From the review: "But is any of this really language? Kershenbaum shrewdly sidesteps the question." Of course he does, because it would ruin his thesis. He'd

From the review: "But is any of this really language? Kershenbaum shrewdly sidesteps the question." Of course he does, because it would ruin his thesis. He'd rather use the word "talk" because it's vague enough that he can use it without being called out, yet sounds meaningful enough to the common person that it sounds like he's saying something, while at the same time pulling in all kinds of feelings about how nice or smart some animals are. (And yes, I've had pet birds, fish, cats and dogs, and at least the cats and dogs, and maybe the bird, sort of communicate. And they were--one of the cats still is--nice.) Peter Wohlleben does the same thing in his book "The Hidden Life of Trees: What They Feel, How They Communicate", using the word "communicate". Trees exude certain chemicals when injured or infested, and you can sort of kinda maybe call that communication--but of course you can't call it language.