本文以构形学理论为指导,以《说文》小篆与甲骨文有传承关系的737字为研究对象，立足历史比较角度,从构形、构意两方面对《说文》小篆与甲骨文进行比较分析。其中着重分析了“不合甲骨文构形、构意”的《说文》小篆的构形解释，探讨其原因，以图重新认识《说文》对小篆构形的解释。 本文主要探讨了以下两个内容：一、《说文》小篆与甲骨文传承关系的比较分析。从构形、构意这两方面看，《说文》小篆与甲骨文的传承关系可分为以下三种情况：（1）完全继承；（2）变异继承；（3）理据重构。一般来说，属于完全继承以及微观变异的《说文》小篆与甲骨文构形(模式)、构意都符合，而其他部分变异继承与“理据重构”一类的《说文》构形、构意与甲骨文不合。由甲骨文传承而来的《说文》小篆737字中，《说文》所解释的构意与甲骨文相合的有478字，占65％左右，与甲骨文不合的有259字，占35％左右。这说明大多数由甲骨文传承而来的《说文》小篆仍然保持原来的构造意图。二、《说文》对小篆的构形解释不合甲骨文的原因。本文主要从以下四个角度分析了《说文》对小篆构形、构意的解释不合甲骨文的原因：（1）古汉字演变规律：古汉字形体演变导致形体结构的变化；（2）汉字职能变化：字义或构件意义的变化；（3）文化背景：解释者所处的文化背景等因素；（4）《说文》体系与构形系统的控制。小篆构形理据正是在这些历史因素的交错作用下，在《说文》构形系统中被予以重新解释。其中小篆字形的规范化使字形的区别性和结构的稳定性得以加强，这是《说文》小篆构形分析、构意解释不合甲骨文的重要原因。同时，《说文》构形分析遵循“据义析形”这一原则、小篆字形与甲骨文不同、许慎所选取的字义与甲骨文本义不同、解释者的文化背景不同等导致这两个阶段的构形模式与构意解释不一致。除此之外，《说文》中也存在一些解释错误的字。对于这些字，我们通过古汉字字形的发展演变过程来认识其形体来源以及解释上的不合理性。

Guided by the theory of Chinese characters formation, the study of 737 characters of ShuoWen xiaozhuan, which have kin relations with oracle inscriptions, makes historical comparation on their configuration of form and meaning. The configurational explanations of ShuoWen xiaozhuan which cannot be fitted to oracle inscriptions are especially focused, and the reason is discussed to reconsider those explanations.The following two points are mainly probed:The comparative analysis of the relationship between ShuoWen xiaozhuan and oracle inscriptions.In the perspectives of configuration of form and meaning, there are three kinds of lineage relation between them: inherited without any change, inherited with certain variation and reconstruction of motivation. Generally speaking, those xiaozhuan characters whose configurations conform to that of their counterparts in oracle inscriptions belong to the first category and the second with micro-variation, while those fall into the rest of the second category and the third disagree with their counterparts in configurations. It is estimated that 478 of the 737 characters of xiaozhuan share the same configurations with their ancestors in oracle inscriptions, amounting to 65%, while 259 characters differ, and accounting for 35%. Therefore, the majority remain their original configurations.The reason why the configurational explanations of xiaozhuan in ShuoWen cannot be fitted to their counterparts in oracle inscriptions.Four reasons are analyzed: the evolution law of ancient Chinese characters, that is the characters’ structural variation caused by the evolution; the functional transform of Chinese characters, that is the change of the meaning of character and its components; cultural background, where the interpreter stands; the control of the system of ShuoWen and constructional system.Under the interaction of these historical factors, the configurational basis of xiaozhuan is reinterpreted within the constructional system of Shuowen. The standardization of xiaozhuan, which made the character pattern more distinguishable and the configuration more stable, is the substantial clause of the disagreement mentioned above. Meanwhile, in ShuoWen the formation of character is analyzed according to its meaning, thus the difference between the character pattern of xiaozhuan and oracle inscriptions, the difference between the character’s meaning adopted by XuShen and its original meaning in oracle inscriptions, and the difference of the interpreters’ cultural backgrounds also contributed to the disagreement.In addition, there are some characters misinterpreted in Shuowen. Tracing the evolution of the ancient character patterns, their origin and the misinterpretation can be found.