徐锴论《说文》形声字亦声字为会意字及形声字为亦声字考辨
|
摘要
东汉许慎的《说文解字》(以下简称“《说文》”)是我国第一部有系统的通过字形探求本义的文字学著作。自它问世以来，历代对其研究的学者甚多。第一个全面系统整理、研究《说文》的学者是南唐的文字学家徐锴，他所作的《说文解字系传》(世称“小徐本”，以下简称“《系传》”)也是最早为《说文》作注的杰作。
在《系传》全书中，徐锴考证《说文》失误，阐明许书体例，疏证许书说解，明辨假借及古今用字之异，辨析字形，考索字义，从多方面开创了对《说文》进行研究的先河，在《说文》学史上作出了重要贡献。
在徐锴对《说文》的研究考证中，有一个值得注意的现象是，有些《说文》分析为形声、亦声的字，徐锴将其说成会意；有些《说文》分析为形声的字，徐锴将其说成亦声。对于这一现象，前人曾有所提及，但言之过简。本文即从这一现象入手，在前人研究的基础上，对此类字进行具体的分析，目的在于探讨徐锴论说的正误得失，希望能为《说文》学史上人们对徐锴及《系传》的研究提供一些参考。
本文首先对徐锴论《说文》形声、亦声为会意及形声为亦声的字进行了统计，共计有115处。然后运用甲骨文、金文等材料及古音学知识对这些字进行了分析和归纳。
本文主要分两大部分：
第一部分主要从音形义的角度分析说明徐锴论说正确之例。其中分为两类：一、形声、亦声为会意者；二、形声为亦声者。我们认为，有些字《说文》分析为形声、亦声，而徐锴将其论说为会意字，其实就造字意图而言，这些字主要是靠偏旁会合来表义的，实为会意字，徐锴之说与造字意图相合；有些字《说文》分析为形声，徐锴将其说解为亦声字，但在实质上其声符是表义的，应为亦声字。徐锴之说正确揭示了这些字声符的表义功能。徐锴对这些字的正确说解，有助于深化人们对《说文》分析为形声、亦声的一些字的认识，具有一定的积极意义。
第二部分主要分析说明徐锴论说错误之例，并进一步从三方面分析其致误的原因。其一是由于语音发展演变，形声字与其声符读音发生变化，徐锴因不明古音而误说。其二是由于受汉字表意性质的影响，徐锴过于偏重汉字表义而误说。
其三是由于汉字字形发展演变，徐楷依据讹变的小篆分析字形而误说。这三者中，
因徐楷偏重字义所造成的误说数量较多。我们分为三类:一、形声、亦声为会意
者;二、形声为亦声者;三、形声为亦声，同时又言会意者。
徐揩的论说对后代的《说文》学也有很大的影响，我们发现徐铱在整理《说
文》时有不少地方吸收了徐楷的意见，可以说，今天我们所使用的大徐本《说文》
中的一些字形分析结论正是来自于徐楷之说。
Shuo Wen Jie Zi (shortened as Shuo Wen in the following part) composed by Xu Shen in East Han Dynasty is the first systematic works of philology, which inquires into the meaning of Chinese characters through their shape. Since its accomplishment, much of its content has been researched by the scholars of all ages. It is Xu Kai, the philologist in Tang Dynasty who for the first time arranges and researches Shuo Wen in a comprehensive and systematic way. His book, Shuo Wen Jie Zi Xi Zhuan (well known as Junior Xu Version, shortened as Xi Zhuan in the following part) is the earliest annotated masterpiece.
In Xi Zhuan, Xu Kai textually researches the inappropriate parts in Shuo Wen, expounds its style, and further explicates its explanations. He also clarifies the way of using another character with the same pronunciation to replace the original one and the variants of Chinese characters in application both in the past and at present, and distinguishes and analyzes the shape of Chinese characters, and textually researches their meanings. In doing so, he opens many new ways in researching Shuo Wen and makes great contribution to the history of studying it.
In his textual research of Shuo Wen, Xu Kai puts forth a noticeable view, in which he changes the Xing Sheng and Yi Sheng characters in Shuo Wen to Hui Yi characters and the Xing Sheng characters to the Yi Sheng characters. The scholars in the past had mentioned this view yet in a simple way. My intention in this dissertation is, on the basis of the former researches, to probe into both the advantages and disadvantages of Xu Kai's works through specifically analyzing the involved characters and hope to offer some efforts for the comprehensive evaluation of Xu Kai's achievement.
