A metaphor is a figure of speech that describes a subject by asserting that it is, on some point of comparison, the same as another otherwise unrelated object. Metaphor is a type of analogy and is closely related to other rhetorical figures of speech that achieve their effects via association, comparison or resemblance including allegory, hyperbole, and simile. In simpler terms, a metaphor compares two objects/things without using the words "like" or "as".

One of the most prominent examples of a metaphor in English literature is the All the world's a stage monologue from As You Like It:

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
—William Shakespeare, As You Like It, 2/7^[1]

This quotation contains a metaphor because the world is not literally a stage. By figuratively asserting that the world is a stage, Shakespeare uses the points of comparison between the world and a stage to convey an understanding about the mechanics of the world and the lives of the people within it.

According to I.R. Galperin scientific style is considered as a functional style the main aim of which is to prove a hypothesis, to create new concepts and to disclose the internal laws of existence, development, relations between different phenomena, etc. The language means used, therefore, tend to be objective, precise, and unemotional, devoid of any individuality; there is a striving for the most generalized form of expression. However, although the rigour typical of science requires the use of a specialized discourse, a certain amount of ambiguity and indefiniteness are also present in scientific texts. They thus make use of figurative language, which manages to overcome the strict limits of scientific rigour and objectivity, and re-presents ideas and theories in a different guise. This duality - or rather this metaphorical nature - of the language of scientific communication is the focus of the present article. By Y.M. Skrebnev the term "metaphor" denotes expressive renaming on the basis of similarity of two objects: the real object of speech and the one whose name is used As it is known the place of metaphor in the discourse of science has always been problematic.

Some scientists resort to figurative language in order to convey concepts originally developed by and addressed to a different audience in order to shed new light on the links between different ideas. But it can lead to the distortion the reason of which is the difference in the communicative goals of expert-to-expert and popular scientific texts. Expert-to-expert communication aims to provide the

linguistic tools that can be readily used by all members of the scientific community to promote their ultimate goal. Popular scientific communication, on the contrary, aims not to produce new science, but rather to explain and highlight all the essential logical connections for a readership whose background is very different. It is here that metaphors often prove to be a handy tool for effective communication. It is interesting to note Marcello Di Bari and Daniele Gouthier’s suggestion, relating to expert-to-expert or peer-to-peer-communication, that the language of popular science is characterized by a wider use of figurative devices.

Generally speaking, the lower the density of the terms, the higher the number of connections the reader needs to understand the text. As the density increases, the reader becomes more independent and can follow the text without resorting to metaphorical connections. This is one reason for the low occurrence of tropes in highly specialized communication.Moreover, in the language of science tropes (and metaphors in particular) are often implicit and totally integrated in the definition of the term. Boyd divides the metaphors used in scientific discourse into two groups: exegetical or pedagogical metaphors, which are typical of expert-to-non-expert communication (didactic and popular texts), and theory-constitutive metaphors, which are typically used in expert-to-expert communication. But there is no real borderline between these two groups, because when coining a new label, the scientist is influenced by both the scientific process and factors such as culture, personal experience or the time he or she lives in. Examples of conceptual metaphors are the big bang, black holes, the colour and flavour of a quark, theDNA helices, abundant numbers, twin prime number etc. These kinds of metaphors can refer to non-scientific elements and therefore connect scientific knowledge and popular beliefs. This is the next reason for the low occurrence of tropes in scientific texts. Finally, it is interesting to note that in scientific texts devicessimilar to tropes are frequently used at a structural level. Thus, we canhighlight that there are three features that favour the use of tropes in scientific communication: high frequency of technical terms, the use of conceptual

metaphors and the recourse to devices similar to tropes.

Thus, in conclusion we can say that metaphors play a significant role in scientific discourse; however the degree of their importance and the way the metaphors are used can vary due to a) the differentiation of scientific discourse: expert-to-expert communication and popular scientific communication; b) the type of metaphors exegetical or pedagogical metaphors and theory-constitutive metaphors: c) the intentions of the scientist himself and factors such as culture, personal experience or the time he or she lives in. In this context we can say that metaphors play an important role in scientific discourse (particularly in scientific texts), serving as one of the main means for creating, better understanding, and structuring scientific texts.