本論文探討動介詞‘給’(gei)在漢語讓字句中的表現，以及動介詞‘給’(gei)的被動用法。根據Li & Thompson的定義，動介詞屬於 「兼具動詞及介詞性質」的詞 (1981: 286)。以往對於動介詞‘給’(gei)的研究多偏重於探討雙賓句式中‘給’(gei)與雙賓動詞的搭配關係，句法分佈(Liu 2005)、與閩語(Cheng et al. 1999)或與英語雙賓句(Huang 1999)中介詞(to / for)的交叉分析、以及與其他雙及物結構式間的轉換(Liu 2005)或甚有單獨討論‘給’(gei)的詞性(Ting 2004)、以及其語法化的過程(Her 2006)等。當中，亦不乏有探討致使句式當中的‘給’(gei)字句、以及‘讓’(rang)字句的用法 (Weng 2007)。
我們發現[rang…gei…]的句式經常廣泛的被使用在現代漢語口語之中；然而，以往針對[rang…gei…]的句式研究的文獻偏少，尤其是針對在致使句中觀察動介詞‘給’(gei)當被動標記的語法表現的相關探討更是鮮少有著墨。因此，本文認為有其必要對動介詞‘給’(gei)在致使結構‘讓’(rang)字句當中的語法表現作進一步研究。
根據Constructional Grammar 的理論來看，句構本身就遵循著‘整體大於部份之和’ 的原則，亦即句式本身也帶有獨立的意義(Goldberg 2003) 。本文研究發現(1) [rang…gei…]的句式本身帶有強化不幸事件([+adversity])的語意。(2)只有特定類別的動詞才能進入[rang…gei…]的結構之中。
此外,雖然‘被’字句與‘給’字句同屬被動句式；本文推論‘給’字句所帶出的被動範疇卻不同於 “被”字句的被動範疇。透過[rang…gei…]及[rang…bei…]兩種句式來做測試；結果顯示，証明‘被’與‘給’雖同為被動標誌，卻有不同的語法限制。為此，本文運用了Langacker (1990) 的Cognitive Grammar理論來解釋，其主張句法表現是一種概念的投射(conceptual projection)，焦點(profile)不同象徵不同的語意概念並且投射出不同的結構形式表現；由此本文推論‘被’字句與‘給’字句的被動範疇不同，可能出於兩者在語法化之前的原始動詞的語意差異所致。

The purpose of this research is two-fold: one aims on investigating the syntactic behavior and the semantic foundation of Mandarin coverb gei in causative rang construction. The other one is to explore the passive form of both gei and bei in causative rang construction.
Firstly, coverb is defined by Li & Thompson (1981) as a preposition with verbal attribute. Given that the morpheme gei in Mandarin Chinese is in the middle of the grammaticalization process; it, accordingly, embeds multiple functions, such as a ditransitive verb, a passive marker, a disposal marker. Previous researches have put a great effort on observing the relation between ditransitive verb gei in double object construction and its alternative construction, dative gei (Huang 1999, Ting 2004, Liu 2005, Her 2006). However, there is still much worth to be investigated on the topics that deal with passive form of gei.
This paper will first demonstrate that (1) the configuration of [rang…gei] embeds [+adversity] feature; (2) only certain types of verbs are allowed to enter into the configuration. Besides, we will also compare the two passive markers, bei and gei, in Mandarin Chinese. Both markers have undergone a grammaticalization process, but they dominate different ranges of passives. We exam the two passive markers via associating with rang construction. According to our findings, we conclude that although the two verbs bei and gei have identical conceptual base which involves three participants: the giver, the theme, the receiver, somehow, they are not interchangeable in all cases. Concomitantly, we infer that it is the verb’s semantic that circumscribe the scope of the two passive markers.

Beck, Sigrid. and Kyle Johnson 2004. Double Objects Again Linguistic Inquiry 35:
197-124
Bresnan, J., 1996. Lexicality and argument structure. Paper presented at Collogue de
Syntax et Semantique Paris, October 12–14, 1995. http://csli-www.stanford.edu/users/bresnan/.
Chao, C. 2009. The argument realization of resultative constructions in Mandarin Chinese:
A preliminary investigation. Journal of Chinese Language Teaching, 6 (2), 23-43.
Cheng, Lisa L.-S., C.-T. James Huang, Y.-H. Aydrey Li, and C.-C. Jane Tang. 1999.
HOO, HOO, HOO: Syntax of the Causative, Dative, and Passive Constructions in
Taiwanese. Contemporary Studies on the Min Dialects, 146-203.
Chuan-Hui Weng 2007 Causative, Permissive, and Yielding: The Mandarin Chinese Verb
of Rang Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 2, 69-90
Chung, Ting Rachel. and Peter Gordon. 1998. The Acquisition of Chinese Dative
Constructions BUCLD 22 Proceedings. 109-120.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. The syntax of causative constructions: cross-language similarities
and divergences. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 6: The Grammar of Causative
Constructions, ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani, 261-312. New York: Academic Press.
Croft, William, and D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge & New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Dixon, R.M.W. 2000. A typology of causatives: form, syntax and meaning. In Dixon and
Aikhenvald (2000) 30-83.
Li, C., & Thompson, S. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: Functional Reference Grammar.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lord, C., Yap, F., Iwasaki, S., 2002. Grammaticalization of ‘give’: African and Asian
Perspectives. In:Wischer,I., Gabriele, D. (Eds.), New Reflections on
Grammaticalization. John Benjamins, pp. 217–235.
Chao, Yuen Ren. 1968. A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press. Second Printing.

Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: a Construction Grammar Approach to Argument
Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Heidi Harley 2002. Possession and the double object construction Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2, 29–68
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. MIT Press. Cambridge.
Hashimoto, Anne: 1971, 'Mandarin Syntactic Structures', Unicorn 8, 1-146.
Her, One-Soon. 2006. Justifying part-of-speech assignments for Mandarin gei Lingua
116: 8 1274-1302
Hopper, Paul J and Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1997. Grammaticalization. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Huang, Chu-Ren, and Kathleen Ahrens. 1999. The Function and Category of Gei in
Mandarin Ditransitive Constructions. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 27: 1-26.
Huang, C.-T. James. 2007. Unaccusativity, ditransitives and extra-argumentality. Paper
presented in EACL-5, Leipzig, September 2007.
Huang, C.-T. James. 2007. Hanyu dongci de tiyuan jiegou yu qi jufa biaoxian [Thematic structures of verbs in Chinese and their syntactic projections]. Yuyan Kexue, 6 (4), 3-21.
Hudson, Richard. 1992. So-Called 'Double Objects' and Grammatical Relations Language
68:2 251-276
Hui Yin 2004. Grammaticalization of Mandarin Transfer Verbs GEI and BEI as Passive
Markers. Proceedings of the 2004 annual conference of the Canadian Liguiestic Association.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972, Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, The MIT Press,
Cambridge.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983, Semantics and Cognition, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990, Semantic Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Krifka, Manfred. 1999. Manner in Dative Alternation WCCFL 18. 260-271
Lakoff, George. 1990. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal
about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. California: Stanford
University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991a. Concept, image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of
Grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Levin, Beth. 2008. Dative Verbs and Dative Alternations from a Crosslinguistic
Perspective. Journal of Linguistics 44: 1 129-167
Li, Yafei. 1995. The thematic hierarchy and causativity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 13(2): 255-282.
Lord, C., Yap, F., Iwasaki, S., 2002. Grammaticalization of ‘give’: African and Asian
Perspectives. In:Wischer,I., Gabriele, D. (Eds.), New Reflections on Grammaticalization. John Benjamins, 217–235.
Newman, John. 2005. Three-place predicates: a cognitive-linguistic perspective. Language
Sciences 27.2:145-163.
Norman, Jerry. 1988. Chinese. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
Perlmutter, David M. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis.
Proceedings of the 4th Berkeley Linguistics Society, 157-189
Pinker, S. 1991. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1976. The grammar of causative constructions: a conspectus.
Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions, ed. by
Masayoshi Shibatani, 1-40. New York: Academic Press.
Shibatani, Masayoshi, and Prashant Pardeshi. 2001. The causative continuum. The
20 grammar of causation and interpersonal manipulation, ed. by M. Shibatani, 85-
126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sybesma, R., 1992. Causatives and Accomplishments. The Case of Chinese Ba, Ph.D.
dissertation, Leiden University.
Talmy, Leonard. 1976. Semantic causative types. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 6: The
Grammar of Causative Constructions, ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani, 43-116. New
York: Academic Press.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition, Toward A
Cognition Semantics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Teng, Shou-hsin. 1975. A Semantic Study of Transitivity Relations in Chinese. University
of California Publications in Linguistics. Vol. 80. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Thepkanjana, Kingkarn and Satoshi Uehara. 2008. The verb of giving in Thai and
Mandarin Chinese as a case of polysemy: A comparative study Language Sciences 30 621–651
Ting , Jen and Miller Chang. 2004. The Category of Gei in Mandarin Chinese and
Grammaticalization. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics Vol.2.2 45-74
Wu, Xiaoqi. 2008. The Word Order of the Ditransitive Construction with GEI Revisited
Proceedings of the 20th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-20). 1. 499-508
Xu, Dan. 1994. The status of the marker Gei in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Chinese
Linguistics 22.2:363-394.
Yap, Foong-Ha, and Shoichi Iwasaki. 2003. From causatives to passives: a passage in
some East and Southeast Asian languages. Cognitive Linguistics and Non-Indo-European Languages, ed. by Eugene H. Casad & Gary B. Palmer 419-446. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Zhu, Dexi. 1983. Yufa jiangyi. Beijing: Shangwu Chubanshe.
Ziegeler, D., 2000. A possession-based analysis of the Ba-construction in Mandarin
Chinese. Lingua 110 11, 807–842.
Zou, K., 1993. The syntax of the Chinese BA construction. Linguistics 31, 715–736.
Shibatani, M. 1976. “Causativization,” Syntax and Semantics vol.5: Japanese Generative Grammar.Academic Press.