IASSP - Barcelona - June 1966
Semiotics and architecture
The Notion of Scale
and Charles S. Peirce's Categories
Philippe Boudon
I
n a 1990 w o r k entitled "Le Processus interprétatif" (The
Interpretative Process) and subtitled "Introduction à
la semiotique de C. S. Peirce" ( I n t r o d u c t i o n t o C. S.
Peirce's Semiotics) w h i c h I consider to be eminently peda-
gogical and o f a welcome clarity w i t h respect t o its treatment o f Peirce's semiotics - o f w h i c h we cannot say that i t
is an easy theory - , the author N i c o l e
Everaert-Desmet
devoted a few pages to architectutology. Using the concepts
1
for signs that are characteristic o f Peircean semiotics, the
author examined, inter alia, the concepts o f «architecturo-
In conclusion, Philippe Boudon's definition of the concept
of space — as a means for the utilisation of references in conception or perception - seems to us quite relevant not because
it would be specific to architecture but because it introduces
us to the general dynamics of an unlimited semiosis. According to Philippe Boudon an architecture takes on meaning
through the space o f reference with which i t is put in relation; namely, the scale. The meaning of a sign, Peirce tells us,
is the sign i n which it can be translated, it is the interprétant.
logical scales* w h i c h I had identified at a time when I was
After having considered that the examples examined by the
carrying out an empirical study o f polisemy i n the t e r m
a u t h o r were actually more related to perception t h a n t o
scale.
conception, w h i c h architecturology has deliberately ascribed
2
N i c o l e Everaert-Desmet maintains that architecturology - which according to her is too influenced by a Saussurean binarism - should find the means to move o n t o a
more Peircean vision and, consequently, triadic view o f the
sign. I t is the author's view that such a change w o u l d help to
advance the interpretation given by architecturology o n the
facts concerning architecture.
I n that chapter (practically a conluding one) the authot
closes as follows:
to itself as object o f research, I became caught u p i n the
game and began, i n t u r n , to re-examine architectural facts but focusing instead on thefacts of conception - i n the light
o f Peircean semiotics. I w o u l d like t o t r y and give you an
account o f this w o r k i n progress, as the time allotted w i l l
permit. Because i f we were t o take the number o f architecturological scales - term that I shall explain shortly - w h i c h
amount to twenty and m u l t i p l y i t by the number o f Peircean signs, i . e. ten, we w o u l d end up w i t h two hundred
19
cases to be studied. So, o n this occasion, I cannot cover such
ception into account i n the course o f conception and that he
g r o u n d i n an exhaustive manner although I have already
represents the perception t o h i m s e l f by a n t i c i p a t i n g the
done so elsewhere and although i t is precisely its exhaus-
process (the degree o f accuracy or inaccuracy matters little
tivity that makes i t o f interest to me. I shall select a few i l l u -
since that is not what is at stake here).
strations only.
I t is nonetheless true that the neighbouring scale, i f i m p l i -
I n parallel to the above w o r k , the connection to be estab-
cated in the conception, and w i t h or without anticipation o f the
lished appeared sufficiendy meaningful to incite me to delve
perception, is n o t a lone actor, exceptions included. For
into the question o f a Peircean approach not only to the archi-
there is a complex articulation being woven between this
tecturological scales themselves - and I shall come to that -
scale and other scales as I w o u l d like to t r y to show w i t h
but also to the unfolding o f their constituent operations -
respect to the N o r d i c Bank o f H e l s i n k i by the architect
i . e. reference, segmentation, dimensioning
Alvar Aalto.
— as well as to the
facts of measurement?
