本篇文章探討台灣閩南語的雙賓結構與施用結構。有關雙賓結構方面，本文指出閩南語中與格標記的hoo與作為使役功能標記的hoo兩者為不同的句法結構。明確來說，與格標記hoo是低階施用詞組的中 心語，引介與格論元（間接賓語）。其中領屬關係的轉移，即藉由低階施用詞組所建立。另一方面，作為使役功能標記的hoo則是一種輕動詞，占據輕動詞詞組的中心語位置。
至於施用結構方面，本文將根據Tsai (2007, 2009) 對國語施用結構所作的三層分類，嘗試畫分出閩南語施用結構的句法結構位置圖。Tsai (2007, 2009) 指出，國語施用結構可分作三大類——高階、中階、以及低階。其中高階與中階施用以顯性的「給」作為中心語，構成有標的、顯性施用結構；隱性施用結構則隸屬中低階施用，以準雙賓結構的型態呈現。本文發現，國語和閩南語同樣擁有高、中、低三層施用結構，且同樣都有顯性（ka字句）與隱性（準雙賓句）施用結構。不同處在於，閩南語較國語更為自由，因為閩南語的中、低階施用皆同時允許顯性和隱性兩種型態。
最後，本文以製圖理論的觀點討論閩南語施用結構與副詞之間的句法相對關係。本文發現，閩南語中某些副詞的句法位置可成為清楚劃分出此三層施用結構之界標。舉例來說，修飾全句之副詞如「真實」，因其位於補詞層內，故必定出現在三層施用結構之前；頻率副詞如「常常」位於輕動詞詞組的加接語位置，故出現在高階與中階施用結構之間；而狀貌副詞如「慢慢地」位於動詞詞組的加接語位置，故出現在中階與低階施用結構之間。

台灣閩南語施用結構的系統整理如下:

(1) 台灣閩南語施用結構
a. 高層施用結構：與補詞層相關
→ 牽涉資訊結構之內容。
→ 引介帶有ka 標記之蒙受者論元或說話者。

b. 中層施用結構：與輕動詞層相關
→ 牽涉事件結構之內容。
→ 引介帶有ka 標記或無標之蒙受者論元。

c. 低層施用結構：與下層VP殼相關
→ 牽涉論元結構之內容。
→ 引介帶有ka 標記或無標之受惠者論元。
（→ 引介帶有hoo 標記之與格論元。）

The aim of this thesis is two-fold. First, I will investigate the Double Object Constructions in Taiwan Southern Min (TSM). Second, I will provide topography for the Applicative constrictions in TSM. Concerning the first part, contrary to Cheng et al. (1996), I will propose that the Dative hoo involves a different syntactic construction vis-□-vis the Causative hoo in TSM. Specifically, the dative goal DP (indirect object) is introduced by the Low Appl head hoo situated below VP (cf. McGinnis 2001). The possession relation between the goal (dative) DP and the theme DP is constructed via such Low Applicative Construction (cf. Cuervo 2003). On the other hand, the Causative hoo occupies the v head denoting a CAUSATIVE meaning.
As for the second part, based upon Tsai’s (2007, 2009) three-way distinction of applicatives in Mandarin Chinese, I will draw topography of the Applicative constructions in TSM. Tsai (2007, 2009) proposes that there are at least three types of applicative constructions in Mandarin — High Applicatives, Middle Applicatives, and Low Applicatives. The affectee and the beneficiary marked by the overt marker gei ‘give’ belong to the High Applicatives and Middle Applicatives, respectively; on the other hand, the unmarked affectee and beneficiary, in the form of the pseudo-DOC construction, instantiate the Middle Applicatives and Low Applicatives, respectively. It is observed that, compared with Mandarin, which employs two approaches in introducing the affectee or the beneficiary argument, i.e. with an overt marker gei or in the form of pseudo-DOC, TSM also has these two types of construals. The affectee and the beneficiary in TSM can either be marked by ka, or be headed by an implicit applicative head in the form of pseudo-DOC. However, TSM is freer than Mandarin in that it permits both strategies in the Middle and Low Applicative constructions.
Finally, this thesis also examines the hierarchical relations between the Applicative constructions and adverbs in TSM in a cartographic approach (Rizzi 1997, Cinque 1999). It is found that some adverbs can serve as suitable boundary markers in separating different Applicative constructions in TSM. For instance, sentential adverbs, such as tsiannsit ‘really’, in the CP layer, must precede all the three Applicative constructions; eventive adverbs, e.g. tianntiann ‘often’, are located in Spec,vP between High Applicatives and Middle Applicatives; and manner adverbs, like banban-a ‘slowly’, are situated in Spec,VP between Middle Applicatives and Low Applicatives.

