giampaolo sasso* the structural properties of the anagram

Giampaolo Sasso*

The structural properties of the anagramin poetry

DOI 10.1515/sem-2016-0158

Abstract: This article illustrates the main theoretical and practical problem of thestudy of the anagram in poetry, the still unknown entity of the anagrammaticcombination, which requires specific software in order to perform a structuralanalysis of the text. This difficulty explains the failure of Saussure’s originalhypotheses and the gradual decline, following the rediscovery of his work, of theinterest of researchers in this subject. However, some poems (by Blake, Moore,Mallarmé, Valéry, Apollinaire, and Leopardi) illustrate the enormous potential ofthe anagram for the structural analysis of poetic texts: the study of formal structure,of semantic-thematic nuclei and of metaphor, together with the main criteria forexamining, with some simplification, the anagrammatic combination. An explana-tion is also offered for anagrammatic and grammatical-syntactic cooperation, invol-ving the current theory of the lemma. At the time of the generation of a poetic text,the anagram acts as an associative intermediary between the combinatory matrix ofthe signifieds and the combinatory matrix of the signifiers, producing a lexicalselection that gives anagrammatic coherence to the text. This associative intermedi-ary enables us to understand the particular recursive function of semiosis in poetrythat is given a distinct unity by the anagram.

Keywords: Saussure, anagram, poetry, structural analysis, semiosis, metaphor,anagram analysis software

1 Introduction

1.1 A still unexplored theoretical problem

It will be remembered that the theoretical subject of the anagram in poetryemerged with structuralism in the 1960s–1970s when Starobinski published thenotebooks on the anagram, dating from 1908–1910, that Saussure had dedicated tothis topic (Starobinski 1964, 1971). At the time, the subject seemed a surprising onesince Saussure was the founder of linguistics and this research was evidence of an

*Corresponding author: Giampaolo Sasso, Società Italiana di Psicoterapia Psicoanalitica,E-mail: [email protected]

Semiotica 2016; 213: 123–164

unexpected theoretical interest. His research method was, in fact, quite unusual.For Saussure, the dissemination of a noun systematically constituted the support-ing framework for verse: in the Vieux saltimbanque by Baudelaire, for example,hystérie is, for Saussure, pre-announced by the letters IS, S, TERRI, E whichprecede this word in the line “je sentIS ma gorge Serrée par la main TERRIblE del’hystérie.” This discontinuous sequence was given various names by Saussure,paragram, hypogram, anagram, and this latter term took hold attracting manyscholars to investigate its dissemination in poetry (Agosti 1972; Wunderli 1972;Zumthor 1975; Johnson 1976; Kristeva 1969; Riffaterre 1978; Jakobson 1984). In1982, I also published a book on this subject, followed by a longer work in 1993, inaddition to some articles in 2001 and 2007 when the subject of the anagram wasalready in decline. Now that this topic appears to have been practically forgotten, Iwould like to provide some explanations for the progressive lack of interest shownin the anagram, but also some reasons why, after more than thirty years, I amcontinuing my research and now propose with this article that the study of theanagram in poetry be resumed.

In fact, the subject of the anagram conceals a difficult methodologicalproblem owing to the absence of knowledge concerning the effective combi-natory structure of language, as well as the lack of an adequate softwareprogram to facilitate its study for the linguist. I myself became aware of thisproblem immediately following the publication of my book in 1982 which was,for me, the unexpected result of a very personal path of study: coming from abackground in engineering, I was about to graduate in psychology and set outon the journey to become a psychoanalyst. At that time, the theoreticalproblem I was studying in depth was the associative density of semanticnetworks which, as well as in dreams, formed the basis of language, subjectsthat I had just analyzed in detail in my psycholinguistic and neurophysiologi-cal studies. It was then that I thought to analyze and compare poetic texts – aliterary passion of mine – assuming that their brevity would allow for a betterexploration of these themes.

I was not fully aware of the hypotheses concerning anagrams and therefore,unlike Saussure (and other researchers), I had not adopted the hypothesis ofdisseminated letters, rather that of rigorously consecutive sequences that alsostraddle word boundaries, but with the advantage of identifying more preciserelationships. The anagrams were detected by means of meticulous – but man-ual – research, however when continuing my studies after the publication of mybook in 1982 I started to become uncertain about the possibility of identifyingthe anagrams correctly. In those years, the first personal computers were juststarting to become available and I asked some computer science friends tocreate a software program that was able to give me an overall picture of the

124 Giampaolo Sasso

anagrams. To my astonishment I discovered that the number of anagrams in asonnet could be more than two hundred, and in a canto by Dante – as I laterchecked – even many thousand.

Such complexity, which could not be detected without the use of a soft-ware tool, explained the failure of the research by Saussure as well as theinevitable unreliability of the intuitive study of the anagram and the reasonsfor its decline. The large number of anagrams was completely unknown: atthat time, no studies on the combinatory structure of a text were to be foundeither in quantitative linguistics or in other language studies, and – as far asI know – are still not available to this day. There was, therefore, no hypothesison how to evaluate the possible structural significance, which may even havebeen minimal, of such an enormous combination. However, the poems I hadstudied retained a certain coherence even in the light of such large numbers ofanagrams and this drove me to continue my research. A computer was indis-pensable, together with a sophisticated software program that could facilitatethe research, and it took me many years to develop one: the fact that, stilltoday, it is the only program of its kind in existence is an indication of atheoretical question on the combinatory nature of texts that there seemed noreason to ask.

1.2 The methodology for studying the structural propertiesof the anagram

Studying a poetic text is not simple given the enormous number of anagrams,and an assessment of their effective structural significance therefore requires aparticular methodology. Furthermore, this is counter-intuitive since it exploresthe text as a succession of words without intervals (also cancelling out the separa-tion into lines), even though this is a determining factor for the research. Boththe continuity of the utterance and the comprehensiveness of the analysis are infact indispensable in order to demonstrate the semantic and formal, as well asstatistical significance of certain combinatory phenomena and, above all, to ensurethat their study may be shared and discussed by other researchers.1 The principleaccording to which the anagram operates, once we have become familiar withthis method, is however fundamentally simple. The anagrammaintains an associa-tive link, between sections of the utterance, that can be interpreted as “a freefunctor,” i.e., able to perform different structural functions within the text.

1 I am consequently making the program available to other researchers who would like toresume the exploration of this subject.

Structural properties of the anagram 125

Themost important of these is, without doubt, the semantic or thematic relation-ship that its start and end segments maintain between the words (Figure 1(a)).By forming a chain with letters from the start segment of another anagram, theend segment may also make a line that synthesizes a significant semantic orthematic direction (Figure 1(b)).

The structural function that is most easily comprehensible, perhaps, is thecontribution of anagrams and lines to the formal structure – as I shall showimmediately in the first examples – and this succinctly explains the importanceof formal apparatus in poetry. Closely connected with all these properties is themetaphoric-symbolic function that derives from the semantic-thematic networkof anagrams and lines supporting the ordinary grammatical layout.

Some simplification, however, will benefit the undoubted complexity of thisresearch. Anagrams are both graphemic and phonemic, generally workingtogether with each other, enabling their study to be simplified to that of gra-phemes. Typically, all these properties are hierarchized according to the rankRn, in which ‘n’ indicates the length of the anagram, and therefore distributedbetween the longer, rarer, and more important anagrams, as well as the shorter,more numerous anagrams, allowing for further simplification. One useful aspectof this hierarchization, for example, is often revealed in the combinatory comingtogether at words or sections of the utterance, which often directly highlight themost significant thematic nuclei: of these, generally, the most important arethose at the beginning and end of the first line and in the concluding words ofthe last line, which facilitates a rapid study of the text.

This combination of structural functions is quite extensive and is thereforeused in varying ways by each poet, while also revealing similar characteristics:

Figure 1: (a) Anagrams maintain semantic-thematic relationships between words.(b) Anagrams’ chains synthetize semantic-thematic directions.

126 Giampaolo Sasso

from a comparison of many different texts there gradually emerges evidence ofcommon structural forms, furthering our knowledge of this method. In thisarticle I shall first of all show some simple examples of graphemic anagrams,pointing out in advance that initially they may seem quite extraneous to com-mon sense.2 Subsequently, I shall introduce the theoretical hypotheses which, inmy opinion, can explain the structural origin of the anagram. This will befollowed by further examples that can elucidate their singular properties.

2 The Sick Rose: A poem by Blake

2.1 The initial formal and thematic generative nucleus

Let us consider the famous poem by Blake The Sick Rose (Erdman 1968), which isonly eight lines in length and is included in the 1794 collection Songs ofExperience:

1 O rose, thou art sick!2 The invisible worm3 That flies in the night,4 In the howling storm,5 Has found out thy bed6 Of crimson joy:7 And his dark secret love8 Does thy life destroy.

It is immediately interesting to observe how, even in such a short poem, very manyanagrams can already be seen. As many as 89 anagrams, distributed over thevarious ranks R2 = 71, R3 = 9, R4 = 3, R5 = 5, R6 = 1, overall produce the thick webshown in Figure 2(a). However, several anagrams are formed from simple textualredundancies (the triad “the” and the pair “thy”) allowing for some simplification inthe distribution, that can be reduced to R2 = 49 (Figure 2(b)), R3 = 4 (Figure 2(c)),R4 = 3 (Figure 2(d)), R5 = 2 and R6 = 1 (shown together in Figure 2(e)), and enablingus to give a better assessment of their contribution.

As can be seen, while the rank R2 anagrams appear to be distributed with noclear order, the longer anagrams are already indicative of some significantaspects. The two rank R5 anagrams connect “rose” at the beginning of the textwith the last line, while the rank R6 anagram reinforces the rhyme; the two rank

2 Complete analyses of the anagrams in the poems discussed in this article which also includevarious phonemic studies, can be found on my website https://www.anagramsandpoetry.org.


R4 anagrams also involve the last line and the formal structure. Consequently, thebeginning and end of the text, together with the formal structure, indicate how theanagrammatic tension tends to be arranged throughout the text making usimmediately aware of any textual meaning. In particular, it can be seen howthe beginning and end of the text stand out in the density diagram obtained fromall the anagrams (Figure 2(f)): the relationship between “rose” and “destroy” isemphasized by the large density of combinatory nuclei that depend on these twowords making them clearly evident.

A structural interpretation of this combinatory tension is also immediatelygiven weight by a study of the opening section of the text that shows theimportant part played by R2 anagrams. We can observe, for example, the simpleflow of the first two anagrams that go as far as the first rhyme, w-OR-m-st-OR-mand to the end of the text, dest-RO-y (Figure 3(a)). Although these are anagramsof only two letters, they emphasize how the textual input is immediately directed

Figure 2: (a) The 89 anagrams. (b) The 49 R2 anagrams. (c) The 4 R3 anagrams.(d) The 2 R4 anagrams. (e) The 2 R5, 1 R6 anagrams. (f) The density diagram.

128 Giampaolo Sasso

to two formal characteristics, namely, the first rhyme and the conclusion. If weconsider the next anagram that reaches “d-ESTRO-y,” consisting of five letters(one of the three longest anagrams), it confirms how the flow leads from thebeginning to the conclusion (Figure 3(b)).

Another way of quickly recognizing the structural function of the opening flowis the line produced by the first anagram from “w-OR-m” and “st-OR-m” that links upwith other anagrams (Figure 3(c)). From “w-OR-m,” the anagram “ORM/THA-TORM/HA”extends the linking up of the “worm-storm” rhyme, while from “st-Or-m” it is linkedwith the STOR-STRO anagram which refers back to “de-STRO-y.” The line syntheticallyindicates the direction of the worm-storm-destroy flow along the formal structureaxis, which ismaintained not only by the rhyme “worm-storm,” but above all by theparticular contribution of the STOR-STRO anagram of the R = 4 system.

This line, however simple, therefore has the merit of drawing attention tothe two most important anagrammatic contributions to the formal structure. Thefirst is the function of the rhyme “worm-storm” extended to the larger combina-tion “ORM/THA-TORM/HA,” while the second is the supporting function of the STOR-STRO anagram for the formal structure. Both contributions imply an equivalenceof rhyme and anagram, a property that typically characterizes – as I shall showin other examples – formal structure in poetry.

Highlighting these processes is not merely formal, but also indicates howthe lexical system identified by the flow should be interpreted thematically. Thepoet does not limit himself to a brief description of events leading from the roseto destruction, but also establishes the antagonistic relationship between thetwo subjects of the poem, the rose and the worm and, furthermore, directlyentrusts the thematic development of the destructive action, the subject of whichis the worm, to the line worm-storm-destroy. The anagram “s-TORM – de-STRO-y”

Figure 3: (a) The formalization of the first two anagrams. (b) The first flow leads from the start tothe end. (c) The structural function of the first line.


clearly has a semantic function, while “storm” acts in the flow as an introduc-tory scenario to the destructiveness of “worm,” also serving as a thematicsupport.

Although the anagram flow “singles out” a limited lexical grouping, it may,however, be interpreted as the nucleus of the grammatical-syntactic develop-ment that occurs throughout the utterance. In particular, the “singled out”section indicates the structural significance that can be attributed to the formalstructure. Since the formal axis stands out both as regards sound and visualperception, we may consider that its purpose is to favor, in the appreciation ofthe text, words placed in this position, that is to sensitize the words involved inthe flow.

If we adopt this hypothesis, we can understand why, in order to intensifytheir perception, the poet tends to make use of rhyme and, in this case,also anagrams which contribute to the sensitization of the words in theformal axis.

2.2 The generative nuclei at the end of the first lineand at the end of the text

Other characteristics of the anagram may be briefly illustrated by studyingthis simple poem. Graphemic-phonetic co-operation – an important subject inpoetry – can clearly be seen in the other generative apex that is typical of thepoetic text, the end of the first line, “art sick,” whose flow lines both convergeon “destroy” (Figure 4(a) and 4(b)).

Figure 4: (a) The graphemic flow. (b) The phonetic flow runs along the formal axis of the firstline’s end.

130 Giampaolo Sasso

Of the two flows, the graphemic flow is the more widespread and alsoextends within the text, while the phonetic flow is directed along the formalaxis. Both flows confirm the significance of the concluding word “destroy,” onwhich the disease of the rose now also converges, implying a particular inter-pretation that I shall come to shortly. The two flows also reaffirm “storm” asan essential element and, together, clearly define with “invisible” and “hisdark secret” the theme of invisibility-secrecy which through the verb “flies”(that belongs to the R = 4 system) marks the start of the destructive actionof the worm.

Of equal structural importance is the graphemic flow of the longer anagrams(for R ≥ 3) in the first line, which links up with the last line only (Figure 5).The first and last lines clearly form a privileged pair in the versification, thefinal line having the purpose of concluding the opening theme.

2.3 Semantic-thematic coherence and interpretation

A more in-depth study of the anagrams also reveals a more general semanticand thematic coherence, which is characteristic of a typical text analysis.For example, “r-OS-e” refers with the anagram OS-SO (the only one in the text)to “crim-SO-n,” maintaining the color relationship between the rose and its “bedof joy”; “FLIE-s” is an anagram of “LIFE,” involving the flight of the “worm”directly in the life that it destroys. This more detailed analysis allows for amore accurate assessment of the general semantic-thematic fabric and its effec-tive contribution to textual understanding.

For example, this poem has given rise to very many interpretations, both ofthe mystical-allegorical and amorous-sexual type, and in particular withrespect to Blake’s conception of woman, and its study provides us with some

Figure 5: The graphemic flow of the first line’s R ≥ 3 anagrams.


privileged indications. The entire development demonstrates the priority rela-tionship between the strong opening anagrammatic nucleus, “O rose,” and thestrong final anagrammatic nucleus, “destroy.” From a thematic point of view,therefore, this relationship sustains the start-end division together with thelife-death division, since the rose evokes beauty and life, but also the fadingaway foreboded by “sick” at the end of the first line. An anagrammaticanalysis, however, highlights certain controversial aspects, for example thatthe subject of “destroy” is not simply “worm,” but above all “rose.”

In fact, in Figure 5, the two five-letter anagrams of “ROSE TH-ou,” refer in thelast line to “d-OES TH-y life d-ESTRO-y,” explicitly indicating “rose” as the agent of theverb. Furthermore, the anagram EDO-EDO which links “b-ED/O-f” to “lov-E/DO-es”directly implicates the “bed of joy” of the rose in the secret love of the “worm.”The anagram EDO-EDO consists of the repetition of the same segment and straddlesthe two lines in a position that maintains a link between two end-of-line words,thus resembling rhyme: structurally, therefore, it can be considered very impor-tant, giving weight to the sexual interpretation of the “bed-love” relationship.Since the rose is “sick” and an anagrammatic examination gives its illness aparticular connotation, such analysis lends weight to the interpretation of therose as a symbol, for Blake, of a dangerous sexual figure.

Although brief, this analysis highlights the general contribution of ana-grams to the semantic and formal structure of the text, disregarding only someof the shorter anagrams.

3 A Talisman: A poem by Moore

3.1 A study and interpretation of the initial nucleus

The poem A Talisman (1921), by Marianne Moore, is in turn useful for introdu-cing the structural properties of the anagram. Overall this poem (Moore 1984),longer than that by Blake, has 170 anagrams (their quantity increases accordingto the square of the length of the text), distributed as follows over the variousranks: R2 = 135, R3 = 48, R4 = 8, R5 = 3, R6 = 1. In spite of this large number,we can restrict our study to just the graphemic nucleus at the beginning of thepoem, which has the greatest combinatory density (Figure 6) immediately sug-gesting its structural importance.

1 Under a splintered mast,2 Torn from the ship and cast3 Near her hull,

132 Giampaolo Sasso

4 A stumbling shepherd found,5 Embedded in the ground,6 A sea-gull7 Of lapislazuli,8 A scarab of the sea,9 With wings spread –10 Curling its coral feet,11 Parting its beak to greet12 Men long dead

For example, we immediately notice the formalizing tension of the first twoanagrams which from “UNDE-r” form the rhyme “fo-UND/E–gro-UND” (Figure 7(a)).The segment “und” of the rhyme “fo-und – gro-und” is “extracted” from theopening segment of the line “UND-er,” and highlights the unconscious attentiongiven by Moore to textual introduction. The extraction “sensitizes” the rhyme,but also the reference to the beginning of the text, with which it forms the lexicalcombination “under-found-ground.” When interpreted grammatically, this com-bination expresses the simple concept “I found underground” which sum-marizes the introductory theme of the poem.

Now let us look at thewider flow comprising the first four anagrams (Figure 7(b)):the longest anagram in the poem, consisting of six letters, is generated whichgives formal structure to the entire word “SPREAD,” as well as the less significant

Figure 6: The initial nucleus.


two-letter anagram that encompasses “a-ND cast” at the end of the line. Extendingthe flow to the first six anagram segments (Figure 7(c)) contributes to theimportant formalization of the concluding word “DE-ad,” but also involves “emb-EDDED” which works semantically with “gro-UND.” It also encompasses the subject“sheph-ERD” and, above all, the verb “splinte-RED,”which with its meaning of “break-ing-shattering” introduces the theme of death-decay in the poem that is reflectedthroughout the entire lexical system.

