Cover not available

Article published In: Child-Robot Interaction: Design, Evaluation, and Novel Solutions
Edited by Marta Couto, Shruti Chandra, Elmira Yadollahi and Vicky Charisi
[Interaction Studies 23:2] 2022
► pp. 289–321

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

What’s in a mime?

An exploratory analysis of predictors of communicative success of pantomime

 | Nicolaus Copernicus University | Lund University
 | Nicolaus Copernicus University
 | Nicolaus Copernicus University
 | Nicolaus Copernicus University
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

This article was made Open Access under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license through payment of an APC by or on behalf of the authors.

Published online: 24 March 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.22002.sib
Abstract
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)
References
Arbib, M. (2012). How the brain got language. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baus, C., Carreiras, M., Emmorey, K. (2013). When does iconicity in sign language matter? Language and Cognitive Processes 28(3), 261–271. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brentari, D. et al. (2015). Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic sources of a handshape distinction expressing agentivity. Topics in Cognitive Science, 71, 95–123. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, S. et al. (2019). How pantomime works: Implications for theories of language origins. Frontiers in Communication, 41, 9. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Cormier, K., Schembri, A., Woll, B. (2013). Pronouns and pointing in sign languages. Lingua 1371, 230–247. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fenlon, J. et al. (2019). Comparing sign language and gesture: Insights from pointing. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1), 2. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Firth, J. R. (1957). Papers in Linguistics 1934–1951. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foster, P., Ohta, A. S. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied linguistics, 26(3), 402–430. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. (2021). Demonstration and pantomime in the evolution of teaching and communication. Language & Communication, 801, 71–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Demonstration and pantomime in the evolution of teaching. Frontiers in psychology, 81, 415. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hanna, B. E. (1996). Defining the emblem. Semiotica, 112(3/4), 289–358. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hsieh, Y. H. et al. (2014). Who’s the best charades player? Mining iconic movement of semantic concepts. LNCS, 83251, 231–241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1959). On linguistic aspects of translation. In: R. Brower (Ed.) On translation (pp. 232–239). Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture. Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1980). Gesticulation and speech: Two aspects of the process of utterance. The relationship of verbal and nonverbal communication 251, 207–227. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. Input in second language acquisition, 3771, 393.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marentette, P. et al. (2020). Pantomime (not silent gesture) in multimodal communication: Evidence from children’s narratives. Front. Psychol., 111, 575952. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (2005). Gesture and thought. University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1992). Hand and mind. What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Motamedi, Y. et al. (2019). Evolving artificial sign languages in the lab: From improvised gesture to systematic sign. Cognition, 1921, 103964. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Namboodiripad, S. et al. (2016). Measuring conventionalization in the manual modality. Journal of Language Evolution, 1(2), 109–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, H. J. (2015). A blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model. GCLA, 31, 3–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Senghas, A., Coppola, M. (2001). Children creating language: How Nicaraguan sign language acquired a spatial grammar. Psychological Science 12(4), 323–238. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Nispen, K., van de Sandt-Koenderman Krahmer, E. (2017). Production and comprehension of pantomimes used to depict objects. Front. Psychol., 81, 1095. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wacewicz, S., Żywiczyński, P. (2021). Pantomimic conceptions of language origins. In: N. Gonthier et al. (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Symbolic Evolution ( ). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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]
(2011). The Split-Apply-Combine Strategy for Data Analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 401, 1–29. [URL].
Zipf, George K. 1949. Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Addison-Wesley Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zlatev, J. (2014). Image schemas, mimetic schemas, and children’s gestures. Cognit. Semiotic, 71, 3–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Żywiczyński, P., Wacewicz, S., Lister, C. (2021b). Pantomimic fossils in modern human communication. Philosophical Transactions B, 3761, 20200204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Żywiczyński, P., Wacewicz, S., Sibierska, M. (2018). Defining pantomime for language evolution research. Topoi, 37(2), 307–318. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Arbib, Michael
2024. Pantomime within and beyond the evolution of language. In Perspectives on Pantomime [Advances in Interaction Studies, 12], ► pp. 16 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 march 2026. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue