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. 115–138

Chapter 5
Can pantomime narrate?

A cognitive semiotic approach

| Lund University
| Nicolaus Copernicus University
| Nicolaus Copernicus University
| Lund University
| Nicolaus Copernicus University
Adopting the conceptual-empirical loop of cognitive semiotics, we define narrative as a three-part structure consisting of Narration, Story and Event-sequence and primary narrativity as the process of interpreting a narrative from the former to the latter two. We distinguish between simple narratives with chronological mappings between Story and Event sequence, and complex narratives, where this is not the case; for example, by beginning the narration with the final event. Understanding pantomime as a prototype-based concept grounded in iconic gesture, we ask if it affords primary narrativity, in the case of both simple and complex narratives. We proceed by reviewing and elaborating a recent experimental semiotic study where communicators inter-semiotically translated three-event stories from language to pantomime, and interpreters had to match these performances with three-image cartoon strips. The results showed that pantomime was successful when the narratives were simple, but much less so when they were not. To be able to distinguish between the two, the participants spontaneously introduced various markers of event order. When they conventionalized these markers, they introduced elements of protolanguage, thus going beyond the narrative potentials of pantomime.
Keywords: cognitive semiotics, bodily mimesis, narration, story, event sequence primary/secondary narrativity, simple/complex narratives
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Narrative, primary vs. secondary narrativity, and different semiotic systems
  • 3.Pantomime as a prototype-based concept
  • 4.Pantomiming simple and (more) complex narratives
  • 5.Summary and conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 15 February 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ais.12.05zla
References (50)
References
Allen, R. J. (2013). Beginning, middle, end of an era: Has technology trumped Aristotle? Journal of Film and Video, 65(1–2), 9–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arbib, M. (2005). From monkey-like action recognition to human language: An evolutionary framework for neurolinguistics. Behavioral and brain sciences, 28, 105–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aristotle. (1987). The Poetics of Aristotle. Translation and Commentary S. Halliwell. The University of North Caroline Press.
Bal, M. (1997). Narratology: Introduction to the theory of narrative. University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, B. (2017). The evolution of stories: From mimesis to language, from fact to fiction. WIREs Cognitive Science, 9(1), 1444. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Clark, H. (2004). Variations on a Ranarian theme. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (eds). Relating events in narrative. Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. 457–476). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Currie, M. (2007). About time: Narrative, fiction, and the philosophy of time. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (2013). Intuition pumps and other tools for thinking. W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Devylder, S., & Zlatev, J. (2020). Cutting and Breaking Metaphors of the Self and the Motivation and Sedimentation Model. In A. Baicchi & G. Radden (Eds.), Figurative meaning construction in thought and language (pp. 253–281) Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diget, I. S. K. (2019). Intersemiotic translation from film to audio description: A cognitive semiotic approach. (MA Thesis) Lund University.Google Scholar
Donald, M. (1991). Origins of the modern mind: Three stages in the evolution of human culture. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(1998). Mimesis and the executive suite: Missing links in language evolution. In J. R. Hurford, M. Studdert-Kennedy, & C. Knight (Eds.), Approaches to the evolution of language: Social and cognitive biases (pp. 44–67). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2012). The mimetic origins of language The Oxford handbook of language evolution (pp. 180–183). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013). Mimesis theory re-examined, twenty years after the fact. In G. Hatfield & H. Pittman (Eds.), Evolution of mind, brain and culture (pp. 169–192). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Fay, N., Arbib, M., & Garrod, D. (2013). How to bootstrap a human communication system. Cognitive Science, 37, 1356–1367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frege, G. (1948 [1892]). Sense and reference. The Philosophical Review, 57(3). 209–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Genette, G. (1980). Narrative discourse: An essay in method. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Halliwell, S. (2012). Diegesis – mimesis. The living handbook of narratology. Hamburg University. [URL]Google Scholar
