Z E M C H 2 0 1 2 I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e
504
- selection of more efficient theoretical models among the cases examined;
- study in the selected models of the shape-distribution implications of the dwelling as a
function of the sunspace; identification of optimal space-function solutions as a function
of the component elements of the sunspace (radiating wall, transparent surface,…);
- study of the morphological development of the architectural body as a function of the
shape solutions investigated for dwelling models: definition of aggregation criteria for
dwelling models (addition, inclusion,…);
- transcription of energy efficiency prescriptions into an “architectural vocabulary”.
Organizational logic of the dwelling space: denotation and connotation
Neglecting the analytical results related to the bioclimatic sunspace model and their
morphological implications, the present contribution is aimed at illustrating a number of
results referring to the
denotation and
connotation
of the sunspace itself. It is deemed
that this topic has the most innovative development prospects and that it is thus useful to
submit the results to scientific scrutiny.
The first step is the definition of the terminology and the logical basis of the argument.
To follow a logical reasoning aimed at explaining the links or internal relations between
the sunspace area and the other spatial units of the dwelling it is necessary from the
outset to identify the organizational logic underlying the dwelling space. In philosophy,
language is defined as the instrument of thought; in architecture, language means
expressing the organizational logic underlying the dwelling.
The philosopher and economist John Stuart Mill, in his 1843 essay on the “System of
Logic”, in which he discussed deductive and inductive logic, made a critique of the way
logic was taught in England in the early 19th century and overhauled the investigative
tools used in performing logic. In the philosopher’s opinion logic is performed in two
stages: an initial phase called
denotation
and a second phase known as
connotation
.
With reference to language, Mill defined a word as being purely denotative if it merely
indicates a single object or a single property of the object while it is connotative if, in
addition to the object, it also indicates its properties.
The investigation method introduced by Mill opened the way to a series of reflections on
the issue of architectural language and on the possibility of coding it. In the century that
followed, starting in the ‘sixties, this issue was much debated and many responses were
elicited from a number of philosophers who endeavoured to strike a possible parallel
between linguistics (as defined by Saussure) and architectural language. Among them,
Charles Jencks, in his essay “Semiology and Architecture”, written in 1974, actually
applied semiology to architecture and postulated that the sign takes on significance in
two ways: “through the relationship with all the other signs in a context or chain, and
through the other signs on the basis of which it becomes a metaphor by association or
similarity”. The philosopher associates
metaphor
with
connotation
by defining the two
terms as “synonyms”. Jencks assumes that architecture, language, fashion and food,
communicate by opposition or by association, that is, by context or by metaphor.
Umberto Eco, in his “La struttura assente. La ricerca semiotica e il metodo strutturale”
(The Absent Structure), 1968, defines
denotation
as the strict meaning of the word and
connotation
as the “second message” that emerges from the word. “ … the architectural
object may denotate a function or connotate a certain ideology of the function. However
there is no doubt that it can connotate also other things. The cave…ultimately
connotates a sheltering function, but indubitably in time it will have connotated also
“family, community nucleus, security”, etc. And it would be hard to say whether its
connotative nature, this symbolic “function” that it has, would be less functional than the
former” (Eco 1968: 205). Eco points out that the “symbolic” connotations of the object
are deemed to be functional in the sense that they communicate a social utilizability that
