「言意之辨」是魏晉玄學的一個重要課題。「言盡意」與「言不盡意」的爭論，向來都被視為這個課題的核心。在這種詮釋中，「言」特指形而上學的語言，「意」則特指形而上的實體和原理。形而上學雖然是魏晉玄學的主流，但形而上學只是「言意之辨」的一個層面。除此之外，還有另一個常被忽視的層面。這個層面以語言和意義的一般關係為核心，不局限於任何特定種類的語言。忽視這個層面的區分，將使「言意之辨」中一些代表人物(特別是歐陽建和嵇康)的言意觀變得難以理解。確立了這兩個層面的區分，不但這些人物的言意觀可以得到恰當的說明，「言意之辨」的內容方可得到全面的反映。

　　　　　This paper attempts to demonstrate the incompleteness of the interpretation of the "distinction between language and meaning" in wei-chin-hsuan-hsueh as the dispute concerning whether "language exhausts meaning". According to such intepretation, "language" is but metaphysical discourse, and "meaning" is but metaphysical truth. Undoubtedly, this metaphysical dimension represents the main stream of the philosophical thought in the Wei and Chin Dynasties. But there is another dimension of the "distinction between language and meaning," which is always neglected by the historians of Chinese philosophy. In contrast to the metaphysical one, this dimension envisages "language" and"meaning" from a general point of view and places no emphasis on any particular type of language or meaning. Due to such negligence, the views of some important figures of wei-chin-hsuan-hueh, namely, Ou-Yang Chian and Chi Kang, on the "distinction between language and meaning" become incomprehensible. This incomprehensibility of Ou-Yang Chian and Chi Kang's views on language and meaning on one side, and the lights shed on the implications of their views with the introduction of this dimension on the other, together justify my distinction of the two dimensions of this theme in wei-chin-hsuan-hsueh.