Really dreaming of a way to do literary research that doesn't involve language

I guess my book is an attempt to think about history as genre that doesn't make literary/linguistic frames central to an an analysis (which I swear is authorized by the archive) but obviously its all routed through language

I think it bucks our deconstructivist training to do this though, in a really fundamental way, that is going to probably bug people because it seems like an idealism. But what do we do with texts that think refuse language as primary?

This is probably most importantly a question for those of us who work on the romantic period, but do we need to keep playing whack-a-mole (to borrow a phrase @AmyClukey used in a different context) with the metaphysics of presence, or can we bracket that?

why not see what happens when we take a written text's claims to aurality or visuality seriously on its own terms? at what point is insisting on primacy of textuality and narrative not a philosophical/political commitment, and just defending our turf as literary scholars?

I kinda started this thread on a personal sense of aesthetic exhaustion at language (and overwhelming preference for music) but realized these are long term research/theoretical questions for me...