One last w o r d to conclude these introductory remarks:
The case of the Nordic bank of Helsinki
all the matters discussed here concern the space of conception
This very classical case is apparently simple: a major choice
o f architecture that I distinguish from architectural or b u i l t
was made by the architect i n terms o f conception. He decided
space. T h o u g h both give rise to semiotic processes, I shall
to connect the height o f this b u i l d i n g w i t h the height o f the
be dealing only w i t h the first o f these spaces from the view-
two neighbours by descending from the highet to the lower
p o i n t o f architecturology. I t is one t h i n g for architecture to
level through a k i n d o f broken pattern w h i c h - let i t be said
be an object o f meaning pertaining to reception once i t has
i n passing - is characteristic o f Aalto's aesthetics (we are
been conceived and realized; b u t meaning is also at play i n
familiar w i t h the recurrence o f those kinds o f broken patterns
the process o f conception and i t refers back to those opera-
i n his w o r k ) .
4
tions through which the architect thinks out architectural space.
T h i s example presents itself as a obvious case o f neigh-
I am aware that I must n o w get to the crux o f the matter
bouring scale, a scale from w h i c h other architectures that
by taking a few concrete examples. Here, I have chosen to
one might have i n m i n d , differ. T h e latter came on the scene
approach the issue through one case, the one dealing w i t h
w i t h o u t particular consideration for the context and were
the neighbouring
scale?
referred to by architects as an "architecture du Plouf" ("Splash
Architecture").
The case of the neighbouring scale
Nicole Everaert-Desmet writes about the neighbouring
But can we say that i n such a case "we have an image o f
scale
the b u i l d i n g i n relation to its neighbours"? Possibly yes, as is
and clarifies the n o t i o n i n a simple manner for those w h o
the case for any b u i l d i n g situated between its neighbours.
are not familiar w i t h it. I quote: "Let there be a b u i l d i n g X
T h e fact remains that what is taking place here, through the
(= R, real space) we create an image o f this X (= O , repre-
strict alignment o f two heights is o f a different order, o f the
sented space) through a reference to the neighbouring b u i l -
order o f conception. Every b u i l d i n g is perceived i n relation
dings Y (= space o f reference)"
to the presence o f its neighbours. But i n this case something
I n Peircean terms X , here, is representamen, image o f X is
OBJECT and Y - i t is taken for granted - is interprétant.
O f course, I fully agree w i t h this analysis through w h i c h
we understand for example, h o w the neighbouring b u i l -
more is taking place. Namely, a voluntarily meaningful operat i o n through w h i c h the building's designer makes a decision
o n heights. Here we move from consideration o f the architectural space to consideration o f the space o f conception.
dings o f the C N I T i n Paris have changed either the scale-as
T h e problem for me here is n o t to make a value judge-
the architect w o u l d p u t i t - or i f you wish, the image, as
ment o n a contextual or non-contextual architecture as a
Everaert-Desmet says.
f o r m o f critical assessment. N o r is i t a question o f under-
6
For me, I saw the b u i l d i n g actually get smaller]
taking a semiotic analysis o f meanings as they relate to each
W i t h respect to the phenomenon o f perception we can
other. Such an analysis - while totally valid - w o u l d place
surmise that the architect w h o designs a b u i l d i n g takes per-
itself w i t h i n the architectural space as we perceive it, whereas
20
Nordisk Arkitekturforskning 1999:1
the i n t e n t i o n o f architecturology is, as I have said, to bring
about a displacement i n the space o f conception.
I n this space o f conception, a number o f operations w i l l
(USA) involve such a segmentation between one side oriented
towards the Charles River and one side oriented towards the
M I T campus.
take place giving tise, at the end o f a given process, to a constructable architectural object w h i c h at this stage, by defin i t i o n , does notyet exist. A n d i t is necessary to tecognize that
here the architect undertakes complex "operations", the
complexity o f w h i c h requires that we stop and reflect o n
them a b i t .
To begin w i t h , the architect is going to articulate numerous
Lastly, t o speak o f a n e i g h b o u r i n g scale corresponds t o
scales: a scale of model ( i n Alvar Aalto's p r o d u c t i o n the
observing an operation o f dimensioning, the b u i l d i n g is well
broken pattern is practically a m o d e l ) ; an economic scale,
measured on both sides by its neighbours. Three diagrams
where the occupiable space w i l l depend o n the acceptance
allow us to distinguish these three aspects o f neighbouring
or not o f the architect's proposed broken pattern by the
scale thus described.
client; possibly, a functional scale, w h i c h deals w i t h the
commensurate reduction i n floor area as compared w i t h
those floors that are full sized. I m i g h t recall that a scale is
defined as the relevance o f the measurement; the preceding
three are examples o f i t .
I t is out o f the question to account here for the entire
process o f conception since i t w o u l d entail carrying out a
dimensioning
study o f a given or several designers. M y preceding remarks
should be c o n v i n c i n g enough for one t o realize that the
T_
neighbouring scale cannot be reduced to a simple and single
decision opetation for a stair-step f o r m , to give i t a name.
I n addition to the articulation o f a m u l t i p l i c i t y o f scales,
the idea o f w h i c h commands attention, i t is necessary to say
•
<
referenciation
also that the term "neighbouring scale" is complex i n itself
because i t refers to a number o f things.
Firstly, there is reference to the street, which implies a scale
decision (to take another example o f such a "reference", the
—[/ \ economics.
functional s.
Arche de la Defense "refers itself", intentionally or not, t o the
historic axis to the east o f the arch, from the west o f Paris on
/
the very same axis).
west
segmentations
east
historic axis
This brief analysis shows that we encounter here the major
architectural concepts o f reference, segmentation, and dimen-
Also at stake, we have a segmentation o f the architectural
sioning as a means by w h i c h to specify more precisely the
object i n t o different parts, either vertical (at least t w o ) o r
particular situation under which a given scale may be present.
horizontal (at least t w o ) . Two take an example - anothet
O u r case corresponds to the neighbouting scale. The above
Alvar Aalto b u i l d i n g - , the M I T dormitories i n Cambridge
operations have been described elsewhere.
Boudon:The Notion of Scale and Charles S. Peirce's Categories
7
21
A n d i t is precisely at this stage that the Peircean categories
T h e Peircean categories offer the enormous advantage o f
for signs can intervene i n a timely manner.
enabling us to envisage three quite distinct meanings for
Architecturological triad and Peirce's
categories
only, i t is b r o k e n d o w n i n t o the f o l l o w i n g c o n s t i t u e n t
neighbouring scale, i f we l i m i t ourselves at first to this scale
operations:
Leaving the example o f the b u i l d i n g we have just examined,
we can consider that, generally speaking, the w o r d "scale",
•
as used i n everyday language, may be applied to any o f the
reference w i t h o u t having yet decided on h o w to do so.
above operations.
As an example o f that possibility I could refer to the neigh-
I can speak o f a necessary or unnecessary policy for a
bour through a c o m m o n colour. T h e reference belongs
single currency " o n a European scale". T h u s , I apply m y
to the possible and therefore fits i n w e l l as such w i t h
remark to Europe, / refer it to Europe. But taking Europe
into consideration I may include the ten, twelve, seven, or
twenty-five member units... and thereby segment the object
d o w n into another given scale. I can also consider the dimensions o f a given phenomenon such as unemployment or the
quantity o f mad cows i n the European territory. I n such a
case we have a quantitative operation at play, a measurement
operation, a taking o f dimensions...
We see h o w the use o f
the w o r d "scale" applies to three distinct types o f operations.
referring to the neighbours belongs to the order o f firstness.
For i t is possible for me to have the i n t e n t i o n to make
Peircean firstness;
•
segmenting the huilding'm
two parts belongs to the order
o f thirdness - here we have an obvious thought operation;
•
dimensioning
the height o f the b u i l d i n g i n telation to
that o f the neighbouring buildings belongs, lastly, to the
order ofsecondness, or, as Peirce w o u l d p u t it, the relation
o f a first to a second. We are dealing w i t h the actual. We
find ourselves i n the existing, i n secondness.