Consequently, the flow includes three end-of-line words (fo-UND/E, gro-UND,SPREAD) and the concluding word “DE-ad,” but also words forming the end sectionsof lines (splint-ERED mast, a-ND cast) and syntagmatic relationships such as “sheph-ERD fo-UND/E,” “emb-EDDED […] gro-UND” that reveal the unity of the anagram flow.At the same time, the flow identifies the semantic and thematic development that“under,” in its link with “splintered” (“un-DER splinte-RED”), has in the text.The meaning of “splinter” is “to shatter, break into pieces”: the broken mast istherefore a symbol of a loss of strength and of life, since themovement of the ship inthe sea is dependent on the mast.

This already suggests why the seagull, which also plies the sea, symbo-lizes death in the poem. Both are representatives of marine life and are nowsymbols of death on earth, one torn off and broken, the other “embedded,”that is sunk into the ground just as the mast is affixed in the ship, and placednear the ship as a reference to the joint symbolism. Initially, the poet does notreveal the human significance of death, to which the concluding words “menlong dead” refer.

Figure 7: (a) The formalization of the first two anagrams. (b) The flow of the first four anagrams.(c) The flow of the first six anagrams.

134 Giampaolo Sasso

At the same time, “splinter”with its meaning of “shatter,” also conveys the ideaof “split-open up” and this explains the link from “un-DER A SP-lintered” to “SPREAD,”the longest anagram: the wings of the seagull are wide open, but more preciselythey are “extended, spread,” in accordance with the meaning of “splinter.”The adjective therefore confirms the symbolic relationship between the mastand the seagull (just like the literary use of “spread” to indicate an “unfurled sail”).

It should also be noted that “shepherd” can be justified by a semanticlink with “splintered,” since “shepherd” is a compound word (shep-herd), and“un-DER” maintains the “splinte-RED – sheph-ERD” relationship. From this, theanagram takes “h-ERD,” that expresses the ‘sign’ “to group together,” in contrastto the sign “to shatter” of “splintered.” Therefore, while the mast (and also theseagull) symbolize the fragmentation-disintegration of death, the “shepherd”represents the opposite, the cohesion-union portrayed in the symbol of one whogathers together and guides. However, with its derivation from a verb thatdepicts the breaking of the mast, the shepherd, although a symbol of life,moves along “stumbling,” that is with the risk of falling: so that he, too, is arepresentation of death, a figure who forewarns, with his uncertain gait, theending of life portrayed by “men long dead.”

3.2 Combinatory hierarchy of the line flows

Other flows clarify howMoore from the beginning coherently organizes the networkof anagrams. Let us observe, for example, the sequence in Figures 8(a), 8(e) and8(b), showing the line flows of the first anagram as some characteristics in thechain parameters are modified.

For K = 2 (indicating the minimum chain link) and for Q = 1 (indicating thelink) of the longest anagram only), the first anagram generates the line that from“found” reaches only to “ground” (Figure 8(a)). However, if we extend the linechain to a second anagram (Q = 2), from “fo-UND/E” there is also a link to thesegment “DE,” whose flow takes in “emb-EDDED” and then converges on “DE-ad”(Figure 8(b)).

Re-written in the sequence “under / ground / found / embedded / dead,”the flow summarizes the entire thematic development of the poem, the sight ofsomething-someone found underground, embedded and dead. When wereduce the chain (K = 1), the flow is extended but converges markedly onthe end sections of the last four lines, taking in the whole concluding word“dead” (Figure 8(c)). What we now clearly observe is the strong convergenceon “beak to greet” which, together with the confluence on “spread” and“dead,” develops the original nucleus of “splintered,” producing a dramatic


image of an open mouth, the first image – we may suppose – that formed inthe poet’s mind.

Both flows, that of the first six anagrams and the lines of the first anagram,clearly have a structural function: they are directed towards the different semantic-thematic nuclei that have played a part in the conceptual and metaphoricaldevelopment while, at the same time, contributing to the formal structure.

Lastly, in this poem it is useful to understand the lexical choices of “lapislazuli”and “scarab.” The ninth and tenth anagram segments, RA and ASPLI, appearing in“unde-R A SPLI-ntered,” are the generative support for the two words, and from thesethe flow converges on “coral,” the other material that with “lapislazuli” suggests inits hardness the preciousness of the seagull (Figure 9(a)).

These two symbols help us to understand how a precious material, that isdifficult to break, has been evoked as a contrast to fragmentation-death, andassigned to the seagull as a lasting emblem. The five-letter link that reaches“LAPIS-lazuli” highlights the importance of the main one of these symbols. Andfinally note the simple flow generated, once more, from “sp-LIN-tered” (Figure 9(b)).

Stumbling, the shepherd moves his feet as the seagull retracts its feet. Thecontraction of the seagull’s feet in death, and the contrasting opening of itsbeak, show the common destiny that awaits the unknown explorer while,unsteadily, he approaches the representation of death.

Therefore, the anagram system, although restricting ourselves to the initialanagrams only, enables us to reconstruct the working together of three differentlinguistic subjects, the mast, the shepherd and the seagull, in order to maintain anddiversify the development of a single conceptual nucleus, separation-death. The

Figure 8: (a) The first anagram’s line for K = 2 and Q = 1. (b) The first anagram’s line for K = 2and Q = 2. (c) The first anagram’s line for K = 1 and Q = 2.

136 Giampaolo Sasso

poet articulates this thematically on a syntactic-grammatical level, while the combi-natory flows support and co-ordinate this development at an anagrammatic level.

4 Le Cygne: A poem by Mallarmé

4.1 The contribution of the anagram and intralexicalwords to semiotization

The two examples I have shown are fundamentally simple, and their contribu-tion to the interpretation of the text might appear to be – adopting a restrictivehypothesis – a sophisticated version of an ordinary critical evaluation. However,the meaning of the interpretation appears different if we reflect on the semantic-thematic support of the anagrams in the two texts, which implies a structuralexplanation for the recognized difficulty in clearly defining semiotization inpoetry and – a related topic – the function of the formal system.

A short analysis of the sonnet Le Cygne (1885) by Mallarmé (Mondor and Jean-Aubry 1945) may clarify how the anagrammatic contribution to semiotization canbe a real determining factor for the interpretation of the text. This example alsointroduces “words upon words” (to reference the title of the book by Starobinskion the anagrams of Saussure), that is the intralexical contribution of “included orover-included” words in an utterance. In the poem by Blake, for example, “flies”includes the verb “lies,” whose meaning “to lie” is coherent both grammatically

Figure 9: (a) “Unde-R A SPLI-ntered” generates “lapislazuli,” “scarab” and “coral”.(b) A flow generated from “sp-LIN-tered”.


with “bed,” the destination of “flies,” and with the anagram of “FLIE-s,” “LIFE,” thelife destroyed by the worm which by flying has reached the “bed.”

In turn, “bed of crimson joy” includes in “CRIM-son” the root of “CRIM-e,”thereby implying guilt in “joy,” a word that is already linked by rhyme to“destroy.” “Crim-SO-n” refers back to “r-OS-e,” and the connotations of “guilt”in “crimson joy,” while the sexual inferences of “flie-life” strengthen the inter-pretation of the participation of “rose sick” in the destructive love. The con-tribution of included or over-included words requires particularly carefulexamination, since it is generally less well defined than that of anagrams.

4.2 Three intralexical generative relationshipsat the beginning of Le Cygne

In the opening part “Le vierge le vivace” of Le Cygne, however, amuchmore complexworking together of intralexical words is a determining factor for interpreting theobscure first linewhile, at the same time, giving rise to the formal structure of the firsttwo quatrains and clarifying the difficult symbolism of the sonnet.

1 Le vierge, le vivace et le bel aujourd’hui2 va-t-il nous déchirer avec un coup d’aile ivre3 ce lac dur oublié que hante sous le givre4 le transparent glacier des vols qui n’ont pas fui!5 Un cygne d’autrefois se souvient que c’est lui6 magnifique mais qui sans espoir se délivre7 pour n’avoir pas chanté la region où vivre8 quand du stérile hiver a resplendi l’ennui.9 Tout son col secouera cette blanche agonie10 par l’espace infligée à l’oiseau qui le nie11 mais non l’horreur du sol où son plumage est pris.12 Fantôme qu’à ce lieu son pur éclat assigne13 il s’immobilise au songe froid de mépris14 que vêt parmi l’exil inutile le Cygne.

This sonnet has numerous anagrams (R2 = 910, R3 = 287, R4 = 73, R5 = 18,R6 = 10, R7 = 3, R8 = 3, R9 = 1), but R2 anagrams are rarely significant and thestudy can be simplified by restricting ourselves to the other anagrams. First ofall, let us consider the complete flow of “LE VIERGE LE VI-vace” (Figure 10(a)),made up of 13 anagrams, that includes the longest anagram in the text, of 9letters, and two anagrams of 8 and 7 letters. The flow involves the two quatrainsonly (formalizing the “ivre” rhymes), while the importance of the initial nucleusis clearly seen in the density diagram (Figure 10(b)).

138 Giampaolo Sasso

The three longest anagrams reach down to “LE GIVRE/LE” (frost), immediately indicat-ing the dominant theme of ice-intense cold, to which the anagrams involving“h-IVER” and “glac-IER” also refer, while “RÉGI-on” indicates the space in which theswan is held captive. A second correlated theme – the difficulty-impossibility offreeing oneself from the ice-intense cold – can be identified in the flow from theanagrams at “déch-IRE-r, ail-E IVRE, d-ÉLIVRE,” to which “v-IVRE” is also related.

