Saturday, 22 November 2025

Patterns of Possibility: 6 Experience and Evidence: Cognitive Horizons of Internal vs. External Phenomena

We have explored how processes unfold, participants exist, space situates them, influence flows, and time patterns events. Now we examine the deepest cut languages make: how experience itself is partitioned, distinguishing between internal states, perceptual access, and epistemic evidence.

Relational ontology reminds us: there is no fixed “inner world” or “outer world.” Languages actualise phenomena, structuring what counts as known, seen, felt, or inferred.


1. Evidentiality and source marking

  • Tibetan / Quechua: mandatory marking of direct observation, inference, or hearsay.

  • Turkish: evidentiality distinguishes firsthand vs. reported knowledge.

Cognitive payoff: Speakers habitually monitor the source and reliability of information, integrating epistemic stance into perception and reasoning.


2. Internal states as relational phenomena

  • Japanese / Korean: emotions and mental states are described as occurring to a participant, not as inherently possessed.

  • Habitual construal blurs inner/outer boundaries, situating internal experience relationally.

Insight: Internal states are cognitively foregrounded in relation to context, situation, and others.


3. Accessibility, visibility, and inference

  • Dyirbal / Kalaallisut: distinctions based on perceptual accessibility; entities/events are foregrounded only if perceivable.

  • Classical Chinese / Newar: inference is grammatically encoded, foregrounding deductive reasoning.

Cognitive payoff: Phenomena are encoded according to perception, attention, and inferential access, structuring memory and expectation.


4. Narrative implications

  • Evidential languages: narratives highlight speaker perspective, source of knowledge, and certainty.

  • Relational internal-state languages: narratives foreground emergent mental and emotional dynamics.

  • Accessibility-sensitive languages: narratives structure attention around what can be perceived or inferred.

Takeaway: Internal vs. external construal preconfigures narrative perspective, epistemic reasoning, and relational attention.


5. Concluding Reflection

Habitual construal of internal vs. external phenomena shapes:

  • Attention — what is accessible, visible, or inferable

  • Memory — what is encoded as experienced or known

  • Reasoning — how evidence and perspective are weighted

  • Narrative focus — whose experience, knowledge, or inference drives the story

Languages thus provide cognitive horizons of experience, structuring how phenomena are accessed, interpreted, and shared.


Series-wide Reflection

Across all six domains — process, participant, space, agency, time, and internal/external phenomena — we see that languages:

  • Pattern cognition and attention

  • Structure memory, reasoning, and prediction

  • Open distinct narrative and experiential horizons

Habitual construal is not stylistic; it is ontologically generative, providing alternative ways to inhabit, perceive, and narrativize the world.

No comments:

Post a Comment