Let us n o w transfer the w o r d scale to an area w i t h a more
I f o u n d the possible coincidence between the Peircean triad
restricted utilisation and let us come back to the field o f
and what we could call the architecturological triad - reference,
architecture and o f its conception. We find operations such
segmentation, dimensioning
as scale adjustment or giving scale, which refer themselves res-
justify m y undertaking a systematic examination o f the possi-
pectively to problems o f segmentation
referenciation:
bility o f establishing a correspondence between the twenty
"adjust to X " (in the case o f the Aalto b u i l d i n g we examined
architecturological scales and the ten Peircean categories for
and
— to be i l l u m i n a t i n g enough to
scaling it to the neighbourhood) means referring the conception
signs (as opposed to the Peircean triad, since we k n o w that,
o f the building to its neighbours, whereas " t o give i t scale"
w i t h the ttiad things get even more complex). I cannot give
means i n this case to dimension the building according to the
you a full account here, but I could provide you w i t h a list o f
height o f its neighbours. I n fact, the reference could have been
the results as they affect the neighbouring scale.
completely different and might have corresponded to a comm o n colour or to the repetition o f an identical pattern, or even
to a given material, etc. i n order for the operation to take
place... Things can be clarified formally i f we say that to scaleadjust pre-supposes referring*
to y, segmentingfirom x attri-
butes w h i c h are related to attributes i n y, and, lastly, specifying these attributes -reference, segmentation, dimensioning,
w i t h respect to the terminology that we have proposed, to deal
w i t h measurement questions as regards architectural conception (Unfortunately I cannot be more explicit on that here).
To come n o w to Peirce and set a relation between the
Peircean categories and the three architecturological concepts
t h r o u g h w h i c h we have presented the three constituent
operations o f scale, i. e. reference, segmentation,
22
dimensioning.
"Neighbouring Scale"
and C. S. Peirce's categories for signs
I . I . I Rbematic iconic
qualisign
A feeling o f homogeneity for the general skyline o f a row
o f houses i n a street, a village, a city; a generally integrated
project w i t h respect to its neighbourhood - a feeling o f
h a r m o n y between a b u i l d i n g and its surroundings; a
"contextual" impression.
2.1.i Rhematic iconic sinsign
A reuse o f the form, o f the colour(s) o f neigbouring building^).
2.2.1 Rhematic indexial
sinsign
A reuse o f a ridge height or o f a string-course or o f any
NordiskArkitekturforskning 1999:1
other attribute arising from the contiguity, w i t h o u t i n terpretation.
2.2.2 Dicent indexial sinsign
Peircean reading o f the three major charcteristics o f scale.
Subsequently, we w i l l be able to clatify considerably what is
at stake i n this n o t i o n by n o t i n g i n the respective corners o f
A string-course/ridge line at the same height as the adja-
a triangle the three words indicating what is diversely implied
cent b u i l d i n g , w i t h the whole being interpreted as an
i n the polysemic use o f the t e t m .
entity - T h e b u i l d i n g becoming a sign for the surroundings w i t h w h i c h i t is related.
3.I.I Rhematic iconic legisign
T h e three words involved are grandness, measurement,
and relevance. A l l o w me to explain.
T h e first term, grandness, is referred to i n Merleau Ponty's
A "type" o f houses proceeding from an environment -
expression "grandness before the measurement" } H e devotes
A n identifiable "zone" through a vague feeling.
a dense and challenging page to the n o t i o n and that effort
3.2.1 Rhematic indexial legisign
leads me to consider that the relation sometimes established
A compulsory b u i l d i n g height i n telation to the corre-
between phenomenology and phaneroscopy t h o u g h subject
sponding height o f its neighbours - an outline, a design
to our taking some precautions, could explain w h y i t is the
l i n k i n g the heights and horizontals o f a b u i l d i n g to those
phenomenologist w h o provides us the expression o f that
o f its neighbours.
w h i c h refers us back to firstness. I n fact, anothet phenomo-
3.2.2 Dicent indexial legisign
nologist before his time - and here, I am referring to Kant
A part or an aspect o f a building indicating a relation w i t h
had eloquently pointed out the difference between what he
a neighbouring building - a building outline intended to
called aesthetic and mathematical measure. We can say that
give an identity to an entity such as a street, a square, etc.
