說字訓詁和解文訓詁的統一與分歧以朱駿聲的訓詁著述為例

The Unity and Divergence of Etymological Analysis and Philological Exegeses A Case Study of Zhu Jun-Sheng’s Exegetical Writings

黃侃《訓詁學筆記》承先啟後地提出了「說字訓詁」與「解文訓詁」兩個術語，從概念上區分了訓詁學在小學研究與經典詮解方面的兩大角色，卻未細言其實。本文的研究目的，在於從內涵和外延兩個層面辨明「說字訓詁」與「解文訓詁」兩個概念，以及探討在訓詁學的實際操作中，說字和解文既統一亦分歧的複雜關係。內涵方面，文中利用段玉裁「為傳注」與「造字書」的觀點，以及近世訓詁學對「通釋字義」及「隨文釋義」兩種訓詁取向的整理，從黃侃居於其中、繼往開來的位置，配合黃氏本身「本有之訓詁及後起之訓詁」和「獨立之訓詁與隸屬之訓詁」之理論，討論「說字」與「解文」兩種訓詁的概念內容和區分方式；外延方面，本文利用朱駿聲《說文通訓定聲》的書內訓詁，以及朱氏各種釋經的解文材料，探討「說字」與「解文」兩種訓詁的實際操作，說明其統一與分歧之情況，從中探索語言學分析與經典說解的關係。

Huang Kan’s Notes on Etymology introduces the terms“etymological analysis”and“philological exegeses,”distinguishing the two primary roles of etymology in language studies and classical interpretation, though he does not elaborate on them. This article aims to clarify these concepts from both connotative and denotative perspectives, exploring the complex relationship between them in practical etymological work, where they are both unified and divergent. In terms of connotation, the article references Duan Yucai’s views on“annotations for Classics”and“compiling dictionaries,”as well as the organization of modern etymology around two approaches:“general interpretation of character meanings”and“contextual interpretation of meanings.”It examines the conceptual content and distinctions between“etymological analysis”and“philological exegeses”through Huang Kan’s transitional perspective, integrating his theories of“original etymology and subsequent etymology”and“independent etymology and subordinate etymology.”Regarding denotation, this article utilizes Zhu Junsheng’s etymological interpretations in Shuowen Tongxun Ding Sheng and various interpretive materials from Zhu to investigate the practical applications of“etymological analysis”and“philological exegeses.”It highlights their unity and divergence while exploring the relationship between linguistic analysis and classical interpretation.