2018-2

【摘要】

唐兰先生的三书说不是另起炉灶，而是在充分吸收历代文字学研究成果基础上，对传统六书说作了不同层次的剥离，这种剥离工作密切结合了历时的、动态的文字发展过程。其所作“剥离”工作表现在如下六个方面：一、文与字的剥离（象形、指事和形声、会意的剥离）；二、图画文字和形声文字的剥离（把文字分为上古期和近古期）；三、文字构成和文字构成过程的剥离（三书和六技，包含了造字法和用字法的剥离）；四、指事字内部构成的剥离（结果是取消了指事字）；五、会意字内部构成的剥离（结论是“古文字只有象意没有会意”）；六、形声字内部构成的剥离（主要是从形声字产生方法角度进行剥离，剥离的一个重要成果就是声化象意字的析出）。这些工作是形成他的文字分期观和文字发生发展观的重要基础，反过来，他的文字分期观和文字发生发展观，又进一步影响着他对历代研究成果的评鉴、吸收和对具体文字资料的分析、利用。限于篇幅，本文主要分析了唐兰先生对汉代三套六书体系的批判，以及对六书中指事、会意的意见，并基于他的理论体系，纠正了学界认为唐先生把“三书”跟文字形音义三方面相比附的误解。

Abstract：Tang Lan’s “Sanshu” theory is not a reconstruction but a separation on different levels of the traditional “Liushu” theory, based on fully absorbing the achievements of previous studies of philology. This work is closely combined with the diachronic and dynamic process of Chinese character development. The “separating” work in six aspects as follows: First, the separation of “Wen” and “Zi” (the separation of pictogram, self-explanatory character and phonogram, associative compound character); Second, the separation of pictorial writing and phonogram (divided Chinese character into palaeoidand early modern period); Third, the separation of character formation and it’s process (“Sanshu” and “Liuji” are including the separation of the rules of character formation and application.); Forth, the separation of internal components of self-explanatory character (due to it’s cancel); Fivth, the separation of internal components of associative compound characters (the conclusion is that there is no “Huiyi” also named associative compound character but “Xiangyi”); Sixth, the separation of internal components of phonogram (which is mainly from the formation of phonogram, an important achievement is the separation of vocalized “Xiangyi” character). These worksare important basement of Tang’s opinion on Chinese character periodization and development, on the other hand, this opinion makes futher infl uence to his valuation and absorption of previous studies achievements as well as analysis and utilization of specifi c information. Due to limited space, this paper mainly analyzed the criticism of Mr. Tang to the three sets of “Liushu” theory in Han Dynasty, and his comments about self-explanatory character and associative compound character. Basing on his theoretical system, this paper corrected a misunderstanding that is equating Tang’s “Sanshu” with the grapheme, pronunciation and meaning of Chinese character in academic circle.