عنوان مقاله [English]
Statement of the problem:In addition to the many factors leading to the creation of shelter, the role of sociocultural factors in the creation of the effects of immaterial tissue on the transfer of the meaning of architectural works is modeled. One of the architectural phenomena that can be a reflection of social discourse in its reading is "high-rise residential buildings." Meanwhile, the relationship between architecture and cinema, which has been used for many times in both areas, is the venue for review and convincing the audience.
Purpose:The purpose of this study is to investigate how the discourse and semiotic analysis methods can be applied to architectural works and a systematic search for the meanings that have been shown to influence the impact of the cultural and social context on the emotional audience. With this aim, after analyzing the archive of Iranian cinema, analyzes have been presented with the aim of matching and identifying the interconnectedness of the discursive space of cinematic works with architectural works.
Research method:This study, using the library and cinema documents of Iran, in a discursive semantic manner, introduces movies as a semiotic source. It also analyzes the format of discourses in samples of films which deals in a way with the theme of high buildings. Then, through intertextualization, it has received some of the meaning of architecture in an open and fluid form. The findings of this research have been presented through descriptive-analytic method.
Conclusion:Discourse semantics can be a logical reason for reading the meaning of architecture. Considering the social cohesion of high-rise residential buildings, one can say that they make privacy and neighborhood borders. Such buildings are the basis of materialism, individualism and ostentation, which are more reflected in the middle class of society. It is also in line with the growth of the social role of women and the new model of the family. Reading these meanings and this mirroring, together with the need for high-rise residential buildings, can lead to a transformation in the design of this architectural example.
•Barthes, R. (1977). Image, music, text. (S. Heath, Ed.). The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, (37): 235-236.
• Bronwen, M. & Felizitas, R. (2000). Dictionary of semiotics cassell. London & NewYork: Continuum.
• Canter, D. (1977). The psychology of place. London: Architectural press.
•Eisenstein, M. (1989). Montage and Architecture.Assemblage, (10): 111-131.
•Eco, U. (2002). Toward a Logic of Culture .In semiotics.Ed. Karin Boklund-Lagpoulou. Alexandros Lagopoulos and mark Gottdiener. London: SAGE.
•Fairclough, N. (1995). Media Discourse. London: Edward Arnold.
•Fairclough, N. (2004). Textual Analysis for Social Research.Londan & New York: New edition.
• Giedion, S. (1954). Space, Time and Architecture.The Growth Of A new Tradition. Cambridg: Harvard University press.
• Gifford, R. (2007). The consequences of living in High-Rise Buildings. Architectural Science Review, ( 1): 1-16.
• Gustafson, P. (2001). Meaning of place .every day experience and Theorethical conceptualization, journal of Environmental psychology, (21):5-16.
• Ifuersen, J. (2003). Text, Discourse, Concept: Approaches to Textual Analysis. Denmark: Aalborg University.
• Kress, G. & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal Discourse.The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication.London: Edward Arnold.
• Kristeva, J. (2002). The Bounded Text .In Semiotics.Ed.Karin Boklund-Lagpoulou. Alexandros Lagopoulos and mark Gottdiener. London: SAGE.
• Lotman, Y. (1990). Univers of the mind .A semiotic Theory of culture.Translated by Shukman,A. London & New York: I.B Tauris & co.
• Martin, B & Ringham, F. (2000). Dictionary of semiotics cassell. London & newyork: I.B Tauris & co.
• Munzo, C. L. (2005). For Better or Worse: Exploring Multiple Dimensions of Place mening. Journal of Environmental psychology, (1): 67-86.
• Mustapha, A. A. (1988). Architectural Aepresentation and meaning: Towards a Theory of Interpretution Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Syria: University of Aleppo.
• Parsaee, M.; Parva, M. & Karimi, B. (2014). Space and place concepts analysis. HBRC Journal,10 (1016): 1-16.
• Prise, M. (2000). Architecture & Film II, AD. Architecture Design: LA: Articullating the Cinematic Urban, Eperience in the city Of Make Belive. London & New York: Wiley-Academy.
• Rahnama, M. R. & Heravi Torbati, M. H. (2014). Study of Physical-Spatial Effects of Engineering Research, American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER), (1): 23-24.
• Rapoport, A. (1982). The meaning of the built environment anonverbal communication approach. Arizona: University of Arizonapress.
• Relph, E. (1976). Place and Plaselessness. London: pion.
• Roze, G. (2001). Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials. London: Thousand Oaks, New Delhi.
• Tasheva, S. (2012). Semiotics of Architectural Graphics, Sofia: Institute of Art studies.
• Tuan, Y. F. (1977). Spase and Place. The perspective of Experience. London: Edward Arnold.
• Van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing Social Semiotics. London: Routledge.
• Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin, & H. Hamilton (Eds.). Handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.