Saint Peter's i n Rome "is g r a n d " , before we measure i t or
3.3.1 Rhematic symbolic legisign
A w o r d indicating a relation o f proximity, "outline", "skyline", "context"...
3.3.2 Dicent symbolic legisign
discover its measurements.
Grandness before the measurement, this "before" is a
perfect expression o f grandness. The measurement comes
i n only secondly, once i t has, i n o f itself, p u t a first and a
T h e formulation o f an outline rule, an idem w o r d rela-
second i n relation to each other; something measured and
t i n g to a particular case.
an instrument o f measurement.
3.3.3 Argumentalsymbolic legisign
The measurement then belongs to the order o f secondness.
A) A b d u c t i o n - B u i l d i n g height interpreted as emana-
Let us note that i t is a pure fact. This does not i m p l y the idea
t i n g from an intention relative to the surrounding area
o f relevance; here I do mean idea; i n other words, i t means
(The N o r d i c Bank interpreted as emanating from a deli-
that we move o n to thirdness. Whether the number o f w i n -
berate intention by Aalto);
dows o f a building is or is not equal to the number o f cigarettes
B) I n d u c t i o n - Formulation o f a b u i l d i n g outline rule
that I have i n m y pocket, it (the number) remains a fact inde-
(The Nordic Bank as proceeding from a self-imposed rule
pendent o f our k n o w i n g whether it is shrewd or n o t , rele-
by Aalto);
vant or n o t to measure the number o f w i n d o w s utilising
C) Deduction - Design decision arising from an imposed
the individual units inside m y pack o f cigarettes. Relevance
n e i g h b o u r h o o d rule or self-imposed by the designer
appears then as the third characteristic w h i c h interprets the
(Management o f the consequences o f the N o t d i c Bank's
measurement, or, thinks it out,we m i g h t add. To measure a
general plan: cascade-effect relations w i t h the economic
table i n fractions o f light-years or i n microns is not relevant
scale, the functional scale, the scale o f model).
at all. Asking a joiner to make a table whose length is expressed
i n centimeters is probably relevant; however, i f the joiner
"Scale" and Peircean triad
happens to be more o f a carpenter and works w i t h an axe or,
I shall come n o w to the architecturological concept o f scale
instead happens to be a cabinet maker w h o works m e t i c u -
from the point o f view o f its most general definition. I have
defined the concept o f architecturological scale as relevance
o f measurement. Here again i t is possible to undertake a
Boudon:The Notion of Scale and Charles S.Peirce's Categories
lously w i t h a chisel, I m i g h t decide to vary the relevance o f
the measurement through w h i c h m y order w i l l pass, being
more precise i n one case, less precise i n the other.
23
Thus w i t h respect to measurements i t is quite enlighte-
tigating the possibility o f applying i t through the Peircean
n i n g to distinguish three levels: that w h i c h belongs to first-
categories; I believe that the correspondence
ness, i n w h i c h case we could speak o f aesthetic
measurement
w i t h the categories confirms that the distinctions introduced
- grandness; that w h i c h belongs to secondness, i n w h i c h case
among these notions w i l l clarify the complexity o f pheno-
we w o u l d speak o f a quantitative
mena at play i n scale, b o t h w i t h i n the l i m i t e d field o f archi-
measurement,thax
is the
measurement i n its most actual meaning as i t relates one
established
tecture as well as beyond architecture as such.
instrument o f measurement to a measured object; and lastly,
To c o n c l u d e , I shall come back t o N i c o l e Everaert-
that w h i c h belongs t o thirdness, i n w h i c h case we w o u l d
D e s m e d t , what she writes and w h i c h seems very i m p o r t a n t
speak ot the relevance of the measurement, namely, all that
to me. She states that the interprétant is not the space o f
w h i c h is c o m m o n l y referred to under the term scale; that is,
reference b u t rather the scale, i.e. the m o d a l i t y according to
a just,an adequate measurement, a measurement that is
w h i c h a space o f reference is utilized i n conception.
thought out and intelligent.
