雙及物構式的研究最初從形式結構分類以及雙賓動詞語義探討（朱德熙，1979；湯廷池，1979），之後學者採用Goldberg（1995）的構式語法理論討論雙及物構式語義，如張伯江（1999）、沈家煊（1999）等。除了以動詞語義、構式語法的角度分析雙及物構式，也需考量義項及語境因素如何影響雙及物構式選擇。
在漢語雙及物構式研究中，較少將動詞義項細分探討雙及物構式。因此，本文旨在以多義詞「送」為主題研究義項對句式選擇的偏向性影響以及其他多變項如何影響雙及物構式選擇。本研究以｢COCT書面語語料庫2019｣中2011至2018年的語料為研究範圍，利用顯著共現詞素分析法（Stefanowitsch & Gries, 2003）分析｢送｣的義項（給予義、傳送義）與雙及物構式的搭配關係，以及義項與哪些直接賓語搭配。由於雙及物構式受到多變項影響，本文以二元邏輯斯迴歸分析建立能夠預測雙及物構式的多變項模型，同時以實證研究為輔，視相同義項、尾重原則但不同的信息結構的條件下，中文為母語者是否受到信息結構制約。
本文的研究結果顯示（1）｢送｣的兩個義項句式偏好顯示傳送義偏好與格構式（PDC），給予義傾向雙賓構式（DOC）。（2）二元邏輯斯迴歸分析預測義項、信息結構、尾重原則為影響雙及物構式為DOC、PDC的變項。（3）實證研究結果與迴歸分析預測結果一致，整體的評分表現為PDC中，不符合信息結構、尾重原則時，PDC得分較高；DOC中，當符合信息結構、尾重原則時，DOC得分較高。論及兩句式的信息結構表現，本研究認為動詞語義、構式義仍影響句式的信息結構順序，信息結構需考量聽者信息結構。

Mandarin ditransitive constructions are originally investigated from the classification of syntactic structures and the semantics of dative verbs (Zhu, 1979; Tang, 1979). Later, adopting Construction Grammar (Goldberg, 1995), scholars investigate construction meanings of ditransitive constructions (Zhang, 1999; Shen, 1999, etc.). In addition to verb semantics and Construction Grammar, how verb senses and contextual factors influence syntactic choices of ditransitive constructions should be considered.
A sense-based study on Chinese ditransitive construction is rarely investigated. Therefore, taking a polysemous verb song ‘give’ as an example, this paper aims to investigate a sense-based verb bias and multiple variables toward sentence choices. The song ‘give’ instances selected from the collection of written COCT 2019 ranging from 2011 to 2018, a distinctive collexeme analysis (Stefanowitsch & Gries, 2003) is conducted to figure out the collocation pattern of two senses (give & deliver) of song ‘give’ with ditransitive constructions and the pattern of direct objects collocated with the two senses respectively. Due to the fact that ditransitive constructions are influenced by multiple variables, a binary logistic regression analysis helps develop a regression model with variables predicting syntactic choices of ditransitive constructions. The regression analysis is supplemented by an experiment. This experiment manipulates information structures, controls senses and weight principles, to observe whether Mandarin native speakers are constrained by information structures.
The results indicate (1) Each sense shows its syntactic bias, the deliver sense prefers PDC while the give sense tends to occur in DOC. (2) The binary logistic regression analysis selects sense, information structure, and end-weight principle as predictors in the syntactic choices of DOC and PDC. (3) The experiment result is consistent with the regression analysis. The overall rating of the experiment shows that PDC scores high when it disobeys given before new principle and end-weight principle. When the two principles are obeyed, DOC gets a higher score. In the discussion about the given-before-new principle that PDC and DOC differs in, this paper holds that verb semantics, construction meanings still influence the constituent order of information structure and that hearer-old/new information should be considered.

王紅衛（2017）。漢語雙及物構式和動詞關聯度的實證研究。外語研究， 34（4），22-26。
古川裕（2001）。外界事物的 “顯著性” 與句中名詞的 “有標性”——“出現, 存在, 消失” 與 “有界, 無界”。當代語言學，3（4），264-274。
朱德熙（1979）。與動詞“給”相關的句法問題。方言，（2），81-87。
朱德熙（1982）。語法講義。北京：商務印書館。
吳明隆（2008）。SPSS操作與應用—多變量分析實務。台北：五南圖書出版。
呂叔湘（1999）。現代漢語八百詞（增訂本）。北京：商務印書館。
李臨定（2011）。雙賓句類型分析。語法研究和探索（精選集）（頁27-40）。中國語文雜誌社編。北京：商務印書館（已發表於1984年《語法研究和探索》（二））。
沈家煊（1999）。“在”字句和“給”字句，中國語文，2，94-102。
屈承熹（1999）。漢語認知功能語法。台北：文鶴出版社。
胡佳音（2015）。英語、漢語與台灣閩南語之訊息結構：雙賓動詞論元體現探析。清華大學語言學研究所學位論文。doi: 10.6843/NTHU.2015.00327
張伯江（1999）。現代漢語的雙及物結構式。中國語文，3，175-184。
張懂（2018）。基于語料庫的漢語雙及物構式原型語義模式實證研究。外語與外語教學，5，79-88。
陸儉明（2003）。現代漢語語法研究教程。北京大學出版社。
湯廷池（1979）。直接賓語與間接賓語。湯廷池（主編），國語語法研究論集（頁99-111）。台北：臺灣學生書局出版。
湯廷池（2011）。從「從舊到新」的功能原則談華語與英語「引介句」的對比分析。輔仁外語學報，（8），1-19。doi: 10.29702/JJFL.201107.0001
劉丹青（2001）。漢語給予類雙及物結構的類型學考察。中國語文，5，387-398。
嚴敏芬與周倩倩（2015）。基于 Logistic 迴歸模型的中國英語學習者雙及物構式選擇研究。浙江外國語學院學報，（5），41-53。
Arnold, J. E., Losongco, A., Wasow, T., & Ginstrom, R. (2000). Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language, 76(1), 28-55.
