The phenomena of simile, metaphor can be introduced as the act of the second denomination. The cognizing of new things, facts of reality in terms of familiar ones speaks of the necessity of the human brain to find out the correlation of separate phenomena of reality and is the realization of one of the main characteristic and functional features of the cognitive structure of the human brain to relate things to each other intuitively but on the available feature. The second denomination is inherent in the nature of language in general and particularly to the poetic language. The poetic image as a structure includes the moment of denomination of the part of reality that is presented through it. In poetry the image is the generalized notion of the second denomination. The remarkable fact is that the image does not just name but gives the idea about the whole class of objects related to the depicted phenomenon. "... Every image recreates not merely an object but an object in the context of an experience, and thus an object as part of relationship. Relationship being in the very nature of metaphor, if... the universe is a body wherein... all things are members one of another, metaphor - a partial intuition of the whole world. Every poetic image, by revealing a tiny portion of this body, suggests its infinite extention" (Lewis 1947: 29).
As soon as the poetic image is realized in the process of correlation of words, a certain context is required to its actualization. The minimal context answering the necessary demand is the sentence. In other words, the structural form of the image has some syntactical construction as its basis. That's why we can logically assume that syntactical constructions are the verbalized concepts of correlations of things in reality.
Creating images the poet strives to evoke in the reader the images that moved him, the poet, to creation. But physically the poet is unable to take into consideration the individual experience of the reader, his certain knowledge about the fact depicted and his background to choose such words that will force the reader to react adequately on the poem. To control the process of the reader's perception of a poem, the poet is ought to use the only means available and common to him and the reader, and namely language models: "What may be controlled by poems, from the reader's point of view, is the cognitive experience of the patterns made by the words that are presented, for readers competent in the conventions appealed to by the patterns" (Gage 1981: 74). Such models are versatile syntactical constructions, parallelisms, metaphors, etc. They help the reader's brain to work in a certain order and on the principle of analogies. "... Analogies in literature are never just analogies. They are also words in a certain order, producing dynamic effects through their logical associations, through their syntax, and through all sorts of rhythmic, acoustic and mimetic qualities" (Gage 1947:75).
So, syntax is one of the components of the poetic text that helps the reader's brain to process the information in predictable way. That's why it is possible to say that syntax reflects the cognitive models of human brain. According to Kaznelson, the imagery information is the component of conceptual picture of reality of the poet and is a non-verbal means of thinking. Syntactical models materialize the imagery information and transform it into the verbal means of thinking and cognition.
On the basis of numerous hypotheses (conceptual metaphor, interference hypothesis and others) it was agreed to present the structure of the image as the unity of three components: tenor (X) vehicle (Y) and ground (Z). We'd like to add one more functional factor, that is worth of including to the image structure: it is a certain syntactical model that through it the tenor-vehicle relation is realized. In the image structure X is a representative of the poet's conceptual picture of reality, Y and Z - representatives of the poet's language picture of reality. And it is they that serve as the adapters of X representatives for the reader: supposingly the poet and the reader have different conceptual pictures of reality. In that case Y and Z "translates" Xs for the reader as it was agreed that Y and Z are always of common knowledge of the poet and the reader. On this point syntactical constructions may be regarded as a necessary common environment for successful transforming the poet's Xs into the reader's ones.