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.

參考文獻

一、中文部分

中央研究院資訊所暨語言所詞庫小組 (1998)：中央研究院漢語料庫的內容與說明。http://www.sinica.edu.tw/SinicaCorpus/98-04.pdf
王振華 (2004)：法庭交叉質詢中的人際關係─系統功能語言學“情態”視角。外語學刊，118，51-59。
朱永生 (2002)：系統功能語言學與轉換生成語言學的主要差別。外語研究，74，1-5。
朱德熙 (1985)：語法答問。北京：商務印書館。
何秀煌 (2000)：記號學導論 (第五版)。台北市：水牛。
吳啟主 (1995)：漢語語法特點與漢語語言學現代化。湖南師範大學社會科學學報，24(6)，117-121。
宋耀廷 (2000)：先前知識文章結構和多媒體呈現對文章學習的影響。台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文論文。
李美惠 (2005)：科學寫作在自然科學教學與評量的應用－以電影中酸鹼現象之觀察與解釋為例。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所在職進修碩士班碩士論文。
李哲迪、楊文金 (2003)：高一學生如何定義力、能量和功？ 發表於 中華民國第十九屆科學教育學術研討會，彰化。
邢福義 (1998)：漢語小句中樞語法系統論略。華中師範大學學報（人文社會科學版），37(1)，1-7。
邢福義 (2002)：漢語複句研究。北京：商務印書館。
劭敬敏、羅曉英 (2004)：功能主義與漢語語法研究。漢語學習，5，5-9。
周佩儀 (2003)：教科書研究的現況分析與趨勢展望。中華民國課程與教學學會編，教科書之選擇與評鑑 (頁175-207)：高雄：復文。
屈承熹 (1996)：現代漢語中「句子」的定義及其地位。世界漢語教學，4，16-23。
林明瑞編 (2005)：高級中學基礎物理 (第二版)。台南市：南一。
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。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
林英智編 (2004)：國中自然與生活科技領域（全六冊）。台北縣：康軒文教。
邱美虹 (2000)：概念改變研究的省思與啟示。科學教育學刊，8(1)，1-34。
金立鑫 (2000)：語法的多視角研究。上海：上海外語教育出版社。
金立鑫、白水振 (2003)：現代漢語語法特點和漢語語法研究的本位觀。漢語學習，5，15-21。
胡壯麟 (1994)：語篇的銜接與連貫。上海：上海外語教育出版社。
胡壯麟、朱永生、張德錄 (1989)：系統功能語法概論。長沙：湖南教育出版社。
范開泰、張亞軍 (2000)：現代漢語語法分析。上海市：華東師範大學出版社。
范曉 (2001)：漢語語法研究的歷史、現狀和展望。漢語學習，1，2-6。
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。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
張世年 (1994)：論漢語的語法形式和語法意義。江蘇教育學院學報（社會科學版），4，78-82。
張國揚、朱亞夫 (1994)：西方語言學的發展─外語教育語言學研究之一。廣州師院學報（社會科學版），4，71-75。
張筱莉、林陳涌 (2001)：學童眼中的科學專有名詞。科學教育學刊，9(3)，219-234。
張德祿 (2004)：系統功能語言學的新發展。當代語言學，6，57-65。
張德祿、劉汝山 (2003)：語篇連貫與銜接理論的發展及應用。上海：上海外語教育出版社。
許良榮 (1997)：科學課文結構對於科學學習的影響。台灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文。
許佩玲 (2004)：從系統功能語言學觀點探討不同圖文整合方式之科學課文對閱讀理解的影響─以月相單元為例。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
連坤德編 (2004)：高級中學基礎物理 (修訂版一版)。台南市：翰林。
陳文典編 (2002)：基礎物理 (修訂三版)。台中市：康熙。
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。
陳昌來 (2000)：現代漢語句子。上海市：華東師範大學出版社。
陳雅芬 (2001)：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。
陳瑞麟 (2003)：邏輯與思考。台北市：學富文化。
陳瓊森 (1998)：從建構主義觀點談概念形成及概念轉變。發表於國民中學學生概念學習學術研討會，台中東勢林場。
黃光國 (1998)：知識與行動：中華文化傳統的社會心理詮釋。台北市：心理。
黃炎峰 (2001)：高中生對於直流電路概念及其類比模型理解之研究。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。
黃俊儒、楊文金 (1997)：觀點論對於科學教育的意涵。科學教育月刊，196，9-19。
黃國文 (1988)：語篇分析概要。長沙：湖南教育出版社。
黃國文 (2000)：韓禮德系統功能語言學40 年發展述評。外語教學與研究，32(1)，15-21。
黃國文 (2001)：語篇分析的理論與實踐─廣告語篇研究。上海：上海外語教育出版社。
楊文金 (1994)：生活世界與科學教育。科學教育月刊，167，2-16。
楊文金 (1995)：常識與電學概念的理解。師大學報，40，549-582。
楊炳鈞、覃朝憲 (2001)：系統功能語言學中的元功能思想。中山大學學報（社會科學版），41(1)，47-56。
葉斐聲、徐通鏘 (1997)：語言學綱要。北京：北京大學出版社。
廖炳惠 (2003)：關鍵詞200：文學與批評研究的通用詞彙編。台北市：麥田。
褚德三編 (1999)：高級中學基礎物理。台北縣：龍騰。
趙恆玉 (2001)：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。
劉丹青 (1995)：語義優先還是語用優先─漢語語法學體系建設斷想。現代語言學，55，10-15。
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。
劉美林 (2002)：論系統功能語法中的"功能"。山東外語教學，86，34-36。
