But the breakdown is a good one.
It also brings to mind the trivium from the mediaeval academic curriculum: grammar, logic, and rhetoric.
Grammar is the process of acquiring (and making sense of) information.
Logic is the process of interpreting and processing information.
Rhetoric is the process of transmitting information.
Or: it's an input, logic, output sequence.
This can be applied to much of information-systems or information-theory work. Perhaps with the addition of some endogenous or exogenous information storage and retrieval system.
As for talking: the deaf speak, with their hands.
Symbolic representative abstract communication is just that. I'd argue that the relevant element of talking is the interactivity of the conversation.
Take the old Unix "talk" command. It was contrasted to "write", "wall", or "mail", in that both parties could talk at the same time.
Myself and my girlfriend, 800 km apart. That in the 1980s was mind-blowing. And much cheaper than long-distance telephony.
Instead of "talking" - communicating
Instead of "feeling" - sensing
Instead of "thinking" - processing
And so on. We risk anthropomorphizing other living beings we can't possibly relate to. Just as it's important we gain better understanding of how other living things live, it's just as important to not apply how we live to them.
At worst we should talk about "analogs" instead of euphemisms. Does a tree feel "pain" or does a tree feel a "pain analog"? The first is ascribing something that may not even make sense, the second grounds us in comparisons and looking for cause and effect analogs.
Do trees talk? No, they have no mouths. Do trees communicate? As we understand these things more and more, it appears that there's some kind of analog there.
Do trees feel? Maybe that's the wrong question. Do trees respond to stimuli? Of course!