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.