Plan: Introduction 3 Main body 15

Conclusions
Thus, the three-dimensional linguosemiotic research of similes in English fictional writing has enabled us to reveal their semantic, structural-syntactic, and pragmatic features on the basis of which we define the sign essence of similes as that of language-in-use, i.e., textual constructs of pragmatic nature, embodying the author’s subjective associative metaphorical vision and mapping of the world. The variety of the semantic types of similes worked out in the paper manifests their nominative (designative) diapason, reflecting the author’s aesthetic-evaluative cognition and mapping of the real world, while the taxonomy of their structural modifications serves to demonstrate the changeability of the sign status of similes, ranging from a phrasal level to that of a microtext. As it is said in the abstract, the aim of this article was to find out the effect of using figures of speech on the writer's style and the addressee's understanding. Figures of speech are imaginative tools in both literature and ordinary communications used for explaining speech beyond its usual usage. The acquired result shows that the writer wants to convey his message of this novel in an implicit and indirect way, so he has used more types of figures of speech which have figurative meaning beyond their literally meaning. Also, as the result of using these kinds of figures of speech, the addressee does not explicitly understand the concept of the story and she/he must refer to the allegorical dimension of the novel and discovered its covering concept.
List of Used Literatures

1. 
   Aisenman, R. A. (1999). Structure-mapping and the simile-metaphor preference. Metaphor and Symbol, 13(1), 45-51.
   

2. Alcott, L. (1990). Little women. London: Holland Enterprizes Ltd..
3. Aristotle. (1954). Rhetoric. (W. R. Roberts Trans.). New York: Modern Library.
4. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. London: Oxford University Press.
5. Bally, C. (1955). General linguistics and problems of French linguistics (in Russian). Moscow: Nauka.
6. Beaugrande, R. A., & Dressler, W. (1981). An introduction to text linguistics. New York: Longman.
7. Black, M. (1962). Models and metaphors: Studies in language and philosophy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
8. Capote, T. (1980). The grass harp. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
9. Chandler, R. (1983). Farewell, my lovely. Moscow: Raduga Publishers.
10. Chiappe, D. L., & Kennedy, J. M. (2000). Are metaphors elliptical similes?. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(4), 371-398.
11. Christie, A. (1988). Finessing the King. English short stories of the 20th century. Moscow: Raduga Publishers.
12. Daneš, F. (1974). Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. In F. Daneš (Ed.), Papers on functional sentence
perspective (pp. 106-128). Prague: Academia.
13. Davidson, D. (1979). What metaphors mean. In S. Sacks (Ed.), On metaphor (pp. 29-45). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
14. Enkvist, N. E. (1973). Linguistic stylistics. The Hague: Mouton.
15. Esser, J. (1993). English linguistic stylistics. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
16. Fillmore, C. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach, & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1-88). New York: Holt,Reinehart and Winston.
17. Firbas, J. (1992). Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Fitzgerald, S. (1979). The diamond as big as ritz. Selected short stories. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
19. Forster, E. (1988). The story of panic. English short stories of the 20th century. Moscow: Raduga Publishers.
20. Galperin, I. R. (1977). Stylistics (2nd ed.). Moscow: Higher School Press.
21. Galperin, I. R. (1981). Text as the object for linguistic studies (in Russian). Moscow: Nauka.1
22. Galsworthy, J. (1974). In chancery. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
23.Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 145-170.
24. Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. (2001). Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16, 223-247.
25. Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97, 3-18.
26. Hardy, T. (1986). A pair of blue eyes. U.S.: St. Martin’s Press Inc..
27. Hemingway, E. (1995). For whom the bell tolls. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
28. Hemingway, E. (1997). Farewell to arms. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
29. Honeck, R. P. (1980). Figurative language and cognitive science—Past, present, and future. In R. Honeck, & R. Hoffman (Eds.), Cognition and figurative language (pp. 28-45). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
INTERNET SITES

1. 
   www.timegonline.co.uk/business/
   
2. 
   www.referatbank. ru
   
3. 
   www.timegonline.co.uk/business/
   
4. 
   www.referatbank.ru
   

1. 
   1^ Aisenman, R. A. (1999). Structure-mapping and the simile-metaphor preference. Metaphor and Symbol, 13(1), 45-51.