上古汉语的取得类双宾 ：兼论“之”和“其”的问题 = Take verb and double-object construction in archaic Chinese : a revisit of “Zhi” and “Qi”

前贤的研究让我们对上古汉语双宾结构（“V+宾人+宾物”）有了一定的认识，但其中仍有一些问题依旧存在讨论的余地。像上古汉语“取得类动词”（下简述为“V取得”）能否进入双宾结构，就存在着分歧--前贤对 “V取得”所带的指人（宾人）和指物宾语（宾物）之间的领属关系有不同的看法，而分为单宾和双宾两种立场。再者，由于以往在处理此问题时，学者们都把焦点锁定在“V+之+NP”句式，因此一般上也都涉及了对“之”和“其”的讨论。纵观学者的论述，我们观察到单宾论者将句式中的“宾人”（之）和“宾物”（NP）之间的领属关系，结合文献中“之、其”互文或互注的例子，而认为“之”应理解为“其”。反观双宾论者则认为句式中的“宾人”和“宾物”不构成直接成分，因而认为“之”和“其”明确分工。有鉴于此，我们认为“之、其”在上古汉语的语法表现有助于我们分析“V取得”是否能进双宾结构。 Linguistic studies on Double-object Construction （V+ Or + Ot） in Archaic Chinese have given us a good understanding, but there are still some problems among this issue. For example, there is a big controversy between whether verb [+ take] can be used in Double-object Construction or not--as former researchers have different opinions for the genitive relationship between “Or” and “Ot”. Besides, when this issue aroused, a large number of researchers have always focused on the structure of “[+take] + zhi （之）+NP”, hence the discussion of “zhi” and “qi”（其）. Some claims that it is possible for “zhi” to be, in certain cases, an equivalent of “qi”, since there is a genitive relationship between “zhi +NP”, and there are a lot of examples of “zhi、qi” found in same sentence or used “qi” to gloss “zhi”.Bachelor of Art