W h e n she states, as I have already quoted, that " i n con-
To conclude, according t o the present hypothesis, the
clusion, Philippe Boudons definition o f the concept o f scale
words "grandness", "measurement", "relevance" can be noted
- as a means for the utilisation o f references i n conception
respectively i n the three corners o f a triangle to represent
or perception — seems to us quite relevant n o t because i t
individually the three Peircean categories o f firstness, secondness,
w o u l d be specific to architecture b u t because i t introduces
and thirdness.In m y view we thus clarify substantially the
us to the general dynamics o f an unlimited semiosis", Nicole
inherent complexity present i n an otherwise rather imprecise
Everaert-Desmedt pinpoints the pragmatic side o f architec-
use o f the t e r m scale.
turology according to which scale operates i n the same man-
9
10
ner as the Peircean sign operates.
I believe that distinguishing the space o f reference from
relevance
scale, w h i c h is the relevant operation rendering the space o f
reference active i n conception, brings us closer to the possible
understanding o f meaning w i t h i n the space o f conception,
from the perspective o f what the signs effectuate as opposed
grandness
m
esu
measurement
to what they are. A n d , this is w h y I intend to pursue w o r k
on the closer association between architecturology and Peircean semiotics. W h a t I have referred to as the space o f conception, to distinguish i t from architectural space, w h i c h is
the finished product o f w o r k i n architecture, belongs indeed
to the realm o f the pragmatic since i t corresponds to the space
where architecture is done.
Barcelona fune iççô Philippe
Boudon
Grandness is the grandness perceived i n the firstness, the
measurement is the concrete and actual act o f measuring
and, lastly, the relevance o f the measurement corresponds
to the meaningfulness o f the measurement as intellectually
conceived. I imagined this triadic distinction before inves-
24
N ord isk Arkitekturf orskn I ng 1999:1
Notes
1.
N . Everaert-Desmedt, Leprocesus interprétatif, introduction à
la sémiotique de C. S. Peirce, Liège, Mardaga, 1990.
2. Cf. P. Boudon, Introduction à l'architecturologie, Paris, Dunod,
1992.
3. As a prerequisite to becoming research director, Philippe Deshayes attempted a particularly interesting systematization of
what had originally constituted an empirical inventory of
such facts.
4. It goes without saying that we ate not denying that architecture may convey sense in its constructed state, or in its designed state, in the finished buildings; moreover, it is such a state
that serves as a starting point for a potential semiosis. It is perception precisely, or, more generally, reception that enters ,
inter alia, into play here: one might even dare advance that
without per-ception there is no meaning. Nevertheless, the
basic architecturo-logical idea that the building is the representation-of-a-project-that-has-preceded-it and without which it
would not exist leadsinevitably to allowing meaning, or at
least a portion of it, to beconstructed in conception — even i f
it is normal for meaning to beestablished still a posteriori in an
BoudomThe Notion of Scale and Charles S. Peirce's Categories
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
endless semiosis once the buildinghas been built. The pragmatic side of Peircean semiotics allows it to shift the facts of
meaning of built architectural space towards what I have called
the space of conception. Thus, regardless of whatever meaning
may find place in the finished building - a task that I shall leave
for others to discuss - it is true also that meaning lodges itself in
the work of conception itself and that it is worthy of our study.
P. Boudon, P. Deshayes, F. Pousin, F. Schatz, Enseigner la conception architecturale, cours d'architecturologie, Paris, Ed. de la
Villette, 1994.
Which comes down to the same since there can be no image
without scale.
P. Boudon et al, op. cit.
Merleau-Ponty, "Le visible et l'invisible".
Cf. De l'architecture à l'epistémologie, la question de l'échelle,
Paris, PUF, Nouvelle Encyclopédie Diderot, 1991. Under the
direction of P. Boudon.
Here we have a patent example of the pragmatic aspect o f
architecturology in the sense of Peirce's pragmatism: the sign
operates.
25
"The hammering machine", Manne Lodmark.