王引之、郝懿行、黄侃《尔雅》“二义同条”研究初探

发布时间：2018-04-27 10:35

本文选题：尔雅 + 二义同条　；参考：《漳州师范学院》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：第一章首先介绍《尔雅》一书中所存在的“二义同条”现象，并对历来学者对此现象的阐述历史进行了简要论述。其次，介绍了王引之、郝懿行及黄侃对《尔雅》一书的研究情况，说明本文以三位训诂家研究成果为探讨对象的缘由。最后，对《尔雅》“二义同条”现象的研究现状与不足，以及本文的研究意义和方法进行了介绍。第二章的主要内容有三，其一是罗列本文的研究样本，即王引之、郝懿行和黄侃所认定《尔雅》书中存在“二义同条”现象的训条，包括王引之认定的21条，郝懿行认定的19条，黄侃认定的27条；其二，将三者认定的结果进行比较分析，发现三者在数量、具体条目以及条目中的意义对应上存在差异；其三，经分析认为，这些差异主要源于三者不同训诂方式、占有不同的材料以及对相同材料的不同理解。第三章对王引之、郝懿行、黄侃判定“二义同条”时所使用的术语进行了总结和分析，其中主要包括判断“二义”与说明“二义”对应关系的术语。此外，重点分析三人对于不同意义的区分和表述方法：王引之主要采用“同义连文”的方式，郝懿行主要采用“异读别义”和“连文别义”的方法，黄侃主要采用“连文别义”的方式。第四章以探讨王引之、郝懿行及黄侃对其所认定“二义同条”进行论证的方法为主要内容。王引之在论证过程中采用驳证法，一是据经意驳《尔雅》旧注之误，二是驳经典旧注之误，由此证得“二义”。郝懿行兼用义证、声证二法，既有直接的意义证据的罗列，，也有声音关系的推求。黄侃对“二义同条”的论证与郝懿行类似，也是结合了求义证与通声音这两种方法。第五章对“二义同条”的基本类型作出了重新的划分。选取分类角度为训字兼义和训条多训词的特性，这两个特性均为“二义同条”现象所特有。据此，一方面将“二义同条”划分为“兼义类”和“单纯类”，另一方面又将其分为“多训词”与“单训词”两大类。
[Abstract]:The first chapter introduces the phenomenon of "two meanings and the same article" in the book "Erya", and briefly discusses the history of this phenomenon. Secondly, it introduces the research situation of Wang citation, Hao Yixing and Huang Kan on Erya, and explains the reason of this article taking the research results of three exegetics as the object of discussion. Finally, the present situation and deficiency of the phenomenon of "two meanings and the same article" in Erya are introduced, as well as the significance and method of this paper. There are three main contents in the second chapter. One is to list the research samples of this paper, namely, Wang Yinzhi, Hao Yi-hang and Huang Kan's conclusion that there are "two meanings and one article" in the book, including 21 articles identified by Wang Yinzhi. Hao Yixing's 19 articles and Huang Kan's 27; second, comparing and analyzing the results of the three findings, and finding that there are differences in the number, the specific items and the corresponding meaning of the items. Thirdly, after analysis, the author thinks, These differences are mainly due to their different exegetical modes, different materials and different understandings of the same materials. The third chapter summarizes and analyzes the terms used by Wang cited by Wang, Hao Yiling and Huang Kan to judge the correspondence between "two meanings" and "two meanings". In addition, the paper focuses on the analysis of the three people's differentiation and expression of different meanings: Wang Yinzhi mainly adopts the method of synonymous Lianwen, while Hao Yi-xing mainly adopts the methods of "reading different meanings" and "connecting literary meanings". Huang Kan mainly adopts the method of "connecting literary meaning". The fourth chapter discusses Wang cited, Hao Yixing and Huang Kan's argumentation methods of "two meanings and the same article". Wang Yinzhi used refutation in the process of argumentation, one is the mistake of refuting < Erya > old note according to the classics, the other is the mistake of refuting the old note of classic, from which "two meanings" can be obtained. Hao Yi-hang uses both syndromes and sound evidence, both the list of direct meaning evidence, but also the deduction of sound relationship. Huang Kan's argumentation of "two meanings and the same article" is similar to that of Hao Yidong, and it also combines the two methods of seeking justice and communicating sound. Chapter five reclassifies the basic types of "two meanings and the same article". Selecting the classification angle is the characteristic of both the word training and the multi-discipline, both of which are unique to the phenomenon of "two meanings and the same article". Therefore, on the one hand, "the same article" is divided into "concurrent meaning category" and "simple category", on the other hand, it is divided into "multiple precepts" and "single precepts".
【学位授予单位】：漳州师范学院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：H131.2

【相似文献】