邏輯連接詞(logical connectives)，例如因此、當、或，在科學文本中無所不在，它們的功能不只是連接了詞語和句子，同時也體現了被連接詞語和句子之間的邏輯關係。「或」是一個基本的邏輯連接詞，其所指涉的邏輯語義卻不是一種而已。本文目的即在探討中小學科學教科書中「或」邏輯語義分析以及生師對「或」的語義理解。本研究首先以從漢語歷時語義文獻研究，得知「或」至少有五種含義：「兼容」、「排斥」、「等同」、「所有」、以及「兼有」。接著以「或」的五種邏輯語義為架構，邀請專家讀者組成審議小組針對中小學科學教科書進行內容分析，以瞭解教科書中各類「或」語義的分佈。
生師對「或」的語義理解則以「還原理解」和「辨識理解」兩方面進行探究。研究對象皆以方便取樣。「還原理解」方面，蒐集22名八年級學生和9名國中數理教師對科學語句中「或」的還原情形。「辨識理解」問卷則包括5題生活「或」和5題科學「或」試題，共調查70名七年級新生、60名七年級舊生、62名八年級學生和20名國高中科學教師對「或」語義的辨識。最後選取8名八年級學生和9名教師訪談釋讀「或」時所使用的線索和策略。
研究發現科學教科書中「或」語句存在5種邏輯語義，以兼容義所佔的比例最多，並且專家讀者判斷「或」的語義方面，有一致共識的語句的比例低於爭議句。在還原科學語句中「或」方面，國中生師的「或」還原率都低於50%，還原的填答種類複雜，跟「或」競爭排名第一的詞語是「和」，甚至學生讀者填「和」的比例高過於「或」。在辨識「或」的邏輯語義方面，國中學生對「或」的語義區辨程度低於科學教師，而七年級新生跟八年級學生對科學「或」語義區辨程度相當；生師對生活「或」語義的區辨程度高於科學「或」，唯有一題生活「或」語義是生師表現一樣，都區分不開的。根據訪談發現，生師釋讀「或」時會依據直覺、文字線索例如標點符號括號、「都有」等、以及先備知識來協助判斷。
最後，根據「或」潛在多元語義引發的複雜語義理解結果，提出教科書編寫者和科學教師唯有意識到描述邏輯語義關係的詞彙選擇和語法之重要性和必要性，運用其他相關語言資源和教學釋讀策略，方能增進學生對事件之間邏輯關係有更清晰的判斷，對科學概念有更全面、完整的理解。

Logical connectives, such as hence, while, and or, are ubiquitous in science writing and they not only link phrases, clauses and sentences but also express their logical relations with one another. “Or” is a fundamental logical connective. In Chinese writing, “or” at least has five different semantic meanings (exclusive-, inclusive-, both-, identical-, and whole- or). Multiple meanings could cause problems in reading comprehension. The purposes of this study were to analyze the logical semantic meanings of “or” in the science textbooks in junior high schools and elementary schools, and to explore students and teachers’ comprehension of the “or” semantically in everyday life and science context.
At first, according to the five different semantic meanings of “or,” some expert readers were invited to form a group focusing on the analysis of the content of the textbooks in junior high and elementary schools to discover the distribution of the various meanings of “or” in the textbooks. For exploring the junior high school students’ and teachers’ understanding of the semantic meanings, the research tried to let the participants return and distinguish their understanding. The students and teachers were asked to receive the Gap-filing questionnaire for returning their understanding, and to finish the Rating Scales questionnaire for distinguishing the understanding, collecting the information of their acceptance and rejection, and comparing the differences between students and teachers. Last, we interviewed all the subjects to recorded their clues and strategies during the process.
There are 5 different semantic meanings of “or” and the inclusive-or is the most in the science textbooks. In addition, the ratio of the sentences that the expert readers agreed the meanings is far below as they disagreed. According to the result of the Gap-filing questionnaire, the rate of the answer “or” of the students and teachers were lower than 50 percent. Generally speaking, “and” is a very important factor to cause the confusion for students and teachers and sometimes students even use “and” more often than “or.” Based on the result of the Rating Scales questionnaire, the junior high school students’ level of distinguishing is significantly lower than science teacher, and there is no significantly difference between 7th and 8th grade. Both students and teachers could distinguish the semantic meanings better on everyday life topics than scientific topics except one everyday-life item in the questionnaire.
