人、火與危險事物(women, fire, and dangerous things)，Lakoff, G .著。台北：桂冠。
許良榮（2003）：國內大專用書「自然科學概論」內容之潛在問題分析。科學教育，262，2-12。
郭重吉主編（2004）：國民中學自然與生活科技第一冊至第六冊。台南：南一書局。
陳世文、楊文金(2005)：國中科學教科書中「物質」及其複合詞之分析。物理教育，6(1)，11-23。
陳世文、楊文金(2006)：以系統功能語言學探討學生對不同科學文本的閱讀理解。師大學報-科學教育類，51(1,2)，107-124。
陳可恭（2005）：從系統典範探討板塊構造學說多重類比教學-「凱利方格法」（RGT）之系統性應用。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文，未出版。
陳書瑩（1999）：高中生活科技教科書編排設計之研究。國立臺灣師範大學工業教育研究所論文，未出版。
陳雅芬（2000）：以凱利方格法探討學生對於氣體的概念理解。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
程樹德、傅大為、王道還、錢永祥（譯）（1989）：科學革命的結構（The Structure of Science Revolution），Thomas. Kuhn著。台北市：遠流。
黃政傑（1999）：課程改革。台北：漢文書局。
黃政傑（2003）：重建教科書的概念與實務。課程與教學季刊，6(1)，1-12。
黃炳煌（1981）：課程與教學的基本原理（Tyler, R. W. 1949年出版）。台北：桂冠書局。
黃儒傑（2004）：國小教科書選用方式及其滿意度與使用效能之研究。臺東大學教育學報，15(3)，59-86。
楊文金（1995）：常識與電學概念的理解。師大學報，40，549-582。
楊文金（2000）：以凱利方格法探討個體理解教師教學與社群互動之效應：中學生對於能量與力量概念理解分析。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃書，NSC89-2511-S-003-147。
楊文金（2007）：學生對「類屬-組成」論述的語意理解－以「血液」文本為例。科學教育學刊，15(2)，195-214。
廖焜熙（2001）：中學理化教科書教材內容研究之回顧與分析。科學教育，237，2-7。
趙元任（1968）：中國話的文法。台北：敦煌書局。
趙恆玉（2000）：漢語「有」的語義分析與教學語法。國立臺灣師範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文，未出版。
劉月華、潘文娛、故韡（1996）。實用現代漢語語法。台北：師大書苑。
劉俊庚（2002）：迷思概念與概念改變教學策略之文獻分析－以概念構圖和後設分析模式探討其意涵與影響，國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
蔡秀芳（1998）：。營造學生為主動學習者之合作行動研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
鄭良偉（1997）：台語、華語的結構與動向。台北：遠流出版社
鄧鈞文（2003）：教科書自由化及其問題分析。課程與教學季刊，6(1)，27-42。
藍偉瑩（2001）：小組互動與概念改變機制之探討─以物質狀態與氣體性質概念為例。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
藍順德（2004）：二十年來國內博碩士論文教科書研究之分析。國立編輯館館刊，32(4)，2-25。
魏文真（1995）：國語的有字句。國立清華大學語言學研究所碩士論文，未出版。
蘇進棻（2006）：九年一貫「一綱多本」教科書政策衍生問題與因應策略。教育研究與發展期刊，2(3)，63-91。

英文部份：
Apple, M. W. (1993). Official Knowledge. New York: Routledge.
Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning- an introduction to school leaning. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Berlin, B., Breedlove, D., & Raven, P. (1973). General principles of classification and nomenclature in folk biology. American Anthropologist, 75, 214-242.
Bezzi, A. (1999). What is this thing called geosciences? Epistemological dimensions elicited with repertory grid and their implicateons for scienctific literacy. Science Edcuation, 83, 675-700.
Bruner, J. S.(1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
Burr, V. (1995). An introducetion to sociall constructionism. London: Routledge.
Casagrande, J. B., & Hale, K. L. (1967). Semantic relations in Papago folk-definitions. In Hymes. D., & Bittle, W. E. (eds.), Studies in southwestern ethnolinguistics. The Hague: Mouton, 165-199.
Chaffin, R., & Herrmann D. J. (1984). The similarity and diversity of semantic relations. Memory and Cognition, 12, 134-141.
Chaffin, R., & Herrmann D. J. (1987). Relation element theory. In D. S. gorfein & R. R. Hoffnam (eds.), Memory and leaning : the Ebbinghaus centenniall conference. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 221-245.
Chambliss, M. J., & Calfee, R. C. (1999). Textbooks for learning. London: Blackwell.
Chapelle, C. A. (1998). Some notes on Systemic Functional Linguistics. http:://www.public.iastate.edu/~carolc/LING511/sfl.html.
Chen, S. W., & Yang W. G. (2007). Exploring students’ comprehension in the hyponymy and the meronymy of science concepts. Paper was presented at NARST 2007, New Orleans, U.S.A..
Chen, S. W., Yang, W. G., & Huang, J. W. (2006). Exploring students’ semantic comprehension in the hyponymy and the meronymy of science concepts. Paper is postered at SEMC2006, Dublin, Ireland.
