臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

民居類型呈現一致卻又多樣的面貌，歸因於民居類型具備衍生特質。本研究以編碼系統為工具，分析馬來半島民居類型的衍生，歸納成類型規則系統。規則系統可以描述馬來半島的所有民居案例，經由規則系統的衍生分析，可以發現馬來民居的發展潛力。
馬來半島民居是一種以主屋為基礎的屋群組合，作為單一家庭的居住使用。以干闌民居原型為起點，本研究發現兩種馬來民居基型：Serambi-house與 Jemuran-house、多種虛體與實體的衍生現象、與諸多民居案例。從原型到民居案例，由編碼系統進行解析。
編碼系統是衍生分析的工具，在空間、屋群組合與構造三個研究面向，釐清其構成元素與構成關係，建立嚴謹的描述語言，以便於衍生的書寫或運算。
由編碼系統之分析，可以理解Serambi-house基型的空間配置以前後排列為主，Jemuran-house基型的空間配置以左右並列為主。屋群組合的主屋、次屋與附加體之構成關係有附著、相鄰與分離三種。構造系統由單屋與附加體組成。單屋構造有二種，一是橋構造，一是箱構造，發展成六種支撐系統；附加體構造有四類：(單屋面)附加體、附加屋、附加廊、與附加平台，總計二十一種附加構法，擔負規模擴充與連結屋群的任務。
對每個民居案例進行案例編碼，由屋群組合編碼、空間編碼、構造編碼組成。編碼旨在描述元素及其構成關係，此外之重要資料以「設定值」另列。所有案例經編碼後，概分為九個組群，每個組群內的案例編碼大致相同，兼具局部差異。比較各組群案例與其編碼，歸納成類型規則系統。
類型規則系統有四個主規則：1.「空間規則」下轄Serambi-house空間規則與Jemuran-house空間規則。2.「主屋形成規則」由單屋附加、多屋鄰接、單屋轉折三個子規則組成。3.「屋群組合規則」由主次屋相離、主次屋相鄰、主屋附加次屋三個子規則組成。4.「構造規則」由單屋構造與附加體構造規則組成。
每個民居案例均可由一組類型規則組合予以描述，民居類型的地區風格可由不同的類型規則組合予以表達。馬來半島的整體民居體系亦可由類型規則作精要描述。
規則系統是一種生成機制，具備民居類型的成長內涵與衍生潛力。為探討馬來民居類型的涵容性，以潛力釋放進行屋群組合的潛力分析，將類型規則解構與重組，獲得屋群組合大量的可能性；同時衍生新的、多樣的空間格局。以規則轉化進行構造系統的潛力分析，發掘單屋構造與附加體構造的發展潛力與限制。討論馬來民居之構造體系可以三個層面觀察：構造觀念是否為水平轉換系統、構造系統是否可以平行施工、與施工執行是否得當，從而獲得馬來民居構造再發展的契機。
衍生是一種內在機制，民居類型可衍生無窮的可能。演化是一種外在條件的選擇，對於所有的衍生可能進行「選擇」。演化的動力是「調適」，涉及社會、文化、地理、氣候等因素。本研究過程中可觀看到完整的森美蘭民居類型演化實例與不完整的吉蘭丹民居類型演化實例，亦可理解民居類型衍生能力與構造因素成為民居類型基因。

