Advertisement

Abstract

In this chapter, advances in research on environmental meaning are addressed by connecting the present state of the art in research to the past, and by extrapolating from the present to possible future develop ments. Two concurrent approaches to the study of environmental meanings are addressed: semiotics and environmental psychology. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the ecological approach and its potential contribution to understanding environmental meaning.

Keywords

Ecological Approach Semantic Distance Environmental Cognition Encyclopedic dIctionary Surface Layout 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agrest, D. (1977). Design versus non-design. Communications (Sémiotique de l’espace), 27, 79–102.Google Scholar
  2. Agrest, D., &Gandelsonas, M. (1973). Critical remarks on semiology and architecture. Semiotica ,9(3), 252–271.Google Scholar
  3. Appleyard, D. (1969). Why buildings are known: A predictive tool for architects and planners. Environment and Behavior, 1 ,131–156.Google Scholar
  4. Barthes, R. (1964). Eléments de sémiologie. Communications, 4 ,91–135.Google Scholar
  5. Barthes, R. (1967). Elements of semiology (C. Smith and A. Lavers, Trans.). London: Cape.Google Scholar
  6. Bauer, F. (1980). Zur Konzeptspezifität des Semantischen Differentials.-Eine Diskussionsbemerkung zu Flade’s: Die Beurteilung unweltpsychologischer Konzepte mit einem konzeptspezifischen und einem universellen Differential. Zeitschrift für experi mented una angewandte Psychologie, 27 ,163–167.Google Scholar
  7. Bauer, F., &Bräunling, H. (1982). Ein Vergleich der Eignung konzeptspezifischer und universeller Formen des Semantischen Differentials zur Beurteilung von Urnweltausschnitten. Zeitschrift für experimented und angewandte Psychologie, 29(2) ,181–203.Google Scholar
  8. Bechtel, R. B. (1980). Architectural space and semantic space: Should the twain try to meet. In G. Broadbent, R. Bunt, &T. Llorens (Eds.), Meaning and behavior in the built environment (pp. 215–222). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Beck, R. (1970). Spatial meaning and the properties of the environment. In H. M. Proshansky, W. H. Ittelson, &L. G. Rivlin (Eds.), Environmental psychology: Man and his physical setting (pp. 134–141). New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.Google Scholar
  10. Berger, A., &Good, L. (1963). Architectural psychology in a psychiatric hospital. Journal of the American Institute of Architecture ,December, 76–80.Google Scholar
  11. Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  12. Blomeyer, G. R., &Helmholtz, R. M. (1976). Semiotics in architecture. Semiosis, 1 ,42–51.Google Scholar
  13. Bortz, J. (1972). Beiträge zur Anwendung der Psychologie auf den Städtebau. II. Erkun-dungsexperiment zur Beziehung zwischen Fassadengestaltung und ihrer Wirkung auf den Betrachter. Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, 19 ,226–281.Google Scholar
  14. Boudon, P. (1973). Recherches sémiotiques sur le lieu. Semiotica ,7(3), 189–225.Google Scholar
  15. Boudon, P. (1974). Définition (sémiotique) des critères pour une théorie des lieux: Architecture et méthodologies. MMI Bulletin des Séminaires Pédagogiques (Paris: Institut de l’Environnement), 4 ,3–57.Google Scholar
  16. Boudon, P. (1977a). Introduction. Communications (Sémiotique de l’espace), 27 ,1–12.Google Scholar
  17. Boudon, P. (1977b). Un modèle de la cité grecque. Communications (Sémiotique de l’espace), 27 ,122–167.Google Scholar
  18. Boudon, P. (1978). Réécriture d’une ville: La Médina de Tunis. Semiotica ,22(1/2), 1–74.Google Scholar
  19. Boudon, P. (1981a). Introduction à une sémiotique des lieux. Ecriture, graphisme, architecture. Montreal: Les presses de l’université de Montréal. Paris: Editions Klincksieck.Google Scholar
  20. Boudon, P. (1981b). Recherches sémiotiques sur la notion de ’lieu architectural,’ Review Article. Recherches Sémiotiques/Semiotic Inquiry, 1(4), 393–413.Google Scholar
  21. Broadbent, G. (1969). Meaning into architecture. In C. Jencks &G. Baird (Eds.), Meaning in architecture (pp. 50–75). London: Barrie &Rockliff.Google Scholar
  22. Broadbent, G. (1975). Function and symbolism in architecture. In B. Honikman (Ed.), Responding to social change. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson &Ross.Google Scholar
  23. Broadbent, G. (1980a). The deep structures of architecture. In G. Broadbent, R. Bunt, &C. Jencks (Eds.), Signs, symbols, and architecture (pp. 119–168). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Broadbent, G. (1980b). Building design as an iconic sign system. In G. Broadbent, R. Bunt, &C. Jencks (Eds.), Signs, symbols, and architecture (pp. 311–331). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Broadbent, G. (1980c). A semiotic program for architectural psychology. In G. Broadbent, R. Bunt, &T. Llorens (Eds.), Meaning and behavior in the built environment (pp. 313–359). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Broadbent, G. (1980d). General introduction. In G. Broadbent, R. Bunt, &C. Jencks (Eds.), Signs, symbols, and architecture (pp. 1–4). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Broadbent, G., Bunt, R., &Llorens, T. (Eds.). (1980). Meaning and behavior in the built environment. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Broadbent, G., Bunt, R., &Jencks, C. (Eds.). (1980). Signs, symbols and architecture. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. Castex, J., Depaule, J. C., &Panerai, P. (1978). Essai sur les structures syntaxiques de l’espace architectural. Notes méthodologiques en architecture et en urbanisme (Sémiotique de l’espace), 7, 101–155.Google Scholar
  30. Castex, J., &Panerai, P. (1974). Structures de l’espace architectural. Notes méthodologiques en architecture et en urbanisme (Sémiotique de l’espace), 3/4 ,39–63.Google Scholar
  31. Castex, J., &Panerai, P. (1979). Structures de l’espace architectural. In Sémiotique de l’espace (pp. 61–93). Editions Denoël/Gonthier.Google Scholar
  32. Choay, F. (1970). Urbanism and semiology. In C. Jencks &G. Baird (Eds.), Meaning in architecture (pp. 26–37). London: Barrie &Rockliff.Google Scholar
  33. Choay, F. (1970-1971). Remarques à propos de sémiologie urbaine. Larchitecture d’au-jourd’hui (La ville), 153 ,9–10.Google Scholar
  34. Choay, F. (1973). Figures d’un discours méconnu. Critique (L’urbain et l’architecture), 311, 293–317.Google Scholar
  35. Duncan, J. S. (1985). The house as symbol of social structure: Notes on the language of objects among collectivistic groups. In I. Altman &C. M. Werner (Eds.), Home environments (pp. 133–151). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  36. Eco, U. (1968). La struttura assente. Milano: Bompiani.Google Scholar
  37. Eco, U. (1972). A componential analysis of the architectural sign/column. Semiotica ,5(2), 97–117.Google Scholar
  38. Eco, V. (1980). A componential analysis of the architectural sign /column/. In G. Broadbent, R. Bunt, &C. Jencks (Eds.), Signs, symbols, and architecture (pp. 213–232). New York: Wüey.Google Scholar
  39. Fauque, R. (1973). Pour une nouvelle approach sémiologique de la ville. Espace et sociétés, 9, 15–27.Google Scholar
  40. Fauque, R. (1979). Le discours de la ville. In S. Chatman, U. Eco, &J. M. Klinkenberg (Eds.), A semiotic landscape (pp. 918–923). Den Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  41. Franke, J. (1969). Stadtbild: Zum Erleben der Wohnumgebung. Stadtbauwelt, 24 ,292–295.Google Scholar
  42. Fusco, R. de (with M. L. Scalvini) (1960). Significanti e significanti nella rotonda palladiana. Op. cit. Selezione della critica d’arte conteni poranea, 16 ,5–23.Google Scholar
  43. Fusco, R. de (1967). Architettura come mass-medium. Ban: Dedalo.Google Scholar
  44. Gamberini, I. (1953). Per una analisi degli elementi dell’architettura. Firenze: Editrice Universitaria.Google Scholar
  45. Gamberini, I. (1959). Gli elementi dell’architettura come ’parole’ del linguaggio architettonico. Firenze: Coppini.Google Scholar
  46. Gamberini, I. (1961). Analisi degli elementi constitutivi dell’architettura. Firenze: Coppini.Google Scholar
  47. Garroni, E. (1964). La crisi semantica della arti. Roma: Officina.Google Scholar
  48. Garroni, E. (1972). Progetto di semiotica. Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
  49. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  50. Gibson, J. J. (1982). Notes on affordances. In E. Reed &R. Jones (Eds.), Reasons for realism: Selected essays of James J. Gibson (pp. 401–418). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  51. Gottdiener, M. (1986). Urban culture. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Encyclopedic dictionary of semiotics (Vol. 2, pp. 1141–1145). Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  52. Greimas, A. (1974). Pour une sémiotique topologique. Notes méthodologiques en architecture et en urbanisme (Sémiotique de l’espace). 3/4 ,1–21.Google Scholar
  53. Greimas, A. (1979). Pour une sémiotique topologique. In Sémiotique de l’espace (pp. 11–43). Paris: Editions Denoel/Gonthier.Google Scholar
  54. Groat, L. (1982). Meaning in post-modern architecture: An examination using the multiple sorting tool. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2 ,3–22.Google Scholar
  55. Groat, L., &Canter, D. (1979). Does post-modernism communicate? Progressive Architecture, 12 ,84–87.Google Scholar
  56. Haeckel, E. (1866) Generelle Morphologie der Organismen ,Vol. 2: Allgemeine Entroucklungsgeschichte der Organismen. Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
  57. Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  58. Hammad, M. (1979). Sémiotique de l’espace et sémiotique de l’architecture. In S. Chatman, U. Eco, &J.-M. Klinkenberg (Eds.), A semiotic landscape (pp. 925–929). Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
  59. Harrison, D., &Howard, W. A. (1972). The role of meaning in the urban image. Environment and Behavior, 4.Google Scholar
  60. Hershberger, R. G. (1972). Toward a set of semantic scales to measure the meaning of architectural environments. In W. J. Mitchell (Ed.), Environmental design: Research and practice, Vol. 3 (pp. 6-4-1-6-4–10). Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson &Ross.Google Scholar
  61. Hillier, B., &Leaman, A. (1973). The man-environment paradigm and its paradoxes. Architectural Design, 8 ,507–511.Google Scholar
  62. Hülier, B., &Leaman, A. (1975). The architecture of architecture. In D. Hawkes (Ed.), Models and systems in architecture and building (pp. 5–23). London: Construction Press.Google Scholar
  63. Hillier, B., Leaman, A., Stansall, P., &Bedford, M. (1976). Space syntax. Environment and Planning B, 3 ,147–185.Google Scholar
  64. Hjelmslev, L. (1968-1971). Prolégomènes à une théorie du langage. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
  65. Honikman, B. (1973). Personal construct theory and environmental evaluation. In G. Broadbent, R. Bunt, &T. Llorens (Eds.), Meaning and behavior in the built environment (pp. 79–91). New York: Wüey.Google Scholar
  66. Hunter, A. (1987). The symbolic ecology of suburbia. In I. Altman &A. Wandersman (Eds.), Neighborhood and community environments (pp. 191–221). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  67. Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350–377). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  68. Jencks, C. (Ed.). (1969). Meaning in architecture. London: Barrie &Rockliff.Google Scholar
  69. Jencks, C. (1980). The architectural sign. In G. Broadbent, R. Bunt, &C. Jencks (Eds.), Signs, symbols, and architecture (pp. 71–118). New York: Wüey.Google Scholar
  70. Kasmar, J. (1970). The development of a usable lexicon of environmental descriptors. Environment and Behavior, 2 ,153–169.Google Scholar
  71. Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  72. Koenig, G. K. (1964). Analisi del linguaggio architettonico. Firenze: Liberia Editrice Fiorentina.Google Scholar
  73. Koenig, G. K. (1970). Architettura e communicazione. Preceduta da elementi di analisi del linguaggio architettonico. Firenze: Liberia Editrice Fiorentina.Google Scholar
  74. Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  75. Krampen, M. (1971). Das Messen von Bedeutung in Architektur, Stadtplanung und Design. Teil 1: Das Polaritätsprofil als Meßinstrument. Werk, 1 ,57–60.Google Scholar
  76. Krampen, M. (1974). A possible analogy between (psycho-) linguistic and architectural measurement-the type-token ration (TTR). In D. Canter &T. Lee (Eds.), Psychology and the built environment (pp. 87–95). London: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  77. Krampen, M. (1979a). Meaning in the urban environment. London: Pion.Google Scholar
  78. Krampen, M. (1979b). Survey on current work in semiology of architecture. In S. Chatman, U. Eco, &J.-M. Klinkenberg (Eds.), A semiotic landscape (pp. 169–194). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  79. Krampen, M. (1980). The correlation of “objective” facade measurements with subjective facade ratings. In G. Broadbent, R. Bunt, &T. Llovens (Eds), Meaning and behavior in the built environment ,(pp. 61–78). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  80. Krampen, M. (1989). Semiotics in architecture and industrial product design. Design Issues, 5(2), 124–140.Google Scholar
  81. Lagopoulos, A.-P. (1978). Analyse sémiotique de l’agglomération européenne pré-capitaliste. Semiotica ,23(1/2), 99–164Google Scholar
  82. Lagopoulos, A.-P. (1986). Settlement space. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Encyclopedic dictionary of semiotics (Vol. 2, pp. 924–936). Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  83. Lawrence, R. J. (1985). A more humane history of homes: Research method and application. In I. Altman &C. M. Werner (Eds.), Home environments (pp. 113–132). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  84. Ledrut, R. (1970). L’image de la ville. Espaces et sociétés, 1 ,93–106.Google Scholar
  85. Ledrut, R. (1973). Parole et silence de la ville. Espaces et sociétés, 9 ,3–14.Google Scholar
  86. Lewin, K. (1926). Untersuhungen zur Handlungs-und Afekt-Psychologie, I, II. Psychol-ogische Forschung, 7 ,294–385.Google Scholar
  87. Lingoes, J. C. (1973). The Guttman-Lingoes nonmetric program series. Ann Arbor, MI: Mathesis Press.Google Scholar
  88. Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  89. Miller, G. A. (1967). Psycholinguistic approaches to the study of communication. In D. L. Arm (Ed.), Journeys in science (pp. 22–73). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
  90. Miller, G. (1969). A psychological method to investigate verbal meaning. Journal of Mathematical Psychology ,6, 169–191.Google Scholar
  91. Moore, G. T. (1979). Knowing about environmental knowing. Environment and Behavior, 11, 33–70.Google Scholar
  92. Moore, G. T., &Golledge, R. G. (Eds.). (1976). Environmental knowing: Theory, research, and methods. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  93. Morris, C. W. (1964). Signification and significance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  94. Mukarovsky, J. (1978). On the problem of function in architecture. In J. Burbank &P. Steiner (Eds.), Structure, sign, and function: Selected essays by Jan Mukarovsky (pp. 236– 250). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Nöth, W. (1985). (Ed.). Architektur. In Handbuch der Semiotik (pp. 400–408). Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlersche Verlagbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
  96. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., &Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  97. Ostrowetsky, S., &Bordreuil, S. (1979). Sociologie et sémiotique. In S. Chapman, U. Eco, &J.-M. Klinkenberg (Eds.), A semiotic landscape (pp. 956–959). Den Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  98. Piaget, J., &Tuhelder, B. (1948). La représentation de l’espace chez l’enfant. Paris: Presses universitaire de France. (English translation by F. J. Langdon &J. L. Lunzre: The child’s conception of space. London: Routledge &Kegan Paul, 1956.)Google Scholar
  99. Pinxten, R. (1974). Emicism and how to avoid a paradox. Communication and Cognition, 7(3/4), 315–333.Google Scholar
  100. Pinxten, R. (1976). Epistemic universale: A contribution to cognitive anthropology. In R. Pinxten (Ed.), Universalism and relativism in language and thought (pp. 117–175). Den Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  101. Pinxten, R. (1977). Descriptive semantics and cognitive anthropology: In search for a new model. Communication and Cognition ,10(3/4), 89–106.Google Scholar
  102. Posner, R. (1986). Zur Systematik der beschréibung verbaler und nonverbaler kom-munikatíon. In, H. G. Bosshardt (Ed.), Perspektiven auf sprache (pp. 267–313)Google Scholar
  103. Walter de Gruyter. Preziosi, D. (1979a). Architecture, language, and meaning. Den Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  104. Preziosi, D. (1979b). The semiotics of the built environment: An introduction to architectonic analysis. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  105. Preziosi, D. (1983a). The network of architectonic signs. In T. Borbé (Ed.), Semiotics unfolding (Vol. 3, pp. 1343–1349). Den Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  106. Preziosi, D. (1983b). Minoan architectural design. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
  107. Preziosi, D. (1986). Architecture. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Encyclopedic dictionary of semiotics (Vol. 1, pp. 44–50). Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  108. Proshansky, H. M., Ittelson, W. H., &Rivlin, L. G. (1970). Environmental psychology: Man and his physical setting. New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.Google Scholar
