Bahasa hewan

Bahasa hewan adalah bentuk komunikasi hewan non-manusia yang menunjukkan kemiripan dengan bahasa manusia. Hewan berkomunikasi dengan menggunakan berbagai tanda seperti suara atau gerakan. Penggunaan tanda atau simbol semacam ini dapat dianggap cukup kompleks untuk disebut sebagai suatu bentuk bahasa jika memiliki banyak koleksi tanda, tanda-tandanya relatif arbitrer, dan dilakukan hewan diluar insting atau ekspresi. Dalam penelitian eksperimental, adanya komunikasi semacam ini antar hewan juga dapat dibuktikan melalui penggunaan leksigram (seperti yang digunakan oleh simpanse dan bonobo).

Banyak peneliti berpendapat bahwa komunikasi hewan tidak memiliki aspek kunci dari bahasa manusia, yaitu penciptaan pola-pola baru dari berbagai simbol dalam beberapa keadaan. Sebaliknya, manusia secara rutin menghasilkan kombinasi kata yang sama sekali baru. Beberapa peneliti, termasuk ahli bahasa Charles Hockett, berpendapat bahwa bahasa manusia dan komunikasi hewan sangat berbeda sehingga prinsip yang mendasarinya tidak berhubungan.^[1] Oleh karena itu, ahli bahasa Thomas A. Sebeok telah mengusulkan untuk tidak menggunakan istilah "bahasa" pada sistem tanda hewan.^[2] Sementara itu, Marc Hauser, Noam Chomsky, dan W. Tecumseh Fitch menegaskan adanya kontinum evolusi antara metode komunikasi bahasa hewan dan manusia.^[3]

^ Hockett, Charles F. (1960). "Logical considerations in the study of animal communication". Dalam Lanyon, W.E.; Tavolga, W.N. Animals sounds and animal communication. American Institute of Biological Sciences. hlm. 392–430.
^ Martinelli, Dario (2010). "Introduction to Zoosemiotics". A Critical Companion to Zoosemiotics. Biosemiotics. 5. hlm. 1–64. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9249-6_1. ISBN 978-90-481-9248-9.
^ Hauser, Marc D.; Chomsky, Noam; Fitch, W. Tecumseh (22 November 2002). "The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?" (PDF). Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science. hlm. 1569–1579. Diarsipkan dari versi asli (PDF) tanggal 28 December 2013. Diakses tanggal 28 March 2014. We argue that an understanding of the faculty of language requires substantial interdisciplinary cooperation. We suggest how current developments in linguistics can be profitably wedded to work in evolutionary biology, anthropology, psychology, and neuroscience. We submit that a distinction should be made between the faculty of language in the broad sense (FLB)and in the narrow sense (FLN). FLB includes a sensory-motor system, a conceptual-intentional system, and the computational mechanisms for recursion, providing the capacity to generate an infinite range of expressions from a finite set of elements. We hypothesize that FLN only includes recursion and is the only uniquely human component of the faculty of language. We further argue that FLN may have evolved for reasons other than language, hence comparative studies might look for evidence of such computations outside of the domain of communication (for example, number, navigation, and social relations).

[Hockett_1960-1] Hockett, Charles F. (1960). "Logical considerations in the study of animal communication". Dalam Lanyon, W.E.; Tavolga, W.N. Animals sounds and animal communication. American Institute of Biological Sciences. hlm. 392–430.

[Martinelli_2010-2] Martinelli, Dario (2010). "Introduction to Zoosemiotics". A Critical Companion to Zoosemiotics. Biosemiotics. 5. hlm. 1–64. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9249-6_1. ISBN 978-90-481-9248-9.

[hauser_faculty-3] Hauser, Marc D.; Chomsky, Noam; Fitch, W. Tecumseh (22 November 2002). "The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?" (PDF). Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science. hlm. 1569–1579. Diarsipkan dari versi asli (PDF) tanggal 28 December 2013. Diakses tanggal 28 March 2014. We argue that an understanding of the faculty of language requires substantial interdisciplinary cooperation. We suggest how current developments in linguistics can be profitably wedded to work in evolutionary biology, anthropology, psychology, and neuroscience. We submit that a distinction should be made between the faculty of language in the broad sense (FLB)and in the narrow sense (FLN). FLB includes a sensory-motor system, a conceptual-intentional system, and the computational mechanisms for recursion, providing the capacity to generate an infinite range of expressions from a finite set of elements. We hypothesize that FLN only includes recursion and is the only uniquely human component of the faculty of language. We further argue that FLN may have evolved for reasons other than language, hence comparative studies might look for evidence of such computations outside of the domain of communication (for example, number, navigation, and social relations).

[1]

[2]

[3]