At the beginning of the dissertation, I conduct a comprehensive statistics concerning 115 characters, in which those, originally Xing Sheng and Yi Sheng characters, are now interpreted as Hui Yi characters by Xu Kai and those, originally Xing Sheng characters, are now Yi Sheng characters. Then the knowledge from Jia Gu Character and Jin Character and the ancient Phonology is employed to induce and
evaluate these characters concretely.
The dissertation consists of two parts.:
Part one is mainly concerned with the rightly interpreted characters conducted by Xu Kai through the aspects of pronunciation, shape, and significance. These characters can be classified into two groups. In the first group, the original Xing Sheng and Yi Sheng characters are interpreted as Hui Yi characters, and in the second group the original Xing Sheng characters as Yi Sheng characters. Actually, Xu Kai's original interpretation in the first group coincides the aim of Chinese character-coining, for these characters rely on the combination of their components to express the meanings. And his interpretation in the second group shows the meaning-expressing function of the pronunciation components of Chinese characters. So Xu Kai's interpretation is positively constructive for it can deepen our recognition of Shuo Wen.
Part Two mainly focuses on Xu Kai's wrongly interpreted characters and further analyzes the three reasons resulting in his wrong interpretations. The first reason of his wrong interpretation is that Xu Kai has no idea of the evolution of phonetics and the change of the pronunciation of Xing Sheng character and its pronunciation component. The second reason of his wrong interpretation is that Xu Kai, affected by the meaning-expressing quality of Chinese characters, lays more emphasis on this aspect and then offers some wrong interpretations. And the third reason of his wrong interpretation lies in the fact that Xu Kai, owing to his ignorance of the development of Chinese character, only draws on seal character to analyze the shape of those characters. The wrongly interpreted characters caused by his laying too much emphasis on their meanings amount to a larger part in all the wrong interpretations. And they can be divided into three classes, (1) Xing Sheng character and Yi Sheng character as Hui Yi chara
在《系传》全书中，徐锴考证《说文》失误，阐明许书体例，疏证许书说解，明辨假借及古今用字之异，辨析字形，考索字义，从多方面开创了对《说文》进行研究的先河，在《说文》学史上作出了重要贡献。
在徐锴对《说文》的研究考证中，有一个值得注意的现象是，有些《说文》分析为形声、亦声的字，徐锴将其说成会意；有些《说文》分析为形声的字，徐锴将其说成亦声。对于这一现象，前人曾有所提及，但言之过简。本文即从这一现象入手，在前人研究的基础上，对此类字进行具体的分析，目的在于探讨徐锴论说的正误得失，希望能为《说文》学史上人们对徐锴及《系传》的研究提供一些参考。
本文首先对徐锴论《说文》形声、亦声为会意及形声为亦声的字进行了统计，共计有115处。然后运用甲骨文、金文等材料及古音学知识对这些字进行了分析和归纳。
本文主要分两大部分：
第一部分主要从音形义的角度分析说明徐锴论说正确之例。其中分为两类：一、形声、亦声为会意者；二、形声为亦声者。我们认为，有些字《说文》分析为形声、亦声，而徐锴将其论说为会意字，其实就造字意图而言，这些字主要是靠偏旁会合来表义的，实为会意字，徐锴之说与造字意图相合；有些字《说文》分析为形声，徐锴将其说解为亦声字，但在实质上其声符是表义的，应为亦声字。徐锴之说正确揭示了这些字声符的表义功能。徐锴对这些字的正确说解，有助于深化人们对《说文》分析为形声、亦声的一些字的认识，具有一定的积极意义。
第二部分主要分析说明徐锴论说错误之例，并进一步从三方面分析其致误的原因。其一是由于语音发展演变，形声字与其声符读音发生变化，徐锴因不明古音而误说。其二是由于受汉字表意性质的影响，徐锴过于偏重汉字表义而误说。
其三是由于汉字字形发展演变，徐楷依据讹变的小篆分析字形而误说。这三者中，
因徐楷偏重字义所造成的误说数量较多。我们分为三类:一、形声、亦声为会意
者;二、形声为亦声者;三、形声为亦声，同时又言会意者。
徐揩的论说对后代的《说文》学也有很大的影响，我们发现徐铱在整理《说
文》时有不少地方吸收了徐楷的意见，可以说，今天我们所使用的大徐本《说文》
中的一些字形分析结论正是来自于徐楷之说。
Shuo Wen Jie Zi (shortened as Shuo Wen in the following part) composed by Xu Shen in East Han Dynasty is the first systematic works of philology, which inquires into the meaning of Chinese characters through their shape. Since its accomplishment, much of its content has been researched by the scholars of all ages. It is Xu Kai, the philologist in Tang Dynasty who for the first time arranges and researches Shuo Wen in a comprehensive and systematic way. His book, Shuo Wen Jie Zi Xi Zhuan (well known as Junior Xu Version, shortened as Xi Zhuan in the following part) is the earliest annotated masterpiece.
