Skip to main content
Log in

Abstract

The best way to conceive semiotical spaces that are not identical to single buildings, such as a cityscape, is to define the place in terms of the activities occurring there. This conception originated in the proxemics of E. T. Hall and was later generalized in the spatial semiotics of Manar Hammad. It can be given a more secure grounding in terms of time geography, which is involved with trajectories in space and time. We add to this a qualitative dimension which is properly semiotic, and which derives from the notion of border, itself a result of the primary semiotic operation of segmentation. Borders, in this sense, are more or less permeable to different kinds of activities, such as gaze, touch, and movement, where the latter are often not physically defined, but characterized in terms of norms. Norms must be understood along the lines of the Prague school, which delineates as scale going from laws in the legal sense to simple rules of thumb. Such considerations have permitted us to define a number of semio-spatial objects as, most notably, the boulevard, considered as an intermediate level of public space, located between the village square and the coffee house presiding over what Habermas called the public sphere. Urbanity originates as a scene on which the gaze, well before the word, mediates between the sexes, the classes, the cultures, and other avatars of otherness. However, this scenario is seriously upset but the emergence of the cell phone and other technical devices, as well as by the movement of populations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This is of course not true in many particular cases, when the bridge extends between enemy territories. But it is not the bridge as such which determines this qualitative difference.

  2. It should be noted that awareness and/or purpose have not been included in the characterization of communication given above. Messages of the sender’s body are of course often not intended.

  3. Again, intentions are only relevant here to the extent that they are embodied in the perceived readiness of the pedestrian to cross.

  4. The pedestrian who, after been run over, is asked whether he did not really see the car approaching, knows all about this.

  5. This could be because driver’s licenses from other countries, which may not have this law, are simply exchanged for Swedish driver’s licenses, without any further requirement. Or it may be because Swedes has become more disobedient.

References

  1. De Fusco, Renato. 1967. Architettura como mass medium. Bari: Dedalo libri.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Greimas, A.J. 1970. Du sens. Paris: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Husserl, Edmund. 1954. Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phänomenologie: eine Einleitung in die phänomenologische Philosophie. Husserliana: gesammelte Werke. Bd 6. Haag: Nijhoff.

  4. Gibson, James. 1982. Reasons for realism. Selected essays of James J. Gibson, Edward Reed, & Rebecca Jones, (eds.). Hillsdale, New Jersey, & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.

  5. Sonesson, Göran. 2002. The pencils of nature and culture. Semiotica 136–1(4): 27–53.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hägerstrand, Torsten. 1972. Om en konsistent, individorienterad samhällsbeskrivning för framtidsstudiebruk. Lund & Stockholm: SOU 59: S2.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hägerstrand, Torsten. 1983. In search for the sources of concepts. In The practice of geography, ed. Anne Buttimer, 238–256. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hammad, Manar. 1989. La privatisation de l’espace, Limoges, Trames. English edition: Göran Sonesson 2002. The privatisation of space (trans: Göran Sonesson). Lund: School of Architecture.

  9. Mukařovský, Jan. 1974. Studien zur strukturalistischen Ästhetik und Poetik: mit einem Nachwort: Die strukturalistische Ästhetik und Poetik Jan Mukařovskýs. München: Hanser.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sonesson, Göran. 1999. ’The signs of life in society—And out it’. Trudy po znakyvym sistemam/Sign System Studies 27: 88–127.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mukařovský, Jan. 1970. Aesthetic function, norm and value as social facts. Ann Arbor: University.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hall, E.T. 1959. The silent language. Greenwich: Fawcett.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sonesson, Göran. 2003. Spaces of urbanity. From the village square to the boulevard. In Place and location III: The city—Topias and reflection, ed. Virve Sarapik, and Kadri Tüür, 25–54. Talinn: Estonian Academy of Arts.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Simmel, Georg. 1957. Brücke und Tür: Essays des Philosophen zur Geschichte, Religion, Kunst und Gesellschaft. Stuttgart: Koehler Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Smith, Barry, and Achille Varzi. 1999. The niche. Noûs 33(2): 198–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. von Uexküll, Jakob, and Georg Kriszat. 1983. Streifzüge durch die Umwelten von Tieren und Menschen: ein Bilderbuch unsichtbarer Welten. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sonesson, Göran. 2010. Semiosis and the elusive final interpretant of understanding. Semiotica 179–1(4): 145–258.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sonesson, Göran. 1989. Pictorial concepts. Lund: Lund University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sinha, Chris. 1988. Language and representation: A socio-naturalistic approach to human development. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Costall, Alan. 2005. Socializing affordances. Theory and Psychology 5: 467–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Norman, Donald. 1999. Affordance, conventions and design. Issue of interactions, May, 38–43. http://jnd.org/dn.mss/affordance_conventions_and_design_part_2.html. Accessed 14 December 2012.

  22. Krippendorff, Klaus. 2006. The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Benjamin, Walter. 1982. Das Passagen-Werk. Gesammelte Schriften. Bd 5. 1. Aufl. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

  24. Goffman, Erving. 1971. Relations in public. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bakhtin, Michail. 1968. Rabelais and his world. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sonesson, Göran. 2000. Action becomes Art. “Performance” in the context of theatre, play, ritual - and life. In VISIO 5, 2, Automne 2000: Les arts de l’action/Action Art, ed. van Mechelen, Marga, and Sonesson, Göran, 105–122.

  27. Sennett, Richard. 1977. The fall of public man. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Habermas, Jürgen. 1962. Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Berlin: Luchterhand.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1965. Discours sur l’origine et les fondements de l’inégalité parmi les hommes. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Dunbar, Robin. 1996. Grooming, gossip and the evolution of language. London: Faber and Faber.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Gurwitsch, Aron. 1957. Théorie du champ de la conscience. Bruges: Desclée de Brouver.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Gurwitsch, Aron. 1985. Marginal consciousness. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Arvidson, Sven. 2006. The sphere of attention: Context and margin. London: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This article was written while I was head of the Centre for cognitive semiotics at Lund University, financed by the Tercentenary Foundation of the Swedish National Bank.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Göran Sonesson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sonesson, G. New Rules for the Spaces of Urbanity. Int J Semiot Law 27, 7–26 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-013-9312-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-013-9312-2

Keywords

Navigation