程俊英《詩經注析》指出從漢魏以迄清末的《詩經》研究，大抵循著經學的軌跡 在進行。循著經學的軌跡在進行，那意謂傳統的學者視《詩》為經，視《詩》為具有 「經夫婦，成孝敬，厚人倫，美教化，移風俗」的政治倫理、教化諷喻的教科書，與 輔成王道的「諫書」。問題是，這樣的詮釋角度，乃是本質上的誤讀，以致於不得其 解。因為《詩經》是中國文學史上的第一部詩歌總集，「《詩經》就是詩，準確的說， 就是歌曲，一首首頌德的歌、祭祀的歌、宴飲的歌、戀愛的歌、送別的歌、諷刺的歌 等等」。本乎此，程俊英《詩經注析》以為只有掌握「就詩論詩」的原則來詮詩，才 能揭顯詩旨，並「恢復《詩經》的客觀存在和本來面目」。《詩經》既是詩，具有濃厚 的文學性，對後代的詩歌、文學又有深遠的影響，因此，《詩經注析》的撰作，本著 「就詩論詩」的原則揭顯詩義，並分析其藝術技巧，「或論意境，或言修辭，或述源 流，或摘瑕疵。」，從而形成了此書在詮詩上的特色。《詩經注析》詮析《詩經》的文 學性，遍及三百零五篇，又指摘其中詩義不足之處，凡此，都形成了本書在詮《詩》 上的一大特色，相較於當代眾多《詩經》詮釋的著作來看，此書實有其相對秀異卓絕 之處。洪湛侯在《詩經學史》中，謂程俊英的《詩經注析》「自始至終用文學觀點解 詩」、「是當代用文學觀點評注《詩經》的有代表性的一家，」夏傳才先生也指出本書 是二十世紀中國《詩經》學研究的代表著作之一，同時也是二十世紀中國《詩經》註 釋的代表作之一，透過本論文的初步討論，洪、夏二位先生所言，堪稱公允而合理。

Cheng Jun-Ying points out in the Annotation and Analysis of Shijing that from Han-Wei to Ching dynasty most studies on Shijing or the Book of Poetry keep on the track of the Confucian Classics. Following the tradition of the Confucian Classics means that conventional scholars see poetry as a combination of logos, political ethics, didactic textbooks, and remonstrance for the emperors. However, interpretation in this perspective leads to a misreading of the book’s essence since Shijing is the first anthology of poems in the history of Chinese Literature. Shijing is a collection of poems, or to put it more precisely, one compilation of songs which are composed to praise virtues, to worship gods, to entertain the feasts, to bid farewell, and to satirize. Henceforth, Cheng Jun-Ying's Annotation and Analysis of Shijing argues that only the interpretation based on the principle of “poetry is poetry” can reveal the poetic essence and recover the objective existence and true being of Shijing. Shijing contains a great density of literariness and wield great impacts on poetry and literature of the following generations. Based on the principle of “poetry is poetry,” Annotation and Analysis of Shijing not only discusses the overtones, rhetoric, origins, and flaws of the chapters to accordingly unveil poetic significances and the artistic mastery of The Book of Poetry; but also sticks to interpreting literariness that features Cheng’s work where some of them even criticizes the lack of poetic significances in some of the articles. Thus, compared to other interpretative works of Shijing, Cheng’s version stands out for its individuality and beauty. Hong Zhan-Hou in the History of Shijing Study states that Cheng is dedicated to interpreting poetry from a literary perspective and by doing so he made him one of the representative scholars of Shijing study. Mr. Xia Chuan-Cai also points out that Annotation and Analysis of Shijing is not only a representative work of Shijing study but also a representative work of Shijing interpretation. Through the preliminary study of this paper, we can claim the comments of Mr. Hong and Xiu are true and pertinent.