一部《后现代建筑语言》,充满了对建筑“意味”(significant)与“意义”(meaning)的阐释。书中引述了柯布西埃对朗香教堂的解释:弯曲的墙垣是“可见的声学”,屋顶则是“蟹壳”。詹克斯还记载了人们关于悉尼歌剧院的解释比如:“凋谢的花蕾”、“乌龟交尾”、“砸扁的物体”、“修女的头巾”等等。而建筑师本人对它的解释则是“飞翔的鸟翼”、“白色的海贝”、“白帆”。由此可见,对同一座建筑可得到不同的解释。这样,对建筑的解释就具有了多义性。设计者和一般观众的解释往往并不一致。那么,这两类解释中哪类具有权威性?有没有终极的解释?解释的有效性如何?下面就这些问题进行探讨。早在亚里士多德时代的希腊文 A “postmodern architectural language” is full of interpretations of architectural “meaning” and “meaning.” The book quotes Corbusier’s interpretation of the Church of Longchamp: the curved wall is “visible acoustic” and the roof is “crab shell.” Jenks also recorded people’s explanations about the Sydney Opera House such as: “Blossoming buds”, “Turtle copulation”, “flattening objects”, “nun’s turban” and so on. The architect himself explained it as “flying bird’s wing”, “white sea shell” and “white sail”. This shows that different interpretations can be obtained for the same building. In this way, the interpretation of the architecture is ambiguous. The explanations of designers and general audiences are often inconsistent. So, which of the two types of interpretation is authoritative? Is there an ultimate explanation? How effective is the explanation? These questions are discussed below. As early as Aristotle’s Greek