Really wanted to love this. Gave it several tries. Eventually made it near the end of the audiobook before giving up in frustration.
There are fascinating tidbits, like when Alex the grey parrot sees himself in a mirror, asks what color he is seeing, and is taught the word "grey"...but even in those tidbits there are problems.
For example, the author says that Alex's interaction is "the only instance of a nonhuman asking a direct question" - a very strong claim, and obviously wrong!
Consider Bunny the dog, who uses an English button board to ask direct questions of his caretaker, with the interactions recorded for the whole world to see. Is the author referring to something other than dynamics like this when he makes his claim about Alex? Did he intend rather to write something more specific - perhaps "the only instance of a nonhuman asking a direct question about the nature of its own unique identity"?
Or is the author simply unaware of Bunny? This would represent a startling failure of due diligence for an animal communication expert researching a pop science book on animal communication in a Western market where the average reader is likely to have direct communication experience with dogs.
This book also often fails to ask the obvious next questions. For example, was Alex interested in his own color because he recognized that he was seeing himself? The author doesn't pursue this line of reasoning at all, which is strange considering how prominently the question of selfhood features in the later chapter on chimpanzee language.
More importantly, was Alex actually seeing a dazzling array of UV patterns on himself, which the human researcher mistakenly identified as "grey" because our species lacks UV photoreceptors? Given what we know about bird vision, this seems probable and represents an obvious opportunity to discuss cross-species conceptual miscommunication, which in turn seems extremely relevant to a book on animal language. Yet the author addresses none of this.
For the most part this isn't a bad book. It just doesn't say much. A lot of the book seems to be the author asking questions, telling a few tangential anecdotes of varying relevance, then concluding that no one knows. It mostly feels like padding. Sure it's important to be honest about our ignorance, but I'm reading a book like this because I already know I'm ignorant and I'm hoping to learn from someone who is less ignorant.
Organization could be better too. Here's the concluding quote from the second-to-last chapter, which is where I finally gave up: "But it is a genuinely helpful way to remember how to think about animal language: They have what they need - no more, no less. No matter how similar to us, their communication is not like ours. It's precisely like theirs...as it should be."
This is true and important, but it belongs in the intro. This is first-principles background, the kind of stuff that needs to be made clear right up front so readers and listeners can read and listen with this guiding principle in mind. Instead we don't see or hear it until we've already had five chapters of human-nonhuman linguistic comparisons, several incomplete definitions of "language", and several incomplete arguments about whether various nonhuman animals meet those incomplete definitions. Makes for a subtly but persistently frustrating experience.
There are a few statements that really bothered me, like when the author mentions that "some people would say animals have no intentions at all" and then immediately avoids dealing with that statement by saying "but intention isn't necessary for us to call something meaningful". It is obvious to everyone who isn't a solipsist or a eugenicist that nonhuman animals have intentions, that there is no magical line separating humans from our relatives in this regard. So this is like saying "Some people think only humans have a soul." It just doesn't belong in a science book on its own merits, so why include it if you're not going to deal with it properly by contextualizing it and explaining the known issues with it? Otherwise you're just giving unnecessary breathing room to the same Cartesian delusions that have already generated so much ecocide over the past several centuries of colonialism and capitalism. I don't think this was the author's intent, but I do think it's irresponsible.
Giving this three stars instead of two because I learned some genuinely interesting facts, the tone of certain passages was comforting, and the author seems to really care about the creatures he studies.