Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory

Living Edition
| Editors: Michael A. Peters

Mimesis Theory, Learning, and Polysemiotic Communication

  • Jordan ZlatevEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-532-7_672-1

Synonyms

Introduction

Discussions on what makes human cognition and learning unique in the animal world often focus on language. But language could not have evolved in our species, and cannot be learned by children or adults without a more fundamental cognitive-semiotic capacity: mimesis. This thesis was first suggested by the ancient Greeks and was forcibly elaborated by Donald (2013), within a general theory of human cognitive evolution with considerable support in the literature (Nelson 1998; Zlatev 2008). This theory claims that mimesis constitutes a key adaptation in our hominine ancestors that greatly facilitated the rehearsal of complex skills and the ability to imitate and learn culture-specific behaviors from others. It allowed the creation of bodily representations that could themselves be imitated, leading to a shared representational culture, prior to the subsequent evolution of a...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Aristotle. (1987). The poetics of Aristotle. Translation and Commentary S. Halliwell. Chapel Hill: The University of North Caroline Press.Google Scholar
  2. Donald, M. (2013). Mimesis theory re-examined, twenty years after the fact. In G. Hatfield & H. Pittman (Eds.), Evolution of mind, brain and culture (pp. 169–192). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  3. Green, J. (2014). Drawn from the ground: Sound, sign and inscription in Central Australian sand stories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Nelson, K. (1998). Language in cognitive development: The emergence of the mediated mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  7. Sonesson, G. (2010). From mimicry to mime by way of mimesis: Reflections on a general theory of iconicity. Sign Systems Studies, 38(1/4), 18–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Sörbom, G. (2002). The classical concept of mimesis. In P. Smith & C. Wilde (Eds.), A companion to art theory (pp. 19–28). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Vigliocco, G., Perniss, P., & Vinson, D. (2014). Language as a multimodal phenomenon: Implications for language learning, processing and evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 369(1651), 20130292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Zlatev, J. (2008). From proto-mimesis to language: Evidence from primatology and social neuroscience. Journal of Physiology – Paris, 102, 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cognitive Semiotics, Centre for Languages and LiteratureLund UniversityLundSweden

Section editors and affiliations

  • Wolff-Michael Roth
    • 1
  1. 1.University of VictoriaVictoriaCanada