鄭昭明 (1993)：認知心理學：理論與實踐 (修訂版)。台北市：桂冠。
鄭瑞隆 (2000)：符號互動論及其在教育研究上之應用。中正大學教育學研究所編，質的研究方法 (頁135-153)。高雄市：麗文文化。
聶焱 (2004)：漢語語法、語言單位研究綜述。固原師專學報（社會科學版），25(4)，69-75。
藍順德 (2004)：二十年來國內博碩士論文教科書研究之分析。國立編譯館館刊，32(4)，2-25。
Ashton, P (2001)：活動的概念 (谷瑞勉譯)。L. Dixon-Krauss編，教室中的維高斯基：仲介的讀寫教學與評量 (頁179-200)。台北市：心理 (原著出版年：1996)
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T (1991)：知識社會學：社會實體的建構 (鄒理民譯)。台北市：巨流 (原著出版年：1966)
Cazden, C. B (1998)：教室言談：教與學的語言 (蔡敏玲、彭海燕譯)。台北市：心理 (原著出版年：1988)
Culler, J (1993)：索緒爾 (張景智譯)。台北市：桂冠。
de Saussure, F (1996)：普通語言學教程 (高名凱譯)。胡明揚編，西方語言學名著選讀 (頁75-120)。台北市：書林。
Dixon-Krauss, L編 (2001)：教室中的維高斯基─仲介的讀寫教學與評量。台北市：心理。
Edelman, G. M (2000)：先有心靈？還是先有物質？─諾貝爾獎得主的觀點 (周其勳、張立雪譯)。台北市：牛頓。
Fiske, J (1995)：傳播符號學理論 (張錦華、劉容玫、孫嘉蕊、黎雅麗譯)。台北市：遠流 (原著出版年：1990)。
Foss, S. K., Foss, K. A., & Trapp, R (1996)：當代語藝觀點 (林靜伶譯)。台北市：五南 (原著出版年：1985)。
Jarvis, P (2002)：學習的弔詭：社會中的個人蛻變 (王秋絨等譯)。台北市：學富 (原著出版年：1992)。
Laudan, L (1992)：科學的進步與問題 (陳衛平譯)。台北市：桂冠 (原著出版年：1978)。
Rosenberg, A (2004)：當代科學哲學。台北縣：韋伯 (原著出版年：2000)。
Tylor, E. B (1992)：原始文化 (連樹聲譯)。上海市：上海文藝 (原著出版年：1871)。
Vygotsky, L. S (1998)：思維與語言 (李維譯)。台北市：桂冠 (原著出版年：1986)。

二、英文部份

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday.
Bezzi, A. (1999). What is this thing called geoscience? Epistemological dimensions elicited with the repertory grid and their implications for scientific literacy. Science Education, 83(6), 675-700.
Britton, B. K., Gulgoz, S., & Glynn, S. M. (1993). Impact of good and poor writing on learners: Research and theory. In B. K. Britton, M. Binkley & A. Woodward (Eds.), Learning from textbooks: Theory and practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brockriede, W., & Ehninger, D. (1960). Toulmin on argument : An interpretation and application. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 46, 44-53.
Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G. A. (1956). A study of thinking. New York: Wiley.
Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. London: Routledge.
Carlton, K. (2000). Teaching about heat and temperature. Physics Education, 35(2), 101-105.
Castejon, J. L., & Martinez, M. A. (2001). The personal constructs of expert and novice teachers concerning the teacher function in the spanish educational reform. Learning and Instruction, 11(2), 113.
Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Examples from learning and discovery in science. In R. Girre (Ed.), Cognitive models of science: Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (pp. 129-186).
Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27-43.
Christie, F., & Martin, J. R. (1997). Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school. London: Cassell.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (1993). The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Dekkers, P. J. J. M., & Thijs, G. D. (1998). Making productive use of students' initial conceptions in developing the concept of force. Science Education, 82(1), 31-51.
