in many periods of history, and Aristotle added to this expressive deviation the

conception of metaphor as typical expression of everyday speech. The amplitude of

multidisciplinary studies that this figure has caused - the main milestones of its
history in recent years can be found in the manual of Pujante (2003: 216-
217) - and the results of our analysis lead us to consider this figure from
a double perspective: As an essential operation, in the most literal sense of
term, in the human being. If we conceive Rhetoric with an ontological sense as
universal phenomenon and for this conception we rely on the belief that the
Persuasive procedures are based on transcendentals that transcend
space and time (Pujante, 2003: 33); if at the same time we think of it as a way of
mental and emotional energy (Kennedy, 1991: 3), also his most prestigious figure
share this conception. We conclude with Lakoff and Johnson (1980b) that metaphor
is the name we give to our ability to use the motor mechanisms and
body perceptives as a basis for abstract inferential constructions, of
way that the metaphor is the cognitive structure essential for our understanding
of reality. The metaphorical language would then be a consequence, a reflection,
of the ability to think metaphorically, which is our most common way of
think. But at the same time, rhetorical science was conceived as a social utility at the
service of
the most optimal communication, we perceive an express will in the user to use
creative metaphors that give meaning to one's experience in the same way
than the conventional ones and thus, they provide a coherent structure, some
aspects and hide others. They are able to create a new reality as a means of
structure our conceptual system and, therefore, our attitudes and our
Actions. Words alone do not change reality but changes in the
conceptual system they change what is real for each one and affect how they
the world is perceived and the way in which it is acted upon. In this sense it can be
said
that metaphors play a decisive role in shaping reality
each.
Attitudes

The synecdoche is the next most used figure, a resource that brings variety to the
discourse by making it understood or by one thing many others (the whole for the
part, the genus by the species), or the opposite. In this sense we also apply
the double perspective of use that we have destined to the metaphor.
Practically the rest of the ten most used figures, that is, insistence,
onomatopoeia, ellipsis, ungrammaticality, silence, symbol, hyperbaton, responds to a
language infected by the characteristics of oral and conditioned conversation
through the medium, that is, characterized by the speed and interpretative solvency of
the
participants. With respect to the other figures: antonym, crasis, epanadiplosis,
alliteration, polysyndeton, allegory, allusion, antonomasia, calambur, paraphrasis,
silepsis,
transcoding and suspension are those that are only used once in the set of 16
networks The other figures also lack significant representation.
To know the average rhetorical figure by intervention (or rhetorical density)
We divide the number of total use of figures by the number of user interventions.
The rhetorical diversity is found by dividing the total number of uses of figures by the
number of different figures. In this case, the lower the quotient, the higher
variety of use of different figures, and therefore greater diversity.
The data found show the following results:
The density is, in general, high, and the profiles that correspond to users stand out
younger. However, it should be noted here that the lower density is found
first in user # 10 (and this, both in him and in his entire network,
with 1.5 and 2 figures per intervention, respectively), whose profile corresponds to
male,
16 years old, high school student. This fact reinforces the fact that this factor does not
depends on age, and that, as we have said, the density of use of rhetorical figures in
The discourse of Facebook users is a common factor in all profiles.
The density in the use of figures is very similar in the four profiles (between 2.6 and
2.8 figures per intervention), corresponding the highest data to the calls
trend
followers
, the youngest users, in our case with an average age of 18.7 years.
In terms of diversity, the highest index corresponds equally to profiles 1 and 2, the
of older age, with an average of 47.3 years in our case.

The Rhetoric has an intense presence in the communicative action that is generated in
the
social networks, where we also find the categories and rhetorical components
fundamental We conceive Rhetoric as a universal phenomenon, not circumscribed
to a certain culture. If Rhetoric is part of the basic elements of the
culture, if the rhetorical discourse is the discourse of the persuasion of each moment
and the
persuasive procedures are based on universals that transcend space
and time, it is possible to speak of a general theory of Rhetoric, which includes the
forms
of emerging communications and those that may arise. These universals in which
foundation persuasive principles make it manifest in every society with
the characteristics that are theirs, and it does so by conserving their
guiding elements (strategies, operations, creative deviations of language). In
the process of convergence of these two realities -Retoric and networks- are observed
structural and formal differences of the rhetorical elements as understood
and the Greco-Roman speakers described, with respect to the nuances that the
scholars of this discipline have added throughout the history of Rhetoric; and more
recently the particularities that these elements develop have been pointed out
In the net. The current network and the different Web 2.0 services, due to their
peculiarities
communicative, suppose an empowerment of dialogue between producers and
recipients,
with the consequent explicitacin of some keys of the rhetorical communication. From
This form offers this old discipline new dimensions to be realized, with
that we can talk about Cyber-Rhetoric as the last evolution of Classical Rhetoric
but that continues to maintain proximity to the principles and the system of Rhetoric
historical On the other hand, social networks, as a communicative system, are already
rhetorical. Therefore, social networks
online
and classical Rhetoric and its reception by
Later generations show us a clear and permanent intertwining between
both scenarios.
In the description of the objectives of our research the approach was posed
of these platforms as a new rhetorical space in comparison with what it supposed

the agora in classical antiquity. With the proviso that the Network is not a physical
space
(Gamonal, 2004: 12) both spaces share some essential characteristics: a) the
be a public, open space, where different social classes come and interact
each other through the word; b) its social nature; and c) some restrictions on their
access:
despite the fact that both spaces are developed in a context of democracy, the activity
in the agora, women and slaves were banned. Also today, internet and the services of
web 2.0 have the so-called digital divide that affects much of the geography
current.
The discourse of social network users is full of rhetorical figures. The density
or frequency of use of rhetorical figures in the speech of Facebook users is
high (2.7 figures on average per intervention in the wall), is a common factor in all
profiles and does not depend on age or training. However, diversity or greater
The variation in the use of types of figures is higher in the networks of older users.
advanced (over 40).
The most frequent and common rhetorical figures in the discourse of the users of
Social networks are metaphor, insistence, synecdoche, onomatopoeia, ellipsis and
the ungrammaticality. The clear preeminence of the metaphor, the most characteristic
fruit of the
Rhetoric, confirms networks as a rhetorical space and this figure as a typical
expression
of everyday speech. This double conception of metaphor as an innate resource of
human being and as ornamental deviation of language -conception that was already
treated by
Aristotle- leads us to conclude that the ability to think metaphorically is our
the most common way of thinking. The rest of the most used figures, that is,
insistence,
Onomatopoeia, ellipsis, ungrammaticality, symbol, silence and hyperbaton, responds
to
a language infected by the characteristics of oral and conditioned conversation
in the middle, that is, characterized by the speed and by the interpretative solvency of
participants. In general terms, the use of figures provides expressiveness,
creativity and depth to communication.
The recurrent use of metaphor in our current communication, just as we have
demonstrated in these pages, underlines the preeminence that authors have given to
this trope. Specifically, in line with Paul Ricoeur, we observed that in the
communication of the net world, full of metaphors, there is a predominance of pathos:
the user moves between friends. And metaphorical redescription, says our author,
it governs, rather, in the field of sensorial, aesthetic, axiological and relative values
pathos that make the world liveable (Ricoeur, 2000). And they also put in
value, once again, the presence of rhetoric in emerging media
and therefore, the potentialities that this old discipline displayed: to build the
discourse
of the truth of a certain time and space, the discourse of what was most useful