ÖZET Bu çalışmanın amacı hergün birlikte yaşadığımız mimari mekanlara ilişkin bir anlam analizi altarnatifî sunmaktadır. Bu amaçla birinci bölümde Anlama ilişkin genel bir yaklaşım sunulmuş ve göstergebilime değinilmiştir. Böylece tezin teorik altyapısı oluşturulmuştur. Bu bağlamda insan-bina arasında görsel bir üetişimin söz konusu olduğu ve üetişimin görsel öğelerin biçimsel ve simgesel değerleri ile kurulduğu, mimari mesajların düzanlamsal (denotative) ve yananlamsal (connotative) anlamlar taşıdığı birinci bölümün giriş konusu olarak ele alınmıştır. İkinci bölümde dil ve mimarlık ilişkisi üzerinde durulmuştur. Bu bölümde geçen ilk iletişim yaklaşımı mimarlık için dilin, spontane ve doğal olma özelliğini ele alan yaHaşımdır. Bir başka yaklaşım dilin edebi amaçlarla kullanış biçimim model alarak üslup kavramım belirler. Üçüncü bir kümede dilin iç yapısıyla ilgili Özelliklerden mimari analizlerinde yararlanmak isteyen görüşler toplanabilir. Bir diğer yaklaşım Heidegger'in düi varoluşsal olarak açıkladığı yaklaşımdır. Yine bu bölümde Aristoteles'in `doğanın varmak istediği en son erek, insana hizmet etmektir` formülünden yola çıkarak insan-bia ilişkisi irdelenmiştir. İnsan; mekanik kavramlarla açıklanabilen maddesi (beden), bu açıklamanın dışında kalan düşünen yam (ruh) olmak üzere iki alt kümede ele alınmıştır, özetle insanın mekanizmasına cevap veren binanın fonksiyonları, ruhuna cevap veren ise sembolik değerler olmaktadır. Üçüncü ve son bölümün konusu ise Tezde önerilen Mimarlıkta Anlam Analizinin kuramı ve analize ilişkin örneklerden oluşmaktadır. vı SUMMARY A STUDY FOR MEANING ANALYSIS IN ARCHITECTURE Principal aim of study is to propose an alternative for analysis of meaning regarding architectural space. For the same purpose, in the first chapter generic issues were scrutinizedas an approach to desingnate meaning and semiology was frequently referred to. The underlying cause to take such a course of study may briefly be explained as follows: The structural forms, in lieu of nurturing similarities of material substance-genetic diminutio-by only referring to them or creating association of ideas would properly present us the human beings a substantial base for our existence by way of setting forth primal samples, codes, symbols and signs. For, according to C.N. SHULTZ, architecture is a means of enterpretation to present individual the sense of proper existence. By such interpretation, the adjacent houses hugging each other under the divine vault of heavens bear evidence to animate being of human on this planet of vastness. Environmental aesthetic represents itself as a discipline delving deep into studying the stimulating effect of nature or the environment onto the mortals and visual impression of such effect onto affective domains and which transform itself to cognitive reaction. By the same token, the objective datum incepting from object (the environment) or the subjective values originated from (i.e. the observer) show their effect. Nevertheless, this assertation mainly focused on assessing tangible information that is emanating from object (environment) and leaves subjective values such as cognitive charts, image, perception, and period of socialization, for a further study to be conducted at a superior level of conteplation. The first Chapter creating grounds to this thesis voiced ideas as to indeed, a material visual relationship was in existence between the person and building form, and elements of such mutual intercourse were formed by formative and symbolic values. Semiology is a discipline attempting to study formation of signs and effects of the same over social behavior. vuC.H. MORRIS progressively argued that three varying forms of approach were in case for the concerns of signs, which are respectively syntactic, semantic and pragmatic. Syntactical (speculative) meaning meaning from disposition of a building form within its environment. Meaning of signs allude to manner and attitude, idea, and norms which are presented or suggested by an element. Meaning of signs allude to manner and attitude, idea, and norms which are presented or suggested by an element. Pragmatic approach is related to symbols which substantially reflecting information about utilization of object. Sign, on the other hand, is each and every means procuring communication by suggesting a thing which it is not it. Signs are, According to description of K. BUHLER, for the conveyor a symptom of cognitive concept (what's going on in the mind) and a symbol of the message intended to be communicated. For the receiver, it is a signal of manifestation. Charles Sanders PIERCE's metaphysical theory with three elements considers sign as an element of relationship dividing such relationship into three sub-sections: 1. The singular fact not communicating to any othar facts, 2. The fact communicating to other facte, 3. The fact communicating to second and third facts. Charles MORRIS applied this model to concept of signs, defining the three phases of communication by signs. 1. Communication by signs with a single element: Communication between its own substance and the environment created withing itself. Formative plane or formative dimension. 2. Communication by signs with its dual element - Communication established between itself and the substance it represented or replaced; cognitive plane or cognitive dimension. 3. Three-elements communication by signs: Communication established between itself, the substance it represented or replaced and the user/interpreter: favorable plane or favorable dimension. In regards of communication, the architect aims at conveying information to urban spectator is a desinned or applied architectural scope. The information which is transformed into figures by assistance of codes is canalized into to the receiving audience. vuiThe receiver, by reversing the same procedure, decodes the information which reached to itself in a form of figures and translates it into linguistic symbols. Thus, `physical symbol` is translated into `semantic information`. Indeed, each and every sign refers to a content via a form (an explanatory/audible image). On grounds that either the conveyor or the receiver being knowledgeable of the code and using the same linguistic system (arrangement), the receiver decodes the audible image consist of sounds, reaching to itself. On the same second as the heap of sounds reached to our brain, it is no longer a mere sound but an audible symbol. (Audible sound is not a simple sound having material qualities), on the contrary, it is intellectual trace of sound, which at a visual plane will be transformed into a visual image. Sign as a means of signification Sign : The matter, trace, symbol at which signification is attributed to. The architectural signs are tangible notions utilized to illustrate references made by the architect to past, experience, culture and technology, etc. Or in case the time is considered as evolutionary, they progressively become traces of architectural norms