The system of the Applicative constructions in TSM is sketched in (1) below.

(1) TSM Applicatives
a. High applicatives: associated with the CP phase
→ involved in the arrangement of the information structure.
→ introducing ka-marked affectee/speaker.

b. Middle applicatives: associated with the vP phase
→ involved in the arrangement of the event structure.
→ introducing ka-marked or unmarked affectee.

c. Low applicatives: associated with the lower VP shell
→ involved in the arrangement of the argument structure.
→ introducing ka-marked or unmarked beneficiary.
(→ introducing hoo-marked dative DP.)

Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The Syntax of Ditransitives. Berlin: Mouton/deGruyte.
Aoun, J. and Y.-H. Audrey Li. 1989. Scope and Constituency, Linguistic Inquiry 20, 141-172.
Aoun, J. and Y.-H. Audrey Li. 1993. Syntax of Scope, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Bowers, J. and E. Georgala. 2005. The Syntax of Goals and Beneficiaries in Standard Modern Greek. Proceedings of the Workshop on the Morpho-Syntax of Modern Greek.
Cheng, L. L.-S., C.-T. J. Huang, Y.-H. A. Li, and C.-C. J. Tang. 1993. Three Ways to Get Passive. Ms., University of California, Irvine; USC; and Academia Sinica.
Cheng, L. L.-S., C.-T. J. Huang, Y.-H. A. Li, and C.-C. J. Tang. 1996. Hoo Hoo Hoo: Syntax of the Causatives, Dative and Passive Constructions in Taiwan. In Pang-Hsin Ting (eds.), Contemporary Studies on the Min Dialects. Journal of Chinese Linguistics. Monograph Series Number 14:146-203.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In Step by step, ed. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89-156. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by Phase. In Ken Hale: a life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chung, Jui-Yi. 2007. A Comparative Study of Affective Construction: A Case on Mandarin Chinese and Hakka. MA thesis, National Tsing Hua University.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads, Oxford University Press.
Cuervo, M. 2003. Datives at Large. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Ernst, Thomas. 2002. The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Feng, Shengli. 1995. Guanyue Lilun yu Hanyu de Beidongju [GB Theory and Passive Sentences in Chinese]. Zhongguo Yuyanxue Luncong [Studies in Chinese Linguistics] 1: 1-28.
Harley, Heidi. 2002. Possession and the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2: 29-68.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1999. Chinese Passive in Comparative Perspective. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 29(1): 423-459.
Huang, C.-T. James, Y.-H. Audrey Li, and Yafei Li. 2009. The Syntax of Chinese. Cambridge University Press.
Huang, Yu-Shan. 2010. A Generalized-Ditransitive Analysis for Gei in Mandarin Chinese. MA thesis, National Tsing Hua University.
Jeong, Y. 2006. The Landscape of Applicatives. PhD Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
Kim, R. 2000. A minimalist account of the distribution of adverbs. Studies in Generative Grammar, 10(1), 453-504.
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19(3): 335–391.
Li, Audrey Y.-H. 2001. The ba construction. Ms.
Lin, Tzong-Hong Jonah. 2001. Light Verb Syntax and the Theory of Phrase Structure, Ph.D. dissertation, UC Irvine.
Mai, Hsin-Yi. 2007. Applicative Constructions in Taiwan Southern Min. MA thesis, National Tsing Hua University.
Marantz, A. 1993. Implications of Asymmetries in Double Object Constructions. In Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar, ed. S. Mchombo. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
McGinnis, Martha. 2001. Variation in the Phrase Structure of Applicatives. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 1: 105-146.
McGinnis, Martha. 2003. Lethal Ambiguity. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 47-95.
Miyagawa, S. and T. Tsujioka. 2004. Argument Structure and Ditransitive Verbs in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13, 1-38.
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Pylkk□nen, L. 2000. What Applicative Heads Apply To. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium. U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 6.4.
Pylkk□nen, L. 2002. Introducing Arguments. PhD Dissertation, MIT.
Rackowski, Andrea. 2002. The Structure of Tagalog. PhD Dissertation, MIT.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, ed. L. Haegeman, 281-338. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Tsai, W.-T. D. 2007. Four Types of Affective Constructions in Chinese. Paper presented in FOSS-5, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan, April 2007.
Tsai, W.-T. D. 2009. High Applicatives Are not High Enough: A Cartographic Solution. Paper presented at the 6th Workshop on Formal syntax & Semantics, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
Yang, Barry Chung-Yu. 2006. Syntactic Structure of Ka-construction in Taiwan Southern Min. USTWPL 2: 141-171.