Pantomime as the original human-specific communicative system

Abstract

We propose reframing one of the key questions in the field of language evolution as what was the original human-specific communicative system? With the help of cognitive semiotics, first we clarify the difference between signals, which characterize animal communication, and signs, which do not replace but complement signals in human communication. We claim that the evolution of bodily mimesis allowed for the use of signs, and the social-cognitive skills needed to support them to emerge in hominin evolution. Neither signs nor signals operate single-handedly, but as part of semiotic systems. Communicative systems can be either monosemiotic or polysemiotic—the former consisting of a single semiotic system and the latter, of several. Our proposal is that pantomime, as the original human-specific communicative system, should be characterized as polysemiotic: dominated by gesture but also including vocalization, facial expression, and possibly the rudiments of depiction. Given that pantomimic gestures must have been maximally similar to bodily actions, we characterize them as typically (1) dominated by iconicity, (2) of the primary kind, (3) involving the whole body, (4) performed from a first-person perspective, (5) concerning peripersonal space, and (6) using the Enacting mode of representation.

Pantomimic fossils in modern human communication

“…A compelling theoretical argument can be advanced that the earliest systems of sign-based communication would have relied on bodily mimesis as a cognitive mechanism and primary iconicity as a semiotic principle (see esp. [4]).…”

“…For example, a pointing gesture typically involves indexicality with respect to its object, resemblance (i.e. iconicity) with respect to the intended gaze alternation or motion of the addressee, and conventionality, since there are different norms for pointing in different cultures [4]. Both iconic and indexical signs allow their users to transmit referential-propositional information, but there is an important difference between the two: indexes are usually tied to situations where the intended referent is available and salient, while icons do not have such constraints ( [10]: 233), thus facilitating displacement (i.e.…”

“…Icons also facilitate open-ended semantics: new signs can be flexibly created to communicate about many semantic domains [8,9]. 4 Mimetic scenarios of the evolution of human-specific communication (e.g. [11,13,29]) acknowledge the role of pointing gestures in this process and link the emergence of pointing to the general characteristic of triadic mimesis, whereby a bodily movement serves to identify an object in the spatio-temporal coordinates of an act of communication [19, pp 363-646].…”

Constructing a protolanguage: reconstructing prehistoric languages in a usage-based construction grammar framework

“…In a CxG framework, there are two additional foundational capacities for the evolution of PL1 and its elaborations in PL2. The first is the importance of iconicity in language structure and acquisition [111,112], which has also been suggested to play an important role in the emergence of protolinguistic forms of communication, especially in the gestural domain [105,[113][114][115]. Interestingly, great apes seem not to be able to spontaneously comprehend iconic gestures [116,117].…”

Constructing a protolanguage: Reconstructing prehistoric languages in a usage-based construction grammar framework

“…In a CxG framework, there are two additional foundational capacities for the evolution of PL1 and its elaborations in PL2. The first is the importance of iconicity in language structure and acquisition [111,112], which has also been suggested to play an important role in the emergence of protolinguistic forms of communication, especially in the gestural domain [105,[113][114][115]. Interestingly, great apes seem not to be able to spontaneously comprehend iconic gestures [116,117].…”