Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Pantomime
Edited by Przemysław Żywiczyński, Johan Blomberg and Monika Boruta-Żywiczyńska
[Advances in Interaction Studies 12] 2024
► pp. 58–77

Chapter 2
The relations of demonstration and pantomime to causal reasoning and event cognition

| Lund University
This article deals with the role of showing in the evolution of human communication and how it has developed into telling. When a communicator is showing, she is performing, not just doing. Demonstration is a combination of doing and showing, while pantomime is only showing. I make a distinction between pantomime used for teaching and pantomime for communication and argue that this is central for the transition from showing to telling. Telling involves describing an event or a series of events. The evolutionary question then becomes: Which selective forces made hominins extend their communication from doing to showing and then to telling? My answer is that showing and, to a larger degree, telling require advanced forms of causal cognition and event representation that are not found in other species. I analyze how event cognition is relevant for demonstration and pantomime and how this type of cognition influences the structure of language.
Keywords: demonstration, pantomime, cognitive evolution, causal cognition, event representation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: From doing to showing to telling
  • 2.Causal cognition
    • 2.1Non-human primate reasoning about causes
    • 2.2Human reasoning about forces
  • 3.Event cognition
    • 3.1A cognitive model of events
    • 3.2Event cognition and planning
  • 4.Demonstration and two kinds of pantomime
    • 4.1Characteristics of demonstration
    • 4.2Characteristics of pantomime
    • 4.3Theory of mind and communicative intentions
    • 4.4Pantomime for communication
  • 5.The role of event cognition in pantomime for communication
  • 6.Influence on the structure of language
  • 7.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 15 February 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ais.12.02gar
References (81)
References
Abramova, E. (2018). The role of pantomime in gestural language evolution, its cognitive bases and an alternative. Journal of Language Evolution, 3(1), 26–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arbib, M. A. (2012). How the brain got language: The mirror system hypothesis (Vol. 16). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). In support of the role of pantomime in language evolution. Journal of Language Evolution, 3(1), 41–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boesch, C., Bombjaková, D., Boyette, A., & Meier, A. (2017). Technical intelligence and culture: Nut cracking in humans and chimpanzees. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 163(2), 339–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boesch, C., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Chimpanzee and human cultures. Current Anthropology, 39(5), 591–614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinck, I. (2004). The pragmatics of imperative and declarative pointing. Cogitive Science Quarterly, 3(4), 429–446.Google Scholar
Brown, S., Mittermaier, E., Kher, T., & Arnold, P. (2019). How pantomime works: Implications for theories of language origin. Frontiers in Communication, 4, 9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Calvin, W. H., & Bickerton, D. (2000). Lingua ex machina: Reconciling Darwin and Chomsky with the human brain. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cheney, D., & Seyfarth, R. (1990). Attending to behaviour versus attending to knowledge: Examining monkeys’ attribution of mental states. Animal Behaviour, 40(4), 742–753. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1992). Conventionality and contrast: Pragmatic principles with lexical consequences. Lehrer and Kittay, 1992a, 171–188.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1992). Arenas of language use. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Clay, Z., Pople, S., Hood, B., & Kita, S. (2014). Young children make their gestural communication systems more language-like: Segmentation and linearization of semantic elements in motion events. Psychological Science, 25(8), 1518–1525. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2009). Natural pedagogy. Trends in cognitive sciences, 13(4), 148–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Decety, J., & Grèzes, J. (2006). The power of simulation: imagining one’s own and other’s behavior. Brain Research, 1079(1), 4–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donald, M. (1991). Origins of the modern mind: Three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. (1995). Cued and detached representations in animal cognition. Behavioural Processes, 35(1–3), 263–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
How homo became sapiens: On the evolution of thinking; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2003.Google Scholar
(2007). Evolutionary and developmental aspects of intersubjectivity. In H. Liljenström, & P. Århem (Eds.), Consciousness transitions (pp. 281–305). Elsevier Science BV. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). What are the benefits of broad horizons? In The Benefit of Broad Horizons: Intellectual and Institutional Preconditions for a Global Social Science (pp. xiii–xx). Brill Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
(2012). The cognitive and communicative demands of cooperation. In J. van Eijck, & R. Verbrugge (Eds.), Games, actions and social software (pp. 164–183). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). The geometry of meaning: Semantics based on conceptual spaces. MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Demonstration and pantomime in the evolution of teaching. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). From pantomime to protolanguage. Paradigmi, 38(2), 251–268.Google Scholar
(2021). Causal reasoning and event cognition as evolutionary determinants of language structure. Entropy, 23(7), 843. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gärdenfors, P., & Högberg, A. (2017). The archaeology of teaching and the evolution of Homo docens. Current Anthropology, 58(2), 188–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gärdenfors, P., Högberg, A. (2021) Evolution of intentional teaching. In N. Gontier, A. Lock & C. Sinha (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Human Symbolic Evolution. Oxford University Press. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, P., Jost, J., & Warglien, M. (2018). From actions to effects: Three constraints on event mappings. Frontiers in Psychology, 1391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gärdenfors, P., & Lombard, M. (2018). Causal cognition, force dynamics and early hunting technologies. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gärdenfors, P., & M. Lombard. (2021). ‘The Evolution of Human Causal Cognition, In T. Wynn, K. A. Overmann, & F. L. Coolidge (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Archaeology.(pp. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, P., & Warglien, M. (2012). Using conceptual spaces to model actions and events. Journal of Semantics, 29(4), 487–519. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gelman, S. A., & Roberts, S. O. (2017). How language shapes the cultural inheritance of categories. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(30), 7900–7907. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibson, K. R. (2013). Talking about apes, birds, bees, and other living creatures: Language evolution in the light of comparative animal behaviour. The Evolutionary Emergence of Language: Evidence and Inference, 17, 204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gómez, J. C. (2007). Requesting gestures in captive monkeys. Gestural Communication in Nonhuman and Human Primates, 10, 83.Google Scholar
Graham, S. A., Gelman, S. A., & Clarke, J. (2016). Generics license 30-month-olds’ inferences about the atypical properties of novel kinds. Developmental Psychology, 52(9), 1353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grush, R. (1997). The architecture of representation. Philosophical Psychology, 10(1), 5–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J. (2018). Ideophones and the Evolution of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hannah, A. C., & McGrew, W. C. (1987). Chimpanzees using stones to crack open oil palm nuts in Liberia. Primates, 28(1), 31–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heyes, C. (2021). Imitation and culture: What gives? Mind & Language, 1–22.Google Scholar
Kegl, J., Senghas, A., & Coppola, M. (1999). Creation through contact: Sign language emergence and sign language change in Nicaragua. Language creation and language change: Creolization, diachrony, and development, 179–237.Google Scholar
Leslie, A. M. (1995). A theory of agency. In D. Sperber, D. Premack & J. A. Premack (Eds.), Causal Cognition: A Multidisciplinary Debate (pp. 121–141). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(1987). Pretense and representation: The origins of ”theory of mind.”. Psychological review, 94(4), 412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leslie, A. M., & Keeble, S. (1987). Do six-month-old infants perceive causality? Cognition, 25(3), 265–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, B., & Hovav, M. R. (2005). Argument realization. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liebenberg L. (1990). The art of tracking: The origin of science. David Philip Publishers.Google Scholar
Lombard, M., & Gärdenfors, P. (2017). Tracking the evolution of causal cognition in humans. Journal of Anthropological Sciences 95, 1–18.Google Scholar
(2021). Causal cognition and theory of mind in evolutionary cognitive archaeology. Biological Theory, 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyn, H., Russell, J. L., Leavens, D. A., Bard, K. A., Boysen, S. T., Schaeffer, J. A., & Hopkins, W. D. (2014). Apes communicate about absent and displaced objects: methodology matters. Animal Cognition, 17(1), 85–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michotte, A. (1963) The Perception of Causality. MethuenGoogle Scholar
Morgan, B. J., & Abwe, E. E. (2006). Chimpanzees use stone hammers in Cameroon. Current Biology, 16(16), R632–R633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, M. (2012). Imitation, pretend play, and childhood: Essential elements in the evolution of human culture? Journal of Comparative Psychology, 126(2), 170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pika, S., & Mitani, J. (2006). Referential gestural communication in wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Current Biology, 16(6), R191–R192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pleyer, M., Wacewicz, S., & Żywiczyński, P. (2021). Shared evolutionary and developmental foundations of pretence and pantomime, abstract for Protolang 7, Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
Povinelli, D. J. (2000). Folk physics for apes: The chimpanzee’s theory of how the world works.  Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?. Behavioral and brain sciences, 1(4), 515–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quinto-Pozos, D. (2007). Can constructed action be considered obligatory? Lingua, 117(7), 1285–1314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radvansky, G. A., & Zacks, J. M. (2014). Event cognition. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rissman, L., & Majid, A. (2019). Thematic roles: Core knowledge or linguistic construct? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(6), 1850–1869. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Runesson, S. (1994). Perception of biological motion: The KSD-principle and the implications of a distal versus proximal approach. In G. Jansson, S. S. Bergström & W. Epstein (Eds.), Perceiving Events and Objects (pp. 383–405). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Russon, A., & Andrews, K. (2011). Orangutan pantomime: elaborating the message. Biology Letters, 7(4), 627–630. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sabbagh, M. A., & Henderson, A. M. (2007). How an appreciation of conventionality shapes early word learning. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2007(115), 25–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Senghas, A., Kita, S., & Özyürek, A. (2004). Children creating core properties of language: Evidence from an emerging sign language in Nicaragua. Science, 305(5691), 1779–1782. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shaw-Williams, K. (2014). The social trackways theory of the evolution of human cognition. Biological Theory, 9(1), 16–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stuart-Fox, M. (2015). The origins of causal cognition in early hominins. Biology & Philosophy, 30(2), 247–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (2006). Recombinance in the evolution of language. In A. Cangelosi, A. D. M. Smith, & K. Smith (Eds.), The evolution of language: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference (pp. 449–451). World Scientific Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanner, J. E., & Byrne, R. W. (1996). Representation of action through iconic gesture in a captive lowland gorilla. Current Anthropology, 37(1), 162–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(2014). A natural history of human thinking. Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., & Liszkowski, U. (2007). A new look at infant pointing. Child Development, 78(3), 705–722. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warglien, M., Gärdenfors, P., & Westera, M. (2012). Event structure, conceptual spaces and the semantics of verbs. Theoretical Linguistics, 38(3–4), 159–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winter, S. (1998). Expectations and linguistic meaning. Lund University Cognitive Science 73.Google Scholar
Wolff, P. (2007). Representing causation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(1), 82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Dynamics and the perception of causal events. In S. Thomas & J. Zacks. (Eds.), Understanding events: How humans see, represent, and act on events (pp. 555–587). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Representing verbs with force vectors. Theoretical Linguistics, 38, 237–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolff, P., Barbey, A. K., & Hausknecht, M. (2010). For want of a nail: How absences cause events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(2), 191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolff, P., & Shepard, J. (2013). Causation, touch, and the perception of force. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 58, pp. 167–202). Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolff, P.; Thorstad, R. (2017). Force dynamics. In M. R. Waldmann (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of causal reasoning (pp. 147–167). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J., Persson, T., Gärdenfors, P. (2005). Bodily mimesis as ‘the missing link’ in human cognitive evolution, Lund: Lund University Cognitive Studies 121.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J., Żywiczyński, P., & Wacewicz, S. (2020). Pantomime as the original human-specific communicative system. Journal of Language Evolution, 5(2), 156–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zuberbühler, K. (2013). Acquired mirroring and intentional communication in primates. Language and Cognition, 5(2–3), 133–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Żywiczyński, P., Wacewicz, S., & Sibierska, M. (2018). Defining pantomime for language evolution research. Topoi, 37(2), 307–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Arbib, Michael
2024. Chapter 1. Pantomime within and beyond the evolution of language. In Perspectives on Pantomime [Advances in Interaction Studies, 12], ► pp. 16 ff. DOI logo
Mineiro, Ana & Mara Moita
2024. Chapter 7. The pantomime roots of Sao Tome and Principe Sign Language. In Perspectives on Pantomime [Advances in Interaction Studies, 12], ► pp. 159 ff. DOI logo
Żywiczyński, Przemysław, Marek Placiński, Marta Sibierska, Monika Boruta-Żywiczyńska, Sławomir Wacewicz, Michał Meina & Peter Gärdenfors
2024. Praxis, demonstration and pantomime: a motion capture investigation of differences in action performances. Language and Cognition ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.