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. 100–114

Chapter 4
Two types of bodily-mimetic communication

Distinct design specifications and evolutionary trajectories

| Nicolaus Copernicus University
| Nicolaus Copernicus University
In this paper, we outline a novel approach to the study of pantomime, through applying the logic of evolutionary signalling theory to analysing the properties of the proposed precursors of language, in particular bodily-mimetic communication. We rely on a classic account by Krebs & Dawkins (1984), who outline two very different trajectories of the evolution of communication: into conspicuous, repetitive, exaggerated, and loud displays (expensive hype) versus cheap, subtle, inconspicuous and efficient messages (conspiratorial whispers). Pantomimic scenarios of language origins envisage a progression from mimetic to conventional communication, i.e., towards greater efficiency and expressive power, thereby assuming the latter trajectory. We argue that as a default, bodily mimetic communication is instead predicted to follow (or, remain trapped in) the expensive-hype trajectory, resulting in the communicative uses of the body that are defined by a high cost, such as artistic, sexual or ritual displays. The development of such forms of communication into systems increasingly resembling language could not happen on the surface level of communicative properties alone. Such changes could instead only happen as a result of the communication system switching to the efficient trajectory, which requires very special socio-ecological conditions.
Keywords: pantomime, bodily mimesis, platform of trust, rituals, honest signaling, signalling theory, alignment of interests
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Pantomimic scenarios of language origins
  • 3.Evolutionary signalling theory
  • 4.Flashy vs. efficient bodily mimetic communication
    • 4.1Ritual
  • 5.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 15 February 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ais.12.04wac
References (48)
References
Arbib, M. (2012). How the Brain Got Language. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Towards a computational comparative neuroprimatology: framing the language-ready brain. Physics of life reviews, 16, 1–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bailey, W. J. Withers, P. C., Endersby, M., Gaull, K. (1993). The energetic costs of calling in the bushcricket Requena verticalis (Orthoptera: Tettigonidae: Listroscelidinae). J. Exp. Biol., 178, 21–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barba, E. (1995). The paper canoe. A guide to theatre anthropology. London.Google Scholar
Bliege Bird, R., & Smith, E. A. (2005). Signaling Theory, Strategic Interaction, and Symbolic Capital. Current Anthropology, 46(2), 221–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyd, R. (2009). Does an evolutionary perspective help understand environmental degradation?. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(2), 71–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cronk, L. (2005). The application of animal signaling theory to human phenomena. Soc. Sci. Inf, 44, 603–620. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donald, M. (1991). Origins of the modern mind. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fay, N., Arbib, M., & Garrod, S. (2013). How to bootstrap a human communication system. Cognitive Science, 37(7), 1356–1367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. (2017). Demonstration and pantomime in the evolution of teaching. Front. Psych., 8, 415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Pantomime as a foundation for ritual and language. Studia Liturgica, 48(1–2), 41–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 42(1–3), 335–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, S., & Pleyer, M. (2021). Constructing a protolanguage: reconstructing prehistoric languages in a usage-based construction grammar framework. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 376(1824), 20200200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henrich, J. (2009). The evolution of costly displays, cooperation and religion: Credibility enhancing displays and their implications for cultural evolution. Evolution and human behavior, 30(4), 244–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hurford, J. R. (2007). The origins of meaning: Language in the light of evolution, Vol. 1. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hutto, D. (2008). First Communions: Mimetic sharing without theory of mind. In J. Zlatev et al.. (Eds.), The Shared Mind (pp. 246–276). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Irons, W. (2001). Religion as a hard-to-fake sign of commitment. In R. M. Nesse (Ed.), Evolution and the capacity for commitment (pp. 290–309). Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford University Press UK. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kapitány, R., & Nielsen, M. (2015). Adopting the ritual stance: The role of opacity and context in ritual and everyday actions. Cognition, 145, 13–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knight, C. (1998). Ritual/speech co-evolution: A solution to the problem of deception. In J. R. Hurford, M. Studdert-Kennedy, & C. Knight (Eds.), Approaches to the evolution of language. Social and cognitive bases (pp. 68–91). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krebs, J. R., Dawkins, R. (1984). Animal Signals: Mind-Reading and Manipulation. In J. R. Krebs & R. Dawkins (Eds.), Behavioral ecology (pp. 380–402). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lameira, A. R., & Call, J. (2018). Time-space–displaced responses in the orangutan vocal system. Science Advances, 4(11), eaau3401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, J. D. (2014). BaYaka Pygmy multi-modal and mimetic communication traditions. In D. Dor, C. Knight, & J. Lewis (Eds), The Social origins of language (pp. 77–91). Oxford University Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard Smith, J., & Harper, D. 2003. Animal Signals. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, S. (2001). Social action: A teleological account. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mineiro, A., Báez-Montero, I. C., Moita, M., Galhano-Rodrigues, I., & Castro-Caldas, A. (2021). Disentangling pantomime from early sign in a new sign language: window into language evolution research. Frontiers in psychology, 12, 1130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mineiro, A., Carmo, P., Caroça, C., Moita, M., Carvalho, S., Paço, J., & Zaky, A. (2017). Emerging linguistic features of sao tome and principe sign language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 20(1), 109–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Power, C. (2014). The evolution of ritual as a process of sexual selection. The social origins of language. In D. Dor, C. Knight, & J. Lewis (Eds), The social origins of language (pp. 196–207). Oxford University Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, G., Lewandowski, J., & Galantucci, B. (2015). How communication changes when we cannot mime the world: Experimental evidence for the effect of iconicity on combinatoriality. Cognition, 141, 52–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sachs, J., Rubenstein, D. (2007). The evolution of cooperative breeding... Behav. Proc., 76(2), 131–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H. J. (2020). The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searcy, W., Nowicki, S. (2005). The Evolution of Animal Communication. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Slater, W. J. (1994). Pantomimes. Didaskalia, 1(2).Google Scholar
Soler, M. (2012). Costly signaling, ritual and cooperation: Evidence from Candomblé, an Afro-Bazilian religion. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(4), 346–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sonesson, G. (2007). From the meaning of embodiment to the embodiment of meaning: A study in phenomenological semiotics. In T. Ziemke, J. Zlatev & R. Frank (Eds.), Body, language and mind. Vol 1: Embodiment (p. 85–128). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sosis, R., & Bressler, E. R. (2003). Cooperation and commune longevity: A test of the costly signaling theory of religion. Cross-cultural research, 37(2), 211–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sosis, R., Kress, H. C., & Boster, J. S. (2007). Scars for war: evaluating alternative signaling explanations for cross-cultural variance in ritual costs. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 234–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sulik, J. (2018). Cognitive mechanisms for inferring the meaning of novel signals during symbolisation. PloS One, 13(1), e0189540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wacewicz, S., & Żywiczyński, P. (2021). Pantomimic conceptions of language origins. In N. Gontier, A. Lock, C. Sinha (Eds.), Handbook of human symbolic evolution. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whitehouse, H., & Lanman, J. A. (2014). The ties that bind us: Ritual, fusion, and identification. Current Anthropology, 55(6), 674–695. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xygalatas, D., Mitkidis, P., Fischer, R., Reddish, P., Skewes, J., Geertz, A. W., … & Bulbulia, J. (2013). Extreme rituals promote prosociality. Psychological Science, 24(8), 1602–1605. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J. (2014). Human uniqueness, bodily mimesis and the evolution of language. Humana. Mente Journal of Philosophical Studies, 7(27), 197–219.Google Scholar
(2018). Meaning making from life to language: The semiotic hierarchy and phenomenology. Cognitive Semiotics, 11(1), 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J., Persson, T., & Gärdenfors, P. (2005). Bodily mimesis as “the missing link” in human cognitive evolution. Lund University Cognitive Studies, 121, 1–45.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
Żywiczyński, P., Wacewicz, S., & Sibierska, M. (2018). Defining pantomime for language evolution research. Topoi, 37(2), 307–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Żywiczyński, P., Wacewicz, S., & Lister, C. (2021). Pantomimic fossils in modern human communication. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 376(1824), 20200204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar