Abstract
We present an exploratory study of forest-living orangutan pantomiming, i.e. gesturing in which they act out their meaning, focusing on its occurrence, communicative functions, and complexities. Studies show that captive great apes may elaborate messages if communication fails, and isolated reports suggest that great apes occasionally pantomime. We predicted forest-living orangutans would pantomime spontaneously to communicate, especially to elaborate after communication failures. Mining existing databases on free-ranging rehabilitant orangutans' behaviour identified 18 salient pantomimes. These pantomimes most often functioned as elaborations of failed requests, but also as deceptions and declaratives. Complexities identified include multimodality, re-enactments of past events and several features of language (productivity, compositionality, systematicity). These findings confirm that free-ranging rehabilitant orangutans pantomime and use pantomime to elaborate on their messages. Further, they use pantomime for multiple functions and create complex pantomimes that can express propositionally structured content. Thus, orangutan pantomime serves as a medium for communication, not a particular function. Mining cases of complex great ape communication originally reported in functional terms may then yield more evidence of pantomime.
Keywords: gesture, pantomime, communication, orangutan, great ape, elaboration
1. Introduction
Studies of great ape gestural communication increasingly find unexpected complexities. Captive orangutans and chimpanzees show intentional gesturing (goal-directed gesturing over which they have significant voluntary control), for instance, by elaborating on gestural messages that fail to elicit desired responses by switching to different gestures or enhancing prior ones [1,2]. These studies show that great apes elaborate but do not focus on how they do so, and may have restricted the scope of their elaborations by testing in captive conditions. Other studies have shown great ape use of iconic gestures, gestures that use physical resemblance to their referent to communicate meaning, such as enacting part of a desired action's form [3]. We suggest that great apes may use a sophisticated form of iconic gesture, pantomime, to elaborate.
Pantomime is gesture in which meaning is acted out; in humans, it can be as simple as twirling a finger to indicate a vortex or as complex as telling the Ramayana. It can be representational, symbolic, narrative in form and fictional [4]. It can communicate meaning with sentential structure, so it is important as a potential evolutionary step towards language as a path to open semantics, narrative, declaratives and syntax [5]. It is a good candidate for how individuals elaborate gesturally because it can express the extra information needed to clarify failed communications, especially when standard gestures cannot.
Given pantomime's sophisticated attributes, some consider it to be uniquely human [5,6]. Even great apes' use of iconic gestures remains disputed [7]. However, some spontaneous gestures by captive great apes show pantomime: Koko, a language-trained gorilla, acted as if rolling a ball of clay between her hands to express ‘clay’ [8], Chantek, a language-trained orangutan, held thumb and index finger together and blew between them to express ‘balloon’ [9] and Viki, a home-reared chimpanzee, faked being unable to free an imaginary pull-toy from a knob herself and requested aid [10]. Rare reports also exist of pantomime in wild great apes: a chimpanzee mother who noted her daughter's difficulties with stone nut cracking acted out, for her daughter, how best to hold and use the stone [11], and chimpanzees and gorillas enact actions to request them [8,12]. Here, we report an exploratory study assessing whether orangutans living free in native habitat use pantomime spontaneously, especially to elaborate after failed communications.
2. Material and methods
We identified salient pantomime cases by mining 20 years' data from systematic observational studies on forest-living rehabilitant orangutans in Indonesian Borneo; several focused on social learning but none on communication. We chose these data for their ecological validity and lengthy focal samples, and adopted data mining as fruitful in launching study of rare or unusual phenomena [13]. See the electronic supplementary material for methodological details.
We identified pantomime as gestural communication that involves physically acting out a message and focused on gesturing that achieve its communicative goals non-mechanically and is addressed to a partner and goal-directed [7,14]. In the aims of capturing the actor's initial message, failed communications (messages that did not achieve the actor's goal) and attempts to rectify failed communications, each case included the communicative bout in which pantomime occurred and related bouts preceding or following it (i.e. involved the same actor and the same or similar partners, messages and contexts). We identified failed communication if the actor persisted with or altered earlier message(s) after the partner responded; elaborations were different behaviours pertaining to an earlier message [1,2]. We used only descriptions of behaviour made promptly after its occurrence, by observers experienced with orangutans.
3. Results
We identified 18 cases of salient orangutan pantomime, 14 addressed to humans and four to orangutans (table 1; see the electronic supplementary material for case numbers and full original descriptions). They depicted actions requested (all but no. 11), objects (nos 11, 14), shared events (no. 12), and actors' abilities or intentions (nos 8, 14–18).
Table 1.
case no. | Fn | failed | elab | initial message | responses | subsequent messages | similar cases |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | I | P | N | stick scratch body, offer stick | brief stick scratch | stick scratch body (persist) | 1 |
2 | I | Y | Y | stick scratch body, offer stick | sand on head | stick scratch body (repeat) | 1 |
ignore | make and offer bigger scratcher | ||||||
ignore | make twig scratcher, scratch partner's head, offer scratcher | ||||||
3 | I | Y | Y | offer young stem | ignore | open stem, offer opened stem | |
4 | I | Y | Y | offer fruit | fingernail open fruit | offer fruit | |
ignore | fingernail open fruit, offer fruit | ||||||
5 | I | leaf wipe face | leaf wipe face | ||||
6 | I | Y | offer sand | sand put on head | put sand in partner's hand, put partner's hand/sand on head | ||
7 | I | Y | Y | offer termite nest | change subject | bite fruit, offer | |
ignore | offer ginger | ||||||
ignore | open ginger, offer | ||||||
ignore | offer partner termite chunk | ||||||
bang termite bits | bang partner's chunk, offer bits | ||||||
8 | I L | Y | Y | stare at termite nest | ignore | stick open nest—feign fail | 2 |
9 | I | Y | Y | offer leaf | leaf wipe dirty head | offer leaf | |
ignore | leaf wipe dirty head | ||||||
10 | I | groom (briefly) | groom | 3 | |||
11 | I | Y | Y | reach/look at umbrella | ignore | make leaf umbrella, attempt trade | 1,4 |
12 | D | Y | Y | show injured foot | ignore watch | pick leaf, get partner attention, re-enact leaf treat cut foot | |
13 | I L | enact hair cut role | cut hair | 2 | |||
14 | I L | Y | give coconut | hold coconut | stick probe coconut—feign fail, wait, give coconut | 2,8 | |
hold coconut machete chop coconut | stick chop coconut | ||||||
15 | I L | Y | friendly approach | fearful withdraw allow approach | approach, ignore, eat—feign no interest | 2,5,8 | |
16 | I L | Y | friendly approach | fearful withdraw allow approach | approach, eat—feign no interest | 5,8 | |
17 | I L | Y | friendly approach, eat—feign no interest | allow approach | 5,6,8 | ||
18 | I L | Y | fingers in backpack | rebuff manipulate ants | manipulate ants on backpack—feign interest | 7 |
(a). Functions
Pantomimes expressed imperatives in 17/18 cases. In six imperatives, the initial message identified acted out the response requested: an action (no. 17), a specific action on a specific target (nos 12, 15), or a specific tool–action–target relationship (nos 1, 2, 5). In 11 imperatives, pantomime clarified a previous low information request (e.g. offer item). We identified low information messages as imperatives from the context (e.g. give a food item was a request to ‘open’ it). Specific meanings were thus implied and liable to misunderstanding, but partners were probably familiar with most responses requested (e.g. termite nests are cracked, ginger stems split).
Case no. 12 suggests a declarative function, sharing a mutual memory. Kikan's initial message (sit near Agnes Ferisa (A.F.), show foot) requested that A.F. watch. When this failed, Kikan pulled A.F.'s hand to get her attention. Once A.F. was watching, Kikan acted out how A.F. had doctored her foot the previous week, when it was cut, and then left.
Seven pantomimes were deceptive: actors variously feigned inability (nos 8, 14), wanting a hair cut (nos 13), and interest in eating or ants (nos 15–18). Respectively, these seemed aimed to elicit help, distract (to enable stealing), express friendly intent and facilitate reconciliation, and did so by acting out expressions of the actor's internal state (intentions, abilities). Orangutans also acted out events non-communicatively, e.g. one re-enacted her activities with her partner after deliberately turning her back on him, probably to understand them (nos 19 and 20) [15].
(b). Failed communications
Failed communication occurred in 13 cases; in 12/13, pantomime elaborated on the failed message by adding more specific information. We found four patterns (two cases showed two patterns): offer different/better tools for the task requested after previously offered tools were ignored (no. 2), specify the actions, items and/or tools requested after a low-information request was not satisfied (nos 3 and 4, 7–9, 11 and 12, 14; see figure 1), clarify friendly intent after the partner refused non-aggressive overtures (nos 15–17), and feign inability to handle a task after requests for help were ignored (nos 8, 14).
(c). Complexity
Orangutan pantomime complexities included multimodal acts (e.g. nos 13, 15, vocal and gestural components), re-enacting past events (no. 12), and enacting skills beyond the actor's repertoire (nos 12, 14). Several cases showed features characteristic of language, including compositionality (large meaningful units are composed of smaller meaningful units: nos 2, 6–9, 12–14), systematicity (the actions and entities pantomimed are meaningfully rearranged following predictable patterns: nos 2, 7–9, 12, 14) and productivity (nos 13 and 14, unique creations of the moment). Thus, orangutans can communicate content with propositional structure and have the kind of cognitive capacities with constituent structure typically associated with linguistic capacities [16].
4. Discussion
Findings show that forest-living rehabilitant orangutans pantomime spontaneously. They probably pantomime rarely, although probably not as rarely as our sample suggests because it derives from data collected for other purposes. Most rehabilitant orangutan pantomimes addressed humans, probably owing to the rehabilitant situation combined with humans' limited understanding of orangutan communication and efforts to avoid interaction, but several addressed orangutans. However, like captive orangutans and chimpanzees, these free-ranging rehabilitant orangutans elaborated on failed messages [1,2] and, as predicted, often pantomimed to do so. These orangutan pantomimes also show features like those reported in the pantomimes of other great apes, including depicting objects and actions and feigning one's internal state (interests, abilities) in order to steal, solicit help, and express benign intentions ([17] and references therein; [18]).
