The article contains some aspects of criticism of Roland Barthes’ (and his adherents’) position claming that the text can be understood and interpreted without the author. As the main reason of Barthes’ point of view, the author of the article marks out the erroneous principle of sign autonomy which lies in the basis of the structural method. In the particular case of verbal data that means the erroneous autonomy of words, phrases, texts and the whole system of verbal language. The author considers consistently the main components of Barthes’ position (that is, the static language model) and offers in exchange the communicative dynamic model which includes that: 1) the “language” as a metaphor is ineffective in describing the real verbal process, 2) the concept of signs (words, phrases, texts) used within “language” is built on the insufficient basis, 3) the self-identity can be ascribed just to personal communicative action which is generated and interpreted as a conscious act of a communicant, but not as a structure of auto-signifying words, 4) any communicative action has a complex (multi-channeled) character. In the dynamic (communicative) model, sign is appointed practically and conditionally (in the language model the sign is stated certainly and definitely), sign doesn’t exist as a certain object, or a body (in the language model – it actually exists as a dyad “sign body–value”), sign only “hints” and “sends” to sense-producing communicative action, being interpreted (in the language model – it has a direct sense, it is studied and described). The text represents the sequence of dependent verbal elements “hinting” at the corresponding communicative actions. Communicative action (which is required by the author and the addressee in the processes of production and interpretation) are perceived in identity on the basis of parameters which thought by the author of action outside words and languages. To understand a language and a text (incl. R. Barthes’ and J. Derrida’s “scripture”) it is impossible without the author who does not “writes the text”, but makes personal communicative acts. In the article the concept of interpretative scale is introduced, and it is noted that the limit of interpretation is defined by the personal activity of the one who has organized the communicative procedure. In the autonomic texts (as well as in words, languages, impersonal “scripture” themselves) the sense-producing sources are completely absent.