See the bold:
I think that most of the brouhaha is—as usual—more of a tempest in a teapot than an actual informed and serious disagreement.
It’s a staple in the EvoLang literature that language emerged for communication, but this claim is often more ornamental than central—I suspect that EvoLang people usually have no idea what “communication” means and give little thought to how to define it.
Further, if “communication” includes “communicating with oneself” then that’s confusing, since “communicating with oneself” is just another way to say “thinking”.
Last of all, it’s not clear what features of FL the fact that language can be used to communicate is supposed to explain—I’ve never seen a useful explanation of any feature of FL based on language’s communicative efficacy, at least when it comes to the formal properties of language that linguists focus on.
And here's a simpler example (there are three one-sentence paragraphs and the issue is whether the "And" in bold applies to both preceding paragraphs or just to the second of the three paragraphs):
Bob went to the store.
Jill also went to the store.
And I'm not sure how many oranges you can buy at that store.