2026-09-22T06:19:16Zhttps://dora.dmu.ac.uk/server/oai/requestoai:dora.dmu.ac.uk:2086/193122023-09-27T12:51:46Zcom_2086_2388col_2086_2389
Language and metaphor in postmodern architectural meaning: an interpretative model
Madden, Michael William
The thesis aims to establish an interpretative model of, or mode of response to,
postmodern and in particular, poststructuralist architecture. The existing lacuna of
interpretation in this area is the result of the disfiguring, but ubiquitous, 'language of
architecture' formulation which is formally challenged here as part of the construction of
a model of interpretation. Interpretation as a key term is not only dealt with specifically in
Chapter Five, but is also illuminated for example by the discussion in Chapter Two of
signification and the complex relationship between visual image and language, since
language has to emerge holistically as an aspect of architectural meaning.
The thesis is divided into two parts. Part One comprises four theoretical chapters which
are not necessarily 'about' architecture as such, but which provide the theoretical
components of a model of interpretation. It needs to be clearly stated that this model is
not epistemologically exclusive or absolute in any sense, but is only one among many
other interpretative possibilities. The first chapter deals with methodology and a literature
review.
Chapter Two establishes the importance of signification and the sign and the semiotics
of image and word. Chapter Three deals with ideas of what the postmodern might mean
since the architecture principally dealt with is poststructuralist. The fulcrum moment of
schism between Modernism and Postmodemism around 1960 is discussed, as is the
vitally important allegorical nature of the postmodern. Chapter Four looks at the
philosophy of language and meaning since language is indispensably a part of
postmodern architectural meaning. Chapter Five discusses interpretation within the
development of literary theory which must underpin the reading of buildings as the
source of a coherent account of interpretation in general as well as particular architectural
meaning.
Part Two contains two chapters. Both are specifically about architecture and how it
might be read in postmodern and poststructuralist context. The first, Chapter Six, deals
with the trace of the development of postmodern architecture as both an aspect of
Modernist architecture and a subversive imperative against it. Chapter Seven, the final
chapter, puts into practice in an almost Leavisite way the interpretative stances
established in Part One. Major works by poststructuralist architects are read in terms of
metaphor, especially visual metaphor, rhetoric and allegory. From Part One to Part Two
is from theory to practice.
The thesis concludes by suggesting that architectural poststructuralist semantics and
interpretation can only be deepened by dispensing with 'the language of architecture' in
favour of language as emergent from architecture; the language of architecture does not
exist.
De Montfort University
2008-11
Thesis or dissertation
Doctoral
PhD
en
https://dora.dmu.ac.uk/handle/2086/19312
https://dora.dmu.ac.uk/bitstreams/23feaba6-efe0-4354-9bd7-b7d81fa45fda/download
bd41181d9a4c38b5ebacc69a027024d9
https://dora.dmu.ac.uk/bitstreams/5b69eaf9-478a-4630-910f-32140544e010/download
348b9cecb049101f5314a92733f55989
https://dora.dmu.ac.uk/bitstreams/c5a659b1-36cc-461a-b57e-7ab2ca1e3398/download
dd00230c46c0461c35dde91475e33aa0