Architectural Technologies Studies

Architectural Space Syntax in Hafez’s Ghazals(A Semiotic Analysis of Spatial Elements and Typologies)

Articles in Press

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Hanieh Basiri

Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Restoration, Shiraz University of Art, Shiraz, Iran.

10.22034/ats.2026.2096914.1088
Abstract
Aims: The relationship between architecture and poetry is fundamentally rooted in their shared capacity to structure human experience, transforming the mundane into profound, perceptual, and interpretive forms. In the Divan of Hafez, architectural elements and spatial settings are not merely decorative appendages or fleeting imagery; they are foundational components of a complex semiotic apparatus. However, prevailing scholarship has frequently reduced these elements to isolated metaphors, symbols, or static descriptive markers, thereby neglecting the systemic structural relationships that govern the formation of “poetic space.” This study aims to bridge this gap by investigating how architectural and spatial signs are organized within the poetic fabric of Hafez’s work. By deconstructing the internal architecture of the ghazals, this research seeks to elucidate how structural relationships contribute to the production of meaning and the consolidation of poetic spatiality. Furthermore, it aims to develop a robust typology of “architectural spatial syntax,” analyzing the transition of architectural elements from their conventional physical utilities to multifaceted cultural, mystical, perceptual, and interpretive meanings. Ultimately, this inquiry explores how the Divan functions as a built environment of language, where spatial configurations engage in the construction of subjective experience, spiritual movement, and interpretive depth.
Materials & Methods: This qualitative study employs an analytical-interpretive methodology, rigorously grounded in the principles of structural semiotics. The primary corpus consists of selected ghazals from the Divan of Hafez, specifically focusing on verses where architectural, spatial, and place-related elements serve as active agents in the generation of meaning. The selection criteria were not restricted to the mere frequency of architectural lexicon; rather, they were determined by the functional role of these signs—their relational positioning, their participation in oppositional structures, and their integration with verbs, motion, spatial orientation, and poetic imagery. The unit of analysis was calibrated to the scope of spatial signification, varying between the individual verse and the broader context of the entire ghazal. The analytical process proceeded through two interconnected, hierarchical levels. First, the “morphology of space” was established to identify, categorize, and code architectural elements based on their dominant spatial properties and semantic functions. Second, the “syntax of space” was applied to examine the syntagmatic, paradigmatic, and dialectic relations among these elements—analyzing how juxtapositions, displacements, and oppositions generate meaning. By delineating these two levels, the study moves beyond impressionistic reading, establishing a formal grammar of spatial signs that accounts for the coherence of Hafez’s spatial imagination. This methodology ensures that the findings are rooted in the internal logic of the text, rather than relying on external historical or diachronic explanations.
Findings: The findings demonstrate that the poetic quality of architectural space in Hafez’s work does not derive from the singular presence of architectural vocabulary, but from the sophisticated ways in which spatial signs are combined, displaced, and reinterpreted within the poetic structure. At the level of the morphology of space, four principal categories emerged: “threshold and boundary,” which map the liminality of presence; “verticality and transcendence,” which activate the axis of spiritual ascent; “passage and separation,” which represent the dynamics of transit; and “light and vision,” which transform spatiality into an epistemological field of revelation. At the level of the syntax of space, the study identified four composite spatial types: “spaces of formal ritual and asceticism”; “spaces of Rind-like liberation and manifestation”; “spaces of presence and boundary” ; and “spaces of openness and unstable dwelling”. These types do not exist as static objects but emerge through the constant tension of syntagmatic and oppositional relations. Through the mechanism of “defamiliarization” Hafez strips these elements of their normative functions, re-coding them within a poetic system that facilitates multifaceted cultural and mystical discourse. The principal innovation of this research lies in establishing a structural correspondence between spatial morphology and syntactic organization, proving that meaning in Hafez’s work is a product of relational dynamics rather than isolated imagery.
Conclusion: This study concludes that architectural space in Hafez’s Divan constitutes a dynamic and cohesive signifying system, where meaning is generated through the continuous interaction of elements, spatial relations, and cultural codes. The architectural syntax of Hafez is not predicated on static references to built forms, but on the structural logic through which physical reality is transcended and transformed into an experiential, symbolic, and interpretive field. The displacement of the “dominant function” of architectural elements stands as a central mechanism in the poetic construction of this space, rendering the familiar unfamiliar and the physical metaphysical. For the field of architecture, the significance of this reading lies not in the formal mimicry of historical motifs, but in the extraction and transfer of a logic of spatial relation. Concepts such as “threshold and boundary” offer a framework for rethinking architectural pause, delay, and entry sequences; “movement and passage” provide a grammar for organizing circulation and transitional arrival; while “light and vision” suggest methods for orchestrating discovery and phenomenological shifts in perception. By bridging the gap between literary critique and architectural theory, this research proposes a productive dialogue between the architect as a literary reader and the literary-minded architect. It argues that architecture and poetry converge in their shared capacity to organize human relations and experience. Consequently, this study suggests that architectural education can be enriched by encouraging students to transition from the passive observation of elements to the active decoding of spatial relations—translating the experiential logic found in literary texts into a more reflexive and meaningful spatial organization.