Based on the analysis of the interviews, we found the students and teachers were inclined to judge with the help of intuition, clues from the context, punctuation, or their prior knowledge.
Finally, the research suggested that the writers of the science textbooks have to aware the importance and necessities of correct option of the logical semantic connectives so that can help students improve their ability to judge the logical relations clearly between different events and get more complete and precise comprehension.

中文部份
王海棻、趙長才、黃珊、吳可穎 (1996)。古漢語虛詞詞典。北京：北京大學出版社。
王習勝 (2004)。自然語言中選言支相容與否的判定問題。巢湖學院學報，6(5)，92-95。
何新波 (2005)。現代漢語虛詞。深圳：海天出版社。
呂叔湘 (1999)。現代漢語八百詞。北京：商務印書館。
李子瑄、曹逢甫 (2009)。漢語語言學。臺北縣新店市：正中。
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所博士論文，未出版，臺北市。
李曉琪 (2005)。現代漢語虛詞講義。北京：北京大學出版社。
杜國平 (2008)。「或者」、「OR」邏輯特徵對比分析。重慶工學院學報(社會科學)，22(9)，19-22。
周有斌 (2004)。「或者」與「或」的差異。宿州教育學院學報，7(1)，87-88。
林玉體 (2008)。邏輯入門。台北市：文景。
俞瑾 (1995)。選言判斷及其語言表達。南京師大學報(社會科學版)，4，96-101。
施惠(主編) (2008)。國小自然與生活科技(第三冊)。臺南：南一。
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。
張凱萍、謝志偉、蔣佳玲 (2012)。國小教師科學說明中的因果句型-以一位國小教師為例。發表於中華民國第二十八屆科學教育學術研討會。台北：台北教育大學。
高名凱 (1946)。漢語語法論。台北市：臺灣開明書店。
高樹藩 (1988)。文言文虛詞大詞典。台北市：東欣文化圖書公司。
張誼生 (2000)。現代漢語虛詞。上海：華東師範大學出版社。
教育部 (1994)。教育部重編國語辭典修訂本，查詢日期：2009年9月7日，取自：http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/cgi-bin/newDict/dict.sh？cond=%A9%CE&pieceLen=50&fld=1&cat=&ukey=1001177403&serial=1&recNo=3&op=f&imgFont=1
陳波 (2002)。邏輯學是什麼？台北市：五南
焦長令 (1995)。古漢語虛詞「或」和「莫」辨析。陝西教育學院學報，11(1)，91-96。
楊文金 (2007)。科學文本分析資源1.0。查詢日期：2009年9月7日，檢自http://star.gise.ntnu.edu.tw:8080/sta/sciencetext/stamain.asp。
楊文金 (2010)。科學文本資料庫2.0。查詢日期：2013年12月18日，檢自http://se.gise.ntnu.edu.tw/sta2/default.asp。
楊文金 (2011)。漢語與科學文本閱讀。臺北市立圖書館館訊，28(4)，1-15。
楊文金、陳世文 (2008)。科學漢語與科學英語論述特質的比較─以「觀念物理」文本為例。師大學報：科學教育類，53(1)，113-137。
楊國揚、林信志 (2013)。高中審定本教科書使用現況及教師影響因素之研究。國家教育研究院研究計畫 (NAER-101-10-G-2-01-00-1-01)。新北市：國家教育研究院。
詹益綾、柯華葳(2010)。由眼動資料探討連接詞在閱讀歷程中扮演的角色。教育心理學報，42(2)，297-316。
鄒哲承 (2000)。關於「和」「或」互換現象的解釋。荊州師範學院學報，1，115-117。
裴瑞玲、王跟國 (2014)。漢語詞義問題研究。台灣：Airiti Press Inc.華藝學術出版社。
劉月華、潘文娛、故韡 (1996)。實用現代漢語語法。台北市：師大書苑。
蔣佳玲 (2009)。除了「因為… 所以… 」之外：國中理化教師口語敘說中因果意涵的體現。發表於中華民國第二十五屆科學教育學術研討會。台北：台灣師大。
蔣佳玲 (2013)。「因為慣性所以水離開你的手」-國中理化教師話語中的因果關係。發表於中華民國第二十九屆科學教育學術研討會。彰化：彰化師範大學。
蔣佳玲、楊文金、廖斌吟、史偉郁 (2014)。國小科學文本「或」的邏輯語義分析。教科書研究，7(1)，1-30。
蔣佳玲 (2016)。科學文本中英語「or」與漢語「或」的語義類型之比較－以《觀念物理》為例。教育實踐與研究，29(2)，33-64。

英文部份
Ainsworth, S., & Burcham, S. (2007). The impact of text coherence on learning by self-explanation. Learning and Instruction, 17(3), 286-303.
