WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository

2011

Pantomime in Great : Evidence and Implications

Ann E. Russon

Kristin Andrews York University

Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/acwp_asie

Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Comparative Psychology Commons, and the Other Animal Sciences Commons

Recommended Citation Russon, A. E., & Andrews, K. (2011). Pantomime in great apes: Evidence and implications. Communicative & integrative biology, 4(3), 315-317.

This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLE ADDENDUM Communicative & Integrative Biology 4:3, 315-317; May/June 2011; ©2011 Landes Bioscience

Pantomime in great apes Evidence and implications

Anne E. Russon* and Kristin Andrews 1Psychology; Glendon College; Toronto, BC Canada 2Philosophy; York University; Toronto, BC Canada

e recently demonstrated, by one deceiving and the other acting as if Wmining observational data, that deceived.14 forest-living can commu- Orangutans feigned inability to solve a nicate using gestures that qualify as task to solicit help. So did a home-reared pantomime.1 Pantomimes, like other , , when about 18 months iconic gestures, physically resemble their old.15 Viki often pretend-dragged an imag- referents.2,3 More elaborately, panto- inary pull toy and got its imaginary cord mimes involve enacting their referents.4 “stuck” on a handle. She usually “freed” Holding thumb and finger together at it herself and then resumed her pretend- the lips and blowing between them to dragging. One day, in front of Hayes, Ü-BOEFT#JPTDJFODF5 mean “balloon” is one example. Here we Viki made a weaker attempt than usual sketch evidence of pantomime in other to “free” the “stuck” cord, “failed” and great apes, methodological concerns and gave up, looked up at Hayes and called sophisticated cognitive capabilities that “Mama.” Hayes interpreted this as asking %POPUEJTUSJCVUFgreat pantomimes suggest. for help, so she “freed” Viki’s “stuck” cord. Viki watched closely, accepted the “freed” Pantomime in Other Great Apes cord and resumed pretend-dragging. Some pantomimes showed We subsequently identified credible reports the partner how to do something. So does of pantomime in other great apes. These a chimpanzee event reported as demon- extend the distribution of pantomime in stration teaching.16,17 While resting, Ricci, nonhuman species. Resemblances they an adult female, noticed her daughter share with our orangutan pantomimes, in Nina trying unsuccessfully to crack nuts their contexts and messages, also contrib- with an odd-shaped stone hammer. Ricci ute to showing up patterns and enhancing joined Nina, who immediately sat in front validity. We offer several examples. of Ricci and handed her the stone. With Orangutans groomed a partner briefly Nina watching closely, Ricci turned the Key words: pantomime, great apes, to solicit grooming; so do stone to its best position for nut crack- 6-8 gesture, orangutan, origins, and . Orangutans feigned eat- ing—much more slowly and deliberately cognition, narrative, communication ing, seemingly to express benign interac- than usual, cracked 10 nuts with it and let tive intent to a reluctant partner.9 Wild Nina eat almost all of them, then dropped Submitted: 01/13/11 mountain gorillas, orangutans and other the stone and left. Nina resumed cracking, Accepted: 01/13/11 also use ritualized eating to holding the stone the way Ricci had shown, DOI: 10.4161/cib.4.3/14809 notify their interactive intentions; in some and cracked nuts successfully within 15 species, it can indicate benign intent.10-13 minutes. Boesch interpreted this as Ricci’s *Correspondence to: Anne E. Russon; In one such case, both partners feigned recognizing Nina’s difficulties and helping Email: [email protected] interest in the same non-food item that her correct the hammering technique by Addendum to: Russon A, Andrews K. Orangutan they “ate.” This tactic has been detected showing her how to grip and use the stone pantomime: Elaborating the message. Biol in chimpanzee reconciliation and likened effectively, in a very conspicuous fashion. Letters 2010; 7:627-30; PMID: 20702451; to a collective lie that helps break tension His interpretation of this event as teaching DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2010.0564. and bring adversaries back together, with was hotly contested, partly because it is the

