Text and its perception

When defining the notion “text”, various approaches and methods of studying this phenomenon are discovered.

At present, the text as an object of study attracts specialists from various fields of knowledge, including, and perhaps, first of all, linguists who have focused on the functional and communicative qualities of a language, the means of expression of which make up the text fabric. No wonder the concept of "text" is often included in the terms of the linguistic plan - the grammar of the text, the style of the text, the syntax of the text, the linguistics of the text. However, it is precisely in linguistics that the concept of “text” has not yet received a clear definition. Apparently, it is impossible to reduce this concept only to categories of the linguistic plan - because of its multidimensionality. Therefore, definitions of the type “unit above sentence”, “sequence of sentences” and the like always turn out to be incorrect, since they only emphasize the “front” quality of the text, its material structure, ignoring its extra-linguistic indicators, including the role of communication participants. Moreover, if one “does not forget” the semantic component of the text, then it is necessary to recognize as correct the idea that the text does not consist of sentences, but is realized in them. In addition, the meaning of the text is determined by the motive of its creation.

Consequently, if we consider that the phenomenon of the text lies in its multidimensionality, then we can accept various definitions of it. So it really is: the definition emphasizes the main quality of the text, then the other, then the third. The text is defined as an information space, as a speech work, as a sign sequence, etc. Thus, in semiotics, text means a meaningful sequence of any signs, any form of communication, including ritual, dance, ritual, etc. In philology, in particular, linguistics, the text refers to a sequence of verbal (verbal) signs. Since the text has a certain meaning, it is initially communicative, therefore the text is presented as a communicative unit.

The word "text" (lat. Textus) means a fabric, plexus, connection. Therefore, it is important to establish what connects and how and why it connects. In any case, the text is a combined sequence of sign units, the main properties of which are connectedness and integrity.

Such a sequence of characters is recognized as a communicative unit of the highest level, since it has the quality of semantic completeness as a whole literary work, i.e. complete informational and structural whole. Moreover, the whole is something other than the sum of the parts, the whole always has a functional structure, and the parts of the whole fulfill their roles in this structure.

Text categories (substantive, structural, front-line, functional, communicative), being essentially different, do not add up with each other, but are superimposed on each other, giving rise to some kind of single entity, qualitatively different from the sum of the components. Connectivity and integrity as text properties can be considered autonomously only for convenience of analysis, somewhat abstractedly, since both these qualities exist in unity within the real text and presuppose each other: a single content, the meaning of the text is expressed by linguistic means (explicitly or implicitly). And because language connectivity is also an indicator of semantic integrity. Of course, if we mean the natural situation, when the generation of the text pursues the goal of expressing a certain meaning.

Text can be written and oral in the form of its reproduction. Both forms require their “textuality” - external connectedness, internal meaningfulness, focus on perception.

Important in the theory of the text is the question of the identity of the text, its canonical form, which is particularly explored by such a branch of philology as textology. Linguistics studies the intonational, lexical, and syntactic means of a text; graphic underscore, font selection, punctuation.

The concept of “text” can be applied not only in relation to the whole literary work, but also to its part, which is sufficiently independent from the point of view of the microtheme and language design. So, we can talk about the text of the chapter, section, paragraph; introduction text, conclusion, etc.

The correctness of the text perception is provided not only by language and graphic units and means, but also by the general fund of knowledge, in a different way “communicative background”, on which text formation and its decoding is carried out, therefore perception is connected with presupposition (before ; suppositio - presumption, presumption).

Presupposition is a component of the meaning of the text that is not expressed verbally; it is preliminary knowledge that makes it possible to adequately perceive the text. Such prior knowledge is called background knowledge. A presupposition may arise when reading a preceding text or it may be completely outside the text as a result of the knowledge and experience of the text compiler.

Background knowledge is the knowledge of realities and cultures possessed by the writer (speaker) and reader (listener) [1]. For example, only a preliminary knowledge of N. Nekrasov's poem “There are women in Russian villages ...” helps to understand to the end a number of phrases and their meaning of N. Korzhavin’s poems:

Stolyete rushed. And again,

Like that immemorial year,

A galloping horse will stop

In the burning house will enter.

She would like to live differently

Wear a precious outfit,

But the horses are all jumping and jumping,

And the huts are burning and burning.

Even a single statement in the text can contain preliminary knowledge, for example, a statement in the sentence “Pushkin possessed an outstanding gift of a portrait painter, the ability to grasp the characteristic features of a portrait by one stroke” contains preliminary knowledge about the portrait drawings of the poet. And in the usual everyday content phrase like "He quit smoking" contains information that the subject previously smoked [2].

Or, for example, the quatrain of A. Mezhirov will seem to be a puzzle at all, if you do not have certain knowledge in the field of Russian literature:

And in Russia, blizzards and sleep

And it is set for the century, not for the day.

Was there a boy?   - the issue is not resolved

Lost nose is not found.