Copi, I. M.(1978). Introduction to logic(5th). New York: Macmillan Publishing.
Cruse, D. A. (1995). Polysemy and related phenomena from a cognitive linguistic viewpoint. IN P. Saint-Dizier & E. Viegas (eds.), Computational lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 33-49.
Cruse, D. A. (2002). Hyponymy and its varieties. In R. Green, C. A. Bean, and S. H. Myaeng(eds.), The semantics of relationships. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 3-22.
Curse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Evens, M. W., Litowitz, B. E. Markowitz, J. A. Smith, R. N., & Werner, O. (1980). Lexical-semantic relations. Edmonton: Linguistic Research.
Fellbaum, C. (1998). A semantic network of English verbs. In C. Fellbaum (ed.), WordNet: an electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 69-104.
Fetherstonhaugh, T. (1994). Using the repertory grid to probe students’ ideas about energy. Research in Science & Technilogical education, 12(2), 117,127.
Fromkin, V., & Rodman, R. (1998). An Introduction to Language (6th ed.). USA: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Gerson E. M. (2000). Different parts for different smarts: Partonomies and the organization of work. Prepared for a workshop on Cooperative Organization of Common Information Spaces, 23-25 August 2000, Center for Tele-Information, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introducetiona to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. (2006). An introduction of functional grammar (3rd). Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing Science: literacy and discursive power. London: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. (2004). The language of science.(edited by Jonathan J. Webster. The fifth volume of a series of the Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday). London/ New York: Continuum.
Handke, J. (1995). The structure of the lexicon: human versus machine. New York: Mouton of Gruyter.
Heffernan, D., & Learmonth, M. (1983). The world of science-Book 4. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.
Hsu, P. L., & Yang W.G. (2007). Print and Image Integration of Science Texts and Reading Comprehension: A Systemic Functional Linguistics Perspective. International Journal of Mathematics and Science Education. (Submitted)
Iris, M. A., Litowitz, B., & Evens M. (1988). Problems of the part-whole relation. In M. W. Evens (ed.), Relational models of the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 261-288.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of science revolution(2nd). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (2 vols.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, J. R. (1984). Language, Register and genre. In Christie, F(ed): Language Studies: Children Writing, Reader. Geelong, Australia: Deaking University Press.
Martin, K., & Miller, E. (1988). Storytelling and science. Language Arts, 65(3), 255-259.
Meyerson, M., Ford, M., Jones, W., & Ward, M. (1991). Science vocabulary knowledge of third and fifth grade students. Science Education, 75(4). 419-428.
Miller, K. J. (1998). Modifiers in WordNet. In C. Fellbaum (ed.), WordNet: and electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 47-67.
Murphy, M. L. (2003). Semantic relations and the lexicon : antonymy, synonymy and other paradigms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Parret, H. (1974). Discussing language. The Hague: Mouton.
Pickersgill, S., & Lock, R. (1991). Student understanding of selected non-technical words in science. Research in Science and Technological Education, 9(1), 71-79.
Rosch, E. H., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes, B. P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognition Psychology, 8, 382-439.
Shaw, M. L. G. (Ed.). (1981). Recent advances in personal construct technology. London: Academic Press.
Shaw, M. L. G., & Gaines, B. R. (1992). Kelly’s geometry of psychological space and its significance for cognitive modeling. The New Psychologist, October 1992, 23-31.
Shaw, M. L. G., & Gaines, B. R. (1995).Comparing conceptuall structures: consensus, conflict, correspondence and contrast. URL=http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/articles/KBS/COCO.
Smith, R. (1985). Conceptual primitives in the English lexicon. Papers in Linguistics,18, 99-137.
Solomon, J. (1994). The Rise and Fall of Constructivism. Studies in Science 　Education﹐23, 1-19.
Stasio, T., D. J. Herrmann, & R. Chaffin. (1985). Relation similarity as a function of agreement between relation elements. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 23(1), 5-8.
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H. J. (1997). An introducetion to cognitive linguistics. London: Longman.
Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum︰Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Open University Press.
Varzi, A. (2004). "Mereology", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2004/entries/mereology/.
Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to mean—scientifically speaking. Apprenticeship into scientific discourse in secondary school. In F. Christie, & J. R. Martin(eds.), Genres and institutions︰social process in the workplace and school. London: Cassell.
Vigliocco, G., & Vinson, D. P. (2005). Semantic representation. In G. Gaskell (ed.) Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Oxford University Press.
Viner, L. R., & vazquez-Abad, J. (1997). Repertory grid technique in the diagnosis of learner difficulties and the assessment of conceptual change in physics. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 10(4), 363-386.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press
Wellington, J. J. & Osborne, J.(2001).Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham :Open University Press.
Werner, O., & Topper, M. (1976). On the theoretical unity of ethnoscience lexicography and ethnoscience ethnographics. In C. Rameh (ed), Semantics, theory and applications. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 111-143.
Wierzbicka, A.(1984). Apples are not a “kind of fruit”. American Ethnologist, 11, 313-328.
Winston, M. E., Chaffin R., & Herrmann D. (1987). A taxonomy of part-whole relations. Cognitive Science, 11, 417-444.