Advertisement

Biosemiotics

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 175–188 | Cite as

Ritual Mimicry: A Path to Concept Comprehension

  • Pauline DelahayeEmail author
Article

Abstract

Mimicry in the animal kingdom mostly consists of two major types: by appearance or by behaviour. Although these are not the only ones, they will be the main focus of this article. We will develop two purposes of behavioural mimicry in animal death rituals (what we have called “ritual mimicry”): how it helps understanding a complex concept, and how it teaches to manage intense emotions. We will first show how ritual mimicry is a logical step in the evolution of appearance mimicry and why it can be a major advantage for the species that are able to use it. We will give a brief explanation of the importance of the notion of semiosis in behavioural mimicry. In a few words, we will also describe what a ritual is, how to recognize it and what its different features are. Then, for the first purpose, we will show how understanding what death is, or at least, what it is not – not sleep, nor illness – is difficult. This process starts through mimicry, which raises awareness in the young that a major event is occurring. For the second purpose, we will show how mimicry helps the young learn ritual behaviours and gestures which help distressed adults with managing their emotions in these situations. As such, mimicry is also a way to learn this emotional behaviour management, enabling the young – and future adult – to be less distressed when confronted with loss.

Keywords

Biosemiotics Emotions Ritual Conceptual comprehension Behavioural mimicry 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Paris-Sorbonne University and the STIH – Sens, Texte, Informatique, Histoire (Meaning, Text, Data processing and History) Laboratory. Thomas Broden, Georges Chapouthier and Timo Maran, for bringing part of the references to my acknowledgement. Many thanks to Pierre Ghislain for his review of the translation of this article.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bateson, G. (1977). Vers une écologie de l’esprit (Vol. 1). Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
  2. Bateson, G. (1980). Vers une écologie de l’esprit (Vol. 2). Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
  3. Bateson, G. (1984). La nature et la pensée. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
  4. Berger, J. (2000). Bones in the snow. In M. Bekoff (Ed.), The smile of a dolphin (pp. 125–127). New York: Discovery Books.Google Scholar
  5. Brower, L. P. (1988). Mimicry and the evolutionary process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Christen, Y. (2011). L’Animal est-il une personne ? Barcelone: Flammarion.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Waal, F. (2016). Are we smart enough to understand how smart animals are? New-York: Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  8. Dukas, R. (1998). Evolutionary ecology of learning. In R. Dukas (Ed.), Cognitive ecology. The evolutionary ecology of information processing and decision making (pp. 129–174). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Epstein, R. (1987). The spontaneous interconnection of four repertoires of behavior in a pigeon. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 101, 197–201.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fedigan, L. M., & Fedigan, L. (1977). The social development of a handicapped infant in free-living troop of Japanese monkey. In S. Chevalier-Skolnikoff (Ed.), Primate Bio-Social Development: Biological, Social an Ecological Determinants (pp. 205–222). New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  11. Fiorito, G., & Scotto, P. (1992). Observational learning in Octopus vulgaris. Science, 256(5056), 545–547.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Fouts, R., & Mills, S. T. (1998). L’école des chimpanzés: ce que les chimpanzés nous apprennent sur l’humanité. Paris: J. C. Lattès.Google Scholar
  13. Francq, E. (1969). Behavioural aspects of feigned death in the opossum Didelphis marsupialis. The American Midland Naturalist, 81(2), 556–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gobes, S. M. H., Jennings R. B. & Maeda R. K. (2017) The sensitive period for auditory-vocal learning in the zebra finch: Consequences of limited-model availability and multiple-tutor paradigms on song imitation. Behavioural processes, admitted online 23 jul. 2017, to be published.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2017.07.007.
  15. Goodall, J. (1989). Glossary of chimpanzee behaviors. Tucson: Jane Goodall Institute.Google Scholar
  16. Goodall, J. (1990). Through a window. My thirty years with the chimpanzees of Gombe. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  17. Hayashi, M., Matsuzawa, T., Biro, D., Sousa, C., et al. (2010). Chimpanzee mothers at Bossou, Guinea carry the mummified remains of their dead infants. Current Biology, 20(8), R351–R352.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2010.02.031.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hediger, H. (1981). The clever Hans phenomenon from an animal psychologist’s point of view. Annals of the New-York Academy of Sciences, 364, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Herzing, D. L. (2000). A trail of grief. In M. Bekoff (Ed.), The smile of a dolphin (pp. 138–139). New York: Discovery Books.Google Scholar
  20. Horner, V., & Whien, A. (2005). Casual knowledge and imitation/emulation switching in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and children (Homo sapiens). Animal Cognition, 8, 164–181.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kawai, M. (1965). Newly acquired precultural behaviour of the natural troops of Japanese monkeys in Koshima island. Primates, 6, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maran, T. (2017). The structure of mimicry in mimicry and meaning: Structure and semiotics of biological mimicry. New-York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moss, C. (1989). La longue marche des éléphants. Paris: Robert Laffont.Google Scholar
  24. Nagell, K., Olguin, K., & Tomasello, M. (1993). Processes of social learning in the tool use of chimpanzees (pan troglodytes) and human children (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 107, 174–186.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Nishida, T., et al. (2010). Chimpanzee behaviour in the wild: an audio-visual encyclopedia. Tokyo: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pepperberg, I. (1999). Alex studies. Cognitive and communicative abilities of grey parrot. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Piaget, J. (1992). La Formation du symbole chez l’enfant. Imitation, jeu et rêves, image et représentation. Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé.Google Scholar
  28. Pitman, R., Deecke, V., Gabriele, C., Srinivasan, M., et al. (2016). Humpback whales interfering when mammal-eating killer whales attack other species: Mobbing behavior and interspecific altruism? Marine Mammal Science, 33, 7–58.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pruetz, J. D. (2011). Targeted helping by a wild adolescent male chimpanzee (pan troglodytes verus): Evidence for empathy? Journal of Ethology, 29, 365–368.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10164-010-0244-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rose, N. A. (2000). A death in the family. In M. Bekoff (Ed.), The smile of a dolphin (p. 144). New York: Discovery Books.Google Scholar
  31. Ruxton, G., Sherratt, T., & Speed, M. (2004). Avoiding attack: The evolutionary ecology of crypsis, warning signals and mimicry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Turovski, A. (2000). The semiotic of animal freedom: A zoologist’s attempt to perceive the semiotic aim of H. Hediger. Sign System Studies, 28, 380–387.Google Scholar
  33. van Leeuwen, E. J. C., Mulenga, I. C., Bodamer, M. D., & Cronin, K. (2016). Chimpanzees’ responses to the dead body of a 9-year-old group member. American Journal of Primatology, 78, 914–922.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22560.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Wechkin, S., Masserman, J. H., & Terris Jr., W. (1964). Shock to a conspecific as an aversive stimulus. Psychonomic Science, 1, 47–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Paris Sorbonne University (Paris 4)ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations