**4. Buildings and their names as semiotic resources**

 Architectural objects such as buildings and their names within a landscape form a language. They are units of a landscape language. Their creation and use create patterns and communicative sign systems. Furthermore, buildings and space place names derive their energy from one who designs, constructs, and names them. This means there are even power dynamics as well as circumstances or events that may be involved in the designing, constructing, as well as naming of a thing or a place. The colonized participated too in various ways in naming as well as erecting buildings from their worldview, thus creating places and spaces in response to new realities they now experienced.

 Places, spaces, and objects (buildings), therein, follow the triad and a variety of signs [16, 17]. We find them either as *icons*, *symbols,* or *indexes* depending with the ultimate meaning intended. In other words, using or handling buildings, spaces, and their names as semiotic resources means *meaning* is not fixed all the time; hence, the ability of these spaces at one point becomes *icons* on the other *indices* and yet on the other being *symbols,* but all the time confined within the sign-signifiersignified conception. From this background, therefore, lodges and restaurants in Zimbabwe at the backdrop of the FTLRP assume a similar character.

The practices and systems observable in contemporary Zimbabwe mark out the definition and "ownership" of spaces created by the land reform program. The program empowered the locals to design, construct, and "name" these new spaces. Remember, to name is to control; thus, the locals who partook in setting up the said lodges and restaurants also named new spaces as a reflection to the newly found economic opportunities. They have done so consciously aiming at creating indigenous spaces in order to evoke as well as communicate African sensibilities and their heritage.
