[Aleksandrova, S., 1981. Structural and semantic characteristics of comparative constructions in 16-17 century English. Moscow: Vyssha shkola.]Search in Google Scholar
[Ashchurova, D., 1970. The linguistic nature of simile in English. Moscow: Vyssha shkola.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bach, K. and Harnish, R., 1979. Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.10.1016/0024-3841(79)90047-0]Search in Google Scholar
[Beardsley, M., 1981. Aesthetics: Problems in the philosophy of criticism. Hackett Publishing.10.5040/9781350928565]Search in Google Scholar
[Berkov, V., 1996. Semantics of comparison and types of its expression. The theory of functional grammar: Quantity. Quality, Spb, pp. 106 – 154.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bilodid, K., 1980. Ukrainian dictionary. «UD – 11». vol. 10. Kyiv: Naukova dumka.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bronner, Y., 2007. This is no lotus, it is a face: Poetics as grammar in Dandi’s investigation of the simile. The poetics of grammar and the metaphysics of sound and sign. Boston: Brill, pp. 91-108.10.1163/ej.9789004158108.i-377.38]Search in Google Scholar
[Bronner, Y., 2012. A question of priority: Revisiting the Bhāmaha-Dandin debate. Indian Philos, 40, no. 1, pp. 67–118.10.1007/s10781-011-9128-x]Search in Google Scholar
[Burton-Roberts, N., 2007 Varieties of semantics and encoding: Negation, narrowing/loosening and numericals. Pragmatics. Palgrave-Macmillan, pp. 90-114.10.1057/978-1-349-73908-0_6]Search in Google Scholar
[Burton-Roberts, N., 2013 Grice and cancellation. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 17-28.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.008]Search in Google Scholar
[Carston, R., 2002. Thoughts and utterances. Blackwell.10.1002/9780470754603]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Cheremysina, M., 1976. Russian comparative constructions. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo Novosibirskogo un-ta.]Search in Google Scholar
[Chernysheva, I., 1970. The phraseology of modern German. Moscow: Vyssh. shk.]Search in Google Scholar
[Chiappe, D. and Kennedy, J., 2001. Literal bases for metaphor and simile. Metaphor and Symbol, vol.16, pp. 249-276.10.1080/10926488.2001.9678897]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Cohen, M., 2003. Three approaches to biblical metaphor: From Abraham Ibn Ezra and Maimonides to David Kimhi. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004493810]Search in Google Scholar
[Davidson, D., 1978/1984. What metaphors mean. Critical Inquiry, vol.5, no. 1, pp. 31-47. Reprinted in: Davidson, D., Inquiries into truth and interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 245-264.10.1086/447971]Search in Google Scholar
[Devyatova, N., 2010. Comparison in a dynamic system of the language. Moscow: URSS.]Search in Google Scholar
[Fedorov, A., 1985. Figurative speech. Novosibirsk: Nauka.]Search in Google Scholar
[Fodor, J. A., 1998. Concepts. Where cognitive science went wrong. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/0198236360.001.0001]Search in Google Scholar
[Fogelin, R. J., 2011. Figuratively speaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199739998.001.0001]Search in Google Scholar
[Gak, V., 2000. The theoretical grammar of the French language. Moscow: Dobrosvet.]Search in Google Scholar
[Gargani, A., 2014. Poetic comparisons. How similes are understood. Salford: University of Salford.]Search in Google Scholar
[Gibbs, R. W., 2002. A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 34, pp. 457 – 486.10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00046-7]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Glucksberg, S. and Keysar, B., 1990. Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, vol 97, no. 1, pp. 3–18.10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.3]Search in Google Scholar
[Grice, H. P., 1961. The causal theory of perception. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supp, vol. XXXV, pp. 121-53.10.1093/aristoteliansupp/35.1.121]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Hulyha, E. and Shendels, E., 1969. Grammatical and lexical fields in modern German. Moscow: Prosveshchenye.]Search in Google Scholar
[Iskanderova, I., 1980. The role of the context in revealing the semantics of comparisons. Research of Sentences in German. RHU, pp. 3 – 14.]Search in Google Scholar
[Kopylenko, M., 1989. General phraseology sketches (phraseological units in the system of the language). Voronezh: Voronezh University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Kucherenko, I., 2003. Syntactical functions of comparative constructions. Topical problems of grammar. Svit, pp. 136 − 139.]Search in Google Scholar
[Kunin, A., 1996. The course on phraseology of modern English. Moscow: Feniks.]Search in Google Scholar
[Lakoff, G., 2008. The neural theory of metaphor. In: R.W. Gibbs, Jr., ed. The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 17 – 38.10.1017/CBO9780511816802.003]Search in Google Scholar
[Lapshyna, O., 2010. Semantic category of similarity in modern Russian. Kharkiv: KhNU.]Search in Google Scholar
[Leech, G.; Short, M., 2007. Style in fiction. Pearson Education Limited.]Search in Google Scholar
[Levinson, S. C., 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813313]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Myasnyankina, L., 1999. Interrelation of metaphor and simile in Sholokhov’s ideostyle. Ukrainian Bulletin, vol. 5, KhNU, pp. 45–51.]Search in Google Scholar
[Malykh, L., 2012. The logical formula of a linguistic comparison. Bulletin of ISLU, vol. 1, no. 17, ISLU, pp. 184–191.]Search in Google Scholar
[Margolis, J., 1957. Notes on the logic of simile, metaphor and analogy. American Speech, Duke University Press, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 186 – 189.10.2307/453819]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Markus, M., 2010. As drunk as muck. The role and logic of similes in English dialects on the basis of Joseph Wright’s English Dialect Dictionary. Studia Neophilologica, vol. 82, pp. 203–216.10.1080/00393274.2010.521416]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Mizin, K., 2008. Psycholinguistic experiment or sociolinguistic monitoring? Epistemological search for axiological phraseology (based on comparative phraseology). Linguistics, vol. 1, KNU, pp. 67 – 79.]Search in Google Scholar
[Nazarian, A., 1998. Frozen similes in French. Moscow: Vyssh. shkola.]Search in Google Scholar
[Nevanlinna, S., 1993. The structure of Middle English similes of equality. Early English in the computer age. Explorations through the Helsinki Corpus. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 139–170.]Search in Google Scholar
[Nikolaeva, A., 2002. Functional and semantic field of comparativity in modern English. Rostov-na-Donu.]Search in Google Scholar
[O’Donoghue, J., 2009. Is a metaphor (like) a simile? Differences in meaning, effect and processing. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 21, pp. 125–149.]Search in Google Scholar
[Ogoltsev, V., 1978. Frozen similes in the system of Russian phraseology. Leningrad: Leningrad University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Ortony, A., 1998. Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Pierini, P., 2007. Simile in English: From description to translation. CÍRCULO de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación (clac), vol. 29, pp.21 – 43.]Search in Google Scholar
[Prokopchuk, L., 2000. The category of comparison and its expression in a simple sentence structure. Kyiv: In-t of Ukr. lang.]Search in Google Scholar
[Richards, I., 1937. The Philosophy of rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Searle, J. R., 1993. Metaphor. In: A. Ortony, ed. Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 83 – 111.10.1017/CBO9781139173865.008]Search in Google Scholar
[Shapovalova, N., 1998. Peculiarities of comparative semantics features in adverbial models. Functional and cognitive manifestations of grammatical structures. IZMN, pp. 57 – 62.]Search in Google Scholar
[Shchepka, O., 2008. Functional and semantic field of comparativity. Simferopol: Tavriyskyi National University.]Search in Google Scholar
[Shenko, I., 1972. On relationship between figurative devices (simile and metaphor). The stylistics of Romance and Germanic languages. RTP LGPI, pp. 151–165.]Search in Google Scholar
[Shyrokova, N., 1960. Types of syntactical constructions with comparative conjunctions in a simple sentence. Kazan: Yzd-vo Kazansk. Gos. Un-ta.]Search in Google Scholar
[Sztencel, M., 2018. Semantics, pragmatics and meaning revisited: the case of conditionals. Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-69116-9]Search in Google Scholar
[Telia, V., 1986. Connotational aspect of nominative unit semantics. Moscow: Nauka.]Search in Google Scholar
[Tsutomu, S., 1983. On linguistic classification of metaphorical expressions. Descriptive and applied linguistics, vol. 16, pp. 197–208.]Search in Google Scholar
[Tversky, A., 1977. Features of similarity. Psychological Review, vol. 84, no. 4, pp. 327–352.10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Wilson, D. and Sperber, D., 2006. Relevance theory. The handbook of pragmatics. Blackwel Publishing, pp. 607 – 632.10.1002/9780470756959.ch27]Search in Google Scholar
[Yudina, I., 2010. Similes with an unexpressed module as a means of reader’s reflection actualization. Bulletin of Volgograd State University. Series 2, vol. 2, no. 12, pp. 31–35.]Search in Google Scholar
[Zamai, S., 2008. Functional and semantic category of comparativity and the means of its representation in Russian and English. Bulletin of Adygej State University, vol. 6, pp. 93 – 96.]Search in Google Scholar
