Many times  architects over feels the need “to say” something through their work, “to express” the thoughts, the sentiments or even his reflections. Sometimes he wants to “poke” interest, other times to impress and other to “perturb” a third person. 

 The last expressions are very common.Is this however possible? Can somebody transport his meanings, logically or sentimental, through a building? This would be possible only with the use of a language. An architectural language that would have a lot of resemblances with the language that we communicate. However do they really have any resemblances or are perfectly different? Can the first bring meanings at equivalence with the second? Could someone say that the architectural language comply in “syntactic” rules and how this is related with the concept behind a composition?

 With vaulting horse all the above, the present research dealt with the language. Not only with the language that we speak, but with the language with which we speak or want to speak, through the architecture. Finally, questions as the above is answered, in by a course of search and comparisons while at the same time is approached the term concept, perhaps the most used term in the first steps of architectural composition, precisely there that the architect does not have get busy still with technical subjects, but it feels the need “to speak”.  

 If we clearly define in our brain, architectural as one more language, if we face it like this, maybe in the end we are helped to express ourselves more deeply and more immediately.