|
|
|
| Word Identity in Chinese Compounds from a Character-Word Relationship Perspective: A Case Study of Coordinate Disyllabic Words |
| Wang Cheng |
| Research Center for History of Chinese Language / Research Institute for Ancient Books, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract This study examines word identity in Chinese disyllabic compounds through the perspective of character-word relationships, with a focus on coordinate compounds. Word identity refers to whether the same form (phonetic or written) represents one word or multiple words, or whether different forms represent the same lexical unit or distinct words. While previous studies have concentrated mainly on modern Chinese vocabulary, the identification of ancient compounds involves greater complexity due to evolving character-morpheme correspondences, phonological variation, and scribal conventions. This paper analyzes a series of historical compound groups to elucidate the mechanisms underlying the shifts between identity and non-identity.In disyllabic compounds, word identity is often reduced to morpheme identity. Imbalanced relationships between characters and morphemes—driven by variant graphs, phonetic loans, and cognate interchange—frequently generate multiple written forms for the same word. This research traces how graphic, phonetic, and semantic changes can alter lexical boundaries. The analysis first addresses the cases where variant forms represent the same word. For instance, “絜 (jie)” and “洁 (jie)” are functionally variant graphs representing the same morpheme. Although “絜” is the original form, “潔(洁)” emerged later and eventually predominated. “廉絜 (lianjie)” and “廉洁 (lianjie)” co-existed as variant forms of the identical lexical item. Another example is “録续 (luxu)” and “陆续 (luxu)”. The former represents the original phonetic-morphological form (録implying sequence/order). The character “陆 (lu)” functioned as a homophonic loan for “録 (lu)”, facilitated by the phonological convergence of the wu 屋, wo 沃, and zhu 烛 rhyme groups during the Tang and Song dynasties. Both forms represent the same coordinating compound meaning “in succession”.Lexical identity can emerge when originally distinct words, featuring a shared morpheme and a divergent morpheme represented by interchangeable graphs, functionally merge within specific semantic ranges. The compounds “专愚 (zhuanyu)” (stubborn ignorance) and “颛愚 (zhuanyu)” (naive simplicity) gradually merged in medieval texts, through character interchange between “专 (zhuan)” and “颛 (zhuan)”, yielding synonymous heterographic variants. Similarly, “瞻 (zhan)” (look towards) and “占 (zhan)” (divine/surmise; observe) are distinct yet likely etymologically linked morphemes. “瞻视 (zhanshi)” (looking/gazing) and “占视 (zhanshi)” (scrutinize for judgment/diagnosis) showed semantic overlap by the Six Dynasties period, as “占” was borrowed for “瞻” in certain contexts.Homophonic interference also plays a role in reshaping word identity. For example, “互 (hu)” and “护 (hu)” share the same pronunciation but represent distinct morphemes. “隐互 (yinhu)” and “隐护 (yinhu)” differ significantly in lexical and grammatical meaning. The former describes mathematical complexity (“interlaced concealment”), textual obscurity, or intricate patterns, while the latter means“conceal physically” or “shield (wrongs/thieves)”. While “隐互” primarily functions as an adjective and occasionally as a causative verb, “隐护” exclusively serves as a verb. Ming Dynasty literature contains examples where “隐互” is used in place of “隐护” to mean “shelter” or “concealment”. Such substitutions may be attributed to occasional phonological borrowing.Conversely, variant forms of the same word can produce misinterpretations unrelated to its original meaning and eventually be treated as different words. For example, “檃栝 (yinkuo)” is originally a single word meaning a carpenter’s frame for straightening wood, metaphorically “correct/conform” or “adapt (text)”. Graphic confusion between “栝” and “括” was common. In medieval times, “隐括 (yinkuo)” developed a new, disconnected meaning of “scrutinize/investigate”. Later, another unrelated meaning of “summarize/generalize” emerged. These novel meanings, arising from graphic-form interference and lacking etymological connection to the original sense, must be considered distinct lexemes from earlier “檃栝”. Likewise, the transition from “擗踊 (piyong)” to “躃踊 (piyong)” initially involved only a radical change, yielding a variant form of the same word. However, the graphic change obscured the compound’s bimorphemic nature (“chest-beating” and “foot-stamping”). Subsequently, “躃踊” semantically narrowed, losing the chest-beating component. “躃” developed meanings like “stumble/fall” and “躃踊” came to signify actions like leaping/jumping and falling down. The two forms have thereby become homophones with different morphemes.In conclusion, the interface between character and morpheme is decisive for determining the identity of disyllabic words. Asymmetries in this mapping require contextual analysis to distinguish variant representations of the same word from genuinely distinct lexemes. Diachronic fluidity permits bidirectional shifts between identity and non-identity: phonetic loans and graphic variation often generate alternative forms, while scribal errors and folk etymology can split or reconfigure semantic boundaries. These findings provide practical implications for Chinese historical lexicology. Future corpus-based research can further refine the identification and interpretation of ancient compounds.
|
|
Received: 26 December 2025
|
|
|
|
1 汪维辉：《汉语词汇史》，上海：中西书局，2021年。
2 吕叔湘：《关于“语言单位的同一性”等等》，《中国语文》1962年第11期，第483-495页。
3 李行健、余志鸿：《现代汉语异形词研究》，上海：上海辞书出版社，2005年。
4 张博：《现代汉语复音词义项关系及多义词与同音形词的分野》，《语言研究》2008年第1期，第11-18页。
5 张博：《复合型同音同义词语的形成途径及关系特征》，《中国语文》2022年第4期，第401-412，510页。
6 王云路：《中古汉语词汇史》，北京：商务印书馆，2010年。
7 叶峻荣：《现代汉语复合式异形词及其历史研究》，北京：北京语言大学出版社，2012年。
8 阮元校刻：《十三经注疏》，北京：中华书局，1980年。
9 国学整理社编：《诸子集成》，北京：中华书局，1986年。
10 丁福保：《说文解字诂林》，北京：中华书局，1988年。
11 王立军：《汉碑文字通释》，北京：中华书局，2020年。
12 汉语大词典编辑委员会、汉语大词典编纂处编纂：《汉语大词典》，上海：汉语大词典出版社，1986—1993年。
13 王先谦：《释名疏证补》，北京：中华书局，2008年。
14 孙玉文：《汉语变调构词考辨》，北京：商务印书馆，2015年。
15 朱熹：《四书章句集注》，北京：中华书局，1983年。
16 王聘珍：《大戴礼记解诂》，北京：中华书局，1983年。
17 陈奇猷：《韩非子新校注》，上海：上海古籍出版社，2000年。
18 钱大昕：《恒言录》，北京：中华书局，2019年。
19 王力：《汉语语音史》，北京：中华书局，2014年。
20 徐元诰：《国语集解》，北京：中华书局，2002年。
21 孙诒让：《周礼正义》，北京：中华书局，1987年。
22 班固撰、王先谦补注：《汉书补注》，上海：上海古籍出版社，2008年。
23 赵元任：《现代吴语的研究》，北京：科学出版社，1956年。
24 张永言：《词汇学简论 训诂学简论》（增订本），上海：复旦大学出版社，2015年。
25 王力：《同源字典》，北京：商务印书馆，1982年。
26 黄怀信、张懋镕、田旭东：《逸周书汇校集注》（修订版），黄怀信修订，李学勤审定，上海：上海古籍出版社，2007年。
27 皇侃：《论语义疏》，北京：中华书局，2013年。
28 高楠顺次郎等主编：《大正新修大藏经》，台北：佛陀教育基金会出版部，1990年。
29 章太炎：《文始》，见《章太炎全集》第七册，上海：上海人民出版社，2014年。
30 张舜徽：《郑学丛著》，武汉：华中师范大学出版社，2005年。
31 蒋礼鸿：《义府续貂》，北京：中华书局，1981年。
32 王明编：《太平经合校》，北京：中华书局，1960年。
33 荀悦：《两汉纪》，北京：中华书局，2002年。
34 李维琦：《佛经词语汇释》，长沙：湖南师范大学出版社，2004年。
35 李继闵：《〈九章算术〉导读与译注》，西安：陕西科学技术出版社，1998年。
36 王宁主持整理：《章太炎说文解字授课笔记》，北京：中华书局，2010年。
37 王先谦：《后汉书集解》，北京：中华书局，1984年。
38 魏收：《魏书》，北京：中华书局，1974年。
39 《宋本玉篇》，北京：中国书店，1983年。
40 《碛砂大藏经》，北京：线装书局，2005年。
41 董诰等编：《全唐文》，北京：中华书局，1983年。
42 杨华：《新出简帛与礼制研究》，台北：台湾古籍出版有限公司，2007年。
43 黄仁瑄：《慧琳〈一切经音义〉中的转注字》，《古汉语研究》2005年第1期，第88-92页。
44 柳宗元：《柳宗元集》，北京：中华书局，1979年。
45 王宁：《论汉字与汉语的辩证关系——兼论现代字本位理论的得失》，《北京师范大学学报（社会科学版）》2014年第1期，第76-88页。
46 赵元任：《汉语词的概念及其结构和节奏》，见袁毓林主编：《中国现代语言学的开拓和发展——赵元任语言学论文选》，北京：清华大学出版社，1992年。
47 裘锡圭：《文字学概要》（修订本），北京：商务印书馆，2013年。
48 曾昭聪：《古汉语异形词与词语释义》，《中国语文》2013年第3期，第282-286页。 |
|
|
|
2026, Vol. 56 
