近似同義詞被定義為在廣義上字義相同的字，但在特定的上下文中，他們不是每次都可以替換。因為差異對於語言學習者實在非常細微，所以可能會造成學生字使用這些字時產生問題。本研究的目的是要第一先歸類廣泛被使用的高中英文課本中動詞的近似同義詞成四個類別：句法及搭配詞的變化、風格的變化、表達情緒的變化以及字義的變化。並進一步觀察這些近似同義詞如何在最被廣泛使用的高中英文教科書中呈現及被學生使用在大學入學考試的作文佳作中，並了解學生是否可以從這些同義詞的變化的到幫助。
在此研究中，除了檢視最被廣泛使用的教科書本身外，其補充教材也一併審視。研究中的學生作文涵蓋了106至109年的兩種入學考試。藉由根據Edmonds (2002)的近似詞變化來分類近似詞組及對照這些字在學生作文佳作的使用，此研究發現近似詞組在課本中呈現的變化數量，不見得可以幫助或干擾學生對於近似詞在作文佳作中的使用。

Near-synonyms are defined as words that share the same meaning in a broad level, but in certain context, they are not always interchangeable. Since the difference is so subtle to language learners, it may cause problems when students are using these words. The aim of the study is to first classify the verb near-synonyms presented in the vastly used series of English textbooks among senior high schools into four categories: syntactic and collocational variations, stylistic variations, expressive variations and denotational variations. And further look into how these near-synonyms were presented in the most-used textbooks in senior high schools in Taiwan and used in high-scoring essays of College Entrance Exams to see if students can benefit from the variations of these near-synonym pairs/groups.
In the study, the most popular series of textbooks were examined and besides textbooks themselves, the supplements are also investigated in the study. Students’ high scoring essays are from year 106 to 109 for both college entrance exams. By first classifying the near-synonym pairs/groups according to Edmonds’ (2002) near-synonyms variations and comparing them with students’ uses of these words in their high-scoring esassys, the study found that the number of variations presented in the textbooks for near-synonym pairs/groups do not necessarily help or interfer with students’ use of those near-synonym words in their essays.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chinese Abstract vi
English Abstract vii

Chapters

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Motivation 1
1.2 Significance of the Study 2
1.3 Research Questions 3
1.4 Organization 4

2. Literature Review 5
2.1 Definition of Near-synonyms 5
2.2 Classifications of Near-synonyms 7
2.3 Problems of Near-synonyms in Language Learning 11
2.3.1. Taiwanese Students’ Near-synonym Use and Struggles 13
2.4 Research on Verb Near-synonyms 14
2.5 Summary and Gap of the Previous Studies 15

3. Method 17
3.1 Data for Analysis 17
3.2 Procedures of Data Analysis 20
3.2.1 Classification of Near-synonyms in Textbooks 20
3.2.2 Presentation of the Near-synonyms in Textbooks 22
3.2.2.1 Presentation of the syntactic and collocational variations 22
3.2.2.2 Presentation of the stylistic variations 27
3.2.2.3 Presentation of the the expressive variations 28
3.2.2.4 Presentation of the the denotational variations 29
3.2.3 Analysis of the Presentation of Near-synonyms in Textbooks 31
3.2.4 Near-synonyms in High-scoring Essays 34

4. Results and Discussion 37
4.1 Near-synonym Pair/Group in the Textbooks 37
4.1.1 One Variation Dimension Near-synonym Pair/Group in the Textbooks 39
4.1.1.1 Collocational and syntactic variation pair/group in textbooks 39
4.1.1.2 Expressive variation pair/group in textbooks 42
4.1.1.3 Denotational variation pair/group in textbooks 43
4.1.2 Two Variation Dimension Near-synonym Pair/Group in the Textbooks 44
4.1.2.1 Collocational and syntactic & stylistic variation pair/group in textbooks 44
4.1.2.2 Collocational and syntactic & denotational variation pair/group in textbooks 46
4.1.2.3 Denotational & expressive variation pair/group in textbooks 50
4.1.2.4 Denotational & stylistic variation pair/group in textbooks 51
4.1.3 Three Variation Dimension Near-synonym Pair/Group in the Textbooks 53
4.1.3.1 Collocational and syntactic, denotational & stylistic variation pair/group in textbooks 53
4.1.4 Four Variation Dimension Near-synonym Pair/Group in the Textbooks 55
4.1.5 No Variation Dimension Near-synonym Pair/Group in the Textbooks 55
4.2 Students’ Use of Near-synonyms in High-scoring Essays 56
4.2.1 One Variation Dimension Near-synonym Pair/Group in High-scoring Essays 57
4.2.1.1 Collocational and syntactic variation pair/group in high-scoring essays 57
4.2.1.2 Denotational variation pair/group in high-scoring essays 60
4.2.2 Two Variation Dimension Near-synonym Pair/Group in High-scoring Essays 61
4.2.2.1 Collocational and syntactic & stylistic variation pair/group in high-scoring essays 61
4.2.2.2 Collocational and syntactic & denotational variation pair/group in high-scoring essays 64
4.2.2.3 Denotational & expressive variation pair/group in high-scoring essays 70
4.2.3 Three Variation Dimension Near-synonym Pair/Group in High-scoring Essays 70
4.2.3.1 Collocational and syntactic, denotational & stylistic variation pair/group in high-scoring essays 70
4.2.4 Zero Variation Dimension Near-synonym Pair/Group in High-scoring Essays 72
4.3 Misuses of Near-synonyms in Students’ Essays 72

5. Conclusion 77
5.1 Summary of the Major Findings 77
5.2 Implications 79
5.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Studies 79

References 81

Appendix A 84

References

Ahrens, K., & Huang, C. R. (2001, February). A Comparative Study of English and Chinese
Synonym Pairs: An Approach based on The Module-Attribute Representation of Verbal Semantics. In Proceedings of the 15th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (pp. 27-32).