The word “v-IER-ge” can also immediately be associated with “st-ERI-le” onaccount of the impossibility to procreate, also underlining in “delivre” themeaning of “to give birth,” and so leading to a third theme of the swan beingdenied birth. At the same time, it can be noted that in the flow the reference to“sou-VIE-nt” has no counterpart, and that the two dominant themes, of ice andcaptivity-freedom, cannot be attributed to the meaning of the opening segment.

The multi-themed origin of the flow can, however, be recognized whentracing the words included in the sequence of letters “le-vierge-le-vivace,” thatjustify these various developments. In order to trace them, let us once moreconsider the anagrams produced by the opening section.

The three anagrams which converge on “LE GIVRE/LE” derive from “LE VIERGE L-”,“VIERGEGELE” and “ERGE LE VI-,” so that the “ice” theme is generated by the workingtogether of the entire initial sequence of 12 letters LEVIERGELEVI. It can then beseen that the segment leviergele can be broken down to l’evier gelé, in which the

Figure 10: (a) The complete flow of “Le vierge, le vivace”. (b) The poem’s initial nucleus in thedensity diagram.


different segmentation “gelé” directly expresses the sign “ice” of “givre,” while“l’evier gelé” – “the frozen sink” – anticipates the theme of the frozen lake, whoseflow takes in “hiver,” “glacier” and “région.”

This type of re-segmentation is also a feature of the second anagram, whichfrom “LE VIER” goes to “ail-LE IVRE” and “d-ELIVRE” and introduces the otherimportant theme of “captivity-freedom.” The sequence LE VIER can be rewrittenas levier – lever-support –, and this word is revealed as the intralexical con-notator of the beating wing with which the swan seeks to free himself from theice. If we consider the re-segmented words l’evier gelé and levier, their appear-ance can be directly interpreted as the semantic-thematic nucleus of the captiv-ity-freedom dialogue developed in the sonnet.

A third intralexical relationship comes into play in this development. In“v-IER-ge” the segment “ier” corresponds, apart from the letter “h,” to theadverb “hier” (but, phonetically, jɛʁ is included in vjɛʁʒ). In the flow, thisjustifies the anagram at “souvient” and, above all, explains why “aujourd’hui”is the (apparently inconsistent) grammatical subject of “vierge”: the intralex-ical opposition “yesterday vs today” is directly personified by the noun syn-tagma “v-IER-ge aujourd’hui,” forming with “souvient” the other importanttheme of the sonnet, the memory of the swan. Although the intralexicaldesegmentation “(h)-IER” is the shortest in this nucleus (and only phoneticallycomplete), this temporal nucleus explains above all the continuity between theinitial subject of the sonnet, “le vierge d’aujourd’hui,” and the subject of thesecond quatrain, the “cygne d’autrefois.” This continuity is maintained gram-matically by the opposition “aujourd’hui-d’autrefois,” and intralexically by theidentity “hier-d’autrefois.”

4.3 Generative semic opposition within the nucleus

Generative function of this intralexical nucleus in producing the openinganagram flow is therefore explained by the reciprocal penetration of thesigns “vitality-movement” of “le vierge le vivace” and the signs “ice-immobi-lity” of “evier-gelé.” Such reciprocal penetration implies the sign “immobility”in the vitality of “vierge le vivace,” and this contrast gives rise to the swan’sattempt to free itself from the ice, which has the intralexical support of levier,while at the same time maintaining the contrast between the present andthe past. The internal antinomy of this nucleus therefore allows for amplemetaphoric development, with its main link being the impersonal opening“le vierge aujourd’hui” and the subsequent personification “un cygned’autrefois.”

140 Giampaolo Sasso

This link maintains the thematic continuity between the first and secondstanzas, pointing specifically to the hidden “anaphoric reference” of “le cygne”to “le vierge” that can only be traced at an intralexical level. In this passage, thetemporal axis maintained by the link again becomes more extensive, immedi-ately dramatizing the main theme of the sonnet with the striking difference tothe opening scene: “le vierge le vivace” represents “aujourd’hui” and, by con-trast, the swan represents “autrefois”.

Through this passage, the past is opposed to an illusory present, enabling usto understand that “cygne” fundamentally expresses a retrospective time of“vierge”: a temporal dimension that contrasts with mature adulthood and sug-gests a lack of hope for procreation “sans espoir se délivre.” The time structuretherefore makes clear that the initial stopping of movement is also that of time,conceptualized as being grounded in a past without a future, as summarized inthe concluding words “exil inutile.”

It is important to note that, from the point of view of the semiotization organiz-ing the text, the contrasting co-operation of the two signs “ice-movement” producestwo opposing generative processes. The first subordinates the intralexical sign “ice”of “le vier-GE LE-vivace” to the grammatical sign “movement” of “vivace,” introdu-cing the opening vitality of the sonnet; while the second subordinates the sign“movement” to the intralexical sign “ice,” producing the symbolism of the swantrapped in the ice, which becomes the main theme of the text. In the nucleus, theinversion of the opposing relationship between the two signs can, however, beinterpreted as the main generating force that guides the development from the firstto the second quatrain.

This also explains how the anaphoric link between the two quatrains ismaintained by a generative type semic inversion. In conscious ideation, thesonnet is first and foremost a triumphalist statement of beauty; however, theintralexical and anagrammatic co-ordination conceals the inversion of the ori-ginal semic hierarchy that acts as the main generative nucleus, developing themore dramatic theme of the sonnet.

5 A theoretical interpretation of the anagram

5.1 The problem of anagrammatic and grammatical-syntacticco-operation

These three poems provide some particularly clear examples of the anagram-matic processes that can be detected in poetic texts, while their generative


nuclei also have the merit of being able to be statistically validated as shown inparagraph 10 below. If we accept their evident structural function, theseprocesses imply that, during the production of the utterance, a radical controlof the combinatory relationships present in the lexical sequence is exercisedunconsciously. Since there is a clear co-operation between grammatical-syntac-tic properties and combinatory properties, this would point to a contemporaneityof the two processes.

I shall now try to give an explanation for such complexity and precision.In my opinion, this concerns the already known associative properties ofthe sign that are normally present when language is produced, but whichevidently include anagrammatic type associative properties whose co-operationis still not known.

If, for the sake of convenience, we keep to the saussurean sign (Saussure1916), signifieds are characterized by the associative properties of their compo-nent parts, the privileged subject of structuralist study (Greimas 1966; Quillian1968; Katz 1972, etc.) that has sought to determine their semic categorial proper-ties (denotative, connotative, semantic, grammatical, etc. marks); while thesignifier is characterized by the associative properties of its morphologicalcomponents (suffixes, affixes, declensions, etc.), also including the morpho-syntactic properties that are indispensable for working with the grammatical-syntactic functions of “agreement” and “government.”

Ordinary lexical access to a particular word requires the careful selection ofboth these associative codes: language disorders already studied by Jakobson(1962 [1941]) show the widespread distribution of these codes in the brain, theincorrect selection of which leads to errors in lexical access. When also takinganagrams into account, the situation therefore becomes more complex becauseit implies that a signifier additionally has associative type anagrammatic proper-ties that are carefully selected from the general co-ordinated semantic andmorpho-syntactic elements. Over the years, I have wondered at length aboutwhich theoretical model can explain, at the moment of producing language,such a precise selective co-ordination between all these associative properties,of which the anagrammatic element is completely unconscious.

5.2 Theories concerning lexical access in language production

Let us consider, briefly, how language is produced. As is known, the com-plexity of language generation is a characteristic of theories that are notunique and which, from the structuralist era, have opposed the generativegrammar of Chomsky (1965, 1966, 1972) and semantic type generative theories

142 Giampaolo Sasso

(Bach and Harms 1968; Katz 1970; Lakoff 1971) with various subsequentadditions (Hauser et al. 2002). In my opinion, the theoretical key for introdu-cing anagrammatic processes is the controversial passage from the so-calledconceptual preparatory phase of the signifieds to that – still keeping to theSaussurean sign for the sake of convenience – of the signifiers.

Traditionally, until the 1980s–1990s (Garret 1976, Garret 1980), it wasbelieved that the first phase predisposed the conceptual-semantic and syntac-tic-grammatical plan that was simply followed by the selection of the signifiers,while today this selection is better explained by introducing the “lemma” as adistinct level from that of the “lexemes” (Kempen and Huijbers 1983). Thelemma does not portray simple signifiers that refer to the signified, but “abstractverbal representations” which combine grammar, semantics, phonology andmorphological rules, mediating between conceptual content and superficialutterance (Levelt 1989; Levelt et al. 1999; Levelt 2001).

The process for producing language initiates at a conceptual level involvingthe lemmas that select the lexemes by activating specific nodes for morpho-phonological encoding. However, such activation is not simply in one direction,but also acts in the opposite direction: that is morpho-phonological encodingcan have a backwards influence on the selecting of lemmas and these, in turn,on conceptual-semantic elaboration. The structural nature of such micro-planning implies certain properties in the organization of the brain that can bebriefly summarized.

The notion of the lemma, in its current version, is in fact “connectionist,”i.e., determined by modern concepts of how neural elaboration is formedfrom the system of brain connections which, for language, gravitate towardstwo main centers: Broca’s area, connected to the frontal lobe and which todayis linked to conceptual elaboration, and the occipital-parietal Wernicke’s area,connected to the (acoustic and visual) elaboration of the signifier. The lemmadenotes the nodes of the combinatory fabric involved in elaboration leading tothe co-operation of these two fundamental areas for language. Consequently,these combinatory properties also give rise to anagrammatic properties.

The model of McClelland and Rumelhart (1981, 1982) provides an example ofhow a connectionist type network naturally incorporates anagrammatic linksthat become part of the lexical encoding. In Figure 11, some distinctive primaryvisual segments categorize the graphemes ‘r’, n’, ‘t’, ‘g’, ‘s’, and the words ‘able’,‘trap’, ‘trip’, ‘take’, ‘time’, ‘cart’ are dependent on some of these: the anagram‘ART-TRA’ is formed between ‘c-ART’ and ‘TRA-p’, as well as the anagram TR-RTbetween ‘TR-ip’ and ‘ca-RT’.

In a connectionist matrix, words sharing combinatory segments are correlatedand so can recall each other helping to explain different types of relationships in


lexical access processes (Dell 1986; Dell and O’Seaghdha 1992; Dell et al. 1997).Without entering into specific neurophysiological details, in my opinion it ispossible to put forward a model for the development of language, as I haveexplained in various books (Sasso 1999, 2007, 2011), from which it can be inferredhow the lemma incorporates anagrammatic regulation and how this involves aparticular concept of the generation of a poetic text.

5.3 The sign: The two combinatory matrices of the signifiedsand the signifiers

This type of development implies that the sign is formed by the combinatoryselection of the extremely numerous brain pathways distributed between the areasof Broca and Wernicke, a selection process initiated during the development of theinfant by the slower maturation of the left hemisphere with respect to the right(Le May 1985; Hopkins and Marino 2000; Bradshaw and Rogers 1993; Andrew andRogers 2002).

Figure 11: The model of McClelland and Rumelhart shows an architecture with severalelaboration levels. The first level analyzes the visual characteristics of the letters, thesecond level processes individual letters independently of their graphic features, whilethe third level nodes process words as a unit. The system operates in parallel over thethree levels and according to retroactive circuits: the activation patterns associated witha given representation of a word may influence others before the response thresholdis reached. According to the theory proposed here, the combinatory structure of theseassociative patterns leads to the anagrammatic elaboration of lexical selection beforethe response thresholds for the words are reached.

144 Giampaolo Sasso

Since the two hemispheres are connected, the information processed inthe right hemisphere, for example about an object, is continually transferredto the left hemisphere, but using a system of pathways that are plasticand less mature. Therefore, when the mother says the name of an object,the acoustic area next to Wernicke’s area that codes the name may formassociative pathways with those processing the information about the objectfrom the right hemisphere. Broca’s area also gradually forms associativepathways with this information, specializing in its recovery and in verbalarticulation.

Although described in an elementary manner, this linguistic re-functionali-zation explains the “fluid structure” of the sign owing to its roots in theplasticity of the nerve pathways and their categorial elaboration processes,from whose combination each sign is formed and its associability with othersigns. In particular, it explains how the development of the signs from acommon combinatory matrix entails the emergence, from the maturation oftwo associative matrices, of the “signifieds” and the “signifiers.” The first matrixconcerns the “categorial collection” of elaboration processes that form part ofthe networks gravitating between the two areas of Broca and Wernicke, indicat-ing the associative development of the signifieds.

The second matrix concerns the associative differentiation of the signifierswhich, during maturation, gives rise in areas adjacent to Wernicke’s area to thecombinatory matrix of phonetic-graphemic categorial elements. Each signifiercorresponds to a particular sequential ordering of such elements, i.e., to a specificsuccession of links between the elements, so that the differentiation of the order-ing gradually produces in the combinatory matrix a dense fabric of pathways.

This means that a given set of categorial elements can be travelled byseveral order arrangements, which then refer back to sequential segments ofdifferent signifiers: a broad associative fabric is then formed in the matrix. Themorphemic properties identify the more stable associative properties, while theanagrammatic properties represent an inherently unstable associative combi-nation of categorial elements (without doubt Saussure was aware of thisdetermining influence in poetic language).

5.4 The anagrammatic link and structural cooperationbetween the two matrices

Such considerations would suggest a fundamentally simple explanation for theanagram. In order to understand the functional origin of the lemma – and its


natural role in the regulation of anagrams – the conceptual apex is thecontemporaneous differentiation of the two matrices. The differentiation of thesigns necessarily produces the structural co-operation of the combinatorymatrices of the signifieds and the signifiers, the second of which includes theassociative anagrammatic matrix. This process explains what happens in thegeneration of language.

When the conceptual-semantic preparatory phase selects a particularlemma, this has access to information concerning the signified and, at thesame time, to morphological information about the word: this, in turn, activatesthe phonetic-graphemic combinatory structure. If two or more lemmas shareboth semic elements and phonetic-graphemic sequences that can be re-arranged(as with “STOR-m” and “de-STRO-y”), an associative link is established between thetwo fundamental language areas. With respect to other lemmas that share onlysemic elements, or only phonetic-graphemic elements, this grounding is morestable and favors its selection in the recursive elaboration phase between thetwo areas.

The anagrammatic link therefore corresponds to a characteristic of thelemma, that of acting as a mediating element between the conceptual contentand the superficial utterance. More precisely, it can be interpreted as a link that“extracts,” and emphasizes, a semic-conceptual content from the combinatoryrelationship that is established between the two signs or between sections of theutterance straddling several signs. Similarly, in the inclusion and over-inclusionof several signifiers, it extracts a semic-conceptual content from the sharedsequential order in the combinatory matrix.

5.5 The anagrammatic link and theories on metaphor

These considerations are therefore accompanied by an important theoreticalconcept. The anagram, where interpreted as a link between signifiers thatlinks together certain semic properties, re-proposes the model of the metaphoralready expressed by the Groupe µ, according to which the intersection betweentwo signifieds leads to their union (Figure 12), but in a structural meaning that isnaturally made more complex by the network of combinatory links maintainedwithin the structure of the signifieds.

This conceptualization shows that the anagrammatic link correspondsto the “interanimation” principle of Richards (1936), taken up by Black(1962, 1979), according to which a primary subject (topic) receives a projected“set” of implications of the secondary subject (vehicle). The implicativecontribution of the anagram also translates in a combinatory sense the

146 Giampaolo Sasso

important theme of the expressive-conceptual limitations of lexical vocabu-lary. Philosophers of language draw attention to the fact that metaphor is aresponse to the incompleteness of natural languages (Urban 1939; Ullmann1962; Alston 1964; Henle 1958) and to the “designative inadequacy” of lexicalsystems (Weinreich 1964). In poetry, therefore, a network of anagrammaticlinks “extracts” a conceptual content that cannot be expressed by the ordinarygrammatical relationships of the signs of the language while, at the same time,expressing a metaphoric meaning.

The co-operation of the two matrices is evidently made difficult bythe complexity of the phonetic-graphemic combinatory control, and thisexplains why in ordinary language the syntactic-grammatical regulation ofthe signifieds is normally performed by morphosyntactic regulation only.However, this intrinsic difficulty shows the particular coherence of poeticlanguage. The careful selection of these processes, in fact, reveals the specificnature of semiosis in poetry. Anagrammatic relationships are recursive, that issemantic-thematic characteristics are repeatedly woven. The anagrammaticfabric therefore also assigns a particular meaning to the concept of “infiniteinterpretant” of Peirce (1931–1966), whose unlimitedness is circumscribed bythe “recursive closure” of the combination of interpretants.

6 Studying an alliterative verse by Valéry

If we now consider other brief examples of anagrams, many themes such asthe classic ones of alliteration, rhythm, versification and formal structure(all properties of morphosyntactic refunctionalization) are interwoven withthose of semiotization and metaphor.

Let us consider, for example, some observationsmade by Cohen in his study ofpoetic text from Fragments of Narcissus (1922) by Valéry (Hytier and Rouart-Valéry

Figure 12: For the Groupe µ, metaphor is based on a real identity formed by the intersection oftwo terms so as to affirm the identity of the whole two terms. It extends to the union of the twoterms a property that belongs to their intersection.


1957). Wondering about the nature of alliteration, he defines it as “internal homo-phony, in contrast to external homophony consisting of rhyme,” and gives as anexample the line by Valéry, “Vous me le murmurez, ramures! … Ô rumeur,” inwhich “15 phonemes out of 23 have alliteration, with the sound ‘r’ appearing sixtimes, ‘m’ five times and ‘u’ four times” (Cohen 1966).

95 Quelqu’un redit Pire … Ô moqueur!96 Écho lointaine est prompte à rendre son oracle!97 De son rire enchanté, le roc brise mon coeur,98 Et le silence, par miracle,99 Cesse! … parle, renaît, sur la face des eaux …100 Pire? …101 Pire destin! … Vous le dites, roseaux,102 Qui reprîtes des vents ma plainte vagabonde!103 Antres, qui me rendez mon âme plus profonde,104 Vous renflez de votre ombre une voix qui se meurt …105 Vous me le murmurez, ramures! … Ô rumeur106 Déchirante, et docile aux souffles sans figure,107 Votre or léger s’agite, et joue avec l’augure …108 Tout se mêle de moi, brutes divinités!109 Mes secrets dans les airs sonnent ébruités […]

Studying this line, it is made up of no less than six anagrams, according tothe system R ≥ 4 (Figure 13(a)), which sensitize at an acoustic level “LE MURMURE-zra-MURE-s,” with the flow converging on “RUMEUR.” This combination of anagramsconveys the “murmuring of the branches” in the concluding word of the line“rumeur,” a phonosymbolic method that is clearly highlighted by the anagrams,particularly through the combinatory convergence on this word.

It can be seen, however, how the entire flow depends on “MEUR-t,” the rhymingword of the preceding line that generates the whole word “RUMEUR” (Figure 13(b)).The alliteration of the verse is therefore with a different significance to that of Cohen,because it does not act in contrast to the function of the rhyme, but co-operateswith it. The semantic apex of the verse is “voix qui se meurt” that expands into“murmurez, ramures, rumeur”: “meurt” expresses first the attenuating sound, while“murmurez, ramures, rumeur” conveys the contrasting build-up of sound.

