Connotative semantics and spatial syntax: Exploring identity in memorial and public architectural spaces

2.1. Semiotics and architecture: Theoretical foundations

The foundation of semiotics in architecture can be traced back to the works of scholars such as Umberto Eco and Christian Norberg-Schulz. Eco’s seminal work, The Missing Structure: Introduction to Semiology (2013), provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the connotative meanings of architectural spaces. Eco argues that architectural spaces are not merely functional but also carry symbolic meanings that influence human behavior and emotions. He introduces the concept of “connotation” as an additional layer of meaning that goes beyond the denotative function of space, suggesting that spaces can evoke emotional, aesthetic, and even metalinguistic responses [5].

Similarly, Christian Norberg-Schulz explores the existential dimensions of architectural space in his book Existence, Space, and Architecture (1974). He posits that space is not just a physical entity but also a phenomenological experience that reflects cultural and existential meanings. Norberg-Schulz’s concept of “existential space” emphasizes the role of architecture in creating environments that resonate with human experiences and cultural identities [6]. His work is further expanded in The Phenomenon of Place (2013), where he discusses how spaces acquire meaning through their interaction with human perception and cultural context [7].

2.2. Space syntax and configuration

The study of spatial configuration and its impact on social behavior has been a central theme in architectural research. Bill Hillier and Julienne Hanson’s The Social Logic of Space (1984) is a foundational text in this area, introducing the concept of “space syntax” to analyze spatial configuration’s social and cultural implications. Hillier and Hanson argue that the arrangement of spaces within a built environment influences movement patterns, interaction, and social behavior. They propose that spatial configurations can be understood as “configurational structures” that generate social interactions and cultural meanings [8].

Olena Oliynyk has further developed the application of spatial syntax in analyzing public spaces, particularly in the context of museums and cultural complexes. In her work, Space Syntax as a Tool for Studying the Structure and Configuration of Public Spaces (2021), Oliynyk explores how the spatial organization of museums influences visitor behavior and the perception of exhibits. She identifies two main types of spatial configurations: the “central integration core” model, which allows for free exploration, and the “enfilade” model, which guides visitors through a sequential experience [9]. This approach has been instrumental in understanding how spatial design can shape public spaces’ narrative and symbolic content.

2.3. Symbolism and connotative semantics in public spaces

Scholars such as Francis D.K. Ching and Paul Goldberger have extensively studied the symbolic dimensions of public spaces. In Architecture: Form, Space & Order (2014), Ching examines how architectural forms and spaces carry connotative meanings subject to personal and cultural interpretation. He argues that placing horizontal and vertical planes in space can evoke different emotional responses, from solemnity to intimacy, depending on their configuration [10]. Ching’s work highlights the importance of understanding the symbolic content of architectural elements in shaping the user’s experience of space.

In Why Architecture Matters (2009), Paul Goldberger explores architectural spaces’ emotional and psychological impact, particularly in sacred and memorial contexts. Goldberger emphasizes the role of architecture in creating spaces that transcend their material form to evoke deeper emotional and spiritual responses. He uses the example of Baroque churches in Rome to illustrate how architectural design can create a sense of awe and transcendence, highlighting the importance of movement and spatial sequencing in shaping the user’s experience [11].

2.4. Semiotics of space in memorials

Multiple studies apply modern methodologies to examine how memorial spaces convey meaning. Lee uses space syntax and movement tracking at the War Memorial of Korea to reveal a split between locally focused commemorative paths and more dispersed thematic routes [12]. Choi notes that easy spatial access to modern memorials – such as Holocaust exhibits – supports collective mourning [13]. Abousnnouga and Machin contend that war monuments employ visual and physical elements to legitimize militaristic discourses [14], while El-Sharif [15] shows that spatial texts at the Martyr’s Memorial in Amman communicate narratives of martyrdom and national identity.

2.5. Identity and place-making in urban spaces

The relationship between space, identity, and place-making has been a central theme in urban studies. Aspa Gospodini, in her work European Cities and Place-Identity (2002), discusses how urban spaces can serve as powerful narratives that reinforce national and cultural identities. Gospodini argues that preserving traditional buildings and urban spaces can create a distinct sense of place and appealing to the city’s history and heritage. She suggests that urban landscapes act as “signifying systems” that encode a range of economic, political, and cultural issues, thereby shaping the identity of a place [16].

Similarly, Michel Foucault’s concept of “heterotopia” provides a helpful framework for understanding the symbolic dimensions of urban spaces. In Of Other Spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias (1986), Foucault describes heterotopias as spaces that exist outside ordinary social spaces yet reflect and contest the dominant social order. He argues that certain spaces, such as museums, cemeteries, and memorials, function as heterotopias by creating alternative realities that challenge conventional notions of space and time [17]. This concept has influenced how memorial and public complexes can serve as collective memory and identity sites.

2.6. Decontextualization and the evolution of symbolic meanings

Scholars such as Umberto Eco and Olena Oliynyk have explored the process of decontextualization and the evolution of symbolic meanings in architectural spaces. In The Missing Structure (2013), Eco discusses how historical spaces can acquire new connotations over time, a process he refers to as “styling.” He argues that while the denotative function of a space may remain unchanged, its symbolic meaning can evolve as it is reinterpreted by different generations [5].

In Connotative Semantics of Urban Space (2020), Oliynyk builds on this idea by examining how cultural and historical contexts shape the symbolic content of urban spaces. She argues that the configuration of spaces can carry cultural and symbolic signs, which she refers to as “abstract artifacts.” These artifacts, such as language, music, and cultural practices, exist objectively but are realized through spatial configurations that generate social and cultural meanings [3].

Other studies corroborate these diverse findings. Bellentani reports that monuments in post-Soviet contexts shape cultural meanings and may even provoke political divisions [18]. Pavlova asserts that symbolic architectural forms at the Babyn Yar Memorial complex help avert memorycide, and Gabrel employs content analysis with modeling methods to identify emerging approaches in memory politics [19]. Four studies explicitly use social semiotics, two incorporate discourse analysis, and individual investigations introduce tools such as augmented reality, space syntax, and qualitative architectural frameworks. Geographically, investigations span Europe, the United States, parts of Asia, and the Middle East. Together, these findings demonstrate that contemporary approaches – from digital innovations to integrated analytical frameworks – provide nuanced insights into the semiotic power of space in memorial and public complexes.

2.7. The Jewish Museum in Berlin

The Jewish Museum in Berlin, designed by Daniel Libeskind, is a compelling case study for understanding the semiotics of space in memorial complexes. Libeskind’s design is based on three principal ideas: the intellectual and cultural significance of the Jewish population in Berlin, the tragedy of the Holocaust, and the concept of “emptiness” as a symbol of loss [20]. The museum’s spatial configuration, with its underground tunnels and fragmented Star of David, creates a powerful narrative that evokes the history and identity of the Jewish people in Berlin. The museum’s design illustrates how spatial syntax and symbolic elements can convey complex historical and cultural meanings [21].

The literature review highlights the rich theoretical and methodological frameworks available for studying the semiotics of space in memorial and public complexes. From the foundational works of Eco and Norberg-Schulz to the contemporary applications of spatial syntax by Hillier and Oliynyk, scholars have demonstrated how architectural spaces can carry deep symbolic and cultural meanings. The case study of the Jewish Museum in Berlin further illustrates how spatial design can create powerful narratives that resonate with historical and cultural identities. As the field continues to evolve, future research should explore the dynamic interplay between spatial configurations, cultural meanings, and human behavior in the context of public and memorial spaces.

Although the connection between space, identity, and place-making has always been a central theme of urban studies, the problem of the semantics of space has been considered mainly within the framework of cultural studies, philosophy, and sociology, where a comprehensive basis for understanding the connotative meanings of architectural spaces has been laid. At the same time, aspects of the configuration of space, its spatial planning and semiotic mechanisms, as well as its impact on the behavior of visitors and the perception of exhibits remain insufficiently studied.

At the same time, the study of the semantic content of public and museum space requires an interdisciplinary approach that would combine architectural criticism, cultural studies, sociology of urban space, and methods of spatial syntax. Thus, the scientific novelty of this study lies in the fact that for the first time the theoretical and methodological foundations of the study of the semiotics of space were used to analyze memorial and public spaces and combined with the analysis of the configuration of space based on spatial syntax.

