a discourse, its possibilities are the proof of the thesis «language is the house of spirit» and, to a certain extent, of the thesis - «language is the life house». his turn VZ Demjankov defines a discourse as the text in its formation before a mind of the interpreter which consists of sentences or its fragments, and the contents of discourse often but not always concentrates around some «basic» concept, named «the topic discourse» or «discursive topic »[4, 32-43]. the given definitions such concepts, as a discourse and the text are intertwined. But what is the difference of a discourse from the text? The text is a set of sentences, and the discourse is the base creating the text contextually-connected. According to V.Z. Demjankov, it is considered that discourse is the existence of the mental world which nuclear structures are «idealized cognitive models», «frames» or concepts behind text frameworks. The set of given structures will make semantic system, semantics of the mental world.discourse also differs from the act of communication representing natural activity of people in a society - the most widespread form of use of language which covers linguistic activity. At the same time, even if the act of communication concerns the most widespread functions of language use, it all the same is the text of the certain kind constructed by rules of social use. Thus, the term «discourse», according to M. Stabbs, in connection with the discourse-analysis and the analysis of the act of communications is not the same. The former contains the latter; therefore the discourse-analysis should not be interpreted as the special grammatical-focused direction of the analysis of the act of communication [5, 4]. discourse in metapragmatical conditions is presented not only as a perceived context: conversation, interview, consultations, interrogation etc., but it also covers extralinguistic conditions which operate the given situations of language use. Thus, there are questions: how people use language in the given social context? What freedom is given to them in the use of language and what interferes with it depending on a context? The act of communications and the world of the user there is something more, that enters into philosophy of the act of communication: the reason that human language activity underlies on the basis of laws of more subject domain - a discourse understood as the general context of human language in use. The metapragmatist, thus, is beyond philosophy of act of communication: it reflects discursive context and checks, how much it is active as a result of use of acts of language dialogue, the latters are considered in the conditions of a context as they are pragmatic acts on the essence. Thus, according to G. May, active manufacture of pragmatic acts naturally assumes the existence of a certain society with its implicit and explicit values, norms, rules and laws and the established conditions of life: economic, social, political and cultural. These conditions concern one metaphorical expression - «society factory» - and become visible (basically by means of language and other kinds of human activity) and are covered by one concept «discourse». French philosopher M. Fuko characterizes a discourse as the practice of creation of sense from signs. This practice falls outside the limits of simple understanding of statements: sense creation should be perceived as active creation of value, as practice which regularly f...
