What’s in a mime?
An exploratory analysis of predictors of communicative success of pantomime
Several lines of research within developmental psychology, experimental semiotics and language origins studies have recently converged in their interest in pantomime as a system of bodily communication distinct from both language (spoken or signed) and nonlinguistic gesticulation. These approaches underscore the effectiveness of pantomime, which despite lack of semiotic conventions is capable of communicating complex meanings. However, very little research is available on the structural underpinnings of this effectiveness, that is, the specific properties of pantomime that determine its communicative success. To help fill in this gap, we conducted an exploratory rating study aimed at identifying those properties of pantomime that facilitate its understanding. We analysed an existing corpus of 602 recordings of whole-body re-enactments of short transitive events, coding each of them for 6 properties, and found out that the presence of salient elements (conspicuous objects in a specific semantic space), image mapping (representing the physical orientation of the object), and gender markers (distinguishing between the represented characters) increased the guessability of pantomimes.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Study
- 2.1Dataset
- 2.2Method
- 2.2.1Operationalisation of communicative success
- 2.2.2Selection of predictors
- 2.2.3Coding procedure
- 2.2.4Statistical methods
- 3.Results
- 3.1Statistical analyses
- 3.2Qualitative post-analyses
- 4.Discussion
- 5.Conclusion
- Notes
-
References
References (51)
Arbib, M.
(
2012)
How the brain got language. Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Baus, C., Carreiras, M., Emmorey, K.
(
2013)
When does iconicity in sign language matter? Language and Cognitive Processes 28(3), 261–271.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brentari, D. et al.
(
2015)
Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic sources of a handshape distinction expressing agentivity.
Topics in Cognitive Science, 71, 95–123.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brown, S. et al.
(
2019)
How pantomime works: Implications for theories of language origins.
Frontiers in Communication, 41, 9.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Coppola, M., So, W. C.
(
2006)
The seeds of spatial grammar: Spatial modulation and coreference in homesigning and hearing adults. In:
D. Bamman et al. (Eds.)
BUCLD 30: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 119–130.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cormier, K., Schembri, A., Woll, B.
(
2013)
Pronouns and pointing in sign languages.
Lingua 1371, 230–247.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fenlon, J. et al.
(
2019)
Comparing sign language and gesture: Insights from pointing.
Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1), 2.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Firth, J. R.
(
1957)
Papers in Linguistics 1934–1951. Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Foster, P., Ohta, A. S.
(
2005)
Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms.
Applied linguistics, 26(3), 402–430.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gärdenfors, P.
(
2021)
Demonstration and pantomime in the evolution of teaching and communication.
Language & Communication, 801, 71–79.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gärdenfors, P.
(
2017)
Demonstration and pantomime in the evolution of teaching.
Frontiers in psychology, 81, 415.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hanna, B. E.
(
1996)
Defining the emblem.
Semiotica, 112(3/4), 289–358.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hsieh, Y. H. et al.
(
2014)
Who’s the best charades player? Mining iconic movement of semantic concepts.
LNCS, 83251, 231–241.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jakobson, R.
(
1959)
On linguistic aspects of translation. In:
R. Brower (Ed.)
On translation (pp. 232–239). Harvard University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kendon, A.
(
2004)
Gesture. Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kendon, A.
(
1980)
Gesticulation and speech: Two aspects of the process of utterance.
The relationship of verbal and nonverbal communication 251, 207–227.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kritikos, A. et al.
(
2012)
Something in the way she moves: morphology and motion of observed goal-directed and pantomimed actions.
Atten. Percept. Psychophys, 741, 36–42.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kurz, K. B., Mullaney, K., Occhino, C.
(
2019)
Constructed action in American Sign Language: a look at second language learners in a second modality.
Languages, 4(4), 90.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Long, M. H.
(
1985)
Input and second language acquisition theory.
Input in second language acquisition, 3771, 393.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Marentette, P. et al.
(
2020)
Pantomime (not silent gesture) in multimodal communication: Evidence from children’s narratives.
Front. Psychol., 111, 575952.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McNeill, D.
(
2005)
Gesture and thought. University of Chicago Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McNeill, D.
(
1992)
Hand and mind. What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Metzger, M.
(
1995)
Constructed dialogue and constructed action in American Sign Language. In:
C. Lucas (Ed.)
Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 255–271.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Milborrow, S.
(
2022)
rpart.plot: Plot ‘rpart’ Models: An Enhanced Version of ‘plot.rpart’.
R package version 3.1.1.
[URL]
Mineiro, A. et al.
(
2021)
Disentangling pantomime from early sign in a new sign language: window into language evolution research.
Frontiers in Psychology, 121, 640057.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Motamedi, Y. et al.
(
2019)
Evolving artificial sign languages in the lab: From improvised gesture to systematic sign.
Cognition, 1921, 103964.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Müller, C.
(
2014)
Gestural modes of representation as techniques of depiction. In:
C. Müller et al. (Eds.)
Body–Language Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction (pp. 1687–1701). De Gruyter Mouton.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Namboodiripad, S. et al.
(
2016)
Measuring conventionalization in the manual modality.
Journal of Language Evolution, 1(2), 109–118.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nogueira, P.
(
2011)
Motion capture fundamentals: A critical and comparative analysis on real-world applications. In:
E. Oliveira,
G. David, and
A. A. Sousa (Eds.)
Proceedings of the 7th Doctoral Symposium in Informatics Engineering, Porto, January 26–27 (pp. 303–331). Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Puupponen, A., Kanto, L., Wainio, T., Jantunen, T.
(
2022)
Variation in the use of constructed action according to discourse type and age in Finnish Sign Language.
Language & Communciation 831, 16–35.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
RStudio Team
(
2019)
RStudio: Integrated Development for R. Rstudio, Inc. Boston, MA.
[URL]
Sandler, W.
(
2009)
Symbiotic symbolization by hand and mouth in sign language.
Semiotica, 1741, 241–275.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sato, A., Kirby, S., Flaherty, M.
(
2022)
Language emergence can take multiple paths: Using motion capture to track axis use in Nicaraguan Sign Language.
Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 7(1).
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schmid, H. J.
(
2015)
A blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model.
GCLA, 31, 3–15.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Senghas, A., Coppola, M.
(
2001)
Children creating language: How Nicaraguan sign language acquired a spatial grammar.
Psychological Science 12(4), 323–238.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sonesson, G.
(
1997)
The ecological foundations of iconicity. In:
I. Rauch &
G. F. Carr (Eds.)
Semiotics around the World: Synthesis in Diversity (pp. 739–742). Mouton de Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Therneau, T., Atkinson, B.
(
2019)
rpart: Recursive Partitioning and Regression Trees.
R package version 41.1–15.
[URL]
Tomasello, M.
(
2008)
Origins of Human Communication. MIT Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Nispen, K., van de Sandt-Koenderman Krahmer, E.
(
2017)
Production and comprehension of pantomimes used to depict objects.
Front. Psychol., 81, 1095.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wacewicz, S., Żywiczyński, P.
(
2021)
Pantomimic conceptions of language origins. In:
N. Gonthier et al. (Eds.)
The Oxford Handbook of Symbolic Evolution (
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
). Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wickham, H. et al.
(
2021)
dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation.
R package version 1.0.7.
[URL]
Wickham, H.
(
2019)
stringr: Simple, Consistent Wrappers for Common String Operations.
R package version 1.4.0.
[URL]
Wickham, H.
(
2011)
The Split-Apply-Combine Strategy for Data Analysis.
Journal of Statistical Software, 401, 1–29.
[URL].
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Zipf, George K.
1949 Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Addison-Wesley Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zlatev, J., Żywiczyński, P., Wacewicz, S.
(
2020)
Pantomime as the original human-specific communicative system.
Journal of Language Evolution, 5(2), 156–174.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zlatev, J.
(
2014)
Image schemas, mimetic schemas, and children’s gestures.
Cognit. Semiotic, 71, 3–30.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zlatev, J., Adrén, M.
(
2009)
Stages and transitions in children’s semiotic development. In:
J. Zlatev et al. (Eds.)
Studies in Language and Cognition (pp. 380–401). Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Żywiczyński, P. et al.
(
2021a)
Evolution of conventional communication. A cross-cultural study of pantomimic re-enactments of transitive events.
Language & Communication, 801, 191–203.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Żywiczyński, P., Wacewicz, S., Lister, C.
(
2021b)
Pantomimic fossils in modern human communication.
Philosophical Transactions B, 3761, 20200204.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Żywiczyński, P., Wacewicz, S., Sibierska, M.
(
2018)
Defining pantomime for language evolution research.
Topoi, 37(2), 307–318.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by 1 other publications
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.