Another example: understanding the rhetorical question of A. Genis, the author of the American Alphabet, is possible only if you know the part of the Gospel text that tells about the corresponding act of Jesus [3]: “The Church, Adam Smith affirmed in the fifth book of his“ Studies on Nature and the reasons for the riches of the people ”, which came out in the year 1776 that is fateful for America, is subject to the same laws as the market. ( Was it worth driving the merchants out of the temple? ) "

Consequently, this text consists not only of the “sequence of sentences”, but also of some kind of “knowledge”, verbally unexpressed, knowledge that participates in the formation of the general meaning of the text.

In the following article from the newspaper (MK, 2001, March 6), a phrase from V. Vysotsky is used in a similar situation: “Among the 40 paintings mentioned can be distinguished ... and Mark Zakharov and Ivan Okhlobystin’s global project Unclassified Materials, also known as titled "Angel's Work." In all likelihood, this work, among others, will become the most global, since it consists not of two or three, but of as many as forty episodes.

Where did the money, Zin? The question is not rhetorical. ”

In all the above cases, as we see, a “broad cultural context” is necessary for a complete understanding of the text, and it creates a general fund of knowledge for the writer and reader. About extra-linguistic components of the speech act, reflected in the text, including background knowledge, they write, in particular, M.N. Kozhina [4], V.Ya. Shabez [5] et al.

The text as a product of the author’s verbal and cogitative activity and the material of the interpreter’s (reader’s) verbal and mental activity is first and foremost a specially represented knowledge: verbalized knowledge and background knowledge. In the text, a set of sign units of different volume and complexity is linearly ordered [6], i.e. This material education, consisting of elements of articulate speech. However, in general, this material education carries something non-material, content (knowledge, event). Moreover, knowledge is not always realized entirely by verbal means.

The author usually verbalizes the “difference” obtained as a result of the “subtraction” of the intended knowledge of the interpreter [7]. The interpreter, in turn, “summarizes” this difference with its own knowledge.

Since the sender and the recipient of the message have a certain amount of common knowledge (background), the message is always formally fragmentary, but actually complete.

“Normal” presentation in the text is usually designed for the optimal combination of verbal and non-verbal presentation of information. Deviation from this norm leads either to hyper-verbalization or to hyper-verbalization, i.e. changing the degree of minimization - the expansion of the text. This degree can be planned by the author depending on the target text installation. Moreover, the degree of contraction - the expansion can vary along the entire length of the text: some fragments are given in more detail, others - less.

So, for an adequate perception of the text, it is necessary to have background knowledge, which is considered as an information fund, one for the speaker and the listener, in our case, generating the text (the author) and interpreting the text (the reader). Background knowledge is a prerequisite for the success of a speech act. Another Peshkovsky wrote that natural speech is “elliptic in nature”, that we always do not agree on our thoughts, omitting from the speech everything that is given by the situation or “previous experience of speaking” [8]. This previous experience (knowledge) is knowledge that is not verbalized in the text.

Background knowledge can be categorized in a certain way. In particular, we find such a classification in V.Ya. Shabeza [9].

Types of background knowledge:

1) social, i.e. those that are known to all participants of the speech act even before the beginning of the communication;

2) individual, i.e. those that are known only to two participants in the dialogue before they begin to communicate;

3) collective, i.e. known to members of a particular team, related profession, social relations, etc. (for example, special medical knowledge, political, etc.).

It must be said that background knowledge can move from one type to another. For example, the death of a particular woman is a fact of individual knowledge, and the death of Princess Diana was a national, even world event, and thus this particular fact entered social knowledge. Or: the household fact of the appearance of mice in the house, in the kitchen is individual knowledge concerning the life of an individual family (or one person). But the appearance of mice in the kitchen in the castle of Queen Elizabeth of England became a fact of social knowledge (this was told on television on February 19, 2001 - in the NTV program “Today”).

Background knowledge can also be qualified on the other hand, on the part of their content: everyday, pre-scientific, scientific, literary and artistic. In addition, background knowledge can be divided into trivial and non-trivial. As a rule, trivial knowledge in the text is not verbalized; it can be realized only in a special, educational context, for example, when teaching a child.

Literary and artistic knowledge as background knowledge is used in journalism, in newspaper publications. As a rule, they are revealed through precedent texts (from the Latin. Praecedens, genus. N. Praecedentis - preceding) - “alien” texts (or individual artistic and literary images), presented in the author's text in the form of literary reminiscences.

Individual background knowledge often serves as a vehicle for creating undertones. The concept of subtext is primarily associated with fiction, it is completely oriented to prior knowledge. In some cases, the author, using these or other statements, mentioning some facts, directly counts on the understanding of the initiates, i.e. on individual knowledge. For example, Yu.M. Lotman, commenting on A. Pushkin's novel Eugene Onegin, draws attention to the line of the poet Zizi, the crystal of my soul ..., which could only be understood by those who knew that Zizi is the childish and home name of Eupraxia Nikolaevna Wolf. [ten]. A number of examples of this kind are given by A.M. Kamchatnov [11].