UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Architectural codes 1982

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1982_A7_3 S34.pdf
UBC_1982_A7_3 S34.pdf [ 10.29MB ]
UBC_1982_A7_3 S34.pdf
Metadata
JSON: 1.0095136.json
JSON-LD: 1.0095136+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0095136.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0095136+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0095136+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0095136+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0095136.ris

Full Text

ARCHITECTURAL CODES by IRINI SAKELLARIDOU D i p l . A r c h i t e c t , U n i v e r s i t y Of T h e s s a l o n i k i , 1979 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES School Of A r c h i t e c t u r e We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA J u l y 1982 © I r i n i S a k e l l a r i d o u , 1982 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree that permission f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s or her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of A r c h i t e c t u r e The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date: J u l y 26, 1982 i i A b s t r a c t T h i s study addresses, on an a n a l y t i c a l b a s i s , the i s s u e of meaning a t t r i b u t i o n i n a r c h i t e c t u r e , and examines the b u i l d i n g as a meaningful a r t i f a c t . Even though the b u i l t environment serves p r i m a r i l y • a u t i l i t a r i a n purpose, i . e . , the housing of human a c t i v i t i e s , i t can a l s o be seen as a system of s i g n i f i c a t i o n , as a stage, and medium, for s o c i e t y to express orders and v a l u e s , and to m a t e r i a l i z e i t s own image. Values are expressed through the formation and a r t i c u l a t i o n of the b u i l d i n g ; the user d e c i p h e r s , m o d i f i e s or transforms the meaning through h i s e x p r e r i e n c e . Meaning a t t r i b u t i o n i s seen as p a r t of the understanding, experience, and a c t i o n on the b u i l t environment. The t h e s i s proceeds with the examination of d i f f e r e n t approaches concerning meaning i n a r c h i t e c t u r e , and the establishment of the conceptual framework f o r the study. C o d i f i c a t i o n , as the act of code c r e a t i o n and o p e r a t i o n , i s understood to be an i n t e g r a l p a r t of meaning a t t r i b u t i o n . The c o g n i t i v e b a s i s of a r c h i t e c t u r a l c o d i f i c a t i o n i s examined through the a n a l y s i s of the design a c t i v i t y . The nature of design, as the concious act of meaning a t t r i b u t i o n , uncovers the s p e c i f i c i t y of a r c h i t e c t u r a l meaning, as expressed through the systemic o p e r a t i o n of c e r t a i n i d e n t i f i a b l e codes. These codes, d e f i n e d as the a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes, are f u r t h e r examined. A c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of them i s suggested i n two d i s t i n c t l e v e l s : f i r s t , the codes of e x p r e s s i o n , which i n t e r p r e t the formal and m a t e r i a l composition of the b u i l d i n g ; second, the codes of content, which i n t e r p r e t the b u i l d i n g i n h i s t o r i c a l , s t y l i s t i c , and s o c i o - c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t s . The use of these codes as t o o l s f o r s e m i o t i c a n a l y s i s i s demonstrated in a p r e l i m i n a r y approach. A n a l y s i n g the a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t the codes can be i d e n t i f i e d , and, through t h e i r systemic o p e r a t i o n , r e v e a l the meaning of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l s i g n s . The t h e s i s concludes , that a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes, as a p a r t i c u l a r i n s t a n c e of the act of c o d i f i c a t i o n , are t o o l s f o r the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the meaning of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t . Andrew G r u f t Chairman i v Table of Contents A b s t r a c t i i L i s t Of F i g u r e s v i Acknowledgement v i i PREFACE: Semiotic S o c i e t y Of America Paper " A r c h i t e c t u r a l Semiotic A n a l y s i s : A Demonstration" 1 INTRODUCTION 15 A. INTENT OF THE THESIS 15 B. ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS 21 C. NOTES 24 I. MEANING IN ARCHITECTURE: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 25 A. INTRODUCTION: STRUCTURALISM AND SEMIOTICS 2 5 B. DIRECTIONS IN ARCHITECTURAL SEMIOTICS 29 1. The Meaning Of The Object 29 2. The Language Analogy In A r c h i t e c t u r e 31 1. D i f f e r e n t Phases Of The Use Of The Analogy 31 2. C r i t i c i s m Of The Analogy 34 C. CONCLUSION 37 D. NOTES 40 I I . THE ARCHITECTURAL SIGN 43 A. INTRODUCTION 43 B. THE NATURE OF THE SIGN 43 1. D i s c u s s i o n Of D i f f e r e n t Models 43 2. The Model Of Content And Ex p r e s s i o n 46 C. THE ARCHITECTURAL SYSTEM 52 1. The A r c h i t e c t u r a l Syntax 53 2. Functions And S i g n i f i c a t i o n Of The A r c h i t e c t u r a l Object 54 D. THE FUNCTION OF THE SIGN IN COMMUNICATION 58 E. NOTES 63 I I I . THE DESIGN ACTIVITY 66 A. INTRODUCTION 66 B. THE NATURE OF THE DESIGN ACTIVITY 67 1. The Systematic Approach To Design: D i r e c t i o n s And Problems 67 2. Design As A C o g n i t i v e A c t i v i t y 69 1. A MODEL OF THE DESIGN ACTIVITY AND PROCESS 74 1. The Analogy To The Speech Act 74 2. A Model Of Design A c t i v i t y 77 C. THE SEMIOTIC ASPECT OF DESIGN 84 D. NOTES 92 IV. ARCHITECTURAL CODES 96 A. INTRODUCTION: THE NOTION OF CODE 96 B. ARCHITECTURAL CODES 100 1. T h e i r Nature 100. C. CLASSIFICATION OF CODES 102 D. THE SYSTEM OF CODES 109 E. NOTES 112 V. A PRELIMINARY APPLICATION OF CODES TO SEMIOTIC ANALYSIS 114 A. NOTES 130 V C O N C L U S I O N S 1 3 1 B . N O T E S 1 3 7 B I B L I O G R A P H Y . . . 1 3 8 v i L i s t of F i g u r e s 1. The t r i a n g l e of Ogden and Richards . 44 2. The model of content and e x p r e s s i o n i n language - An example 48 3. The model of content and e x p r e s s i o n i n language: I n t e r p r e t e d by Hjelsmlev 49 4. The model of content and e x p r e s s i o n i n a r c h i t e c t u r e : I n t e r p e t e d by Eco 50 5. The model of content and e x p r e s s i o n i n a r c h i t e c t u r e : I n t e r p r e t e d by S c a l v i n i 50 6. An example of the content and e x p r e s s i o n model in a r c h i t e c t u r e 51 7. The content and e x p r e s s i o n model i n a r c h i t e c t u r e : I n t e r p r e t e d by the author 52 8. The f o u r - f u n c t i o n model of H i l l i e r and Leaman 54 9. M o d i f i c a t i o n of the f o u r - f u n c t i o n model to accommodate the not i o n of s i g n i f i c a t i o n 56 10. Types of i n d i c a t o r s a c c o r d i n g to Bonta 61 11. Design a c t i v i t y i n an analogy to the speech act 76 12. The entrance of the Museum of Antropology 78 13. Entrance and b u i l d i n g i n terms of s c a l e 79 14. A r t i c u l a t i o n of the entrance 80 15. F a c t o r s o p e r a t i n g d u r i n g the design a c t i v i t y 81 16. Communication in a r c h i t e c t u r e 84 17. The m a n i f o l d s t r u c t u r e and the s i g n 86 18. The process of design 88 19. C o g n i t i v e stages i n the process of mapping of content to e x p r e s s i o n during the design a c t i v i t y 88 20. Operation of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes and the code of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s 90 21. The a r c h i t e c t o n i c system a c c o r d i n g to P r e z i o s i 100 22. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes 106 23. R e l a t i o n s h i p between codes of e x p r e s s i o n and codes of content 109 24. The process of s e m i o t i c a n a l y s i s 118 25. Issues concerning the context of the a n a l y s i s 120 26. E x p r e s s i o n codes: A n a l y s i s of a r c h i t e c t u r a l order ...122 27. E x p r e s s i o n codes: A n a l y s i s of the "rhythm" 123 28. E x p r e s s i o n codes: "Rhythm" - F u r t h e r a n a l y s i s 124 29. Matrix of elements 125 30. E x p r e s s i o n codes: " D i a l e c t i c s of space" .125 31. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the system of s i g n s 127 v i i Acknowledgement Few words as an acknowledgement i s h a r d l y enough to express my thanks to a l l those who helped me to undertake and complete t h i s study: • Shelagh Lindsey, without whose he l p t h i s t h e s i s would have never be completed. I would l i k e to thank her f o r the o p p o r t u n i t y she gave me to work in t h i s f i e l d , and to present a paper at the Semiotic S o c i e t y of America, ( N a s h v i l l e ) , and at the T h i r d I n t e r n a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e of Semiotic and S t r u c t u r a l S t u d i e s , (Toronto); f o r f o s t e r i n g my a p p r e c i a t i o n of academic s c h o l a r s h i p , and f o r her o v e r a l l i n t e r e s t , support, and encouragement, • Andrew G r u f t , f o r h i s encouraging help, f o r h i s time and e f f o r t to go over the manuscript so many times, to c o r r e c t , q u e s t i o n , and suggest. His support was most v a l u a b l e . • J a c q u e l i n e V i s c h e r , f o r her u s e f u l suggestions and her t h o u g h t f u l a t t e n t i o n to i s s u e s which needed more refinement. • Douglas Shadbolt, f o r h i s i n t e r e s t i n the s u b j e c t and h i s w i l l i n g n e s s to be a reader. • A l s o : Mr Henders at the Awards O f f i c e , Dr A. Freeze and Ms A. Eden of Graduate S t u d i e s , f o r v i i i t h e i r support; The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia f o r making my s t u d i e s f i n a n c i a l l y f e a s i b l e through Graduate F e l l o w s h i p s . F i n a l l y I should a l s o l i k e to thank my f r i e n d s who, though not d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d i n the t h e s i s , helped to make my l i f e i n Vancouver more i n t e r e s t i n g . Among those who can not be f o r g o t t e n : Ragnhild T o r s t e i n s r u d , and Sean Boyle. 1 PREFACE: S e m i o t i c S o c i e t y of America Paper " A r c h i t e c t u r a l S e m i o t i c A n a l y s i s : A D e m o n s t r a t i o n " An a n a l y s i s of the Museum of A n t h r o p o l o g y a t UBC, a st u d e n t p r o j e c t i n s p r i n g 1980, was a f i r s t s t e p towards an approach which would l a t e r form the t o p i c of t h i s t h e s i s . The concept of the a n a l y s i s was the f o l l o w i n g : i n s t e a d of a n a l y s i n g the b u i l d i n g i n terms of f u n c t i o n , or f l o o r p l a n , of form, e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n t e x t , m a t e r i a l s and so f o r t h , as i s u s u a l l y the ca s e , one c o u l d i d e n t i f y some of the c o n c e p t s t h a t appear s i g n i f i c a n t f o r the a r c h i t e c t , and use them as parameters t o e x p l a i n the d e s i g n of the b u i l d i n g . Examining how those c o n c e p t s penetrate, the c o m p o s i t i o n , one would not o n l y be a b l e to u n d e r s t a n d some of the reasons b e h i n d the c o m p o s i t i o n , but a l s o t o f i n d c r i t e r i a t o t e s t the coherence of the d e s i g n . I s s u e s of t h i s t y p e , as i d e n t i f i e d by the a r c h i t e c t , were s i t e , l i g h t , space, and cadence. The Museum, an e x h i b i t i o n space f o r NW Coast I n d i a n A r t , c o n c e i v e d by the a r c h i t e c t as a p a t h , was examined through these p a r a m e t e r s . The aim of t h i s type of a n a l y s i s was to u n d e r s t a n d how the b u i l d i n g was composed as an e x p r e s s i o n of a number of c o n c e p t s , and t o e l i c i t the meaning e x p r e s s e d through t h i s c o m p o s i t i o n . The s e m i o t i c substance of such an approach, p o i n t e d out by P r o f . L i n d s e y , l e d t o the e l a b o r a t i o n of the a n a l y s i s i n a s e m i o t i c c o n t e x t . The n o t i o n of codes was i n t r o d u c e d , i n o r d e r t o d e f i n e the c o n c e p t s which i n f l u e n c e the a r t i c u l a t i o n and c o m p o s i t i o n of the b u i l d i n g as a m e a n i n g f u l a r t i f a c t . T h i s approach, e x p r e s s e d i n the f o l l o w i n g paper, ( p u b l i s h e d i n the P r o c e e d i n g s of the 2 Annual Conference of the S e m i o t i c S o c i e t y of America, October 1981), ( i n p r e s s ) , o f f e r e d the b a s i s and the p r e l i m i n a r y framework f o r t h i s t h e s i s . A number of im p o r t a n t i s s u e s , however, were e i t h e r o n l y b r i e f l y o u t l i n e d , or not a d d r e s s e d a t a l l i n t h i s p r e l i m i n a r y approach: what i s the n a t u r e of the codes, where t h i s type of a n a l y s i s f i t s i n t o the c o n t e x t of o t h e r s e m i o t i c r e s e a r c h , or what i s the n a t u r e of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l s i g n , were some of the q u e s t i o n s t h a t were not r a i s e d . At the same t i m e , the study of H i l l i e r and Leaman's s t r u c t u r a l i s t approach t o a r c h i t e c t u r e and the d e s i g n e r ' s p r e s t r u c t u r e s p l a c e d those q u e s t i o n s i n a broader c o n t e x t . I t would be p o s s i b l e t o e s t a b l i s h the b a s i s f o r the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the f o r m a t i o n and o p e r a t i o n of the codes as p a r t of c o g n i t i o n , and, through t h i s , t o e x p l a i n meaning a t t r i b u t i o n as o c c u r i n g d u r i n g d e s i g n , which was an u n d e r l y i n g theme of the approach. The aim then of t h i s t h e s i s became t o e s t a b l i s h the t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s f o r the s p e c i f i c approach t o s e m i o t i c a n a l y s i s , as e x e m p l i f i e d by the a n a l y s i s of the Museum, and t o e x p l o r e f u r t h e r the c h a r a c t e r and c o g n i t i v e o r i g i n s of the codes. 3 ARCHITECTURAL SEMIOTIC ANALYSIS A DEMONSTRATION Shelagh Lindsey and Irini Sakellaridou School of Architecture University of British Columbia The emphasis in this report is upon a semiotic analysis of a particular building through the identification and operation of codes. Several assumptions were made. No attempt is made to review the literature on semiotic analysis or to elaborate the assumptions. The demonstration indicates that the function of codes reveals signs and their meaning. Semiotic analysis attempts to discover what is there to be read. What was intended by the architect may become apparent. But the codes which function for the designer may not for the viewer. The building has identifiable rules and conventions for the codes and sub-codes which direct the systemic signification of the building. The set of codes provides the basis for a synchronic interpretation. The method can be considered empirical and objective. Acceptance of code types for particular buildings can be expected. It might be possible to identify nil the notions which could have the status of codes. However, for each specific building, the ordering principles which give logical and actual internal connection to a l l the codes of the building could be identified from the relevant docu- mentation (cf Barthea (1964) (1967: 95-98). Consistent with the design activity and the complexity of professional constraints and opportunities, three code categories were identified. These are: architectural codes; building type conventions, program requirements and external constraints; and technical codes. Building typology and the program were classified together and these codes may have a' generative influence on the Interface of expression and content. Table 1 Indicates the codes within the categories. Table 2 explains the formulation of the codes as they function inter and intra the two planes. The building chosen for analysis, The Museum of Anthropology, designed by Arthur Erickson Associates, was completed in 1976. The Museum is primarily a research and teaching institution for Northwest Indian culture but there is also an extensive public program. The Museum is located on the cl i f f s immediately above the south shore of Georgia Strait at Point Grey, the promentory at the entry to Burrard Inlet, Vancouver, Canada. The University of British Columbia is to the south of the Museum on an orthogonal grid. During World War II there were extensive defence installations on this coastline. The building, by its very nature, is an nnswer to 'climatic, behavioral, economic, and symbolic aspects, (4- function model). All these contribute to the formation of the way of l i f e that the architect decides to project through the particular building. This happens by the elaboration of codes and sub-codes, organized systemically. He translates them through his personal attitudes, values, and architectural style. The analysis proceeds vith.thd identification of the operating codes-in the Museum. The building program, articles in the architectural press, a book by the architect on his own work, and newspaper articles were consulted. The codes specific to the Museum are given in Table 3. Their operative function is explained in Table 4. Two codes, architectural order and rhythm, are read to illustrate how the meaning of the building is exposed. The parti of the building derives from the Y axis, perpendicular to the site, intersected by the X axis of the gun emplace- ments. The volumetric relationships of the building generated by the axes have an identifiable rhythm, a code which has a particular significance to the architect. 5 Architectural Table 1.-'Types of Codes Building type conventions" |1. Order (s) a. Rules adopted or adapted, b. Transformation of rules toward issues like inside-outside, solid - void, "• " c. Dialectics of apace- structuring. 2. Recurrent elements or shapes operative as symbols |3. Architectural issues of significance to the architect, Architect's stylistic context and morphological expression. Program requirements External constraints 1. Particular building type, 2. Program as generative or as functional possibilities, 3. Site and context. Technical 1. Structure 2. Materials and texture 3. Colour 4.. Lighting Table 2. Plane of Content and Plane of E xpres3ion Ideas to be expressed v-;- Functional requirements Context. ;xpreasio Architect's particular understanding First mapping between ideas and their architectural expression. Building type, Program, a. desired way of l i f e b. ideological issues and symbolization c. activities, Context. Content Meaning of expressive systems, Architect's idiom and values. EXPRESSION Expression Expressive system in three di- mensional form. Architectural and technical codes as used for spatial and formal manipulation. Table 3. Codes present in the Museum Architectural Building type conventions Program requirements External constraints 1. Order 1. Museum a. Intersection of Y with X a. Main permanent collectio axis, datum on Y axis formally integrated with b. Of particular consequence the design, to inside-outside, b. Research collection a l -primary and secondary ways accessible to the paths, public, 2. Recurrent formal element c. Expression of main a. Post and Beam permanent collection 3. Architectural issues of dominates research and significance to the teaching. architect 2. Program as an initiator a. space of functional space b. site •structuring c light 3. Building as a sign for d. rhythm-cadence-movement Indian art and culture, 4 . Stylistic convention a. Building as an a. Late Modern artifact b. Metaphoric relationships. 4. Site - proximity to marine c l i f f s . | Technical Two structural systems, a. Structural system part of morpholical expression b. structural grid Concrete and glass alternate for solid and void, Colours are primarily neutral, :Succession of natural and a r t i f i c i a l light :and shadows. Table 4. Codes in Operation Constraints Architect's schema (personal codes) as a fil t e r Primary Generating Concepts Codes Expressive Artefact Program Requirements 1. Museum for Indian Art 2. Sign of Indian Art 3. Research Mu seum External constraints 1. Context UBC Campus Existing gun emplacements 2. Site charact- eristics slope view c l i f f Architectural idiom Late-modern Geometric form Post and Beam theme Issues of Importance Site Light Cadence Space Gun emplacement horizontal axis Museum as a path Opening to nature Verticality symbol of totems Architectural order Intersection of Y and X axes Permanent c o l l - ection on Y axes Research and offices as second- ary through datum on X axes Site Space Symbolism Post and Beam Building as metaphor Rhythm Morphological elements "Structure Materials Museum as a path which leads sym- bolically to nature. Continuous penetration of outside to inside Metaphorical use of post and beam. 8 I 1. The main entry on tin; south facade. 2. The west facade begins with the entry and the naturally l i t foyer. 3. The small exterior court brings the gun emplacements into the buildIng. A. The west facade with the gun emplacements i n the foreground. 5. The main e x h i b i t i o n h a l l : the post mid beam theme Is repeated and doubled. (). The north fnende from the Indian v i l l a g e . 9 Reading of the Codes - Architectural ord er The Museum was conceived as a path commencing with an introduction leading to an initiation and climaxed by a celebration..The path begins in shadow, opens to light and in so doing celebrates the proximity of Indian art to nature. The path is expressed on the main Y axis that forms the basic architectural order of the plan. The existing axis of the gun emplacements provides the other axis and intersects with the main path. O I n t e r s e c t i o n of Y and X axes Datum on Y a x i s P a r t i 1. Permanent e x h i b i t i o n 2. Changing E x h i b i t i o n 3. Research C o l l e c t i o n 4. O f f i c e s Code of the Y a x i s - permanent e x h i b i t i o n , accepts the changing e x h i b i t i o n and connects w i t h the f u n c t i o n s on the datum. 5. The primary generating code of the path on the Y a x i s moves down the s i t e to connect, through s o l i d and v o i d , the i n s i d e and the o u t s i d e . The code of the s t r u c t u r e and g r i d operate together to gi v e rhythm to the formal e x p r e s s i o n . 1 0 Reading of the Codes - Rhythm - Exterior The rhythm of volumes, spaces, and forms follows an identifiable pattern. It arises from the juxtaposition.of the different volumes and their particular dimensions, direction, proportions and morphological expression. The. elements contradict'and. co-operate in response to the different functions and their formal spatial relationships. The operation of the code is shown in Table 5, where the code is analyzed in its elements and rules. Identified code signification reveals the expression of specific intentions through the architectural bbject. C Z 3 D • on -\a *-b-t-a»-b-+ a t- n nan a »-br a<cwi*oa* rrrrrr o. 6. Rhythm i s com- posed of elements and the ~ r u l e s of t h e i r combination. 7. The elements as combined i n the west facade. 8. The r u l e of s o l i d , and v o i d . 4^a^vokl 1 inirpductipi -MHse initiation pause " ^ 0 ' < n )lid 'void , r^ s o l i c r " void 1 9. The complete exp r e s s i o n of the three stages i n the path. 11 Cod« 1. Rhythm (as analyzed on the west facade) Table 5 - A n a l y s i s of Rhythm S i g n i f i c a t i o n Void f o r c i r c u l - a t i o n and lior i z o n t a l dimension i n f l o o r p lan S o l i d f or ex- h i b i t i o n spaces V e r t i c a l ( S o l i d - V o i d ) f o r ^nain e x h i b i t i o n h a l l Elements Spatial elements different in Geometry Square Orthogonal V e r t i c a l Dimension Intent (Content) Permits v i s u a l contact with nature View unobstructed V e r t i c a l elements ns s i g n s i o r totems Contact with nature ( f o r e s t image) Rules 1 . Combination Jflflu • • • 2. Solid - void Expression I n t e r a c t i o n of Rules and Elements Rules V e r t i c a l Orthogonal S o l i d A r e p e t i t - i v e theme f o r the ent ranee and ex- h i b i t i o n spaces E x h i b i t i o n Void The sub-code of rhythm could be analyzed In c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the code of m a t e r i a l s : s o l i d - co n c r e t e ; v o i d - g l a s s . S i m i l u r i l y , the coded r e l a t i o n s h i p s between m a t e r i a l s and mo r p h o l o g i c a l elements c o u l d a l s o be demonstrated. 1 2 Reading of the Codes - Rhythm - Interior Movement on a path is a major code for the building. The character of the path depends upon the coherence of space, proceeding from light to lark to light, the structural grid, the floor and ceiling, the materials, permanent placement of artifacts, relationship of inside to outside and the changing views. 10. Symbolic element of post and beam as a sign for entry and intro- duction to the path. Absorption at the entry and the symbolic use of a wall to disguise the path. 12. Interplay of light and rhythm. and shadow by the code of order 13. The contour of 13 Table 6. - Identification of Signs System of Codes | l . Datum on Y 1axisi along the X axis 2. Y axis | l . solid-void light - 3hadow 2. verticality |3. solid-void verticality final stage of the rhythm |4. structure Elements as Signs Functional spaces placed parallel to the X axis North facade Artificia l lake (never constructed) Sequence of spaces for more exhi- bition concrete and glass volumes the poles main hall post and beam Meaning A metaphor for the way the NW Indian Village relates to the sea Reinforcing the metaphor Museum con- ceived on a path. Type of Sign Intentional index Signal Intentional index A metaphor for a forest a metaphor for the totem poles celebration of nature as the physical environment for the totems a metaphor for the NW coast Indian Village Intentional index Index Signal Intentional index After the identification of codes, i t is possible to identify the signs present in the building and their relationship to each other. Table 6 clarifies how codes operate on recognizable signs to reveal meaning. The presentation in Table 6 is adapted from Jencks (1980:78) and Bonta (1979:28). The evident relationship between codes, signs, meaning, and sign type indicates that signs are specific to a building and become evident during the analysis of code operation. The signs in the Museum are) of two types: volumetric spaces and building elements. 1 4 During the reading of relevant documentation, two metaphors were canonical; the post and beam as a metaphor for the Indian house; the relationship of the building to the coast as a metaphor for the Indian v i l l a g e . The analysis reveals that these and other meanings were intentional .̂ f or. the architect, e.g. the Museum as path and the proximity of Indian art to nature. Even.though meaning attribution may change through time, the identification of codes and their operation i s an empirical process which relates the signs to the meaning of the real object, the building. References Barthes, Roland, Elements of Semiology, F i r s t published 1964 in French, Translated by Annette Lavers and Colin Smith, H i l l and Wang, 1967. Bonta, Juan Pablo, Architecture and i t s interpretation, Riz z o l i , 1979. Jencks, Charles, "The Architectural Sign:, in Broadbent, Geoffrey, Richard Bunt, and Charles Jencks, (eds.), Signs, Symbols, and Architecture, John Wiley and Sons, 1980, 71 - 118. Bibliography Brawn, Graham, and Associates, Ltd., UBC Functional Programme: Museum of Man, Draft, Books I and II. Erickson, Arthur, The Architecture of Arthur Erickson, Montreal, Tundra Books, 1975. Lehrman, "Museum of Anthropology: An Appraisal," The Canadian Architect, May 1977, 54-62. Vastokas, J.M., Architecture of the Northwest Coast, Ann Arbor, University Microfilms, 1966. . ,. — — • Architecture as cultural expression: Arthur Erickson and the new Museum of Anthropology " Arts Canada, Oct. - Nov., 1976, 1 - 1 5 1 5 INTRODUCTION A. INTENT OF THE THESIS A r c h i t e c t u r e , i n broad terms understood to i n c l u d e the b u i l t environment, re p r e s e n t s a c u l t u r a l system, which operates, among others i n the domain of systems of s i g n i f i c a t i o n . 1 I t i s t h e r e f o r e amenable to s e m i o t i c a n a l y s i s , which attempts to i d e n t i f y the e x p r e s s i v e s i g n s i n •a system of d i s c o u r s e . Semiotic a n a l y s i s focuses on an important aspect of a r c h i t e c t u r e , that of i t s o p e r a t i o n as an e x p r e s s i v e system. From t h i s p o i n t of view, a r c h i t e c t u r e i s understood to be not only a system which operates on a p r i m a r i l y f u n c t i o n a l l e v e l , but a l s o a system of d i s c o u r s e , which i s used to e l u c i d a t e meaning, to transform conceptual i n t e n t i o n s i n t o t h r e e - dimensional form. Most a r c h i t e c t u r a l s e m i o t i c a n a l y s i s to date attempts to d e f i n e e i t h e r the meaning as a whole, on the l e v e l of metaphor, that people a t t r i b u t e to a b u i l d i n g , or to examine an a r c h i t e c t u r a l element i n a l l i t s p o s s i b l e s i g n i f i c a t i o n , or to i d e n t i f y a b u i l d i n g as a meaningful a r t i f a c t based on a complex s e m i o t i c model of the s i g n i n g e n e r a l 2 . These approaches emphasize mainly what the meaning i s and not how i t i s p o s s i b l e ; how i t i s generated through the p a r t i c u l a r r e a l i z a t i o n of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t . T h i s aspect appears to be a necessary c o n d i t i o n f o r the understanding of meaning i t s e l f . The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of how meaning i s made r a i s e s the issue of 1 6 a r c h i t e c t u r e as a metalanguage 3 , i n that i t does not p l a c e emphasis on the p a r t i c u l a r e x p r e s s i o n of meaning, ( a r c h i t e c t u r e as a language), but on how the system of d i s c o u r s e i s organized; i t s elements, r u l e s , and domains; and the c o n d i t i o n s , and o p e r a t i o n s , under which the o b j e c t f u n c t i o n s as a meaningful a r t i f a c t . On the e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l l e v e l of metalanguage, one can use methodological t o o l s , or draw a n a l o g i e s , from other f i e l d s of c u l t u r a l study. However, the o p e r a t i o n a l merit of the p a r t i c u l a r t o o l s should be judged a c c o r d i n g to the s p e c i f i c nature of the examined d i s c i p l i n e , i . e . , a r c h i t e c t u r e . The a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t , as an e x p r e s s i o n of the system in m a t e r i a l form, rep r e s e n t s a system of d i f f e r e n t s i g n s . The s t r u c t u r a l r u l e s f o r t h i s system can a l s o be used for i n t e r p r e t a t i v e reasons, (a b a s i c axiomatic n o t i o n f o r s t r u c t u r a l i s m ) , i n that they have a r e f e r e n c e to the meaning the a r c h i t e c t intended through h i s d e s i g n . They represent the b a s i s f o r the a r c h i t e c t u r a l composition and the f i r s t meaning a t t r i b u t i o n as t a k i n g p l a c e d u r i n g d e s i g n . I t appears that the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of those r u l e s , and the examination of meaning a t t r i b u t i o n as p e r t a i n i n g to the composition of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t , c o u l d r e v e a l i s s u e s concerning the nature of a r c h i t e c t u r a l s i g n i f i c a t i o n and a r c h i t e c t u r e i t s e l f i n a s i m i l a r way that the study of speech c o u l d uncover aspects of the s t r u c t u r a l nature of language. I t i s suggested that the examination of how the a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t i s composed i n t o a system of s i g n i f i c a t i v e u n i t s , ( s i g n s ) , should precede the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of what i t s 1 7 meaning i s . T h i s approach would uncover the b a s i c r u l e s that c r e a t e the o b j e c t , and i t would examine the s i g n s as u n i t s i n a meaningful whole, composed by them, the meaning of which i s more than the sum of the u n i t s . The suggested approach takes a s t r u c t u r a l view, in that i t attempts to uncover the s t r u c t u r a l r u l e s of the o b j e c t , and to p l a c e the o b j e c t i n a r e l a t i o n to the general system of d i s c o u r s e of the b u i l t environment. Meaning a t t r i b u t e d to the b u i l d i n g d u r i n g design, through i t s e x p r e s s i v e composition, i s understood to be the f i r s t step for a s e m i o t i c a n a l y s i s . Meaning comprehension, as o c c u r i n g during the use of the b u i l d i n g i n time, i s a l a t e r , but r e l a t e d , step. Before we d e f i n e the b u i l d i n g as a meaningful a r t i f a c t , ( s e m i o t i c a n a l y s i s ) , we need to p l a c e i t in a r e l a t i o n s h i p to the general a r c h i t e c t u r a l system of s i g n i f i c a t i o n , and to e s t a b l i s h an understanding of how, through meaning a t t r i b u t i o n o c c u r i n g d u r i n g design, i t i s composed i n t o meaningful form. The s t r u c t u r a l approach to a r c h i t e c t u r e , as expressed i n the w r i t i n g s of H i l l i e r and Leaman, i s accepted as a conceptual framework f o r t h i s t h e s i s . T h e i r approach r e p r e s e n t s a coherent e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l b a s i s f o r the understanding of a r c h i t e c t u r e as a c u l t u r a l a r t i f a c t , and f o r the e x p l a n a t i o n of the production of the b u i l t environment. I t i s based on an understanding of c o g n i t i o n as conceived by P i a g e t . The human s t r u c t u r i n g a c t i v i t y as the b a s i s of c o g n i t i o n , Piaget suggests, r e f l e c t s and presupposes the o r g a n i z a t i o n of c u l t u r a l systems in a s i m i l a r s t r u c t u r a l way. The i n d i v i d u a l transforms and a s s i m i l a t e s those s t r u c t u r e d c u l t u r a l systems and systems of 1 8 r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s , which e x i s t i n complete form only i n l o g i c a l space. " L o g i c a l space i s an imaginary, many dimensional space c r e a t e d by and f i l l e d with systems of s i g n s , symbols and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . I t e x i s t s n e i t h e r p u r e l y in our heads, nor i n r e a l space o u t s i d e , but c o n s t i t u t e s the medium through which the r e l a t i o n between the two i s made." " A