Languages as Ontologies: 1 Construal, Experience, and the Ideational Metafunction

Introduction

If language is a theory of experience, as the ideational metafunction of systemic functional linguistics suggests, then different languages can be seen as offering different ontologies of experience. This does not imply that each language constructs a separate “reality,” but rather that each provides a distinct lattice of distinctions through which phenomena are actualised. In this post, I want to sketch the general terrain of what it means to speak of a language’s ontology, how it relates to our meaning = reality stance, and the axes along which languages diverge in their construal of experience.

---

Language and the Actualisation of Experience

At the heart of the ideational metafunction is the principle that language is a semiotic system for construing experience. Processes, participants, and circumstances are not neutral descriptors; they are patterns of potential actualisation. When we speak of different languages, we are considering how different semiotic systems partition and organise the same field of potential phenomena.

From a relational-ontology perspective:

• Reality is not independent of construal.

• Phenomena only exist as actualised instances within a semiotic system.

• Language differences reflect different ways of actualising the same potential, rather than creating multiple independent worlds.

---

Dimensions of Linguistic Ontology

We can consider the ontological character of a language in terms of several axes:

1. Process Type Ontology

Languages vary in how they categorise and foreground processes: material, mental, relational, behavioral, verbal, and existential.

• Example: English clearly distinguishes mental from material processes; some languages foreground aspectual or temporal distinctions over agentive causation.

2. Participant Ontology

Languages differ in how participants are individuated and related to processes.

• English treats objects as discrete participants; some indigenous languages emphasise relational individuation relative to the environment or community.

3. Circumstantial Ontology

Languages prioritise different kinds of circumstantial information—time, place, manner, cause, accompaniment—and can make some distinctions obligatory that are optional in other languages.

4. Relational Ontology

Languages vary in how entities are related—possession, part-whole, spatial, and temporal relations. Some languages integrate relational nuance directly into verb or participant morphology.

5. Modality and Epistemic Ontology

Languages encode possibility, necessity, certainty, and evidentiality differently, shaping the “ontological status” of events within discourse.

---

Comparing Linguistic Ontologies

We can visualise each language’s ontology as a lattice of semiotic distinctions:

[Processes] → [Participants] → [Circumstances] → [Relations] → [Modality]

• Each node represents distinctions available in that language.

• Differences appear as new categories, different obligatory distinctions, or alternative relational patterns.

• Mapping this lattice across languages reveals patterns of construal, showing the semiotic flexibility of human experience.

---

Meaning = Reality and Language-Specific Ontology

This approach aligns seamlessly with the stance that meaning = reality:

• Reality is never observer-independent; it only exists as it is construed.

• Languages are semiotic tools for actualising structured experience.

• Different languages reveal the diverse possibilities of actualisation, not multiple independent realities.

In short: linguistic ontologies are ontologies of construal, not ontologies of separate worlds. They demonstrate how the same potential field of phenomena can be patterned differently, foregrounding some distinctions, backgrounding others, and shaping the very experience of the world.

---

Conclusion

The notion of language-specific ontology invites us to see linguistic diversity as ontologically productive. Each language provides a unique lattice through which potential experience is actualised, foregrounding certain aspects of reality and reconfiguring relationships between processes, participants, and circumstances.

In future posts, we can explore concrete comparative examples, mapping the lattices of English, Japanese, and select indigenous languages to show how ontologies diverge and intersect.