이 연구는 국어교육에 적합한 텍스트 분류 체계를 개발하여 제시하고자 하였다. 이를 위하여 수사학, 문예학, 텍스트언어학에서 논해진 기존의 분류법을 국어교육의 관점에서 비판적으로 검토하여 국어교육에 적절한 분류 기준을 설정하고, 이 기준에 따른 분류 체계를 예시하였다. 기존 연구를 국어교육의 관점에서 검토한 결과, 첫째, 기존의 ‘기능 중심 분류법’ 대신 ‘구조 중심 분류법’이 유용하며, 둘째, 구조보다 더 상위의 개념으로 ‘자아’와 ‘세계’의 ‘내용 성격’의 범주를 설정하고, 셋째, 구조 범주의 하위에 ‘장르 관습’의 범주를 두는 것이 필요하다고 보았다. 이에 따라 ‘내용 성격, 결속 양식, 장르 관습’의 세 기준을 차례로 적용하여 텍스트를 분류하였다. 그 결과, 첫째, 텍스트는 ‘자아 표명형’, ‘세계설명형’, ‘세계․자아상응형’의 세 가지로 크게 분류된다. 둘째, 이 세 유형은 각각 ‘주장－근거’형 등, ‘설명형’ 등, ‘사실－생각형’ 등으로 분류된다. 셋째, 이들 하위 유형은 다시 ‘논설문류, 선언문류, 논평류 등’의 구체적인 장르로 분류된다. 이와 같이 설정된 텍스트분류 체계는, 국어과 교육과정과 교과서를 구성할 때와 읽기 및 쓰기 영역에서 글 특성에 관한 지식을 가르칠 때에 효과적인 지식기반이 될 것으로 기대된다.

The purpose of this study is to develop and suggest the classification of texts that is fit for teaching reading and writing in Korean language education. For this purpose, I criticized the prior researches on a classification of texts in the areas of rhetorics, literary criticisms, and textlinguistics. And I abstracted the three categories to classify texts for teaching reading and writing. As the results of the survey and critiques prior researches, I concluded that text-structures were more important and fitter than text-functions when we classified texts for Korean language education. And I added ‘contents：what is said in texts’ and ‘conventions：what are conventional forms of texts’ to make the classification more concrete. So, I classified texts by the new three category：contents, text- structures, and conventions. With the first category ‘contents’, I classified thee types of texts：self-expression types, object-explanation types, and object and self-correspondence types’. With the second category ‘text-structures’, I subclassified each type of texts. And with the third category ‘conventions’, I exemplified some kinds of genres.

The purpose of this study is to develop and suggest the classification of texts that is fit for teaching reading and writing in Korean language education. For this purpose, I criticized the prior researches on a classification of texts in the areas of rhetorics, literary criticisms, and textlinguistics. And I abstracted the three categories to classify texts for teaching reading and writing. As the results of the survey and critiques prior researches, I concluded that text-structures were more important and fitter than text-functions when we classified texts for Korean language education. And I added ‘contents：what is said in texts’ and ‘conventions：what are conventional forms of texts’ to make the classification more concrete. So, I classified texts by the new three category：contents, text- structures, and conventions. With the first category ‘contents’, I classified thee types of texts：self-expression types, object-explanation types, and object and self-correspondence types’. With the second category ‘text-structures’, I subclassified each type of texts. And with the third category ‘conventions’, I exemplified some kinds of genres.

Korean language education, classification of texts, kinds of texts, types of texts, genre in Korean language education