【作者】 沈祖春；

【导师】 臧克和；

【作者基本信息】 华东师范大学 ， 汉语言文字学， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 該输文以《類篇》为立足點,在比较的视野之下,封《類篇》舆《集韻》的收字消畏及字形燮化進行了共畴的比较研究,然後再封《類篇》舆《玉篇》的收字增减進行歷時的比较研究,徒而封唐宋之隙大型字害所貯存的漢字字彙進行宏觀比较和微觀分析。比较的基礎是本體研究,所以第一章封《類篇》《集韻》《玉篇》的基本情况進行了探析,得出了一些舆学界傅统看法不一致的结输：(1)关於《颊篇》的收字,《序》云：“文三万一千三百一十九,重音二万一千八百四十六。”據我们的统計,實際收字30844個,比原载字数少475個；重音数實为21823個,比原载重音数少了23個。(2)《集韻》的收字,潭州本、杨州使院重刻本均为53866個(金州本缺卷一,无法造行统计)。加上據明州本所補的6個字,《集韻》實際收字53872個。因此,原载字数53525不準確,實收字数比它要多出347個。(3)《玉篇》的收字数,原书未載,学界也无定数。我们據浑存堂本《玉篇》统計,其收字總量为22803侗。(4)关於《類篇》《集韻》的编纂、《類篇》的部首等问题,输文也有较新的看法。《類篇》中存在著不少重出字,因此,第二章主要徒重出字的音羲关系以及重出字可否合饼的角度造行了立體的分類考察。结論是：如果去掉始出字,威格意羲上的重出字只有647字(不計伪重出的19字)。這647字中,有357字可以合併去重,其中包括一字雨出的316字,一字多出的19字,訛误重出的22字。如果按照现代辭书学的標凖,重出的647個字皆可去重。文中還就重出原因以及重出字的研究意羲造行了较为詳(?)的探析。在本體研究的基礎之上,封《類篇》《集韻》的收字消畏以及字形差異進行了共時的比较研究。第三章是二书的收字比较研究,关於《類篇》《集韻》收字的消畏,人们歷来只是(?)统地說差不多,《四库提要》之說亦不確切。《類篇》主要是将按音排字的《集韻》改编成按形排字,但是编者並非完全照錄《集韻》,二者在收字上又有一定的匾别。《颊篇》新增《集韻》所无之字有69個,其中字頭17字,具體52字。反觀《類篇》減少《集韻》已有之字,未收的有299字,其中字頭78字,異體221字；合併的有267字,除形近误合的32字外,(?)下的大都是異體。降在释羲之中的有21字,皆为異體。共計587字。一言以蔽之,《類篇》的收字,较之《集韻》而言,增加的有69字,減少的有587字。單從数量上来看,《類篇》收字比《集韻》少518字。第四章封《颊篇》《集韻》共有而形異之字進行了總體上的分颊统計,然後就(?)件增減或换用、隸定或书(?)差異、訛误字等三(?)不同類别所涉及之字逐一進行了详细的解析,并探究二书之简何以舍出现为数不少的字形差異。输文的調研,一方面是为了梳理漢字发展史上的一些重要问题,另一方面是为了现寅的漢字使用。歷代字害编纂都会收存歷史漢字,時间越往後,所積累下来越多,同时沉積的訛误也就越多。像《漢語大字典》在利用古代字害资源時即有微瑕：或漏收已有的漢字,或照缘訛误之字有未指正者,或所引书證滞後,或漏收羲项等。論文在相关章节進行了論述,以期能为《漢語大字典》将来的修订作参考。新增字是漢字发展史上重要的研究封象。《玉篇》作为第一本楷害字典,其颗著特點就是不僅收錄较为通行的今文字,還将绝大部份古文字以楷害形式呈现,並在释羲中分層级注明。因此,《玉篇》是中古漢字研究的基本座標。《類篇》是(?)《玉篇》之後又一部卷帙浩繁、收字更多的字书,二者之间的收字有何異同呢?第五章封此進行了详细的比较。《颊篇》编纂時,虽然参考了《玉篇》,但是也有1735字没有收存,也就是說,這1735字是《玉篇》所(?)有的。其中1350個是字頭,373個是異體。输文封未收的原因進行了初探。《類篇》之收字,於《玉篇》而言,新增9557字。所增之字,總體上可以分为三類,其一为形音羲皆新增,可稻之为字頭,共6009字；其二是僅增形體,音羲不增,是为具體,有2900字；其三是字頭異體皆新增,共313组648字。若将第三類分开計算,則有313個字頭、335個異體。總計則有新增字頭6332個,昊體3235個。《類篇》新增字中,有2316字引自前代典籍和通人之說。所引典籍遍及小学類、经類、史類、子翔、集類。小学類中,承用最多的是《(?)韻》,共1541字；其次是《說文》,共283字；然後是《(?)雅》211字,《爾雅》47字,《方言》39字,《字林》29字,其他6字,共2156字。稱引经類有35字,史類23字,子颊90字,集類1字,共149字。稻引通人之說僅11字。這2316字實隙上属於字书新增字《類篇》新增的9557個字中,除去這2316個字之外的7241字,绝大部分應孩是隋唐至宋中葉所产生的新字。更多还原

【Abstract】 Taking Lei Pian as the anchor point of our study, this thesis applies a comparative perspective to examine Lei Pian and Ji Yun and Yu Pian. Through the synchronic comparative study of Lei Pian and Ji Yun and the diachronic comparative study of Lei Pian and Yu Pian, this thesis analyzes the increase and decrease of characters of these three works, and analyzes the Chinese vocabulary recorded in the large dictionaries of the Tang and Song dynasty from both the macroscopic view and the microscopic view.The foundation of comparative study is ontological study. Therefore, the first chapter is a fundamental analysis of Lei Pian, Ji Yun and Yu Pian. The conclusion we attained here is different from the traditional academic opinion in 4 aspects:1. about the vocabulary of Lei Pian:the prelude of Lei Pian writes that "there are 31319 characters and 1846 polyphones." However, according to our statistics, there are actually 30844 characters,475 less than the original record.2. According to Tan Zhou version and Yang Zhou Li Yuan version, there are 53866 characters in Ji Yun (we cannot take Jin Zhou version into account because it lacks of the first volume). The Ming Zhou version adds another 6 characters to it, so Ji Yun has 53872 characters totally in fact. Thus, the original record of 53525 is inexact; the actual vocabulary has 347 characters more.3. There is no record of the vocabulary of Yu Pian, and the academic circle has no determined conclusion of that. According to Ze Cun Tang’s version, Yu Pian has 22803 characters.4. We have our own opinions about questions such as the compilation of Lei Pian and Ji Yun, and the radicals of Lei Pian, etc.There are many recurrent characters in Lei Pian. In the second chapter, we mainly analyze the relation between pronunciation and meaning of the recurrent characters and investigate if the recurrent characters can be amalgamated. We conclude that there are only 647 recurrent characters except the original ones. Of these 647 characters,357 of them can be amalgamated, which include 316 characters with two derivations,19 characters with more than two derivations, and 22 characters with error derivations. According to the standard of modern lexicographical work, all of the 647 recurrent characters can be amalgamated. In this thesis, we also make a tentative analysis of the causes of recurrent characters and the significance of studying them.Based upon the above ontological analysis, we will have a synchronic comparative study of Lei Pian and Ji Yun, and examine the increase and decrease of characters and the differences of characters pattern. The third chapter is a comparative study of the vocabulary of Lei Pian and Ji Yun. The traditional opinion is that the two works have similar vocabulary in general, and even Si Ku Ti Yao does not have a clear idea about that. Lei Pian is a reorganization of the vocabulary of Ji Yun, the former follows the phonetic order, while the later follows the morpheme order. However, the compiler of Lei Pian has not totally recorded the vocabulary of Ji Yun. There is some difference between the two works.Lei Pian has 69 new characters that do not exist in Ji Yun, which include 17 head characters,52 variant characters. On the other hand, Lei Pian deletes 299 characters of Ji Yun, which include 78 head characters and 221 variant characters; there are 267 amalgamated ones, except the 32 error amalgamations, most of the left are variations. 21 characters are degraded to the annotation, all of which are variations. There are 587 characters totally.In a word, compared with Ji Yun, the vocabulary of Lei Pian has increased 69 new characters and decreased 587 characters. Speaking of the quantity, the vocabulary of Lei Pian has 518 characters less than that of Ji Yun.The fourth chapter is a classified statistic analysis of the characters with different forms that exist both in Lei Pian and Ji Yun. This chapter investigates the change of structural patterns, the writing differences and the error characters with the analysis of certain examples, and discusses why the two works have a number of characters with different forms.Studying ancient writing is not only for the purpose of making clear of certain questions about the Chinese writing history, but also for the evaluation of modern writing. The dictionaries compiled in each dynasty would have some ancient characters. The longer the history, the more characters would be accumulated, and the more errors would occur. Great Chinese Dictionary represents the highest standard of modern lexicography and has a deep influence in the academic circle. Nevertheless, it still has some errors. While recording the ancient characters, it has some words deleted, some errors remained uncorrected, some citations left behind, and some meaning explanations ignored. We have discussed these faults in relative chapters and we wish that our analysis would be helpful for the future editing of Great Chinese Dictionary.Newly increased characters are an important study object in the Chinese writing history. Yu Pian is the first Kaishu dictionary of China. The most obvious characteristic of this dictionary is that it not only records the modern characters, but also records most of the ancient characters in the form of Kaishu with paraphrases. Therefore, Yu Pian is the basic coordinate of the study of Chinese ancient writing. Lei Pian is another large scaled dictionary after Yu pian. What are the differences between the two works? In the fifth chapter, we have compared them in detail. The compilation of Lei Pian takes Yu Pian as reference, but there are 1735 characters not recorded, which means the 1735 characters only exist in Yu Pian.1350 of them are head characters and 373 of them are variants. We have investigated the reasons why they are not recorded.Compared with Yu Pian, the vocabulary of Lei Pian has 9557 characters new. The newly increased characters can be categorized into three kinds: 1.6009 head characters with new form, pronunciation and meaning; 2.2900 variants with new forms but old pronunciation and meaning; 3.648 characters categorized in 313 groups with head characters and variants both newly increased. If counting separately, there are 313 head characters and 335 variants. In total, there are 6332 newly increased head characters and 3235 variants.Of the newly increased characters of Lei Pian,2316 of them are cited from ancient works and works of profound scholars. Works being quoted include primary education works and Confusion classic works. Of the primary education works, the most frequently quoted is Guang Yun,1541 characters in total; next is Shuo Wen,283 characters; Guang Ya, 211 characters; Er Ya, 47 characters; Fang Yan, 39 characters; Zi Lin, 29 characters; others, 6 characters. In total, there are 2156 characters. Characters quoted from classic works are 35, from history works are 23, from subclass works are 90, and one from collected works, which counts 149 characters in total. Characters quoted from the works of profound scholars are 11.That is to say 2316 characters are newly increased characters in dictionary. Besides the 2316 characters, the left 7241 new characters newly in Lei Pian almost all of them are created in the Sui, Tang and Song dynasty.更多还原