  109. Rapoport, A. (1982). The meaning of the built environment: A nonverbal communication approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  110. Renier, A. (1979). Nature et lecture de l’espace architectural. In Sémiotique de l’espace (pp. 44–59). Paris: Editions Denoël/Gonthier.Google Scholar
  111. Rossi-Landi, F. (1968). Il linguaggio come lavoro e come mercato. Milano: Bompiani.Google Scholar
  112. Rossi-Landi, (1972). Omologia della riproduzione sociale. Ideologia, 16/17 ,43–103.Google Scholar
  113. Rossi-Landi, F. (1975). Linguistics and economics. Den Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  114. Ruesch, J. &Kees, W. (1970). Function and meaning in the physical environment. In H. M. Proshansky, W. H. Ittelson, &L. G. Rivlin (Eds.), Environmental psychology: Man and his physical setting (pp. 141–153). New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.Google Scholar
  115. Sanchez-Robles, C. (1980). The social conceptualization of home. In G. Broadbent, R. Bunt, &T. Llorens (Eds.), Meaning and behavior in the built environment (pp. 113–133). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  116. Scalvini, M. L. (1968). Per una teoria dell’architettura. Op. Cit.: Selezione della critica d’arte contemporanea, 13 ,30–44.Google Scholar
  117. Scalvini, M. L. (1975). L’architettura come semiotica connotative. Milano: Bompiani.Google Scholar
  118. Scalvini, M. L. (1979). A semiotic approach to architectural criticism. In S. Chatman, U. Eco, &J.-M. Klinkenberg (Eds.), A semiotic landscape (pp. 965–969). New York: Mouton.Google Scholar
  119. Scalvini, M. L. (1980). Structural linguistics versus the semiotics of literature: Alternative models for architectural criticism. In G. Broadbent, R. Bunt, &C. Jencks (Eds.), Signs, symbols, and architecture (pp. 411–420). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  120. Sebeok, T. A. (Ed.). (1986). Encyclopedic dictionary of semiotics (Vols. 1-3). Den Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  121. Sommer, R. (1965). The significance of space. Journal of the American Institute of Architecture, May, 63-65.Google Scholar
  122. Stringer, P. (1980). The meaning of alternative future environments for individuals. In G. Broadbent, R. Bunt, &T. Llorens (Eds.), Meaning and behavior in the built environment (pp. 93–111). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  123. Stokols, D., &Altman, I. (Eds.). (1987). Handbook of environmental psychology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  124. Uexküll J. von (Ed.). (1913). Tierwelt oder Tierseele. In Bausteine zu einer biologischen Weltanschauung (pp. 77–100). München: Bruckmann.Google Scholar
  125. Walther, E. (1974). Allgemeine Zeichenlehre. Einfuhrung in die Grundlagen der Semiotik. Stuttgart: Deutsch Verlagsanstalt.Google Scholar
  126. Wapner, S., Kaplan, B., &Cohen, S. B. (1980). An organismic-developmental perspective for understanding transactions of men and environments. In G. Broadbent, R. Bunt, &T. Lloren (Eds.), Meaning and behavior in the built environment (pp. 223–255). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  127. Warren, W. J. (1984). Perceiving affordances: Visual guidance of stair climbing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10 ,683–703.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. Wohlwill, J. F. (1976). Environmental aesthetics: The environment as a source of affect. In I. Altman &J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment (Vol. 1, pp. 37–86). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  129. Wohlwill, J. F. (1977). Environmental psychology: An overview. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), International encyclopedia of psychiatry, psychology, psychoanalysis &neurology (Vol. 4, pp. 338–341). New York: Aesculapius.Google Scholar
  130. Wolman, B. B. (Ed.). (1977). International encyclopedia of psychiatry, psychology, psychoanalysis &neurology (Vol. 4). New York: Aesculapius.Google Scholar
  131. Zube, E. H. (1976). Perception of landscape and land use. In I. Altman &J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment (Vol. 1, pp. 87–121). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Krampen
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.University of the Arts BerlinFederal Republic of Germany
  2. 2.Ulm-DonauFederal Republic of Germany

Personalised recommendations