Borges, Lugones, and Saussure on the Philosophy of Language: A Study of Metaphor, Subjectivity, and Time

Introduction

Metaphor plays a crucial role in both literature and linguistics, shaping how we understand meaning and creativity in language. However, their perception can change over time, raising important questions about the relationship between form and content. This article explores how Jorge Luis Borges' views on metaphor relate to Ferdinand de Saussure's linguistic theories, particularly the distinction between synchronic (present-state) and diachronic (historical) approaches to language. By examining how metaphors evolve from "living" to "dead," Borges demonstrates a sensitivity to how time alters our perception of language. His emphasis on the present moment of language use aligns with Saussure's synchronic perspective, which focuses on how speakers interact with language in a given state, often unaware of its development over time. In contrast, Leopoldo Lugones adopts a more historical approach, arguing that every word is a "dead metaphor," which suggests a deeper focus on the historical origins of language. This article will compare these perspectives, showing how Borges' more nuanced view of languagr challenges Lugones' purely etymological approach.

In his essay "On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense," Nietzsche focuses on challenging established norms and values. However, one could argue that he falls into the same trap of diachronic analysis that characterizes Lugones' approach. This will be the main theme of our next article; for now, let’s return to Borges' lecture “Metáfora.”

Saussurean Linguistics and the Synchronic-Diachronic Distinction

Ferdinand de Saussure's linguistic theory distinguishes between synchronic and diachronic approaches to language. Static linguistics examines language as a system at a specific moment in time, analyzing the relationships between elements without considering their past. In contrast, diachronic linguistics focuses on the evolution of language over time, tracing how words, sounds, and structures change.

For Saussure, the synchronic perspective is essential because language users experience and interact with language as a stable system. The average speaker is typically unaware of the historical changes words have undergone—this temporal dimension is not part of their everyday use of language. Instead, they engage with language as it functions in the present, which Saussure refers to as the axis of simultaneity.

In Course in General Linguistics, Saussure explains that studying language at a specific point in time allows linguists to understand the system as it is perceived by its users. He argues that, for language speakers, "the passage of time is entirely excluded" from their interactions with language, which emphasizes the importance of understanding language as a synchronic reality.

Borges’ Philosophy of Metaphor and Language

Jorge Luis Borges distinguishes between living and dead metaphors, emphasizing that they are alive when readers perceive the fusion of two distinct ideas. In a living metaphor, the reader is aware of the symbolic connection, such as when comparing eyes to stars. However, over time, frequent use can cause these expressions to lose their vividness, becoming dead metaphors—words or phrases that no longer evoke the original imagery, with the figurative link fading from awareness.

He observes that words like "king" or "threat," which were once metaphorical, have become literalized and no longer evoke their analogical origins. The word "king," for instance, was originally a figurative title, derived from roots associated with concepts of leadership or kinship (as indicated by etymological connections to words like "kinsman"). Over time, "king" has evolved into a literal designation for a ruler, losing its original imaginative connotations. Similarly, "threat" originally referred to something broader, such as an angry crowd (from "pbreat" in Old English), but it has since narrowed to mean a specific, direct danger. These terms have become so entrenched in our language that their original symbolic meanings are no longer recognized, unless a linguist deliberately explores their etymological history.

Borges argues that the vitality of a figure of speech depends on the language user's ability to perceive it as such. When we no longer recognize a figure of speech, the word becomes literalized, and although it remains functional, its evocative power fades. This shift from representational to literal meaning reflects the natural progression of language, as words become so integrated into everyday speech that they lose the imaginative force they once had. Borges’s focus on this synchronic moment aligns him with Saussure's linguistic theories, particularly the idea that language users engage with words as they exist in the present, rather than as they once were.

Lugones’ Diachronic Approach to Language

Leopoldo Lugones asserts that "every word is a dead metaphor," reflecting a fundamentally diachronic view of language. This perspective emphasizes the evolution of language, suggesting that its richness lies in the accumulation of meanings from the past. He operates under the assumption of an idealized, atemporal speaker who is aware of the historical shifts in meaning and the origins of metaphors. This perspective, however, overlooks the reality that most language users engage with words in their current, immediate context, without considering their evolutionary background.

