In that case perhaps you would be interested in general semantics?

anyway I kind of dislike the statement "everything is made up of language". To me that sounds like "everything is made of cream puffs" or whatnot. What does this statement mean? What kind of language are you referring to and in what sense. Certainly the idea of perception has something to do with language since the input is in a way translated into some form of comprehensive (or not so comprehensive) depiction in our minds, which we can only communicate to others or really understand in a way that we can manipulate it or use it through language, because this is how we are built... But this doesn't mean that the input in itself is language.

And here we see the failings of language when terms are used to loosely - in fact I have no idea what you mean by saying 'everything is language'. It sounds good but upon critical analysis I don't understand it because I don't know what your definition of language is, nor your definition of 'everything'.

Are you speaking about everything from the homo-centric kind of world view where the universe is created by the percieving entitity, namely us? Or are you speaking of a world that is out there, separate from yourself? Or everything existing interdependent of one another?

Also it#s good to keep in mind: the map is not the territory! Only because something can be mapped onto something else, namely 'everything' onto 'language' in your hypothesis, it doesn't mean that they are really one and the same.

So for clarification for this confused mind, could you elaborate?