I like to think of language from the POV of the receiver, rather than the sender. What got me thinking that way was considering dolphin communication via echolocation. A pod moves into a dark area and the lead animal sends a signal into the darkness whose echo will describe the shape and texture of the environment ahead - but not just to the scout, but to the whole pod. They would effectively be "seeing through another's eyes", or at least the closest dolphins would. The animals at the back would get a "noisier" version because the signal would degrade as it passed through more rippling water. The (much laboured over lol) point here is that, as with body language, so much can be communicated without intent.
This is certainly the "language" of primitive organisms. It's big and hurtling towards me rapidly. Message: danger. I wonder about "primitive" animal communications. I see the dog forensically sniffing stuff every day, seemingly usually dog urine. The act seems as pointless to me as my sitting in front of screens for hours must seem to her.
There is a ton of information in that urine - who the dog is, its sex and whether it's in heat, where it's been and its territorial claims, what it's eaten, its health, and its emotional state at the time of peeing. I call it "dog gossip", although some content might be akin to the local news, and there is no doubt much "dog porn"
("whroarr, that bitch is soooo in heat!"). Maybe smelling the urine of a huge, testosterone filled and angry local dog would be exciting like a horror story?
It's not wildly different to what we do. The difference is that humans can (sometimes) appreciate that dogs are engaged in complex behaviours that we don't neither the senses nor inclination to understand. To dogs, human screen watching would seem just a meaningless thing that incomprehensible humans tend to do do between walks, food and attention.
I find it interesting that, without a concomitant olfactory component, dogs consider screen content to be entirely irrelevant. Then we consider them to be stupid because they respond in simple ways to visual cues. You would think that the smartest animal would learn the modes of communication of simpler animals rather than expect the simpler animals to understand our complex symbols and babbling.
It's one of those "smart but lacking in commonsense" situations.