Further, these orangutan pantomimes served other functions (declarative, deceptive) and extended beyond short, simple acts to event re-enactments. Some of their complex pantomimes showed compositionality, systematicity and productivity—all properties of natural language.
Given that pantomime enables actors to fake their own bodily signals, once it is in place it can potentially serve multiple purposes—communicative and cognitive, honest and deceitful. Complex pantomime may enable in gesture some of the communicative complexities that sentences enable in language, notably expressing content not captured by standardized signs, including novel and propositionally structured content [5]. These orangutan and other great ape pantomime cases indicate that pantomime serves multiple purposes and supports important communicative complexities in living great apes. For great apes, like humans, pantomime is a medium, not a message. Additional evidence of great ape pantomime, then, might be gleaned from cases of complex communication originally reported in functional terms: the cases of teaching and deception discussed here are cases in point.
Acknowledgements
A.R.'s orangutan studies were funded by Glendon College, York University, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (Canada) and the LSB Leakey Foundation (USA), authorized by Indonesia's Science Institute (LIPI), and sponsored by PHKA, the Orangutan Research and Conservation Project (Tanjung Puting), and Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation Orangutan Reintroduction Projects (Wanariset, Samboja Lestari, Nyaru Menteng). K.A.'s contribution was supported by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and York University (Canada). Studies complied with current laws in Indonesia, where they were conducted.
Footnotes
One contribution to a Special Feature ‘Cognition in the wild’.
References
- 1.Cartmill E. A., Byrne R. W. 2007. Orangutans modify their gestural signaling according to their audience's comprehension. Curr. Biol. 17, 1345–1348 10.1016/j.cub.2007.06.069 (doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.06.069) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Leavens D. A., Russell J. L., Hopkins W. D. 2005. Intentionality as measured in the persistence and elaboration of communication by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Child Dev. 76, 291–306 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00845.x (doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00845.x) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Tanner J. E. 2008. Commentary. Curr. Anthropol. 49, 1067–1068 [Google Scholar]
- 4.McNeill D. 2000. Introduction. In Language and gesture: window into thought and action (ed. McNeill D.), pp. 1–10 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press [Google Scholar]
- 5.Arbib M. A., Liebal K., Pika S. 2008. Primate vocalization, gesture, and the evolution of language. Curr. Anthropol. 49, 1053–1076 10.1086/593015 (doi:10.1086/593015) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Donald M. 1991. Origins of the modern mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press [Google Scholar]
- 7.Tomasello M., Call J. 2007. Introduction: intentional communication in nonhuman primates. In The gestural communication of apes and monkeys (eds Call J., Tomasello M.), pp. 1–15 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated [Google Scholar]
- 8.Tanner J. E., Patterson F. G., Byrne R. W. 2006. The development of spontaneous gestures in zoo-living gorillas and sign-taught gorillas: from action and location to object representation. J. Dev. Proc. 1, 69–103 [Google Scholar]
- 9.Miles H. L., Mitchell R. W., Harper S. E. 1996. Simon says: the development of imitation in an enculturated orangutan. In Reaching into thought (eds Russon A. E., Bard K. A., Parker S. T.), pp. 278–299 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press [Google Scholar]
- 10.Hayes C. 1951. The ape in our house. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers [Google Scholar]
- 11.Boesch C. 1993. Aspects of transmission of tool-use in wild chimpanzees. In Tools, language, and cognition in human evolution (eds Gibson K. R., Ingold T.), pp. 171–183 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press [Google Scholar]
- 12.Pika S., Mitani J. C. 2006. Referential gesturing in wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Curr. Biol. 16, 191–192 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Bates L. A., Byrne R. W. 2007. Creative or created: using anecdotes to investigate animal cognition. Methods 42, 12–21 10.1016/j.ymeth.2006.11.006 (doi:10.1016/j.ymeth.2006.11.006) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Tanner J. E., Byrne R. W. 1996. Representation of action through iconic gestures in a captive lowland gorilla. Curr. Anthropol. 37, 162–173 [Google Scholar]
- 15.Russon A. E. 1996. Imitation in everyday use: matching and rehearsal in the spontaneous imitation of rehabilitant orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). In Reaching into thought (eds Russon A. E., Bard K. A., Parker S. T.), pp. 152–176 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press [Google Scholar]
- 16.Fodor J. 1987. Psychosemantics: the problem of meaning in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
- 17.Russon A. E. 2002. Pretending in free-ranging rehabilitant orangutans. In Pretending in animals, children, and adult humans (ed. Mitchell R. W.), pp. 229–240 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press [Google Scholar]
- 18.de Waal F. B. M. 1986. Deception in the natural communication of chimpanzees. In Deception: perspectives on human and nonhuman deceit (eds Mitchell R. W., Thompson N. S.), pp. 221–244 Albany, NY: SUNY Press [Google Scholar]
- 19.Tanner J. E., Byrne R. W. 2010. Triadic and collaborative play by gorilla in social games with objects. Anim. Cogn. 13, 591–607 (doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0308-y) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]