Could a constructed non-symbolic language be created?

Question

Would the proper term for it really be "non-symbolic language"?

Every language up until now uses symbols at various forms – vowel sounds and consonants are symbols; syllables, which are combinations of vowels/consonants, are symbols; and words, which are combinations of syllables, are symbols, etc.

Would it be possible to create a language with no distinct symbols, and every thought is a gradient of sounds to represent an idea on the "coordinate plane" of thoughts? You could compare the difference between symbollic/non-symbolic languages to the difference between The ideas behind it would be similar to Ithkuil in that you'd be able to represent varying degrees of ideas (AKA, representing the "amount" of heaviness of a rock, for example) very well, however it simply wouldn't rely on symbols.

I admit, someone speaking it would sound hilariously stupid, but is it possible?

I'd be really interested if it is. Some more thought leads me to believe that maybe some degree of symbols is required.

Interpreting this language would be incredibly subjective to the perspective of the listener.

I doubt that I'm explaining this well...

Answer 1

I believe language is by definition symbolic; if your "gradient of sounds" represents anything, then I would call that a symbol. So I would say no.

I'd say language is communicating information without relying exclusively or mainly on actions. If I hit a man and kill him, my intention that I wanted him dead is thereby communicated to others; but it isn't language.

If I kick you in a medium-soft manner, I may thereby communicate to you mild displeasure. It is not merely a direct action, because hurting you, the obvious result of kicking someone, is not really my intention. You might call that language, although others insist that language should involve more complexity.

If I emit a certain specific gnashing sound through my teeth to indicate that there is a rock that calls for your attention, and the volume expresses its hardness, then that is symbolic, because there is no intrinsic connection whatsoever between volume and the hardness of a rock.

Even if there were some connection, but only a partial one, as in when sounds imitate the sound of something real, you might still call that language, although some will object, as with the kicking example above. But it cannot be denied that an imitation of the sound of a fox is not a fox, and yet I want to communicate to you "there is a fox", so that some form of symbolism is involved even in so basic an example.