Types of texts

The typology of the text, despite its central position in the general theory of the text, is still not sufficiently developed. There are still no common criteria that should be used as a basis for typology. Objectively, this is explained by multidimensionality and therefore the complexity of the phenomenon of the text itself, subjectively, by a relatively short period of developing the problems of the text, when they began to form a general theory. The main difficulty lies in the fact that in the case of textual differentiation it is wrong to proceed from any one criterion, such a basis for a strict classification is too vague.

The concept of “type of text” is now adopted as a working term in modern studies on text theory, in particular, in text linguistics. It denotes empirically existing forms of the manifestation of texts. Differences in the interpretation of the concept of "type of text" is still quite large. It is interpreted either too narrowly, or too broadly (for example, a recipe as a type of text and a translation as a type of text ).

Without going into all the difficulties of discussions on this issue and the inconsistency of opinions, one can still, on the basis of the data accumulated by science, try to outline the main criteria for distinguishing between the various manifestations of texts.

It is clear that these criteria should be composed of a number of indicators and encompass at least the main features of the text: informational, functional, structurally semiotic, communicative.

Each of these approaches can be the basis for a corresponding classification. Combined together, they create known difficulties: each real text should theoretically reveal its own, distinct from the other sign on each of these grounds. Such an “ideal” and non-contradictory classification is difficult, since the similarities and differences of signs can be combined in different ways: for example, the similarities of informational qualities can sharply resist communicative qualities, etc. The choice of criteria for typology is complicated by the fact that one and the same text can be assigned to different groups because of its own multidimensionality: according to one criterion it will be included in one group of texts, on the other - into another.

When focusing on different criteria, it is possible in the primary differentiation to dwell on the division of “scientific and non-scientific texts”; “Artistic and non-artistic texts”; “Monologue and dialogic texts”; “Monoaddressing and polyaddressing texts”, etc. Each of these divisions actually exists, but from the point of view of a common and unified typology, they are incorrect: for example, an artistic text, on the one hand, will fall into the unscientific group, and on the other, simultaneously into monological and dialogic.

In order to avoid such crosses, we will focus further on the most well-established classifications based on extratextual factors, i.e. factors of real communication (communicative-pragmatic).

The overwhelming majority of authors dealing with the problems of the text, taking into account the factors of real communication according to the areas of communication and the nature of reflection of reality, initially divide all texts into non-artistic and artistic. Non-fiction texts are characterized by the installation on the uniqueness of perception; artistic - on the ambiguity. Both are fundamentally important.

In addition, texts in the form of presentation can be oral (mainly in the conversational and everyday sphere of communication) and written (in the areas of official, special and aesthetic communication).

The subject of further discussion will be written texts. At the same time, since extralinguistic factors (factors of a communication situation) are inevitably included in the characterization of texts, it becomes necessary to refer to such concepts as the communicative act and speech genre. In this respect, a lot of material has already been accumulated in functional style, which studies not abstract systems of functional styles, but their speech implementations in texts.