r c h i t e c t u r e , as a c u l t u r a l a r t i f a c t , e x i s t s i n l o g i c a l space. I t e x h i b i t s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s i m i l a r to other c u l t u r a l systems, whether they are systems of k i n s h i p , r e l i g i o n , v a l u e s or myths, or s p e c i f i c systems of d i s c o u r s e and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , l i k e language, l i t e r a t u r e or a r t . I t organizes a set of l o g i c a l elementary u n i t s i n s t u c t u r a l wholes, f o l l o w i n g r u l e s of syntax, and i t r e l a t e s those s t r u c t u r e d elements to a uni v e r s e of s i g n i f i c a t i o n , through the o p e r a t i o n of i m p l i c i t r u l e s . The b u i l t environment r e p r e s e n t s the m a t e r i a l e x p r e s s i o n of a s t r u c t u r e that "does not e x i s t i n s p a t i a l l y u n i f i e d form." 5 The e x i s t e n c e of t h i s l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e c o n s t i t u t e s the b a s i s for the i n d i v i d u a l ' s understanding of and a c t i o n on the b u i l t environment, not only i n pragmatic and f u n c t i o n a l terms, but, e q u a l l y important, as a m a t e r i a l e x p r e s s i o n of s o c i a l v a l u e s and norms. Thus the i n d i v i d u a l , (designer or u s e r ) , p e r c e i v e s the b u i l t environment through an a l r e a d y p r e - s t r u c t u r e d scheme. T h i s scheme, a c q u i r e d through s o c i a l i z a t i o n , may d i f f e r i n the degree of e l a b o r a t i o n among d i f f e r e n t d e s i g n e r s or us e r s . What remains s u b s t a n t i a l l y the same though, i s i t s ba s i c o r g a n i z a t i o n ; t h i s scheme or g a n i z e s elements of the b u i l t environment, p e r c e i v e d as l o g i c a l u n i t s , i n t o wholes, through 1 9 the o p e r a t i o n of g e n e r i c , r u l e - l i k e n o t i o n s , and a t t r i b u t e s to these wholes s p e c i f i c s i g n i f i c a t i o n , s ubject to s o c i o - c u l t u r a l norms or p e r s o n a l i d i o s y n c r a c i e s . On the b a s i s of the above understanding, the a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t i s seen as part of the general system, with r u l e s of composition and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n b e a r i n g a c e r t a i n resemblance, ( i n nature and not i n s p e c i f i c i t y ) , to the r u l e s of t h i s g e n e r a l system. Those r u l e s are a s s i m i l a t e d and transformed by the designer d u r i n g the design a c t i v i t y . C o d i f i c a t i o n , understood as the act of code c r e a t i o n and o p e r a t i o n , i s the u n d e r l y i n g c o n d i t i o n f o r the s t r u c t u r i n g of the system of d i s c o u r s e , of the way i t i s a s s i m i l a t e d by the i n d i v i d u a l , and of the d e s i g n e r ' s a c t s and meaning a t t r i b u t i o n . On t h i s b a s i s , t h i s t h e s i s attempts to uncover the s p e c i f i c i t y of a r c h i t e c t u r a l c o d i f i c a t i o n , through the understanding of design as a c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t y , and to d e f i n e the nature of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes, understood as the r u l e s that connect the b u i l d i n g a r t i c u l a t i o n , and composition, to a universe of meaning. A d i v i s i o n of those codes i s suggested as codes of e x p r e s s i o n and c o n t e n t . The f i r s t d e f i n e the c o m p o s i t i o n a l r u l e s f o r the a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t , both in terms of formal and m a t e r i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . For example,.a g r i d , as d e f i n i n g both the order, and the span of the s t r u c t u r a l beams. The second draw upon the c o m p o s i t i o n a l , s t r u c t u r a l r u l e s , and r e l a t e these r u l e s to domains of content as given by a r c h i t e c t u r a l theory and s t y l e , environmental context and o r g a n i z a t i o n of the a r c h i t e c t ' s , and user's, c o l l e c t i v e , and 20 s o c i o - c u l t u r a l f a c t o r s . For example, a c r o s s r e p r e s e n t s , i n terms of order, a c r o s s - s e c t i o n of two axes; but, i n symbolic r e f e r e n c e to C h r i s t i a n i t y , i t becomes, i n the Byzantine s t y l e , the accepted order f o r the b u i l d i n g type of a church. The codes of e x p r e s s i o n i n t e r p r e t the b u i l d i n g as a s i g n of a r c h i t e c t u r a l formation, e.g., a x i a l i t y , while the codes of content p l a c e i t in a u n i v e r s e of complex meaning, which may extend beyond the l e v e l of i t s immediate, f u n c t i o n a l s i g n i f i c a t i o n , e.g., C h r i s t i a n i t y , r e f e r e n c e to other churches of the same type, t r a d i t i o n vs modernity, and so f o r t h . In summary, the o b j e c t i v e of t h i s t h e s i s i s twofold: f i r s t , to e s t a b l i s h an understanding of the c o g n i t i v e b a s i s , and c h a r a c t e r , of a r c h i t e c t u r a l c o d i f i c a t i o n as o c c u r i n g i n p a r t i c u l a r d u r i n g the design a c t i v i t y . Second, to examine the a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes, understood as the r u l e s which i n t e r p r e t e the meaningful a r t i f a c t through the c o g n i t i v e act of meaning a t t r i b u t i o n . Though the quest i o n of a e s t h e t i c value i s not asked on t h i s l e v e l , i t i s f e l t that t h i s a n a l y t i c a l procedure c o u l d o f f e r a b a s i s f o r a r c h i t e c t u r a l c r i t i c i s m , through the uncovering of the way i n t e n t i o n s are t r a n s l a t e d i n t o e x p r e s s i v e form. I t c o u l d a l s o have e d u c a t i o n a l m e r i t , i n that i t c o u l d be used to teach a r c h i t e c t u r a l students how meaning can be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n the a r c h i t e c t u r a l s y n t h e s i s . Based on the above framework, the d i f f e r e n t p a r t s of the t h e s i s can now be d e s c r i b e d and o u t l i n e d i n the v a r i o u s assumptions, arguments, and j u s t i f i c a t i o n s that are made. 2 1 B. ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS The t h e s i s proceeds from the d e f i n i t i o n of the conceptual framework, and the a n a l y s i s of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l s i g n , to the d i s c u s s i o n of the notion of c o d i f i c a t i o n as p e r t a i n i n g to the design a c t i v i t y , and the examination of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes. The s i g n as the s i g n i f i c a t i v e u n i t , the o r g a n i z a t i o n of the s y n t a c t i c and semantic domain of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l system of s i g n i f i c a t i o n , and the codes, as the s t r u c t u r a l r u l e s that operate f o r the t r a n s l a t i o n of the s y n t a c t i c to semantic domain, are examined. An a p p l i c a t i o n of the notion of a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes to s e m i o t i c a n a l y s i s i s suggested. I t i s p a r t i a l l y based on the p r e l i m i n a r y example of such a n a l y s i s given i n the pr e f a c e as an i n t r o d u c t i o n to the problem. In chapter I the conceptual framework i s e s t a b l i s h e d . The notion of a r c h i t e c t u r e as a c u l t u r a l a r t i f a c t system, and the a p p l i c a t i o n of semiotic and s t r u c t u r a l i s t r e s e a r c h to a r c h i t e c t u r e are d i s c u s s e d . A review of the ba s i c trends i n the f i e l d of a r c h i t e c t u r a l s e m i o t i c s r e v e a l s the e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l stance of t h i s s p e c i f i c approach. The language analogy i n a r c h i t e c t u r e as the dominant paradigm f o r the d e s c r i p t i o n of a r c h i t e c t u r e as a system, of s i g n i f i c a t i o n and s i g n formation i s d i s c u s s e d i n grea t e r d e t a i l . I t s c r i t i c i s m attempts to d i s t i n g u i s h the o p e r a t i o n a l , and u s e f u l , notions of t h i s analogy, which c o u l d expand and form our understanding of a r c h i t e c t u r e as a semiotic system. C o d i f i c a t i o n i s understood to u n d e r l i e meaning a t t r i b u t i o n and comprehension i n such a 22 system. In chapter II the p a r t i c u l a r s e m i o t i c framework for the t h e s i s i s s e t . The a r c h i t e c t u r a l s i g n i s examined i n terms of g e n e r a l s e m i o t i c r e s e a r c h on the c h a r a c t e r of the s i g n , i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to r e a l and conceptual r e f e r e n t s . The range of semantic domains in which the a r c h i t e c t u r a l s i g n operates, i t s f u n c t i o n i n communication between the d e s i g n e r , as the person who i n v e s t s the s i g n with meaning, and the user, as the person who needs to comprehend the intended meaning, and the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s i g n and the general system of a r c h i t e c t u r a l s i g n i f i c a t i o n , cover d i f f e r e n t a spects of the s i g n ' s c h a r a c t e r . In chapter III the n o t i o n of c o d i f i c a t i o n , as p e r t a i n i n g to d e s i g n , i s examined through the d i s c u s s i o n of c u r r e n t approaches to design as a c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t y . The c o n j e c t u r a l nature of d e s i g n , the d e s i g n e r ' s p r e s t r u c t u r e s , and the o p e r a t i o n of codes d u r i n g the design a c t i v i t y are understood to be the b a s i c n o t i o n s that d e s c r i b e design as a c o g n i t i v e a c t . The s p e c i f i c i t y of those codes, the domains they operate on, and t h e i r a c t u a l o p e r a t i o n i s f u r t h e r i l l u s t r a t e d , and c o d i f i c a t i o n i s e s t a b l i s h e d as being fundamental to a r c h i t e c t u r a l meaning. The s p e c i f i c d e s c r i p t i o n of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes i s made in chapter IV. A f t e r the d e f i n i t i o n of the l e v e l on which the a r c h i t e c t u r a l code i s s t u d i e d , we proceed with the e x p l a n a t i o n of the nature of the code. A r c h i t e c t u r a l orders and r u l e s as elements of the code of formal o r g a n i z a t i o n , expressed and m o d i f i e d through the m a t e r i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , and i n r e f e r e n c e to 23 a l r e a d y s t r u c t u r e d and c o d i f i e d semantic domains, are seen to i d e n t i f y d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s of codes, d i v i d e d i n t o those of content and those of e x p r e s s i o n . In chapter V a p r e l i m i n a r y a p p l i c a t i o n of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes as t o o l s f o r s e m i o t i c a n a l y s i s of a b u i l d i n g i s o f f e r e d . F i n a l l y , the p o s s i b l e m e r i t , a p p l i c a t i o n and shortcomings of the approach, as argued f o r throughout the t h e s i s , and some d i r e c t i o n s f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h , are covered i n the c o n c l u d i n g sect i o n . 24 C. NOTES "The s i g n i f i c a t i o n can be conceived as a process; i t i s the act which binds the s i g n i f i e r and the s i g n i f i e d , an act whose product i s the s i g n . " Roland Barthes, Elements of Semiology, t r a n s l a t e d by A. Lavers and C. Smith, New York: H i l l and Wang, 1st ed. 1968, 6th p r i n t . 1980, p. 48. As f o r example the a n a l y s i s of the O l i v e t t i b u i l d i n g , Ch. Jencks, "A Semantic A n a l y s i s of S t i r l i n g ' s O l i v e t t i Centre Wing", i n G e o f f r e y Broadbent, Richard Bunt, C h a r l e s Jencks (ed.), Signs, Symbols, and A r c h i t e c t u r e , John Wiley & Sons, 1980, pp. 233-242; the a n a l y s i s of the column, Umberto Eco, "A Componential A n a l y s i s of the A r c h i t e c t u r a l S i g n : Column," Signs, Symbols, and A r c h i t e c t u r e , pp. 213-132; or the a n a l y s i s of Nazi A r c h i t e c t u r e , G e r a l d Blomeyer, " M a t e r i a l i z e d Ideology: A Semiotic A n a l y s i s of Monumental Nazi A r c h i t e c t u r e , " Ars Semeiotica, v o l . 2, no 3, 1978, pp. 73-106. "A metalanguage i s a system whose plane of content i s i t s e l f c o n s t i t u t e d by a s i g n i f y i n g system; or e l s e , i t i s a s e m i o t i c s which t r e a t s of a s e m i o t i c s . " R.Barthes, op. c i t . , p. 90. B i l l H i l l i e r and Adrian Leaman, "The Man-Environment Paradigm and i t s Paradoxes," A r c h i t e c t u r a l Design, no 8, 1973, p. 510. i b i d , p. 510. 25 I. MEANING IN ARCHITECTURE: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK A. INTRODUCTION: STRUCTURALISM AND SEMIOTICS A b a s i c purpose of a r c h i t e c t u r e i s to provide a s h e l t e r e d and c o n t r o l l e d p h y s i c a l environment; i t i s a u t i l i t a r i a n purpose. But even the simplest s t r u c t u r e can evoke f e e l i n g s , express i n t e n t i o n s , s i g n i f y a s i t u a t i o n , or communicate a message; q u a l i t i e s that extend beyond the immediate u t i l i t a r i a n purpose. Hence, the a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t i s i n v e s t e d with meaning, a f a c t which b r i n g s a r c h i t e c t u r e i n t o the sphere of s i g n i f i c a t i o n . The b u i l d i n g and the b u i l t environment i n ge n e r a l , as a human a r t i f a c t , are understood to take part i n a complex act of communication. Through d i v i s i o n s of spaces, en c l o s u r e a r t i c u l a t i o n s , or settlement formations, t h i s m u l t i - dimensional a ct of communication takes p l a c e , d u r i n g which the b u i l t environment o f f e r s the stage f o r s o c i e t y to express i t s orde r s and v a l u e s , to m a t e r i a l i z e i t s own image. As a man-made a r t i f a c t , o r ganized i n a meaningful system of elements and r e l a t i o n s h i p s , a r c h i t e c t u r e e s t a b l i s h e s i t s e l f as one of the s c i e n c e s of the a r t i f i c i a l 1 . They i n c l u d e a l l man- made systems, from language to urban space and s o c i a l norms, from a r c h i t e c t u r e to epistemology as the theory of knowledge i t s e l f . These a r t i f a c t systems e x h i b i t the main c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of being known and understood i n everyday l i f e , but they r e s i s t easy s c i e n t i f i c e x p l a n a t i o n of how t h i s i s p o s s i b l e . S t r u c t u r a l i s m 2 , as a method and an epistemology, has 26 undertaken such a task. I t t r i e s to r e c o n s t r u c t e x p l i c i t models of the i n t e r n a l l o g i c of the a r t i f a c t systems, to study what i s al r e a d y known i n the sphere of the i n d i v i d u a l as a member of a s o c i e t y , and to suggest an e x p l a n a t i o n of the c o n d i t i o n s under which t h i s knowing i s p o s s i b l e . S t r u c t u r a l i s m i s a method that p r e s c r i b e s c e r t a i n o p e r a t i o n s and ways of working on data. I t s ba s i c assumptions a r e : " a l l p a t t e r n s of human s o c i a l behaviour are codes with the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of language"; "man has an innate s t r u c t u r i n g a b i l i t y , which determines the l i m i t s w i t h i n which the s t r u c t u r e of a l l s o c i a l phenomena can be formed"; and " r e l a t i o n s can be reduced to bin a r y o p p o s i t i o n s " . 3 S t r u c t u r a l i s m has been a p p l i e d to d i f f e r e n t f i e l d s of human endeavour, l i k e l i n g u i s t i c s , anthropology, p o l i t i c a l s c i e n c e , psychology and epistemology, and i t s u n d e r l y i n g m o t i v a t i o n i s to make e x p l i c i t g e n e r i c s t r u c t u r e s , which remain unchanged over time. As Barthes remarks, The goal of a l l s t r u c t u r a l i s t a c t i v i t y . . . i s to r e c o n s t r u c t an 'object' i n such a way as to manifest thereby the r u l e s of f u n c t i o n i n g (the ' f u n c t i o n s ' ) of t h i s o b j e c t . S t r u c t u r e t h e r e f o r e i s a simulacrum of the o b j e c t , but a d i r e c t e d , i n t e r e s t e d simulacrum, s i n c e the i m i t a t e d o b j e c t makes something appear which remained i n v i s i b l e or, i f one p r e f e r s , u n i n t e l l i g i b l e i n the n a t u r a l o b j e c t . , S t r u c t u r a l man takes the r e a l , decomposes i t , then recomposes i t ; . . . t h e simulacrum i s i n t e l l e c t added to the o b j e c t , and t h i s a d d i t i o n has an a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l v a l u e , i n that i t i s man h i m s e l f , h i s h i s t o r y , h i s s i t u a t i o n , h i s freedom, and the very r e s i s t a n c e which nature o f f e r s to h i s mind." 27 In the same paper on the s t r u c t u r a l i s t a c t i v i t y , he concludes, "...what i s new {through s t r u c t u r a l i s m } i s a mode of thought (or a ' p o e t i c s ' ) which seeks l e s s to a s s i g n completed meanings to o b j e c t s i t d i s c o v e r s , than to know how meaning i s p o s s i b l e , at what c o s t and by. what means". 5 E x a c t l y t h i s p a r t i c u l a r aspect of meaning a t t r i b u t i o n and communication has become the f i e l d of s e m i o t i c s (or s e m i o l o g y ) . 6 S e m i o t i c s r e p r e s e n t s the study of s i g n s and t h e i r s i g n i f i c a t i o n , not so much on the range of what meanings are p o s s i b l e , but mainly on how and why meaning a t t r i b u t i o n i s p o s s i b l e . E s t a b l i s h e d as a s c i e n c e by de Saussure, i t mainly explored, d u r i n g i t s f i r s t s t e p s , the l i n g u i s t i c s i g n , to extend, l a t e r on, to the study of a l l systems of s i g n i f i c a t i o n . As i n the case of s t r u c t u r a l i s m , f o r s e m i o t i c s a l s o , language formed the b a s i c paradigm, s i n c e i t o f f e r e d ah e a s i l y a c c e s s i b l e organized symbolic system. Based on an understanding of a l l c u l t u r a l a r t i f a c t systems of s i g n i f i c a t i o n i n an analogy to language, semiotic r e s e a r c h attempted to examine the syntax and the semantics of s e m i o t i c systems, the s t r u c t u r i n g codes and the elementary u n i t s , and to r e c o n s t r u c t semiologies of those s i g n systems, w i t h i n the ( c l e a r or not) understanding t h a t language i s only one of the s t r u c t u r e s s t u d i e d by semiology. It i s important to understand s t r u c t u r a l i s m and s e m i o t i c s as r e l a t e d s c i e n c e s (or methods), based e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l l y on a general theory of c o g n i t i o n , as the innate s t r u c t u r i n g a b i l i t y of man, and on the -acceptance of the a r t i f a c t u a l and autonomous nature of s o c i a l c o nsciousness. 28 T h e i r assumptions and paradigms are s i m i l a r ; where they d i f f e r i s the p a r t i c u l a r focus of t h e i r i n t e r e s t . The understanding of a r c h i t e c t u r e as a c u l t u r a l a r t i f a c t and a system of s i g n i f i c a t i o n makes i t amenable to s t r u c t u r a l i s t and s e m i o t i c r e s e a r c h . As T a f u r i notes, " { s t r u c t u r a l i s m and semiotics} s a t i s f y the need for a s c i e n t i f i c b a s i s , and the need f o r o b j e c t i v i t y i s p a r t i c u l a r l y f e l t i n times of deep u n c e r t a i n t y and r e s t l e s n e s s " 7 , which c e r t a i n l y c h a r a c t e r i z e s the s t a t e of the a r t f o r a r c h i t e c t u r a l c r i t i c i s m and t h i n k i n g r e c e n t l y . They a l s o o f f e r , he c o n t i n u e s , ...a systematic commitment to understanding the phenomena that j u s t i f y the p o e t i c s of anguish and c r i s i s . . . A n d as d i a g n o s t i c methods - once recognized as such and not as f a s h i o n a b l e d o c t r i n e s or as a s i n g l e dogmatic corpus - s t r u c t u r a l i s m and semiology have a l r e a d y shown t h e i r e f f i c i e n c y . But they have a l s o shown the danger and the ideology h i d i n g behind t h e i r apparent lack of i d e o l o g y . Once more, then, c r i t i c i s m i s c a l l e d upon to give i t s c o n t r i b u t i o n : to choose and to p l a c e w i t h i n a w e l l founded h i s t o r i c i s m the m a t e r i a l s on o f f e r . 8 The d i f f e r e n t paths that s e m i o t i c s f o l l o w e d i n i t s a p p l i c a t i o n to a r c h i t e c t u r e , the language analogy and i t s c r i t i c i s m w i l l be presented and d i s c u s s e d , i n order to e s t a b l i s h the b a s i c assumptions and the conceptual framework for t h i s study. 29 B. DIRECTIONS IN ARCHITECTURAL SEMIOTICS Krampen 9 i d e n t i f i e s two trends i n the f i e l d of s e m i o t i c s of the o b j e c t , and consequently i n that of i t s a r c h i t e c t u r a l a p p l i c a t i o n . One which deals mainly with the meaning of the o b j e c t , i . e . , the b u i l d i n g as a s i g n , and another, which focuses i n s t e a d on the system the o b j e c t belongs to i n g e n e r a l , and t r i e s to e s t a b l i s h an understanding of i t as a system of s i g n i f i c a t i o n (semiology), i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to other d i s c i p l i n e s and mainly to that of l i n g u i s t i c s . In t h i s d i r e c t i o n f a l l the v a r i o u s approaches of what i s c a l l e d 'the language analogy' i n a r c h i t e c t u r e . 1 . The Meaning Of The Object In t h i s d i r e c t i o n we can again d i s t i n g u i s h two d i f f e r e n t r o u t e s : One "reduces the obj e c t to a s i g n " , and s t a t e s that each o b j e c t i s a sign of i t s f u n c t i o n . Thus, e v e r y t h i n g about a s i g n i s s e m i o t i c . The other "reduces the sign to an o b j e c t " , 1 0 The sem i o t i c aspect as a f u n c t i o n of communication i s co n s i d e r e d i n t h i s case only as one part of the f u n c t i o n of the o b j e c t . What i s appa r e n t l y hidden behind those two approaches i s the is s u e of s i g n i f i c a t i o n and communication i n a r c h i t e c t u r e . Let us then a x p l o r e how the argument develops. The a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t , through i t s u t i l i t a r i a n nature, can be c l a s s i f i e d as an " i n s t r u m e n t " 1 1 , used f o r one or more o p e r a t i o n s , namely the ones that form i t s b a s i c " f u n c t i o n " . 30 The l o g i c of "instruments" and the s e m i o t i c s of those systems whose purpose i s b a s i c a l l y u t i l i t a r i a n , and not a communicative one, have been s t u d i e d by P r i e t o . Every time that an "instrument", ( f o r example a type of d w e l l i n g ) , i s chosen, P r i e t o notes, apart from s a t i s f y i n g the b a s i c need, (housing), i t can a l s o be used to communicate, by means of the p a r t i c u l a r c h o i c e , "a s p e c i f i c conception of the o p e r a t i o n i t s e l f . " 1 2 (The d i f f e r e n c e between a detached house and a f l a t i n terms o f, f o r example, the concept of housing they r e p r e s e n t ) . The system of those instruments c o u l d be d e s c r i b e d as a system of s i g n i f i c a t i o n , whose primary aim i s simply to s i g n i f y a s i t u a t i o n , ( f o r example, " d w e l l i n g s " ) , and only s e c o n d a r i l y to communicate a message, ( f o r example, a "middle c l a s s image of a house"). Communication, as the s p e c i f i c investment of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t with meaning, i n r e f e r e n t i a l terms, w i l l be par t of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the general s y s t e m . 1 3 On t h i s b a s i s , S c a l v i n i , f o l l o w i n g P r i e t o ' s model, suggests t h a t , ...we can . c o n s i d e r a r c h i t e c t u r e as a system..., whose b a s i c aim (w i t h i n the e x t r a - a e s t h e t i c sphere as d e f i n e d by Mukarovsky) i s the non-communicative one..., but whose instruments can be chosen ( w i t h i n the a e s t h e t i c sphere) to communicate s p e c i f i c conceptions of the o p e r a t i o n s they allow. 1" But, the d i s t i n c t i o n between s i g n i f i c a t i o n and communication r a i s e s the q u e s t i o n whether the a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t should be co n s i d e r e d as a s i g n only when i t communicates a message, in r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r example to other o b j e c t s , or whether i t s b a s i c f u n c t i o n , u t i l i t y , should be c o n s i d e r e d a l s o 31 as s e m i o t i c . Barthes, with the no t i o n of "semantization of usage", understands the ob j e c t a l s o as a sign f o r i t s f u n c t i o n . Jencks and Eco f o l l o w a s i m i l a r d e f i n i t i o n . Thus, a house i s a si g n a l s o of " d w e l l i n g " , the concept and f u n c t i o n of housing. On the other hand, S c a l v i n i excludes f u n c t i o n from the semiotic f i e l d , and c l a s s i f i e s i t as a "basic aim" f o r the system. In t h i s case, "to house" i s the purpose of c r e a t i n g the a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t "house". What i s semiotic about the house i s the range of connotations i t c a r r i e s , as f o r example, a "middle class/young couple/modern house". T h i s a n t i t h e s i s does not appear to be r e s o l v e d y e t , and i t c h a r a c t e r i z e s , along with o t h e r s , two of the b a s i c trends i n the f i e l d of a r c h i t e c t u r a l semiot i c s . 2 « The Language Analogy In A r c h i t e c t u r e 1. D i f f e r e n t Phases Of The Use Of The Analogy The analogy of a r c h i t e c t u r e to the system of language i s not a recent one. As C o l l i n s 1 5 observes, by the middle of 1 8 t h century, the analogy appears i n some w r i t i n g s on. a r c h i t e c t u r e . But, as G u i l l e r m e notes, i t i s mainly used i n order to " v a l i d a t e competing morphological c h o i c e s by g r a f t i n g on them the p r e s t i g e of l i t e r a r y c r e a t i o n . " He remarks that, It {the analogy} was concerned simply with making e x p l i c i t the process of combination, 32 by r e l a t i n g i t to a fundamental and commonly h e l d knowledge of grammar. T h i s mode of d i d a c t i c commentary thus corresponded, to some degree to the d e s i r e of the a r c h i t e c t s to l e g i t i m i z e the p o e t i c s of t h e i r a r c h i t e c t u r a l composition. 1 6 With the i n t r o d u c t i o n , though, of se m i o t i c and s t r u c t u r a l i s t research i n a r c h i t e c t u r e , the analogy gained new v a l i d i t y . As p r e v i o u s l y mentioned, both s e m i o t i c s and s t r u c t u r a l i s m accept the language analogy at some stage, which p r e s c r i b e s that a l l the systems of c u l t u r a l endeavour are organized with language l i k e p r o p e r t i e s . The analogy passes through d i f f e r e n t p h a s e s 1 7 . I t i s used e i t h e r to r e f e r i n general terms to the d i s t i n c t i o n between the g e n e r a l s t r u c t u r e , (langue or language), and the i n d i v i d u a l ' s use and t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of i t (par o l e or speech), 1 8 or to provide a model of an organized system of s i g n i f i c a t i o n 1 9 . In a r c h i t e c t u r e i t i s the realm of s i g n i f i c a t i o n and meaning towards which the analogy i s addressed. As Abel says, Because language i s f a m i l i a r to us, because we have a r a p i d l y growing body of knowledge e x p r e s s l y d e a l i n g with language as a communication system, with the way we a t t a c h meaning to c e r t a i n symbols, and with the r u l e systems governing the use of symbols, we look to language as a model fo r those symbolic processes i n a r c h i t e c t u r e which we do not yet f u l l y comprehend. 2 0 At the e a r l y stage of the analogy, the b u i l t environment i s seen as part of the c u l t u r a l o r g a n i z a t i o n and i t i s not examined as a system of s i g n i f i c a t i o n i n i t s e l f . L a t e r on, the paradigm of. language i s e s t a b l i s h e d f o r the study of the b u i l t environment, which i s i t s e l f analyzed as a c u l t u r a l system of s i g n i f i c a t i o n . 33 (Eco i s one of the main r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of t h i s phase). Language i s seen as a p a r t i c u l a r combination of elements and d i f f e r e n t kinds of codes. The b u i l t environment i s seen, i n a c l o s e analogy, as a set c o n s i s t i n g of elements, e.g., openings, w a l l s , s t r u c t u r e d through a set of codes, as f o r example the code of openings, and i n t e r e l a t e d i n a s p e c i f i c way. In t h i s stage, the concepts of language and code d e s c r i b e the b u i l t environment as a product, but they do not e x p l a i n the process by which i t i s produced. During the t h i r d phase, the notion of a ge n e r a t i v e grammar i s int r o d u c e d i n t o the study of the b u i l t environment. 2 1 The grammar attempts to e x p l a i n , i n the l i n g u i s t i c system, the d i f f e r e n c e between the s t a t i c and the dynamic aspects of language. The d i f f e r e n t phases are marked by the u n d e r l y i n g m o t i v a t i o n f o r each s p e c i f i c approach. Thus, i n the second phase, the i n t e r e s t i s mainly focused on the e x p l a n a t i o n of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l meaning. The a r c h i t e c t u r a l s i g n s need to be organized in a coherent system of communication. The analogy then emphasizes the word-and-rule l i k e nature of a r c h i t e c t u r e . In the t h i r d phase, the p r o d u c t i o n of the b u i l t environment r e p r e s e n t s the b a s i c q u e s t i o n f o r r e s e a r c h . 2 2 The emphasis i s pl a c e d on the code as the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l r u l e that allows t h i s p r o d u c t i o n , and the analogy emphasizes the langue-parole d i s t i n c t i o n i n a r c h i t e c t u r e . The l a s t case r e f e r s , in general terms, to H i l l i e r and Leaman's aspect of a r c h i t e c t u r e as a morphology. 2 3 The authors understand a r c h i t e c t u r e to be a c u l t u r a l a r t i f a c t system. They 34 d i s t i n g u i s h between the general s t r u c t u r e , ( a r c h i t e c t u r e as langue), and the i n d i v i d u a l ' s knowledge of i t . They attempt not only to e s t a b l i s h an understanding of the general s t r u c t u r e , but a l s o to e x p l a i n how a r c h i t e c t u r e i s produced on the l e v e l of p a r o l e . Using the n o t i o n of c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s as the p r e s t r u c t u r e s of the d e signer which e x i s t in r e l a t i o n s h i p to the s t r u c t u r e of a r c h i t e c t u r e , they are searching f o r the reasons that make design p o s s i b l e . T h e i r p a r t i c u l a r approach leads them to the establishment of a theory of d e sign, even though only i n general terms. 2. C r i t i c i s m Of The Analogy The language analogy in a r c h i t e c t u r e has been met with strong c r i t i c i s m , from i n s i d e and o u t s i d e the s e m i o t i c f i e l d . The c r i t i c i s m q u e s t i o n s e i t h e r the general a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the analogy, s i n c e a r c h i t e c t u r e r e p r e s e n t s a d i f f e r e n t system of d i s c o u r s e than that of language, or the l i t e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n of the a n a l o g y . 2 " S c r u t o n 2 5 , f o r example, argues a g a i n s t the analogy, on the. grounds that the n o t i o n of a r c h i t e c t u r a l syntax as r e l a t e d to semantics i s not a v a l i d one, s i n c e i t does not p o i n t to a step-by-step e l u c i d a t i o n of meaning as i n language. The a r c h i t e c t , he s t a t e s , d i s c o v e r s r u l e s in order to disobey them, and s t y l e as a framework f o r the d e s i g n e r ' s a e s t h e t i c i n t e n t i o n s i s more important than syntax. S t y l e e x h i b i t s harmony and order i n a d i f f e r e n t way than that of syntax. He 35 compares a r c h i t e c t u r a l syntax to s t y l e , even though syntax as a system of formal o r d e r i n g , and s t y l e , as a mixture of morphological elements based on exemplars, are r e l a t e d , but not s i m i l a r i s s u e s . Syntax r e p r e s e n t s the formal, g e n e r i c , and a b s t r a c t o r d e r i n g of a l l the space-form elements, while s t y l e may i n c l u d e only p a r t i c u l a r f o r m a l i s t i c elements, and i t i s in v e s t e d with symbolic s i g n i f i c a t i o n , as f o r example, "the modern vs the o l d " , "the human vs the a u t h o r i t a t i v e " . Doxtater 2 6 takes another p o i n t of view. He emphasizes the c o g n i t i v e as w e l l as the spatio-temporal nature of a r c h i t e c t u r e . Though there i s some value i n the language analogy he says, t h i s r e f e r s mainly to the approach that a r c h i t e c t u r e a c t s as "means of c u l t u r a l communication". 2 7 The substance of a r c h i t e c t u r e should not be l i m i t e d on the l i n e a r form of a language. There i s more to a r c h i t e c t u r e , which p l a c e s i t on the l e v e l of " m u l t i - dimensional c o g n i t i v e t h o u g h t " . 2 8 Semantics and syntax i n a r c h i t e c t u r e should be seen together, bearing always i n mind that a r c h i t e c t u r e operates i n space and t ime. As P r e z i o s i a l s o suggests, One s a l i e n t p o i n t of the a r c h i t e c t o n i c system, which has profound i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r our understanding of a r c h i t e c t o n i c s e m i o s i s , i s i t s s p a t i o t e m p o r a l i t y . . . T h e s i g n i f i c a t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n of a b u i l t environment i s as temporal as i t i s s p a t i a l : settlements are designed to be construed s p a t i a l l y over time...A b u i l d i n g i s not simply a p a r t i c u l a r c l e v e r way of w r i t i n g t e x t s i n t h r e e - dimensions, any more than v e r b a l language i s merely a r c h i t e c t u r e i n F l a t l a n d . 