عنوان مقاله [English]
The objective of architectural design, beyond responding to functions, is the expression of deep and thought provoking concepts in life and meeting perceptual need of man. In the process of architectural design, architects confront the scourge of transforming a concept to an architectural body. It is assumed that “concepts”, “values”, “beliefs” convert
into matter by passing through several layers and means of functional linguistic or physical means, so it will obtain the affordance of converting into a physical body, and it is the same in architecture. Final architectural body includes different form and shape according to the architect’s decision making, his/her knowledge of sign-making and ability
to apply them in his design. The purpose of this study is to explain the concept of the sign and its relationship with semantics in architecture domain and limiting the coverage and manifestation scope of signs in architectural design issues. The key question is “how the architectural implication of signs can be classified in the field of architecture and how can the boundaries between different kinds of signs in architecture be recognized and distinguished”. The content of this study is qualitative while literature review and theoretical studies on this topic were gathered through the library method. Then the data was processed and evaluated and the lack of transparency and borders in sign classifications
in the field of architecture was clearly explained. This understanding led to defining a new relationship between different levels in architectural symbols. Regarding to that , we referred to different ways of architectural signifying. As this concept is rooted in semiotic science, reviewing some points to obtain an overall understanding of semiotics was useful
for rooting exploration of architectural implications. In the following, sample works of architectural signifying were studied. The results of these studies are presented in extracted tables. Through these tables and the result of performed studies, some results are obtained as theoretical achievements of this research in the beginning and are summarized in deductive tables at the end. Many studies in the field of semiotics, in abundance, consider sign symbol in the same way. Moreover, in many cases, the lack of clear separation and distinction between index and symbols in the field of architecture causes many contradictions in architecture examples from the perspective of semiotics. In fact the boundaries between types of signs as well as clear and precise definition of the symbol are not provided. On the other hand, some theorists expressed the metaphors as signs in architecture but the exact location of metaphor in the context of architectural semiotics has not been expressed. All these studies led to offering a new classification of signs in architecture and the delimitation and clarification of manifestation and the inclusion domain of semiotics in architecture through an inductive table. So that, signs in architecture were classified in a range of foursome in the order of icon, Index- icon, Index and symbols. The exact boundary that makes it easy to differentiate symbol from other signs was defined. On the other hand, the relationship between signifier and signified in each of these four categories and their subcategories are mentioned and concrete examples are presented for the better understanding of these divisions. The other outcome of this article is defining and clarifying the position of metaphor in architecture in the same classification. When architecture is supposed to meet the performance and perception at the same time, it is manifested in one of three forms which are: 1. Iconic signs (Tangible metaphor), 2. Index-icon (Intangible metaphor) and, 3. Index (combinatorial metaphor). In addition, the hierarchy of sign importance in architecture is showed in this table according to the discoverability of meaning in architecture through different choices of signs. Furthermore, the meaning of symbolic architecture and symbol, as of one of the signs’ divisions in the field of architecture, was elaborated. Generally, Symbolic Architecture is referred to as Intangible Metaphoric Architecture by mistake. Symbolic Architecture is clarified in this article as a quite distinct architecture that is only responsive to the perceptual needs which is divided into two types of Mediated and non-mediated in its semantic aspect. Theoretical outcome of this article is useful for more accurate understanding of symbols in architecture. For instance, it can be used as criteria to identify and classify examples of architecture and as a guide in design stage to choose the appropriate strategy by the architect, as well.