Keywords

Hafez
Architectural Space
Structural Semiotics
Spatial Syntax
Defamiliarization
Subjects
1-    Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I., & Angel, S. (1977). A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. Oxford University Press.
2-    Ahsanat, S., Ardalan, H., Safian, M. J., & Zaker Haghighi, K. (2019). Transformation of the perception process of artwork in the relationship between sign and concept. Honarhaye Ziba: Honarhaye Tajassomi, 24(4), 51–60. [Persian]
3-    Ahari, Z. (2008). Application of Charles Morris’s method in the study of urban architectural signs. In Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Semiotics of Art: Cultural Semiotics. Institute for Compilation, Translation, and Publication of Artistic Works. [Persian]
4-    Bagheri, S., & Aeinifar, A. (2016). Specification and delimitation of the scope and manifestation of signs in architecture. Armanshahr Architecture & Urban Development, 17, 1–10. [Persian]
5-    Balkhari Ghahi, H. (2009). Orang: A collection of essays on the theoretical foundations of art. Soureh Mehr Publications. [Persian]
6-    Bamanian, M. R., Jahanbakhsh, H., & Delzendeh, A. (2021). A comparative study of architecture and poetry in the Safavid era based on the stylistic complexities. Andisheh Memari, 5(9), 84–100. [Persian]
7-    Basiri, H., Tahbaz, M., & Motaki, Z. (2022). In search of architectural poetics. Soffeh, 9, 13–26. [Persian]
8-    Bolouri Bazzaz, M., & Qayoumi Bidhendi, M. (2024). Theoretical foundations of architectural criticism with a deep formalist approach. Shirazeh Book. [Persian]
9-    Broadbent, G. (1980). Architectural objects and their design as a subject for semiotic studies. Design Studies, 1(4), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(80)90004-9
10-    Broadbent, G. (2006). A simple guide to the theory of signs in architecture. Ma: Journal of Iranian Architecture, 21, 16–21. [Persian]
11-    Chandler, D. (2007). Semiotics: The basics (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203014264
12-    Chandler, D. (2008). The basics of semiotics (M. Parsa, Trans.). Soureh Mehr Publications. [Persian]
13-    Chegini, S. (in press). Semiotic analysis of the symbols of nature in Fin Garden of Kashan based on Peirce’s approach. Pazhuheshhaye Memari-ye Novin. https://doi.org/10.22034/ats.2026.2084453.1024 [Persian]
14-    Doroudian, V. A., & Shafiei Kadkani, M. R. (2004). This elixir of existence: On Hafez. Aydin Publishing. [Persian]
15-    Eco, U. (1968). La struttura assente: Introduzione alla ricerca semiologica [The absent structure: Introduction to semiological research]. Bompiani.
16-    Falahat, M. S., & Nouhi, S. (2012). The nature of signs and their role in enhancing the sense of place in architectural space. Honarhaye Ziba: Memari va Shahrsazi, 17(1), 17–25. [Persian]
17-    Fereshteh-Hekmat, F. (2010). Poetic spatialization in artwork. Bagh-e Nazar, 15, 37–50. [Persian]
18-    Flamaki, M. (2017). The space of Hafez. Fazā Publishing. [Persian]
19-    Ghaffari, A., & Flamaki, M. M. (2016). Reflection of semiotic theories in the interpretation of architecture and the city. Urban Management, 45, 339–350. [Persian]
20-    Hafez, S. M. M. (2017). Divan of Hafez (M. Qazvini & Q. Ghani, Eds.; 6th ed.). Zavvar. [Persian]
21-    Hawkes, T. (1977). Structuralism and semiotics in literary analysis. University of California Press.
22-    Jakobson, R. (1987). Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbances. In K. Pomorska & S. Rudy (Eds.), Language in literature (pp. 95–114). Harvard University Press.
23-    Khatounabadi, A. (2015). A stylistic comparison of Iranian mosque architecture and Persian poetry. Journal of Islamic Architecture Research, 9, 49–66. [Persian]
24-    Khaki-Qasr, A. (2004). Toward poetic architecture [Master’s thesis, Yazd University, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning]. [Persian]