Duhem, P. (1954). The aim and structure of physical theory (P. P. Wiener譯). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Easterby-Smith, M. (1981). The design, analysis and interpretation of repertory grids. In M. L. G. Shaw (Ed.), Recent advances in personal construct technology (pp. 9-30). London: Academic Press.
Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Pinter Publishers Ltd.
Fetherstonhaugh, T. (1994). Using the repertory grid to probe students' ideas about energy. Research in Science & Technological Education, 12(2), 117.
Fromkin, V., & Rodman, R. (1998). An introduction to language (7 ed.). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Gagne', E. D. (1970). The conditions of learning (2 ed.). New York: Hlot, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Gagne', E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, K. R. (1993). The cognitive psychology of school earning (2 ed.). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Gaines, B., & Shaw, M. (2005). Rep iv: Manual for research version 1.12. from http://repgrid.com/RepIV/
Galili, I. (2001). Weight versus gravitational force: Historical and educational perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 23(10), 1073-1093.
Gamble, R. (1989). Force. Physics Education, 24, 79-82.
Geelan, D. R. (1997). Epistemological anarchy and the many forms of constructivism. Science and Education, 6, 15-28.
Gorsky, P., & Finegold, M. (1994). The role of anomaly and of cognitive dissonance in restructuring students' concepts of force. Instructional Science, 22(2), 75.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993a). The analysis of scientific texts in english and chinese. In M. A. K. Halliday (Ed.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993b). The construction of knowledge and value in the grammar of scientific discourse: Charles darwin's the origin of the species. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 86-105). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993c). On the language of physical science. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 54-68). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993d). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5, 93-116.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2 ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1995). Language and the reshaping of human experience. Paper presented at the The Fourth International Symposium on Critical Discourse Analysis, Athens.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1998a). Language and knowledge: The 'unpacking' of text. In D. Allison, L. Wee, B. Zhiming & S. A. Abraham (Eds.), Text in education and society (pp. 157-178). Singapore: Singapore University Press and World Scientific.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1998b). Things and relations: Regrammaticising experience as technical knowledge. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science : Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. New York: Routledge.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1999). Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London: Continuum.
Hart, C. (2002). Teaching newton's laws. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 48(4), 14-23.
Hellingman, C. (1989). Do forces have twin brothers? Physics Education, 24, 36-40.
Herman, P. M. (1982). Energy, force, and matter. London: Cambridge University Press.
Herron, J. D., Cantu, L. L., Ward, R., & Srinivasan, V. (1977). Problems associated with concept analysis. Science Education, 61(2), 185-199.
Heywood, D., & Parker, J. (2001). Describing the cognitive landscape in learning and teaching about forces. International Journal of Science Education, 23(11), 1177-1199.
Hill, F. I. (1983). The rhetoric of aristotle. In J. J. Murphy (Ed.), A synoptic history of classical rhetoric (pp. 19-76). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.
Johnson, R. K. (1979). Readability. School Science Review, 212(60), 562-568.
Karplus, R. (1977). Science teaching and the development of reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14, 169-175.
Kearsey, J., & Turner, S. (1999). Evaluating textbooks: The role of genre analysis, Research in Science & Technological Education (Vol. 17, pp. 35): Carfax Publishing Company.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. London: Routledge.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363-394.
Klaassen, C. W. J. M., & Lijnse, P. (1996). Interpreting students' and teachers' discourse in science classes: An underestimated problem? Journal of Research in Scienc Education, 33(2), 115-134.
Knain, E. (2001). Ideologies in school science textbooks. International Journal of Science Education, 23(2), 319-329.
Kong, K. C. C. (2004). Marked themes and thematic patterns in abstracts, advertisements and administrative documents. Word-Journal Of The International Linguistic Association, 55(3), 343-362.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.
Kruger, C., Palacio, D., & Summers, M. (1992). Surveys of english primary teachers' conceptions of force, energy, and materials. Science Education, 76(4), 339-351.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2ed ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things : What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. New York: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Lin, C. Y., Hu, R. P., & Changlai, M. L. (2005). Science curriculum components favored by taiwanese biology teachers. Research In Science Education, 35(2-3), 269-280.
Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub.
Martin, J. R. (1993). Technicality and abstraction: Language for the creation of specialized texts. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 203-220). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Martin, J. R. (1997a). Analysing genre: Functional parameters. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 3-39). London: Cassell.
Martin, J. R. (1997b). Working with functional grammar. London: Arnold.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse. New York: Continuum.
Martin, J. R., & Rothery, J. (1993). Grammar: Making meaning in writing. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing (pp. 137-153). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Martin, J. R., & Veel, R. (Eds.). (1998). Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. New York: Routledge.
McDermott, L. C. (1984). Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics. Physics Today, 37, 24-32.
Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). Identification of the structure of prose and its implications for the study of reading and memory. Journal of Reading Behavior, 7(1), 7-47.
Meyer, B. J. F. (1985). Prose analysis: Purposes, procedures, and problems. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text (pp. 11-64). Hillsdle, NJ: Erlbaum.
Meyer, B. J. F., & Freedle, R. O. (1984). Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 121-143.
Mills, S. (1997). Discourse. New York: Routledge.
Nersessian, N. J. (1984). Faraday to einstein: Constructing meaning in scientific theories. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Ninnes, P. (2000). Representations of indigenous knowledges in secondary school science textbooks in australia and canada, International Journal of Science Education (Vol. 22, pp. 603): Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240.
Nunes, T. (1999). Systems of signs and conceptual change. In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou & M. Carretero (Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change. New York: Pergamon.
O'Halloran, K. L. (2000). Classroom discourse in mathematics: A multisemiotic analysis. Linguistics and Education, 10(3), 359-388.
Osborne, J. (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 203-218.
Palmer, D. H., & Flanagan, R. B. (1997). Readiness to change the conception that "Motion-implies-force": A comparison of 12-year-old and 16-year-old students. Science Education, 81(3), 317-331.
Piaget, J. (1958). Equilibration processes in the psychobiological development of the child. In H. E. Gruber & J. J. Voneche (Eds.), The essential piaget (pp. 832-837). New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Ravelli, L. (1999). Getting started with functional analysis of texts. In L. Unsworth (Ed.), Researching language in schools and communities: Functional linguistic perspectives (pp. 27-64). London: Cassell.
Reiner, M., Slotta, J. D., Chi, M. T. H., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Naive physics reasoning: A commitment to substance-based conceptions. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 1-34.
Rodrigues, S., & Thompson, I. (2001). Cohesion in science lesson discourse: Clarity, relevance, and sufficient information. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 929-940.
Scott, P. H., Asoko, H. M., & Driver, R. H. (1991). Teaching for conceptual change: A review of strategies. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies. University of Kiel, Germany: International Commission on Physics Education.
Shaw, M. L. G. (Ed.). (1981). Recent advances in personal construct technology. London: Academic Press.
Shaw, M. L. G., & Gaines, B. (1995). Comparing conceptual structures: Consensus, conflict, correspondence and contrast. from http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/articles/KBS/COCO/
Smith, M. J. (1998). Social science in question. London: Sage.
Sutton, C. (1992). Words, science and learning. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Touger, J. S. (1991). When words fail us. Physics Teacher, 29(2), 90-95.
Touger, J. S. (2000). The role of language in learning physics: Beyond semantics. American Journal of Physics, 68(4), 306-307.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Unsworth, L. (1997). Scaffolding reading of science explanations: Accessing the grammatical and visual forms of specialized knowledge. Reading, 31(3), 30-42.
Unsworth, L. (1999). Developing critical understanding of the specialised language of school science and history texts: A functional grammatical perspective. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42(7), 508-521.
Unsworth, L. (2000). Investigating subject-specific literacies in school learning. In L. Unsworth (Ed.), Researching language in schools and communitites: Functional linguistic perspectives (pp. 245-274). London: Cassell.
Unsworth, L. (2001a). Evaluating the language of different types of explanations in junior high school science texts. International Journal of Science Education, 23(6), 585-609.
Unsworth, L. (2001b). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Discourse as structure and process. London: SAGE.
van Leeuwen, T. (2000). It was just like magic - a multimodal analysis of children's writing. Linguistics and Education, 10(3), 273-305.
Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to mean - scientifically speaking: Apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workspace and school (pp. 161-195). London: Cassell.
Veel, R. (1998). The greening of school science: Ecogenesis in secondary classrooms. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 114-151). London: Routledge.
Wallace, C. S. (2004). Framing new research in science literacy and language use: Authenticity, multiple discourses, and the "Third space". Science Education, 88(6), 901-914.
Watts, D. M. (1982). Gravity - don't take it for granted. Physics Education, 17, 116-121.
Watts, D. M., & Zylbersztajn, A. (1981). A survey of some children's ideas about force. Physics Education, 16, 360-365.
Wellington, J. J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Wells, G. (1994). The complimentary contributions of halliday and vygotsky toward a language -based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 6(1), 41-90.
Wignell, P., Martin, J. R., & Eggins, S. (1993). The discourse of geography: Ordering and explaining the experiential world. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 136-165). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Winer, 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.
Yeo, S., & Zadnik, M. (2000). Newton, we have a problem. Australian Science Teachers' Journal, 46(1), 9-13,15-18.
Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689-725.