Show Less
Restricted access

Inhabiting Language, Constructing Language / Habiter la langue, construire la langue


Edited By Rémi Digonnet

The juxtaposition of habitat, a product of architecture, and speech, a product of language, enables us to envisage a dual orientation for what could be called "architexture". The architectural text focuses on the analysis of architects’ discourse, architectural metaphors or spatial markers and prepositions. Textual architecture, meanwhile, explores composition, syntactic ordering, text structure or "construction" grammars. Through verbalisation or spatialization, through verbal or architectural communication, the speaker and the architect are subjected to numerous constraints despite a certain freedom of speech and freedom of construction. Both this constructed speech and this spoken construction summon the architect-speaker to his or her language domus. It is this dual position that the articles in this collection aim to occupy.


La mise en regard de l’habitat, produit de l’architecture, et du discours, produit de la langue, permet d’envisager une double orientation de ce que l’on pourrait nommer l’« architexture ». Le texte de l’architecture traite de l’analyse de discours d’architectes, de métaphores architecturales ou de marqueurs spatiaux et prépositions spatiales, tandis que l’architecture du texte investit la composition, l’agencement syntaxique, la structure d’un texte ou encore les grammaires dites « de construction ». D’une mise en discours ou en espace, à travers une communication verbale ou architecturale, l’énonciateur et l’architecte sont soumis à de nombreuses contraintes en dépit d’une liberté de parole et de construction. Cette parole construite autant que cette construction parlée convoquent l’énonciateur-architecte dans sa domus langagière. C’est cette double posture qui fait l’objet des contributions de cet ouvrage collectif.

Show Summary Details
Restricted access

English Conclusion


The expression “inhabiting language, constructing language”, deliberately redundant in linguistic terms, exhibits the primacy of language in our study. Language has been studied for what it represents, i.e. a set of various linguistic objects dependent on the chosen perspective, either semantic, syntactic, diachronic, translational or conceptual, experiential, contextual, computational.

The first part (constructing language) has been dedicated to the endophoric dimension of language so as to study its internal machinery. From the concept to the context, an architecture of language has emerged as far as its construction has been revealed. Zoltán Kövecses and Katrina Brannon have both questioned the metaphorical construction in a conceptual perspective, but also a semantic one (building domain) and a syntactic one (articulatory phenomenon of the spatial preposition). Andrew McMichael has developed the construction of meaning of the spatial adverb in a diachronic perspective. Aurélie Barnabé has alluded to the experiential input for the construction of motion verbs.

The second part (inhabiting language) has been devoted to the exophoric dimension of language for a better understanding of its relation with the environment. In a philosophical and literary perspective, Stephen Noble has highlighted the dwelling in language through the construction of the speaking subject, of the dwelling subject. From the study of an idiolect to the linguistic planning, the dwelling of language, the dwelling through language, has been reasserted. Mathilde Pinson has sketched the boundaries of a sociolect, even an idiolect, thanks to the analysis of the language...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.

Do you have any questions? Contact us.

Or login to access all content.