Since, the discourse analysis naturally occurring in language of any social context ; can the meaning of architectural language fall into these categories?
Discourse Analysis is an interdisciplinary approach to critical social research. Its orientation thus oscillates between and even among disciplines. From a discourse analysis perspective, there are possibilities of committing dialogues between disciplines either in the theoretical framework or in the research methodology. The necessary condition that one must observe when deploying discourse analysis as an approach to the analysis of meaning is that the research phenomenon must contain semiosis- language as an element of meaning making of a social process.
Architectural language as language in any field is also a resource of meaning making that can produce a social or physical reality, be it a policy paper or a shipyard. This reality cannot exempt itself from discursive practice, that is, it is socially, culturally and discursively constructed. Language is always internalized in whether you teach philosophy or design a suspension bridge. What must be considered when analyzing meaning of architectural language is the appropriate analytical categories. To sum up, discourse analysis can used as an approach to the analysis of meaning of architectural language.
Discourse concerns social practice and the language which accompinies it. In other words discourse of architecture is about the theory and practice of that field and the language which accomponies that activity. To conclude, the archetectural actvity subsumes language but not vice versa
Architectural discourse locates in philosophical level supported by concrete logic, while form and meaning in architecture locates in theoretical level depends upon semantic approach. Architectural discourse is rational and nearly objective while architectural meaning depends upon subjective response.