The rhyme “meurt-rumeur” acts jointly in generating the line, and this co--operation with the sound theme proves in effect to be the dominant nucleus of theextract. For example, the ascending anagram formed from “ramu-RES O R-umeur”refers back to “rend-RE SOn oracle,” that is to the echo-oracle that warns of thedestiny of death of Narcissus and, at the same time, to “dit-ES ROSE-aux,” thereeds that repeat the oracle with the murmuring of the branches “ramures”(Figure 13(c)). This presage is maintained also by the ascending flow of “vo-IX QUI

148 Giampaolo Sasso

SE MEURT” which, with six anagrams, refers back to “moqu-EUR/E-co,” the mockingsound of the echo, to “br-ISE M-on co-EUR/ET,” the broken heart, and “rosea-UX/QUI,”the direct voice of the reeds. Three of these anagrams (at “moqu-EUR/E-co” and “co-EUR/ET”) simply reinforce the rhyme with “m-EUR-t,” but “rend-RE SON oracle,” “br-ISEM-on,” “di-TES ROSE-a-UX/QUI” involve all the end parts of the versification (the latteralso the end of the line), therefore contributing to the formal structure.

This formalizing tension, that is typical of a semantic-thematic nucleus, iseven clearer in the descending flow from “meurt” and “rumeur.” From “SEMEURT VO-us,” the three segments “EURT/VO,” “EURT,” “SEME” form anagrams at“fig-URE/VOT-re,” “aug-URE/T-out” working with the rhyme “figure–augure,” butgiving formal structure also to the end of the line “divinit-ES/ME-s”; moresimply, the “EUR” of “rum-EUR” forms an anagram with the “URE” of “fig-URE”and “aug-URE.”

We can also see the semantic relationship maintained in this flow between thetwo end of line words “oracle” and “l’augure” and, in particular, the recursivity ofthe anagram which from “or-ACLE” refers down to “av-EC L’A-ugure,” unifying inthis development of the text the fundamental theme of the presage that has therhyme “coeur-rumeur” at its center. This example shows how alliteration can

Figure 13: (a) The line’s highlighting of “rumeur.” (b) The line’s flow depends on “meurt.”(c) The rhyme “meurt-rumeur” as the dominant nucleus.


easily be interpreted as a local process, while instead it is part of the anagram-matic system.

Consequently, without a detailed study of the combinatory field we cannothave access to the system of semantic-thematic and formal relationships ofthis structure, nor can we evaluate the appropriate structural importanceof alliteration in verse.

7 Le pont Mirabeau by Apollinaire

An equally explanatory example concerns the questions Cohen put to himselfabout the first two lines of Le pont Mirabeau (1912) by Apollinaire (Adéma andDécaudin 1965) “Sous le pont Mirabeau coule la Seine / Et nos amours.”

1 Sous le pont Mirabeau coule la Seine2 Et nos amours3 Faut-il qu’il m’en souvienne4 La joie venait toujours après la peine5 Vienne la nuit sonne l’heure6 Les jours s’en vont je demeure7 Les mains dans les mains restons face à face8 Tandis que sous9 Le pont de nos bras passe10 Des eternels regards l’onde si lasse11 Vienne la nuit sonne l’heure12 Les jours s’en vont je demeure13 L’amour s’en va comme cette eau courante14 L’amour s’en va15 Comme la vie est lente16 Et comme l’Espérance est violente17 Vienne la nuit sonne l’heure18 Les jours s’en vont je demeure19 Passent les jours et passent les semaines20 Ni temps passé21 Ni les amours reviennent22 Sous le pont Mirabeau coule la Seine23 Vienne la nuit sonne l’heure24 Les jours s’en vont je demeure

Cohen wonders about the grammatical ambiguity of “amours,” as well asthe reasons for the inversion of the first line with respect to the more usualgrammatical order, “La Seine coule sous le pont Mirabeau.” The conclusion ofthese reflections is his particular concept of “negativity,” that Cohen

150 Giampaolo Sasso

understands as an innovative violation of the linguistic code, the distinctivecharacteristic of the poetic message (Cohen 1966).

The line order chosen by Apollinaire, however, has convincing reasons fromthe point of view of anagrams. The most evident is the generative nature of theend at seven end-of-line syntagms (Figure 14(a)): “apr-ÈS LA p-EINE,” “l’ond-E SI LA-sse” (both consisting of two anagrams), “EAU COU-rante,” “l-ENTE/E-t,” “viol-ENTE,”“sem-AINES/NI” (three anagrams), “pas-SÉ/NI LES A-mours” (two anagrams, includ-ing the longest of seven letters). Of these converging flows only the first, “apr-ÈSLA p-EINE,” rhymes with “S-EINE,” while the other six contribute to the formalstructure and are independent of this word (also the rhyme “l-ENTE – viol-ENTE”).

The imposing nature of this flow explains the choice of Apollinaire. In its end-of-line position, “coule la Seine” directly sustains the axis of the formal structure, andthis position also explains some characteristics of the flow that favor other typicalformal generative sections: two convergencesat the endof the last lines of the second

Figure 14: (a) The generative formalization of the fost line’s end at seven end-of-line syntagms.(b) The flow displaying metaphoric and formal significance in line thirteen.


(si lasse) and third (violente) quatrains, and two convergences at the end of the firstlines of the third (eau courante) and fourth (semaines) quatrains, i.e., typical end-of-line generating segments of the first and last lines of a poetic text. The initial nucleusof the flow therefore supports a division into stanzas that typically reflects thecontribution of the combinatory system to the formal structure.

At the same time, the flow also provides an answer to Cohen’s other questionconcerning the grammatical ambiguity of “amours”: that is, whether it “is the subjectof coule.” In the line order chosen by Apollinaire, from “Mirab-EAU COU-le” a simpleanagrammatic relationship is formed, “EAUCOU-EAUCOU,” that refers to “EAU COU-rante” atthe end of the first line of the third quatrain. Consisting of two equal sequences, theanagram corresponds to an “intralexical anagrammatic rhyme” indicating its gen-erative significance, which is matched by an equal semantic significance.

In the flow, the anagram re-proposes the semantic content of “coule” in“eau courante,” extracting “eau” from “Mirab-EAU”: this included word gives riseto the metaphor of the passing of the water and of love that “eau courante”re-introduces in line thirteen with “l’amour s’en va.” The anagram also workstowards a hidden symmetry in the poem that is made up of twenty-four lines,since it reaches the quatrain that introduces the second twelve lines, in whichthe initial theme is taken up again with its more depressing meaning.

Thisdivision into twoparts isnot easily recognizablewithout taking into accountthe anagram. Furthermore, the anagramdisappears if we adopt the line suggested byCohen, “La Seine coule sous le pont Mirabeau,” which in turn justifies the line orderchosen by the poet. In the simple flow shown in Figure 14(b), we can see how themetaphoric relationship in line thirteen, between thepassingwater andpassing love,has as its subject “amours” in the second line.While “Mirab-EAU COU-le” refers to “EAUCOU-rante,” “c-OU-le” gives rise to the short line that links upwith “am-OU-rs,”with thesegment “OUR” referring to “c-OUR-ante.”The significance of this process also attests tothe structural function of the anagram “eaucou-eaucou” and the maintaining of thedivision into two parts by introducing the second part of the poem.

This short analysis provides different answers to the questions raisedby Cohen while, at the same time, offering alternative explanations concerningthe formal and metaphoric structure of the poem.

8 A study of recursivity in Brooding Griefby Lawrence

The recursivity of the semiotization is shown, in a poetic text, above all bythe extremely refined co-operation of the anagram combination. It may be

152 Giampaolo Sasso

somewhat demanding to go through the entire semiotic content of text deseg-mentation, but this illustrates how recursivity emerges typically from the reitera-tion of the semic nucleus that predominates in the text. I shall give an example,even if not complete, in the following poem by Lawrence, Brooding Grief (1916),that also has the merit of presenting a clear metaphor of a structural-anagram-matic nature.

1 A yellow leaf, from the darkness2 hops like a frog before me;3 why should I start and stand still?4 I was watching the woman that bore me5 stretched in the brindled darkness6 of the sickroom, rigid with will7 to die: and the quick leaf tore me8 back to this rainy swill9 of leaves and lamps and the city street mingled before me.

At the beginning of the poem (Pinto and Roberts 1964). Lawrence introducesthemetaphor with “a yellow leaf, from the darkness hops like a frog before me”: thenucleus of themetaphor is indicated expressly by “hops like,” amovement commonto both the leaf and the frog. A simple anagrammatic system explains the structuralforces that have contributed to setting out the metaphor in Lawrence’s mind. Threeanagrams from “l-EAF FRO-m” converge at “lik-E A FROG be-FOR-e” (Figure 15(a)). Two ofthese anagrams are repeated sequences, between “l-EAF” and “lik-EA F-rog,” andbetween “FRO-m” and “FRO-g,” highlighting the strong links cementing the co-operation between the two syntagms.

The third anagram, between “FRO-m” and “be-FOR-e,” shows clearly howthe movement is maintained by the link between the two adverbs: theirrelationship implies a dynamic movement forwards (from → before), that

Figure 15: (a) The anagrams’s nucleus of metaphor. (b) The formalization of “ye-llo-w”.


becomes part of the relationship between “l-EAF” and “lik-EAF-rog.” This linksthe concept of the metaphor with “like,” and is a good example of thefunction of the anagram in supporting the metaphor. If we now considerthe flow of the two segments ll and llo of “ye-LLO-w” (Figure 15(b)), we cansee that this directly generates the formal structure of the rhymes “sti-LL–wi-LL–swi-LL/O-f.” In “still,” the three-part combination expresses the stopping ofmovement, but refers it with “stand still” to the poet and with “rigid withwill” to the mother, a stopping that is then inverted in the sudden movement(“the quick leaf tore me / Back”) of the poet turning round to look at the“rainy swill” of leaves and street lamps.

Consequently, the working together of the flows LL, LLO reveal how theinitial movement of the “yellow leaf” condenses a broad thematic nucleus intoa single visual event. The poet suddenly sees coming towards him the yel-lowed face of his dying mother, he wonders whether he should stand still, heobserves her lying rigid with her will to die, then looks away turning to thesight of the city. This dramatization is stressed by “yellow leaf,” which repre-sents the face jumping out of the darkness, and then by “quick leaf,” its rapidmovement that makes the poet turn to look outwards at other leaves, the “rainyswill / Of leaves.”

The segments LL LLO EAF FRO of the opening “ye-LLO-w l-EAF FROM” thereforedefine right from the beginning the main relationships between mother and son,and in relation to the perceptive surroundings that change from inside the roomto the external view of the city. Another two segments from this nucleus, OW andOM, refer from “yell-OW fr-OM” to “WOM-an” (Figure 16), making clear that theinitial movement of the leaf then links up with the mother.

The anagram which from “wo-MA-n” refers down to “l-AM-ps” shows us howrecursivity works since “lam-PS” links back to the initial “ho-PS,” indicating howthe movement guides the entire development.

Figure 16: The recursivity of the initial movement of the leaf.

154 Giampaolo Sasso

The ‘yellow that jumps out’ of “yell-OW” forms the basis of the perception ofmovement that the poet catches from a distance in the face of his mother, avegetable-like and animal-like non-human being: this visual movement eventpersists, however, as the basis of the perceptive link that leads to “lamps,” thelights that stand out against the wet background of the street to which the poetturns in his conclusion.

9 The first stanza of Il passero solitarioby Leopardi

9.1 Structural co-operation between the beginningand end nuclei of the first line

As the last example, I shall show, in the first stanza of Il passero solitario(1835) by Leopardi, the extent to which combinatory control of the initial andend nuclei of the first line can act as a coherent support for the formalstructure.

1 D’in su la vetta della torre antica,2 Passero solitario, alla campagna3 Cantando vai finché non more il giorno;4 Ed erra l’armonia per questa valle.5 Primavera dintorno6 Brilla nell’aria, e per li campi esulta,7 Sì ch’a mirarla intenerisce il core.8 Odi greggi belar, muggire armenti;9 Gli altri augelli contenti, a gara insieme10 Per lo libero ciel fan mille giri,11 Pur festeggiando il lor tempo migliore:12 Tu pensoso in disparte il tutto miri;13 Non compagni, non voli,14 Non ti cal d’allegria, schivi gli spassi;15 Canti, e così trapassi16 Dell’anno e di tua vita il più bel fiore.

Overall the stanza has 338 anagrams distributed over the ranks as followsR3 = 212, R4 = 70, R5 = 43, R6 = 8, R7 = 2, R9 = 2, R12 = 1, and its highest densitynucleus is at the end of the first line (Figure 17): 18 anagrams are produced fromthis nucleus and support the main development of the stanza, and of these twoare of particular semantic-thematic and formal importance. The segment


straddling the end of the first line “antica / Passero” gives rise to the two mostimportant anagrams in the stanza, the longest of 12 letters and the other of 9letters, that produce the long sequence of 22 letters “s-PASSI CANT-i E COSÌ TRAPASS-i”forming the basis of the rhyme “spassi-trapassi” (Figure 18(a)). The rhyme“spassi-trapassi” is the most important in the stanza since it summarizes thedramatic contrast between happiness and unhappiness in the life of the rockthrush, and has a counterpart in the two longest anagrams. The twelve-letteranagram also expresses the negative point in this dramatization, the “trapas-sare-morire” (passing time – dying), illustrating the thematic hierarchy on whichthis flow is based.

The first line has, in addition to the important end-of-line generatingsection, an equally significant generative nucleus at the beginning. It ismade up of short anagrams that have the merit of highlighting equally impor-tant structural aspects. The meaning of the nucleus is clear from the firsttwo anagrams that reach, respectively, to “in disparte” and “dintorno”(Figure 18(b)). The two convergences outline a topographical system “d’in sù,

Figure 17: The nucleus of “torre antica”.

156 Giampaolo Sasso

dintorno, in disparte,” that uses the spatial metaphor to express the solitude ofthe rock thrush: the bird is “d’in su,” high up in the tower, while “dintorno,”around him, the joyful springtime life unfolds with respect to which he is “indisparte,” apart.

9.2 The generative and anaphoric function of “disparte”

This clear differentiation stands out above all if we consider in Figure 18(b) thefirst anagram that reaches “disparte,” a word which by itself generates with fouranagrams the important rhyme “spassi-trapassi.” If we superimpose Figure 18(a)and 18(b), we can easily see the structural co-operation maintained by the initialanagram and by the last two anagrams in generating jointly the rhyme “spassi-trapassi” (Figure 19(a)), through the tension of both the shorter and the longercombinatory flows.

The structural function of “disparte” is, in fact, even more complex. Let usobserve the ascending flow of the two internal anagrams of “di-SPART-e” that

Figure 18: (a) The most important anagrams produce the dramatization of the rhyme.(b) The poem’s beginning guides the spatial metaphor of the sparrow’s solitude.


arrive at “PAS-sero soli-TAR-io” (Figure 19(b)). In the utterance, “disparte” is alocative adverb with an adjectival function (tu pensoso in disparte), and thisadjectival function refers anaphorically with ART-TAR to its semantic equivalent“soli-TAR-io.” However, the anagram PAS-SPA performs in “PAS-sero” a function thatis not directly anaphoric, since it qualifies the bird’s narrative and psychologicalcharacter (the rock thrush as a bird apart).

All these processes indicate why the contribution to the formal structure of theword “disparte” is a determining one, leading us to the conclusion that it has anevident hierarchical priority in the generative process. Consequently, this examplemakes us particularly aware of how to interpret the generation of the text. Theorder of the utterance does not correspond to the actual priorities that have guidedits composition, since this is re-assembled from several nuclei whose combinatoryfabric conveys the structural hierarchy that has generated the text.

10 Statistical demonstrability

In spite of this structural evidence, the anagram can, however, leave us with doubtsabout its effective textual function. Anagrams are extremely numerous and their

Figure 19: (a) The structural cooperation between the first line’s beginning and end.(b) The locative, adjectival, anaphoric and psychological function of “disparte”.

158 Giampaolo Sasso

control never appears complete, consequently only an accurate study may convinceus of their contribution. In what are considered to be the best poems, however,anagrams are revealed typically in structural forms, providing guidance for anunderstanding of this method of analysis. It may, therefore, be useful to clarifyhow the objective intentionality of such processes can be demonstrated statistically.

It is sufficient to reflect that anagrams are formed not only from internalsequences within words, but above all from sequences that straddle words: inthe generative nuclei in the figures, it is this second type of anagram thatdetermines the most important structural effects. Consequently, if we rearrangethe word order at random (for example, one hundred times) these anagrams willbe substituted by other anagrams and by comparing them we can see if theyeffectively perform a structural function. In this way, statistical curves areobtained for different parameters in the text, and the original anagrams willbe of greater significance the more distant they are from the curves obtained bythe rearranged texts (Figure 20).

The figures show the rarity of generative nuclei in the poems of Blake,Moore, Mallarmé, and Leopardi, which lends weight to the intentional natureof their structural significance.

Figure 20: A random rearrangement of a text modifies anagrams straddling words. The figuresdisplay on the horizontal axis, for the poems by Blake, Moore, Mallarmé and Leopardi, thevalues for the anagrammatic tension of their nuclei (circle on the axis). These are shown to bewholly external to the statistical curves for the values of the nuclei obtained from 250 randomrearrangements, and therefore statistically significant. Consequently, they may be consideredto be non-random and of an intentional nature.


11 Conclusions: The potential of studiesof the anagram

These examples, although brief, summarize the type of structures that motivatestudies of this kind, and are a guide to dealing with their undoubted complexity.Many other topics, in addition to those already outlined, are an indication ofthe potential of such studies. The function of the anagram involves conceptssuch as “coherence,” “agreement,” “government” and “anaphora” that canillustrate the ordinary properties of textual “cohesion.”

Typically, an anagrammatic link characterizes an anaphoric property, butwith the meaning of the “textual conditions” (De Beaugrande and Dressler 1981)that each time determine their effectiveness and give coherence to the utterance.Formal structure in poetry therefore appears to have the function of “sensitiz-ing,” in a different way from ordinary text, the unconscious perceptibility of thecombinatory component in order to intensify and define textual cohesion. Inpoetry, according to all these observations, the organization of rhythm and tonedoes not simply perform the function that is often described as musical, butcarries out a combinatory re-categorization of the sign facilitated by its solidgrounding at an acoustic level.

If we follow the same structure as musical language, the analogy betweenpoetry and music underlines the common combinatory field from which mean-ing emerges both in music and in poetry. Since language is based in the twoareas of Broca and Wernicke, rhythm would also suggest a presumable link withthe necessary interaction between the two areas for producing language. Thisdemonstrates why the fabric of rhythm and tone in poetry is expressed as anintrinsic structural property of semiotization, maintaining the unity of form andcontent that is characteristic of poetic texts.

The anagram, and with this intralinguistic phenomena, are part of – forthese reflections – a clear theme of formalist origin (Thèses 1929), according towhich a poetic work is a functional structure, and its various elements cannot beunderstood outside their relationship with the whole. On the other hand, theanagram happily corresponds with the jakobsonian definition of “poetic func-tion” (1963), in which the intention is directed not on the signified, but on thesignifier itself.

