Living and Dead Metaphors: Lugones and Borges on Time and the Role of the Speaker in Creating Meaning

Introduction

In his Harvard lecture series on poetry, Jorge Luis Borges reflects on the nature of metaphor, drawing from the ideas of the Argentine poet Leopoldo Lugones. Lugones famously claimed that “all words are dead metaphors,” suggesting that every word was once a comparison but has since lost its original figurative meaning. Borges, with characteristic playfulness, immediately points out that this statement itself is a metaphor. In doing so, he critiques the rigidity of Lugones’s perspective, implying that similes are not static relics of the past but dynamic and creative forces within language.

This article explores Borges’s view that language is a living system, where meaning emerges from the interplay between historical development, symbolic usage, and the speaker’s role in shaping interpretation. Metaphors can be "living" or "dead" depending on how actively their imagery is perceived. This perception, as Borges highlights, is tied to time and context, as well as the speaker's ability to reinvigorate or reinterpret language, making the creative process central to the life of words and meaning.

The Historical and Etymological Evolution of Language

The history of language reveals that many words originally carried imaginative meanings that have since been obscured by time. For instance, the word consider derives from the Latin considerare, meaning “to observe the stars.” This connection, rooted in astrology, is now lost to modern speakers, who use the word without any consideration of its celestial origins.

As words evolve and enter everyday use, their allegorical connections often weaken or disappear entirely. Borges uses examples like king and threat to demonstrate how metaphors that were once vibrant in language become “dead” over time. The word king is etymologically related to kinsman, reflecting the idea of a ruler as a familial figure; however, today this metaphorical link has faded. Similarly, threat once meant an "angry crowd," but this meaning is no longer perceived by contemporary speakers.

These examples show that words are layered with historical meanings, yet these layers are often forgotten, leaving behind terms that function without evoking their original figurative roots.

Living vs. Dead Metaphors

Dead metaphors are those whose original figurative meanings have faded or become invisible over time. As mentioned above, words like consider, once linked to “observing the stars,” and king, which originally meant “kinsman,” no longer evoke these images in the minds of modern speakers. These figures of speech have lost their imaginative power and now function as ordinary, literal words. The parabolic origins are obscured by time, and most speakers are unaware of the connections that once gave these words their meaning.

In contrast, living metaphors are fresh comparisons that retain their figurative resonance for contemporary audiences. Examples like ojos y estrellas (eyes and stars) or ríos y tiempo (rivers and time) still engage the imagination and convey clear, vivid imagery. These allusions invite the listener to actively perceive the connection between the compared elements, sparking creative associations.

The key distinction between living and dead metaphors lies in whether or not the poetic link is still perceived by the speaker and audience. While dead metaphors have lost their original figurative meaning, living metaphors remain dynamic and alive in language.

The Role of the Speaker in Shaping Meaning

Borges implicitly suggests that meaning does not reside inherently in words but is actively created by the speaker. A metaphor is only “alive” if it is recognized and appreciated by both the speaker and the listener. This means that the vitality of a trope depends on its use in context. As language evolves, it is the speaker’s choice of words and how they are deployed that determines whether a simile retains its life or fades into obscurity, becoming a dead metaphor.

Time also plays a crucial role in this process. An analogy that was once vivid and imaginative may lose its resonance as cultural or linguistic contexts change. However, poets and speakers have the ability to breathe new life into old imageries or invent fresh ones, ensuring that language remains dynamic. Borges’s view of metaphor as a creative process underscores the fluid nature of meaning, which is continually reshaped through the interaction of time, context, and speaker intent. The key idea here is that meaning is not fixed or static; it emerges from the speaker’s intention and the audience’s perception, constantly evolving with time and context.

Borges’s Critique of Lugones and the Complexity of Metaphor

Borges playfully critiques Lugones’s claim that “every word is a dead metaphor,” immediately pointing out that this statement is itself a metaphor. In doing so, Borges highlights the flaw in viewing language as static or frozen. Lugones’s definition suggests that once a figure of speech becomes a conventional word, its creative power is lost permanently. Borges, however, implies that this perspective ignores the dynamic nature of language, which evolves with time and context. Meaning is not fixed; it is shaped by how speakers and listeners engage with language.

Borges’s broader vision of language emphasizes that words, while they have historical roots, are not confined to their past meanings. Instead, meaning is continuously recreated through the acts of speaking and writing. Metaphors, in particular, exemplify this flexibility, as they can be revitalized or reimagined depending on how they are used. Borges advocates for a view of language that is fluid, adaptable, and shaped by the creativity of speakers, rejecting rigid or deterministic ideas about how comparisons operate. Language is a living system, with metaphors playing a central role in its ongoing evolution and reinterpretation.

Conclusion

In summary, this exploration highlights the historical dimension of language, the distinction between living and dead metaphors, and the crucial role of the speaker in shaping meaning. Words carry rich histories and layers of meaning that can be either vibrant or obscured, depending on how they are used and perceived. Borges’s reflections remind us that analogies are not mere relics of the past; they are central to the life of language. By viewing language as a dynamic system, we recognize that meaning is continuously created, renewed, and reinterpreted.

As we interact with each other in an increasingly digital and interconnected world, Borges’s insights into metaphor and language remain highly relevant. In an age of rapid linguistic evolution, where communication patterns shift and new meanings emerge, Borges encourages us to perceive language as a living, creative process. This perspective invites us to appreciate the fluidity of meaning, emphasizing that language is not a static repository of dead meanings but a dynamic construct shaped by the ongoing interactions of speakers and listeners, constantly adapting and transforming in response to cultural and technological changes.

References

Borges, Jorge Luis. “La metáfora” (from his Harvard lectures).

Lugones, Leopoldo. Lunario sentimental.