2 9 Because of the s p e c i f i c nature of a r c h i t e c t u r e , the analogy with 36 language can be understood only i n metaphoric terms. Doxtater e l a b o r a t e s t h i s p o i n t when he maintains that C e r t a i n l y the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a r c h i t e c t u r e as a means of c u l t u r a l communication, i n s p i t e of a s s e r t i o n s of grammar and syntax, w i l l c o n t r i b u t e to a r e s p e c t a b l e theory of, a r c h i t e c t u r e . But to say that a r c h i t e c t u r e i s only one of many media or languages b e l i t t l e s i t s c r i t i c a l s p a t i o - t e m p o r a l r o l e in r i t u a l p rocess, b e l i e f or c u l t u r e . Once the s p a t i a l r o l e i s b e t t e r understood, the a r c h i t e c t u r a l phenomenon becomes not j u s t a language, but the means to . develop and n a i n t a i n m u l t i - l i n g u i s t i c , c o g n i t i v e 'wholes' u n p a r a l l e d i n human e x p r e s s i o n . 3 0 Payne 3 1 addresses the problem i n q u e s t i o n from a d i f f e r e n t p o i n t of view. Even i f the metaphoric use of the language analogy i n a r c h i t e c t u r e i s v a l i d , he observes, there i s s t i l l more to speaking than simple knowledge of the language, i . e . , c o g n i t i o n and thought. S i m i l a r l y , there i s more to a r c h i t e c t u r e than simply knowing drawing techniques, h i s t o r y , s t y l e , and technology. There i s an u n d e r l y i n g a b i l i t y of combining a l l those, a s o r t of c r e a t i v e a b i l i t y . What makes speaking f e a s i b l e i s the e x i s t e n c e of language as a set of r u l e s , and c o g n i t i o n . In a s i m i l a r way then, one c o u l d c o n j e c t u r e the e x i s t e n c e of a rule-governed a r c h i t e c t u r a l s t r u c t u r e and attempt to d e s c r i b e how c o g n i t i o n operates through t h i s s t r u c t u r e . Thus one should study whether there i s inherent i n the a r c h i t e c t u r a l s t r u c t u r e any evidence of rule-governed c r e a t i v i t y , and what i s the nature of design as a c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t y . 37 I t appears that the above mentioned d i r e c t i o n as < d e s c r i b e d by Payne would be a reasonable way to go, i n order to u t i l i z e the p o t e n t i a l o p e r a t i o n a l merit of the analogy, without being r e s t r i c t e d i n t o a more or l e s s l i t e r a l t r a n s f e r of the l i n g u i s t i c model i n t o a r c h i t e c t u r e . As G u i l l e r m e p o i n t s out, Lacking a s a t i s f a c t o r y t h e o r e t i c a l model, however, each attempt to a s s i m i l a t e a r c h i t e c t u r e to language must be judged a c c o r d i n g to the s t r e n g t h of i t s own foundations, or b e t t e r , a c c o r d i n g to i t s u s e f u l n e s s i n the p r a c t i c e of those who repeat i t and c l a i m i t s e f f i c a c y . 3 2 But even i f the langue-parole d i s t i n c t i o n i n a r c h i t e c t u r e , as the d i s t i n c t i o n between the formal s t r u c t u r e and the i n d i v i d u a l ' s a q u i s i t i o n and use of i t , i s a p p l i c a b l e , one should be aware of the danger of a mechanical a p p l i c a t i o n of i t . The language analogy in a r c h i t e c t u r e should not be understood or a p p l i e d l i t e r a l l y , but r a t h e r be used only m e t a p h o r i c a l l y , i n a general paradigmatic way," n e i t h e r s t r i c t , nor l i m i t i n g . I t should be used towards an understanding of a r c h i t e c t u r e as a c u l t u r a l a r t i f a c t and i t s nature as an e x p r e s s i v e system, based on c u l t u r a l conventions and some l i m i t e d , inherent coding r u l e s that s p r i n g from i t s s p e c i f i c nature. C. CONCLUSION A r c h i t e c t u r e as a c u l t u r a l a r t i f a c t system represents one of the systems of s i g n i f i c a t i o n , and t h e r e f o r e i t i s amenable to s e m i o t i c and s t r u c t u r a l i s t r e s e a r c h . The s p e c i f i c 38 nature of a r c h i t e c t u r e i n i t s s p a t i o t e m p o r a l i t y and p r i m a r i l y u t i l i t a r i a n c h a r a c t e r should be taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n order to d e f i n e the e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l framework of a n a l y s i s . A r c h i t e c t u r e as a system e x h i b i t s some of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the other c u l t u r a l systems, but the nature of i t s codes, m a t e r i a l i z e d as s p e c i f i c i n s t a n c e s of three-dimensional form, d i s t i n g u i s h e s i t from them. I t i s t h i s nature that one has to uncover, before one proceeds to a more complete understanding of the nature of a r c h i t e c t u r a l s i g n i f i c a t i o n . Towards the d e f i n i t i o n of a r c h i t e c t u r a l s i g n i f i c a t i o n one can draw from paradigms, models or conceptual schemes a p p l i e d or deduced out of the se m i o t i c study of other c u l t u r a l systems. In employing a n a l o g i e s , metaphors, or d i r e c t p a r a l l e l s from other f i e l d s one should be aware of the inherent r e s t r i c t i o n s . "An analogy i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p between two e n t i t i e s , processes or what you w i l l , which allows i n f e r e n c e s to be made about one of the t h i n g s , u s u a l l y that about which we know l e a s t , on the b a s i s of what we know about the o t h e r " . 3 3 But the p o t e n t i a l use of the analogy should be always judged a g a i n s t the o b j e c t i v e s of the resea r c h being undertaken. In the case of the language analogy i n a r c h i t e c t u r e , i t appears that i t can be u s e f u l only on a general b a s i s , as o f f e r i n g the d i s t i n c t i o n between the c u l t u r a l l y d e f i n e d pre- e x i s t i n g general s t r u c t u r e of s i g n i f i c a t i o n , and the i n d i v i d u a l ' s knowledge and a b i l i t y to perform t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s on i t . T h i s p o i n t of view addresses the theory of H i l l i e r and Leaman, which i s accepted as a conceptual b a s i s . 39 In general the understanding of the system of s i g n i f i c a t i o n , i . e . , a r c h i t e c t u r e , w i l l supply a b a s i s f o r the understanding of the o b j e c t i t s e l f . The two are complimentary. The nature of a r c h i t e c t u r e , i t s codes and s t r u c t u r e , provide the context f o r the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the s i g n i f i c a t i v e o b j e c t . And even i f we attempt to understand the a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t i n an analogy to a general framework of the f u n c t i o n of any ob j e c t as a s i g n , the d i a l e c t i c s of i n t e r a c t i o n between the system where the o b j e c t i s pl a c e d , and the ob j e c t i t s e l f , determine the nature of our understanding. T h i s approach forms a b a s i c assumption f o r t h i s study i n that the a r c h i t e c t u r a l object i s examined as a sign w i t h i n the l i m i t s of the g e n e r a l system of s i g n i f i c a t i o n , i . e . , a r c h i t e c t u r e . T h e r e f o r e , while i n the f o l l o w i n g chapter we w i l l attempt to d e f i n e i s s u e s concerning the a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t as a s i g n , and i t s s i g n i f i c a t i o n , the e x i s t e n c e of the general system as i n f l u e n c i n g the understanding of t h i s s i g n should not be f o r g o t t e n . 40 D. NOTES The s c i e n c e s of the a r t i f i c i a l , as d e f i n e d by Simon, i n c l u d e a l l the a r t i f a c t systems of the human s o c i e t y . So, whereas n a t u r a l stands f o r the s c i e n c e s whose o b j e c t of study i s nature, a r t i f i c i a l r e f e r s to those whose study r e f e r s to human a r t i f a c t s . The d i s t i c t i o n between n a t u r a l and a r t i f i c i a l , and the r e l a t i o n of the s c i e n c e s of a r t i f i c i a l to the human s c i e n c e s i s c l a r i f i e d by H i l l i e r and Leaman through the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the e v o l u t i o n of s c i e n c e s . H i s t o r i c a l l y , s c i e n t i f i c knowledge, they note, passes from the phase where i t s o b j e c t i s nature to the one when man him s e l f becomes the s u b j e c t of the s c i e n t i f i c i n q u i r y . T h i s phase i s i d e n t i f i e d with the e v o l u t i o n of the human s c i e n c e s , when the man-environment paradigm, that sees man in an i n t e r a c t i o n with h i s environment i s formulated. I t i s only l a t e r that t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n and i n t e r f a c e i s d i s p u t e d , and the growing understanding that the man-environment r e l a t i o n s h i p i s mediated through a r t i f a c t systems g i v e s r i s e to the s c i e n c e of the a r t i f i c i a l . While the term human in the s c i e n c e s of man e x p l a i n s the f a c t that the o b j e c t of s c i e n c e has become man h i m s e l f , the term a r t i f i c i a l d e c l a r e s the f a c t that what a c t u a l l y needs e x p l a n a t i o n i n the domain of human a f f a i r s , e i t h e r t h i s i s language, epistemology, or mathematics, i t has a l r e a d y been c o n s t r u c t e d as a system, i t i s a man-made a r t i f a c t . See B i l l H i l l i e r and A d r i a n Leaman, "System, S t r u c t u r e and T r a n s f o r m a t i o n , " T r a n s a c t i o n s of the B a r t l e t t S o c i e t y , v o l . 3, 1972-73. A l s o , Herbert Simon, The Sciences of the A r t i f i c i a l , Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press, 1969. The n o t i o n of s t r u c t u r e i s b a s i c f o r the understanding of s t r u c t u r a l i s m . "A s t r u c t u r e i s a set of any elements between which or between c e r t a i n sub-sets of which r e l a t i o n s are d e f i n e d . " Michael Lane., I n t r o d u c t i o n to S t r u c t u r a l i s m , New York: Basic Books, 1975, p. 23. Key ideas f o r the n o t i o n of s t r u c t u r e are : wholeness (the elements are i d e n t i f i e d only through t h e i r r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n i n the whole), t r a n s f o r m a t i o n ( s t r u c t u r a l changes f o l l o w i n g a set of r u l e s ) , and s e l f - r e g u i a t i o n (the whole i s conserved by compensatory t r a n s f o r m a t i o n among the p a r t s ) . Jean P i a g e t , S t r u c t u r a l i s m , London: Kegan Paul, 1971. M. Lane, o p . c i t . , p. 23. Roland Barthes, "The S t r u c t u r a l i s t A c t i v i t y , " C r i t i c a l Essays, Northwestern Univ. Press, p. 214. i b i d , p. 220. Semiology i s the term in t r o d u c e d by de Saussure f o r the s c i e n c e of s i g n s and p e r t a i n s i n European l i t e r a t u r e . In America the term s e m i o t i c s , i n t r o d u c e d by P e i r c e , i s more common. Manfredo T a f u r i , T h e o r i e s and H i s t o r y of A r c h i t e c t u r e , Great 4 1 B r i t a i n : Granada, 1980, p. 5. i b i d , p. 6. M a r t i n Krampen, Meaning in the Urban Environment, London: Pion L t d , 1979, p.6. i b i d , p. 15-16. Maria L u i s a S c a l v i n i . , " S t r u c t u r a l L i n g u i s t i c s versus the Semiotics of L i t e r a t u r e , " i n Signs, Symbols, and A r c h i t e c t u r e , p. 412. i b i d , p. 412. "The connection e s t a b l i s h e d by s o c i e t y between behavior f u n c t i o n i n g as an ' i n d i c a t o r ' and an a d d i t i o n a l f u n c t i o n i n d i c a t e d by that behavior i s c a l l e d ' s i g n i f i c a t i o n * . A p a r t i c u l a r i n s t a n c e of t h i s , where the behaviour e n t a i l s ' s i g n a l l i n g ' (a connection being l i k e w i s e e s t a b l i s h e d by s o c i e t y between the s i g n a l and the 'sense' of the s i g n a l ) i s termed 'communication'". Mar t i n Krampen, op. c i t . , p. 3. M . L . S c a l v i n i , o p . c i t . , p. 413. (1) Peter C o l l i n s , Changing I d e a l s i n Modern A r c h i t e c t u r e 1750- 1950, Montreal: McGi11-Queen's Univ. Press, 1967, p r i n t 1978, pp. 173-182. A l s o : (2) Jacques G u i l l e r m e , "The Idea of A r c h i t e c t u r a l Language: A C r i t i c a l I n q u i r y , " t r a n s l . by H. L i p s t a d t and H. Mandelson, O p p o s i t i o n s , vol.10, Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press, 1977 p. 21. i b i d (2), p. 22. i b i d (2), p. 22. Mario Gandelsonas, " L i n g u i s t i c and Semiotic Models in A r c h i t e c t u r e , " i n Basic Questions of Design Theory, ed. W. R. S p i l l e r s , North-Holland, 1974, p. 39-54. Langue and p a r o l e are the French e q u i v a l e n t s of language and speech. Introduced by de Saussure, they were l a t e r adopted in the E n g l i s h speaking world. At the beginning, both s e m i o t i c s and s t r u c t u r a l i s m remain c l o s e l y l i n k e d to s t r u c t u r a l l i n g u i s t i c s . L a t e r on, with t h e i r i n t e r e s t focused on the " s p e c i f i c o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h i n the d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r a l systems of s i g n i f i c a t i o n " , they are f r e e d from l i u n g u i s t i c s and they move towards models from f i e l d s l i k e mathematics, or l o g i c . M. Gandelsonas, op. c i t . , p. 42. C h r i s Abel, "The Language Analogy in A r c h i t e c t u r e and C r i t i c i s m , " AAQuarterly, vol.12, no 3, 1980, p. 40. 42 M. Gandelsonas, o p . c i t . , p. 45. Eisenman's attempts to design through the use of a s i m i l a r t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l code i s an example of t h i s stage. B. H i l l i e r and A. Leaman, "The A r c h i t e c t u r e of A r c h i t e c t u r e , " i n Models and Systems in A r c h i t e c t u r e and B u i l d i n g , ed. by D. Hawkes, Great B r i t a i n : C o n s t r u c t i o n Press L t d , 1975. Seligman c r i t i c i z e s the analogy of a r c h i t e c t u r e to language on the grounds that i s s u e s l i k e time, redundancy and order have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t meaning i n d i s c u r s i v e , (as language), and p r e s e n t a t i o n a l , (as a r c h i t e c t u r e ) , symbolic systems. Claus Seligman, " A r c h i t e c t u r e and Language: Notes on a Metaphor," J o u r n a l of A r c h i t e c t u r a l Education, v o l . xxx, no 4, A p r i l 1977, pp. 23-27. Cohen emphasizes the "character i n d i f f e r e n c e and a r t i c u l a t i o n , " q u a l i t i e s that language posseses, in a n t i t h e s i s to a r c h i t e c t u r e . L. Zachary Cohen, "A S e n s i b l e A n a l y s i s of Language and Meaning in A r c h i t e c t u r e , " Design Methods and Theory , v o l . 14, no 2, pp. 58-65. For F i s k e , l i n g u i s t i c s o f f e r a w e l l developed s c i e n t i f i c framework to a r c h i t e c t u r e , but " i d e o l o g i e s which are so o f t e n i n t e g r a l to a r c h i t e c t u r a l theory are not e a s i l y accounted f o r i n the r i g i d o b j e c t i v i s m of s t r u c t u r a l i s m or semiology." Furthermore, he suggests that meaning does not d e r i v e from the breaking of the sentence and the words. Meaningful should r e f e r to an inner coherence, to the t r a c i n g of an inner n e c e s s i t y . S. F i s k e Crowell J r , " A r c h i t e c t u r e as a Language," in Language i n A r c h i t e c t u r e : Proceedings of the ACSA 68th Annual Meeting, ed. J . Mennier, ACSA, 1980, pp. 199-205. Roger Scruton, The A e s t h e t i c s of A r c h i t e c t u r e , London: Methenen & Co L t d , 1979, pp. 158-178. Dennis Doxtater, "The Non-language of A r c h i t e c t u r e , " in Language i n A r c h i t e c t u r e , pp. 26-33. i b i d , p. 28. i b i d , p. 30. Donald P r e z i o s i , A r c h i t e c t u r e , Language and Meaning: The O r i g i n s of the B u i l t World and i t s Semiotic O r g a n i z a t i o n , The Hague: Mouton, 1979, pp. 16-17. D. Doxtater, o p . c i t . , p. 30. I f a n Payne, " I n t r o d u c t i o n to the Workshop," in Language i n A r c h i t e c t u r e , J . G u i l l e r m e , o p . c i t . , p. 22. C. Abel, o p . c i t . , p.. 40. 43 I I . THE ARCHITECTURAL SIGN A. INTRODUCTION In the pr e v i o u s chapter a number of d i f f e r e n t approaches to a r c h i t e c t u r a l s e m i o t i c s were d i s c u s s e d i n order to set the conceptual framework f o r the t h e s i s . Before we proceed with the e l a b o r a t i o n of the main argument on the nature of a r c h i t e c t u r a l c o d i f i c a t i o n and the a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes, we w i l l conclude t h i s part of the t h e s i s concerning the t h e o r e t i c a l framework, by s e t t i n g the terms of r e f e r e n c e f o r i s s u e s l i k e the a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t as a s i g n , i t s s i g n i f i c a t i o n , and the r o l e of the s i g n i n communication. B. THE NATURE OF THE SIGN 1 . D i s c u s s i o n Of D i f f e r e n t Models O r i g i n a t i n g i n l i n g u i s t i c s , and l a t e r on extended, i n an attempt to i n c l u d e more general c a t e g o r i e s of s i g n s , s e v e r a l models have been i n t r o d u c e d i n the study of s i g n s . Which model would be the most s u i t a b l e f o r the d e f i n i t i o n of . the a r c h i t e c t u r a l s i g n has not yet been agreed upon. However, in order to decide which model to f o l l o w one has to c o n s i d e r not only the nature of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t , but a l s o the o p e r a t i o n a l q u a l i t y of the model given the purpose f o r which i t 44 has been i n t r o d u c e d . Ferdinand de Saussure, s t a t i n g the b a s i s of a s c i e n c e of s i g n s , d e s c r i b e d the sign as a compound comprised of a s i g n i f i e r and a s i g n i f i e d . 1 The s i g n i f i e r responds to the form that expresses a n o t i o n or a concept ( s i g n i f i e d ) , and the s i g n f u n c t i o n s as the e n t i t y that b r i n g s those two together. Though there i s a tendency to i d e n t i f y the s i g n with the s i g n i f i e r , t h i s goes a g a i n s t the b a s i c d e f i n i t i o n of the s i g n as a two- s i d e d e n t i t y . 2 In e s t a b l i s h i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the not i o n and i t s e x p r e s s i o n , de Saussure d i d not i n c l u d e the r e a l o b j e c t 3 , to which both s i g n i f i e r and s i g n i f i e d r e f e r . A model intr o d u c e d by Ogden and Richards" attempts to accommodate t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p by understanding the l i n g u i s t i c s i g n as e s t a b l i s h i n g a r e l a t i o n s h i p between a mental r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , the r e a l o b j e c t and the u t t e r a b l e . T h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i s expressed as a t r i a n g l e ( f i g . 1). F i g u r e 1 - The t r i a n g l e of Ogden and Richards (Source: G. Broadbent, "The P l a i n Man's Guide to the Theory of Signs i n A r c h i t e c t u r e " ) thought or r e f e r e n c e (Saussure's s i g n i f i e d ) symbol r e f e r e n t (Saussure's s i g n i f i e r ) (the o b j e c t , person, or event to which one i s r e f e r r i n g ) 45 Eco c r i t i c i z e s the acceptance of t h i s model for the d e f i n i t i o n of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l s i g n , on the grounds that i t i n t r o d u c e s e x t r a s e m i o t i c elements l i k e the r e a l f u n c t i o n or the o b j e c t . A l s o , he argues, one cannot d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the s i g n i f i e r and the o b j e c t . 5 Jencks r e p l i e s that the problem l i e s on the d e f i n i t i o n of what an a r c h i t e c t u r a l s i g n i f i e r i s : ... an image on the r e t i n a or a mediated concept, mediated by the senses and l e a r n e d codes. I t i s not the o b j e c t i t s e l f , or a c t u a l f u n c t i o n made p o s s i b l e by the o b j e c t , but r a t h e r a set of v i s u a l a r t i c u l a t i o n s which are i n t e r p r e t e d a c c o r d i n g to c e r t a i n c o n v e n t i o n a l codes i n t o a meaning. 6 He goes on to suggest that the v i r t u e of the t r i a n g l e model i s the very f a c t that i t i n t r o d u c e s e x t r a s e m i o t i c elements, l i k e f u n c t i o n , which, in the case of a r c h i t e c t u r e , c o n s i d e r a b l y r e s t r i c t the codes. In a s i m i l a r d i r e c t i o n , P e i r c e understands the t r i a d i c nature of the s i g n as r e p r e s e n t i n g a r e l a t i o n s h i p between the o b j e c t and a conceptual r e f e r e n t . 7 In h i s model the s i g n appears in the p o s i t i o n of the s i g n i f i e r . T h i s does not a c t u a l l y c o n t r a d i c t de Saussure's notion of the s i g n as e x p r e s s i n g the connection between the s i g n i f i e r and the s i g n i f i e d . It i s a r e s u l t of the use of d i f f e r e n t terminology. The sign in P e i r c e ' s terms i s understood to be the medium between the c o n c e p t u a l r e f e r e n t and the o b j e c t , a r o l e which i s played by the s i g n i f i e r i n the p r e v i o u s model. 46 F o l l o w i n g P e i r c e ' s model, Blomeyer suggests that "the f i r s t step to a s e m i o t i c a n a l y s i s i s the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t i n t o a t r i a d i c s i g n o b j e c t , by determining the " s i g n as such" or medium r e l a t i o n , the o b j e c t r e l a t i o n , and the i n t e r p r e t a n t r e l a t i o n " . 8 The medium, s i g n i f i e r or sign,has not only m a t e r i a l and formal, but a l s o i d e a l nature. The o b j e c t r e l a t i o n r e f e r s to the f u n c t i o n of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t . F i n a l l y , the i n t e r p r e t a n t r e l a t i o n r e v e a l s the s i g n i f i c a t i o n of the o b j e c t which p l a c e s i t i n a broader s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l c o n text. If models l i k e that of Ogden and Richards, as w e l l as P e i r c e ' s , o f f e r an understanding of the nature of the s i g n on a d e s c r i p t i v e l e v e l , another model, int r o d u c e d by Hjelmslev on the nature of the l i n g u i s t i c s i g n , promises a b e t t e r understanding of the connection between the idea to be expressed and i t s a c t u a l e x p r e s s i o n . 2. The Model Of Content And E x p r e s s i o n Hjelmslev 9 argues that the s i g n i s p o s i t e d between two e n t i t i e s , that of e x p r e s s i o n and that of content. "There w i l l never be a s i g n f u n c t i o n without expression and content; and those two w i l l never appear together without the s i g n ' s f u n c t i o n between them" 1 0 , he s t a t e s . E l a b o r a t i n g the model he i n t r o d u c e s the n o t i o n of purport as the thought to be expressed. 47 T h i s purport e x i s t s as an amorphous mass before i t i s shaped by the r u l e s of language. I t i s language which i n f l u e n c e s not only the way a thought i s expressed, but a l s o what can be expressed. Thus, i n every language, a thought i s expressed i n a d i f f e r e n t way, through a d i f f e r e n t form; p o s s i b l e v a r i a n c e s of t h i s e x p r e s s i o n shape the thought i t s e l f . Content, as that which needs to be expressed, w i l l be composed of two e n t i t i e s : f i r s t , one which w i l l r e f l e c t the s t r u c t u r e of the language as shaping the thought, the content form; and second, one which w i l l c o n s i s t of the thought i t s e l f a f t e r being shaped by t h i s s t r u c t u r e , the content substance. These two e n t i t i e s do not have an independent e x i s t e n c e ; they are always understood i n r e l a t i o n to each other. Purport remains each time substance to a new form and has no p o s s i b l e e x i s t e n c e except being substance to one form or the o t h e r . . . We thus recognize i n the l i n g u i s t i c context in i t s process a s p e c i f i c form, the content- form, which i s independent from, and stands in a r b i t r a r y r e l a t i o n t o, the purport, and forms i t i n t o a content substance. 1 1 S i m i l a r l y , e x p r e s s i o n w i l l a l s o c o n s i s t of two e n t i t i e s : e x p r e s s i o n form, which r e f e r s to the spoken p a r t , and expression substance, which r e f e r s tp the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of speech as shaped by the phonetic zones of the speaker. By v i r t u e of the s i g n f u n c t i o n , there e x i s t s the content-form and the expression-form. And by v i r t u e of those two e x i s t the content-substance and the express ion-substance. To c l a r i f y the p o i n t , Hjelmslev b r i n g s the f o l l o w i n g example. ( f i g . 2). 48 F i g u r e 2 - The model of content and expre s s i o n i n language - An example (Based on Hjelsmlev's example) Plane of Content Plane of E x p r e s s i o n S i g n i f i e d Content Substance (I don't know) Express i o n Substance (phonetic zones) S i g n i f i e r Content Form (I-Do-Not-Verb) Expres s i o n Form "I don't know" Let us assume, he says, that we want to express "ignorance of a matter", ( p u r p o r t ) . In E n g l i s h , as i n a l l languages, there i s a s p e c i f i c s t r u c t u r e between the s u b j e c t , the verb and the negation, which represents the content-form. T h i s s t r u c t u r e as a f o r m a l i z e d way of exp r e s s i n g the meaning, w i l l suggest, out of a general thought to be expressed, a content-substance, which w i l l be the thought i t s e l f , a f t e r being t i e d to the s p e c i f i c way one can express negation i n the language. The ex p r e s s i o n of the thought as the speech w i l l g i ve the expression-form, but that w i l l a l s o be s u b j e c t to a s p e c i f i c expression-substance, which responds to the phonetic zones the speacer i s u s i n g . 1 2 The r e l a t i o n s h i p between content and e x p r e s s i o n w i l l be d e s c r i b e d as 1— and meaning w i l l come at the i n t e r s e c t i o n of the planes of content and e x p r e s s i o n . F i g . 3 o u t l i n e s the model of 49 content and e x p r e s s i o n i n language. F i g u r e 3 - The model of content and e x p r e s s i o n i n language: I n t e r p r e t e d by Hjelsmlev C 0 N T E N T E X P R E S S I O N Substance Form Substance Form Purport t i e d . Language Phonet i c Utterance to content s t r u c t u r e zones Speech form The d e f i n i t i o n of what e x a c t l y f a l l s i n the range of content and of expression in a r c h i t e c t u r e r a i s e s a number of d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the model. Eco 1 3 suggests that on the b a s i c l e v e l of content and e x p r e s s i o n we should have f u n c t i o n and space a c c o r d i n g l y . ( f i g . 4). S c a l v i n i 1 * on the other hand, argues that f u n c t i o n i n a r c h i t e c t u r e should be understood only as an aim and not as content. She d i s t i n c u i s h e s between space and the p h y s i c a l e n c l o s u r e of space: "there i s no space in a r c h i t e c t u r e without a p h y s i c a l e n c l o s u r e which a c t u a l l y shapes the s p a c e . " 1 5 She goes on to suggest that i n a r c h i t e c t u r e content should r e f e r to space, and e x p r e s s i o n to the p h y s i c a l e n c l o s u r e ; f u n c t i o n should remain as the aim to be f u l f i l l e d through the a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t . ( f i g . 5). 50 F i g u r e 4 - The model of content and exp r e s s i o n in a r c h i t e c t u r e : I n t e r p e t e d by Eco C O N T E N T E X P R E S S I O N Substance Form Substance Form A l l p o s s i b l e f u n c t i o n s man can perform w i t h i n h i s c u l t u r a l context A s e r i e s of funct ions spec i f i e d and d e f i n e d by a system of c u l t u r a l u n i t s A l l p o s s i b l e spat i a l a r t i c u l a t i o n s and d i s p o s i t i o n s S u b d i v i s i o n s of the former ac c o r d i n g to a system of o p p o s i t i o n s F i g u r e 5 - The model of content and exp r e s s i o n i n a r c h i t e c t u r e : I n t e r p r e t e d by S c a l v i n i (Source: M. L. S c a l v i n i , " S t r u c t u r a l L i n g u i s t i c s vs the Semiotics of L i t e r a t u r e " ) plane of space C N Funct ion f ( p r o v i d i n g a s t e c t o n i c s comfortable b a s i c aim environment for human plane of enclosure E , f a c t i v i t i e s ) The d i f f e r e n c e between the two i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s l i e s i n the f a c t that , as presented i n an e a r l i e r chapter, Eco understands f u n c t i o n as pa r t of the semi o t i c system, while S c a l v i n i b e l i e v e s f u n c t i o n to be the b a s i c o p e r a t i o n performed by the ob j e c t and not s e m i o t i c . However, Eco overlooks the f a c t that the understanding of f u n c t i o n , or a c t i v i t y , i n a r c h i t e c t u r e has a s p a t i a l component. For example, "bedroom" i s a s p a t i o - f u n c t i o n a l u n i t . S c a l v i n i , on the other hand, emphasizes only 51 the s p a t i a l component. I t seems that we c o u l d i n c o r p o r a t e both aspects i f we f o l l o w Hjelmslev's example and attempt t o f i n d an analogue i n a r c h i t e c t u r e . I f , f o r example, purport was the design of a space f o r s l e e p i n g , then the d i f f e r e n t planes of content and expre s s i o n would be as shown i n f i g . 6. F i g u r e 6 - An example of the content and e x p r e s s i o n model i n a r c h i t e c t u r e Purport = f u n c t i o n / a c t i v i t y = "a pl a c e f o r s l e e p i n g " C O N T E N T E X P R E S S I O N Substance Form Substance Form A c t i v i t y of s l e e p i n g as t i e d to "bedroom" Standard ways of d e s c r i b i n g t h i s i n own c u l t u r e . I d e a of "bedroom" S p a t i a l a r t i c u l a t ions, a v a i l a b l e means, r e g u l a t ions The s p e c i f i c "bedroom" arrangement In those terms, f u n c t i o n , as not only the p r o v i s i o n of a comfortable environment f o r human a c t i v i t i e s , but a l s o , understood more broadly, as r e f e r i n g to h i s t o r i c a l , c o l l e c t i v e and a e s t h e t i c p u r p o s e s , 1 6 w i l l d e f i n e the general purport.The two planes then of content and e x p r e s s i o n , with the s u b d i v i s i o n s of form and substance, w i l l be as shown i n f i g . 7. 1 7 52 F i g u r e ' 7 - The content and e x p r e s s i o n model i n a r c h i t e c t u r e : I n t e r p r e t e d by the author C O N T E N T E X P R E S S I O N Substance Form Substance Form A c t i v i t y and f u n c t i o n t i e d to c u l t u r a l understanding Funct i o n a l / s p a t i a l u n i t in c u l t u r a l / a r c h i t e c t u r a l context Range of means to express the funct ion/space Spec i f i c e n c l o s u r e ( t h r e e - dimensional form) Hjelmslev's model seems a p p r o p r i a t e -for the understanding of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l s i g n . Not only does i t e x p l a i n the way content i s t i e d to e x p r e s s i o n , an issue of p a r t i c u l a r relevance to design 1 8 , but a l s o , through the f u r t h e r s u b d i v i s i o n s of form and substance, i t o f f e r s a u s e f u l t o o l f o r the understanding of the formation of e x p r e s s i o n out of a g e n e r a l i n t e n t i o n i n a l l l e v e l s . C. THE ARCHITECTURAL SYSTEM The b u i l d i n g as a s i g n i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p to the r e a l o b j e c t and to some p r o j e c t e d image or noti o n that i t s i g n i f i e s has a l r e a d y been d e f i n e d . A l s o we saw how t h i s image or noti o n i s connected to the a r t i c u l a t i o n of the e x p r e s s i v e a r t i f a c t , through the content and e x p r e s s i o n model. I t remains though to d e f i n e the s i g n as a u n i t i n the a r c h i t e c t u r a l system, i . e . , to p l a c e i t as an e n t i t y i n the a r c h i t e c t u r a l syntax, and to 53 e x p l a i n the l e v e l s on which the b u i l d i n g operates as a meaningful o b j e c t , i . e . , the l e v e l s of i t s s i g n i f i c a t i o n through the d e f i n i t i o n of i t s f u n c t i o n a l i t y . 1 . The A r c h i t e c t u r a l Syntax In order to understand the syntax, one has to i d e n t i f y the elementary u n i t s that c a r r y s i g n i f i c a t i o n , i . e . , the s i g n s , and the r u l e s f o r t h e i r composition i n systems of higher order. P r e z i o s i 1 9 , a n a l y s i n g the a r c h i t e c t u r a l syntax, i d e n t i f i e s as the primary u n i t the s p a c e - c e l l . T h i s i s the f i r s t d i r e c t l y s i g n i f i c a t i v e u n i t and i t can take two a l t e r n a t i v e formal r e a l i z a t i o n s , as e i t h e r a d i s t i n c t i v e s p a t i a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n bounded by masses, or a d i s t i n c t i v e mass c o n f i g u r a t i o n bounded by space. The u n i t i s b u i l t up out of forms, planes and domains, which are themselves d i s t i n g u i s h e d by "sense- d i s c r i m i n a t i v e geometric, p e r s p e c t i v a l and t o p o l o g i c a l f e a t u r e s " . 2 0 -The code as a s t r u c t u r a l , or s y n t a c t i c , r u l e o r g a n i z e s the d i f f e r e n t elements i n a whole and i t e f f e c t s a mapping r e l a t i o n s h i p between the these elements and the semantic domains. 2 1 54 2. F u n c t i o n s And S i g n i f i c a t i o n Of The A r c h i t e c t u r a l Object Based on the assumption that an o b j e c t "not only performs but a l s o s i g n i f i e s i t s f u n c t i o n " 2 2 , we can d e f i n e the s i g n i f i c a t i o n of the b u i l d i n g through the understanding of i t s f u n c t i o n a l i t y . H i l l i e r and Leaman i d e n t i f i e d four d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n s that the b u i l d i n g performs; they understood the b u i l d i n g as a m o d i f i e r of c l i m a t i c , b e h a v i o u r a l , economic, and symbolic c o n d i t i o n s , and s y n t h e s i z e d those aspects of the b u i l d i n g i n the f o u r - f u n c t i o n model 2 3 as shown i n f i g . 8. Fi g u r e 8 - The f o u r - f u n c t i o n model of H i l l i e r and Leaman (Sourse: B. H i l l e r and A. Leaman, " A r c h i t e c t u r e as a D i s c i p l i n e " ) man-nature r e l a t i o n man-man r e l a t i o n b u i I d i n g s as THINGS c 1 i ma t e modi f i c a t ion f u n c t i o n a c t i v i t y m o d i f i c a t i o n f u n c t i o n b u i l d i n g s as SIGNS economic f u n c t i o n soc i a l language funct ion But a b u i l d i n g does not operate as a sign only through the economic and symbolic f u n c t i o n . Even as a c l i m a t e m o d i f i e r , i n o f f e r i n g a c o n t r o l e d p h y s i c a l environment, i t might c a r r y , 55 though not as apparent, s i g n i f i c a t i o n , i . e . , a symbolic reason f o r the choice of s p e c i f i c p h y s i c a l q u a l i t i e s . S i m i l a r l y , i n o f f e r i n g an environment for c e r t a i n a c t i v i t i e s to take p l a c e , i t expresses a preconceived concept about those a c t i v i t i e s . Of course those symbolic s i g n i f i c a t i o n s c o u l d be i n c o r p o r a t e d under the symbolic f u n c t i o n . H i l l i e r and Leaman however understand the symbolic f u n c t i o n as the o p e r a t i o n of the b u i l d i n g i n a s o c i a l language, as r e f l e c t i n g ideas of s o c i a l groups, or as r e p r e s e n t i n g a s o c i a l statement. I t appears t h e r e f o r e that we can d i s t i n g u i s h a d i f f e r e n t type of symbolic, or s e m i o t i c f u n c t i o n , f o r the b u i l d i n g , which p e n e t r a t e s a l l four f u n c t i o n s , and i n t e r p r e t s the b u i l d i n g as a s i g n of them. For example, "a s o l a r house that looks l i k e one" can be c o n s i d e r e d as a s i g n of the s p e c i f i c c l i m a t i c f u n c t i o n performed by t h i s house. "A school which looks l i k e a s c h o o l " i s a s i g n of t h i s very a c t i v i t y . S i m i l a r l y , "a middle c l a s s house" s i g n i f i e s s p e c i f i c a l l o c a t i o n of resourses and i s , consequently, a s i g n f o r the economic f u n c t i o n . And f i n a l l y , a "monument f o r the r e v o l u t i o n , which looks l i k e a monument" f u n c t i o n s as a s i g n of t h i s symbolic f u n c t i o n . In those terms, the s e m i o t i c aspect i s undersood as the s i g n i f i c a t i o n of the f u n c t i o n s pf the b u i l d i n g , and the f o u r - f u n c t i o n model would read as shown in f i g . 9. 2 U 56 F i g u r e 9 - M o d i f i c a t i o n of the f o u r - f u n c t i o n model to accommodate the notion of s i g n i f i c a t i o n man-nature r e l a t i o n man-man r e l a t i o n B u i l d i n g as THING c l i m a t i c modi f i e r behavioural- modi f i e r B u i l d i n g as SIGN s i g n i f i c a t i o n s i g n i f i c a t i o n B u i l d i n g as THING economic modi f i e r symbolic modi f i e r B u i l d i n g as SIGN s i g n i f i c a t i o n s i g n i f i c a t i o n The notion of f u n c t i o n a l i t y i n a r c h i t e c t u r e was f u r t h e r e l a b o r a t e d by Mukarovsky. F u n c t i o n , he. s t a t e d , means that "we commonly use the o b j e c t which i s i t s v e h i c l e f o r such and such a p u r p o s e " 2 5 . An o b j e c t , however, does not have i n e v i t a b l y only one f u n c t i o n , but i t can perform i n s t e a d a whole range of them, i . e . , i t can f u n c t i o n i n a number of d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n a l h o r i z o n s . T h i s i s the case of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t . A r c h i t e c t u r e i s a complex, m u l t i f u n c t i o n a l system, and to understand the f u n c t i o n of the b u i l d i n g one has to co n s i d e r a l l the d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n a l h o r i z o n s of the system. Before we i d e n t i f y the f u n c t i o n s of an o b j e c t , Mukarovsky observes, We must d i s t i n g u i s h (a) the r e a l i t y to which the f u n c t i o n s are a p p l i e d , (b) the set of f u n c t i o n s lodged i n the awareness of the c o l l e c t i v e and bound by i n t e r n a l i n t e r r e l a t i o n s i n t o a s t r u c t u r e , and (c) the 57 i n d i v i d u a l who i n t r o d u c e s a c o n s t a n t l y renewed a c c i d e n t a l i t y i n t o the f u n c t i o n a l process and thus s e t s the s t r u c t u r e of f u n c t i o n s into, motion. 2 6 In a r c h i t e c t u r e , Mukarovsky i d e n t i f i e s f i v e f u n c t i o n a l h o r i z o n s . 2 7 F i r s t , the immediate purpose, or b a s i c usage of the b u i l d i n g ; second, the h i s t o r i c a l purpose, which d e f i n e s the f i x e d canons and norms f o r the b u i l d i n g type. Those two aspects can c l a s h i n the s o l u t i o n of the design problem. A t h i r d h o r i z o n i s c r e a t e d by the o r g a n i z a t i o n of the c o l l e c t i v e to which the a r c h i t e c t and the c l i e n t belong. "Even the most u t i l i t a r i a n f u n c t i o n s of a b u i l d i n g appear and r e l a t e to one another in accordance with the o r g a n i z a t i o n of s o c i e t y , the a v a i l a b l e economic and m a t e r i a l p o s s i b i l i t i e s and so f o r t h " 2 8 . A f o u r t h h o r i z o n i s given by the i n d i v i d u a l , designer or user. "An i n d i v i d u a l can o b v i o u s l y d e v i a t e from e v e r y t h i n g which has been set as a norm by the preceding h o r i z o n s ; he can combine t h e i r d i v e r g i n g requirements in v a r i o u s ways; and so o n . " 2 9 Those four f u n c t i o n a l horizons are i n a s t a t e of "constant h i e r a r c h i c a l i n t e r r e l a t i o n " , 3 0 which means that u s u a l l y one of them p r e v a i l s . For example, in the beginning of the Modern Movement, the immediate usage of the b u i l d i n g r e c e i v e d g r e a t e r emphasis, while l a t e r s o c i a l f u n c t i o n a l i t y was a l s o s t r e s s e d . A f i f t h f u n c t i o n a l h o r i z o n i s given by the a e s t h e t i c f u n c t i o n , which, as the " d i a l e c t i c negation of f u n c t i o n a l i t y " 3 1 , tends to hinder the p r a c t i c a l use of the b u i l d i n g . P r e z i o s i 3 2 d i s t i n g u i s h e s i n the " i n d i v i d u a l h o r i z o n " between the designer as the addresser, who i n v e s t s the b u i l d i n g 58 with meaning, and the user as the addressee, who i n t e r p r e t s the message of the b u i l d i n g . The b u i l d i n g as c l i m a t i c and be h a v i o u r a l m o d i f i e r responds to the immediate f u n c t i o n as i d e n t i f i e d by Mukarovsky. As a symbolic m o d i f i e r i t a l s o responds to the f u n c t i o n a l h o r i z o n d e f i n e d by the o r g a n i z a t i o n of the c o l l e c t i v e of the designer and the user. It appears then that a combination of the f u n c t i o n a l h o r i z o n s with the f o u r - f u n c t i o n model would pr o v i d e the b a s i s f o r a m u l t i - f u n c t i o n a l system through which the b u i l d i n g can be d e f i n e d as a meaningful o b j e c t . The l i m i t s of t h i s t h e s i s however do not allow f o r f u r t h e r e l a b o r a t i o n of the i s s u e of f u n c t i o n a l i t y which has been only b r i e f l y o u t l i n e d f o r the purpose of d e f i n i n g a r c h i t e c t u r a l s i g n i f i c a t i o n . D. THE FUNCTION OF THE SIGN IN COMMUNICATION The f u n c t i o n of the sign i s to s i g n i f y a conceptual r e f e r e n t , i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to a r e a l r e f e r e n t and to communicate some intended meaning. T h i s happens through the establishment of a s p e c i f i c r e l a t i o n s h i p of the si g n to an obj e c t and the concept, as i t has been argued e a r l i e r on. In language the sound of the word a t t r i b u t e d , f o r example, to the ob j e c t horse i s a r b i t r a r y . I t has no a c t u a l r e f e r e n c e to the p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h i s o b j e c t . A f t e r the sound "horse" has been e s t a b l i s h e d , we a s s o s i a t e , d i r e c t l y , the sound with the image. But i n a r c h i t e c t u r e , a r b i t r a r i n e s s between the r e a l 59 o b j e c t and the s i g n i s c o n f i n e d w i t h i n c e r t a i n l i m i t s . P e i r c e i d e n t i f i e d three types of s i g n s i n r e l a t i o n to the o b j e c t they r e f e r t o : i c o n , symbol, and index. An icon i s a s i g n which r e f e r s to the o b j e c t that i t denotes by v i r t u e of c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r s of i t s own and which i t possesses j u s t the same, whether any such o b j e c t a c t u a l l y e x i s t s or not. A symbol i s a s i g n which r e f e r s to the o b j e c t that i t denotes by v i r t u e of a law, u s u a l l y any a s s o c i a t i o n of general ideas which operate to cause that symbol to be i n t e r p r e t e d as r e f e r i n g to that o b j e c t . An index i s a s i g n , or r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , which r e f e r s to i t s o b j e c t not so much because of any s i m i l a r i t y o f, or analogy with i t , nor because i t i s a s s o c i a t e d with general c h a r a c t e r s which that o b j e c t happens to possess, but because i t i s i n dynamical ( i n c l u d i n g s p a t i a l ) connection, both with the i n d i v i d u a l o b j e c t on the one hand and with the senses or memory of the person fo r whom i t a c t s as a s i g n . 3 3 For example, the Parthenon i n N a s h v i l l e i s an icon of the a n c i e n t Greek Parthenon, i n Athens. The conceptual r e f e r e n t as democracy, power of the s t a t e , or i n s t i t u t i o n a l i s m i s d i r e c t l y i n t e r p r e t e d through t h i s i c o n i c i t y to an o b j e c t a l r e a d y r i c h i n s y m b o l i z a t i o n of those n o t i o n s . The a r c h i t e c t u r a l drawings a l s o are icons of the r e a l b u i l d i n g . The E i f f e l Tower re p r e s e n t s a symbol of the c i t y of P a r i s , and the C a t h e d r a l a symbol of C h r i s t i a n i t y and the Church. Index, as the most p r i m i t i v e of s i g n s , can r e f e r to anything t h a t , f o r example, a t t r a c t s a t t e n t i o n . Thus, a change in the paving c o u l d be an index f o r a change of t e r r i t o r y , and the d i f f e r e n t c o l o u r s i n a s e r i e s of c o r r i d o r s would s i m i l a r l y i n d i c a t e d i f f e r e n t s e c t i o n s of the b u i l d i n g . 60 To i d e n t i f y the s i g n i n i t s r e l a t i o n to the ob j e c t and to the conceptual r e f e r e n t , r e p r e s e n t s the f i r s t stage of semi o t i c a n a l y s i s . As Blomeyer s t a t e s : i t d e s c r i b e s the s i g n as a " v i r t u a l " s i g n . In order to proceed f u r t h e r and understand whether, and what the sign s i g n i f i e s , or communicates, we need to examine the sign as an " e f f e c t i v e " s i g n . 3 4 One has to determine how the sign i s p e r c e i v e d , i . e . , to d e f i n e the communication channel, what the s e t t i n g i s i n terms of human and obj e c t a s p e c t s , and how the i n d i v i d u a l operates as an i n t e r p r e t e r . The i n t e r p r e t e r s e l e c t s information about the conceptual r e f e r e n t , and he proceeds, through the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the s i g n , to the understanding of the r e a l r e f e r e n t . The b a s i s f o r h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , h i s i n d i v i d u a l and s o c i a l background, i s shaped by s o c i e t y . The f i n a l communication of the message w i l l always remain sub j e c t to pe r s o n a l and, consequently, d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . Those i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , though, are u s u a l l y shaped under some s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l norms, which can a l s o , i n t u r n , f u n c t i o n as co n n o t a t i v e systems. In order to accommodate t h i s notion of intended meaning and e f f e c t i v e communication i n terms of the sender as the a r c h i t e c t and the r e c e i v e r as the user, B o n t a 3 5 suggests a d i f f e r e n t typology of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l s i g n . He draws from Buyssen and P r i e t o ' s concepts of i n d i c a t o r , as the general category, and index 3 6 and s i g n a l , as d i f f e r e n t cases of sign s w i t h i n t h i s category, and notes t h a t : 61 An i n d i c a t o r i s a d i r e c t l y p e r c e p t i b l e f a c t , by means of which i t i s p o s s i b l e to l e a r n something about other i n d i r e c t l y p e r c e p t i b l e f a c t s . S i g n a l s must be d e l i b e r a t e l y used and they must be recognized by the i n t e r p r e t e r as such as having been d e l i b e r a t e l y used to have a communicative a c t . 3 7 An o b s t r u c t i o n i n the road would be an i n d i c a t o r f o r an a c c i d e n t , but a f i r e alarm i s a s i g n a l f o r a f i r e . I n d i c a t o r s show an o b j e c t i v e r e a l i t y , while s i g n a l s communicate s t a t e s of consciousness fo r the e m i t t e r . The meaning of the s i g n a l i s u s u a l l y a c u l t u r a l product. But both i n d i c a t o r s and s i g n a l s i n c l u d e i n t h e i r reading a p o s s i b i l i t y of e r r o r . What d e f i n e s the o b j e c t as an i n d i c a t o r , or as a s i g n a l , i s not i t s nature, but the r o l e the o b j e c t p l a y s w i t h i n the s i g n i f i c a t i v e process. I n t r o d u c i n g the n o t i o n of i n t e n t i o n a l i n d i c a t o r , Bonta goes on to suggest four c a t e g o r i e s of i n d i c a t o r s as shown i n f i g . 10. F i g u r e 10 - Types of i n d i c a t o r s a c c o r d i n g to Bonta (Source: J . P. Bonta, A r c h i t e c t u r e and i t s I n t e r p r e t a t i o n ) ' There is an intentional emitter ! There is no ' intentional emitter Interpreter assumes intentionality (Communicat ion) Interpreter does not assume intentionality (Indication) S I G N A L I N T E N T I O N A L I N D E X P S E U D O - S I G N A L I N D E X The a r c h i t e c t u r a l s i g n takes p a r t i n the act of communication over a p e r i o d of time. Thus, forms which operate once as indexes may become i n t e n t i o n a l indexes or s i g n a l s l a t e r 62 on. Even s i g n a l s may be understood i n a l a t e r time as simple i n d i c e s . "Form can remain the same or change g r a d u a l l y e i t h e r to be r e f i n e d or to be d e g r a d e d " . 3 8 I n t e n t i o n s once expressed through the b u i l d i n g may be hidden or f o r g o t t e n i n the course of time, and new messages to be t r a n s m i t t e d i n s t e a d . I t i s the task of s e m i o t i c a n a l y s i s to d i s c o v e r those new meanings, or to uncover the hidden i n t e n t i o n s , to d e f i n e the b u i l d i n g as a meaningful a r t i f a c t at a c e r t a i n moment, or t o t r a c e i t s s i g n i f i c a t i o n through time. T h i s act of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the message t r a n s m i t t e d by the s i g n i s a c o g n i t i v e a c t . To understand i t s nature one needs to see i t in the context of c o g n i t i o n as expressed e i t h e r in terms of c o n c e i v i n g , c r e a t i n g , and i n v e s t i n g the o b j e c t with meaning, as i n the case of the design a c t i v i t y , or of i n t e r p r e t i n g , and comprehending the o b j e c t , as i n the case of i t s use. The f i r s t aspect, concerning meaning a t t r i b u t i o n as o c c u r i n g d u r i n g the design a c t i v i t y w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n the f o l l o w i n g chapter. The second one, which addresses the issue from the p o i n t of view of the user, even though e q u a l l y important, w i l l not be addressed at pres e n t . 63 E. NOTES 1 Ferdinand de Saussure, Course i n General L i n g u i s t i c s , T r a n s l a t e d by W. Baskin, I n t r o d u c t i o n by J . C u l l e r , Great B r i t a i n : F o n t a n a ' C o l l i n s , 1974, 3rd ed. 1978, p. 67. 2 Roland Barthes, Elements of Semiology, T r a n s l a t e d by A. Lavers and C. Smith, New York: H i l l and Wang, 1st ed. 1968, 6th p r i n t i n g , 1980, p. 39. 3 i b i d , p. 43. 4 G e o f f r e y Broadbent, "A p l a i n man's guide to the theory of sign s in a r c h i t e c t u r e , " A r c h i t e c t u r a l Design 7-8, 1977, pp. 474-482. 5 Charles Jencks, "The A r c h i t e c t u r a l S i g n", i n Signs, Symbols, and A r c h i t e c t u r e , p. 8 1 . 6 i b i d , p. 81 . 7 G. Broadbent, op. c i t . , p. 47. 8 G e r a l d R. Blomeyer, " M a t e r i a l i z e d Ideology: A Semiotic A n a l y s i s of Monumental Nazi A r c h i t e c t u r e , " Ars Semeiotica, v o l . 2, no. 3, 1978, pp. 73-106. 9 L u i s Hjelmslev, Prolegomena to a Theory of Language, T r a n s l a t e d by F r a n c i s J . W h i t e f i e l d , B a l t i m o r e : Waverly Press, 1953. 1 0 i b i d , p. 30. 1 1 i b i d , p. 32. i b i d , p. 31-32. 1 2 1 3 Umberto Eco, "A Componential A n a l y s i s of the A r c h i t e c t u r a l Sign: Column," i n Signs, Symbols, and A r c h i t e c t u r e , . 217. 1 a Maria L u i s a S c a l v i n i , " S t r u c t u r a l L i n g u i s t i c s vs the Semiotics of L i t e r a t u r e : A l t e r a t i v e Models f o r A r c h i t e c t u r a l C r i t i c i s m , " i n Signs, Symbols, and A r c h i t e c t u r e , p. 414. 1 5 i b i d , p. 414. 1 e 1 7 As understood by Mukarofsky, see D. P r e z i o s i , The Semiotics of the B u i l t Environment: An I n t r o d u c t i o n to A r c h i t e c t o n i c A n a l y s i s , Bloomington and London: Indiana Univ. Press, 1979, p.66. The P a r i s Group 170 f o l l o w s H j e l m s l e v ' s model but on the plane of content they i d e n t i f y " a c t i v i t y " . "Space i s seen as a stage upon which humans enter i n t o r e l a t i o n s h i p s both with each other and with o t h e r s " , see M. Krampen, Meaning i n the Urban Environment, London: Pion L t d . , 1979, pp. 24-25. T h i s approach 64 does not c o n t r a d i c t the one we f o l l o w s i n c e " f u n c t i o n " i s used i n broad terms, to i n c l u d e a c t i v i t y too. Broadbent s t a t e s "There may be advantages i n s p l i t t i n g the concept which l i n k s s i g n i f i e r and r e f e r e n t i n t h i s way, because i t a llows f o r a process of encoding between one's immediate thought about the o b j e c t and the way one chooses to r e f e r to i t by means of words or other s i g n i f i e r s . " G. Broadbent, op. c i t . , p. 478. See a l s o R. Barthes, op. c i t . , pp. 40-41, "...the s u b d i v i s i o n form"substance can be made more u s e f u l and e a s i e r to handle in semiology, in the f o l l o w i n g cases : i ) when we d e a l with a system i n which the s i g n i f i e d s are s u b s t a n t i f i e d i n a substance other than of t h e i r own system... i i ) when a system of o b j e c t s i n c l u d e s a substance which i s not immediately and f u n c t i o n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , but can be at a c e r t a i n l e v e l , simply u t i l i t a r i a n : the f u n c t i o n of a d i s h can be to s i g n i f y a s i t u a t i o n and a l s o to serve food." D. P r e z i o s i , The S e m i o t i c s of the B u i l t Environment, pp. 59 and 93-94. i b i d , p. 93. P r e z i o s i ' s d e f i n i t i o n of the primary u n i t i n the code stands in agreement with H i l l i e r and Leamans's approach i n d e f i n i n g the syntax of the b u i l t environment. THey see as a primary u n i t an elementary s t r u c t u r e d e s c r i b e d l o g i c a l l y as an e n c l o s u r e , which d e f i n e s an i n s i d e and an o u t s i d e space. T h i s u n i t enters i n t o complex formations, f o l l o w i n g c o d i f i e d r u l e s , and g i v e s the elementary s t r u c t u r e of the code, the aggregate. B. H i l l i e r and A. Leaman, "The a r c h i t e c t u r e of a r c h i t e c t u r e , " i n D. Hawkes (ed), Models and Systems i n A r c h i t e c t u r e , London: Medical and T e c h n i c a l Press, 1975, p.5-28. His a n a l y s i s does not exclude the case of s p e c i f i c b u i l d i n g elements, d i r e c t l y s i g n i f i c a t i v e i n themselves. Jan Mukarofky, S t r u c t u r e , Sign, and F u n c t i o n : S e l e c t e d Essays, T r a n s l a t e d and e d i t e d by J.Burbank and P. S t e i n e r , Yale Univ. Press, 1978, p. 236. B. H i l l i e r and A. Leaman, " A r c h i t e c t u r e as a D i s c i p l i n e , " J o u r n a l of A r c h i t e c t u r a l Research, v o l . 15, no 1, March 1976, pp. 28-32. We f e e l that t h i s does not c o n t r a d i c t the b a s i c idea of the four f u n c t i o n model; i t j u s t s changes the model f o r o p e r a t i o n a l reasons. J . Mukarovsky, o p . c i t . , p. 236. i b i d , p. 237. i b i d , p. 237. 65 2 8 i b i d , p. 242. 2 9 i b i d , p. 2.42. 3 0 i b i d , p. 242. 3 1 i b i d , p. 244. 3 2 D. P r e z i o s i , o p . c i t . , pp. 68-74. 3 3 G. Broadbent, " B u i l d i n g Design as an Iconic System," i n Signs, Symbols, and A r c h i t e c t u r e , p. 314. 3 " G. Blomeyer, o p . c i t . , p. 101, quoting from Max Bense. 3 5 Juan Pablo Bonta, A r c h i t e c t u r e and i t s I n t e r p r e t a t i o n : A Study of E x p r e s s i v e Systems i n A r c h i t e c t u r e , New York: R i z z o l i , 1979, pp.26-29. See a l s o J . P. Bonta, "Notes on a Theory of Meaning in Design," i n Signs,Symbols, and A r c h i t e c t u r e , pp. 276-282. 3 6 Bonta uses the term "index" f o r a s p e c i f i c type of i n d i c a t o r . His use of the word i s not the same as that of P e i r c e ' s . 3 7 J . P. Bonta, o p . c i t . ( 1 ) , p. 29. 3 8 i b i d , p. 29. 66 I I I . THE DESIGN ACTIVITY A. INTRODUCTION The examination of meaning a t t r i b u t i o n as o c c u r i n g d u r i n g the design a c t i v i t y forms a b a s i c theme f o r t h i s t h e s i s . I t o f f e r s the premise f o r the understanding of how the a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t i s composed i n t o a meaningful a r t i f a c t . In order to understand the semiotic aspect of the design a c t i v i t y however, one needs a fundamental d e s c r i p t i o n of design as a c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t y , s i n c e the s e m i o t i c a c t i s a l s o p a r t of c o g n i t i o n . Design i s a c r e a t i v e a c t , i n the o p e r a t i o n of which p e r s o n a l i d i o s y n c r a c i e s account f o r c o n s i d e r a b l e d i s c r e p a n c i e s . Some de s i g n e r s a r r i v e at a general s o l u t i o n before they proceed with the e l a b o r a t i o n of the scheme. Others d e f i n e f i r s t the parameters and the l i m i t s of the problem, and f i n d p a r t i a l s o l u t i o n s that are combined together i n a s y n t h e s i s . But apart from such d i f f e r e n c e s , which respond to the d i f f e r e n t p e r s o n a l ways of working, the'question a r i s e s as to whether there i s an a c t u a l u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e , a way of t h i n k i n g d u r i n g design so fundamental that i t can be found in a l l the d i f f e r e n t approaches. During the l a s t two decades, a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of r e s e a r c h has been done to understand the design process. However, only a l i m i t e d ammount of the r e s e a r c h addresses the issue of design as a c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t y , while r e f e r e n c e s to the 67 s e m i o t i c component of design, and the a c t of meaning a t t r i b u t i o n , are r a r e . 1 In t h i s c hapter, the h i s t o r i c a l development and f i n d i n g s of r e s e a r c h i n the f i e l d , as w e l l as a model of the design a c t i v i t y and p r o c e s s , w i l l be b r i e f l y d i s c u s s e d , i n order to e s t a b l i s h an understanding of design as a c o g n i t i v e ' a c t i v i t y . The s e m i o t i c component of design, meaning a t t r i b u t i o n and c o d i f i c a t i o n , as w e l l as the o p e r a t i o n of the d i f f e r e n t codes w i l l be a l s o e x p l o r e d . B. THE NATURE OF THE DESIGN ACTIVITY 1 . The Systematic Approach To Design: D i r e c t i o n s And Problems During the s i x t i e s , a new approach to a r c h i t e c t u r a l r e s e a r c h was e s t a b l i s h e d . A great number of experiments c a r r i e d out mainly by environmental p s y c h o l o g i s t s attempted to give an answer to the q u e s t i o n s the a r c h i t e c t s were f a c i n g when they t r i e d to r e l a t e the product of t h e i r design to the needs of the u s e r s . T h i s emerged as a new f i e l d , t h a t of Design Methods,which attempted to c l a r i f y and c l a s s i f y the process of d e s i g n ; to h e l p a r c h i t e c t s to d e a l i n a systematic way with the i n c r e a s i n g amount of i n f o r m a t i o n ; 2 and to e s t a b l i s h a l o g i c a l procedure i n s t e a d of the i n t u i t i v e methods of the p a s t . 68 A r c h i t e c t u r a l design was seen as p a r t of a more gene r a l problem-solving a c t i v i t y , based on the process of a n a l y s i s and s y n t h e s i s . Design was understood to proceed through an e l a b o r a t e a n a l y s i s of the f a c t s to a gradual s y n t h e s i s of the answers to the problem i n a coherent whole, through an ongoing e v a l u a t i o n of a l l stages. T h i s a n a l y s i s and s y n t h e s i s model of design was formed from an understanding of s c i e n t i f i c thought and a c t i v i t y based on i n d u c t i o n . Attempts though to apply the rather r i g i d methodology that was suggested, r e v e a l e d c e r t a i n problems inherent to the nature of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l problem: i n f l u e n c i n g f a c t o r s and design parameters can not be e a s i l y q u a n t i f i e d , and the designer does not appear to operate i n a l i n e a r process, but r a t h e r to s o l v e problems while d i s c o v e r i n g them. 3 E x p l a i n i n g the d i f f e r e n c e between design and s c i e n c e , Steadman s t a t e s , Design i s concerned with making unique m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s to answer to s p e c i f i c purposes; while s c i e n c e i s concerned with the making statements about the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c behaviour of general c l a s s e s of o b j e c t s or phenomena under given c o n d i t i o n s , and d e f i n i n g the l i m i t s on these c l a s s e s and t h i s behaviour.... The design problem as a whole i s only determined by the purposes which the a r t i f a c t i s to serve, and in r e l a t i o n to some c u l t u r a l framework which g i v e s the object meaning. " One should be c a u t i o u s i n t r a n s f e r i n g s c i e n t i f i c methods i n t o a f i e l d l i k e d e s ign, because, as Neuckermans observes, A design method ... i s always l i n k e d to u n c e r t a i n t i e s , to p e r s o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the designer, to an . ever changing 69 importance a t t r i b u t e d to value systems. Design methods have to deal with i r r a t i o n a l i t y . B l i n d l y t r a n s p l a n t i n g s c i e n t i f i c problem s o l v i n g methods to the a r c h i t e c t u r a l design process i s u s e l e s s and m i s l e a d i n g . 5 As a r e s u l t , r e s e a r c h began towards the f o r m u l a t i o n of d e s c r i p t i v e model of d e s i g n a c t i v i t y . T h i s approach accepts and v e r i f i e s the c o n j e c t u r a l nature of design, a d m i t t i n g t h a t , i n s o l v i n g the problem, the designer has not only to f i n d the answers, but a l s o to form the q u e s t i o n s . In o p p o s i t i o n to a fundamental notion of the a n a l y s i s - s y n t h e s i s methodology, which suggested t h a t the designer should abandon any notion of preconceived design s o l u t i o n s , i t r e c o g n i z e s the f a c t that the designer operates i n a h i g h l y s t r u c t u r e d u n i v e r s e . He faces every new problem through an a l r e a d y p r e s t r u c t u r e d understanding. T h i s approach marks a s i g n i f i c a n t s h i f t on an e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l l e v e l . 2. Design As A C o g n i t i v e A c t i v i t y H i l l i e r et a l oppose pr e v i o u s approaches to a r c h i t e c t u r a l r e s e a r c h and design methodology as based on a r a t i o n a l i s t i c premise which suggests: F i r s t that the r o l e of s c i e n t i f i c work i s to provide f a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n that can be a s s i m i l a t e d i n t o design; second that a r a t i o n a l i s e d design process, a b l e to a s s i m i l a t e such i n f o r m a t i o n would 70 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l y and n e c e s s e r i l y proceed by decomposing a problem i n t o i t s elements, adding an i n f o r m a t i o n content to each element drawn as f a r as p o s s i b l e from s c i e n t i f i c work, and s y n t h e s i z i n g ( i . e . , i n d u c t i n g ) a s o l u t i o n by means of a set of l o g i c a l or p r o c e d u r a l r u l e s . 6 Induction as the b a s i c mode of thought in the methodology of s c i e n c e has been r e f u t e d by Popper. For him, the l o g i c of i n d u c t i o n and the p r i n c i p l e of v e r i f i c a t i o n in s c i e n c e are u n a t t a i n a b l e . Science should be c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n a h y p o t h e t i c o - d e d u c t i v e scheme. E p i s t e m o l o g i s t s , l i k e Kuhn and Lakatos, have a l s o drawn a t t e n t i o n to the f a c t that the s c i e n t i s t operates w i t h i n paradigmatic frameworks which become axiomatic, such that h i s way of understanding and s o l v i n g the problem are c o n s i d e r a b l y i n f l u e n c e d . 7 As Broadbent notes, The s c i e n t i s t i n d e c i d i n g that c e r t a i n phenomena are worthy of h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n has ... a l s o committed himself to them. He w i l l s t a r t with hunches, guesses, c o n j e c t u r e s about these phenomena and w i l l tend to c o l l e c t data which supports h i s c o n j e c t u r e s . I t w i l l be easy for him, i n many cases to make them s e l f - j u s t i f y i n g , but h i s prime r e s p o n s i b i l i t y under the circumstances w i l l be to t e s t h i s c o n j e c t u r e s as r i g o r o u s l y as p o s s i b l e and to d i s p r o v e them i f he can. 8 Recent a r c h i t e c t u r a l research accepts the idea of a c o n j e c t u r a l mode of t h i n k i n g and t r i e s to examine whether designer t h i n k i n g i s c o n j e c t u r a l i n nature t o o . 9 D a r k e 1 0 concluded, a f t e r i n t e r v i e w i n g a r c h i t e c t s on the matter, that they formulate some i n i t i a l concepts, which she c a l l s primary genera t o r s , and, through c o n j e c t u r e s or c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of a 71 p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n , reduce the range of p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n s , and gain f u r t h e r understanding of the problem. F o z 1 1 came to s i m i l a r c o n c l u s i o n s f o l l o w i n g a d i f f e r e n t method. The model of a c t i v i t y he observed has two phases. F i r s t , t h a t of the understanding of the problem, which means a s s i m i l a t i n g i t i n t o some conceptual framework a l r e a d y known to the p a r t i c u l a r d e s i g n e r . B u i l d i n g t y p o l o g i e s , f o r example, are seen to e x i s t as a l r e a d y s t r u c t u r e d i n f o r m a t i o n i n the d e s i g n e r ' s mind. They are used as templates to understand program requirements and to guide the problem-solving s t r a t e g y . The designer guesses about the c h a r a c t e r of a p r e - s o l u t i o n model and he f i n a l y chooses one. The second phase r e f e r s to the pre- s o l u t i o n model as forming the context w i t h i n which the problem i s s o l v e d . I t operates as a template, which p r o v i d e s a c h e c k l i s t a g a i n s t which the designer can t e s t requirements and h i s own s o l u t i o n . He a p p l i e s a "what i f " stance i n order to check m i s f i t s . At some po i n t the designer can see an i n t e r n a l l o g i c i n h i s design. He no longer r e l i e s on the p r e - s o l u t i o n model. In another experiment by Lawson 1 2 , s u b j e c t s , ( a r c h i t e c t u r a l and s c i e n c e s t u d e n t s ) , were given a number of c o l o u r e d volumes and were asked to arrange them i n a s p e c i f i c p a t t e r n . He observed a d i f f e r e n t approach between the two groups, which might suggest a d i f f e r e n t mode of c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t y . The s c i e n c e students focused t h e i r i n t e r e s t on the problem and through an a n a l y s i s and s y n t h e s i s model a r r i v e d at the s o l u t i o n . A r c h i t e c t u r a l students, on the other hand, 72 focused on the s o l u t i o n . They t r i e d to imagine what the s o l u t i o n should be, and they s o l v e d the problem through "what i f " hypotheses. The d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups, Lawson suggested, might be due to t h e i r d i f f e r e n t education, s i n c e a r c h i t e c t s are mainly taught through examples and p r a c t i c e . Hence, design appears to be a predominantly c o n j e c t u r a l c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t y . 1 3 But the acceptance of i t s c o n j e c t u r a l nature should not d i s g u i s e the f a c t that design, as a c r e a t i v e a c t i v i t y , i s a c t u a l l y a mixture of two types of t h i n k i n g . 