As far as I can see, such thoughts have no basis. We need to consider what language is for, and what we do with it. The adequacy of any given planned language must be judged on how well it does what a language is supposed to do, rather than on how well it reflects our favorite aspect of language. We use language to perform speech acts. Alternatively, speech acts are the things that we do by means of language.
Some speech acts have English names.
The successful performance of speech acts requires a certain amount of standardization, so that the listener can recognize, or make a good guess at, the speaker's intentions. Speech acts are, to some extent, culture-bound. In plainer English, different populations may use language to do different things. So, specific languages are embedded in cultures, and the features of languages will naturally be adapted to the efficient achievement of the speech acts that are important. To take an example, the Japanese language is very simple in certain respects, but it has a rather elaborate and complex system for representing levels of politeness and social standing.