4.1. Connotation of space

Architectural space has several types of functions: imperative (obliging to specific behavior), aesthetic, emotional (emotions generated by the perception of space), factual (for example, a sports field, a parking lot, a schoolyard), and metalinguistic (a space that demonstrates the environment around it – a square with surrounding buildings, a museum with exhibits). All these functions are constantly changing over time, acquiring new meanings. Eco writes about the symbolism of space to strengthen a particular function, such as using certain “connotations” or auxiliary signs. Thus, a chair turns into a throne with the help of a high, crowned back, eagles on the armrests, etc. The area acquires solemnity sublimity due to using specific means of composition – symmetry, rhythm, highlighting the central axis, raising the base plane, and expressive decor [5].

A podium or elevation sometimes emphasizes a room’s most essential central part, especially a sacred or ceremonial one. Temple complexes, the ruler’s house, and the place of the ceremony are also often marked by an elevation of the base plane. The same picture occurs in urban spaces: temple complexes (Acropolis), the most significant state buildings (Capitol) are placed on elevations, on a pedestal, or a podium, which separates this space from the surroundings, elevates it, thereby enhancing its significance [3].

As F. Ching argues, “Architectural forms and spaces also have connotative meanings: associative values and symbolic content that are subject to personal and cultural interpretation, which can change over time (…) The art of architecture makes our existence not only visible but also meaningful” [10]. He notes that placing space’s enclosure surfaces is essential for visual perception. The position of the enclosing surfaces in the interior impacts perception and embodies a specific symbolism.

Thus, even the mutual arrangement of the enclosing parts of the building already carries certain meanings, creates a feeling, and directs the movement of visitors.

4.2. Space syntax as a method of understanding the semantics of the public space

The architecture of a public complex, its form, internal planning, and the interconnection (configuration) of exhibition halls also determine how to perceive space and contain semantic content. Such multifunctional relationships between context, content, space, and visitors, choreographed with the help of architecture, are an interesting example of organizing public space, considering its fullness.

The method of space syntax, proposed by B. Hillier [8,23] and O. Oliynyk [9,21], allows us to identify the configuration of public spaces, which, in turn, determines social and behavioral patterns. The configuration of public spaces [23] that determines the nature of the activity and potential directions of people’s movement shapes human behavior and, thus, contains social knowledge [21,23,25]. It has been established that the directions of human activity in space are, to a certain extent, determined by the characteristics and configuration of space.

Thus, space syntax is a method that determines how spatial configurations express social or cultural content and generate social interaction in the built environment. The general scheme of the configuration of spaces, according to Oliynyk, provides for two varieties: a model with a central integration (distribution) core, which includes free familiarization with all surrounding halls, and an enfilade one, in which the exposition is built sequentially, and its inspection should take place gradually, in a planned order [21].

In this case, the sequential development of the exposition and, accordingly, the determined movement of visitors can be direct (entrance-exit at different ends) or circular (the exposition develops sequentially, but in a ring, and returns to the entrance zone). Accordingly, the spatial-planning structure of a museum or cultural center can have the form of either a linear sequence, where “turns” and “meetings” occur only at the first level of integration, or a circular structure that connects local “rings” and ultimately returns visitors to the starting point. The spatial-planning organization of the complex can have several return rings strung on a linear or branched structure.

Thus, children’s museums are designed mainly to develop the child’s abilities. Therefore, such museums’ exposition provides sequential familiarization, with a circular or linear shape. The museum is interpreted as a small city created specifically for children [21]. The exposition of museums of history and nature is usually placed perimetrically and sequentially (following a particular historical period) and has a linear configuration, which does not provide meeting points, except for the entrance hall. In contrast, the interior spaces of contemporary art museums, galleries, and cultural centers are mostly holistic, democratic, integrated, and provide one or more meeting places; exhibition rooms and a lobby, interconnected by a system of stairs and passages, sometimes at different levels, form a holistic system of internal space; for example, the Art Gallery of Ontario and the Art Museum in Kalmar, Sweden. The internal space is often concentrated around the inner courtyard lobby, which serves as an integration core (S. Guggenheim Museums in New York, Center City Museum in Cheonan, South Korea).

