In:Perspectives on Pantomime
Edited by Przemysław Żywiczyński, Johan Blomberg and Monika Boruta-Żywiczyńska
[Advances in Interaction Studies 12] 2024
► pp. 58–77
Chapter 2The relations of demonstration and pantomime to causal reasoning and event cognition
Published online: 15 February 2024
https://doi.org/10.1075/ais.12.02gar
https://doi.org/10.1075/ais.12.02gar
Abstract
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.
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
References (81)
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.
Arbib, M. A. (2012). How
the brain got language: The mirror system
hypothesis (Vol. 16). Oxford University Press.
(2018). In
support of the role of pantomime in language evolution. Journal of Language
Evolution, 3(1), 41–44.
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.
Boesch, C., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Chimpanzee
and human cultures. Current
Anthropology, 39(5), 591–614.
Brinck, I. (2004). The
pragmatics of imperative and declarative pointing. Cogitive
Science Quarterly, 3(4), 429–446.
Brown, S., Mittermaier, E., Kher, T., & Arnold, P. (2019). How
pantomime works: Implications for theories of language origin. Frontiers in
Communication, 4, 9.
Calvin, W. H., & Bickerton, D. (2000). Lingua
ex machina: Reconciling Darwin and Chomsky with the human brain. MIT Press.
Cheney, D., & Seyfarth, R. (1990). Attending
to behaviour versus attending to knowledge: Examining monkeys’ attribution of mental
states. Animal
Behaviour, 40(4), 742–753.
Clark, E. V. (1992). Conventionality
and contrast: Pragmatic principles with lexical consequences. Lehrer and Kittay,
1992a, 171–188.
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.
Decety, J., & Grèzes, J. (2006). The
power of simulation: imagining one’s own and other’s behavior. Brain
Research, 1079(1), 4–14.
Donald, M. (1991). Origins
of the modern mind: Three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition. Harvard University Press.
Gärdenfors, P. (1995). Cued
and detached representations in animal cognition. Behavioural
Processes, 35(1–3), 263–273.
(2007). Evolutionary
and developmental aspects of intersubjectivity. In H. Liljenström, & P. Århem (Eds.), Consciousness
transitions (pp. 281–305). Elsevier Science BV.
(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.
(2012). The
cognitive and communicative demands of cooperation. In J. van Eijck, & R. Verbrugge (Eds.), Games,
actions and social
software (pp. 164–183). Springer.
(2021). Causal
reasoning and event cognition as evolutionary determinants of language
structure. Entropy, 23(7), 843.
Gärdenfors, P., & Högberg, A. (2017). The
archaeology of teaching and the evolution of Homo docens. Current
Anthropology, 58(2), 188–208.
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. .
Gärdenfors, P., Jost, J., & Warglien, M. (2018). From
actions to effects: Three constraints on event mappings. Frontiers in
Psychology, 1391.
Gärdenfors, P., & Lombard, M. (2018). Causal
cognition, force dynamics and early hunting technologies. Frontiers in
Psychology, 9, 87.
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. .
Gärdenfors, P., & Warglien, M. (2012). Using
conceptual spaces to model actions and events. Journal of
Semantics, 29(4), 487–519.
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.
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.
Gómez, J. C. (2007). Requesting
gestures in captive monkeys. Gestural Communication in Nonhuman and Human
Primates, 10, 83.
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.
Hannah, A. C., & McGrew, W. C. (1987). Chimpanzees
using stones to crack open oil palm nuts in
Liberia. Primates, 28(1), 31–46.
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.
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.
(1987). Pretense
and representation: The origins of ”theory of mind.”. Psychological
review, 94(4), 412.
Leslie, A. M., & Keeble, S. (1987). Do
six-month-old infants perceive
causality? Cognition, 25(3), 265–288.
Lombard, M., & Gärdenfors, P. (2017). Tracking
the evolution of causal cognition in humans. Journal of Anthropological
Sciences 95, 1–18.
(2021). Causal
cognition and theory of mind in evolutionary cognitive archaeology. Biological
Theory, 1–19.
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.
Morgan, B. J., & Abwe, E. E. (2006). Chimpanzees
use stone hammers in Cameroon. Current
Biology, 16(16), R632–R633.
Nielsen, M. (2012). Imitation,
pretend play, and childhood: Essential elements in the evolution of human
culture? Journal of Comparative
Psychology, 126(2), 170.
Pika, S., & Mitani, J. (2006). Referential
gestural communication in wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Current
Biology, 16(6), R191–R192.
Pleyer, M., Wacewicz, S., & Żywiczyński, P. (2021). Shared
evolutionary and developmental foundations of pretence and pantomime, abstract
for Protolang 7, Düsseldorf.
Povinelli, D. J. (2000). Folk
physics for apes: The chimpanzee’s theory of how the world works. Oxford University Press.
Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does
the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?. Behavioral and brain
sciences, 1(4), 515–526.
Quinto-Pozos, D. (2007). Can
constructed action be considered
obligatory? Lingua, 117(7), 1285–1314.
Rissman, L., & Majid, A. (2019). Thematic
roles: Core knowledge or linguistic construct? Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 26(6), 1850–1869.
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.
Russon, A., & Andrews, K. (2011). Orangutan
pantomime: elaborating the message. Biology
Letters, 7(4), 627–630.
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.
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.
Shaw-Williams, K. (2014). The
social trackways theory of the evolution of human cognition. Biological
Theory, 9(1), 16–26.
Stuart-Fox, M. (2015). The
origins of causal cognition in early hominins. Biology &
Philosophy, 30(2), 247–266.
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.
Tanner, J. E., & Byrne, R. W. (1996). Representation
of action through iconic gesture in a captive lowland gorilla. Current
Anthropology, 37(1), 162–173.
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., & Liszkowski, U. (2007). A
new look at infant pointing. Child
Development, 78(3), 705–722.
Warglien, M., Gärdenfors, P., & Westera, M. (2012). Event
structure, conceptual spaces and the semantics of verbs. Theoretical
Linguistics, 38(3–4), 159–193.
(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.
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.
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.
Wolff, P.; Thorstad, R. (2017). Force
dynamics. In M. R. Waldmann (Ed.), The
Oxford handbook of causal
reasoning (pp. 147–167). Oxford University Press.
Zlatev, J., Persson, T., Gärdenfors, P. (2005). Bodily
mimesis as ‘the missing link’ in human cognitive evolution, Lund: Lund University
Cognitive Studies 121.
Zlatev, J., Żywiczyński, P., & Wacewicz, S. (2020). Pantomime
as the original human-specific communicative system. Journal of Language
Evolution, 5(2), 156–174.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Arbib, Michael
2024. Pantomime within and beyond the evolution of language. In Perspectives on Pantomime [Advances in Interaction Studies, 12], ► pp. 16 ff.
Mineiro, Ana & Mara Moita
2024. The pantomime roots of Sao Tome and Principe Sign Language. In Perspectives on Pantomime [Advances in Interaction Studies, 12], ► pp. 159 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. 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.
