朱德熙（1982）在谈到“给”的用法时说，“给”可以在受事主语句里引出施事来，同时也可以引出受益或受损的与事来，但有些成分在形式上是与事，在语义上仍是受事，这时的“给”可以替换为“把”。 如果宾语是指人的代词，则其所指既可以是施事，也可以是受事，“给”可分别替换为“被”和“把”。这种用同一语言形式兼表处置标记和被动标记的独特现象不仅在汉语普通话中存在，在汉语的很多方言和一些少数民族语言中也广泛存在。本文的研究表明，兼表处置和被动标记的语言形式大致有两个来源，一是“给”类动词，如北京话中的“给”、广西潜江话中的“把”、湖南涟源话中的“拿”、安徽祁门话中的“分”以及浙江宁波话中的“拨”等；一是“叫”类动词，包括河南叶县话、山东郯城话中的“叫”以及山西运城话中的“招”等。也就是说，兼表处置和被动标记的词可以出现在双宾结构和兼语结构中。以往有研究指出，兼语式可以归入双宾式，两者的区别仅在于：双宾结构的远宾语是名词性的，兼语结构的远宾语是谓词性的（张静1977、1988；邢欣2003等）。假如这种看法是合理的话，那么，能够兼表处置和被动标记的词所出现的环境就可以归入一种句法格式，即双宾式。历时地看，兼表处置和被动标记的词都源自实义动词，而这类实义动词都出现在双宾结构中。本文认为，处置和被动标记兼用现象的形成与双宾结构特殊的句法构造有关。在具体的研究方法上，我们使用生成句法学的相关理论，主要运用VP壳（VP-shell）理论、轻动词和功能范畴假说以及形式学派语法化的相关研究成果，对上述现象进行分析，同时也将对“给”的不同用法进行解释。我们的研究在于发现句法结构对语义演变的制约作用，我们的假设得到了共时与历时，以及跨语言语料的支持。演绎法的运用使得我们更加清晰地看到双宾动词的语法化路径，也让我们体验到了生成语法独有的魅力。

Zhu Dexi(1982) pointed out that “gei” can not only lead to the agent in the patient-subject sentence, but can also be followed by the dative which refers to the beneficiary or the malefactive. While some element looks like dative in the form, but in fact refers to patient semantically. “gei” can be replaced by “ba” in this condition. If the object of “gei” is a personal pronoun, it can be analysed as both the agent and patient, which is ambiguous in the meaning. Correspondingly, “gei” can be replaced by “ba” or “bei”. This special phenomena widely exists in Chinese dialects and other minority languages, which uses one form to represent both the causative and passive marker.Our research shows that the lexical resource of the special marker comes from two kinds, one is “gei” type, such as “gei” of Peking dialect, “ba” of Qianjiang dialect, “na” of Lianyuan dialect, “fen” of Qimen dialect, “bo” of Ningbo dialect, etc; the other is “jiao” type, examples like “jiao” in Yexian and Tancheng dialect, as well as “zhao” in Yuncheng dialect. That is to say, the special marker initially exists in the double object construction and the traditional “Jianyu” construction respectively.Past studies have pointed out that “Jianyu” construction can be regarded as double object construction as well. The only difference between the two is that direct object of the verb is noun or verb (Zhang Jing 1977, 1988; Xing Xin 2003). Supposing this judgment is reasonable, the special element which denotes the causative and passive marker only comes from one construction, the double object construction. Diachronically, the functional marker grammaticalized from the content verb, which always appeared in the double object construction. So we believe that the special use of this kind of verb have close relationship with the construction it emerges.On the specific research methods, we apply the generative grammar, mainly from the idea of VP-shell theory, light verb and functional category hypothesis, and the formal approach to grammaticalization, to account for the various uses of double object verb. We aim to find the syntactic constrain in the semantic change, and we use synchronic and diachronic data to prove our hypothesis.The method of deduction will help us to see the grammatical path of double object verb more clearly, and make us to explore the unique charm of generative grammar.