John. Thanks a ton for engaging. Let me try to clarify.
Yes, all those things you mention would be 'communication.' We communicate all sorts of information in all sorts of ways. Yes, we use language to communicate, but we also use our hairstyles and tennis shoes to communication and in not so dissimilar ways. I am assuming here that 'communication' means something like 'conveying information of some kind.' Now, if one redefines communication (as some communication theorists like John Searle do) to also include things like self-communication, then you could say communication includes language. However, I think then you've weakened the definition of 'communication' to mean basically anything you could use language to do, which isn't helpful.
There are many instances where language is not used for communicative purposes. One is internal monologue. Another might even involve writing a book that one has no intention of publishing or sharing (writers do this pretty often, I'm told). Another involves self-expression. I think a lot of facebook posting is this way - people post something to express themselves, but they really couldn't care less about what they are communicating or if their communication is successful. Language is something humans do. We almost can't not do it. Put strangers in a room together and tell them not to talk to each other. It gets very uncomfortable very quickly. So, they'll talk. But when they do, they aren't motivated by need to communicate. They're motivated by social norms, need to break the awkwardness, etc.
Now, when it comes to Scripture, I think you raise an interesting question, which is this: Can we take it for granted that all scripture is intended to communicate to us? I think we take it on faith that it is, and that is fine, but in making that move, I think its important that we recognize that we are affirming GOD'S intention to use it for communication and not necessarily the author's. Van Hoozer is constructing a theory of the author's intentions (or is trying to), but there's no guarantee that's going to line up with what God wants to communicate to us with Scripture. I love that Pete Enns will be at the conference. One thing he has done is show that part of authorial intent in writing some of the historical and mythical parts of the OT was political in nature: Israel needing to define its history in particular ways and against particular people (i.e., the Canaanites) to justify and understand their present socio-political situation. Thus, they weren't motivated simply to tell the truth of 'what happened,' but a particular version of what happened that serves particular purposes. I think the negative reaction to the work has been because we sense a conflict there between what we feel should be God's communicative intent (which should never include lying about historical facts) and the author's communicative intent (which involves, at the very least, strongly bending the historical facts). All that to say, it may be ok to assume that all Scripture is meant to communicate (in fact, I would say this), but I think we can't root that in the authors' intent to communicate. This again pulls me to what I understand to be a very Barthian view of Scripture - it isn't the language or words or intent of the author that makes Scripture Scripture, but rather the fact that God meets us there. My Bible on my shelf is just book written by people. It's only when I pick it up and engage it and God meets me there that it can become God's word.
I think that might help with your last question, too, though I'm not qualified to offer any kind of full answer to it. Peace!
PS - I read your paper as well. Makes a lot of sense to me and made me order 'Unclean.'
