"反訓" 四例 -兼論 "反訓" 的一些問題 / A Study of Fanxun: Four examples from the Erya

"反訓" 是訓詁學上向受爭議的一個課題， 自郭璞 (276-324) 提出相關論調， 歷來的討論便多不勝數。 訓詁名家如邵晉涵 (1743-1796)、 郝懿行 (1757-1825) 等雖然輩出， 但亦未能提出具說服力的解釋。 筆者認為 "反訓" 是一詞同具正反二義下的產物， 義兼正反是異常的語義現象， 因此，"反訓" 應是一種特殊的訓詁方式。 此外， 每個 "反訓詞" 的意義關係都是獨特的， 如不深入探討， 實不足以言其成因及類型。 所以， 要能揭示 "反訓" 的本質， 非逐一探求每個 "反訓詞" 正反二義間的關係不可》本文首先檢視有關 "反訓" 這個術語的爭論， 然後列舉四例， 探求義兼正反的因由， 昭示 "反訓" 成因的複雜性， 從而說明 "反訓" 的核心課題原不在它能否成立或形式上的歸類， 而是在於正反轉向的語義現象之間。 Fanxun refers to a mode of semantic definition found in early Chinese dictionaries such as the Erya, in which words possess opposite definitions. Despite the serious and painstaking researches conducted by a brilliant pleiad of scholars such as Guo Pu (276-324), Shao Jinhan (1743-1796) and Hao Yixing (1757-1825) on the philology of the Erya, they failed to come up with a satisfactory illustration of their occurrences. The present paper examines four examples of fanxun in the Erya which are all given opposite definitions. The author attempts to show that in order to arrive at a more accurate analysis of their occurrences, the unique semantic rel