www.landesbioscience.com Communicative & Integrative Biology 315 only such case. Interpreted as pantomime, the concurrent and historical contextual In addition, one orangutan panto- it is less anomalous. Importantly here, it data needed for interpretation.34,35 All the mimed complex and sequential informa- shares the “show how” feature we identi- cases we identified were obtained from tion that portrays a story. Kikan re-enacted fied in several orangutan pantomimes. systematically collected data, reported part of a past event: a caregiver had used by observers trained in scientific obser- a pencil to remove a sliver from the sole of Eye of the Beholder vation and knowledgeable about these Kikan’s foot and then daubed latex from events’ current and historical context, a fig leaf stem on the wound to dry it. A Critics have claimed that these orang- and supported with extensive background week later, after gaining this caregiver’s utan pantomimes and other great ape information. We also note that the inter- attention, Kikan picked a leaf and poked iconic gestures exist only in the eye of the pretations of critics who are insufficiently its stem at the sole of her (now healed) foot beholder.18-20 We agree in part, but in a dif- knowledgeable about the species, indi- in similar fashion. This suggests rudimen- ferent way than critics probably intended: viduals and situations involved suffer the tary narrative abilities, where narrative is we argue that only certain beholders can same weaknesses as anecdotes, and should defined minimally as “the representation identify and interpret these gestures. be viewed with equal caution. of an event or a series of events.”46 This Gestural meaning is context-dependent case counters the common view that nar- for humans2,21-25 and great apes.26-30 This Implications for Language rative is a uniquely capacity.46 It is especially true for pantomime and other and Cognition also shows some of the components of epi- iconic gestures, which are often idio- sodic memory or reconstructing one’s own syncratic rather than standardized and Gesture-first theories of language origins past experiences as situated in time,47,48 in sometimes created in the moment from propose that ancestral hominids went that Kikan reconstructed key elements of the actor’s mental content.31-33 Thus inter- through a pantomime stage that enabled a personally important experience. She preting and even detecting pantomimes the evolution of spoken language.36 was only an infant (three years old), so requires beholders who share the actor’s Gesture-first advocates consider several older orangutans may be expected to show immediate and broader context, because properties of pantomime as critical step- greater sophistication. this sharedÜ-BOEFT#JPTDJFODF understanding is the basis for ping stones to language: it is productive Finally, some orangutans pantomimed identifying the contingencies linking the (enables creation of novel messages) and to themselves. An adult female re-enacted pantomime’s imagery with the eliciting it serves as an entryway to and a human’s whittling a stick and cutting communicative encounter. narrative.18,36-38 Even this limited data hair with scissors to herself.49 Similar re- Beholders who do not share this knowl- set on great ape pantomime shows these enactments by human children are con- edge are not equipped to%POPUEJTUSJCVUF recognize the properties. sidered part of understanding the actions localized references expressed, let alone In orangutan pantomimes, we iden- involved50-52 and pantomime, like lan- interpret them. Scientifically, this prob- tified productivity, compositionality guage, may contribute to externalizing lem is not insurmountable. Observers (creation of large meaningful units by cognition.53 Thus this orangutan’s panto- who are highly knowledgeable about the combining smaller ones) and systematicity miming to herself may serve as a way of actor and communicative partners, the (gesture order contributes to meaning).1 explaining the event that she re-enacted. specifics of the communicative exchanges These and other great ape pantomimes Linking self-pantomime to explanation is that elicited pantomime, and the broader also show triadic communication (i.e., important because it has been suggested living context that participants share are communication involving self, other and that chimpanzees, unlike , do equipped to identify and interpret some object) in a wider range of situations than not develop a general explanatory drive, pantomimes. For great apes, experienced other evidence suggests.39-43 They com- and that while they make use of empiri- researchers collecting observational field municated messages as complex as what cal generalizations, they are not interested data within a framework of lengthy sam- tool to use, what action to perform with it in uncovering the causal relations that pling periods are examples. The orangutan and on what target, and who should per- underlie them.54 and other great ape evidence we presented form it (e.g., “assistant” use “machete” to meets these requirements. “chop” open “coconut”). In a few cases, Conclusions These pantomimes are also liable to the tool action enacted was itself a com- dismissal as anecdotes. We agree that plex, sequentially organized combination This evidence suggests pantomime could anecdotes should be viewed with caution. of behaviors (e.g., how to hold an awk- have been within the grasp of the com- However, the pantomimes we identified in ward hammer rock, including rotating it mon human-great ape ancestor, so it could great apes are not anecdotes. “Anecdotes” into the best position, and how to crack have emerged prior to the emergence of refer to isolated incidents reported because nuts with it). These complex pantomimes the human lineage. Its emergence before their unusual nature attracted attention; suggest understanding the semantic rela- the human lineage does not weaken the they are commonly reported by observ- tions expressed, so they imply correspond- likelihood that it set the stage for the ers whose motives, observational expertise ing cognitive abilities; this is consistent evolution of language. This evidence also and knowledge of the species and/or actors with other evidence on great ape language suggests cognitive abilities commonly involved limited credibility and without and cognition.44,45 considered beyond great apes’ reach. Thus

316 Communicative & Integrative Biology Volume 4 Issue 3 12. Schürmann C. Mating behavior of wild orang 34. Bates L, Byrne RW. Creative or created: Using anec- pantomime offers a valuable window on utans. In: de Boer LEM, Ed. The Orang Utan. Its dotes to investigate . Methods 2007; great ape mentality, especially since pat- Biology and Conservation. The Hague: Dr. W. Junk 42:12-21. Publishers 1982; 269-84. 35. Washburn MF. The Animal , 3rd edition. New terns emerging from the observational 13. Silk JB. Why do primates reconcile? Evol Anthrop York: Macmillan 1926. reports we mined open the door to sys- 1996; 5:39-42. 36. Corballis MC. From Hand to Mouth, the Origins tematic study. 14. de Waal FBM. Deception in the natural communica- of Language. Princeton: Princeton University Press tion of chimpanzees. In: Mitchell RW, Thompson 2002. NS, Eds. Deception: Perspectives on Human and 37. Arbib MA. The mirror system, imitation and the evo- Acknowledgements Nonhuman Deceit. Albany: State University of New lution of language. In: Dautenhahn K, Nehaniv CL, Russon’s orangutan studies were funded York Press 1986; 221-44. Eds. Imitation in Animals and Artifacts: Complex 15. Hayes C. The Ape in Our House. New York: Harper Adaptive Systems. Cambridge MA: MIT Press by Glendon College, York University, & Brothers 1951. 2002:229-80. the Natural Sciences and Engineering 16. Boesch C. Teaching among wild chimpanzees. Anim 38. Stokoe WC. Language in Hand: Why Sign Came Research Council (Canada) and the LSB Behav 1991; 41:530-2. before . Washington, DC: Gallaudet 17. Boesch C. Aspects of transmission of tool-use in wild University Press 2001. Leakey Foundation (USA), authorized chimpanzees. In: Gibson KR, Ingold T, Eds. Tools, 39. Bard K. Intentional behavior and intentional com- by Indonesia’s Science Institute (LIPI) Language and Cognition in . munication in young free-ranging orangutans. Child and sponsored by PHKA, the Orangutan Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press 1993; Dev 1992; 63:1186-97. 171-83. 40. Liebal K, Pika S, Tomasello M. Gestural communica- Research and Conservation Project 18. Arbib MA, Liebal K, Pika S. vocalization, tion of orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). Gesture 2006; (Tanjung Puting), and Borneo Orangutan gesture and the evolution of language. Curr Anthrop 6:1-38. 2008; 49:1053-76. 41. Pika S, Liebal K, Call J. Gestural communication of Survival Foundation Orangutan 19. Guldberg H. Can orang-utans really mime? Great apes. Gesture 2005; 5:41-56. Reintroduction Projects (Wanariset, apes cannot remotely communicate like human 42. Tomasello M, Call J, Nagell K, Olguin R, Carpenter Samboja Lestari, Nyaru Menteng). beings. Psychol Today 2010; In press. Available at: M. The learning and use of gestural signs by young www.psychologytoday.com/blog/reclaiming-child- chimpanzees: A trans-generational study. Primates Andrews’s contribution was supported hood/201008/can-orang-utans-really-mime. 1994; 35:137-54. by grants from the Social Sciences and 20. Tomasello M, Zuberbühler K. Primate vocal and 43. Tomasello M, Camaioni L. A comparison of the Humanities Research Council and York gestural communication. In: Bekoff M, Allen CS, gestural communication of apes and human infants. Burghardt G, Eds. The Cognitive Animal: Empirical Human Dev 1997; 40:7-24. University (Canada). Studies complied and Theoretical Perspectives on Animal Cognition. 44. Blake J. Gestural communication in the great apes. with current laws in Indonesia, where they Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 2002; 293-9. In: Russon AE, Begun DR, Eds. The Evolution were conducted. 21. Bruner J. Nature and uses of immaturity. Amer of Thought: Evolutionary Origins of Great Ape Ü-BOEFT#JPTDJFODFPsychol 1972; 27:687-708. Intelligence. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University 22. Goffman E. Encounters: Two Studies in the Press 2004; 61-75. References Sociology of Interaction. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill 45. Gentner D, Christie S. Relational language supports 1. Russon A, Andrews K. Orangutan pantomime: 1961. relational cognition in humans and apes. Behav Brain Elaborating the message. Biol Letters 2010; 7:627- 23. Goffman E. Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Sci 2008; 31:136-7. 30; DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2010.0564. Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: Free 46. Abbott HP. The Cambridge Introduction to 2. Bates E, Benigni L, Bretherton%POPUEJTUSJCVUF I, Camaioni L, Press 1963. Narrative. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Volterra V. The Emergence of Symbols: Cognition 24. Goffman E. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Press 2002. and Communication in Infancy. New York: Organization of Experience. London: Harper and 47. Suddendorf T, Corballis M. The evolution of fore- Academic Press 1979. Row 1974. sight: What is mental time travel and is it unique to 3. Tanner JE, Byrne RW. Representation of action 25. LeBaron C, Streeck J. Gestures, knowledge and the human? Behav Brain Sci 2007; 30:299-351. through iconic gesture in a captive lowland . world. In: McNeill D, Ed. Gesture and Language: 48. Tulving E. Episodic Memory and Autonoesis: Curr Anthrop 1996; 37:162-73. Window into Thought and Action. Cambridge UK: Uniquely Human? In: Terrace HS, Metcalfe J, 4. McNeill D. Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal Cambridge University Press 2000; 118-38. Eds. The Missing Link in Cognition: Origins of about Thought. Chicago: Chicago University Press 26. Genty E, Breuer T, Hobaiter C, Byrne RW. Gestural Self-Reflective Consciousness. New York: Oxford 1992. communication of the gorilla (Gorilla gorilla): reper- University Press 2005:3-55. 5. Miles HL, Mitchell RW, Harper SE. Simon says: toire, intentionality and possible origins. Anim Cog 49. Russon AE. Imitation in everyday use: the nature of The development of imitation in an enculturated 2009; 12:527-47. spontaneous imitation in free-ranging rehabilitant orangutan. In: Russon AE, Bard KA, Parker ST, Eds. 27. Leavens DA, Russell JL, Hopkins WD. Intentionality orangutans. In: Russon AE, Bard KA, Parker ST, Reaching into Thought: The of the Great as measured in the persistence and elaboration of Eds. Reaching into Thought: The Minds of the Great Apes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press communication by chimpanzees ( troglodytes). Apes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press 1996; 278-99. Child Dev 2005; 76:291-306. 1996:152-76. 6. Matsuzawa T. A hard nut to crack: Tool use of wild 28. Pollick AS, de Waal FBM. Ape gestures and language 50. Meltzoff AN, Moore MK. Early imitation within chimpanzees at Bossou. ANC/NHK video 1998. evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007; 104:8184-9. a functional framework: The importance of person 7. Pika S, Mitani JC. Referential gesturing in wild 29. Tanner JE. Gestural phrases and exchanges by a pair identity, movement and development. Infant Behav chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Curr Biol 2006; of zoo-living lowland gorillas. Gesture 2004; 4:1-24. Dev 1992; 15:479-505. 16:191-2. 30. Tomasello M, Call J. Introduction: Intentional 51. Piaget J. The Origins of Intelligence in Children. 8. Tanner JE, Patterson FG, Byrne RW. The develop- communication in nonhuman primates. In: Call J, New York: Norton 1952. ment of spontaneous gestures in zoo-living gorillas Tomasello M, Eds. The Gestural Communication of 52. Speidel GE, Nelson KE, Eds. The Many Faces and sign-taught gorillas: From action and location to Apes and Monkeys. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum of Imitation in Language Learning. New York: object representation. J Dev Proc 2006; 1:69-103. Associated 2007:1-15. Springer-Verlag 1989. 9. Russon AE. Pretending in free-ranging rehabilitant 31. McNeill D. Growth points cross-linguistical- 53. Clark A, Chalmers D. The extended mind. Analysis orangutans. In: Mitchell RW, Ed. Pretending in ly. In: Nuyts J, Pederson E, Eds. Language and 1998; 58:10-23. Animals, Children and Adult Humans. Cambridge, Conceptualization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge 54. Povinelli D, Dunphy-Lelii S. Do chimpanzees seek UK: Cambridge University Press 2002; 229-40. University Press 1997:190-212. explanations? Preliminary comparative investiga- 10. Cords M, Killen M. Conflict resolution in human 32. McNeill D. Introduction. In: McNeill D, Ed. tions. Can J Exper Psychol 2001; 55:185-93. and non-human primates. In: Langer J, Killen M, Language and Gesture: Window into Thought and Ed. Piaget, Evolution and Development. Mahwah Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc 1998; 193-218. 2000:1-10. 11. Schaller GB. The : Ecology and 33. Tanner JE. Commentary. Curr Anthrop 2008; Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1963. 49:1067-8.

www.landesbioscience.com Communicative & Integrative Biology 317