From Borges' and Saussure’s viewpoints, this historical approach presents clear limitations. As Saussure points out, language is always "an inheritance from previous generations"—a system handed down over time that speakers accept as it is, rather than something they actively reflect on or reimagine. The initial creation of linguistic signs, he notes, is an act we can only "conceive in the imagination" since no society has ever experienced language as anything other than a pre-existing system. Thus, Saussure dismisses the importance of tracing the origins of language, underscoring that speakers are primarily concerned with the present state of language: how words function in the present. This emphasis on immediacy highlights the synchronic aspect that Borges and Saussure see as more relevant in everyday communication, in contrast to Lugones' historical focus. This sets the stage for a comparative analysis of their differing approaches, which can help us better understand the dynamic between past and present in language interpretation.

Comparative Analysis – Borges vs. Lugones in Light of Saussure

Having explored Saussure’s distinction between synchronic and diachronic perspectives, along with Borges’s emphasis on the present vitality of metaphors and Lugones’s focus on their historical depth, we can now turn to a comparative analysis. Jorge Luis Borges offers a nuanced perspective on language, recognizing its roots but emphasizing the importance of its current, active use. This view aligns closely with Ferdinand de Saussure’s focus on the synchronic aspect of language, which considers how words function within the system of language as it exists in the present. Borges argues that the true power of language lies in the immediate resonance of living metaphors—those that vividly connect different concepts for contemporary speakers. This perspective reflects Saussure's idea that language users primarily engage with the present state of language, without necessarily reflecting on its past.

Leopoldo Lugones, in contrast, adopts a more diachronic view, focusing on the evolution of language and suggesting that all words are ultimately “dead metaphors” due to their lost original meanings. This approach assumes an idealized speaker aware of etymological origins, but it overlooks the fact that most people experience language in its current form rather than through its historical background.

Borges, however, emphasizes that figurative expression can be revived through creative expression, making language dynamic and adaptable. This perspective contrasts with Lugones’ more static view, highlighting the continual evolution and reinterpretation of language through active use and present-day understanding.

Implications for the Philosophy of Language and Literature

The distinction between synchronic and diachronic perspectives, as articulated by Borges and Saussure, has profound implications for literary theory and interpretation. When reading texts, acknowledging the current aspect enables readers to engage with the immediate meanings and resonances of metaphors, fostering a richer understanding of how language operates in the present. This approach encourages literary scholars to interpret them dynamically, focusing on their vividness and relevance within the context of the text rather than solely relying on historical meanings.

The classification of metaphors as either living or dead significantly impacts our perception of creativity in language. Recognizing them as living allows for a reawakening of poetic interpretation, inviting readers to explore the imaginative potential of language. By engaging with them in their current state, readers can uncover new layers of meaning and creativity that may otherwise remain dormant.

Borges emerges as a linguistic philosopher whose reflections on language and metaphor anticipate many modern ideas in linguistics and literary theory. His sensitivity to the interplay of time, speaker and meaning not only enriches our understanding of language but also challenges us to consider how literary forms evolve, reflecting the dynamic relationship between language, culture, and interpretation.

Conclusion

In summary, Jorge Luis Borges' views on metaphor and language closely align with Ferdinand de Saussure's synchronic approach, emphasizing the importance of understanding language as a dynamic system shaped by present perception. Borges provides a nuanced perspective that allows for the richness of figurative language to be experienced in the moment, contrasting sharply with Leopoldo Lugones' purely diachronic view, which primarily focuses on historical decay. While Lugones highlights the transfigurative origins of language, he overlooks the immediate engagement that readers have with words in their current context.

This discussion enhances our understanding of metaphor, time, and the experience of language in both literary and linguistic contexts. By prioritizing the current aspect, we can appreciate how analogies function dynamically and how their meanings evolve in real time, inviting deeper engagement with texts. Ultimately, recognizing the interplay between synchronic and diachronic perspectives enriches our interpretation of literature, allowing us to explore the creative potential of language as it exists in the present, while also acknowledging the historical influences that shape our understanding. In a future article, we will delve into Nietzsche's essay "On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense," exploring how his insights on truth and metaphor further illuminate the dynamics of language and meaning.

References

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

Lugones, Leopoldo. Lunario sentimental.

Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistics.