類型基因譜：關於民居類型演化的方法性試探

Genetic Coding of House Types: The Methodic Attempt towards a Theory of Typological Evolution

10.6377/JA.200812.0005

王韡儒(Wei-Ju Wang)；王明蘅(Ming-Hung Wang)

類型演化 ； 因譜 ； 鍵類型 ； 民居 ； Typological Evolution ； Genetic Code ； Key Type ； Han House Type

建築學報

66期（2008 / 12 / 28）

79 - 96

繁體中文

本研究旨在發展一個可以辨識屬類關係並能顯示類型間演化軌跡的類型方法論。有別於第一代屬類分析方法論的生產規則，第二代方法論運用了一組類比於基因的抽象圖式進行類型的基因編碼。在類型基因的五項層級中，最上層的「基礎圖式」以及「操作圖式」構成基型的結構，其餘層級則爲顯型的呈現。研究中發現6項「基礎圖式」以及10項「操作圖式」，足以解釋研究中普遍存在於臺灣及中國東南漢民居的關鍵類型與變異類型，這顯示此方法論傳遞類型演化中動態訊息的能力。本研究的價值在於透過建立基因譜，揭示類型學中複雜的屬類關係而非單純的分類，因而能更接近對類型演化知識真實的理解。

The research is aimed to launch a new methodology for typological study with the capacity of not only discerning taxonomical traits of house types, which can also reveal traces of evolutions among types. As opposed to the rule-based method, also known as the first generation methodology, the new approach employs a set of abstract schemas fashioned in the way not unlike the performance of genetic codes in life science. The analytical technique developed as such is therefore called Genetic Coding, which constitutes the hard core of the second-generation methodology. Among the five layers of coding system, ”Basic Schema” and ”Operative Schema”, the top two layers, are responsible for the formation of genotype structure and the rest layers are for phenotype presentation. 6 Basic schema and 10 Operative Schema are found valid so far that can sufficiently account for all examined cases of Han house type particularly in Taiwan and the southeast China region. Various forms of key type share quite similar if not the same genetic codes, which manifests capability of delivering dynamic evolution traces. It is remarkable as result that through the establishment of genetic pedigree, typology is shown to be complicated taxonomical relations instead of absolute classification, which is much closer to the true understanding of epistemic phenomena known as typological evolution.

1. 王韡儒(2006)。民居類型之屬類分析－以閩臺三合院爲例。建築學報，55，51-68。
   連結：
2. Harbraken, N.J(1988).Type as a Social Agreement.Cambridge, MIT:Biannual Asian Congress of Architecture.
3. Hillier, B.(1984).The Social Logic of Space.Cambridge:
4. Quincy, Q.(1825).Architecture.Paris:
5. Rapoport, A.(1969).House Form and Culture.New Jersey:Prentice Halls Inc..
6. Vidler, Anthony(1976).Oppositions 8.N.Y.:Princeton Architecture Press.
7. Wang, W.J.,Wang, M.H(2008).Embedded Schema: Towards a New Research Program of Traditional Chinese.
8. 王明蘅、王韡儒(2005)。漢民居屬類分析方法論。國科會專案研究計畫。
9. 王明蘅、王韡儒(2001)。閩臺民居類型形式演化理論試探。國科會專案研究計畫。
10. 王明蘅、黃衍明、王韡儒(2002)。類型之演化方法論與關連假說。國科會專案研究計畫。
11. 李乾朗(2004)。臺灣十大民居。臺北，臺灣:晨星出版社。
12. 黃崇岳、楊耀林(2006)。客家圍屋。廣州，中國:華南理工大學出版社。
13. 劉致平、王其明、李乾朗增補(2001)。中國居住建築簡史。台北:藝術家出版社。
14. 龍炳頤(1991)。中國傳統民居建築。香港:香港區域市政局。
15. 戴志堅(2003)。閩臺民居建築的淵源與型態。福州，中國:福建人民出版社。

1. 黃麗美、曾俊達(2015)。北排灣族既存石板屋正前牆整建模式決策研究。文化創意產業研究學報，5(1)，7-18。