In:Perspectives on Pantomime
Edited by Przemysław Żywiczyński, Johan Blomberg and Monika Boruta-Żywiczyńska
[Advances in Interaction Studies 12] 2024
► pp. 217–241
Chapter 9Gestural mimesis as “as-if” action
Published online: 15 February 2024
https://doi.org/10.1075/ais.12.09mul
https://doi.org/10.1075/ais.12.09mul
Abstract
It is argued that gestural mimesis involves “as-if” actions that explain the transition from practical and literal
actions with the hands to communicative actions of the hands. Concerning the term and the concept “pantomime,” it is suggested
that it be primarily reserved for artistic practice and used for this type of communicative action only with great care. Given
the fundamental role of mimesis to gestures (hand-gestures as well as full body gestures), it is proposed that gestures in
general be conceived of as “mimetic expressive movements” – no matter whether they are used in the presence or absence of
spoken or signed language. In order to underline the continuity between gestures created on the spot and conventionalized
gestural forms, It is suggested to use the term miming or mimesis no matter whether gestures replace or accompany language.
The chapter offers an introduction to the theoretical motivations and illustrates the empirical and methodological
implications of this proposal. It first sketches three key aspects of an approach to gestures as
mimetic expressive movements, then shows that mimesis grounds gestures with different
communicative functions, illustrating its emergent productivity along the dynamics of different types of discourse and briefly
touches upon dynamics in terms of historical change and how this affects the kinesics and the meaning of
gestures. Finally, it is briefly indicated how conceiving of gestures as mimetic expressive movements affects the methodology
for gesture analysis.
Article outline
- Introduction
- 1.Gestures as mimetic expressive movements
- 1.1Gesture phrases and the meaning of a gesture (Kendon)
- 1.2Expressive movements as movement images and how gestures are understood (Plessner)
- 1.3Mimesis as anthropological constant (Aristotle)
- 2.How miming as as-if action grounds gestural meaning dynamically
- 2.1Miming as as-if action in a story-telling about a family event
- 2.2Miming as as-if action in an interview with barack obama
- 2.3Miming as as-if action and historical processes of stabilization
- 3.Miming as as-if action in the context of gesture analysis
- Summary and conclusion
References
References (45)
Arbib, M. A., (2012). How
the brain got language: The mirror system
hypothesis 16. Oxford University Press.
Bressem, J., & Ladewig, S. H. (2011). Rethinking
gesture phases: Articulatory features of gestural
movement? Semiotica, 184(1/4), 53–91.
Bressem, Jana, Silva H. Ladewig & Cornelia Müller (2013). Linguistic
Annotation System for Gestures (LASG). In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. H. Ladewig, D. McNeill & S. Teßendorf (Eds.) Body –
language – communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. (Handbooks of Linguistics
and Communication Science
38.1.), 1098–1124. Berlin/ Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Bressem, J., & Müller, C. (2014a). The
family of Away gestures: Negation, refusal, and negative
assessment. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. H. Ladewig, D. McNeill, & J. Bressem (Eds.), Body –
language – communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human
interaction (Vol. 2, pp. 1592–1604). De Gruyter Mouton.
(2014b). A
repertoire of German recurrent gestures with pragmatic
functions. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. H. Ladewig, D. McNeill, & J. Bressem (Eds.), Body –
language – communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human
interaction (Vol. 2, pp. 1575–1591). De Gruyter Mouton.
Goldin-Meadow, S., & Brentari, D. (2017). Gesture,
sign, and language: the coming of age of sign language and gesture studies. Behav.
Brain Sci., 40, 1–17.
Harrison, S, Ladewig, S. H. & Bressem, J. (Eds). (2021) Recurrent
Gestures. Special
Issue. Gesture 20/2.
Kappelhoff, H. (2004). Matrix
der Gefühle. Das Kino, das Melodrama und das Theater der Empfindsamkeit
(13774895). Vorwerk 8.
Kendon, A. (1972). Some
relationships between body motion and speech. In A. Seigman, & B. Pope (Eds.), Studies
in dyadic
communication (pp. 177–216). Pergamon Press.
(1980). Gesture
and speech: Two aspects of the process of utterance. In M. R. Key, (Ed.), Nonverbal
Communication and
Language (pp. 207–227). Mouton.
(1983) Gesture
and speech: How they interact. In Wiemann & R. Harrison (Eds.). Nonverbal
Interaction (Sage Annual Reviews of Communication, Volume 11,
pp. 13–46). Sage Publications.
(1988). How
gestures can become like words. In F. Poyatos (Ed.), Crosscultural
Perspectives in Nonverbal
Communication (pp. 131–141). Hogrefe.
Kendon, Adam (2011). Vocalisation,
speech, gesture, and the language origins debate: an essay review on recent
contributions. Gesture, 11(3), 349–370.
Kendon, A. (2014). Semiotic
diversity in utterance production and the concept of ‘language’. Philos. Trans. R. Soc.
B Biol Sci. 369:20130293.
Kendon, Adam (2016). Reflections
on the ‘Gesture First’ hypothesis of language origins. Psychonomic Bulletin and
Review.
Ladewig, Silva H. (2014a). Recurrent
gestures. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. H. Ladewig, D. McNeill & Jana Bressem (Eds.,), Body –
language – communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human
interaction (pp. 1558–1575). De Gruyter Mouton.
Ladewig, S. H. (2014b). The
cyclic gesture. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. H. Ladewig, D. McNeill, & J. Bressem (Eds.), Body –
language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human
interaction (pp. 1605–1618). De Gruyter Mouton
Lausberg, H., Cruz, R. F., Kita, S., Zaidel, E., und Ptito, A. (2003). Pantomime
to visual presentation of objects. Left hand dyspraxia in patients with complete
callosotomy. Brain, 126, 343–360.
(2000). Language
and Gesture. In D. McNeil (Hrsg.), Introduction (S. 1–10). Cambridge University Press.
(2013). The
co-evolution of gesture and speech, and downstream
consequences. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. H. Ladewig, D. McNeill & Jana Bressem (Eds.,), Body –
language – communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human
interaction (pp. 480–512). De Gruyter Mouton.
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.
Müller, C. (1998). Redebegleitende
Gesten: Kulturgeschichte—Theorie—Sprachvergleich. Berlin Verlag Arno Spitz.
(1998a) Redebegleitende
Gesten. Kulturgeschichte – Theorie – Sprachvergleich. Berlin Verlag Arno Spitz GmbH
(2010). Wie
Gesten bedeuten. Eine kognitiv-linguistische und sequenzanalytische
Perspektive. In Irene Mittelberg (Ed.), Sprache
und Gestik. Sonderheft der Zeitschrift Sprache und
Literatur, 41(1): 37–68.
Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D. & Teßendorf, S. (Eds.) (2013) Body –
language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (Handbooks of linguistics
and communication science 38.1.) Berlin/ Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Bressem, J. (eds.) (2014) Body –
language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (Handbooks of linguistics
and communication science 38.2.) De Gruyter Mouton
Müller, C. (2017). How
recurrent gestures mean: Conventionalized contexts-of-use and embodied
motivation. Gesture, 16(2), 277–304.
Müller, C., & Kappelhoff, H. (2018). Cinematic
Metaphor. Experience – Affectivity – Temporality. De Gruyter Mouton.
Müller, C. (2014). Gestural
Modes of Representation as techniques of depiction. Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Bressem, J. (eds.) (2014) Body –
language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (Handbooks of linguistics
and communication science 38.2.) De Gruyter Mouton.
(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. Peter Lang. 211–226.
(2018). Gesture
and Sign: Cataclysmic Break or Dynamic Relations? Frontiers in
Psychology, 10 September 2018. )
(2019). Metaphorizing
as Embodied Interactivity: What Gesturing and Film Viewing Can Tell Us About an Ecological View on
Metaphor. Metaphor and
Symbol, 34(1): 61–79.
(in
press). A Toolbox of Methods for Gesture
Analysis. In Cienki, A. (ed.) Handbook
of Gesture Studies. Cambridge University Press.
Plessner, H. (1982). Ausdruck
und menschliche Natur. G. Dux, O. Marquard & E. Ströker (Eds.). 10
Vol. 7, Helmuth Plessner. Gesammelte
Schriften. Suhrkamp. Original edition 1957.
Singleton, J. L., Goldin-Meadow, S., & McNeill, D. (1995). The
cataclysmic break between gesticulation and sign: evidence against an evolutionary continuum of manual
communication. In K. Emmorey & J. Reilly (Eds.), Language,
Gesture, and
Space (pp. 287–311). Erlbaum Associates.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Ortega, Gerardo
2023. Review of Żywiczyński, Blomberg & Boruta-Żywiczyńska (2024): Perspectives on Pantomime. Gesture 22:3 ► pp. 325 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.
