The analysis entails an identification of the architectural-semantic order of typology through the built object, using a composite ‘protocol of analysis’ which originates in the gray area amongst the disciplines by which one understands linguistic and plastic representational systems. This order prescribes the ‘nature’ of meaning here, and an insidious investigation [which results in the naming of the elements of this order] becomes capable of effecting a critique of conventional unities of architectural representation.
As I consider architecture as construed of a crypto-grammatical (i.e., syntactic) representation, it becomes evident that in attempting to work upon architectural 'syntax', typology is a second order system. And that analysis of typology shares some traits with the study of myth: mythology.
One studies the typological instituteds within a 'given' architecture in its [fossilic state]?: i.e., the inscriptions - marks of the state; 'internal' regulative principles; codes of their 'inner' coherence.
It is understood that the meaning of any given work of architecture is shared equally by its conditions of Being (i.e., the fossilic) and the techniques of its making.