Brown, A. O. (2014). Lexical access, knowledge transfer and meaningful learning of scientific terminology via an etymological approach. International Journal Of Biology Education, 3(2), 1-12.
Carrier, S. J. (2013). Elementary preservice teachers’ science vocabulary: Knowledge and application. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(2), 405-425.
Crystal, D. (2010)。語言的祕密(How Language Works；蔡淑菁、謝儀霏譯)。臺北市：貓頭鷹出版社。(原作出版於2006年)
Degand, L., & Sanders, T. (2002). The impact of relational markers on expository text comprehension in L1 and L2. Reading and Writing, 15(7-8), 739-757.
Gardner, P. L. (1975). Logical connectives in science: A preliminary report. Research in Science Education, 5(1), 161-175.
Gardner, P. L. (1980). The identification of specific difficulties with logical connectives in science among secondary school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17(3), 223-229.
Gardner, P. L., Schafe, L., Thein, U. M., & Watterson, R. (1976). Logical connectives in science: Some preliminary findings. Research in Science Education, 6(1), 97-108.
Garnier, R. P. (1992). Understanding logical connectives: A comparative study of language influence (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). Institute of Education, University of London, England.
Graesser, A. C., Le`on, J. A., & Otero, J. (2002) Introduction to psychology of science text comprehension. In J. Otero, J. A. Le`on, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 1–15) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Halliday, M. K, and Hasan, R.(1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Haug, B. S., & Ødegaard, M. (2014). From words to concepts: Focusing on word knowledge when teaching for conceptual understanding within an inquiry-based science setting. Research in Science Education, 44(5), 777-800.
Hertwig, R., Benz, B., & Krauss, S. (2008). The conjunction fallacy and the many meanings of "and". Cognition, 108(3), 740-753.
Koulaidis, V., & Tsatsaroni, A. (1996). A pedagogical analysis of science textbooks: How can we proceed？ Research in Science Education, 26(1), 55-71.
Lemke J. L., (1990), Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Mallinson, G. G., Sturm, H. E., & Patton, R. E. (1950). The reading difficulty of textbooks in elementary science. Elementary School Journal, 50, 460–464.
Marzano, R. J. (2009). The art and science of teaching: Six steps to better vocabulary instruction. Educational leadership, 67(1), 84-85.
Maskill, R. (1988). Logical language, natural strategies and the teaching of science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(5), 485-495.
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better？ Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and instruction,14(1), 1-43.
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better？ Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and instruction,14(1), 1-43.
Meyer, B. J., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading research quarterly, 72-103.
Murray, J. D. (1995). Logical connectives and local coherence. In R. F. Lorch, Jr. & E. J. O’Brien (Eds.), Sources of Coherence in Reading (pp. 107-125). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Murray, J. D. (1997). Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory and Cognition, 25(2), 227-236.
Nagy, W., & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 91-108.
O'reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: Good texts can be better for strategic, high-knowledge readers. Discourse processes, 43(2), 121-152.
Patterson, E. W. (2001). Structuring the composition process in scientific writing. International journal of science education, 23(1), 1-16.
Pinker, S. (1994).The language instinct: The new science of language and mind. UK: Penguin.
Sanders, T. J., & Noordman, L. G. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse processes, 29(1), 37-60.
Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Shymansky, J. A. & Yore, L. D. (1979). Assessing and using readability of elementary science texts. School Science and Mathematics, 79, 670–676.
Sutton, C. (1992). Words, science and learning. Open University Press: Buckingham.
Tidman, P. & Kahane, H. (2003). Logic and philosophy: A modern introduction (9th). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Wellington, J. J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Williams, R. L., & Yore, L. D. (1985). Content, format, gender and grade level differences in elementary students' ability to read science materials as measured by the cloze procedure. Journal of research in science teaching, 22(1), 81-88.
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2012). Meaning and relevance. Cambridge University Press: New York.
Yager, R. E. (1983). The importance of terminology in teaching K-12 science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(6), 577–588.
Zwiers, J. (2008). Building academic language: Essential practices for content classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Zwiers, J. (2014). Building academic language: Essential practices for meeting common core standards across disciplines, grades 5-12. San Francisco, California : Jossery-Bass.