In fact, as far as I know, linguists and philosophers of language have never really looked at the universal language. Instead, they frame a “universal language” that is based on the premise of the majoritarian languages. One approach, traditional linguistics, often goes from signs (lexical signs), phonology, and syntax and is based on phonocentric framing, i.e., sound is the basis of their theoretical frames. The other approach, cognitive linguistics, is based on spatiality and embodied figures in mental space. Cognitive linguists (Leonard Talmy, for example) believe that the objects of spoken languages or signed languages are mainly created from natural perception and mental spaces. However, natural perception and mental spaces are in turn shaped, formed, and modified by sensorimotor perception and the movement of thought. Would it not be better to derive from them directly so that we can gain an understanding of how a language is created from the human body? We could also gain an understanding of the relationship between perception, thought, and the utterable of languages. The ontological benefit is that signed languages are closer to "raw" thought, perception, and the universal language than spoken languages. Sign language poetry, for example, is close to the universal language. Therefore, as opposed to spoken languages, signed languages are based on the movement of thinking outside the body. We can thus reveal the pure language or the universal language. The essay question: Is the “mobile” part of sign languages (åtbördsspråket) and gestures (åtbörder) appropriate as a model for constructing a general definition of all languages? I apply Gilles Deleuze's philosophy, especially his pure semiotics, perception, and the theory of movement, to construct this universal language.