Show me two rocks where one forms a sentence and another one parses it and sure.

Now if your definition of language is something arrogant like “a system of communication where combinations of tokens are given semantic meaning that correspond with conscious states and phenomena” then I would say that is incredibly limiting and ignores the preponderance of language all around you both in nature and technology. If someone builds a computer that can parse x86 assembly, it doesn’t cease to be parsing language if I stipulate that humans never existed and this computer just happens to exist. The tree still falls in the forest even if there is no human consciousness there to perceive it and the same goes for language. If it is encoded by something and decoded by something else fairly consistently (fuzzy is fine if the communication is still generally effective) then you have language.

More importantly the existence of unconscious systems that can generate and parse sentences in arbitrary languages means consciousness isn’t very relevant or necessary when analyzing language and perhaps focusing on it too much actually gets in the way of meaningful research and discovery.