House types generate unanimous but diversified forms. This study, with a coding system, analyzed the generations of Malay houses in Peninsula Malaysia and generalized a typological rule system. The rule system can describe all cases of Malay houses. The generative analysis of the rule system will discover the potentials of the differing types of Malay houses.
The typical Malay house type is a house group developed from the main house for the use of one family. Based on the archetype of a stilt house, two basic types of Malay houses, Serambi-house and Jemuran-house, were found, and so were the generative phenomenon of architectural void and solid, and a large amount of house cases. Generative analysis proceeded with a coding system from archetypes to house cases.
Generative analysis was made by a coding system, which included spatial coding, house grouping coding and construction coding. The coding system clarified the constructive elements and constructive relations among elements, and helped build a serious descriptive language, convenient for the generative writing and computation.
By looking at the analysis with the coding system, the spatial layout of the Serambi-house was known as alignment from front to back, and that of the Jemuran-house as juxtaposition from left side to right side. The constructive relations of house grouping, main house, sub-house and encroachments, were attached, excluded, and adjacent. The construction system of Malay houses was composed of houses and encroached construction. House construction could be understood as bridge construction and box construction which developed into six supporting systems. Four encroached constructions, which were the encroached semi-house, encroached house, encroached corridor, and encroached platform, developed into 21 kinds of encroached constructions which extended the house scale and connected the house grouping.
Every house case was encoded into house grouping, space, and construction. Besides the encoded constructive elements and relations, other important data of the house cases were listed separately as specifiers. All of the encoded Malay house cases were then classified into nine groups, of which the house cases contained the same coding with tiny differences. A typological rule system was generalized from the coding of nine Malay house groups.
The typological rule system included four main rules:
1. “Rule of Space” contained “Rule of Serambi-house space” and “Rule of Jemuran-house space”. 2. “Rule of the Formation of Main house” contained “Rule of House with Encroachment”, “Rule of Adjacent Multi-house”, and “Rule of 90o-angle-turned House”. 3. “Rule of House Grouping” contained “Rule of Exclusion”, “Rule of Adjacency”, and “Rule of Attachment”. 4. “Rule of Construction” contained “Rule of House Construction” and “Rule of Encroachment Construction”.
The local style of house types in different regions may be presented by a set of typological rules, which include Rule 1 to Rule 4. The typological rule system can also concisely describe the whole family of Malay house types in Peninsula Malaysia.
The typological rule system was a generative mechanism with a growing potential. The rule of house grouping, through potential release, was deconstructed and reconstructed to reveal the containment of Malay house types, which could produce large amounts of new house groupings and new spatial layouts. The rule of construction, through transformation of the rules, was analyzed to discover the potential and limitation of house and encroachment constructions.
Generation was an internal mechanism, with which a house type could generate limitless possibilities. Evolution was an external selection, which selected all the generated possibilities. Evolution was driven by adaptability, related to the factors of society, culture, geography, climate, etc. This study has observed a complete evolution of Malay house types in Negeri Sembilan, as well as an incomplete evolution in Kelantan. Generative capability and construction were found to be the typological genes of house types in this study.

第一章 干闌形式與馬來民居
第一節 研究目標 2
一、干闌式民居研究
二、民居研究的新方式

第二節 相關研究 6
一、建築類型研究
二、民居類型研究
三、馬來民居研究

第三節 馬來民居概述 8
一、地理與歷史
二、馬來村落(kampung)
三、馬來民居

第二章 方法及編碼 14
第一節 研究流程
一、研究材料
二、研究方法與流程

第二節 方法模型 17
一、原型：高架之屋
二、兩種基型：
Serambi-house & jemuran-house
三、虛體：空間與屋群組合
四、實體：附加建築
五、實體：兩種房屋構造概念
_橋(bridge)、箱(box)

第三節 類型編碼 20
一、空間編碼
二、屋群編碼
三、構造編碼

第三章 類型規則系統
第一節 類型案例編碼 34
一、編碼原則
二、案例編碼

第二節 地區民居類型分析 64
一、中部民居
二、中北部民居
三、南部民居
四、西北部民居
五、西北部民居(檳城)
六、東北部民居(Jemuran-house)
七、東北部民居(Serambi-house)
八、東北部民居(with selasar)
九、其他

第三節 類型規則系統 72
一、規則的意義
二、類型規則系統
三、類型規則與地區風格

第四章 規則衍生及潛力分析
第一節 釋放與轉化 80
一、潛力釋放
二、規則轉化

第二節 馬來民居潛力分析 82
一、屋群組合潛力分析
二、空間配置潛力分析
三、單屋(Ho)的構造潛力分析
四、附加體(Es)的構造潛力分析

第三節 潛力分析討論 98
一、論構造體系
二、論單屋(Ho)
三、論附加體(Es)
四、論屋群組合與構造觀念
_衍生潛力的機會

第五章 類型與演化
第一節 馬來民居類型研究 104
_階段性結論
一、編碼系統的使用
二、類型規則系統的功能
三、類型潛力的意涵

第二節 馬來民居類型的演化議題 107
_後續研究
一、本研究中的演化訊息
二、空間與構造的交互影響
三、類型衍生能力作為民居類型基因
四、構造作為民居類型基因
五、干闌式民居類型地圖

參考文獻 115

附錄一：2005~2008年馬來半島
(含蘇門答臘島)民居考察路線圖
附錄二：KALAM(UTM)測繪案例
的圖面與編碼
附錄三：馬來半島民居考察案例

01. 王明蘅、王韡儒，《閩臺民居類型形式演化理論試探》，國科會專題研究計畫，臺北，2002。
02. 王明蘅、黃衍明、王韡儒，《類型之演化方法論與關連假說》，國科會專題研究計畫，臺北，2003。
03. 王韡儒，”民居類型之屬類分析—以台閩三合院為例”，《建築學報》，No.55，2006，pp.51-65。
04. 王韡儒、王明蘅，《閩臺漢民居類型譜系試探》，國立成功大學建築系博士論文，臺南，2008。
05. 地景編輯部，《雲南民居》，地景企業股份有限公司，台北，1990。
06. 陳耀如，林俊逸，黃琬雯，徐嘉敏，王明蘅，”民居類型之構造調適力初探—以蘇門答臘Batak Karo、Batak Toba、Minangkabau之民居為例”，《建築學報》，No.66，2008，pp.17-34。
07. 黃蘭翔，《蘇門答臘島上的 Batak族與 Minangkabau族之民族建築》，亞太區域研究論文，中央研究院，台北，1999。
08. 黃憲國、林憲德，《廣西干闌民居之實測研究》，國立成功大學建築系碩士論文，臺南，1995。
09. 曾文照、林憲德，《中國雲南傣族民居之實測研究》，國立成功大學建築系碩士論文，臺南，1991。
10. 喬文娟、林憲德、劉其偉，《熱帶雨林干闌民居之研究—婆羅洲伊班族長屋實測探討》，國立成功大學建築系碩士論文，臺南，1991。
11. 賴福林、林憲德，”貴州黔東南侗族干欄民居之調查分析”，《建築學報》，No.6，1992。
12. 日本建築學會，《日本建築史圖集》，彰國社，東京，1963。
13. 平山育男，《近畿農村の住まい》，INAX，東京，1995。
14. 布野修司，《世界住居誌》，昭和堂，京都，2005。
15. 吉田桂二，《日本之町並探求》，彰國社，東京，1996。
16. 財団法人日本ナショナルトラスト，《伊勢街道市場庄之町並》，1998。
17. 藤井 明，《集落探訪》，建築資料研究社，東京，2000。
18. Abdul Halim Nasir & Wan Hashim Wan Teh, Pengenalan Rumah Melayu Tradisional Semenanjung Malaysia (Introduction to the Traditional Malay Houses in Peninsula Malaysia)”, Darulfikir, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1985.
19. Abdul Halim Nasir & Wan Hashim Wan Teh, The Traditional Malay House, Penerbit Fajar Bakti, Shah Alam, Malaysia, 1995.
20. Anderson, Stanford, Types and Conventions in Time. Toward a History for the Duration and Change of Artifacts, Perspecta, vol.18, pp.109-117, 1982.
21. Chen, Voon Fee (ed.), 1998, ARCHITECTURE-The Encyclopedia of Malaysia, Archipelago Press, Singapore, 1998.
22. Chen, Y.R., Syed Iskandar Ariffin, Wang, M.H., “A Typological Study on the Creative Nucleus of Malay Houses“, Conference on Sustainable Building South-East Asia (SB07SEA), Kuala Lumpur, 2007.
23. Chen, Y.R., Syed Iskandar Ariffin, Wang, M.H., “The Typological Rule System of Malay Houses in Peninsula Malaysia”, Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, vol.7, No.2, Tokyo, Japan, 2008, pp.247-254.
24. Dawson & Gillow, “The Traditional Architecture of Indonesia”, Thames and Hudson, London, 1994.
25. de Quincy, Antoine Quatremère, “Type”, Encyclopedie methodique d’Architecture, vol.3, part II (Paris, 1825) ; translated by Anthony Vidler in Oppositions, 8 (Spring, 1977), pp.148-50.
26. Dumarçay, Jacques, The House in South-East Asia, translated by Michael Smithies, Oxford University Press, Singapore, 1987.
27. Gibbs, Phillip, & Yahya Abdul Rahman, & Zamani Kassim, Buiding a Malay House, Oxford University Press, Singapore, 1987.