Bernolet, S. & Colleman, T. (2016). Sense-based and lexeme-based alternation biases in the Dutch dative alternation. In Corpus-based Approaches to Construction Grammar (pp. 165-198). Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/cal.19.07ber
Bresnan, J. (2007). Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base (pp.77-96). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110198621.75
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, R. H. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp. 69-94). KNAW.
Bresnan, J., & Ford, M. (2010). Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language, 86(1), 168-213. doi: 10.1353/lan.0.0189
Callies, M. & Szczesniak, K. (2008). Argument realization, information status and syntactic weight- a learner-corpus study of the dative alternation. In Fortgeschrittene Lernervarietäten. Korpuslinguistik und Zweitspracherwerbsforschung [Advanced learner varieties: Corpus linguistics and research into second language acquisition] (pp. 165-187). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. University of Chicago Press.
Chang, L. H. (2004). Discourse effects on EFL learners’ production of dative constructions. Journal of National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences, 33, 145-170.
Clark, H. H., & Clark, E.V. (1977). Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Colleman, T., & Bernolet, S. (2012). Alternation biases in corpora vs. picture description experiments: DO-biased and PD-biased verbs in the Dutch dative alternation. In Frequency Effects in Language Representation (pp. 87-126). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110274073
Collins, P. (1995). The indirect object construction in English: An informational approach. Linguistics, 33(1), 35-50.
de Ruiter, L. E., Lieven, E. V., Brandt, S., & Theakston, A. L. (2020). Interactions between givenness and clause order in children’s processing of complex sentences. Cognition, 198, 104130. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104130
Eitelmann, M. (2016). Support for end-weight as a determinant of linguistic variation and change. English Language and Linguistics, 20(3), 395. doi: 10.1017/S1360674316000356
Fillmore, C. J. (2006). Frame semantics. Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings, 34, 373-400. Reprinted. (originally published In Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp.111-137). Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. Seoul: Hanshin.)
Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization, 103, 75-102.
Givón, T. (1988). The pragmatics of word order: Predictability, importance and attention. In Studies in Syntactic Typology (pp. 243-284). Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.
Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends in cognitive sciences, 7(5), 219-224.
Goldberg, A.E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Gundel, J. K. (1988). Universals of topic-comment structure. Studies in syntactic typology, 17(1), 209-239.
Hare, M., McRae, K., & Elman, J. L. (2003). Sense and structure: Meaning as a determinant of verb subcategorization preferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(2), 281-303.
Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency (Vol. 73). Cambridge University Press.
Hovav, M. R., & Levin, B. (2008). The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 44(1), 129-167.
Hsiao, H. S., & Mahastuti, L. (2020). A Collostructional Analysis of Ditransitive Constructions in Mandarin. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-38189-9_4.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1989). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lien, C. F. (2000). A frame-based account of lexical polysemy in Taiwanese. Language and Linguistics, 1(1), 119-138.
Liu, F. H. (2006). Dative Constructions in Chinese. Language and Linguistics, 7(4), 863-904. Arizona: University of Arizona
Liu, M. C. & Chiang, T. Y., & Chou, M. H. (2005). A Frame-based Approach to Polysemous Near-synonymy: the Case with Mandarin Verbs of Expression. Journal of Chinese Language and Computing, 15, 137-148.
Marefat, H. (2005). The impact of information structure as a discourse factor on the acquisition of dative alternation by L2 learners. Studia Linguistica, 59(1), 66-82. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9582.2005.00120.x
Nemoto, N. (1998). On the polysemy of ditransitive save: the role of frame semantics in construction grammar. The Electronic Library, 15, 219-242.
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Radical Pragmatics (pp. 223-256). New York: Academic Press.
Prince, E. F. (1992). The ZPG Letter: subjects, definiteness and information status. In Discourse Description: Diverse Analyses of a Fundraising Text (pp.295-325). Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Quirk, R. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.
Roland, D., & Jurafsky, D. (2002). Verb sense and verb subcategorization probabilities. The lexical basis of sentence processing: Formal, computational, and experimental issues, 4, 325-345.
Stallings, L. M., & MacDonald, M. C. (2011). It’s not just the “heavy NP”: relative phrase length modulates the production of heavy-NP shift. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 40(3), 177-187.
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International journal of corpus linguistics, 8(2), 209-243.
Wasow, T. (2002). Postverbal Behavior. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
網路工具：
中文詞彙網路（Chinese WordNet），由黃居仁、謝舒凱教授主持開發，網址：http://cwn.ling.sinica.edu.tw/。
國教院語料索引系統，網址：https://coct.naer.edu.tw/cqpweb/ 。