As a rule, they all have the structure of the so-called “shallow core,” which allows tourists and visitors to enter the distribution space in different ways, preserves the impression of a certain freedom of choice, and then returns to the central integration core again, intersecting with each other from time to time, which creates the effect of “serendipity” (O. Oliynyk’s term) – “returns” and “lucky encounters” – and thus enhances the social experience of the visit. These repeated encounters seem to be random events but are a predictable effect of planning, the impact of “serendipity.” Plans with returns are usually perceived as more socially exciting than those that exclude them due to excessive consistency. Here, an informal and perhaps extremely random way of visiting, with a sense of recurring encounter, can emerge from a formalized, neoclassical plan [21,23].

This opens up the possibility of using syntactic properties to mediate the relationship between buildings and exhibits, to create diverse and interesting experiences, and to stimulate further research. From historical buildings to modern ones, museum architecture moves from “display” to “conversation” and from classification to narrative [26].

Psarra found that spatial design can influence perception and cognitive representation modes [26]. It turns out that museum layouts that convey knowledge and narrative can also work to convey non-narrative meaning. B. Hillier cites the example of how C. Scarpa’s design for the Castelvecchio Museum gradually shapes our perception of the interconnectedness of exhibits and constructs spatial understanding [23].

To illustrate this argument, the authors demonstrate that the seemingly free spatial arrangement of statues reveals, upon close examination, a deliberate configurational pattern: the arrangement of each statue takes into account the displacement of the others so that their views are either directed toward each other or intersect at a common point in space – the axe of integration. However, the perception of these changing relationships between the statues’ views can only be revealed through movement. Thus, the space generated patterns of encounters between visitors and supported a field of co-consciousness generated by the joint presence of visitors and statues.

The same technique – joint presence – was used by architect Larysa Skoryk in the Taras Shevchenko Museum in Kaniv, Ukraine (Figure 1). The idea of “echoing” works of art with a person, which generates additional semantic and visual connections, was used as the central concept of forming the space during the reconstruction of the museum. Large printed portraits of Shevchenko on a transparent background, through which other portraits and his works are visible, create the impression of his timeless presence in space, a conversation with the viewer. Thus, the deep integration of the central space, in addition to the meetings of visitors, is complemented by a meeting with the main character.

Figure 1

4.3. Identity and semantic content of public spaces

A sense of place is a symbol that makes a place exclusive; it is how people experience, express, imagine, and know that place. Thus, the relationship between people and places is transactional, and place shapes our identity. Place identity consists of processes of observation and interpretation of the environment and changes throughout a person’s life. People’s knowledge of belonging to certain social groups and transmitting personal emotions and values shapes their social identity.

Public space or urban landscape, like text, is an ordered set of objects and, therefore, can act as a signifying system or a complex discourse, a language in which a range of economic, political, social, and cultural issues can be encoded. National identity is created in a specific social, historical, and political context, and as such, it is a situationally and socially constructed entity – a narrative [16].

The power of a narrative – for example, national identity – relies on its ability to evoke habituation, to appeal to “our desire to reduce the unfamiliar to the familiar” [16]. This ability (attribute) can be defined by the urban cultural landscape and immovable cultural heritage, in particular, and thereby can transform them into powerful narratives capable of supporting and reinforcing a broader narrative: national identity.

Preserving traditional buildings and urban spaces can create a distinct identity of the place, appealing to the city’s history and heritage – built heritage, cultural heritage – and creating strong environmental images for visitors and residents.

4.4. Decontextualization and styling (changing meanings)

Sometimes, the symbolism and meaning of architectural space are lost, and sometimes, they acquire new meanings that do not coincide with the original meanings. There is a process of returning and reshaping forms and contexts, decontextualizing signs, removing them from the original context, and introducing them into a new context, which loads them with other meanings. Nevertheless, this renewal is, at the same time, the preservation and discovery of new meanings in the existing but renewed space. “Our era is not only an era of forgetting but also an era of restoring memory,” notes U. Eco [5].

Existing historical spaces are supplemented with new connotations, what Umberto Eco calls “styling” – redesigning the external appearance while preserving the original function, the unchanged denotation, when “history with its vitality and gluttony empties and fills the forms again, deprives them of meaning and fills them with new meanings” [3].

Thanks to connotative coloring, the imagery, picturesqueness, and living inner form of the elements of architectural space are enhanced. Therefore, the study of connotation – emotional coloring – should be considered through the prism of national psychology and the nation’s spiritual life.

At the same time, some researchers believe that cultural or symbolic signs are hidden in the configuration of spaces, which are carriers of history and identity. B. Hillier [19] calls these signs “abstract artifacts.” Such artifacts include language, music, cultural manifestations, etc., which exist objectively since they belong to the community but not in the space–time domain; they have no place in reality. You can see social behavior but not social institutions; cultural events but not culture itself. The material world provides the environment in which an abstract artifact is realized. The existence of languages, social institutions, and cultures can be inferred from space–time events but not seen.

B. Hillier notes: “Despite this strange way of being, abstract artifacts seem to be what society is made of. We cannot imagine what a society would be like without its languages, its characteristic social forms of behavior, its cultural forms and institutions. Perhaps we can assume that abstract artifacts are what they are precisely because their purpose is to generate and manage dispersed events, and thereby transform a distributed collectivity of speakers, behaviors or social subjects into some system” [23].

In fact, “despite their apparent strangeness,” B. Hillier continues, “abstract artifacts create many mysteries that science seeks to explain with the help of natural systems. For example, they seem capable of reproducing over time and undergoing morphogenesis, which implies that they must have some internal principles or laws that generate stability and change, as natural systems do [23].

Abstract artifacts, that is, the symbolism or identity of space, manifest themselves in two ways: through the spatiotemporal events they generate and the configurational patterns that support them and allow people to generate and interpret them. The method of spatial syntactic analysis, using configurational structures to generate spatiotemporal events, also makes it possible to project these configurational structures into space–time and thereby translate them into the future. By deploying objects and creating spatiotemporal events, we transmit the structures and, through them, the abstract artifacts that sustain society as a communicative system [23].

4.5. The jewish museum

Let us consider the symbolic fullness of the memorial and public complex through the configuration of its spaces using the example of the Jewish Museum by D. Libeskind.

Libeskind based the project of the Jewish Museum on three principal ideas: to emphasize the enormous intellectual and cultural significance of the Jewish population of Berlin for the history of the city, to remind every Berliner of the tragedy of the Holocaust, and, finally, to realize the emptiness that remained in Berlin after the deportation of the Jewish population as an irreparable loss in the future development of the city and the whole of Europe [27].

Thus, the Symbol of Emptiness plays a key role in the idea of the project. It permeates the museum building – a straight line that cannot be crossed, which cannot be forgotten, around which the exhibition is placed. Sixty bridges are built across it, opening into this emptiness. Visitors walk on bridges from one museum wall to another (Figure 2a and b).

Figure 2

The path to the exhibition halls also begins with emptiness. The entrance to the new building is designed from the side of the existing Baroque building of the former courthouse, in the lobby, which begins a long dramatic descent below the foundation level into an empty narrow tunnel that leads to the museum halls. Libeskind emphasizes that the new and old buildings, like the history of the Jews and Berlin, are connected underground and in time but externally autonomous [20] (Figure 2c).

Three paths lead from the old building to the new, three underground roads that have symbolic meaning. The first, to the main exhibition, is the path of hope, symbolizing the revival and continuation of Berlin’s history. The second tunnel, leading to the Hoffman Garden, to the memorial to the fallen, is the path of the exile and emigration of the Jewish people. Finally, the third path, the shortest, leads to a blind corner into the emptiness of the Holocaust Tower, a separate structure specially built in the courtyard. An unprepared viewer who mistakenly finds himself in this blind corner must experience, if not the horror of the crematorium, then at least the inescapability of the Holocaust [27].

The plan drawing is built on a combination of two lines of thought: organization and interconnection. One is straight (a symbol of that emptiness) but broken into segments; the other is broken but stretches endlessly. The broken line drawing symbolizes a torn six-pointed Star of David. The holes scattered on the facade are also not just supergraphics – they are sixty fragments – “stations” of the same Star of David (Figure 2c and d).

Thus, the museum’s symbolism is ambiguous: it is an invisible, irrationally connected star, a symbol of Faith; a monument to the deported and lost Berliners; and, finally, an urban apocalypse with a piercing Void, not yet filled with anything but memory and horror.

Libeskind managed to convey through abstract artifacts the meaning of Judaism, which differs from other religions in that the highest dignity of man is not all-forgiving love but knowledge. Perception of this museum requires a prepared viewer; and the multi-layeredness of meanings and semantic meanings are revealed through the masterfully conducted configuration of internal spaces. This museum is a school of professionalism, humanism, and hope [27].