Суб ’ єктом дослідження є використання ідіом в рекламі (друкованій та на телебаченні) з огляду на прагматичний аспект.

Робота складається зі вступу, двох частин, висновків, резюме та списку використаної літератури.

Bibliography

1. BOLINGER, D.1975. Aspects of Language (2nd ed.; New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich).pp.56-88

2. CHAFE, W.1976. "Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics, and Point of View," in Subject and Topic, ed. C. Li (New York: Academic Press), pp. 245-269.

3. FRY, V.1987. "A Juxtaposition of Two Abductions for Studying Communication and Culture," American Journal of Semiotics 5.1, pp. 81‑94.

4. LastovetskaM. A. VariationsintheEnglishadvertisingdiscourseasafactorofitspragmaticinfluence; Dissertation Moscow 2005, pp. 30 - 58

5. GROSS, M.1985. "Sex Sells," Saturday Review July/August, pp. 50-55.

6. HALLIDAY, M. A. K.1967‑1968."Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English," Journal of Linguistics 3,pp. 37‑81, 199‑244; 4, pp. 179‑215.

7. HARRIS, A. C.1981. From Linguistic Theory to Meaning in Educational Practice. Unpublished dissertation. (Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles).

8. Maksimenko K. V. Pragmatic-stylistic aspectsof the advertising discourse: on the basis of English and Russian commercial and technical advertisements Dissertation, Krasnodar, 2005, pp 12 – 46.

9. HARRIS, A. C.1986. "When Is a Symbol? A Semiotic Reinterpretation of Freudian Slips,"American Journal of Semiotics 4.1-2,pp. 129‑149.

10. HEILBRONER, R.L.1985. "Advertising is Capitalist Realism," (Exerpts) Utne Reader April/May, pp. 76-83.

11. HYMES, D. H.1968. "The Ethnography of Speaking," Anthropology and Human Behavior (Washington, D.C.: Anthropology Society of Washington).

12. HYMES, D. H.1977. "Quantitative/Qualitative Methodologies in Education: A Linguistic Perspective," Anthropology and Education Quarterly 8, pp. 167-176.

13. LEECH, GEOFFREY.1966. English in Advertising: Linguistic Study of Advertising in Great Britain (London: Longmans). pp. 20 - 48

14. MEHRABIAN, A.1981. Silent Messages (2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth).

15. PIKE, K.1975. "On Describing Languages," in The Scope of American Linguistics: Papers of the First Golden Anniversary Symposium of the Linguistic Society of America, ed. R.Austerlitz (Lisse: the Peter de Ridder Press), pp. 26-27. PELZ, J.1981. "Theoretical Foundations of Semiotics," American Journal of Semiotics 1.1-2, pp. 15‑45.

16. PELZ. J.1982. "Semiotic and Non‑Semiotic Concepts of Meaning," American Journal of Semiotics 1.4,pp. 1‑19.

17. BRÔNE, G. AND K. FEYAERTS. In press. “Conceptual Integration as Discourse Supportive Strategy. Double Grounding in Headlines and Cartoons in Economic Texts.” Discourse and Economics. Eds.

18. ERREYGERS, G. AND G. JACOBS. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Coulson, S. 2001. Semantic Leaps: Frame-Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

19. COULSON, S. AND T. OAKLEY. 2000. “Blending Basics.” Cognitive Linguistics pp. 11-3,4:pp. 175-196.

20. FAUCONNIER, G. AND M. TURNER. 1994. “Conceptual Projection and Middle Spaces.” UCSD Department of Cognitive Science Technical Report p.401.

21. FAUCONNIER, G. AND M. TURNER. 1996. “Blending as a Central Process of Grammar.” Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language I. Ed.

22. GOLDBERG, A. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information pp. 113-130.

23. FAUCONNIER, G. AND M. TURNER. 1998. “Conceptual Integration Networks.” Cognitive Science 22-2:pp. 133-187.

24. FAUCONNIER, G. AND M. TURNER. 1999. “Metonymy and Conceptual Integration.” Metonymy in Language and T