《毛傳》和《爾雅》是中國訓詁學史上開創性的兩部著作，《毛傳》是隨文釋義傳注體式的肇端，《爾雅》則是纂集類訓詁專書的始祖。對於兩書關係的研究，歷來是研究的熱點，或追究成書先後、或探討其性質類別，還有一大類就是對兩書訓釋的對比研究。以往的研究多是從形式上對比兩書用字的不同，對兩書中訓釋的不同性質則少有提及。 一個完整的訓釋一般由包括被訓詞、訓釋詞和訓釋術語三個組成部分。通過《毛傳》《爾雅》訓釋術語的對比，在術語的種類、術語的訓釋功能以及新術語的創製等方面，《毛傳》使用的訓釋術語，種類更多、功能更全、而且自行創製了多個術語，相較於《爾雅》的少而單一，《毛傳》的術語體系更加完備。 《毛傳》和《爾雅》相關訓條的形式對比。證明了兩書被訓字與被訓字、訓釋字與訓釋字之間存在本字與借字、正字與訛字等不同的字形差異，有很大一部分是在傳抄過程中出現譌誤造成的，今本《爾雅》之中用《説文》本字的情況多是後世改竄的結果，若單以文字形體的考證來證明兩書成書的先後，是難以得出可靠的結論的，“傳用雅義”類的歸納，説明《毛傳》很可能是參考了《爾雅》的。 《毛傳》中有大量《爾雅》當收而未收的訓條，這説明《爾雅》承自《毛傳》的説法是不準確的，《爾雅》很可能早於《毛傳》。並且《毛傳》對同一詩句的訓條，與《爾雅》釋此詩句的訓條有一種互補性。另外，通過對訓釋詞語的對比，《毛傳》訓條表現出訓釋語的意義信息含量大於《爾雅》的現象，《毛傳》訓條呈現出一種補充解釋，乃至二度解釋《爾雅》訓條的態勢，且爲數不少。由此我們可以大膽推測：《毛傳》爲《詩》作傳時很可能是參考了《爾雅》的。 對《毛傳》與《爾雅》内容的比較，首先，正確理解文意訓釋的定義，其次，明確文意訓釋的判定標準，最後，根據兩書的訓釋材料，歸納文意訓釋的不同類型。《毛傳》與《爾雅》的訓釋對後世的文獻註疏和字書編纂都有很大影響，對其中的文意訓釋，不加辨別地設立義項的情況並不少見。因此對文意訓釋的研究是非常重要且必要的。本文認爲，目前對文意訓釋的研究尚顯薄弱，應該加大對文意訓釋理論上的探討和和擴大文意訓釋的研究範圍。

Maozhuan and Erya are two creative works in Chinese exegesis history. Maozhuan is the origin of context interpretation and Erya is the origin of dictionary. Study on the two books mainly concern about the time period, usage and exegesis comparison. However, past studies on exegesis mostly focus on the different characters while seldom mention the different exegesis categories. A completed explanation includes explaining word, explained word and intermediary word. Through comparison on amount and phenomemon of all kinds of explanation words, it is shown that Maozhuan uses more explanation words with various kinds and functions, while create new explanation words. The terminology system of Maozhuan is comparatively more complete. To examine the word relationship between the categories and missing word during circulation may prove that Erya we have today have too much word change. Therefore, it is hard to find out the completed time period of the two books only focusing on character configuration. There are numerous explanations in Maozhuan that are not seen in Erya, which shows it is not accurate to judge Erya inherited Maozhuan. On the contrary, Erya may be earlier than Maozhuan, whose explanations also show certain complementarity with Erya. Otherwise, semantic information in Maozhuan is richer than Erya, and many explanations in Maozhuan show further comment to Erya. It is conjectured that Maozhuan referred to Erya when explaining Maoshi. Comparison on content between the two books mainly focus on different feature, criteria and category of context interpretation. It is also concerned the inheritance of context interpretation on the two books. Since Maozhuan and Erya have great influence on following dictionaries, many of them set simply context interpretation as term of meaning. This paper argues that the study on context interpretation is still weak. Correspondingly we have to increase the theoretical discussion on context interpretation and expand its research area.