Three Types of Semantic Opacity and Their Challenge to Teachers of Chinese／三類語義模糊及其對中文教學的挑戰

　　Two rules within a component or two components within a grammar can interplay as two interactive entities in three ways: (i) complementation, (ii) conspiracy, and (iii) conflict. If two interactive entities, whether two rules or two components, apply to two disjoint inputs or domains, they complement each other or are in a complementation. If two interactive units apply to the same input or domain to achieve a unified result, then they conspire or are in a conspiracy. If two interactive objects apply to the same input or domain to yield two opposing results, then they conflict or are in a conflict. Each way of component interaction can create semantic opacity, because the full meaning of a sentence cannot be computed from the aggregate of its partial meanings, some of which may be twisted or missing from the sentence. Complementation can create an opaque sentence which uses a metaphor whose form says little about whose meaning directly. Conspiracy can create an opaque sentence whose form largely but not fully reveals whose meaning. Conflict can yield a sentence whose form is a very unreliable indication of whose meaning. We discuss the three types of semantic opacity generated by these kinds of component interaction, and offer a method to meet the challenge that they pose for teachers of Chinese.