Arppe, A. (2002, March). The usage patterns and selectional preferences of synonyms in a
morphologically rich language. In JADT-2002. 6th International Conference on Textual Data Statistical Analysis (Vol. 1, pp. 21-32).

Arppe, A., & Järvikivi, J. (2007). Every method counts: Combining corpus-based and
experimental evidence in the study of synonymy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 3(2), 131-159.

Atkins, B. T., & Levin, B. (1995). Building on a corpus: A linguistic and lexicographical look
at some near-synonyms. International Journal of lexicography, 8(2), 85-114.

Biber, D, Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998) Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.

Bresnan, J. (2006) Is knowledge of syntax probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative
alternation. Pre-proceedings of the International Conference on Linguistic Evidence. Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Perspectives, 2–4.2.2006, SFB441 “Linguistic Data Structures”, University of Tübingen, Germany, 3–10.

Chang, Y. C., Chang, J. S., Chen, H. J., & Liou, H. C. (2008). An automatic collocation
writing assistant for Taiwanese EFL learners: A case of corpus-based NLP technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 283-299.

Chen, C. C. (1979). An error analysis of English composition written by Chinese students in
Taiwan. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

Chiang, T. H. (1981). Error analysis: A study of errors made in written English by Chinese
learners. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., LTD.

Chung, S. F. (2011). A corpus-based analysis of “create” and “produce”. Chang Gung
Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(2), 399-425.

Cruse, D. A (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge university press.

DiMarco, C., Hirst, G., & Stede, M. (1993, March). The semantic and stylistic differentiation
of synonyms and near-synonyms. In AAAI Spring Symposium on Building Lexicons for Machine Translation (pp. 114-121).

Divjak, D. (2006). Ways of intending: Delineating and structuring near synonyms. Corpora
in cognitive linguistics: corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 19-56.

Divjak, D., & Gries, S. T. (2008). Clusters in the mind?: Converging evidence from near
synonymy in Russian. The Mental Lexicon, 3(2), 188-213.

Edmonds, P. G. (2000). Semantic representations of near-synonyms for automatic lexical
choice. University of Toronto.

Edmonds, P., & Hirst, G. (2002). Near-synonymy and lexical choice. Computational
linguistics, 28(2), 105-144.

Erten, İ. H., & Tekin, M. (2008). Effects on vocabulary acquisition of presenting new words
in semantic sets versus semantically unrelated sets. System, 36(3), 407-422.

Gove, P. B. (1973). Webster's New Dictionary of Synonyms (WNDS). Springfield: Merriam.

Halliday, M. A. K. , and Hasan, R. (1976).Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. (2013). Halliday's introduction to functional
grammar. Routledge.

Harley, B. (1986). Age in second language acquisition (Vol. 22). Multilingual Matters
Limited.

Hatch, E., & Brown, C. (1995). Vocabulary, semantics, and language education. Cambridge
University Press, 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211 (hardback: ISBN-0-521-47409-4; paperback: ISBN-0-521-47942-8).

Higa, M. (1963). Interference effects of intralist word relationships in verbal learning. Journal
of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 2(2), 170-175.

Hourani, T. M. Y. (2008). An analysis of the common grammatical errors in the English
writing made by 3rd secondary male students in the Eastern Coast of the UAE.

Huang, S. L. (2001). Error analysis and teaching composition. Master Degree Dissertation,
Taiwan: National Tsing Hua University.

Inkpen, D. (2007). A statistical model for near-synonym choice. ACM Transactions on
Speech and Language Processing (TSLP), 4(1), 1-17.

Laufer, B. (1990). Ease and difficulty in vocabulary learning: Some teaching implications.
Foreign Language Annals, 23(2), 147-155.

Lee, C., & Liu, J. (2009). Effects of collocation information on learning lexical semantics for
near synonym distinction. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing,
14(2), 205-220.

Lyons, J. 1995. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Palmer, S. E. (1975). The nature of perceptual representation: An examination of the
analog/propositional controversy. In Theoretical issues in natural language processing.

Quine, W.V.O., 1990. Quiddities: an Intermittently Philosophical Dictionary. Penguin,
Harmondsworth.

Taylor, J. R. (2003). Near synonyms as co-extensive categories:‘high ’and ‘tall’ revisited.
Language sciences, 25(3), 263-284.

Zhuang, L. I. X. U. E. (2011). A study of verb errors committed in written English by
Chinese college students in Taiwan. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 7(1), 91-101.