Languages as Ontologies II: 3 Construal of Space and Perspective

If processes shape becoming and participants shape being, spatial construal shapes position and relation — how phenomena are anchored, located, and made intelligible in experience. Again, languages do not “map physical space”; they pattern the horizon within which phenomena may be situated.

1. How experience is anchored

Languages differ in how they allow speakers to locate themselves and others, both physically and cognitively:

• Egocentric vs. geocentric frames: English and most European languages default to egocentric coordinates: “left,” “behind,” “in front.” In contrast, Guugu Yimithirr (an Australian Aboriginal language) requires geocentric reference: cardinal directions (“north,” “south”) govern all spatial description. The world is not merely “relative to me”; it is always anchored in the environment itself.

• Directional and topological richness: Some languages, like Tzeltal (Mayan), grammaticise uphill/downhill and uphill-facing orientation, encoding not just position but preferred movement vectors. Spatial construal is inseparable from processual flow.

• Visibility and accessibility: In Japanese, distinctions such as in/view verbs or the use of demonstratives encode not only position but perceptual and social accessibility — whether a phenomenon is directly observable, known, or socially salient.

The key insight: spatial language is a lens on how phenomena enter into the speaker’s horizon, not a “translation” of metric coordinates.

2. Spatial construal as ontology

Through these systems, languages enact a default ontology of location and perspective:

• Egocentric orientation (English, French) — the speaker is the primary anchor; space is relational but centered on the self.

• Geocentric orientation (Guugu Yimithirr, Tzeltal) — phenomena are located in a landscape of intrinsic coordinates; relationality is ecological, not self-centered.

• Perceptual and social anchoring (Japanese, Korean) — entities exist within the horizon of attention, visibility, or social relevance, foregrounding relational access over absolute placement.

This demonstrates that what counts as “here” or “there” is patterned by language, not given in a universal space.

3. Implications for narrative and cognition

• Storytelling: An egocentric language produces narratives anchored to the narrator’s journey and perspective; a geocentric language produces stories that unfold across the landscape itself, often emphasizing continuity and environmental interaction.

• Cognition: Spatial reasoning, memory, and planning are shaped by habitual construal: how one encodes directions, relations, and relative salience is mediated by the patterns the language offers.

4. Closing reflection

Languages do not merely “label locations.” They construct the horizon within which experience occurs, determining what can be salient, accessible, or relationally foregrounded. Spatial construal is an ontological cut: it structures not only perception but the lived, narratable world.

With processes, participants, and spatial construal in place, we now have a rich foundation for exploring agency, causation, and temporality, completing the core triad of experience in relational ontology.