Languages as Ontologies: 2 Comparative Axes of Experience

Introduction

In our previous discussion, we considered the idea that each language offers a distinct ontology of construal: a structured lattice of processes, participants, circumstances, relations, and modality through which potential experience is actualised. Here, we take the next step, providing a comparative sketch of ontological axes across languages. The goal is not exhaustive description, but to illustrate the diversity of semiotic actualisation.

---

Axes of Ontological Variation

We retain the five axes introduced earlier:

1. Process Type Ontology – how processes are categorised and foregrounded

2. Participant Ontology – how participants are individuated and related to processes

3. Circumstantial Ontology – which circumstances are foregrounded and how they are encoded

4. Relational Ontology – how entities and processes are connected (spatial, temporal, possessive, part-whole)

5. Modality and Epistemic Ontology – how certainty, possibility, and source of knowledge are encoded

---

Comparative Sketch

Axis	English	Japanese	Warlpiri (Central Australian)	Hopi
Process Type	Material, mental, relational clearly distinguished	Material, mental, relational, with frequent emphasis on stative aspect	Focus on action and state blending; aspect and habituality foregrounded	Emphasis on process as temporal and aspectual patterns rather than agentive causation
Participant	Individuated, discrete; agentive foregrounded	Animate vs. inanimate distinctions; topicality affects prominence	Relational individuation; participants encoded relative to kinship and landscape	Participants often encoded relationally to place and temporal cycles
Circumstance	Optional adjuncts; time and place usually foregrounded	Place, time, and direction marked with particles; some optional, some obligatory	Absolute spatial reference obligatory (cardinal directions), temporal adjuncts integrated	Temporal and spatial relations encoded morphologically; situational context foregrounded
Relational	Possession and spatial relations explicit	Possession marked via relational verbs; locative distinctions nuanced	Relations encoded via verb morphology; interdependence foregrounded	Relations encoded in verbs and affixes; topological relations central
Modality/Epistemic	Modal verbs for possibility, necessity	Evidentiality often lexicalized; modality intertwined with politeness	Limited grammaticalised modality; context-dependent inference	Evidence and certainty encoded morphologically; speaker perspective integrated

---

Observations

1. Foregrounding differs: English foregrounds discrete entities and clear process categories; Warlpiri foregrounds relational networks among participants and processes.

2. Circumstantial encoding shapes construal: Absolute spatial reference in Warlpiri changes how motion and location are actualised.

3. Modality and epistemic perspective vary dramatically: Some languages embed evidentiality and certainty into the grammar itself, making speaker perspective central to the ontology of events.

4. Ontology is relational, not representational: All these distinctions pattern construal, not independent reality. Languages actualise experience differently but draw on the same field of potential phenomena.

---

Conclusion

This comparative sketch demonstrates that language-specific ontologies are semiotic lenses on potential experience. Each language selectively actualises processes, participants, circumstances, relations, and modality, foregrounding some distinctions while backgrounding others.

The diversity of linguistic ontologies underscores a core insight of relational ontology: meaning and reality are inseparable, and the diversity of language illustrates the multiple, equally valid ways in which experience can be actualised.