25-    Khorramshahi, B. (2008). Hafeznameh: An explanation of the vocabulary, proper names, key concepts, and difficult verses of Hafez. Scientific and Cultural Publications. [Persian]
26-    Lang, J. (2007). Creating architectural theory (A. Aeinifar, Trans.). University of Tehran Press. [Persian]
27-    Mahdavi-Nejad, M. J., Ebrahimi, R., & Mahbadi, F. (2011). A study of romantic elements in literature and architecture. Pazhuhesh-e Honar, 1, 17–31. [Persian]
28-    Nabilou, A. (2013). A study of binary oppositions in Hafez’s ghazals. Persian Language and Literature, 74, 69–91. [Persian]
29-    Norberg-Schulz, C. (2014). Architecture, meaning, and place (V. Nowrouz-Borazjani, Trans.). Jahan-e Jahan. [Persian]
30-    Nouri, F., Soroush, M. M., Foroutan, M., & Shairi, H. R. (2021). The poetics of architecture in selected contemporary religious works: A comparative study of poetic capacities in poetry and architecture. Bagh-e Nazar, 18(98), 95–106. https://doi.org/10.22034/bagh.2021.241150.4612 [Persian]
31-    Pallasmaa, J. (2016). The embodied image: Imagination and imagery in architecture (A. Akbari, Trans.). Parham Naqsh. [Persian]
32-    Pourafkari, N. (1993). Comprehensive dictionary of psychology and psychiatry (Vol. 1). Farhang Moaser. [Persian]
33-    Rafati, M., Zia-Shahabi, P., Masoudi, A., & Hosseini, M. (2022). A study of the similarities and differences between the concept of space in linguistics and architecture. Comparative Literature, 16(64), 237–252. [Persian]
34-    Rahimian, M. (2004). Cinema: Architecture in motion. Soroush-e Nov Publishing. [Persian]
35-    Rahmani, H., Pourzargar, M. R., & Mansouri, B. (2022). Phenomenology of Hafez’s poetic teachings in the process of architectural learning based on van Manen’s approach. Bagh-e Nazar, 9(117), 59–74. [Persian]
36-    Rahmani, H., & Pourzargar, M. R. (2024). Reconsidering the nature of contemporary architectural space in the heritage of Iran based on a reading of the poetic space, the manifest space, and the latent space of Hafez’s poetry. Naqshejahan, 14(1), 35–47. [Persian]
37-    Razavi, N. (2003). Imagined place. Farhangestan-e Honar, 8, 23–24. [Persian]
38-    Safavi, K. (2004). An introduction to semantics. Soureh Mehr Publications. [Persian]
39-    Sarmastani, M., Foroutan, M., & Tahouri, N. (2018). Poetic creation in urban space: A semiotic analysis of the urban space of Bagh-e Boland in Shiraz. Journal of Identity and Urban Space, 12(2), 67–78. [Persian]
40-    Saussure, F. de. (1983). Course in general linguistics (R. Harris, Trans.). Duckworth. (Original work published 1916)
41-    Shafiei Kadkani, M. R. (2004). Forms of imagination in Persian poetry: A critical study of the evolution of poetic imagery and the development of rhetoric theory in Islam and Iran. Nil. [Persian]
42-    Shayegan, D. (2014). Five climates of presence: Ferdowsi, Khayyam, Rumi, Saadi, and Hafez; A discussion of the poetic nature of Iranians (4th ed.). Farhang Moaser. [Persian]
43-    Shayestehfar, M. (2009). Interaction between architecture and Persian poetry in Timurid and Safavid buildings. Islamic Art Studies, 6(11), 79–104. [Persian]
44-    Shklovsky, V. (1990). Theory of prose (B. Sher, Trans.). Dalkey Archive Press.
45-    Shklovsky, V. (1998). Art as technique. In J. Rivkin & M. Ryan (Eds.), Literary theory: An anthology (pp. 15–21). Blackwell Publishers. (Original work published 1917)
46-    Tahan, A. (2010). Association of meanings in Hafez’s poetry. Pazhuheshhaye Adabi, 26, 101–130. [Persian]
Architectural Technologies Studies

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 07 September 2026

  • Receive Date 07 August 2026
  • Accept Date 18 August 2026
  • First Publish Date 07 September 2026
  • Publish Date 07 September 2026

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us