In Xi Zhuan, Xu Kai textually researches the inappropriate parts in Shuo Wen, expounds its style, and further explicates its explanations. He also clarifies the way of using another character with the same pronunciation to replace the original one and the variants of Chinese characters in application both in the past and at present, and distinguishes and analyzes the shape of Chinese characters, and textually researches their meanings. In doing so, he opens many new ways in researching Shuo Wen and makes great contribution to the history of studying it.
In his textual research of Shuo Wen, Xu Kai puts forth a noticeable view, in which he changes the Xing Sheng and Yi Sheng characters in Shuo Wen to Hui Yi characters and the Xing Sheng characters to the Yi Sheng characters. The scholars in the past had mentioned this view yet in a simple way. My intention in this dissertation is, on the basis of the former researches, to probe into both the advantages and disadvantages of Xu Kai's works through specifically analyzing the involved characters and hope to offer some efforts for the comprehensive evaluation of Xu Kai's achievement.
At the beginning of the dissertation, I conduct a comprehensive statistics concerning 115 characters, in which those, originally Xing Sheng and Yi Sheng characters, are now interpreted as Hui Yi characters by Xu Kai and those, originally Xing Sheng characters, are now Yi Sheng characters. Then the knowledge from Jia Gu Character and Jin Character and the ancient Phonology is employed to induce and
evaluate these characters concretely.
The dissertation consists of two parts.:
Part one is mainly concerned with the rightly interpreted characters conducted by Xu Kai through the aspects of pronunciation, shape, and significance. These characters can be classified into two groups. In the first group, the original Xing Sheng and Yi Sheng characters are interpreted as Hui Yi characters, and in the second group the original Xing Sheng characters as Yi Sheng characters. Actually, Xu Kai's original interpretation in the first group coincides the aim of Chinese character-coining, for these characters rely on the combination of their components to express the meanings. And his interpretation in the second group shows the meaning-expressing function of the pronunciation components of Chinese characters. So Xu Kai's interpretation is positively constructive for it can deepen our recognition of Shuo Wen.
Part Two mainly focuses on Xu Kai's wrongly interpreted characters and further analyzes the three reasons resulting in his wrong interpretations. The first reason of his wrong interpretation is that Xu Kai has no idea of the evolution of phonetics and the change of the pronunciation of Xing Sheng character and its pronunciation component. The second reason of his wrong interpretation is that Xu Kai, affected by the meaning-expressing quality of Chinese characters, lays more