赞同曹老师的解答，不过针对楼主的问题，实际使用情况要复杂得多。我试图解说得详细一些：
首先应该明确,形式不同，意义不同，某些时候要区别使用。
John gave her a book. Cf: John gave a book to her.正常情况下重心分别是 a book 和to her。To her显示了由此及彼的给予动作的过程和目标，提示动态的、具体的物件在主体间传递的语义。在句法上，与格结构可以有进行体，同时，与格结构中表受事的物件一定是具体而非抽象的。双宾结构提示静态的（注重结果）具体物件的传递完结或抽象意义的作用施加。 在句法上，双宾结构不能有进行体表达，受事也可以不指涉具体物件。
具体的使用：一种情况-上文决定使用哪种结构，如回答问题"Who did you give the book to?",那就应使用I gave the book to Moses.第二。不由语境引发使用的情况I poured myself some wine, then passed the bottle to Wayne.但此句自有其内在语义逻辑--给自己倒完酒当然该到朋友倒酒了，所以前面表达的是给自己倒完酒的行为，然后递给Wayne,主线是喝酒的人.如果是倒完递给waiter，那用双宾结构最合理。
除了这些因素，还有很多因素影响对结构的选择，如相关成分文体，正式/非正式；书面/口语；明晰度，确指/不确指；生命维度，有生/无生;信息/新旧;成分长度轻重。这里我们只看上面的相关问题。
当然这里涉及所谓的Heavy NP shift,一般都是讲看直接宾语和to结构的相对长度，重者置尾，占主要地位，一般是新信息。在直接宾语较长的时候就把to与格结构置于原间接宾语的位置，区别就是多了个to。这是我们在句子形成以后的分析，实际上在写作或讲话的时候，主要取决于个人对相关事件的认知(i) the speaker’s perception of the event。这个情况是相对来说不那么教条的规则用法。当然还是要综合考量上面所说因素。这里要说明的是，1在直接宾语含有关系从句起说明作用的时候，直接宾语一般都是后置；2，根据美国大学做的有关测试，间接宾语的长度对结构选择影响不大，重要的是直接宾语的分量。（Focus needs to be considered，Weight also needs to be considered for the theme（题旨，相当于直接宾语）, but possibly not for the recipient（接受者，相当于间接宾语）<<Effects of Argument Length and Focus Type on the Dative Alternation>>）3.有关研究认为，任何双宾结构中合乎用法的目标宾语（间接宾语）在双补语结构中用作to选择的目标语也都是合规的（anything that is a legitimate Goal in the double object construction is also legitimate in the double complement construction, as a Goal selected by to.）。这个不绝对，比如惯用语。For example, giving someone a headache is causing them to have a headache, not transferring the headache from one location to another. Hence, by virtue of its meaning, it is argued, this idiom occurs only in the possessive dative NP construction (i) and does not alternate. / a. John gave Mary a child. b. John gave a child to Mary.意义有区别a) can express the notion that Mary was merely impregnated by John, while (b) seems to entail that there is an existing child who was physically transferred.
4.Quite generally, there is relative freedom of ordering in post-verbal positions in SVO languages, which gives rise to a shuffling of constituents which is labelled ‘Heavy NP Shift‘这个位置安排自由和上面讲的主要取决于个人对相关事件的认知(i) the speaker’s perception of the event一脉相承。I gave to Mary my grandmother’s ivory fan.
这个介词短语前置的情况总体看来用的很少，以致于很多母语者见所未见，极力反对。综合上面各种观点，我觉得有学者认为这种用法是一种个人风格问题，比较妥帖。可以补充的理由是：我们完全可以根据成分length，weight安排语序，即形成尾重。这样一是结构平稳，二是易于理解全句。比如Hawkins assumes a top-down parser, whose first task in analyzing a VP will be to determine its immediate constituents，他认为应该尽快让听者辨识出紧邻成分，以便于理解。所以前面越短越好。Heavy NP Shift 1 (HNPS)
(4) I VP [gave NP [the valuable book that was extremely difficult to find] PP [to
Mary]]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
(5) I VP [gave PP [to Mary] NP [the valuable book that was extremely difficult to
find]]
1 2 3 4
前者要等到第十一个单词才清楚结构，而后者专用四个。
但是，问题又来了，我们都以听者为对象，以易于理解为目的，但使用语言的目的是各有不同的，同样的情况，在政治演说家那里就可能完全不同，因为他们多喜欢制造悬念，噱头，到最后才揭盅。所以他们反其道而行之。所以，可以说这种用法是风格问题The fact that sentences such as (15) are so rare could indicate that this position for G（就是间接宾语） is a stylistic option found mainly in written discourse and is not strictly rule-governed.
最后说说，是不是都可以这么转换--答案是部分情况不可以。我们知道后置加to是为了强调，是新信息，最简单的例子就是：You can say:
- I gave the keys to Sarah. and I gave Sarah the keys. (but not I gave to Sarah the keys).
- That's my book. Can you give it to me? and Can you give me that book? (but not Can you give to me that book?).
它们都是简简单单，结构清晰的基本结构，重心后置，不允许这种没有理由的转换。而尾重转移后因为倒置后成分复杂,双宾结构的标记不明显，所以可以视情况用to来标识接受者成分，也起到加强语义的作用，另外其中还有个生命维度的问题需要考虑。下面再附上几个例句Give to me the life I love,/To this end, I give to you the best and most important available knowledge ..." - would be this case correct too? /I would like to meet a man who would love me as I am and I'm ready to give to this man all my love and warmness./It will give to all your pasta dishes a beautiful red color and an incomparable flavor.
个人观点，仅供参考
