This article makes a case for an engagement with language ontologies. Rather than asking what we know about language, theorising with ontologies prompts us to engage with what language is – or, might be. This focus has potential to broaden our work from examining different perspectives on, or ideological approaches to, a single assumed phenomenon (Language), to potentially seeing multiple, different phenomena. To develop our argument theoretically, we draw primarily on research stemming from the ontological turn in anthropology (Blaser, 2009, 2013; Holbraad, 2009; Holbraad and Pedersen, 2017; Viveiros de Castro, 2013 among others), as well as linguistic anthropology (Chernela, 2018; Seargeant, 2010). We dialogue across fields and disciplines—with philosophy, science and technology studies (Latour, 1993; Law, 2015), decolonial studies (Escobar, 2016) and language studies (García and Li, 2014; Li, 2018; Makoni and Pennycook, 2006; Pennycook, 2017, among others)—to situate language ontologies as worlded through linguistic practices. To contextualise the discussion, the paper explores three ontologies of language: language as object, language as practice, and language as assemblage.

本文为参与语言本体论提供了理由。不要问我们所知道的语言，用本体提示我们理论化搞什么语言是-或者，可能是。这种关注点有可能扩大我们的工作范围，从检查单个假定现象（语言）的不同观点或意识形态方法到潜在地看到多个不同现象。为了从理论上发展我们的论点，我们主要借鉴人类学本体论转向的研究（Blaser，2009，2013； Holbraad，2009； Holbraad和Pedersen，2017； Viveiros de Castro，2013等），以及语言人类学（ Chernela，2018; Seargeant，2010）。我们跨领域和学科对话-与哲学，科学和技术研究（Latour，1993; Law，2015），非殖民主义研究（Escobar，2016）和语言研究（García和Li，2014; Li，2018; Makoni和Pennycook，2006） ； Pennycook，2017年及其他），以将语言本体定位为世界范围通过语言实践。为了使讨论更加具体化，本文探讨了语言的三种本体论：以对象为语言，以实践为语言和以语言组合为语言。