1 " Convergent t h i n k i n g , when one t r i e s to s o l v e a problem in which there i s only one s o l u t i o n , and d i v e r g e n t , when one faces an open ended problem i n which a v a r i e t y of c o r r e c t s o l u t i o n s e x i s t . C r e a t i v i t y i s a balance of d i v e r g e n t and convergent thought a p p r o p r i a t e to the problem. "What makes design such a c h a l l e n g i n g p s y c h o l o g i c a l task i s the very even balance of these two s e t s of t h i n k i n g s k i l l s t h a t comprise the e s s e n t i a l p r e r e q u i s i t e s of c r e a t i v e work." 1 5 However, what forms the b a s i s f o r any, c o n j e c t u r a l or not, type of t h i n k i n g i n v o l v e d i n design, i s the e x i s t e n c e of the d e s i g n e r ' s c o g n i t i v e schema. The not i o n of schema as a mental c o n s t r u c t has been examined by H i l l i e r and Leaman from a s t r u c t u r a l i s t p o i n t of view. Based on the assumption of the e x i s t e n c e of a r c h i t e c t u r e as a c u l t u r a l a r t i f a c t u a l s t r u c t u r e i n l o g i c a l space, they suggest that the i n d i v i d u a l , designer or user, a s s i m i l a t e s to a c e r t a i n degree t h i s s t r u c t u r e through h i s experience, and forms h i s p r e s t r u c t u r e s , or schema. The s t r u c t u r a l r u l e s of those p r e s t r u c t u r e s form the d e s i g n e r ' s 73 code. T h i s code e x i s t s i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p to the general knowledge, and s e t s of r e l a t i o n s h i p s , that c o n s t i t u t e a r c h i t e c t u r e as a c u l t u r a l a r t i f a c t . The designer approaches a problem with an idea shaped by h i s code, by.the i d e o l o g i c a l framework, and the paradigmatic s t a t e of a r c h i t e c t u r e . He operates on a " s o l u t i o n f i e l d , " 1 6 a l r e a d y p r e s t r u c t u r e d through h i s code. T h i s i n c l u d e s i n f o r m a t i o n on i n s t r u m e n t a l s e t s , t o o l s and t e c h n o l o g i e s , on s o l u t i o n types, or i t c o n t a i n s general i n f o r m a t i o n on the design problem. His knowledge, though, and h i s understanding of the problem remain b a s i c a l l y i m p l i c i t . 1 7 The acceptance of the c o n j e c t u r a l nature of design and of the d e s i g n e r ' s p r e s t r u c t u r e s i s important f o r the understanding of design as a c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t y . A process of a n a l y s i s and s y n t h e s i s occurs d u r i n g design, but i t only r e p r e s e n t s one type of t h i n k i n g i n v o l v e d i n d e s i g n . Design problems are p r e s t r u c t u r e d " e i t h e r by a knowledge of s o l u t i o n types, or by a knowledge of the l a t e n c i e s of the i n s t r u m e n t a l set i n r e l a t i o n to s o l u t i o n t y p e s . " 1 8 On the premise of the presented approach on design as a c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t y , a model of the design process w i l l be d i s c u s s e d , i n order to e s t a b l i s h a b a s i s on which meaning a t t r i b u t i o n as t a k i n g p l a c e d u r i n g design can be e x p l o r e d . 74 1 . A MODEL OF THE DESIGN ACTIVITY AND PROCESS 1 . The Analogy To The Speech Act According to H i l l i e r and Leaman, the c o n j e c t u r e - t e s t c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t y that takes p l a c e during design can be understood as an analogy to the speech a c t . What the speaker can say, at any time, they note, depends on h i s competence which can be d e s c r i b e d by h i s set of s y n t a c t i c , semantic, and f u n c t i o n a l a b s t r a c t i o n s that c h a r a c t e r i z e language as a s t r u c t u r e d whole. In order to express the intended meaning i n v e r b a l form, he uses a systematic s t r u c t u r e to operate the necessary mapping between the d i f f e r e n t domains of language on one hand and h i s i n t e n t i o n on the other. T h i s i s how they d e s c r i b e the procedure: The speaker, l i k e the designer, s t a r t s from a p r e - s t r u c t u r e i n which the most important e n t i t y i s the a b s t r a c t s t r u c t u r e by which mapping between d i s s i m i l a r domains may be e f f e c t e d . ... What happens between meaning and speech happens at two stages, not one. F i r s t , a set of semantic u n i t s i s c o n j e c t u r e d in the speaker's mind. T h i s may be thought of as a t r a n s i t i o n from the domain of s t r u c t u r e d , combinable meanings, through the semantic s t r u c t u r e , i n t o a general set of p r o p o s a l s f o r speech which are as yet unspoken. These u n i t s are r e a l i z e d i n the form of speech by p a s s i n g them through a second mapping s t r u c t u r e which c o n s t r u c t s word o r d e r s , phrase forms, sentence forms and so on, out of c o n j e c t u r e d but u n r e a l i z e d assemblages of u n i t s . . . 1 9 75 The f i r s t of these mappings operates between d i s s i m i l a r domain, from c o n j e c t u r a l meaning u n i t s i n t o v e r b a l form, and the second w i t h i n one domain, from the g e n e r a l v e r b a l s t r u c t u r e t o the p r e c i s e one. S i m i l a r phases can a l s o be i d e n t i f i e d i n the design process.They r e p r e s e n t , as i n the case of language, a mapping 2 0 between d i s s i m i l a r domains i n the f i r s t stage, and i n the range of the same domain, i n the second. At the f i r s t stage, from an o r i g i n a l c o n j e c t u r e , through the o p e r a t i o n of the a b s t r a c t p r e s t r u c t u r e s , the mapping leads from a statement of the problem i n t o a general s o l u t i o n . At the second, from the general s o l u t i o n i t lead s to a p a r t i c u l a r o n e . 2 1 The comparizon of the speech act and design i s shown i n f i g . 11. 76 F i g u r e 11 - Design a c t i v i t y i n an analogy to the speech act (Source: B. H i l l i e r and A. Leaman, "How i s Design P o s s i b l e ) S P E E C H A C T semantic u n i t s t r a n s f o r m a t i o n r u l e s meaning transformat ion r u l e s v e r b a l p r o d u c t i o n D E S I G N A C T general s o l u t i o n kj c o n j e c t u r e problem statement s p e c i f i c s o l u t i o n What i s a c t u a l l y suggested by t h i s model i s a design process which s t a r t s from a statement of the problem and leads to the formulation of content and i n t e n t i o n s , to be f o l l o w e d by the e l a b o r a t i o n of the e x p r e s s i o n . In Hjelmslev's model of the analogous act in language, the intended purport (thought or meaning) forms the content ( s p e c i f i c arrangement of semantic u n i t s i n the context of language) and r e l a t e s i t to the e x p r e s s i o n ( v e r b a l e x p r e s s i o n of the intended t h o u g h t ) . 2 2 77 T h i s procedure d e s c r i b e s a g e n e r a l model of c o g n i t i o n that takes p l a c e during design. The same o p e r a t i o n i s a p p l i e d c o n t i n u o u s l y on a l l the d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s that i n v o l v e design, and c o n s t i t u t e s the mode through which intended content i s formulated to e x p r e s s i o n . But design a l s o represents a s p e c i f i c type of c o g n i t i v e a c t i o n to the degree that i t operates f o r the p r o d u c t i o n of three-dimensional form. Apart then from the d e s c r i p t i o n of design on a general c o g n i t i v e l e v e l we need a more e l a b o r a t e model that r e l a t e s the s p e c i f i c c o g n i t i v e act to the domains on which i t operates. 2. A Model Of Design A c t i v i t y Schon 2 3 , i n order to d e s c r i b e the design process, i n t r o d u c e s the n o t i o n of design domains, which represent d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s of r e l e v a n t design elements. He i d e n t i f i e s twelve domains: These are: Program/Use, S i t i n g , B u i l d i n g Element, O r g a n i z a t i o n of Space, Form, Structure/Technology, S c a l e , Cost, B u i l d i n g Character, Precedent, Representation, and E x p l a n a t i o n . Each move that the designer makes, Schon observes, has consequences which re v e r b e r a t e through a range of these domains. The domains i n c l u d e not only d e s c r i p t i o n s and norms, but a l s o values and standards which the designer b r i n g s to h i s a c t i v i t y , i n order to c o n s t r u c t and e v a l u a t e h i s moves. Some of the 78 d e s i g n e r ' s d e c i s i o n s r e f e r only to one domain, but some others appear to cut a c r o s s the d i f f e r e n t domains. The designer takes a "what i f " ( c o n j e c t u r a l ) stance in order to c r e a t e and evaluate t r e e s of consequences which f o l l o w from that move. Sometimes he a l s o r e t u r n s to e a r l i e r p o i n t s . As he moves ac r o s s the domains, t e s t i n g t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s on h i s scheme, he e s t a b l i s h e s a d i s i p l i n e , which he t a c i t l y agrees to be bound t o . His moves then become modes and, f o l l o w i n g a stance of commitment, t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s become b i n d i n g . 2 * Consider f o r example the f o l l o w i n g case as t a k i n g p l a c e , h y p o t h e t i c a l l y , d u r i n g the design of the Museum of Anthropology at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia: The entrance represents a f o c a l p o i n t of the b u i l d i n g . C l e a r l y d e f i n e d and a r t i c u l a t e d , i t i s assumed to express an i n t e n t i o n f o r s i g n i f i c a t i o n at the p o i n t of e n t r y . ( f i g . 12). (A metaphor of an "absorbing mouth" can a l s o be suggested). F i g u r e 12 - The entrance of the Museum of Antropology 79 S t a r t i n g , a r b i t r a r i l y , from the domain " s c a l e , " the designer c o n s i d e r s the entrance to the r e s t of the b u i l d i n g i n terms of volume and s i z e . ( f i g . 13). The domain " s i t i n g " would suggest a r e l a t i o n s h i p of the element "entrance" and the access of the b u i l d i n g . F i g u r e 13 - Entrance and b u i l d i n g i n terms of s c a l e T e s t i n g the domains "form' and " s t r u c t u r e " would f u r t h e r suggest the use of post-and-beam element as a morphological and s t r u c t u r a l theme. The b u i l d i n g c h a r a c t e r , as a general statement of i n t e n t i o n , would i n f l u e n c e the s p e c i f i c a r t i c u l a t i o n of the entrance i n terms of m a t e r i a l s . And, of course, the f i n a l composition o l the entrance (three post-and- beam elements d e c r e a s i n g i n height) r e l a t e s to the s c a l e of the r e s t of the b u i l d i n g and i t s m o r p h o l o g y . ( f i g . 14). 80 F i g u r e 14 - A r t i c u l a t i o n of the entrance Schon does not pursue the search r e g a r d i n g the nature of the d e s i g n e r ' s " d i s c i p l i n e " any f u r t h e r . I t appears however that t h i s d i s c i p l i n e o f f e r s the b a s i s f o r the understanding of c o d i f i c a t i o n as o c c u r i n g during d e s i g n . What happens i s the f o l l o w i n g : while the designer i s "moving" through the d i f f e r e n t domains, he forms a d i s c i p l i n e c o n s i s t i n g of norms to which he has to be bound. These norms are the r u l e s which he a p p l i e s i n the d i f f e r e n t domains i n order to shape h i s i n t e n t i o n s i n t o form. They operate, as mapping n o t i o n s , between a domain of i n t e n t i o n s , which forms the content, and a domain of p o s s i b l e form a r t i c u l a t o n s , which represents the e x p r e s s i o n . For example, i n the case of the entrance, one of those n o t i o n s c o u l d be the metaphor of the "absorbing mouth". T h i s n o t i o n would o f f e r a b a s i s f o r the choice of a p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n ( e x p r ession) in the range of the design domains. I t would a l s o r e f e r to the image, or i n t e n t i o n s , the designer had formed f o r the entrance 81 ( c o n t e n t ) . T h i s type of notio n s are c a l l e d codes; t h e i r b a s i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s the mapping between a domain of s i g n i f i c a t i o n , (the semantic domain), to a domain of elements and r e l a t i o n s h i p s , without r e f e r e n c e to t h e i r meaning, (the s y n t a c t i c domain). A model of the design process would i n c l u d e the f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s as presented i n f i g . 15: the statement of the problem, the de s i g n e r ' s p r e s t r u c t u r e s o p e r a t i n g as a f i l t e r between the problem and i t s s o l u t i o n , the primary generators as the i n i t i a l concepts, the a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes, and the b u i l d i n g , or e x p r e s s i v e a r t i f a c t , as the s o l u t i o n . F i g u r e 15 - F a c t o r s o p e r a t i n g d u r i n g the design a c t i v i t y statement of problem p r e s t r u c t u r e s as f i l t e r primary generators a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes ex p r e s s i v e a r t i f a c t ideas to be expressed funct i o n a l requirements p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n s c o s t , s i t e c ontext a r c h i t e c t ' s understanding a r c h i t e c t ' s s t y l e i ssues of importance r e p e r t o r y of s o l u t i o n types c h o i c e of elements and ideas o r i g i n s of a d i s c i p l i n e to be fol l o w e d in design f i r s t mapping between ideas and ,the i r e x p r e s s i o operat ion of the d i s c i p l i n e b u i l d i n g ' s r epresent- a t i o n s the b u i l d i n g Though, i n g e n e r a l , d u r i n g the design a c t i v i t y , the designer proceeds from the more general to the p a r t i c u l a r , t h i s procedure does not happen i n a l i n e a r f a s h i o n . From an idea that he wants to express, he moves i n t o the ex p r e s s i o n of t h i s idea i n form which he represents as a sketch on a paper. But t h i s does not happen n e c e s s a r i l y i n t h i s sequence. In process, he may 82 d i s c o v e r p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r ex p r e s i v e form through h i s e x p l o r a t i o n of the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . Thus, ideas ( c o n t e n t ) , b u i l d i n g form ( e x p r e s s i o n ) , and sketch ( i n t e r m e d i a t e e x p r e s s i o n , r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ) are d i s c o v e r e d and e l a b o r a t e d d u r i n g d e s i g n . At the beginning they are vaguely known at l e a s t i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to the s p e c i f i c problem. They s t a r t to become c l e a r l y formulated and connected through h i s moves and the more d e t a i l e d formation of the s o l u t i o n . Before we proceed to the more d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of the codes and t h e i r o p e r a t i o n d u r i n g the design a c t i v i t y , another p o i n t concerning the process of design should be c l a r i f i e d . I t r e f e r s to a number of d i f f e r e n t types of design as s p e c i f i c models which.the designer i s using i n order to shape h i s way of t h i n k i n g about the problem, and a s s i s t the c r e a t i v e p r o c e s s . As the designer moves acr o s s the d i f f e r e n t domains and forms h i s d i s c i p l i n e , he i s using one or more mechanisms or processes which c h a r a c t e r i z e ' s p e c i f i c types of d e s i g n . These, as d e s c r i b e d by Broadbent, 2 5 a r e : pragmatic design, i n which the designer through t r i a l and e r r o r d i s c o v e r s the consequences f o r the a r c h i t e c t u r a l form; i c o n i c design, i n which t r i e d and accepted forms are used; a n a l o g i c design, which suggests the use of a n a l o g i e s e i t h e r from the a r c h i t e c t u r a l f i e l d , or from o u t s i d e the f i e l d ; and f i n a l l y , canonic (geometric) design, i n which the form i s generated by two or three dimensional geometric systems. 83 These types h e l p the designer to formulate h i s d i s c i p l i n e and to frame the accepted modes i n t o a coherent whole. As Schon notes: The designer must work c l o s e - i n becoming so i n v o l v e d i n the l o c a l development of the form that the design appears to be making i t s e l f ; and he must a l s o d i s t a n c e h i m s e l f . . . i n order to see the l a r g e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s on which the 'whole idea' w i l l depend. 2 6 T h i s n o t i o n w i l l h e l p c l a r i f i n g the r o l e of the types of d e s i g n . Consider f o r example the arrangement of a number of c o r r i d o r s ( c i r c u l a t i o n ) i n a school p r o j e c t a c c o r d i n g to a g r i d system. The b a s i c elements of the c o r r i d o r s , l i k e o r i e n t a t i o n , l e n g t h , width, w i l l be given by the f u n c t i o n a l requirements. The a c t i v i t y t a k i n g p l a c e i n the s p a c e - c o r r i d o r w i l l b a s i c a l l y d e f i n e the type of space, ( c o n t e n t - e x p r e s s i o n ) . But, having decided that the system of c o r r i d o r s w i l l be arranged i n a g r i d p a t t e r n a l r e a d y imposes a d i f f e r e n t c ontent. In t h i s case the system " c o r r i d o r s i n g r i d p a t t e r n " forms the e x p r e s s i o n of another system, in which a set of n o t i o n s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s on the f o r m a l i s t i c and g e o m e t r i c a l a b s t r a c t system c a l l e d " g r i d " d e f i n e s the content. The d e s i g n e r , s t a r t i n g from the primary concepts, and d i s c o v e r i n g t r e e s of i m p l i c a t i o n s through the design domains, needs a r e f e r e n t to a more general p a t t e r n of thought. His d i s c i p l i n e c o n s i s t s not only of p r e v i o u s d e c i s i o n s norms and modes, on the b a s i c l e v e l of r e l a t i n g requirements, f u n c t i o n s , or ideas to space p l a n n i n g , but a l s o i t r e f e r s to a higher l e v e l of r e f e r e n c e . T h i s i s given by the four types of d e s i g n . 84 Imposing a set of r u l e s t h a t does not have to be d i s c o v e r e d , but only accepted and a p p l i e d , they h e l p g u i d i n g the designer through h i s search and i n the d e c i s i o n making. Based on the e s t a b l i s h e d understanding of design as a c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t y we can now proceed to the a n a l y s i s of one p a r t i c u l a r aspect of design, the s e m i o t i c one. C. THE SEMIOTIC ASPECT OF DESIGN Another component of design as an a c t i v i t y i s that of meaning a t t r i b u t i o n . Through h i s composition, the designer attempts a f i r s t d e f i n i t i o n of the b u i l d i n g as a meaningful o b j e c t ; he i n v e s t s the a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t with meaning and " i n v i t e s " the user to uncover and transform i t through h i s experience in time. ( f i g . 16). T h i s aspect of design, which concerns meaning a t t r i b u t i o n and communication, i s c o n s i d e r e d s e m i o t i c . F i g u r e 16 - Communication in a r c h i t e c t u r e Addresser Message Addressee [ Designer — i n v e s t s with meaning B u i l d i n g User uncovers meaning 85 During the design a c t i v i t y , the designer i s i n v o l v e d in an act of s i g n i f i c a t i o n , or communication i n two ways. 2 7 F i r s t he i s i n t e r r o g a t i n g h i s s o l u t i o n f i e l d through h i s i n t e n t i o n s ; he formulates c e r t a i n i n t e n t i o n s and he attempts to express them i n form. I t i s an act of i n t e r n a l communication, where both the addresser and the addressee are the same person. Second, he communicates a message to a f u t u r e user, through the e x p r e s s i v e formation of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t . ("I want people to get t h i s f e e l i n g , to understand that through my d e s i g n " ) . Both those o p e r a t i o n s happen through the act of formation of s i g n systems. The designer i s i n v o l v e d i n an a c t i v i t y of s i g n c r e a t i o n and use i n order to comprehend a complex r e a l i t y , and to communicate a message to himself or to the user. Those systems operate, a c c o r d i n g to H i l l i e r and Leaman, as m a n i f o l d s t r u c t u r e s , which at the same time " c o n s t r u c t and i n t e r p r e t a p e r m i s s i b l e u n i v e r s e out of a u n i v e r s e of u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d phenomena." 2 8 T h i s o p e r a t i o n i s s i m i l a r to the f u n c t i o n of the s i g n i t s e l f which a l s o r e f e r s to a phenomenon, i . e . i t d i s t i n g u i s h e s t h i s phenomenon out of a u n i v e r s e , (the r e a l r e f e r e n t component of the s i g n ) , and , s i m u l taneously i t i n t e r p r e t s t h i s phenomenon, (the conceptual r e f e r e n t of the s i g n ) . 2 9 86 F i g u r e 17 - The manifold s t r u c t u r e and the s i g n (Source: B. H i l l i e r and A. Leaman, "How i s Design P o s s i b l e " ) manipulable set si g n i n t e r p r e t ' s / / / A N S S N c o n s t r u c t s / / / / / / / ^ t e s t s N X N S N n \ i n t e r p r e t e d c o n s t r u c t e d u n i v e r s e universe conceptual r e f e r e n t r e a l r e f e r e n t When the designer forms h i s understanding of the design problem, he d i s t i n g u i s h e s a number of i s s u e s of importance. Through h i s understanding, he i s c o n s t r u c t i n g a s p e c i f i c u n i v e r s e out of the whole range of needs, requirements, and c o n s t r a i n t s which d e f i n e the problem. At the same time, he a l s o i n t e r p r e t s these i s s u e s , by o r d e r i n g them a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r importance. His consequent moves, and c o n j e c t u r e s of p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n s , w i l l e x h i b i t the same d u a l i t y . T h i s continous process of c o n s t r u c t i n g a p e r m i s s i b l e u n i v e r s e , and of a p p l y i n g s i g n i f i c a t i o n to i t , c h a r a c t e r i z e s design as an act i v i t y . Two types of s i g n systems are i n v o l v e d . . F i r s t the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s on paper (or s c a l e model) are signs of a p r o j e c t e d f u t u r e r e a l i t y , and, second, t h i s r e a l i t y f u n c t i o n s as a s i g n f o r intended meanings, which range from simple u t i l i t y s i g n i f i c a t i o n , to complex semantic formations of the expressed way of l i f e . 87 The designer moves from an understanding of the problem to the d e f i n i t i o n of the content and the a r t i c u l a t i o n of the b u i l d i n g as an expre s s i o n of t h i s c ontent. During t h i s process, he has access t o, and operates through, a number of d i f f e r e n t domains. Those are: the p r e v i o u s l y d e f i n e d "domains of d e s i g n " , which r e f e r to v a r i o u s aspects of the design problem; the system of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s ; the types of design as modes of t h i n k i n g ; and f i n a l l y the de s i g n e r ' s s o l u t i o n f i e l d , which p r o v i d e s the context and the b a s i s f o r the understanding of a l l the other domains. The f i r s t two are, to a c e r t a i n degree, e x p l i c i t f o r the designer who i s c o n s t a n t l y e x p l o r i n g t h e i r l i m i t a t i o n s and v a r i a n c e s . The l a s t two u s u a l l y remain i m p l i c i t , u nless the designer i s i n v o l v e d i n a r e f l e x i v e a c t i v i t y , i . e . , he c o n c i o u s l y observes and r e f l e c t s on h i s moves. C o d i f i c a t i o n , as the act of code c r e a t i o n and o p e r a t i o n , i s e f f e c t i n g the mapping between a complex, s t r u c t u r e d r e a l i t y and domains of meaning. I t i s understood to be a necessary c o n d i t i o n f o r the o p e r a t i o n of the sign systems and the mapping of content to e x p r e s s i o n . The code w i l l r epresent the mapping s t r u c t u r e i n use f o r the a p p l i c a t i o n of the intended r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Drawing on n o t i o n s p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d , f i g . 18 and f i g . 19 d e s c r i b e the process of design and the s e r i e s of a c t i o n s that take p l a c e d u r i n g the mapping a c t i v i t y between content and e x p r e s s i o n . 88 Fi g u r e 18 - The process of design SEMANTIC DOMAIN AS CONTENT general content requirements intended s i g n i f i c a t ion o p e r a t i o n of codes mapping SYNTACTIC DOMAIN AS EXPRESSION a r c h i t e c t u r a l elements (general s o l u t ion) T o p e r a t i o n of codes " s t r u c t u r i n g " A a r c h i t e c t u r a l elements ( e l a b o r a t e d s o l u t i o n ) F i g u r e 19 - C o g n i t i v e stages i n the process of mapping of content to expression d u r i n g the design a c t i v i t y Formulation of c o n j e c t u r e s Test of c o n j e c t u r e s E s t a b l i shment of d i s c i p l i n e design domains t r e e s of consequences a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes 3 £ norms modes E X P E S S I 0 N 89 During design, c o d i f i c a t i o n can be d i s t i n g u i s h e d i n t o three d i s t i n c t , but i n t e r r e l a t e d c a t e g o r i e s : the code of the d e s i g n e r , which u n d e r l i e s h i s way of t h i n k i n g , and r e p r e s e n t s the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l r u l e of h i s wn p r e s t r u c t u r e d scheme or s o l u t i o n f i e l d ; the code of the system of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l object i n the medium u s e d ; 3 0 and the a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes, as the r u l e s that connect the b u i l d i n g a r t i c u l a t i o n and composition to a u n i v e r s e of meaning. The f i r s t code r e l a t e s the designer to a u n i v e r s e of l o g i c a l n o t i o n s and p h y s i c a l space, i t d e f i n e s and i n t e r p r e t s h i s moves, and provides the context f o r the o p e r a t i o n of the other two. The second r e l a t e s the moves on paper, as simulated r e a l i t y , both to the designer and to the r e a l , p r o j e c t e d i n f u t u r e , image of the b u i l d i n g . The plane of content on which t h i s code operates c o n s i s t s of the d e s i g n e r ' s i n t e n t i o n s , a l r e a d y v i s u a l i s e d i n form. T h i s f i r s t s i g n i s expressed through the system of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . ( f i g . 20) . 90 Fi g u r e 20 - Operation of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes and the code of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s INTERROGATION OF THE DESIGNER'S SOLUTION FIELD plane of content s t r u c t u r e d o p e r a t i o n of codes not ions i n t e n t ions plane of ex p r e s s i o n s t r u c t u r e d o p e r a t i o n of codes — ' - — a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes A v i s u a l i sed form SYSTEM OF REPRESENTATIONS V plane of content i n t e n t ions expressed i n form codes of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s plane of expres s i o n the b u i l d i n g ' s r e p r e s e n t a t ions The l a s t code r e f l e c t s , i n a more immediate f a s h i o n , the connection between content and e x p r e s s i o n which takes p l a c e through the design of the b u i l d i n g . I t i s t h i s category that connects the b u i l d i n g , as a meaningful a r t i f a c t , to a r c h i t e c t u r e as theory and p r a c t i c e , as s o c i a l language, and as inst a n c e of the c u l t u r a l s u p e r s t r u c t u r e . The three c a t e g o r i e s of codes operate synchronously d u r i n g the design a c t . They are d e f i n e d , e l a b o r a t e d and d i s c o v e r e d i n t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s ; they i n t e r a c t and i n f l u e n c e each other. The a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes, however, are the ones which, f i l t e r e d through the o t h e r s , determine the connection between intended meaning and form, which pl a c e s the b u i l d i n g i n a u n i v e r s e of s i g n i f i c a t i o n . They are f o r t h i s reason more r e l e v a n t to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the b u i l d i n g a a meaningful a r t i f a c t . T h e r e f o r e , a f t e r we have e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h i s chapter 91 an understanding of the c o g n i t i v e o r i g i n s of the codes, we can now proceed to examine i n more d e t a i l the types, c a t e g o r i e s , and o p e r a t i o n of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes, i n order to uncover how they s t r u c t u r e and i n t e r p r e t the a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t . 92 D. NOTES The se m i o t i c component of design i s i m p l i c i t i n the work of H i l l i e r and Leaman. (1) See B i l l H i l l i e r and Adrian Leaman, "How i s design p o s s i b l e ? , " J o u r n a l of A r c h i t e c t u r a l Research, v o l . 3, no 1, Jan. 1974, pp. 4-10. As R i t t e l comments: "... i f i t were p o s s i b l e to de a l with such complicated t h i n g s as NASA programmes then why couldn't we deal with simple t h i n g s l i k e a house i n the same way?" Horst R i t t e l ' s i n t e r v i e w with J.P Protzen and Donald P. Grant i n DMG 5th A n n i v e r s a r y Report: DMG occasioned paper no. 1, Jan 1972, pp. 5-10. Re p r i n t e d i n DMG-DRS J o u r n a l , v o l . 1, no. 2, pp. 143-147. (quoted by R.A.Fowles, What Happened to design methods in a r c h i t e c t u r a l education?, Design Methods and T h e o r i e s , v o l . I I , no. 1, p. 1 9 ) . C. Alexander, one of the pioneers i n the f i e l d w i l l comment l a t e r that "methods 'prevent you from being i n the r i g h t s t a t e of mind to do the design as most of the d i f f i c u l t i e s of design are not of a computable s o r t , they have to do with 'depths of i n s i g h t ' and ' f u s i o n of i n s i g h t to c r e a t e form'", i b i d , p. 26. P h i l i p Steadman, The E v o l u t i o n of Design: B i o l o g i c a l Analogy i n A r c h i t e c t u r e and the A p p l i e d A r t s , Cambridge Univ. Press, 1979, chapter 15, "What remains of the analogy," p. 237. Herman Neuckeruas, "The Relevance of Systematic Methods f o r A r c h i t e c t u r a l Design, DMG-DRS J o u r n a l , v o l . 9, no. 2., p. 4. (2) B i l l H i l l i e r , John Musgrove and Pat O ' S u l l i v a n , "Knowledge and Design," EDRA 3, 1972, pp. 29-3-1 - 29-3-14. i b i d , p. 29-3-5. G. Broadbent, "The Development of Design Methods: A Review," Design Methods and Theory, v o l . 13, no 1, p. 41.. L i o n e l March " r e c l a i m s i n d u c t i o n f o r d e c i s i o n making"."Just as Popper draws a d i s t i n c t i o n between l o g i c and e m p i r i c a l s c i e n c e , so too must a d i s t i n c t i o n be made between these and designs. To base design theory on i n a p p r o p r i a t e paradigms of l o g i c and sci e n c e i s to make a bad mistake. Logic has i n t e r e s t s i n a b s t r a c t forms. Science i n v e s t i g a t e s e x t i n c t form. Design i n i t i a t e s novel form. A s c i e n t i f i c hypotheses i s not the same t h i n g as a design h y p o t h e s i s . A l o g i c a l p r o p o s a l i s not to be mistaken f o r a design p r o p o s a l . " (p. 14). He s t a t e s that r a t i o n a l design proceeds from p r o d u c t i o n (the i n f e r e n c e of a case from a r u l e and a r e s u l t ) , to deduction (the a p p l i c a t i o n of a r u l e to a p a r t i c u l a r case to give a l o g i c a l l y determined r e u l t ) , to induct i o n ( t h e i n f e r e n c e of the r u l e from the case and r e s u l t s ) . In design, he suggests: f i r s t , from a p r e l i m i n a r y statement of r e q u i r e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and a p r e s u p p o s i t i o n we 93 produce the f i r s t design p r o p o s a l . Second, from design s u p p o s i t i o s and theory and the f i r s t design p r o p o s a l we deduce the expected performance c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . T h i r d , from the performance c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and the f i r s t design proposal we induce or evaluate other design p o s s i b i l i t i e s or s u p p o s i t i o n s . And f o u r t h , from a r e v i s e d statement of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and f u r t h e r or r e v i s e d s u p p o s i t i o n we produce the second design p r o p o s a l . L i o n e l March, "The L o g i c of Design and the Question of Value," in The A r c h i t e c t u r e of Form, ed. L i o n e l March, Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1976. Jane Darke, "The Primary Generator and the Design Process" in Environmental Design: Research, Theory and A p p l i c a t i o n , EDRA 10, 1979, pp. 325-337. Adel Foz, "Observations on the Designer's Behaviour on the P a r t i , , " DMG-DRS J o u r n a l , v o l . 7, no. 4, pp. 320-323. Bryan Lawson, " C o g n i t i v e S t r a t e g i e s i n A r c h i t e c t u r a l Design," Ergonomics, v o l 22, no. 1, pp. 59-68. A l s o i n B. Lawson, How Designer's Think, London: A r c h i t e c t u r a l Press, 1980, pp. 30-31. Other f a c t o r s that seem to i n f l u e n c e design r e l a t e to hidden p s y c h o l o g i c a l processes and r e l a t i o n s h i p s , which r e f e r to two b a s i c c a t e g o r i e s . F i r s t , b a s i c assumptions, as the p e r s o n a l and group unconscious, and the s t e r e o t y p i c c u l t u r a l archetypes which i n f l u e n c e our behaviour i n subteranean and unacknowledged ways. Second, co v e r t p o l i t i c s , as the s o c i a l f i e l d of a l l i a n c e s , p r e s s u r e s , groups and power i n f l u e n c e s o p e r a t i n g w i t h i n the design precess in unexamined ways. Arthur Coleman, "Notes on the Design Process: A P s y c h i a t r i s t Looks at A r c h i t e c t u r e , " J o u r n a l of A r c h i t e c t u r a l Education, v o l . 27, no 2-3, pp. 19- 26. Bryan Lawson, " C r e a t i v e T h i n k i n g " , i n W. S i n g l e t o n (ed), Study of Real S k i l l s : The A n a l y s i s of P r a c t i c a l S k i l l s , London: Medical and T e c h n i c a l Press, p. 295 (281-303). i b i d , p. 295 B. H i l l i e r and A. Leaman, op. c i t . (1), p. 5. Abel borrows the term " t a c i t knowledge", int r o d u c e d by P o l a n y i , to e x p l a i n the a q u i s i t i o n of complex terms of knowledge by the d e s i g n e r ; while he i s not c o n s c i o u s l y aware of e v e r y t h i n g that i s i n v o l v e d i n c o g n i t i o n . He notes, that while design i s a r a t i o n a l process, the knowledge i n v o l v e d in i t i s only p a r t i a l l y known. "The goal of e x p l i c i t knowledge in design i s u n a t t a i n a b l e or even u n d e s i r a b l e " . A l l t a c i t knowing, P o l a n y i s t a t e s , e n t a i l s a c o n s t r u c t i v e mental process whereby the "knower" e s t a b l i s h e s a r e l a t i o n between what P o l a n y i c a l l s the two terms of t a c i t knowing. For example, t a c i t knowledge i s i n v o l v e d i n an experiment with a p a t i e n t who r e c e i v e s an e l e c t r i c shock everytime he u t t e r s c e r t a i n s y l l a b l e s . A f t e r a 94 while the p a t i e n t unconsciously avoids these s y l l a b l e s , being aware of the schock, without though to be able to i d e n t i f y them. In a design experiment students•were asked to study d i f f e r e n t a r c h i t e c t u r a l s t y l e s through examples, to d e s c r i b e the r u l e s f o r each s t y l e and then to design f o l l o w i n g t h i s s t y l e . Though they were not a b l e to d e s c r i b e the s t y l e i n a f a s h i o n that somebody e l s e would be able to f u l l y comprehend i t and design something based on i t , they were s t i l l able to do that themselves. So i t seemed t h a t the students were aware of the p a r t i c u l a r r u l e s of the s t y l e only by r e l y i n g upon them for a t t e n d i n g to the s p e c i f i c examples, the p o i n t of f o c a l awareness. During the study students were asked to "take the r o l e of" t h e i r chosen a r c h i t e c t , i n order to b e t t e r understand h i s d e s i g n . T h i s seems c o n s i s t e n t with P o l a n y i ' s notion of " e n t e r i n g i n t o the body of knowledge". C h r i s Abel, "In Defence of R a t i o n a l i t y i n Design", Design Methods and Theory, v o l . 13, no 3-4. B. H i l l i e r et a l , op. c i t . (2), p. 29-3-7. B. H i l l i e r and A. Leaman, op. c i t . (1), p. 7. Mapping, a mathematical term, r e f e r s to the establishment of a r e l a t i o n s h i p between two s e t s . Krampen suggests that d u r i n g design the designer decides about the purpose of h i s a c t i o n , transforms t h i s purpose i n t o o p e r a t i o n to be c a r r i e d through and f i n a l l y he decides on the t e s t s f o r the s p e c i f i c o p e r a t i o n . M a r t i n Krampen, Meaning in the urban environment, A l l e n J S c o t t (ed), Pion L t d , London, 1979, pp. 51-63. Hjelsmlev L. Prolegomena to a Theory of Language, op. c i t . Donald Schon, Le a r n i n g a Language, Le a r n i n g to Design, Oct. 1977, pp. 10-15. Competence f o r design, a c c o r d i n g to Schon, c o n s i s t s of our a b i l i t y t o : 1) a p p r e c i a t e the given of s i t e and program; 2) to a c t i v a t e a r i c h v a r i e t y of terms drawn from the range of design domains; 3) to c o n s t r u c t , from w i t h i n domains and from c o n s i d e r a t i o n a c r o s s domains, frames f o r the design problem to which moves w i l l represent attempted s o l u t i o n ( c o n j e c t u r e making); 4) to make i n i t i a l c h o i c e s of moves, i n such a way as to d e t e c t t h e i r consequences, 5) to d e t e c t and f o l l o w through the i m p l i c a t i o n s of e a r l i e r moves, 6) to recognize the kinds, and degrees of connectedness of i m p l i c a t i o n s of the design moves across the range of domains, 7) to be able to i n v e r t the consequences of design moves with measuring and value, and 8) to s p i n out t r e e s of moves, consequences, i m p l i c a t i o n s , and e v a l u a t i o n . Other p r i n c i p l e s i n v o l v e d in design are, as Schon notes, that of sequence (respect of the s c a l e of design, proceeding from the general to the p a r t i a l ) and o s c i l l a t i o n (a c y c l i n g back and f o r t h , from the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the g e n e r a l to the p a r t i a l and back). The designer can be committed to a 95 system of moves and be t e n t a t i v e about a p a r t i c u l a r move in the system or he can be commited to p a r t i c u l a r moves and be t e n t a t i v e about the l a r g e r system i n which they f a l l . (see D. Schon, op. c i t . , p. 58-65). The l a s t seems to agree with H i l l i e r and Leaman's a t t i t u d e that the designer may decide on the general system and then apply i t s r u l e s to the p a r t i a l moves, or decide on some p a r t i a l elements and then t r y to compose them i n t o a system. (see B. H i l l i e r and A. Leaman, o p . c i t . ( 1 ) , p . 9 ) . I c o n i c i s l a t e r c a l l e d by Broadbent t y p o l o g i c design, see G. Broadbent, " B u i l d i n g Design as an Ic o n i c Sign System", Signs, Symbols, and A r c h i t e c t u r e p . 327; a l s o G e o f f r e y Broadbent, Design i n A r c h i t e c t u r e , London: J.Wiley & Sons, 1973. D. Schon, op. c i t . , p. 64. It may be the case that communication of a message i s i n d i r e c t l y s i g n i f i c a n t and p u r p o s e f u l i n terms of the d e s i g n e r . But even when the designer i s simply f o l l o w i n g the b r i e f , and previous examples, there appears to be a type of "negative" communication. The designer does not suggest any new meaning but, by a c c e p t i n g what i s a l r e a d y known, he makes a statement. Of course, the subject of communication becomes r e a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t when the designer transforms e x i s t i n g p a t t e r n s and expresses i d e a s . The i n t e n t i o n behind h i s e x p r e s s i v e a c t i o n s w i l l simply introduce or e l i m i n a t e some elements from h i s i n t e r r o g a t i o n a c t . B. H i l l i e r and A. Leaman, op. c i t . (1), p. 7. Eco suggests that in a r c h i t e c t u r e , "codes of reading (and of c o n s t r u c t i o n ) of the obj e c t would have to be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from codes of reading (and of c o n s t r u c t i o n ) of the design of the o b j e c t . " He goes on to remark that "the n o t a t i o n a l codes of des i g n , while c o n v e n t i o n a l i z e d independently, are to some extent d e r i v a t i v e s of the codes of the o b j e c t " . Umberto Eco, "Function and S i g n : The Semiotics of A r c h i t e c t u r e " , i n * S i g n s , Symbols, and A r c h i t e c t u r e , p. 36 96 IV. ARCHITECTURAL CODES A. INTRODUCTION: THE NOTION OF CODE According to H i l l i e r and Leaman, the human r e l a t i o n s h i p to the b u i l t environment i s p r i m a r i l y a c o g n i t i v e r e l a t i o n . I t i s mediated by " o r g a n i z a t i o n s of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s in systems" whose s t r u c t u r e r e p r e s e n t s a l s o the means by which experience i s made i n t e l l i g i b l e . "The v a r i a b i l i t y of the environments which are presented to us i n r e a l space are understood by the s t r u c t u r e s which have been l a i d down i n l o g i c a l space". The i n d i v i d u a l a q u i r e s knowledge of those s t r u c t u r e s through s o c i a l i z a t i o n , and organizes i t i n t o a scheme to e f f e c t t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s on i t through h i s i m p l i c i t awereness of the r u l e s of the gen e r a l s t r u c t u r e , which e x h i b i t s a s i m i l a r i t y to h i s own c o d i f i e d e x p e r i e n c e . 1 The s t r u c t u r e that a r c h i t e c t u r e r e p r e s e n t s i s a c u l t u r a l a r t i f a c t . Even though some ge n e r i c p r i n c i p l e s c oncerning the nature of b u i l d i n g s p e r t a i n c r o s s - c u l t u r a l l y , d i f f e r e n t s o c i e t i e s and s o c i a l groups w i t h i n the same s o c i e t y organize t h i s knowledge i n a s p e c i f i c way and a t t r i b u t e d i f f e r e n t s i g n i f i c a t i o n . C l a r k 2 emphasizes the s p e c i f i c i t y of t h i s c o d i f i e d experience w i t h i n d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l groups or c l a s s e s . C u l t u r a l codes, she s t a t e s , " c o n t r o l , c r e a t e and organize the complex of meanings which any r o l e system t r a n s m i t s " . R e l a t i o n s h i p s between modes of c o g n i t i v e e x p r e s s i o n and s o c i a l groups are r e g u l a t e d through those codes. In t h i s 97 way, "...the form taken by a s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p a c t s s e l e c t i v e l y on the type of code employed. The code i t s e l f then becomes a symbolic e x p r e s s i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p and proceeds to r e g u l a t e the nature of the i n t e r a c t i o n " . 3 Those codes become s i g n i f i c a n t f o r the understanding of human experience of the b u i l t environment. She goes on to suggest, Given that there i s an a c t i v e interdependance between man and environment, we can no longer simply i n v e s t i g a t e human responses to b u i l d i n g s and t r e a t them as i s o l a t e d dependent v a r i a b l e s . We must i n s t e a d e x p l a i n t h i s a c t i v e interdependance i n terms of e q u i l i b r a t i n g mechanisms e x i s t i n g i n the form of r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e s t r u c t u r e s r e g u l a t i n g the nature of the i n t e r a c t i o n s . " P r e z i o s i understands b u i l t environment i n a s i m i l a r way. He notes t h a t : A b u i l t environment i s a complex s p a t i o - temporal framework f o r human a c t i v i t i e s and i n t e r a c t i o n s , whose components are l e s s l i k e b u i l d i n g blocks and more l i k e p a t t e r n s of p o t e n t i a l s i g n i f i c a t i o n . I t s s t r u c t u r e i s not to be found as a d e f i n i t e arrangement of c o n s t i t u e n t p a r t s , but i s given by se t s of i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s l e s s of t h i n g s and more of c h o i c e s among formations. 5 A b u i l d i n g i s a human a r t i f a c t , which e x i s t s on a primary l e v e l i n order to pr o v i d e a s h e l t e r e d and c o n t r o l l e d p h y s i c a l environment f o r human a c t i v i t i e s , as w e l l as i t can communicate c e r t a i n meanings or operate a symbolic f u n c t i o n . C e r t a i n n o t i o n s , which are used to generate a r c h i t e c t u r a l form and t o connect a whole range of intended meaning to t h r e e - dimensional form, a q u i r e the s t a t u s of a code. They are 98 p e r t i n e n t to the composition of the b u i l d i n g . They do not only represent the generating r u l e s , but they a l s o r e g u l a t e the understanding and experience of the b u i l d i n g . Those r u l e - l i k e n o t i o n s are d e s c r i b e d as a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes. They represent " e s s e n t i a l l y a system of r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n which s i g n i f i c a t i v e e n t i t i e s are d e f i n e d i n terms of t h e i r r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n in a mu l t i - d i m e n s i o n a l network of r e l a t i o n s h i p s . " 6 Those e n t i t i e s may f u n c t i o n as s i g n s , as a combination between a formation (that which s i g n i f i e s ) and meaning (that which i s s i g n i f i e d ) . A code then of those s i g n - f o r m a t i o n s " i s an ordered body of r u l e s which s p e c i f y the c o n v e n t i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s between formations and meanings, and between the si g n s themselves and other s i g n s , of the same or of d i f f e r r e n t t y p e s . " 7 The code of a r c h i t e c t u r e as a c u l t u r a l a r t i f a c t accounts f o r the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l r u l e s f o r the genera t i o n and the s i g n i f i c a t i o n of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l morphology or s t r u c t u r e . The s p e c i f i c environmental codes of d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l groups, and the a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes as the t o o l s f o r the p r o d u c t i o n and the understanding of a b u i l d i n g , represent a l s o d i f f e r e n t stages of the same generic n o t i o n of a code. They are r u l e - l i k e n o t i o n s , which s t r u c t u r e a domain of p h y s i c a l or l o g i c a l e n t i t i e s i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to each other and i n r e l a t i o n to some domains of meaning. Thus, they represent the r u l e s f o r the s t r u c t u r i n g of the s y n t a c t i c domain and i t s mapping to a domain of semantics. The environmental codes, as d i s t i n c t r a m i f i c a t i o n s of s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n , and the i n d i v i d u a l ' s knowledge and sha r i n g of the general t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l r u l e s of the s t r u c t u r e 99 of the b u i l t environment form the i n d i v i d u a l ' s code, (designer's or u s e r ' s ) . T h i s a c t s as the general context of the b u i l d i n g ' s p r o d u c t i o n and experience. The d e s i g n e r ' s code i s shaped not only under the modes that c h a r a c t e r i z e a r c h i t e c t u r e as a c u l t u r a l a r t i f a c t , but a l s o through h i s p r o f e s s i o n a l i d e o l o g y . He understands himself as p a r t of a p r o f e s s i o n a l community which shares norms, t h e o r i e s and paradigms, and h i s o p e r a t i o n i s , w i t h i n c e r t a i n l i m i t s , i n f l u e n c e d by them. T h i s code then a c t s as the context f o r the formation of the s p e c i f i c a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes of the b u i l d i n g and e x i s t s i n a d i a l e c t i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p to them. H i l l i e r and Leaman extend t h e i r r e s e a r c h towards the d e f i n i t i o n not only of the type, but a l s o of the s p e c i f i c nature of the code of the b u i l t environment 8 ,and C l a r k e attempts to formulate an understanding of t h i s code as p e r t a i n i n g to d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l groups. 9 In t h i s chapter we w i l l be concerned with the examination of the types, nature and systemic o p e r a t i o n of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes as d e f i n i n g the composition and s i g n i f i c a t i o n of the b u i l d i n g . T h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to the general t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l r u l e s of a r c h i t e c t u r e as a morphology, or to t h e i r c l a s s depended i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , though i m p l i c i t , w i l l not be addressed in the t h e s i s . 100 B. ARCHITECTURAL CODES 1 . T h e i r Nature The a r c h i t e c t o n i c system r e p r e s e n t s , a c c o r d i n g to P r e z i o s i , a c o d i f i e d system of meaningful elements and r e l a t i o n s h i p s , which comprises a formal and a m a t e r i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , as shown i n f i g . 21. Even though i n an h i e r a r c h i c a l o r d e r i n g , the formal would normally precede the m a t e r i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , they do not have a deep to su r f a c e s t r u c t u r e r e l a t i o n s h i p , but i n s t e a d , they both operate as codes p a r t l y c u l t u r a l and p a r t l y a r c h i t e c t u r a l . 1 0 F i g u r e 21 - The a r c h i t e c t o n i c system a c c o r d i n g to P r e z i o s i COGNITIVE ENVIRONMENT ARCHITECTONIC SYSTEM PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT v a l u e s , i d e a s c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e i mediates a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t i FORMAL ORGANIZATION MATERIAL ORGANIZATION formal elements r e l a t ions orders m a t e r i a l s c o l o u r t e x t u r e s i z e The formal o r g a n i z a t i o n r e p r e s e n t s the syntax of the system which i s organized as h i e r a r c h i c a l o r d e r i n g of s i g n i f i c a n t u n i t s . The formation of those u n i t s and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to each other w i l l be subject to s p e c i f i c r u l e s 101 which are chosen by the designer out of a r e p e r t o r y of r u l e - l i k e n o t i o n s , i n order to c r e a t e the three-dimensional form and express a c e r t a i n s i g n i f i c a t i o n . Ordering p r i n c i p l e s l i k e the a x i s , symmetry, h i e r a r c h y , or rhythm, noti o n s f o r the o r g a n i z a t i o n of space l i k e l i n e a r i t y or g r i d , p r o p o r t i o n , or s c a l e , c i r c u l a t i o n as a path, v e r t i c a l i t y or h o r i z o n t a l i t y w i l l r epresent part of t h i s r e p e r t o i r e . 1 1 Those n o t i o n s w i l l form the s t r u c t u r a l r u l e s of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l syntax and they w i l l be used as v e h i c l e s to express a c e r t a i n d e n o t a t i v e and c o n n o t a t i v e meaning. The e x p r e s s i o n of the formal o r g a n i z a t i o n i n t o m a t e r i a l form, through the c h o i c e of m a t e r i a l s , c o l o u r s , t e x t u r e , and t h e i r composition, w i l l c o n s t i t u t e another system of r e f e r e n c e f o r the a n a l y s i s of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l syntax: the m a t e r i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n which mediates between a core formal s t r u c t u r e and the p h y s i c a l e n v i r o n m e n t , 1 2 o f f e r i n g a set of r e l a t i o n s h i p s which i n t e r p r e t formal orders i n t o m a t e r i a l form. The formal and the m a t e r i a l s t r u c t u r e of a b u i l d i n g d e f i n e the s y n t a c t i c domain, the b a s i s on which the codes operate. The codes a l s o f u n c t i o n as the mapping r u l e between the syntax and the semantic domain. T h i s semantic domain would i n c l u d e a l l those aspects of the b u i l d i n g ' s s i g n i f i c a t i o n a l r e a d y d e s c r i b e d i n r e f e r e n c e to the s i g n i n a previous chapter. On the b a s i s then of t h i s understanding of the s y n t a c t i c and semantic domains we can now proceed with the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the types and c a t e g o r i e s of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes. 1 0 2 C. CLASSIFICATION OF CODES Acc o r d i n g to the f o u r - f u n c t i o n model, the b u i l d i n g i s understood to be a c l i m a t i c m o d i f i e r , a b e h a v i o u r a l , an economic, and a symbolic o n e . 1 3 I t c o n s t i t u t e s an encl o s u r e i n the context of the b u i l t environment, with a d e f i n e d r e l a t i o n s h i p of the i n s i d e to the o u t s i d e space, with a sequence or groups of space r e l a t e d i n s p e c i f i c way. I t s formal manipulation c o n s i s t s of r e l a t i o n s h i p s expressed through the formation of the d i f f e r e n t spaces, m a t e r i a l i z e d i n th r e e - dimensional form through the use of t e c h n o l o g i c a l means and m a t e r i a l s . The b u i l d i n g serves a purpose, which i s u s u a l l y r e f l e c t e d through the a c t i v i t y i t houses, but which i t can a l s o extend beyond the l i m i t s of the usual a c t i v i t y , as in the case of b u i l d i n g that a c q u i r e s the s t a t u s of a symbolic monument. T h i s i n t e n t i o n a l u t i l i z a t i o n of b u i l t space forms, to a c e r t a i n degree, the b u i l d i n g s g e n e r a t i v e p r i n c i p l e s . As an a r t i f a c t the b u i l d i n g can perform a symbolic f u n c t i o n . I t can a l s o represent an a e s t h e t i c o b j e c t , s i n c e part of the u n d e r l y i n g purpose to be served i s an a e s t h e t i c one' which responds to the sense of beauty, a r t i s t i c i n n o v a t i o n , or e x p r e s s i o n . Furthermore, as a product of a p r o d u c t i v e process, i t has economic valu e , and i t a l s o gaines s o c i a l v alue. In order to d e f i n e the communicative f u n c t i o n of a r c h i t e c t u r e , Eco 1" accepts the no t i o n of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l code. "There are no mysterious e x p r e s s i v e values d e r i v i n g 1 03 simply from the nature of the forms themselves", he s t a t e s , and "expressiveness a r i s e s i n s t e a d from a d i a l e c t i c between s i g n i f i c a t i v e form and codes of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . " 1 5 Thus, a r c h i t e c t u r e i s based on a number of a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes which are d i s t i n g u i s h e d i n t o : t e c h n i c a l codes, r e f e r r i n g to t e c h n o l o g i e s , s t r u c t u r e , and i n general to aspects of a r c h i t e c t u r a l e n g i n e e r i n g ; s y n t a c t i c codes, e x e m p l i f i e d by t y p o l o g i e s ; and semantic codes, which concern the s i g n i f i c a t i v e u n i t s of a r c h i t e c t u r e . Through those semantic codes, a r c h i t e c t u r a l elements may denote a primary f u n c t i o n , e.g., roof, window, arch; connote a secondary f u n c t i o n , e.g., triumphal a r c h , or an ideology, or they might have a t y p o l o g i c a l meaning, e.g., s c h o o l , h o s p i t a l , and so f o r t h . The t e c h n i c a l and the s y n t a c t i c codes respond to the codes concerning the formal and m a t e r i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d . But the semantic codes do not appear s u f f i c i e n t i n order to cover the whole range of s i g n i f i c a t i o n of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t . Hence, Eco i n t r o d u c e s another category of codes, the e x t e r n a l ones, which i n t e r p r e t the b u i l d i n g i n r e f e r e n c e to s o c i o - c u l t u r a l , or a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l systems. Those codes o f f e r , a c c o r d i n g to Eco, a r i c h system of s i g n i f i c a t i o n , more u s e f u l f o r the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l meaning than the one formed by the a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes, which have only a l i m i t e d o p e r a t i o n a l p o s s i b i l i t y . However, he d i s t i n g u i s h e s between the semantic and e x t e r n a l codes, though both types belong to the same category of codes, i . e . , those which i n t e r p r e t the content, or s i g n i f i e d , 1 04 aspect of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l s i g n . T h e i r d i f f e r e n c e l i e s only on the f a c t that the e x t e r n a l codes draw t h e i r r e f e r e n c e from systems more general than the other codes do. T h e r e f o r e , i n s t e a d of d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between a r c h i t e c t u r a l and e x t e r n a l codes, we would propose that the d i s t i n c t i o n takes p l a c e between the c o m p o s i t i o n a l as s t r u c t u r a l , or s y n t a c t i c , codes, and the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e , or semantic, ones. T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n agrees with the d i v i s i o n of codes i n t o those of content and e x p r e s s i o n made by J e n c k s . 1 6 Codes of content, in order of r e l a t i v e importance to the user, render the b u i l d i n g as: a s i g n of a p a r t i c u l a r way of l i f e , a s i g n of b u i l d i n g a c t i v i t y , of f u n c t i o n , of ideas, b e l i e f s and s o c i o - a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l meaning i n g e n e r a l , a s i g n of economic c l a s s , or a s i g n of p s y c h o l o g i c a l m o t i v a t i o n . The content codes attempt to d e f i n e the b u i l d i n g i n a s o c i o - c u l t u r a l context and they respond p a r t i a l l y to the e x t e r n a l codes as d e f i n e d by Eco. Codes of e x p r e s s i o n transform the b u i l d i n g i n t o a s i g n of s p a t i a l manipulation, of space c o v e r i n g , or of formal a r t i c u l a t i o n . They r e f e r to elements l i k e volume, mass, d e n s i t y , p r o p o r t i o n or s c a l e , and they form the s y n t a c t i c order of the b u i l d i n g . The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of codes i n t o those of e x p r e s s i o n and those of content i l l u s t r a t e s t h e i r double nature. They are not only the r u l e s f o r the s t r u c t u r i n g of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t on the s y n t a c t i c l e v e l , but they a l s o f u n c t i o n as mapping s t r u c t u r e s between the syntax and the semantic domains, which extend t h e i r l i m i t s beyond the p u r e l y a r c h i t e c t u r a l 1 05 s i g n i f i c a t i o n , and render the b u i l d i n g i n t e l l i g i b l e i n a s o c i a l and h i s t o r i c a l c o ntext. T h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n complies with the p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d d e f i n i t i o n of what the code i s . I t a l s o o f f e r s a c o n s i s t e n t model f o r the understanding of the systemic nature of the codes and t h e i r h i e r a r c h i c a l o r d e r i n g . Jencks does not e x p l a i n what kind of n o t i o n or r u l e the code i s . He i s mostly concerned with the b u i l d i n g ' s s i g n i f i c a t i o n , and leaves the d e f i n i t i o n of the code open to i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . However, the d i s t i n c t i o n of d i f f e r e n t code c a t e g o r i e s , a c c o r d i n g to the r o l e , type, and s p e c i f i c s i g n i f i c a t i o n those codes have, i s c r u c i a l f o r s e m i o t i c a n a l y s i s . Based on the a l r e a d y suggested understanding of the s y n t a c t i c l e v e l of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l system as comprising of formal and m a t e r i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , and on the premise of the d e f i n i t i o n of a r c h i t e c t u r a l s i g n i f i c a t i o n , we suggest the f o l l o w i n g c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of codes as presented in f i g . 22. 1 06 Fi g u r e 22 - C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes E X FORMAL ORGANIZATION MATERIAL ORGANIZATION P R E S S I 0 N Orders a. o r d e r i n g p r i n c i p l e s b. r u l e s l i k e i n s i d e - o u t s i d e , s o l i d - v o i d c. d i a l e c t i c s of space s t r u c t u r ing d. s c a l e T e c h n i c a l Codes a. s t r u c t u r e b. m a t e r i a l s , type or t e x t u r e , c o l o u r c. size,'elements of sc a l e d. the use of l i g h t composition, r e g u l a t i o n s composition, r e g u l a t i o n s C o MORPHOLOGICAL CODES FUNCTIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CODES b N T Symbolic r e c u r r e n t elements o p e r a t i v e as symbols E x t e r n a l C o n s t r a i n t s a. s i t e b. environmental context E N T D i s c i p l i n a r y Matrix as. a Code a. s t y l i s t i c context and morphological e x p r e s s i o n b. a r c h i t e c t u r a l i s s u e s importance f o r the a r c h i t e c t Program ge n e r a t i v e or as f u n c t i o n a l requirements B u i l d i n g Type framework of pa t t e r n e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s for space p l a n n i n g As e x p r e s s i o n codes we understand the codes r e f e r r i n g to the formal and m a t e r i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The f i r s t ones i n c l u d e o r d e r i n g p r i n c i p l e s , e.g., a x i s ; r u l e s , e.g., s o l i d - v o i d ; the d i a l e c t i c s of space s t r u c t u r i n g , e.g., the sequence of spaces and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p ; and s c a l e . The second ones, the t e c h n i c a l codes, r e f e r to the m a t e r i a l s t r u c t u r e of the b u i l d i n g and t r e a t the b u i l d i n g as p h y s i c a l environment. Thus, i s s u e s l i k e the use of l i g h t are part of those codes. On the l e v e l of 1 07 the e x p r e s s i o n codes, a d i s t i n c t i o n can be made between composition and r e g u l a t i o n s . The "composition" aspect mostly r e v e a l s the intended s i g n i f i c a t i o n . Content codes w i l l c o n s i s t of m o r p h o l o g i c a l , and of f u n c t i o n a l and environmental ones. M o r p h o l o g i c a l codes w i l l i n c l u d e : f i r s t the symbolic one, apparent through r e c u r r e n t elements or shapes o p e r a t i v e as s i g n s . These can be d i r e c t l y s i g n i f i c a n t s i g n s that a c q u i r e s i g n i f i c a t i o n through t h e i r r e l a t i o n to e x t e r n a l semantic domains, and not so much through t h e i r r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n in the system. Second, the d i s c i p l i n a r y m a t r i x 1 7 which forms a l s o the c o n t e x t 1 8 in which the designer operates, and i n c l u d e s i s s u e s of s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r the a r c h i t e c t , s t y l i s t i c context and morphological e x p r e s s i o n . F u n c t i o n a l and environmental codes w i l l i n c l u d e : e x t e r n a l c o n s t r a i n t s as s i t e (environmental c o n s t r a i n t s ) , or b u i l t environment context; the program, as ge n e r a t i v e or as f u n c t i o n a l requirements; and the b u i l d i n g type, as a framework of pa t t e r n e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s through general environmental codes or p a r t i c u l a r codes o p e r a t i n g i n the context of the d i s c i p l i n a r y matrix. The content codes operate as channels which connect the p l a n n i n g and s t r u c t u r i n g of space to domains of s i g n i f i c a t i o n . The d i s c i p l i n a r y matrix, f o r example, d e f i n e s a number of morphological elements, which become s i g n i f i c a n t i n the context of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l s t y l e of the p e r i o d . T h i s code i n f l u e n c e s , and i n t e r p r e t s , the dialog u e the a r c h i t e c t e s t a b l i s h e s through the b u i l d i n g with the a r c h i t e c t u r a l community. The symbolic code, as the name r e v e a l s , i n t e r p r e t s 1 08 elements of the b u i l d i n g through r e f e r e n c e to a vast v a r i e t y of domains. The code of the b u i l d i n g type draws mainly upon the type of the b u i l d i n g f u n c t i o n , and i t s e x p r e s s i o n i n space plann i n g , and i n t e r p r e t s them i n the l i g h t of the s o c i a l and e c o n o m i c o - p o l i t i c a l system. The program concerns not only with f u n c t i o n a l requirements and the c h a r a c t e r of the b u i l d i n g , but a l s o expresses the immediate socio-economico c o n t e x t . F i n a l l y , s i t e , environmental context, or other c o n s t r a i n t s , d e f i n e the b u i l d i n g i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to i t s immediate environment. The codes of e x p r e s s i o n , as the primary s t r u c t u r a l r u l e s of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l system, i n i t s formal and m a t e r i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , r e g u l a t e a l r e a d y a f i r s t mapping between content and e x p r e s s i o n , and formulate the e x p r e s s i v e system. T h i s system draws i t s f u r t h e r s i g n i f i c a t i o n from domains l i k e the d i s c i p l i n a r y matrix as context, or the h i s t o r i c a l and environmental context, through the o p e r a t i o n of the codes of content. Both types of the e x p r e s s i o n codes operate i n the context of the d i s c i p l i n a r y matrix, b u i l d i n g typology, or s o c i o - c u l t u r a l norms. When those domains become content, the content codes are formulated. These codes operate on a c o n n o t a t i o n a l l e v e l 1 9 towards the e x p r e s s i o n codes; they are based on the c o m p o s i t i o n a l r u l e s , i . e . the e x p r e s s i o n codes, but they i n t e r p r e t them through the d i f f e r e n t domains of content. T h i s type of r e l a t i o n s h i p between the codes of e x p r e s s i o n and the codes of content i s shown in f i g . 23. 109 F i g u r e 23 - R e l a t i o n s h i p between codes of ex p r e s s i o n and codes of content OPERATION OF CONTENT CODES E X P R E S S I O N C O N T E N T ARCHITECTONIC SYSTEM FORMAL ORGANIZATION GENERAL DOMAINS OF CONTENT MATERIAL ORGANIZATION OPERATION OF EXPRESSION CODES A r c h i t e c t u r a l Orders T e c h n i c a l Codes " I ~ 1 1 • l 1 r Content Expre s s i o n Content Expre s s i o n As d e f i n e d through funct i o n a l domains Space s t r u c t u r ing As expressed through space s t r u c t u r i n g M a t e r i a l nature of the b u i l d i n g D. THE SYSTEM OF CODES The o p e r a t i o n of codes i s systemic. They e x i s t i n a d i a l e c t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p and a f f e c t , and l i m i t , each other. However, some codes may appear, i n time-and-place s p e c i f i c terms, more important than o t h e r s . For example, space formed one of the ba s i c codes f o r the Modern Movement. The arrangement of the d i f f e r e n t spaces of the b u i l d i n g , apart from f o l l o w i n g f u n c t i o n a l reasons, operated as a higher order s i g n i f i e r f o r the 110 e x p r e s s i o n of a b s t r a c t n o t i o n s l i k e space-in-time. Symbolism in the case of the Parthenon, at N a s h v i l l e , d i c t a t e d the a r c h i t e c t u r a l order. The b u i l d i n g became an icon of another b u i l d i n g i n which the same order was r e f e r r i n g to a d i f f e r e n t content. Graves' a r c h i t e c t u r e c o u l d a l s o be c o n s i d e r e d as d e a l i n g p r i m a r i l y with doors, w a l l s and windows 2 0 , not as f u n c t i o n a l elements only, but on a s e l f - r e f e r e n t i a l and a b s t r a c t l e v e l . The e x p r e s s i v e code of a r c h i t e c t u r a l order r e f e r s , i n t h i s case, to i t s e l f . In a s i m i l a r way a l s o , a t e c h n i c a l code, for example a s t r u c t u r a l technology, may d e f i n e the content of the b u i l d i n g , i n terms of c r e a t i n g the b u i l d i n g as an e x p r e s s i o n of the p a r t i c u l a r t e c h n o l o g y . 