訓詁之學，以解經為的;語文之學，語言文字本身即為研究對象。儘管材料相近，二者本質自有異趨。然而在中西二學交互影響之發展中，訓詰學尷尬地成為一個意欲解經的語文科學。殊不知，解經不限語文，而語文卻不必依附經學義理者也。此原本仍是一個有待商榷的定位，然則，執此「語言」、「科學」之立場用以要求、批評訓詁過去之已然，卻似乎已是常態。若聲訓者，原為陰陽神學中釋名之常法，意在微言，不在語言，是於災異強勢之漢代經學中蔚為風潮者，庶幾不假。詎料其溯源之徑為後人所重，逕改謂語源，反斥漢儒之荒誕者，竟亦漸成常譚。實則二者僅在形似，所本不同，所趨異致，豈得同列，而使生牛頭馬嘴？推而廣之，即形訓、義訓者，莫不為然，並可於讖緯中見其同系。以是本文所論，意欲正其本然，於考據中形訓、聲訓、義訓三者，別出義理性形訓、聲訓、義訓一類，欲使涇渭分明，不相雜廁也。限於篇幅，本文擬先論形訓，餘者俟異日他文再續。

The purpose of Chinese exegesis study IS to interpret the contents of classics, while linguistics focuses on the study of language itself. Although the two fields are similar as they both are partly based on words or characters, they are different in nature. Yet, under the influence from the exchange between the Eastern and the Western studies, the exegesis study gradually deviated from its original purpose and became a science of language often employed to interpret the contents of classics; this development actually revealed the neglect of the facts that the interpretation of the contents of classics can be carried out not only through the characters but also requires other related knowledge and that linguistics can work independently from the study of classics.This should be a debatable issue, and yet it has become a norm to view the exegetic achievements of the past from the perspective of ”linguistics” and ”science.”For example, the use of phonetic gloss was a common way in Chinese mysticism to interpret the hidden meanings of the text, instead of the literal meanings of the text. Such a practice was also very popular in the dominant belief of divine revelation in the classics of the Han Dynasty. Yet, although both exegesis study and etymology emphasize the importance of origins, the way of interpretation through the phonetic elements was directly regarded as etymology by latter scholars; this unexpected change led to the phenomenon that the Han Confucianism was ridiculed for its supernatural beliefs. Nevertheless, the two are similar in form but actually different in nature. This concept is also true to the use of graphic gloss and semantic gloss, which can be proved in the study on the classics that feature divine revelation.This essay is to study their nature from the use of graphic gloss, phonetic gloss, and semantic gloss in the interpretation of the contents of classics, thus to tell the philosophical graphic gloss, phonetic gloss, and semantic gloss from their linguistic counterparts.Due to the limitation of the length, this essay will only focus on the use of graphic gloss. The use of phonetic gloss and semantic gloss will be explored in future research.