That's true. Look at advertisements, which use images to appeal to people who aren't fond of text. For example, beer companies use images of attractive, smiling people, beer, and women with enormous breasts to vividly explain that beer will make you feel good. If you're transmitting a similarly primitive message to your Senegalese pen pal, a series of images is the way to go. But if you want to know what it's like to talk about politics using just images, read up on Pakistan's recent election, and take a look at all the people waving placards with Musharraf's mug on them. That's what happens when you want to 'talk' about complex issues without using big (or any!) words.
I think advertisement is totally different. For example, when you have basketball player selling you a Gilette razor, it makes absolutely no sense to me, same as Tiger Woods selling me a buick. That's wack. I mean a graphical representation that actually has a meaning, like the simple ;) When you see a picture of someone who smiles no matter where you are, it means happiness.
;) looks like a sly smile to me. I interpret it as evilness instead. What are you going to do?
Sapir Whorf probably wasn't the right article to cite. There are studies which names escape me now. But long story short, there is no solid mapping between pictures and concepts. The textbook example is "what is a chair?"
What picture would you use? A four-leg? A stool (what is a stool, actually?)? A lazybone? A king's throne?
Thank you for your input. If you see a chair you know it is a chair. It doesnt matter if it is a couch or a chair with 2 legs, the concept is that you understand that it means "something I can use to lay my buttox".What I am trying to do is not giving each word an exact image, but each image a unique meaning. Besides think of Africans uploading 1000 photos to describe the word Pain and Americans as well. Wouldn't that be good data to use and understand how we all understand pain itself?
Your final point is good. A graphic-to-lexicon mapping would be very useful for research and education, and I am not familiar with what is available in this area. If this is your plan, it might have very broad applications. However the mapping would be very loose because categories are never absolute (hence Sapir Whorf). Case in point: some cultures agree by shaking heads and disagree by nodding. There was a time in China where the red light meant "go" and green meant "stop." You may thus have pictures which mean exact opposites to two different people.
It's just a problem I'm pointing out, and that a YC-style voting is not going to realize the potential of the idea. But my case about the prototype is very solid though. Your definition of a chair is not "correct." Nobody's is. I happen to lay my buttox on a teapot, now it's also a chair. Not trying to cavil here, but think of how that would affect your program if you type "chair" and a teapot shows up.