28. Habraken, N.J., Transformations of the Site, Awater Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 1982.
29. Habraken, N.J. “Type as a Social Agreement”, The Biannual Asian Congress of Architects, Seoul, 1988.
30. Habraken, N.J., The Structure of the Ordinary, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 1998.
31. Hilton, Roger N., “The Basic Malay House”, Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (JMBRAS), Vol. 29(3), 1956, pp.134-55.
32. Hilton, Roger N., “Defining the Malay House”, Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (JMBRAS), Vol. 65(1), 1992, pp.39-70.
33. Laugier, M. Abbe, An Essay on Architecture, Los Angeles, Henessey and Ingalls, 1977. (First edition, Paris, 1753)
34. Lavin, Sylvia, Quatremere de Quincy and the Invention of a Modern Language of Architecture, MIT Press, 1992.
35. Lim, Jee Yuan, The Malay House：Rediscovering Malaysia’s Indigenous Shelter System, Institut Masyarakat, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia, 1987.
36. Mazumdar, Shampa & Mazumdar Sanjoy, “Rethinking Public and Private Space: Religion and Women in Muslim Society”, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 18(4), Locke Science Publishing Company, Chicago, USA, 2001, pp.302-314.
37. Oliver, Paul (ed.), Encyclopedia of Vernacular Architecture of The World, vol.2, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1997.
38. Oliver, Paul (ed.), Encyclopedia of Vernacular Architecture of The World, vol.3, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1997.
39. Oliver, Paul, Dwellings, Phaidon, New York, 2003.
40. Oliver, Paul, Built to Meet Needs, Elsevier, New York, 2006.
41. Raja Bahrin Shah bin Raja Ahmad Shah, The Terengganu Timber Malay House, PETRONAS, Malaysia, 1988.
42. Ruethai Chaichongrak, Somchai Nil-athi, Ornsiri Panin and Saowalak Posayanonda, The Thai House, River Books, Thailand, 2002.
43. SarDesai, D.R.，Southeast Asia: Past and Present，蔡百詮 譯，《東南亞史》麥田出版，台北，2001。
44. Schefold, Domenig, & Nas, Indonesian Houses, KITLV Press, Leiden, 2003.
45. Semper, Gottfried. The Four Elements of Architecture and Other Writings. Trans. Harry F. Mallgrave and Wolfgang Herrmann (Cambridge, 1989).
46. Syed Iskandar Ariffin, “A Mathematical Explanation of the Magic Measurements Found in the Taj-Ul-Mulk and the Pawang’s Book”, Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (JMBRAS), Vol. LXXIII, 2000, pp.91-105.
47. Syed Iskandar Ariffin, Order in Traditional Malay House Form, vol.1, pp.235-241, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Malaysia, 2001.
48. Tjahjono, Gunawan (ed.), ARCHITECTURE-Indonesia Heritage, Archipelago Press, Singapore, 1998.
49. Waterson, Roxana, The Living House: An Anthropology of Architecture in South-East Asia, Thames and Hudson, London, 1990.