Naturally, we may wonder how it can be possible that the poet is completelyunaware of anagrammatic processes. In my opinion, the explanation concernsmany characteristics that are known today of the processes underlyingconsciousness.

160 Giampaolo Sasso

According to current hypotheses, the retrieval of lemmas from the mentallexicon occurs quite rapidly, approximately 2–3 words per second (Levelt et al.1999), and the sentence structure is formed with many procedures in parallel.Once the conceptual phase has been concluded, this preparatory research alsoneeds to be translated into a very complex articulatory system. Various specia-lizations (Schiller and Meyer 2003) are active in the emission of sounds (theirattack, the articulation of phonetic segments, the formant-sequence transition),regulated in the motor areas of Broca’s region by means of recursivity withthe auditory area (Geschwind 1970). Furthermore, similar processes are involvedin writing, whose graphemic coding works together with phonetic codingaccording to different cortical pathways.

Only sufficient time allows for the conscious elaboration of these processesand, vice versa, suggests what happens in particularly intense “mental”preparatory phases. During these phases, the combinatory control exploresnumerous lemmas before making a selection and therefore requires rapidelaboration without accessing either phonatory articulation or writing, and sodoes not allow emergence to a conscious level.

This type of exploration – if we reflect on our own personal experience – ischaracteristic of those long and intense elaborations that we call “intuition,”in which the anchoring of thought in language comes together first in relation-ships perceived only indistinctly, before gradually being translated into theutterance. This type of unconscious is not the same as the unconscious inpsychoanalysis, although it is sometimes manifested in similar ways (as wehave seen in Blake’s poem). It is the unconscious explored in its multiplestructural forms through neurocognitive studies of language, which highlightthe enormous complexity of the various brain sources that co-operate inlanguage function. Consequently, the co-ordination of anagrams in poetictexts should come as no surprise.

This process implies the extent of combinatory associative languageresources to which the poet has access, an objective whose synthesis we experi-ence through an inverse reconstruction of that of the poet, but of which we areunable to consciously describe the original fabric in its entirety.

References

Adéma, Marcel & Michel Décaudin (eds.). 1965. Guillaume apollinaire. Œuvres poétiques. Paris:Gallimard.

Agosti, Stefano. 1972. Il testo poetico. Teoria e pratiche di analisi. Milan: Rizzoli.Alston, William. P. 1964. Philosophy of language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.


Andrew, Richard J. & Lesley J. Rogers. 2002. The nature of lateralization in tetrapods.In Lesley J. Rogers & Richard J. Andrew (eds.), Comparative vertebrate lateralization,94–125. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bach, Emmon & Robert T. Harms (eds.). 1968. Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt,Rinehart & Winston.

Black, Max. 1962. Models and metaphors: Studies in language and philosophy. Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press.

Black, Max. 1979. More about metaphor. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 10–43.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bradshaw, John L. & Lesley J. Rogers. 1993. The evolution of lateral asymmetries, language, tooluse, and intellect. New York: Academic Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.Chomsky, Noam. 1966. Topics in the theory of generative grammar. The Hague: Mouton.Chomsky, Noam. 1972. Studies on semantics in generative grammar. The Hague: Mouton.Cohen, Jean. 1966. Structure du langage poétique. Paris: Flammarion.De Beaugrande, Robert-Alan & Wolfgang U. Dressler. 1981. Einführung in die Textlinguistik.

Tübingen: Niemeyer.Dell, Gary S. 1986. A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production.

Psychological Review 93(3). 283–321.Dell, Gary S., Myrna F. Schwartz, Nadine Martin, Eleonor M. Saffran & Deborah A. Gagnon.

1997. Lexical access in aphasic and nonaphasic speakers. Psychological Review 104(4).801–838.

Dell, Gary S. & Padraig G. O’Seaghdha. 1992. Stages of lexical access in language production.Cognition 42(1–3). 287–314.

Erdman, David V. (ed.). 1968. The poetry and prose of William Blake. Commentary by HaroldBloom. 3rd printing, with revisions. New York: Doubleday.

Garrett, Merrill F. 1976. Syntactic processing in sentence production. In Edward L. Walker &Roger J. Wales (eds.), New approaches to language mechanisms, 231–256. Amsterdam:North-Holland.

Garrett, Merrill F. 1980. Levels of processing in sentence production. In Brian Butterworth (ed.),Language production vol. 1: Speech and talk, 177–220. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Geschwind, Norman. 1970. The organization of language and the brain. Science 170 (3961).940–944.

Greimas, Algirdas J. 1966. Sémantique structurale. Paris: Larousse.Groupe µ. 1970. Rhetorique generale. Paris: Larousse.Hauser, Marc D., Noam Chomsky & Tecumseth Fitch. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it,

who has it, and how did it evolve. Science 198. 1569–1579.Henle, Paul. (1958). Metaphor. In Paul Henle (ed.), Language, thought, and culture, 173–195.

Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Hopkins, William D. & Lori Marino. 2000. Asymmetries in cerebral width in nonhuman primate

brains as revealed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Neuropsychologia 38. 493–499.Hytier, Jean & Agathe Rouart-Valéry. 1957. Paul Valéry, Œuvres. Tome I. Paris: Gallimard.Jakobson, Roman. 1962 [1941]. Kindersprache, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze. In Roman

Jakobson, Selected writings I, 328–401. The Hague & Paris: Mouton de Gruyter.Jakobson, Roman. 1963. Essais del linguistique générale. Paris: Minuit.Jakobson, Roman. 1984. La théorie saussurienne en rétrospection. Linguistics 22.

161–196.

162 Giampaolo Sasso

Johnson, Anthony L. 1976. L’anagrammatismo in poesia: premesse teoriche. Annali della scuolaNormale di Pisa 6(2). 679–717.

Katz, Jerrold J. 1970. Interpretative semantics versus generative semantics. Foundations ofLanguage 6(2). 220–259.

Katz, Jerrold J. 1972. Semantic theory. New York: Harper & Row.Kempen, Gerald & Pieter Huijbers. 1983. The lexicalization process in sentence production and

naming: Indirect election of words. Cognition 14(2). 185–209.Kristeva, Julia. 1969. ΣημειωτιϞή: Recherches pour une sémanalyse. Paris: Seuil.Lakoff, George. 1971. On generative semantics. In Danny D. Steinberg & Leon A. Jakobovits

(eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology,329–340. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Le May, Marjorie. 1985. Asymmetries of the brains and skulls of nonhuman primates. In StanleyD. Glick (ed.), Cerebral lateralization in nonhuman species, 233–245. New York: AcademicPress.

Levelt, Willelm J. M. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Levelt, Willelm J. M. 2001. Spoken word production: A theory of lexical access. Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences 98. 13464–13471.Levelt, Willelm J. M., Ardi Roelofs & Antje S. Meyer. 1999. A theory of lexical access in speech

production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22. 1–38.McClelland, James L. & David E. Rumelhart. 1981. An interactive activation model of context

effects in letter perception, Part 1: An account of basic findings. Psychological Review88. 375–405.

Mondor, Henry & Georges Jean-Aubry (eds.). 1945. Stéphane Mallarmé, Œuvres complètes.Paris: Gallimard.

Moore, Marianne. 1984. Complete poems. London: Faber and Faber.Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1966. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce, 8 vols., C. Hartshorne,

P. Weiss & A. W. Burks (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Pinto, Vivian de Sola & Warren Roberts (eds.). 1964. The complete poems of D.H. Lawrence. New

York: Viking.Quillian, M. Ross. 1968. Semantic memory. In Marvin Minsky (ed.), Semantic information

processing, 227–270. Cambridge: MIT Press.Richards, Ivor Amstrong. 1936. The philosophy of rhetoric. New York & London: Oxford

University Press.Riffaterre, Michael. 1978. Semiotics of poetry. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Sasso, Giampaolo. 1982. Le strutture anagrammatiche della poesia. Milan: Feltrinelli.Sasso, Giampaolo. 1993. La mente intralinguistica. L’instabilità del segno: anagrammi e parole

dentro le parole. Genova: Marietti.Sasso, Giampaolo. 1999. Struttura dell’oggetto e della rappresentazione. Rome: AstrolabioSasso, Giampaolo. 2007. The development of consciousness: An integrative model of child

development, psychoanalysis, and neuroscience. London: Karnac.Sasso, Giampaolo. 2011. La nascita della coscienza. Rome: Astrolabio.Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. In Charles Bally, Albert Sechehaye & Albert Reidlinger (eds.).,

Cours de linguistique générale. Lausanne & Paris: Payot.Schiller, Niels O. & Antje S. Meyer (eds.). 2003. Phonetics and phonology in language com-

prehension and production: Differences and Similarities. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Starobinski, Jean. 1964. Les anagrammes de Ferdinand de Saussure. Mercure de France 2(54).

243–262.


Starobinski, Jean. 1971. Les mots sous les mots. Les anagrammes de Ferdinand de Saussure.Paris: Gallimard.

Thèses. 1929. Thèses présentées au Premier congrès de philologues slaves. TCLP-1. 5–29.Ullmann, Stephen. 1962. Semantics: An introduction to the science of meaning. New York:

Barnes & Noble.Urban, Wilbur Marshall. 1939. Language and reality. London: Allen & Unwin.Weinreich, Uriel. 1964 [1953]. Languages in contact: Findings and problems. The Hague:

Mouton.Wunderli, Peter. 1972. Ferdinand de Saussure und die Anagramme. Linguistik und Literatur.

Tübingen: Niemeyer.Zumthor, Paul. 1975. Langue, texte, énigme. Paris: Seuil.

164 Giampaolo Sasso

giampaolo sasso* the structural properties of the anagram

Documents