2 1 The four d i f f e r e n t types of design, d i s c u s s e d i n the previous c h a p t e r 2 2 as pragmatic, t y p o l o g i c , a n a l o g i c , and canonic, can prove u s e f u l i n the d e f i n i t i o n of the h i e r a r c h y of codes. I t appears that each one d i s t i n g u i s h e s a p a r t i c u l a r category of codes and o r g a n i z e s the r e s t of the system a c c o r d i n g to i t . For example, for canonic design, the a r c h i t e c t u r a l order becomes more important, while f o r pragmatic design t h i s r o l e i s played by the t e c h n i c a l codes; f o r t y p o l o g i c design by the b u i l d i n g type, and f o r a n a l o g i c design by the symbolic codes. But s i n c e design i s h a r d l y ever of one type, the system becomes more complex. There e x i s t s always a domain which u n i f i e s and i n f l u e n c e s a l l the d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s , and formulates the context of t h e i r o p e r a t i o n . T h i s domain i s given by the d i s c i p l i n a r y matrix, as the h i s t o r i c a l , c u l t u r a l and s t y l i s t i c c o n t e x t . Hence, w i t h i n t h i s c o n t e x t , we can i d e n t i f y the 111 h i e r a r c h i c a l o p e r a t i o n and o r d e r i n g of the codes i n b u i l d i n g - a r c h i t e c t - t i m e - a n d - p l a c e s p e c i f i c terms. In summary, the s i g n i f i c a t i o n of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l system, w i l l be the r e s u l t of the synchronous o p e r a t i o n of the codes. Each code represents a r u l e - l i k e n o t i o n , which a f f e c t s the s y n t a c t i c o r d e r i n g of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t . By v i r t u e of t h e i r r o l e i n the composition of the b u i l d i n g , they w i l l , i n d i r e c t l y , b r i n g consequences i n the area of pragmatics. Those consequences would r e v e r b e r a t e through the d i f f e r e n t domains of the f o u r - f u n c t i o n model. Furthermore, through t h e i r r o l e as i n t e r p r e t a t i v e r u l e s , they w i l l generate, or mark, some s i g n i f i c a t i o n and meaning i n t e r p r e t i n g in t h i s way the b u i l d i n g i n a r c h i t e c t u r a l , environmental, or s o c i o - c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t s . The nature of the codes as c o m p o s i t i o n a l and i n t e r p r e t a t i v e r u l e s , and as v e h i c l e s f o r s i g n i f i c a t i o n and meaning a t t r i b u t i o n , makes them u s e f u l f o r se m i o t i c a n a l y s i s . An i n i t i a l approach to the a p p l i c a t i o n of codes i n se m i o t i c a n a l y s i s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n the next chapter. However, the is s u e of s e m i o t i c a n a l y s i s , i . e . , of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the meaning of a b u i l d i n g through the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of i t s s i g n s , i s a much broader issue to be s u f f i c i e n t l y covered i n the context of t h i s t h e s i s . The f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n i s a l l u d i n g to some of the i s s u e s concerning the o p e r a t i o n a l merit of the codes as instruments f o r a n a l y s i s , and r a i s e s some i s s u e s f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h . 1 1 2 E. NOTES 1 B i l l H i l l i e r and Adrian Leaman, "The Man-Environment Paradigm and i t s Paradoxes", A r c h i t e c t u r a l Design, v o l . 8, August 1973, p 510. 2 Linda C l a r k e , " E x p l o r a t i o n s i n t o the Nature of Environmental Codes", J o u r n a l of A r c h i t e c t u r a l Research., v o l . 3, no 1, January 1974, p. 34. 3 i b i d , p. 34. * i b i d , p. 34. 5 Donald P r e z i o s i , The Semiotics of the B u i l t Environment: An I n t r o d u c t i o n to A r c h i t e c t o n i c A n a l y s i s , Bloomington and London: Indiana Univ. Press, 1979. 6 i b i d , p. 2. 7 i b i d , p. 2. 8 B. H i l l i e r and A. Leaman, "The A r c h i t e c t u r e , of A r c h i t e c t u r e " , in D.Hawkes (ed), Models and Systems i n A r c h i t e c t u r e and B u i l d i n g s , London: Medical and T e c h n i c a l Press, 1975. 9 Linda C l a r k , o p . c i t . , p. 34. 1 0 D. P r e z i o s i , o p . c i t . , p. 75. 1 1 See f o r example: F. D. K. Ching, Architecture,: Form, Space and Order, Van Norstrand Reinhold Co., 1979. A l s o see the a n a l y s i s of "elements, r e l a t i o n s h i p s and o r d e r i n g ideas i n the work of e i g h t a r c h i t e c t s " , i n the A n a l y s i s of Precedent, by Roger H. C l a r k , Michael Range and twenty students of the School of Design, The Student P u b l i c a t i o n of the School of Design North C a r o l i n a State Univ. at R a l e i g h , 1979. 1 2 D. P r e z i o s i , o p . c i t . , p. 74. 1 3 See chapter on "The A r c h i t e c t u r a l S i g n " . 1 4 Umberto Eco, "Function and Sign : The Semiotics of A r c h i t e c t u r e , i n Sign, Symbol, and A r c h i t e c t u r e , p. 36. 1 5 i b i d , p. 36. 1 6 C h a r l e s Jencks, "The A r c h i t e c t u r a l Sign", in Signs, Symbols, and A r c h i t e c t u r e , p. 107-110. 1 7 A c c o r d i n g to T. Kuhn, the d i s c i p l i n a r y matrix w i t h i n which the s c i e n t i s t works, c o n s i s t s of symbolic g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s , as formal, or r e a d i l y f o r m a l i z a b l e components of the matrix, ( l i k e 1 1 3 "form f o l l o w s f u n c t i o n " , "complexity and c o n t r a d i c t i o n " , or the a c t i v i t y - s p a c e f i t i n a r c h i t e c t u r e ) , of metaphysical paradigmss and b e l i e f s i n a p a r t i c u l a r model, ( l i k e organic a r c h i t e c t u r e , , or the 2% l i g h t i n g f a c t o r ) , of v a l u e s , ( l i k e "the environmentt shapes human behaviour", or the value of p r i v a c y at home), o f f exemplars or paradigms, ( l i k e the Barcelona P a v i l l i o n , or thee V i l l a Savoy). See Thomas Kuhn, The S t r u c t u r e of S c i e n t i f i c c R e v o l u t i o n s , Chicago Univ. Press, 1962, 2nd ed. 1970, pp. 182-186. Beth Moore notes that the d i s c i p l i n a r y matrix p l a y s a double r o l e . On one hand, i t p r o v i d e s the context f o r the codes that the planner (or the designer i n our case) uses, and i t c o n s t r a i n s the s o r t of i n t e r p r e t a t i v e r e l a t i o n s i t can accomodate. "The t h i n g s i n the c l a s s , which i s c a l l e d d i s c i p l i n a r y matrix, are codes f u n c t i o n i n g as o p e r a t o r s or messages... The d i s c i p l i n a r y matrix, which u l t i m a t e l y r epresents b e l i e f s , i s the context f o r the s p e c i f i c codes which are the models, a n a l o g i e s , metaphors and so on".(p.60) On the other hand, the d i s c i p l i n a r y matrix i t s e l f becomes a code. Instead o c o n t e x t , i t transforms i n t o c ontent. "From another l e v e l , the d i s c i p l i n a r y matrix i s no longer a c l a s s of t h i n g s , but some member of a c l a s s of t h i n g s . Other members of the c l a s s are c o n s c i o u s purpose, i n t u i t i o n , sense of beauty, s i m p l i c i t y , rhythm, e t c . The d i s c i p l i n a r y matrix s h i f t s from a context to a content r o l e . I t i s the code championing r e p l i c a t i o n s , order and the s t a t u s quo i n a context of s e v e r a l codes" (p.61). Beth Moore-Milroy, C r i t i c i s m And The P l a u s i b l e P l a n , Theory And Method, unpublished Ph.D. T h e s i s , Planning department, UBC, 1981 . For r e f e r e n c e on the c o n n o t a t i o n a l l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a t i o n , see: R. Barthes, Elements of Semiology, p. 89. "The work of Michael Graves i s s p e c i f i c a l l y f e t i s h i s t i c . . . and i t s meaning c o n s i s t s as he says, i n being about doors, windows and s t e p s . I t 'foregrounds' these elements by exploding t h e i r s i z e , t i l t i n g them sideways, p r o j e c t i n g them away from the normal volume of the b u i l d i n g " , see Ch. Jencks, o p . c i t . , p. Jencks, r e f e r r i n g to the complexity of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l e x p r e s s i v e system, notes that " a r c h i t e c t u r e tends to dramatize i t s a e s t h e t i c codes" i n the f o l l o w i n g ways : As f e t i s h i s m , or the s e l f - r e f l e c t i o n of the a e s t h e t i c code, as i n the case of Graves; as d i s t o r t i o n or d i s r u p t i o n of the a e s t h e t i c code, ( V e n t u r i , or O l i v e t t i b u i l d i n g by S t i r l i n g ) ; as redundancy and m i n i a t u r i z a t i o n i n the a e s t h e t i c t e x t (importance of the d e t a i l ) ; and a l s o through the hermeneutic and p r i v a t e c h a r a c t e r of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l a e s t h e t i c t e x t which remains always open to new i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . I b i d , p. 87-91. For r e f e r e n c e on the types of design see the chapter on "The Design A c t i v i t y " . 1 14 V. A PRELIMINARY APPLICATION OF CODES TO SEMIOTIC ANALYSIS If design a c t i v i t y i n c l u d e s the dynamic c o n s t r u c t i o n and o p e r a t i o n of codes, then s e m i o t i c a n a l y s i s aims at the r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of these codes. Through the systematic t r a c i n g of t h e i r o p e r a t i o n , and the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the s i g n s , i t attempts to r e v e a l the meaning of the b u i l d i n g . The f i r s t stage i n a s e m i o t i c a n a l y s i s i s the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the " v i r t u a l " s i g n 1 , i . e . , the d e f i n i t i o n of a p a r t , or the b u i l d i n g as a whole, as a s i g n 'standing f o r ' something. A l a t e r stage i s the examination of how t h i s p o t e n t i a l s i g n becomes e f f e c t i v e , under which c o n d i t i o n s i t i s i n t e r p r e t e d as a sig n and communicates a message. Issues concerning the s e t t i n g , the way the sig n i s p e r c e i v e d , and the i n d i v i d u a l himself as the i n t e r p r e t e r , a f f e c t t h i s communicative aspect of the s i g n . 2 The a r c h i t e c t u r a l o bject i s i n v e s t e d with meaning du r i n g i t s d e s i g n . The e x p r e s s i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r way of l i f e , or concepts about i t s b a s i c f u n c t i o n s , guide i t s composition and e n r i c h the b u i l d i n g with s i g n i f i c a t i o n , which i s there to be p o t e n t i a l l y uncovered by the user, (understood i n broad terms). However, the b u i l d i n g as a meaningful a r t i f a c t gains autonomic e x i s t e n c e , and, d u r i n g i t s use i n time, the o r i g i n a l l y intended meaning may be l o s t . 3 Thus, s e m i o t i c a n a l y s i s , concerned with the second p a r t of the 'communication t r i a n g l e ' between the designer, the user and the b u i l d i n g , as d e s c r i b e d i n a p r e v i o u s chapter, can not l i m i t the search f o r meaning only on what was o r i g i n a l l y intended. Instead, i t t r i e s to uncover the meaning 1 1 5 seen as the r e s u l t of a dynamic process of decoding t a k i n g place between the user and the b u i l d i n g . To understand what was i n i t i a l l y intended through the design of the b u i l d i n g , and to t r a c e what i s comprehended by the user i n the l i f e s p a n of the b u i l d i n g ' s use, would make apparent the d i s t i n c t i o n between i n t e n t i o n s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . I t would uncover the f a c t that what was o r i g i n a l l y intended, and what came to be when these i n t e n t i o n s were m a t e r i a l i s e d i n form, o f f e r only a b a s i s which the user i n t e r p r e t s , a n a l y s e s , uncovers, misreads, f e e l s , a t t r i b u t e s , comprehends, or even ig n o r e s . I t would a l l u d e to what was expressed by Barthes as the d i f f e r e n c e between the "work" as w r i t t e n by the author, and the " t e x t " as read by the reader. * T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n forms a premise f o r every i n t e r p r e t a t i o n in that i t t r i e s to accommodate the s u b j e c t i v i t y that each reader b r i n g s i n the act of reading, and to see reading as a dynamic act of meaning a t t r i b u t i o n . If i t were p o s s i b l e to e s t a b l i s h a b a s i s of what was o r i g i n a l l y intended, and what i s l a t e r comprehended, or read, in the b u i l d i n g , that would prove u s e f u l i n so f a r as i t would allow the designer to become more c o n s c i o u s l y aware of the f u n c t i o n of h i s design as a s i g n i f i e r . Whether the user understands the intended meaning, or the range of h i s understanding of the b u i l d i n g s s i g n i f i c a t i o n i n g e n e r a l , would r a i s e q u e s t i o n s which c o u l d be p o s s i b l y answered i n the sphere of c r i t i c i s m , or' of environmental psychology r e s e a r c h . At t h i s moment, without e i t h e r a d d r e s s i n g the issue of whether i t i s p o s s i b l e to comprehend completely the o r i g i n a l 1 1 6 i n t e n t i o n s , or attempting to analyze the, r o l e of the "reader", we w i l l t r y to e s t a b l i s h a p r e l i m i n a r y understanding of how the notion of codes can be used f o r sem i o t i c a n a l y s i s . As an example we w i l l use the se m i o t i c a n a l y s i s of the Museum of Anthropology, as presented i n the p r e f a c e . Wherever p o s s i b l e we w i l l attempt to p o i n t out some of i t s l i m i t a t i o n s , and to suggest a more r i g o r o u s approach based on notio n s developed in the t h e s i s . To summarize the argument as presented so f a r i n the t h e s i s : the b u i l d i n g s composition i s understood not only as an answer to f u n c t i o n a l requirements, but a l s o as r e p r e s e n t i n g the exp r e s s i o n of a d e s i r e d way of l i f e , and of a b s t r a c t i n t e n t i o n s , ranging from the a e s t h e t i c domain to the ex p r e s s i o n of the image of the c l i e n t ' s o r g a n i z a t i o n . The r u l e s of i t s composition, i . e . the a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes, are understood to be the t o o l s the designer uses i n order to e f f e c t t h i s e x p r e s s i o n of intended s i g n i f i c a t i o n and the s t r u c t u r i n g of the s i g n i f i c a n t u n i t s i n t o a coherent whole. The system of codes present i n the b u i l d i n g o f f e r s , by i t s very nature,, a comprehensive t o o l f o r the understanding of the composition of the b u i l d i n g , and f o r r e l a t i n g t h i s composition to domains of s i g n i f i c a t i o n . In a re f e r e n c e to the reading of l i t e r a r y work, Eco suggests, The reading of the work i s c a r r i e d o u t . . . i n a p e r p e t u a l o s c i l l a t i o n , so that from the work we move to the d i s c o v e r y of the o r i g i n a l codes suggested by i t , from here to an attempt at a f a i t h f u l reading of the work, from t h i s l a t t e r back again to our present codes and l e x i c o n s i n order to t r y 1 1 7 them out on the message; and from here we proceed to a continous comparison and i n t e g r a t i o n between the v a r i o u s reading keys, e n j o y i n g the work a l s o f o r i t s ambiguity, that comes not only from the i n f o r m a t i v e use of the s i g n i f i e r s i n respect to the s t a r t i n g code, but a l s o from the i n f o r m a t i v e use of the s i g n i f i e r s as r e l a t e d to our end codes. 5 Reading i s an act of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , and as such i t can be used in m etaphorical terms to d e s c r i b e the act of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n a r c h i t e c t u r e . During t h i s a c t , the i n t e r p r e t e r moves, as Blomeyer 6 suggests, from the i n i t i a l understanding of the conceptual framework of the o b j e c t , ( I n t e r p r e t a n t r e l a t i o n ) , to t h e ' o b j e c t as a s i g n , (Medium r e l a t i o n ) , to the f i n a l understanding of the o b j e c t i t s e l f , (Object r e l a t i o n ) . The process i s d e s c r i b e d as an act of r e t r o s e m i o s i s . ( f i g . 24). T h i s process c o u l d be f u r t h e r e x p l o r e d as proceeding from the g a t h e r i n g of i n i t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n on the " i n t e r p r e t a n t " , p o s s i b l y on the pragmatic l e v e l , to a f i r s t d e f i n i t i o n of the s i g n . Through the understanding of the sig n as an i n t e r s e c t i o n of content and e x p r e s s i o n , and the f u r t h e r e x p l o r a t i o n of i t s nature in s y n t a c t i c terms, a more complete understanding of i t s meaning i s formed. T h i s leads from the understanding of the b a s i c f u n c t i o n of the b u i l d i n g to the comprehension of how t h i s f u n c t i o n i s performed, which a t t r i b u t e s meaning on a c o n n o t a t i o n a l l e v e l . Through t h i s understanding, the o b j e c t i t s e l f i s p l a c e d i n a domain of s i g n i f i c a t i o n , and i t s p o s s i b l e meaning i s communicated to the i n t e r p r e t e r . 7 118 F i g u r e 24 - The process of s e m i o t i c a n a l y s i s User I n t e r p r e t a n t Medium deno t a t i o n N Object c o n t e n t / ex p r e s s i o n topology perspect ive geometry conn o t a t i o n I t i s suggested- t h e r e f o r e , that d u r i n g the s e m i o t i c a n a l y s i s of a b u i l d i n g one should proceed from the understanding of the context of the b u i l d i n g to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of i t s sig n system, as organized i n the a r c h i t e c t u r a l syntax, and as r e l a t e d to s i g n i f i e d n o t i o n s , through the o p e r a t i o n of the c o m p o s i t i o n a l codes. The context f o r t h i s a n a l y s i s i s given by the a r c h i t e c t ' s own work, concepts, d e s i g n i n g p r i n c i p l e s , and a r c h i t e c t u r a l s t y l e . Information concerning the a c t u a l use of the b u i l d i n g , programmatic requirements and conceptions of the d e s i r e d image of the b u i l d i n g , or the environmental context, o f f e r an . " o b j e c t i v e " background f o r the d e f i n i t i o n of the c o n t e x t . Furthermore, i s s u e s concerning the c a n o n i c a l , or g e n e r a l l y accepted, meaning of the b u i l d i n g p r o v i d e a b a s i s f o r the t e s t i n g of the r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s . Let us r e f e r back to the semiotic a n a l y s i s of the Museum as presented i n the p r e f a c e . The t a b l e o v e r l e a f ( f i g . 25), attempts to d e s c r i b e t h i s type of i n f o r m a t i o n concerning 1 19 the d e f i n i t i o n of the context of the a n a l y s i s . For example, the a n a l y s i s of c o n s t r a i n t s as r e f e r r i n g mainly to the pragmatics of the b u i l d i n g , ( b u i l d i n g program, s i t e and environmental c o n t e x t ) , o f f e r background i n f o r m a t i o n on what the b u i l d i n g i s , how i t r e l a t e s to the s i t e , or what the c l i e n t expected i t to be. Understanding the a r c h i t e c t ' s own work, h i s 'personal code' as a f i l t e r through which the c l i e n t ' s e x p e c t a t i o n s and the general statement of the problem are i n t e r p r e t e d and expressed, o f f e r s another aspect for the understanding of the b u i l d i n g ' s composition. The a c t u a l process of p r o d u c t i o n of the design and the b u i l d i n g , (which was not addressed i n the o r i g i n a l a n a l y s i s ) , or more general i s s u e s concerning the " l o c a l time" development of the design, as d e s c r i b e d by H i l l i e r and Leaman, 8 and the c a n o n i c a l meaning of the b u i l d i n g , as expressed f o r example through the p r e s s , set a background f o r a b a s i c understanding of the b u i l d i n g . 1 20 Fi g u r e 25 - Issues concerning the context of the a n a l y s i s > •H 4-1 CO CJ W TO QJ U-l U OJ (X 4 J Ex  Ar  TO X 10 U TO "H X | > 1 4) X CO 4J 3 TO S p. o u I, CO rH • TO 01 0) (J 13 "H TO 01 O rH X 3 4 J TO C 3 C C «0 O 01 3 T I -a <u o TOW M 4J 4J 3 41 O t I c ai u-4 a . o to c TO O • H U o .a (0 o a 0) a o x -TO 4J ai TJ m oi c -~ 3 TO to QJ TJ o a TO . , , j - i . , . 3 u 0) 4-1 • •H 1-1 x; QJ U TJ u u •< o U-| . o c 0 . to 0) u « U TJ o» c 4J TO C M >-i O 4J C c o a c TO O 0TJ 0) u •a c o u ai TJ 03 O r TO ' CO TO x CJ (0 u TO CJ 0) "H CO UH OJ U-l 05 o 4-1 TO TJ X 60 3 to O 01 x TO* 4J • » M C TO O 01 to « TO 4) O oi a xi •a oo u c c o TO -H x • a a 4J i-t TO CO vH O 3 TO o •r4 . ao o to rH 4J o c X a) J 8 * 8 TO 0 Ph M B rSR 0) o . [>> x 01 to U rH-3 TO 4-1 -H o u 3 0) IH 4J 4J TO CO X W W W Pi TO M 01 a . o CO •a ' o 0) 1-1 . x> ! TO , H 60 C •H (0 >s 4J 4J u TO a . TO t-i 01 i QJ o c c M 01 O CJ CJ CO OJ •H X t-l 4J X 4-1 3 c TO TO 4-1 01 D. TO p rH C S TO TO o 4J O TO C (0 4-1 rH o TO O. N 60 •H B C S U 3 • H O o> C c x to 0) a 3 D, o O x to O 01 (0 TJ O co u 4-1 rH 4-1 CJ TO rH 0» C iH 4J O U-l •H CO X M TO CJ 0> 1-4 P . CO < ^ u >> UJ 4J O TO O CJ X r-l CO 01 > E o rH c U-l 01 TO f-l « 1-4 OJ u 3 TJ •H TJ 4-1 O 1-4 c (J S 1 4-1 rt 01 0) 01 4-J QJ B 4J C •H s 4J o CO 5 X O TO 01 o CJ •H f J CJ u IH TJ < •H OJ CJ c TO 4-1 1-4 O 44 OJ X 0) u c 01 60 TJ TO •H m a . 0) a w a w ,j u w to B c •H TO U 4-i (0 C O U TO 1-4 r4 -H 60 3 o t r M OJ I C to 4J 3 4J O 4J 4J W 60 C TO r4 U 3 01 )H < -< x to a, 60 e TO w U-l U 4-I4JBCOJXU0) C O C M B C X T O - H O U - H O . rt m m s H H u o t J H 4 - 1 0 • H C ' H 0 ) 0 J T O r t 4 J O l r H O I C O — l TJOOTJCOCOCMCCJ-HD. e - H C 0 1 3 M 4 J O M X B - H l H H W H Oi S OJ tOCJESW S CO 0) 4-1 C X o • IN fTt W O rH CM > 14-1 OJ -H •H II) > CJ 121 A f t e r the d e f i n i t i o n of the context, one can proceed to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the s i g n system i n terms of syntax and semantics. T h i s would i n c l u d e : f i r s t , the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of elements of space p l a n n i n g , of f u n c t i o n a l u n i t s and t h e i r t h r e e - dimensional c h a r a c t e r i n order to d e f i n e the s i g n i f i c a n t elements of the a r c h i t e c t o n i c syntax. A r c h i t e c t u r a l orders as expressed through the b u i l d i n g , and i s s u e s concerning the m a t e r i a l composition, would s t r u c t u r e the d i f f e r e n t u n i t s i n a whole. Second, the d e f i n i t i o n of the codes of content i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to the codes of e x p r e s s i o n and to the semantic domains, i n order to r e v e a l the s i g n i f i c a t i o n of the system of si g n s o p e r a t i n g i n the b u i l d i n g . Let us r e f e r back to the example. The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l order, ( f i g . 26), d e f i n e d as the i n t e r s e c t i o n of the two axes, and the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of t h i s order through e i t h e r the o p e r a t i o n of r u l e s c o n cerning " i n s i d e - o u t s i d e " , or " s o l i d - v o i d " , or by the f u n c t i o n a l and s t r u c t u r a l nature of the b u i l d i n g , attempt to analyze how composition i s achieved at t h i s p a r t of the b u i l d i n g . 122 F i g u r e 26 - Expression codes: A n a l y s i s of a r c h i t e c t u r a l order • 9 f = = T 1. Intersection of Y and X axes 2. Datum on Y axis 3. Parti 1. Permanent exhibition 2. Changing Exhibition 3. Research Collection 4. Offices 4. Code of the Y axis - permanent exhibition, accepts the changing exhibition and connects with the functions on the datum. 5. The primary generating code of the path on the Y axis moves down the site to connect, through solid and void, the inside and the outside. The code of the structure and grid operate together to give rhythm to the formal expression. 1 23 The i s s u e of the three-dimensional c h a r a c t e r of the same pa r t i s addressed through the a n a l y s i s of the rhythm as a comp o s i t i o n a l r u l e i n the west fasade. In t h i s a n a l y s i s the elements, (spaces), which form the y a x i s of the b u i l d i n g are analyzed i n terms of t h e i r three-dimensional c h a r a c t e r , and the r u l e s f o r t h e i r composition. The t a b l e i n f i g . 28 attempts to sy n t h e s i z e those i s s u e s concerning the a n a l y s i s of a code, and to uncover p o s s i b l e s i g n i f i c a t i o n . F i g u r e 27 - Exp r e s s i o n codes: A n a l y s i s of the "rhythm" CZ3 DQO n • • \a *—b-t-a *~b* a t- 6. • nan 6. Rhythm i s com- posed of elements and the rules of their combination. The elements as combined in the west facade. 8. The rule of solid and void. rcsiebrjitiojri isSOlid void 1 pause initiation pause solid '^oid" - soTTd 11 void 9. The complete expression of the three stages in the path. 124 F i g u r e 28 - Exp r e s s i o n codes: "Rhythm" - F u r t h e r a n a l y s i s Table 5 - Analysis of Rhythm Cod* 1. Rhythm (as analyzed on the west facade) Elements Spatial elements different in Geometry Square Orthogonal Vertical Dimension Rules 1. Combination iflDu • • • 2. Solid - void to Signification Intent (Content) Expression Void for c i r c u l - ation and horizontal dimension in floor plan Solid for ex- hibition spaces Vertical (Solid-Void) for ^nain exhibition hall Penults visual contact witli nature View unobstructed Vertical elements as signs lor totems Contact with nature (forest image) The matrix which r e l a t e s the g e o m e t r i c a l c h a r a c t e r of the elements to the r u l e of s o l i d and v o i d , ( f i g . 29), r e f l e c t s a p r e l i m i n a r y attempt to uncover the a r t i c u l a t i o n of the inventory of p o s s i b l e formal elements. M a t r i c e s of t h i s type, which would extend to cover not only the formal o r g a n i z a t i o n , but a l s o the m a t e r i a l one, as f o r example by combining the r u l e of s o l i d - v o i d to the one of c o n c r e t e - g l a s s , o f f e r a systematic 1 25 a n a l y s i s of the inventory of formal elements on which the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of s i g n s can be based. F i g u r e 29 - Matrix of elements Rules Vertical Orthogonal Solid A repetit- ive thcraj for the entrance and ex- hibition spaces Exhibition Void With the examination of the " d i a l e c t i c s of space" as expressed through the use of light-shadow and the p r o p o r t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r of the spaces, or even by the treatement of the c e i l i n g and the f l o o r , the a n a l y s i s of the composition i s f u r t h e r expanded, ( f i g . 30). F i g u r e 30 - E x p r e s s i o n codes: " D i a l e c t i c s of space" III f 13 •fllfi! I 13. The contour of the site and roofline act in compliment for the f i n a l expression. 1 26 The y a x i s , i d e n t i f i e d as an a r c h i t e c t u r a l order, or ex p r e s s i o n code, i s transformed through the use of r u l e s , e.g., s o l i d - v o i d , and t h e i r e x p r e s s i o n , e.g., c o n c r e t e - g l a s s , and i t i s expressed through the d i a l e c t i c s of the o r g a n i z a t i o n of the s p a t i a l u n i t s . I t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n the l i g h t of the i n t e n t i o n a l s i g n i f i c a t i o n of the b u i l d i n g as a s i g n f o r Indian C u l t u r e , as s t a t e d i n the program, leads to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a b a s i c code of content, that of the path. The " a x i s as a path" i n t e r p r e t s the b u i l d i n g mainly as a symbolic code, even though i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to other content codes should not be underestimated. For example, movement i s seen as an i n t e g r a l p a r t of the b u i l d i n g type of a Museum. But movement, or "path", seen as a code, i n t e r p r e t s the present Museum as an icon of the not i o n of movement, or c i r c u l a t i o n , of a museum. Thus, the Museum i t s e l f i s transformed to a path, to a c i r c u l a t i o n space. The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the codes and t h e i r systemic o p e r a t i o n leads not only to an understanding of the composition, but i t a l s o i n t e r p r e t s t h i s composition by r e f e r e n c e to domains of s i g n i f i c a t i o n . The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the system of signs of the b u i l d i n g through the systematic t r a c i n g of the o p e r a t i o n of the codes i s shown i n the t a b l e i n f i g . 31. Formal elements, or spaces which would not be, i n other case, d i r e c t l y i d e n t i f i e d as s i g n s , can be now understood as s i g n i f i c a t i v e . For example, the c a n o n i c a l meaning of the post-and-beam s t r u c t u r e i n the Museum was that of a metaphor f o r a s i m i l a r element used i n the N.W. Coast Indian house. But s e i n g them as t a k i n g part in the o r g a n i z a t i o n of the "path", and a n a l y z i n g them i n terms of 1 27 "rhythm", " s o l i d - v o i d " , or " v e r t i c a l i t y " , r e v e a l s t h e i r r o l e i n ex p r e s s i n g a symbolic r e l a t i o n s h i p of the b u i l d i n g to nature, ("path", metaphor of f o r e s t , b u i l d i n g vs n a t u r e ) . In t h i s way the system of signs as i d e n t i f i e d i n the b u i l d i n g i s more complete, and t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , p a s s i n g from the d e f i n i t i o n of the " v i r t u a l " to the understanding of the " e f f e c t i v e " more r i g o r o u s . F i g u r e 31 - I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the system of sign s Table 6. - Identification of System of fcodes Elements as Signs Meaning Type of Sign 1. Datum on Y axisi along the X axis 2. Y axis Functional spaces placed parallel to the X axis North facade A r t i f i c i a l - . lake (never J constructed) Sequence of spaces for more exhi- bition A metaphor for 'the way the NW Indian Village relates to the sea Reinforcing — the metaphor Museum con- - ceived on a path. - Intentional index Signal Intentional index 1. sol id-void light - shadow 2. verticality , solid-void verticality final stage of the rhythm 4. structure concrete and glass volumes the poles main hall post and beam A metaphor for a forest a metaphor for the totem poles celebration of nature as the physical environment for the totems a metaphor for the NW coast Indian Village Intentional index Index Signal Intentional index 1 28 The l e v e l of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the codes i n the example, and t h e i r c h a r a c t e r as codes of content or ex p r e s s i o n i s not s u f f i c i e n t l y defined.- For example, i n s t e a d of tra n s f o r m i n g " a x i s " to "path", one c o u l d d e f i n e the code "the a x i s i s to the b u i l d i n g what the path i s to the f o r e s t " , and i n t h i s way expose how a formal r u l e ( a x i s ) i s t r e a t e d m e t a p h o r i c a l l y ( p a t h ) . The r e l a t i o n s h i p of the d i f f e r e n t codes a l s o needs to be f u r t h e r e x p l o r e d . "The Museum as a path", f o r example, and the conception of "a museum e v o l v i n g round a c e n t r a l space", as i m p l i e d i n the program, c o u l d r e v e a l c o n t r a d i c t i o n s and expose some of the reasons behind the composition. A n a l y z i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s , e x p l o r i n g a n t i t h e s e s , or sea r c h i n g f o r coherence i n terms of the c h o i c e and use of codes would expose the b u i l d i n g ' s composition and s i g n i f i c a t i o n as pa r t of a dynamic process of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . The above example i s only a p r e l i m i n a r y attempt f o r se m i o t i c a n a l y s i s based on the notion of codes. For a more r i g o r o u s approach one should d i s t i n g u i s h between the l e v e l of content and that of expre s s i o n in the b u i l d i n g , and i d e n t i f y the o p e r a t i n g codes on both planes, through p o s s i b l y an a n a l y s i s of the inventory of formal and s p a t i a l elements. The tr a n s f o r m a t i o n a l s o of the codes of e x p r e s s i o n , or s y n t a c t i c r u l e s , to the codes of content, and the systemic o p e r a t i o n , and h i e r a r c h y , of both types of codes, should be d e f i n e d , i n order f o r the a n a l y s i s to c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e the p r e v a i l i n g meaning. A model of semiotic a n a l y s i s which would use the codes as t o o l s for the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the b u i l d i n g needs yet to be 1 29 f u r t h e r d e f i n e d . 9 However, even at t h i s p r e l i m i n a r y stage, one can argue f o r the n e c e s s i t y of a r i g o r o u s a n a l y t i c a l method f o r se m i o t i c a n a l y s i s which would expose the hidden s t r u c t u r e of the meaningful a r t i f a c t . The notion of codes has proved u s e f u l f o r such an approach to s e m i o t i c a n a l y s i s . 130 A. NOTES Ger a l d Blomeyer, " M a t e r i a l i z e d Ideology: A Semiotic A n a l y s i s of Monumental Nazi A r c h i t e c t u r e " , Ars Semeiotica, v o l . 2, no 3, 1978, p. 101. i b i d , p. 101. See f o r example the d i s c u s s i o n by Bonta on the c a n o n i c a l meaning of the Barcelona P a v i l l i o n , Juan Pablo Bonta, A r c h i t e c t u r e and i t s I n t e r p r e t a t i o n : A Study of E x p r e s s i v e Systems in A r c h i t e c t u r e , New York: R i z z o l i , 1 979. Manfredo T a f u r i , T h e o r i e s and H i s t o r y of A r c h i t e c t u r e , Great B r i t a i n : Granada, 1980. R. Barthes, Image, Music, Text, T r a n s l a t e d by S. Heath, New York: H i l l and Wang, 1977, pp. 155-164. G. Blomeyer, o p . c i t . , p. 101. In the context of the t h e s i s the model of r e t r o s e m i o s i s (I-M-O) i s accepted as g i v e n . However a number of i s s u e s concerning the process of p e r c e p t i o n , meaning i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and communication i n the p a r t of the user are not c l e a r , and they would r e q u i r e f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h and c l a r i f i c a t i o n . I t a l s o appears t h a t , even though d u r i n g the a n a l y s i s of a b u i l d i n g one needs in f o r m a t i o n c oncerning the l e v e l of pragmatics, one can not completely d i s t i n g u i s h among the three l e v e l s as d e s c r i b e d by the model. Instead i t seems that they e x i s t i n a d i a l e c t i c a l i n t e r r e l a t i o n . Furthermore, the d e n o t a t i v e and c o n n o t a t i v e aspect of the " i n t e r p r e t a n t " ( = s i g n i f i e r ) r e l a t i o n needs to be f u r t h e r examined. The d i s t i n c t i o n i s o f f e r e d only as a p r e l i m i n a r y n o t i o n . Four types of " l o c a l time" s t r u c t u r e can be d i s t i n g u i s h e d in d e s i g n : a) v a r i e t y r e d u c t i o n ; b) c o n j e c t u r e - t e s t ; c) complex of s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s ; d) g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of the c o n j e c t u r e - t e s t molecule. see B. H i l l i e r and A. Leaman, "How i s Design P o s s i b l e " , o p . c i t . , p. 9. An i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Mukarovsky's model of the l i t e r a r y s t r u c t u r e i n a r c h i t e c t u r e i s a f i r s t attempt f o r such a model. Mukarovsky i d e n t i f i e s between " m a t e r i a l " and "form", which c o u l d a l l u d e to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of "content" and " e x p r e s s i o n " in the a r c h i t e c t u r a l s t r u c t u r e . The l i m i t s of the t h e s i s however do not allow f o r f u r t h e r e x p l o r a t i o n of t h i s d i r e c t i o n . 