This topic did catch the attention of Ben, so I am so free to start a thread about it. I hope there are more people interested in it.
An iconic languageI'm studying at the moment the possibility of an (universal) iconic language. Not an extension of the old scripts used by American Indians or Chinese, but a modern, new attempt. Along the lines of
Visual Inter Lingua [VIL]. Because a non-existing language is difficult to learn from ;-), studies about existing sign languages (e.g. ASL) are appropriate for seeking parallels.
A sign languageTherefore it's interesting to have knowledge about:
- The conceptual density/accuracy of ASL
- The size of the dictionary
- Lack of concepts (the amount of - the equivalence to - 'onomatopoetic' words; how often relies an user of sign language on finger spelling?)
- Is it true that it costs the same amount of time to describe a concept in spoken language as in a signed language?
- Can ambiguous/new concepts as "I do not believe in the existence of E.I." (extraterrestrial intelligence) can be explained this fast: "I lack belief in the existence of E.I." vs "I disbelieve in the existence of E.I."?
- The difference between a language and a pseudo-language:
- The grade of arbitrariness between signifier and signified?
- Phonological features?
- Easy clarification of ambiguous or new concepts?
Iconic vs pictographicTo clarify: with an iconic language I don't mean an pictographic language, but a language that is also ideographic (with meaning by convention and learning by education). I don't have the idea that an pictographic language would suffice to communicate all kinds of concepts. It would be an
icon algebra rather than a
iconic language.
UniversalityAttemps to develop universal languages are interesting. Gestuno, Esperanto.
Keywords: Ideographic restrictions, sign language deficiencies, feature-based languages, pidgins vs creoles, lambda calculus.