Hutcheon, L. (2006). A theory of adaptation. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hühn, P., Pier, J., Schmid, W. & Schönert, J. (2009). The living handbook of narratology. Hamburg. [URL]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1959). On linguistic aspects of translation. In On Translation (pp. 232–239). Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Konderak, P. (2018). Mind, cognition, semiosis: Ways to cognitive semiotics. UMCS Press.Google Scholar
Krathwohl, D. R. (2009). Methods of educational and social science research: The logic of methods. Waveland Press.Google Scholar
Leabhart, T. (1997). Modern and post-modern mime. St. Martin’s Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lecoq, J. (2006). Theatre of movement and gesture. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, W., & Zlatev, J. (2021). Intersemiotic translation from fairy tale to sculpture: An exploration of secondary narrativity. Sign Systems Studies, 1–29.Google Scholar
Masereel, F. (1918) 25 Images de la Passion d’un Homme. Édition de Sablier.Google Scholar
Möttonen, T. (2016). Construal in expression: Intersubjective approach to cognitive grammar. University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Müller, C. (2016). From mimesis to meaning: A systematics of gestural mimesis for concrete and abstract referential gestures. In J. Zlatev, G. Sonesson & P. Konderak (Eds.), Meaning, mind and communication: Explorations in cognitive semiotics, (pp. 211–226). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Prince, G. (2008). Narrativehood, narrativeness, narrativity, narratability. In: J. Pier, L. García & A. José (Eds.), Theorizing narrativity (pp. 19–27). De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ryan, M.-L. (2007). Toward a definition of narrative. In D. Herman (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to narrative (pp. 22–35). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
, (2012). Narration in various media. In: Hühn, P., et al.. (Eds.), The living handbook of narratology. Hamburg University. [URL]Google Scholar
Sibierska, M. (2017). Storytelling without telling: The non-linguistic nature of narratives from evolutionary and narratological perspectives. Language & Communication, 54, 47–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sibierska, M., Żywiczyński, P, Zlatev, J., van de Weijer, J, Boruta-Żywiczyńska, M. (2023). Contraints on communicating the order of events in stories. Journal of Language Evolution, XX: 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slater, W. J. (1994). Pantomime riots. Classical Antiquity, 13(1), 120–144.Google Scholar
Sokolowski, R. (2000). Introduction to phenomenology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sonesson, G. (1997). Mute narratives. New issues in the study of pictorial texts. In U.-B. Lagerroth, H. Lund, & E. Hedning (Eds.), Interart Poetics (pp. 243–250). Rodophi.Google Scholar
(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 (pp. 85–128). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Translation and other acts of meaning: In between cognitive semiotics and semiotics of culture. Cognitive semiotics, 7(2), 249–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stampoulidis, G. (2019). Stories of resistance in Greek street art: A cognitive-semiotic approach. Public Journal of Semiotics, 8(2), 29–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Todorov, T. (1969). Structural analysis of narrative. NOVEL: A Forum on Fiction, 3(1), 70–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2008). The origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Werner, H., & Kaplan, B. (1963). Symbol formation: An organismic-developmental approach to language and the expression of thought. Wiley.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J. (2014). Bodily mimesis and the transition to speech. In M. Pina & N. Gontier (Eds.), The Evolution of Social Communication in Primates (pp. 165–178). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Cognitive semiotics. In P. Trifonas (Ed.), International handbook of semiotics (pp. 1043–1067). Springer: Dordrecht. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Turning back to experience in Cognitive Linguistics via Phenomenology, Cognitive Linguistics, 27 (4): 559–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J., Sonesson, G., & Konderak, P. (2016). Introduction: Cognitive semiotics comes of age. In J. Zlatev, G. Sonesson, & P. Konderak (Eds.), Meaning, Mind and Communication (pp. 9–28). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J., Wacewicz, S., Żywiczyński, P., & van de Weijer, J. (2017). Multimodal-first or pantomime-first? Communicating events through pantomime with and without vocalization. Interaction Studies, 18(3), 455–479.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J., Żywiczyński, P., & Wacewicz, S. (2020). Pantomime as the original human-specific communicative system. Journal of Language Evolution, 1–19. 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 (2)

Cited by two 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

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.