emphasis on this aspect and then offers some wrong interpretations. And the third reason of his wrong interpretation lies in the fact that Xu Kai, owing to his ignorance of the development of Chinese character, only draws on seal character to analyze the shape of those characters. The wrongly interpreted characters caused by his laying too much emphasis on their meanings amount to a larger part in all the wrong interpretations. And they can be divided into three classes, (1) Xing Sheng character and Yi Sheng character as Hui Yi chara
引文
[1]徐锴：《说文解字系传》，中华书局，1987年10月
[2]许慎：《说文解字》“经韵楼本”，中华书局影印，1963年
[3]段玉裁：《说文解字注》，上海古籍出版社，1988年2月
[4]桂馥：《说文解字义证》，中华书局，1987年7月
[5]王筠：《说文解字句读》，中华书局，1988年7月
[6]王筠：《说文释例》，中华书局，1987年12月
[7]朱骏声：《说文通训定声》，中华书局，1984年6月
[8]蒋人傑：《说文解字集注》，上海古籍出版社，1996年10月
[9]汤可敬：《说文解字今释》，岳麓书社，1997年7月
[10]张舜徽：《说文解字约注》，中州书画社，1983年
[11]苏宝荣：《说文解字今注》，陕西人民出版社，2000年3月
[12]王贵元：《说文解字校笺》，学林出版社，2002年12月
[13]石定果：《说文会意字研究》，北京语言学院出版社，1996年5月
[14]赵平安：《说文小篆研究》，广西教育出版社，1999年
[15]徐中舒：《汉语古文字字形表》，四川辞书出版社，1981年8月
[16]余国庆：《说文学导论》，安徽教育出版社，1995年10月
[17]高明：《中国古文字学通论》，北京大学出版社，1996年6月
[18]裘锡圭：《文字学概要》，商务印书馆，1999年12月
[19]徐中舒：《甲骨文字典》，四川辞书出版社，1998年10月
[20]于省吾：《甲骨文字诂林》，中华书局，1996年5月
[21]李孝定：《甲骨文字集释》，中央研究院历史语言研究所，1970年10月
[22]尉法高主编：《金文诂林》，香港中文大学出版社，1974年1月
[23]王文耀：《简明金文词典》，上海辞书出版社，1998年12月
[24]徐中舒主编：《汉语大字典》，四川辞书出版社，1995年5月
[25]《丛书集成初编》，商务印书馆，1936年，第1096册
[26]王廷林：《常用古文字字典》，上海书画出版社，1987年4月
[27]李珍华、周长楫：《汉字古今音表》(修订本)，中华书局，1999年1月
[28]郭锡良：《汉字古音手册》，北京大学出版社，1986年11月
[29]丁声树、李荣：《古今字音对照手册》，中华书局，1981年10月
[30]王力：《同源字典》，商务印书馆，1999年
[31]周祖謨：《问学集》，中华书局，1966年
[32]胡朴安：《中国文字学史》，商务印书馆，1998年4月
[33]杨树达：《積微居小学金石论丛》，中华书局，1983年7月
[34]唐兰：《殷墟文字记》，中华书局，1985年5月
[35]曾绍聪：《从词源学史看宋代“右文说”的学术背景》，《古汉语研究》，2002年第2期
[36]申小龙：《论中国古代语言学之说文解字传统》，《汉字文化》，1997年第3期
[37]周信炎：《论<说文系传>械囊蛏笠濉罚豆笾荽笱аПā罚?993年第2期
[2]许慎：《说文解字》“经韵楼本”，中华书局影印，1963年
[3]段玉裁：《说文解字注》，上海古籍出版社，1988年2月
[4]桂馥：《说文解字义证》，中华书局，1987年7月
[5]王筠：《说文解字句读》，中华书局，1988年7月
[6]王筠：《说文释例》，中华书局，1987年12月
[7]朱骏声：《说文通训定声》，中华书局，1984年6月
[8]蒋人傑：《说文解字集注》，上海古籍出版社，1996年10月
[9]汤可敬：《说文解字今释》，岳麓书社，1997年7月
[10]张舜徽：《说文解字约注》，中州书画社，1983年
[11]苏宝荣：《说文解字今注》，陕西人民出版社，2000年3月
[12]王贵元：《说文解字校笺》，学林出版社，2002年12月
[13]石定果：《说文会意字研究》，北京语言学院出版社，1996年5月
[14]赵平安：《说文小篆研究》，广西教育出版社，1999年
[15]徐中舒：《汉语古文字字形表》，四川辞书出版社，1981年8月
[16]余国庆：《说文学导论》，安徽教育出版社，1995年10月
[17]高明：《中国古文字学通论》，北京大学出版社，1996年6月
[18]裘锡圭：《文字学概要》，商务印书馆，1999年12月
[19]徐中舒：《甲骨文字典》，四川辞书出版社，1998年10月
[20]于省吾：《甲骨文字诂林》，中华书局，1996年5月
[21]李孝定：《甲骨文字集释》，中央研究院历史语言研究所，1970年10月
[22]尉法高主编：《金文诂林》，香港中文大学出版社，1974年1月
[23]王文耀：《简明金文词典》，上海辞书出版社，1998年12月
[24]徐中舒主编：《汉语大字典》，四川辞书出版社，1995年5月
[25]《丛书集成初编》，商务印书馆，1936年，第1096册
[26]王廷林：《常用古文字字典》，上海书画出版社，1987年4月
[27]李珍华、周长楫：《汉字古今音表》(修订本)，中华书局，1999年1月
[28]郭锡良：《汉字古音手册》，北京大学出版社，1986年11月
[29]丁声树、李荣：《古今字音对照手册》，中华书局，1981年10月
[30]王力：《同源字典》，商务印书馆，1999年
[31]周祖謨：《问学集》，中华书局，1966年
[32]胡朴安：《中国文字学史》，商务印书馆，1998年4月
[33]杨树达：《積微居小学金石论丛》，中华书局，1983年7月
[34]唐兰：《殷墟文字记》，中华书局，1985年5月
[35]曾绍聪：《从词源学史看宋代“右文说”的学术背景》，《古汉语研究》，2002年第2期
[36]申小龙：《论中国古代语言学之说文解字传统》，《汉字文化》，1997年第3期
[37]周信炎：《论<说文系传>械囊蛏笠濉罚豆笾荽笱аПā罚?993年第2期