一直以來，教授同義詞都是語言課堂中不可或缺的部分。然而，事實上，大部分課堂中所謂的同義詞皆只是近義詞，並不能在任何情境中相互替換。本研究主題為convince及persuade兩單字，因為此兩近義字均列於臺灣高中英文參考詞彙當中。研究重點為分析兩字之語意偏好（semantic preference），以及探究語意偏好所能為教學帶來的啟示。本研究目標為幫助臺灣之英文教師及學生分辨近義詞，以及察覺到英文單字除了字義之外，亦有較細微但值得留意的特性，例如：語意偏好。當代美式英文語料庫（Corpus of Contemporary American English）為本研究所使用之語料庫，研究者將由此語料庫中取得convince及persuade兩字之基本資訊及搭配詞（collocation）。於當代美式英文語料庫中亦會使用到List, Topics, Collocates及Compare四種搜尋功能。取得之搭配詞根據語意特性進行分類，並且計算各項語意類別之百分比，以獲知convince及persuade之語意偏好。本研究著重於convince及persuade三種類型之搭配詞分析：受詞、主詞及動詞搭配詞。
研究結果顯示，在主詞方面，convince及persuade均會以與社會互動相關之名詞為主詞，但convince的主詞也常是資訊類及狀態之改變類的名詞，而persuade則會有人物指代類的主詞。受詞方面，兩者均對於語意為人物指代之名詞有語意偏好，而不同之處在於，convince之受詞也可以是有法律語意之名詞，persuade之受詞則可以是有政治語意之名詞。動詞方面，convince及persuade沒有共同語意偏好，convince的動詞搭配詞常與存在、經濟及認知相關，而persuade對於結合與連接、所有權之改變及移動有語意偏好。本研究結果給予教師的啟示為語言教材應當考慮真實性，將convince及persuade的語意偏好在制定教材時納入考量。例如：兩字的例句如果能夠按照語意偏好，顯示convince及persuade常出現的語意情境，會更為妥當。另外，教師也要提醒學生注意convince及persuade的差別，以矯正學生的錯誤迷思，以免學生經常認為同義詞即是兩個完全相同的詞。

Teaching synonyms has long been practiced in language classes. However, most synonyms are actually near-synonyms that are not interchangeable in all contexts. The current study examined convince and persuade, two verbs listed in the official vocabulary list for Taiwanese high school students, by analyzing the semantic preference of these two words. The researcher also sought to find out what implications semantic preference has for teaching this pair of near-synonyms. The goal of the present research is to aid local teachers and students in distinguishing near-synonyms, and noticing subtle aspects of vocabulary such as semantic preference. Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) was used in the present study to retrieve basic information and collocation data of convince and persuade. The functions of List, Topics, Collocates and Compare in COCA were utilized. The collocates were then classified according to their semantic features into semantic categories, with the percentage of each semantic category calculated, to determine the semantic preference of the two target verbs. Noun collocates in the object position, noun collocates in the subject position, and verb collocates were focused on.
Results showed that, in terms of subjects, what convince and persuade both have in common is that they can take subjects of SOCIAL INTERACTION. For convince, it can also take subjects of INFORMATION and CHANGE OF STATE, while persuade takes subjects of REFERENCE TO PEOPLE. In terms of objects, both target words show semantic preference for REFERENCE TO PEOPLE, while convince also has semantic preference for LAW, and persuade for POLITICS. No common semantic preference was found for convince and persuade regarding verb collocates. Convince tends to have
verbs of EXISTENCE, ECONOMICS and COGNITION, while persuade has verbs of COMBINING AND ATTACHING, CHANGE OF POSSESSION and MOTION. To educators, when teaching convince and persuade, the findings suggest a need for authentic language materials that take into account the semantic preference of these two words. For instance, it is more appropriate if example sentences of convince and persuade can show the target words in contexts conforming to their semantic preference. Furthermore, it is also vital for teachers to draw students’ attention to the differences between convince and persuade. This helps correct the impression students always have of synonyms being completely identical, which is very often questionable.

大學入學考試中心（2020）。高中英文參考詞彙表。chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.ceec.edu.tw/files/file_pool/1/0k213571061045122620/%e9%ab%98%e4%b8%ad%e8%8b%b1%e6%96%87%e5%8f%83%e8%80%83%e8%a9%9e%e5%bd%99%e8%a1%a8%28111%e5%ad%b8%e5%b9%b4%e5%ba%a6%e8%b5%b7%e9%81%a9%e7%94%a8%29.pdf
林秀春（總主編）（2023）。普通型高級中學英文2（再版）。龍騰文化事業股份有限公司。
林秀春（總主編）（2023）。普通型高級中學英文4（再版）。龍騰文化事業股份有限公司。
林秀春（總主編）（無日期）。普通型高級中學英文2教師用書。龍騰文化事業股份有限公司。
林秀春（總主編）（無日期）。普通型高級中學英文4教師用書。龍騰文化事業股份有限公司。
林晏宇（2017）。探討PROPOSE和SUGGEST於英文學術寫作中之共現結構：以語料庫為本的研究。﹝博士論文。國立政治大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/rsdp66。
Alanazi, Z. (2022). Corpus-based analysis of near-synonymous verbs. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 7(1), 1-25.
Barnbrook, G., Mason, O., & Krishnamurthy, R. (2013). Collocation: Applications and Implications. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137297242
Biber, D., & Armstrong, S. (1994). Using register-diversified corpora for general language studies. Using large corpora, 180-201.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1994). Corpus-based approaches to issues in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 169-189.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cheng, W. (2011). Exploring corpus linguistics: Language in action. Routledge.
Chung, S.-F. (2011). A corpus-based analysis of “create” and “produce”. Chang Gung Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(2), 399-425.
Conrad, S. M. (1999). The importance of corpus-based research for language teachers. System, 27(1), 1-18.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. SAGE.
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge university press.
Duff, P. A., Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2001). Corpus‐Based Research in TESOL: Quantitative Corpus‐Based Research: Much More Than Bean Counting. TESOL quarterly, 35(2), 331-336.
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. M. (2013). An introduction to language (10th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., & McEnery, T. (2017). Collocations in Corpus-Based Language Learning Research: Identifying, Comparing, and Interpreting the Evidence: Collocations in Corpus-Based Language Learning Research. Language learning, 67(S1), 155-179. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12225
Imsa-ard, P., & Phoocharoensil, S. (2022). “A Whole New World... Wait, Is It a Whole, Entire, or Total World? ”: The Extraction of Collocations for the Three English Synonym Discrimination. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature, 28(2).
Jackson, H., & Amvela, E. Z. (2007). Words, meaning and vocabulary: An introduction to modern English lexicology. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Kennedy, G. (2014). An introduction to corpus linguistics. Routledge.
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. University of Chicago press.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. (n.d.). Retrieved April 6, 2023, from https://www.ldoceonline.com/
Louw, B. (1993). Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair, 157, 176.
Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries. (n.d.). Retrieved April 6, 2023, from https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/
Partington, A. (2004). “Utterly content in each other’s company”: Semantic prosody and semantic preference. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 131-156.
Phoocharoensil, S. (2020). A Genre and Collocational Analysis of Consequence, Result, and Outcome. 3L: Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 26(3).
Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching Vocabulary: A Vocabulary Research Manual. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230293977
Sinclair, J. (2004). Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse (1 ed., Vol. 9780203594070). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203594070
Taylor, J. R. (2003). Near synonyms as co-extensive categories:‘high’and ‘tall’revisited. Language sciences, 25(3), 263-284.
Webb, S., & Nation, P. (2017). How vocabulary is learned. Oxford University Press.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon Alison Wray. Cambridge University Press.