131 CONCLUSIONS The o b j e c t i v e of the t h e s i s was to examine the c o g n i t i v e b a s i s of a r c h i t e c t u r a l c o d i f i c a t i o n , and the a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes as a p a r t i c u l a r instance of i t . The b a s i c u n d e r l y i n g theme was formed through the understanding that s e m i o t i c a n a l y s i s of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t should not be r e s t r i c t e d only to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the meaning of the o b j e c t , but ra t h e r i t should a l s o attempt to answer the primary q u e s t i o n of how t h i s meaning i s generated through the composition of the o b j e c t . To understand the b u i l d i n g in i t s ba s i c r u l e s , r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and elements, i . e . , to attempt a s t r u c t u r a l a n a l y s i s or reading of the b u i l d i n g , means to comprehend and d e f i n e the context i n which the d i f f e r e n t s i g n s operate. The sign i d e n t i f i c a t i o n should not be r e s t r i c t e d only to the d i r e c t l y s i g n i f i c a n t or symbolic elements, and forms. Even the n o n - d i r e c t l y s i g n i f i c a n t elements can be i d e n t i f i e d as p l a y i n g a r o l e i n the ge n e r a t i o n of meaning. To l i m i t our reading on the l e v e l of the d i r e c t l y i d e n t i f i a b l e and s i g n i f i c a n t s i g n s , without r e f e r e n c e to the whole system, d e p r i v e s t h i s reading of i t s very essence, which c o n s i s t s of the conscious uncovering of the u n d e r l y i n g themes, f o r m a l i s t i c m o t i f s , s t r u c t u r a l r e l a t i o n s , and symbolic s i g n i f i c a t i o n s that make the b u i l d i n g a complex system of d i s c o u r s e . One set of f a c t o r s which s e t s the terms of r e f e r e n c e f o r the a r c h i t e c t u r a l composition are the i n t e n t i o n s concerning the s i g n i f i c a t i o n of the b u i l d i n g . During the design a c t i v i t y , 1 32 those i n t e n t i o n s are expressed i n t o t hree-dimensional form. Based on a s t r u c t u r a l understanding of c o g n i t i o n and a r c h i t e c t u r e , i t was suggested that the t o o l s through which intended content i s transformed i n t o e x p r e s s i v e form are codes, both c o m p o s i t i o n a l and i n t e r p r e t a t i v e . The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of those codes and t h e i r t e s t towards the s t r u c t u r e d whole r e v e a l i s s u e s concerning the a r c h i t e c t u r a l composition and meaning a t t r i b u t i o n . I d e n t i f i e d i n s t a n c e s of coherence, d e v i a t i o n or d i s t o r t i o n i n the a p p l i c a t i o n of the r u l e s may become meaningful in the context of the system. T h i s t h e s i s i s a c o n t r i b u t i o n to the f i e l d of a r c h i t e c t u r a l s e m i o t i c s . Even though some c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of r e s e a r c h has been done on the d e f i n i t i o n of a r c h i t e c t u r e as a s e m i o t i c system, i n terms of i t s r u l e s and elements, the c o g n i t i v e c h a r a c t e r of a r c h i t e c t u r a l semiosis has not yet been s u f f i c i e n t l y e x p l o r e d . The a r c h i t e c t u r a l s e m i o t i c system i s deduced 1 from other s e m i o t i c systems d i f f e r e n t i n nature; a r c h i t e c t u r a l s e m i o t i c s attempt to f i t a r c h i t e c t u r e i n t o the frames of general s e m i o t i c r e s e a r c h , o v e r l o o k i n g i n the process q u a l i t i e s s p e c i f i c to a r c h i t e c t u r e . 2 Design, f o r example, has not been examined from a s e m i o t i c p o i n t of view, even though the designer p l a y s a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n the d e f i n i t i o n of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t as a meaningful a r t i f a c t . In the case of communication between the d e s i g n e r , the b u i l d i n g and the user, only the second p a r t , ( b u i l d i n g - u s e r ) , has been ex p l o r e d , while the i n t e n t i o n s of the designer remain vague. J e n c k s 3 , f o r example, ana l y z e s the i n f e r e n c e s made by students about the 1 33 meaning of the O l i v e t t i b u i l d i n g . However what type of b u i l d i n g the designer intended i t to be, and how he expressed t h a t , i s not analyzed i n any great depth. I t was attempted t h e r e f o r e i n the t h e s i s to base se m i o t i c a n a l y s i s on the understanding of the nature of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l o b j e c t and design, and, on t h i s premise, to address some of the qu e s t i o n s concerning the d e f i n i t i o n of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l s e m i o t i c system, and the nature of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l s i g n . The issue of the c o g n i t i v e c h a r a c t e r of a r c h i t e c t u r a l semiosis was a l s o addressed. Even though only the case of meaning a t t r i b u t i o n d u r i n g design was s t r e s s e d , i t was s t i l l p o s s i b l e to c r e a t e a b a s i s on which i s s u e s concerning f o r example s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s between the d e s i g n e r ' s i n t e n t i o n s and the user's p e r c e p t i o n of the environment, or the nature of a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes i n a given culture,, c o u l d p o s s i b l y be examined. The n o t i o n of a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes has proved u s e f u l not only i n the d e f i n i t i o n of the b u i l d i n g as an e x p r e s s i v e a r t i f a c t , but a l s o i n the c l a r i f i c a t i o n of c e r t a i n i s s u e s concerning design as a c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t y , and i n t h i s way to expand some aspects of H i l l i e r and Leaman's approach to de s i g n . Thus, the e x p r e s s i o n of i n t e n t i o n s i n t o form, as t a k i n g p l a c e d u r i n g design, was c l a r i f i e d with the understanding of the codes, which a l s o appear to o f f e r a "missing l i n k " between the no t i o n of a r c h i t e c t u r e as a l a n g u a g e - l i k e s t r u c t u r e and the de s i g n e r ' s p r e s t r u c t u r e s . S i m i l a r i n nature to the code of the gene r a l s t r u c t u r e , the a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes are the t o o l s the 134 designer uses i n order to express h i s i n t e n t i o n s . Through those codes we can understand how the designer "makes sense" out of a complex design problem, and how he s o l v e s t h i s problem i n the context of h i s p r e s t r u c t u r e s . F u r t h e r t h e o r e t i c a l work i s r e q u i r e d i n order to d e f i n e the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the d i f f e r e n t types of codes, as i d e n t i f i e d d u r i n g the design a c t i v i t y , ( d esigner's code, code of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s , and a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes), to e l a b o r a t e and t e s t the c a t e g o r i e s of a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes and to develop a model of se m i o t i c a n a l y s i s . Furthermore, e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h would be r e q u i r e d i n order to t e s t the o p e r a t i o n of the codes i n a design s i t u a t i o n , to i d e n t i f y which elements the user p e r c e i v e s as meaningful, and to d i s t i n g u i s h the s i m i l a r i t i e s and the d i f f e r e n c e s between the s t r u c t u r a l reading of the b u i l d i n g and the user's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . I t i s f e l t that the n o t i o n of c o d i f i c a t i o n i n g e n e r a l , and the a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes i n p a r t i c u l a r , as u n d e r l y i n g a s t r u c t u r a l understanding of a r c h i t e c t u r e , a l s o appear promising on an a n a l y t i c a l b a s i s . For example, a n a l y s i s of the work of an a r c h i t e c t i n a p e r i o d of time, based- on the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of codes, would r e v e a l i s s u e s of importance of h i s designs, even though these i s s u e s might operate i n an unconscious way. A l s o , comperative a n a l y s i s of a b u i l d i n g type, e i t h e r on a d i a c h r o n i c or on a synchronic l e v e l , c o u l d happen through the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes, the terms of r e f e r e n c e of which extend beyond the i s s u e s concerning a t y p i c a l t y p o l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s , i . e . , f u n c t i o n and space. F i n a l l y , the 135 d e f i n i t i o n of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes as being formed in a s t y l i s t i c p e r i o d , or as r e f e r r i n g to d i f f e r e n t d i r e c t i o n s w i t h i n the same p e r i o d , and p e r s o n a l d e v i a t i o n s from the r u l e s ( d e s c r i b e d by T a f u r i as fundamental, d e r i v e d , and under-codes) , ** c o u l d be proved u s e f u l f o r the understanding of the hidden s t r u c t u r e of an a r c h i t e c t u r a l s t y l e . The q u e s t i o n of value, and i n p a r t i c u l a r that of a e s t h e t i c v a l u e , has not been faced in the t h e s i s . The a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes have been d i s c u s s e d only on an a n a l y t i c a l l e v e l . But through t h e i r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and systemic o p e r a t i o n hidden i n t e n t i o n s can be uncovered. As T a f u r i observes, "the i d e o l o g y u n d e r l y i n g a r c h i t e c t u r a l work i s always, a f t e r a l l , a v i s i o n of the world that tends to pose as a c o n s t r u c t i o n of the human environment... In t h i s sense a r c h i t e c t u r e i s always the c o n s t r u c t i o n of an Utopia" 5 . And t h i s U t o p i a i s the task of a r c h i t e c t u r a l c r i t i c i s m to uncover and evaluate i n a l l i t s a s p e c t s . ...By making r a t i o n a l , what, normally, i n a e s t h e t i c a c t i v i t y happens o u t s i d e a s t r i c t l o g i c a l check, and by d i s c o v e r i n g the i d e o l o g i c a l v a l u e s of formal c h o i c e s o f t e n made out of h a b i t , c r i t i c i s m can face the a r c h i t e c t with the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of a c ontinous and p i t i l e s s check on the sources and symbolic systems to ' which he, c o n s c i o u s l y or u n c o n s c i o u s l y , t r u s t s h i m s e l f . . . . A c r i t i c i s m that pays a t t e n t i o n to the r e l a t i o n s between the s i n g l e work and the system to which i t belongs tends to throw l i g h t on and to unmask the c u r r e n t mythologies, even the most advanced, and without proposing new myths, i n v i t e s a p i t i l e s s coherence. 6 Under t h i s scope then, semiology and s t r u c t u r a l a n a l y s i s , should 1 36 "undertake a p i t i l e s s s c r u t i n y of the meanings u n d e r l y i n g a p p a r e n t l y innocent forms and c h o i c e s ; i t should b r i n g to l i g h t the system of c o n d i t i o n i n g accepted or u n c o n s c i o u s l y undergone by a r c h i t e c t , c r i t i c and p u b l i c , and should face the doer with h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s " . 7 Through the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the s p a t i a l a r t i c u l a t i o n and i t s hidden s i g n i f i c a t i o n , one would be able to uncover the "myths" 8 that dominate the p r o d u c t i o n and consumption of the a r t i f i c i a l space as an e x p r e s s i o n of the image of s o c i e t y . In those terms, the method of a n a l y s i s d i s c u s s e d i n the t h e s i s might be proved u s e f u l i n p r o v i d i n g an a n a l y t i c a l b a s i s f o r a r c h i t e c t u r a l c r i t i c i s m , and a s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r the d e f i n i t i o n of "what i t i s " and the search of "what i t should be" i n a r c h i t e c t u r e . Another d i r e c t i o n of p o s s i b l e a p p l i c a t i o n of the n o t i o n of codes c o u l d be that of a r c h i t e c t u r a l e d u c a t i o n . In an attempt to make e x p l i c i t the process of meaning a t t r i b u t i o n d u r i n g design, a r c h i t e c t u r a l codes can be d e f i n e d and a p p l i e d i n s t u d i o p r o j e c t s . A r c h i t e c t u r a l codes are suggested as a u s e f u l o p e r a t i o n a l n o t i o n , amenable to d i f f e r e n t a p p l i c a t i o n s . What c h a r a c t e r i z e s them i s t h e i r s p e c i f i c nature as the ' t o o l s ' f o r the c o n n e c t i o n of content to e x p r e s s i o n and the g e n e r a t i o n of meaning. As T a f u r i notes, an a r c h i t e c t u r a l code, s i m i l a r to the " i d e a l type" by Weber, " i s not a 'hypothesis', but i t shows the way to the e l a b o r a t i o n of the h y p o t h e s i s . I t i s not a r p r e s e n t a t i o n of r e a l i t y , but i t s u p p l i e s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n with an u n i v o c a l means of e x p r e s s i o n . " 9 1 37 B. NOTES 1 Shelagh Lindsey, "Semiotic Reasoning: Deductive or I n d u c t i v e ? " , Ars Semeiotica, v o l . 2, no 3, 1979, pp. 269-273. 2 See f o r example the d i s c u s s i o n on "The Language Analogy in A r c h i t e c t u r e " i n chapter I. 3 C h a r l e s Jencks, "A Semantic A n a l y s i s of S t i r l i n g ' s O l i v e t t i Centre Wing," i n Signs, Symbols, and A r c h i t e c t u r e , pp. 233-242. * According to T a f u r i , fundamental codes correspond "to the great c y c l e s d e f i n e d by the systems of meaning and by the r e l a t i o n s h i p of homogenous p r o d u c t i o n " . D e r i v e d codes represent " c a t e g o r i e s that s p e c i f y the e v o l u t i o n of the code i n the course of time", and undercodes " r e l a t e to p a r t i c u l a r and i n d i v i d u a l semantic areas". Manfredo T a f u r i , T h e o r i e s and H i s t o r y of A r c h i t e c t u r e , Great B r i t a i n : Granada, 1980, p. 209. 5 i b i d , p. 203. 6 i b i d , p. 201. 7 i b i d , p. 214. 8 'Myths' are used m e t a p h o r i c a l l y i n a r c h i t e c t u r e , i n an analogy to the term used by Barthes f o r the d e s c r i p t i o n of the myths of modern s o c i e t y . See Roland Barthes, Mythologies, (Great B r i t a i n : P a l l a din-Granada, 1973, r e p r i n t 1981). 9 M. T a f u r i , o p . c i t . , p. 210. 1 38 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abel, C h r i s . "In Defence of R a t i o n a l i t y i n Design." Design Methods and Theory, v o l . 13, no 3/4, pp. 107-117. . "Language Analogy i n A r c h i t e c t u r a l Theory." A r c h i t e c t u r a l A s s o c i a t i o n Q u a r t e r l y , v o l . 12, no 3, 1980, pp. 39-47. Alexander, C. Notes on the S y n t h e s i s of Form. Cambridge Mass. and London England: Harvard Univ. Press, 1964, 9th p r i n t i n g , 1977. Arnheim, Rudolf. V i s u a l T h i n k i n g . C a l i f o r n i a : Univ. of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1969. Barthes, Roland. Elements of Semiology. T r a n s l a t e d by A. Lavers and C. Smith. New York: H i l l and Wang, 1968, 6th p r i n t i n g , 1980. . Mythologies. T r a n s l a t e d by A. Lavers. P a l l a d i n - Granada, 1972, r e p r i n t , 1981. . "the S t r u c t u r a l i s t A c t i v i t y , " i n C r i t i c a l Essays. Northwestern Univ. Press, .pp. 213-220. B e r n s t e i n , B a s i l . C l a s s , Codes and C o n t r o l : T h e o r e t i c a l S t u d i e s Towards a So c i o l o g y of Language. New York: Schocken Books, 1971, 2nd ed. 1974. Blomeyer, G e r a l d . " M a t e r i a l i z e d Ideology: A Semiotic A n a l y s i s of Monumental Nazi A r c h i t e c t u r e , " i n Ars Semeiotica, v o l . 2, no 3, 1978, pp. 73-106. Boden, M. P i a g e t . Great B r i t a i n : Fontana Modern Masters, 1979. Bono, Edward, de. L a t e r a l T h i n k i n g : A Textbook of C r e a t i v i t y . Penguin Books, 1970, r e p r i n t , 1978. Bonta, Juan Pablo. A r c h i t e c t u r e and i t s I n t e r p r e t a t i o n : A Study of E x p r e s s i v e Systems i n A r c h i t e c t u r e . New York: R i z z o l i , 1979. . "Notes on a Theory of Meaning i n Design," in Broadbent, G.; Jencks, Ch.; and Bunt, R.; (ed s ) . Signs, Symbols and A r c h i t e c t u r e . Great B r i t a i n : John Wiley and Sons, 1980 , pp. 276-282. Brawn, Graham and Ass. L t d . UBC F u n c t i o n a l Programme: Museum of Man, D r a f t , Books I and I I . Reading Room School of A r c h i t e c t u r e , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. 1 39 B r i l l , M. "A Systems Approach to Environmental Design," Environment: Planning and Design, Jan.- Feb. 1970. Broadbent, G e o f f r e y . A P l a i n Man's Guide to the Theory of Signs in A r c h i t e c t u r e , " A r c h i t e c t u r a l Design, no 7-8, 1977, pp. 474-482. . " B u i l d i n g Design as an I c o n i c System," i n Broadbent, G.; Jencks, Ch.; and Bunt, R.; ( e d s ) . Signs, Symbols and A r c h i t e c t u r e . Great B r i t a i n : John Wiley and Sons, 1980 , pp. 311-332. Design in A r c h i t e c t u r e . London, New York: J . Wiley & Sons, 1973. . "Design Methods at the Portsmouth School of A r c h i t e c t u r e , " Design Methods and Theory, v o l . 13, no 1, Jan.-March 1979, pp.15-17. . "Design and Theory B u i l d i n g , " i n Design Methods and Theory, v o l . 13, no 3/4, July-Dec. 1979, pp. 103- 107. . "Methodology i n the S e r v i c e of D e l i g h t , " in Environmental Design Research, v o l . 2, pp. 314-318. . "The Development of Design Methods: A Review," Design Methods and Theory, v o l . 13, no 1, 1980. Broadbent, G.; Jencks, Ch.; and Bunt, R.; (eds). Signs, Symbols and A r c h i t e c t u r e . Great B r i t a i n : John Wiley and Sons, 1980 Broadbent, G.; Bunt, R.; L l o r e n s , Th. Meaning and Behaviour i n the B u i l t Environment. John Wiley & Sons, 1980. B u t t l e , Derek. " A t t i t u d e s to Design Methods: 1958-1978," in Design Methods and Theory, vol.13, no 1, Jan-March 1979, pp. 6-9. Ching, F r a n c i s D.K. A r c h i t e c t u r e : Form, Space and Order, New York: Van Norstrand Reinhold Co, 1979. Clark., R. H. ; M. Pause and 20 Students of the School of Design. A n a l y s i s of Precedent, The Student P u b l i c a t i o n of the School of Design, North C a r o l i n a State Univ. at R a l e i g h , 1979. C l a r k e , L i n d a . " E x p l o r a t i o n s i n t o the Nature of Environmental Codes," J o u r n a l of A r c h i t e c t u r a l Research, v o l . 3, no 1, Jan. 1974, pp. 34-38. Cohen, L. Z. "A S e n s i b l e A n a l y s i s of Language and Meaning in A r c h i t e c t u r e , " Design Methods and Theory, v o l . 14, no 1 40 2, pp. 58-65. C o l l i n s , P. Changing I d e a l s i n Modern A r c h i t e c t u r e : 1750-1950. Montreal: McGillQueen's Univ. Press, 1967, r e p r i n t 1978. Colquhoun, A l a n . "Typology and Design Method," in Jencks, Ch. and G. B a i r d , (eds). Meaning i n A r c h i t e c t u r e . New York: George B r a z i l l e r . 1969. Colman, A. D. "Notes on the Design Process: A P s y c h i a t r i s t looks at a r c h i t e c t u r e , " J o u r n a l of A r c h i t e c t u r a l Education , v o l . 27, no 2/3, June 1 974, pp. i~9 326. Crickmay, J . " I n t r o d u c t o r y Remarks f o r Theme: Design Morphologies," in DMG DRS J o u r n a l , v o l . 8, no 1, pp. 51-52. Darke, J . "The Primary Generator and the Design Process," i n S e i d e l , A. and D. S c o t t , (eds), Environmental Design: Research, Theory and A p p l i c a t i o n , EDRA 10, 1979, pp.325-337. Doxtater, D. "The Non-language of A r c h i t e c t u r e , " i n Mennier, J . , (ed). Language in A r c h i t e c t u r e . Proceedings of the ACSA 68th Annual Meeting, A s s o c i a t i o n of C o l l e g i a t e Schools of A r c h i t e c t u r e , 1980 , pp. 26-33. Eco, Umberto. "A Componential A n a l y s i s of the A r c h i t e c t u r a l Sign: Column," in Broadbent, G.; Jencks, Ch.; and Bunt, R.; (eds). Signs, Symbols and A r c h i t e c t u r e . Great B r i t a i n : John Wiley and Sons, 1980 , pp. 213— 232. . "Function and S i g n : The Semiotics of A r c h i t e c t u r e , " in Broadbent, G.; Jencks, Ch.; and Bunt, R.; ( e d s ) . Signs, Symbols and A r c h i t e c t u r e . Great B r i t a i n : John Wiley and Sons, 1980 , pp. 11-70. E r i c k s o n , A r t h u r . The A r c h i t e c t u r e of Arthur E r i c k s o n . M o ntreal: Tundra Books, 1975. F i s k e C r o w e l l , S. J r . " A r c h i t e c t u r e as a Language," in Mennier, J . , (ed). Language in A r c h i t e c t u r e . Proceedings of the ACSA 68th Annual Meeting, A s s o c i a t i o n of C o l l e g i a t e Schools of A r c h i t e c t u r e , 1980 , pp. . 199-205. Fowels, R. A. "What Happened to Design Methods in A r c h i t e c t u r a l education ?," i n Design Methods and Theory, v o l . 11, no 1, Jan-March 1977, pp. 17-31. Foz, Abel. "Observations on the Designer's Behaviour on the p a r t i , " i n DMG-DRS J o u r n a l , v o l . . 7, no 4, Oct.-Dec. 141 1973, pp 320-325. Friedman, Yona. Towards a S c i e n t i f i c A r c h i t e c t u r e . Cambridge Mass.: The MIT Press, 1980. Gandelsonas, Mario. " L i n g u i s t i c and Semiotic Models i n A r c h i t e c t u r e , " i n S p i l l e r s , W. R. (ed), Basic Questions of Design Theory, North-Holland Publ. Co, • (American E l s e v i e r ) , 1 974. G e l e r n t e r , M. and Ifan Payne. " A l t e r n a t i v e Concepts in A r c h i t e c t u r a l Design E d u c a t i o n , " i n Weideman, S. and J . Anderson (eds), P r i o r i t i e s f o r Environmental Design Research, EDRA 8, 1978, pp. 33-43. de George, R. and F. The S t r u c t u r a l i s t s : From Marx to L e v i - S t r a u s s . New York: A Doubleday Anchor O r i g i n a l , 1972. Grant, D.P. "Review on A r c h i t e c t u r a l Problems and Purposes: A r c h i t e c t u r a l Design as a Basic Problem-Solving' Process by J . W. Wade," i n Design Methods and Theory , v o l . 13, no 2, A p r i l - J u n e 1979, pp. 88-89. Groat, L. "Meaning i n A r c h i t e c t u r e : New D i r e c t i o n s and Sources," J o u r n a l of Environmental Psychology, v o l . 1, no 1, March 1981, pp. 73-85. G r u f t , A. and G u t s t e i n , D. "A B a s i s f o r R e s o l v i n g Urban Problems," ART, v o l . 2, no 1, Nov. 1971, pp. 59-62. G u i l l e r m e , J . "The Idea of A r c h i t e c t u r a l Language: A C r i t i c a l I n q u i r y , " O p p o s i t i o n s , MIT Press, v o l . 10, 1977, pp. 21-26. Hahn, S. R. "Design and L i n g u i s t i c s : The Use of N a r r a t i v e A n a l y s i s to Study C o g n i t i v e Processes i n Design," Design Methods and Theory, v o l . 13, no 2, A p r i l - J u n e 1979, pp. 52-63. H a r r i s , J . B. "Design Methods and A r c h i t e c t u r a l Theory," Design Methods and Theory, v o l . 13, no 1, Jan-March 1979, pp. 10-14. Hawkes, D. (ed). Models and Systems i n A r c h i t e c t u r e and B u i l d i n g , LUBFS Conference Proceedings, no 2, Univ. of Cambridge, Dept. of A r c h i t e c t u r e , The C o n s t r u c t i o n Press L t d , 1975. Hawkes, T. S t r u c t u r a l i s m and S e m i o t i c s , C a l i f o r n i a : Univ. of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1977. H i l l i e r , B. and A. Leaman. "The Man-Environment Paradigm and it's Paradoxes," A r c h i t e c t u r a l Design, v o l . 8, August - 1973, pp. 507-511. 1 42 "The Idea of A r c h i t e c t u r a l Research," RIBA J o u r n a l , December 1972, pp. 517-521. . "How i s Design P o s s i b l e ? , " J o u r n a l of A r c h i t e c t u r a l Research, v o l . 3, no 1, Jan. 1974, pp. 4-10. . " S t r u c t u r e , System and T r a n s f o r m a t i o n , " i n T r a n s a c t i o n s of the B a r t l e t t S o c i e t y , v o l . 6, 1972- 1973, pp. 36-77. . " A r c h i t e c t u r e as a D i s c i p l i n e , " J o u r n a l of A r c h i t e c t u r a l Research, v o l . 15, no 1, March 1976, pp. 28-32. . "The A r c h i t e c t u r e of A r c h i t e c t u r e , " i n Hawkes, D. (ed), Models and Systems in A r c h i t e c t u r e and B u i l d i n g . C o n s t r u c t i o n Press L t d , 1975, pp. 5-28. H i l l i e r , B.; J . Musgrove and P. O ' S u l l i v a n . "Knowledge and Design," EDRA 3, 1972, pp. 29-3-1 - 29-3-14. Hjelsmlev, L. Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. T r a n s l a t e d by F. J . W h i t e f i e l d , B a l t i m o r e : Waverly Press, 1953. Hubbart, W. C o m p l i c i t y and C o n v i c t i o n : Steps Towards an a r c h i t e c t u r e of Convention. Cambridge Mass: The MIT Press, 1980. Jencks, Ch. "The A r c h i t e c t u r a l S i g n , " in Broadbent, G.; Jencks, Ch.; and Bunt, R.; (eds). Signs, Symbols and A r c h i t e c t u r e . Great B r i t a i n : John Wiley and Sons, 1980 , pp. . "A Semantic A n a l y s i s of S t i r l i n g ' s O l i v e t t i Centre Wing," i n Broadbent, G.; Jencks, Ch.; and Bunt, R.; ' (eds). Signs, Symbols and A r c h i t e c t u r e . Great B r i t a i n : John Wiley and Sons, 1980 pp. 233-242. Jencks, Ch. and G. B a i r d . Meaning i n A r c h i t e c t u r e . New York: George B r a z i l l e r , 1969. Jones, C. J . "How My Thoughts About Design Methods Have Changed During the Years," Design Methods and Theory, v o l . 11, no 1, Jan-March 1979, pp. 48-62. Krampen, M. Meaning in the Urban Environment . London: Pion L t d , 1979. Kuhn, Th. The S t r u c t u r e of S c i e n t i f i c R e v o l u t i o n s . The Univ. of Chicago Press, 2nd r e v i s e d ed., 1971. K u r z v e i l , E. The Age of S t r u c t u r a l i s m : L e v i - S t r a u s s to Foucault New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1980. 1 43 Lane, M. I n t r o d u c t i o n to S t r u c t u r a l i s m , New York: Basic Books, 1 975. Lang, J . ; Burnette Ch.; Moleski W.; Vachon D. Designing f o r Human Behaviour; A r c h i t e c t u r e and the Beh a v i o u r a l S c i e n c e s . Community Development S e r i e s . Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, 1974. Lang, J . ; Burnette Ch. "A Model f o r the Designing Process," Designing f o r Human Behaviour, pp. 43-51. Lawson, B. R. " C o g n i t i v e S t r a t e g i e s i n A r c h i t e c t u r a l Design,")uf ergonomics, v o l . 22, no 1, Jan. 1979, pp. 59-68. . How Designers Think . London: A r c h i t e c t u r a l Press, 1 980. . "The A r c h i t e c t as a Designer," i n S i n g l e t o n , W. (ed), The A n a l y s i s of P r a c t i c a l S k i l l s . The A n a l y s i s of Real S k i l l s , v o l . I. Medical and T e c h n i c a l Press, pp. 282-310. . "The Act of Des i g n i n g , " Design Methods and Theory, v o l . 13, no 1, Jan-March 1979, pp. 29-32. Lehrman, J . "Museum of Anthropology: An A p p r a i s a l , " The Canadian A r c h i t e c t , v o l . 22, no 5, May 1977, pp 54- Lindsey, S. "Semiotic Reasoning: Deductive or I n d u c t i v e ? , " Ars Semeiotica, v o l . 2, no 3, 1979, pp. 269-273. Lipman, A. " P r o f e s s i o n a l Ideology: The A r c h i t e c t u r a l Notion of 'User Requirements'," J o u r n a l of A r c h i t e c t u r a l Research, v o l . 5, no 2, August 1976, pp.12-27. L o b e l l , J . "Design and the Powerful L o g i c s of the Mind's Deep S t r u c t u r e s , " DRG-DRS J o u r n a l , v o l . 9, no 2, pp. 122- 1 29. Lym, G. R. A Psychology of B u i l d i n g . New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1980. Lyons, J . , Chomsky , Fontana Modern Masters, 12th e d i t i o n , 1979 Magee, B. K a r l Popper. New York: The V i k i n g Press, 1973. March, L. (ed). The A r c h i t e c t u r e of Form. Great B r i t a i n : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976. March, L. and P. Steadman. The Geometry of Environment: An I n t r o d u c t i o n to S p a t i a l O r g a n i z a t i o n i n Design. Great B r i t a i n : RIBA Publ. L t d , 1971. 1 44 Maruyama, M. "Mindscapes and Science T h e o r i e s , " Current Anthropology, v o l . 21, no 5, Oct. 1980, pp. 589- 608. Moore, G. T. C r e a t i v e Problem S o l v i n g i n A r c h i t e c t u r e : A P i l o t Study. Berkeley C a l . , 1967. Moore-Milroy, B. C r i t i c i s m and the P l a u s i b l e P l a n : Theory and Method. Ph.D. T h e s i s , Planning Department, UBC, 1981. Mukarovsky, J . S t r u c t u r e , Sign and F u n c t i o n : S e l e c t e d Essays. T r a n s l . and ed. by Burbank, J . and P. S t e i n e r . Yale Univ. Press, 1978. Nasar, J . L. " T h i r d Generation Design Methods," Design Methods and Theory, v o l . 14, no 2, A p r i l - J u n e 1980, pp. 90- 92. Neuckermans, H. "The Relevance of Systematic Methods f o r A r c h i t e c t u r a l Design," i n DMG-DRS J o u r n a l , v o l . 9, no 2, pp. 140-144. Newell, A. and H. Simon. Human Problem S o l v i n g . New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1972. Norberg-Schulz, Ch. I n t e n t i o n s i n A r c h i t e c t u r e . Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press, 1965. P a t t a b i , G. R. "Synthesis i n Design: An I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y E s s a y , " i n P r e i s e r , W.F., Environmental Design Research. EDRA 4, 1973, pp. 506-518. Payne, I. " I n t r o d u c t i o n t o the Workshop," i n Mennier, J . , (ed). Language i n A r c h i t e c t u r e . Proceedings of the ACSA 68th Annual Meeting, A s s o c i a t i o n of C o l l e g i a t e Schools of A r c h i t e c t u r e , 1980 , pp. 154-157. Pi a g e t , J . S t r u c t u r a l i s m . London: Regan Paul,1971. Pinno, A. "Towards a New Paradigm i n A r c h i t e c t u r e , " DMG-DRS J o u r n a l , v o l . 8, no 1, pp. 3-11. Popper, K. Conjectures and R e f u t a t i o n s : The Growth of S c i e n t i f i c Knowledge. Basi c Books Publ., 1962. . O b j e c t i v e Knowledge: An E v o l u t i o n a r y Approach. Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1972. P r e z i o s i , D. A r c h i t e c t u r e , Language and Meaning: The O r i g i n s of the B u i l t World and i t s Semiotic O r g a n i z a t i o n . Mouton, 1979. . The Semiotics of the B u i l t Environment: An 1 45 I n t r o d u c t i o n to A r c h i t e c t o n i c A n a l y s i s . Bloomington and London: Indiana Univ. Press, 1979. de Saussure, F. Course i n General L i n g u i s t i c s . I n t r o d u c t i o n by J . C u l l e r . T r a n s l . by W. Baskin. Great B r i t a i n : Fontana C o l l i n s , 1974, 3rd ed., 1978. S c a l v i n i , M. L. " S t r u c t u r a l L i n g u i s t i c s vs the Semiotics of L i t e r a t u r e : . A l t e r n a t i v e Models f o r A r c h i t e c t u r a l C r i t i c i s m , " i n Broadbent, G.; Jencks, Ch.; and Bunt, R. ; (eds). Signs, Symbols and A r c h i t e c t u r e . Great B r i t a i n : John Wiley and Sons, 1980 , pp. 411-420. Schon, D. Learning a Language, Learning to Design.mimeograph, reading Room, School of A r c h i t e c t u r e , Univ. of B r i t i s h Columbia. Oct. 1977. Scruton, R. The A e s t h e t i c s of A r c h i t e c t u r e . London: Methenen & Co L t d , 1979. Seligman, C. " A r c h i t e c t u r e and Language: Notes on a Metaphor," J o u r n a l of A r c h i t e c t u r a l Education, v o l . xxx, no 4, A p r i l 1977, pp. 23-27. . "Words and Things: A L i n g u i s t i c Approach to Design," in Mennier, J . , (ed). Language in A r c h i t e c t u r e . Proceedings of the ACSA 68th Annual Meeting, A s s o c i a t i o n of C o l l e g i a t e Schools of A r c h i t e c t u r e , 1980 , pp. 158-160. Simon, H. The Sciences of the A r t i f i c i a l . Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press, 1969. S p i l l e r s , W. R. Symbosium on Basic Questions of Design Theory. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publ. Co, New York: American E l s e v i e r , 1974. Steadman, P. "Models in our Head, Models i n the M a t e r i a l World, and Models i n the World of O b j e c t i v e Knowledge," i n Hawkes, D. (ed), Models and Systems i n A r c h i t e c t u r e and B u i l d i n g . London: Medical and T e c h n i c a l Press, 1975, pp. 29-34. . The E v o l u t i o n of Design: B i o l o g i c a l Analogy i n . A r c h i t e c t u r e and the A p p l i e d A r t s . Cambridge Univ. Press, 1979. Suckle, A. (ed). By T h e i r Own Design: 10 A r c h i t e c t s D iscuss T h e i r Process of Design and C o n s t r u c t i o n . Whitney L i b r a r y of Design, 1980,. T a f u r i , M. A r c h i t e c t u r e and U t o p i a : Design and C a p i t a l i s t Development. T r a n s l a t e d by B. L. La Penta. Cambridge Mass.: The MIT Press, 1980. 1 46 . Theories and H i s t o r y of A r c h i t e c t u r e . Great B r i t a i n : Granada, 1980. T z o n i s , A. and L. L e f a i v r e . "The Mechanical vs the D i v i n e Body: The Rise of Modern Design Theory i n Europe," J o u r n a l of A r c h i t e c t u r a l Education, v o l . 29, no 1, Sept. 1975, pp. 4-7. Vastokas, J . M. A r c h i t e c t u r e of the•North-West Coast. Ann Arbor, Univ. M i c r o f i l m s , 1966. Wade, J . W. A r c h i t e c t u r e , Problems and Purposes: A r c h i t e c t u r a l Design as a Basic Problem S o l v i n g Process. J . Wiley & Sons, 1977.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
France 3 0
China 3 1
Japan 2 0
United States 2 0
Italy 1 1
Germany 1 13
City Views Downloads
Unknown 3 13
Shenzhen 2 1
Tokyo 2 0
Berlin 1 0
Palermo 1 1
Beijing 1 0
Redmond 1 0
Ashburn 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items