This account begins with the foundational framework on which the Semantic Color Space is constructed, ensuring that the criteria necessary for a valid semantic classification system are met.

Semantics states that there are antagonistic semantic signifiers, which convey elementary meaning. Leech1 argues that the analysis of meanings is often thought of as dissecting the meaning of a word into its smallest distinctive features, into components that contrast with other components. In 1963, J.J. Katz introduced semantic markers as elementary components of meaning.2 Katz's markers have meaning within the opposition marked/unmarked. Meaning is the same (synonymous) or is opposite (antonymous). ‘True’ opposes ‘false,’ ‘pair’ opposes ‘unpair,’ ‘light’ opposes ‘dark’. These markers are binary in nature, always appearing as pairs of opposing concepts.

Within the semantic space outlined here, three dimensions define the framework for a set of fundamental bipolar markers: back versus front, top versus bottom, and left versus right. This tri-axial arrangement of semantic markers establishes the spatial foundation upon which this classification model is constructed.

The significance of binary oppositions in semantics may raise questions, but there are several compelling reasons for their importance. A well-known example is the structuralist approach of anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, who argued that binary oppositions serve as distinctive features within a code and are used as such in rituals and mythology.3 In 1963, Katz and Fodor introduced the concept of semantic markers as elementary components of meaning, emphasizing the role of oppositions like marked versus unmarked—e.g., true versus false, paired versus unpaired, light versus dark. Later, in the late 1960s, Osgood published A Comparative Study of Cultures4 and introduced the semantic differential technique. This method, designed to measure the connotative meaning of concepts, employs a set of bipolar adjective scales of intensity. Osgood and his team observed that oppositeness is a fundamental characteristic across languages. His semantic differential technique has gained widespread acceptance, particularly in design disciplines such as architecture, where it is used to evaluate the ambience of spaces.

Even in the earliest conceptions of cosmology, emerging cultures emphasized complementary dualities, which were deeply embedded in the conceptual and metaphorical language of their earliest written myths. Von Dassow5 explains: “The Egyptian afterlife, like many Egyptian conceptions, was characterized by a contrasting duality: a chthonic netherworld presided over by Osiris, Lord of Resurrection, and a solar/astral existence, in which the sun god Re was supreme.” A similar dualistic framework is evident in the worship practices of the early Slavs, who venerated both the sun and the moon, as well as two primary gods—Bialbug, the white god, and Zernebug, the black god. Znayenko6: “There is no reason to doubt that an ancient conception of a dualistic origin of the world did underlie the fundamental beliefs of the early Slavs and that the two deities, the white one and the black one, reflect this opposition.”

The basic idea of a dualistic dialectic is also present in the Chinese concepts of yin and yang. Campbell7 notes that these are somewhat analogous to the Indian symbols of the lingam and yoni. However, while the Indian tradition emphasizes the sexual connotations of the pair, the Chinese approach leans toward a more abstract, mathematical (geometrical) form of representation. In this way, the Book of Changes8 can be seen as a kind of geometric mythology and may even be considered the earliest semantic lexicon.

These contrasting tendencies that have colored every bit of many mythologies is also apparent in the evolution of color terminology in languages. In Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution, Berlin and Kay9 proposed that the first two color terms in any language were black (dark–cool) and white (light–warm).

Summarized, in the Semantic Color Space, bipolar markers are arranged along the three axes of depth, height, and width. Now, let’s examine how and why these markers are encoded within this simple structure.