歷來學者討論《經義述聞》作者疑案，其要在於《讀書雜志》「引之曰」以及《經義述聞》「引之謹案」諸條學說之發明，是否有王念孫歸美之嫌。藉王氏父子群書校語、《廣雅疏證》及相關文獻，《讀書雜志》稱引王引之學說，有王引之糅合王念孫成說跡象，或可視作純出王念孫手筆，而《經義述聞》三種稿本及刊本，王引之案語均不乏王引之沿承王念孫經說之例。推究其故，或與札記彙整之時名氏誤植有關，或在於王念孫授意王引之撰定，王引之承父說更為詳考。《讀書雜志》、《經義述聞》之撰述過程，經歷校訂群書、迻錄相關校語並增訂為札記、彙整成書三階段，故視兩書所見王引之學說略同於王念孫校語及札記諸例，有王念孫歸美之嫌，並非為過。《讀書雜志》、《經義述聞》稿本、刊本所見諸說，王氏父子在乾隆四五十年代已發明之。《經義述聞》之經始及諸稿本之刊行，均與王引之關係至要。而王念孫纂修及增補《經義述聞》之跡，文獻中歷歷可徵。《經義述聞》所引王念孫學說，乃王引之抄錄或割裂王念孫自撰經說，並非王引之趨庭過聞所記。

This research examines the origin of Wang Yinzhi’s 王引之 ideas in Dushu zazhi 讀書雜志 and Jingyi shuwen 經義述聞. There is evidence to show that some of his ideas highly resemble those in annotations of two works by his father, Wang Niansun 王念孫. From the perspective of the writing process, I argue that Wang Yinzhi’s ideas probably derive from Wang Niansun. However, Jingyi shuwen was exclusively authorized by Wang Yinzhi, as were the manuscripts of three other editions of this work. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that Wang Niansun imparted his understanding to Wang Yinzhi in the course of writing, and the thoughts Wang Niansun expresses in Jingyi Shuwen are his own, rather than dictated by Wang Yinzhi.