Text theory. Its subject and object

The functional aspect in the study of language, the orientation to the communicative process inevitably led to the identification of a communicative unit of a higher order, through which verbal communication is carried out. Such a unit is a text that is conceived primarily as a dynamic unit, organized under the conditions of real communication and, therefore, possessing extra- and intra-linguistic parameters.

For speech organization of the text, external, communicative factors are decisive. And because the generation of the text and its functioning are pragmatically oriented, i.e. The text is created when a specific target setting occurs and functions in certain communicative conditions.

Communicative conditions, or specific speech situations, are amenable to typology, thus, texts that are oriented towards certain communicative conditions must also have typological features. The establishment of these signs and is primarily engaged in the theory of text - a scientific discipline, received access to sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics [1], computer science, functional style, theory of translation and other disciplines related to the study of speech activity as a process and speech work as a result of this activity.

Among the philological disciplines, in particular, editorial publishing and journalistic profile, the theory of the text is one of the main positions. This is explained by the fact that the text as an object of research appears here as a verbal informative unit “in action”, i.e. possessing pragmatic and functional qualities.

The theory of the text has developed as a scientific discipline in the second half of the XX century. at the intersection of a number of sciences - computer science, psychology, linguistics, rhetoric, pragmatics, semiotics, hermeneutics, bibliology, sociology. Despite the abundance of interdisciplinary intersections, currently the theory of the text has its own ontological status. The theory of text covers any sign sequences, but its main object is verbal text, therefore, when characterizing and describing text, data accumulated by linguistics is important.

The mere fact that the theory of a text has developed as an intermediate type discipline, based on a number of both fundamental and applied sciences, speaks about the multidimensionality of the object itself (text) and the multidimensionality of its study. The subject of this science are the signs and characteristics (both structural and functional) of the text as a communicative unit of the highest level, as a whole speech work. Communicative text is understood as the degree of its appeal to the reader. Interest in the text as a speech work was manifested among linguists, starting from the 20s – 30s of the 20th century, it intensified in the 50s of the 20th century. in connection with the appeal to the study of language in a functional aspect, when the language was considered not as a static system of signs, but as a dynamic system. Then the term-concept "speech activity" appeared in the practice of communication.

The text contains the verbal and cogitative activity of the writing (speaking) subject, designed for the reciprocal activity of the reader (listener), for his perception. Thus, an interconnected triad is born: the author (producer of the text) - the text (the material embodiment of speech-thinking activity) –the reader (interpreter). Thus, the text is at the same time the result of activity (of the author) and the material for the activity (reader-interpreter).

Any text is intended for someone's perception: the chronicler writes for posterity, the specialist scientist - for colleagues, in order to convey his observations and conclusions; even this kind of text, like a diary, is also created for someone - albeit only “for himself. But “for yourself” is also a specific address. Hence the bidirectionality of the text: to the author-creator (perhaps collective) and to the perceiving reader. Such bi-directionality creates many problems when trying to characterize the text comprehensively.

There are still many controversial issues in the theory of the text, unsolved problems, for example, the question of the minimum length of a text (is it possible to consider a text, in particular, one communicative remark?). Not established and the use of the term, the name of the discipline. The study of the text is carried out under different names: in addition to the term “text theory,” the terms “text linguistics”, “text structure”, “hermeneutics”, “text grammar”, and “text style” exist.

The presence of different terms is not only evidence of the unstable terminological practice, but also a reflection of the fact that the text phenomenon itself implies the multidimensionality of its study. “The need for a comprehensive study of the text is not a methodical requirement, it is an expression of the essence of the object itself” [2]. And the results of such a study will undoubtedly increase, become more valuable and reliable if the analysis turns out to be broader in terms of the amount of text material involved, and in integrating information from other areas of knowledge, and not only linguistic, which will best help to reveal the essence of the speech organization of the text .

The text can be viewed from the point of view of the information contained in it (the text is primarily informational unity); from the point of view of the psychology of its creation, as the creative act of the author, caused by a specific goal (the text is a product of the subject's speech and thinking activity); the text can be viewed from the pragmatic standpoint (the text is material for perception, interpretation); Finally, the text can be characterized by its structure, speech organization, its stylistics (now more and more works of this kind are appearing, for example, text style, text syntax, text grammar, more widely - text linguistics).

For publishing workers, in particular editors, the pragmatic aspect of the text is primarily important as a target, so with a comprehensive description of the text, special emphasis is placed on how to increase the informational value of the text, what techniques can be recommended for this, how to improve the literary form of the text.

Text researchers (for example, P. Hartmann, S. Jacobson, G. Eiger, V. Zvegintsev, M. Gventsadze, O. Kamenskaya, and others) are primarily interested in the typology of texts and therefore the primary task is to develop the very principles of text classification [ 3].

The problem of identifying text types turns out to be relevant not only by itself, but also because it puts forward the thesis on the distinction between linguistic and communicative competence. Language competence implies the ability to construct and understand grammatically correct sentences. While communicative competence is the ability to understand and correctly construct different types of text while taking into account the specifics of a specific speech situation [4].

Attaching great importance to the typology of the text (both theoretical and practical), scientists recognize that a fairly complete and unified classification of texts that would meet all the requirements has not yet been created. And if so, then, apparently, it is best to begin by clarifying the very concept of “type of text” and the criteria that should be used as the basis for typology. It is interesting to note that it is much easier to select text types in an intuitive way than to lay down the theoretical basis for their classification. The fact is that the “samples of texts” are quite socially conscious: thus, even a non-specialist reader can distinguish between artistic and non-artistic text; the text of the official letter and friendly message; radio text and advertising text, etc.

The task of developing a typology of texts is complicated by the fact that there is no generally accepted terminology in text theory. Without clear differentiation, the terms “type of text”, “class of texts”, “type of text”, “type of discourse”, “type of speech”, “form of text” and even “type of text” [5] are used.

Disagreements are also observed in the choice of criteria for typologization. The latter is explained by the nature of the text itself, its multidimensionality: the same text can be attributed to different typological groups when taking into account its different aspects, when different signs objectively existing in the text are put into the basis of the classification. The choice of the starting point of reference, in this case the classification criterion, may vary, and therefore groups of texts in different classifications may shift. The ideal typology of texts should reflect different aspects of the given object - both communicative and functional, and structural-semiotic.

For this, a mixed criterion is most likely suitable when a combination of extra- and intratextual differential features is taken into account. Different scientists distinguish different numbers of such signs, and therefore classifications are more generalized or more detailed. In any case, it is important to observe the chosen principle itself so that the concepts of the generic and specific plan are not in the same row or other incorrect combinations are not revealed.

Currently, the most consistent and flexible is the system of texts (their typology), the basis of which is the theory of functional styles when considering the communicative and pragmatic conditions of text formation [6].

Important in this case is the fact that the functional style takes into account the correlation of extra- and intra-linguistic factors in different sociocommunicative varieties of the text [7].