and rules. These are connotative signs. The denotative signs on the other hand, are indicators of function. When a sign is conveyed to us or when using it we expect to obtain obvious results, i.e., we reach to system of expectations. For this very reason, the fondation of communication would represent itself as common forms of behavior or the systems of general symbols connected to `life styles`. Charles Sanders PIERCE describes the signs as symbols which invites attention of person to an object by blindly forcing it. For instance, if I am required to pss over a stair step, I must advance by stepping my feet one by one, and even though I choose to proceed over an even level ground I still have to raise my feet in turns.. Object of utility : denote a function. `Objects shown` (their content) constitute function of utilization.. Signification : In a sign, formation of a relation between which being shown and what shows it, is called signification. The common dictionary meaning of word or sign is denotation, but when they are pertinent to implication group then they signify connotation. IXThe Second Chapter involves the relationship between language and architecture. The initial communicative approach scrutinized in this Chapter takes as a a quihkebbehce kpe aqqnoacp which uses as a model the characteristic of spontaneous and natural application of language. An other approach delineates utilization of syntax, the language model designed literary aims by using concept of style. A third group may amass ideas regarding exploitation of architectural analyses to interpret the inner formation of language. (Architectural Syntax, dictionary of Architecture, grammatical concepts of design). Still a further philosophical approach mentions Heidegger's existentialist approach to language. (Heidegger expatiates language as divine inspiration (disclosure) which serving the means of commonucation). The language is house of being. Talking is a form of existing which discloses the hidden metaphor within the language. According to Umberto ECO, architecture is a process, a means of mass communication. Sign of architecture, on the other hand is comprised of a connotative plane as well as plane of content (composition). As the style communicates the function it is firmly established onto a code, i.e. a system of expectations and customs. Nevertheless, plane of composition is comprised of initial and secondary functions. The initial functions contain material activities having the same meaning that is use by tradition of functionalism. the secondary functions, in their turn hold dear meaning what is called the `symbolic values` by the art historians. The initial functions are communicated by a denotative and the secondary functions by a connotative process. As it is seen, struggle for grasping the meaning of architectural style in general applies to mechanisms of an inner determination (describing a function) or referral to an external reality (implication of a meaning). This Chapter also scrutinizes the relationship öf man and building by taking Aristotle's formula of `the ultimate goal of the nature is to serve the man` as a starting point Human being was referred to under two sub-groups which consist of material being (the physical body) which could be explained by using mechanical concepts and the thinking being (soul) which is left out the initial reference made. Briefly, the functions of a building communicates to mortal mechanism of man and the symbolic values communicate to its soul. According to G.N. SCHULTZ, `Architecture is the proper basis giving the sense of being to man`. The symbols, however, are products illustrating and explaining conditions of life. Different living conditons are demonstrated by varying symbols. The symbols (works of art) are means of actualization life. Therefore, withoutsymbols human being is stripped off its foundation of being within its environment In short, if the human being is able to find the symbols constituting grounds for its existence, it would capture the signification being communicated to by its psychological needs personality and orientation, therefore, would dwell in that specific environment and perceive the geniusloci. Consequently, the dwelling area would not be the space (a mere concept of abstraction), but the place (specific environment), thus, architecture would create geniusloci. Architectural codes as a means o signification The code: a system of symbols referring a fact; a codex. According to JACKSON, the code being an element of communication is an equivalent of system or organization which relates to the elements or accumulation of a declaration form to each other by means of doing so procures comprehension of the same. The code, is comprised of architectonics, i.e., group of organized architectural ideas and the rules organizing such architectural ideas. For a long time, it was thought that the representative arts could be diminished to concepts of basic elemental geometrical forms. If such is the case, what we have here would be a sample of codes to which we could attain by attempting to analyze the elements with which a language my be interpreted. A code which may serve as a metalanguage or more synthetic codes are obtained. This sort of analytic possibilities ought to be thoroughly examined if we decide to compare an architectural phenomenon with a linguistic phenomeonon, whereas, we may produce a metalanguage which can sufficiently identify the same with the same terms. For instance, we may desire to code a particular view by designing the same with suggested architectural solution and attach various architectural formations to such view and its vicinity. If we apply here substantial geometrical code elements such as pyramids, corneal shapes, etc., then, it would be significant to describe architecture via particular geometrical codes. The interest of the last and final Chapter contains samples relating to Theory of Analysis of Architectural Sense and the mode of analysis. The designations contained in the theory are as follows: XIDenotative Signs; these are symbols evolving from function of the product, such as cave, protection, safety, glass, collection of water, stairs, climbing, etc.. Connotative Codes are on nthe other hand, would be codes relating to function (plan, cross-section, etc.). The common denominator of connotative signs and codes is function. Connotative Signs: are symbolic signs borne by the product. By using these signs we may be able to create meaning by making references to architectural past, experience, culture and technology or to various architectural rules. Connotative codes; are keys referring to symbolic values. Within the architectural space one may create codes by using code elements such as vacancy or occupancy, topographical relations, rhythm, repetition, poise and balance, symmetry- asymmetry, dominance of focusing point, etc... The common denominator of connotative signs or codes their both having symbolic values. Xll 49