Languages tend to describe “who is doing what to whom” by placing subjects before objects. This may reflect a bias for agents in event cognition: Agents capture more attention than patients in human adults and infants. We investigated whether this agent preference is shared with nonhuman animals. We presented Guinea baboons (Papio papio; N = 13) with a change-detection paradigm on chasing animations. The baboons were trained to respond to a color change that was applied to either the chaser/agent or the chasee/patient. They were faster to detect a change to the chaser than to the chasee, which could not be explained by low-level features in our stimuli such as the chaser’s motion pattern or position. An agent preference may be an evolutionarily old mechanism that is shared between humans and other primates that could have become externalized in language as a tendency to place the subject first.
AbdaiJ.FerdinandyB.LengyelA.MiklósiÁ. (2021). Animacy perception in dogs (Canis familiaris) and humans (Homo sapiens): Comparison may be perturbed by inherent differences in looking patterns. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 135(1), 82–88. https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000250
2.
AbdaiJ.FerdinandyB.TerencioC. B.PogányÁ.MiklósiÁ. (2017). Perception of animacy in dogs and humans. Biology Letters, 13(6), Article 20170156. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2017.0156
3.
AbdaiJ.MiklósiÁ. (2022). Selection for specific behavioural traits does not influence preference of chasing motion and visual strategy in dogs. Scientific Reports, 12(1), Article 2370. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-06382-6
4.
AltmanM. N.KhislavskyA. L.CoverdaleM. E.GilgerJ. W. (2016). Adaptive attention: How preference for animacy impacts change detection. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37(4), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.01.006
5.
AtsumiT.KodaH.MasatakaN. (2017). Goal attribution to inanimate moving objects by Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata). Scientific Reports, 7, Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40033
6.
AtsumiT.NagasakaY. (2015). Perception of chasing in squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus). Animal Cognition, 18(6), 1243–1253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-015-0893-x
7.
BarrettH. C.ToddP. M.MillerG. F.BlytheP. W. (2005). Accurate judgments of intention from motion cues alone: A cross-cultural study. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(4), 313–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.015
8.
BickelB.Witzlack-MakarevichA.ChoudharyK. K.SchlesewskyM.Bornkessel-SchlesewskyI. (2015). The neurophysiology of language processing shapes the evolution of grammar: Evidence from case marking. PLOS ONE, 10(8), Article e0132819. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132819
9.
BürknerP.-C. (2017). brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i01
10.
BybeeJ. (2006). Language change and universals. In MairalR.GilJ. (Eds.), Linguistic universals (pp. 179–212). Cambridge University Press.
11.
BybeeJ. (2009). Language universals and usage-based theory. In ChristiansenM. H.CollinsC.EdelmanS. (Eds.), Language universals (pp. 17–39). Oxford University Press.
CohnN.PaczynskiM. (2013). Prediction, events, and the advantage of agents: The processing of semantic roles in visual narrative. Cognitive Psychology, 67(3), 73–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2013.07.002
14.
CulbertsonJ.KirbyS. (2016). Simplicity and specificity in language: Domain-general biases have domain-specific effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1964. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01964
15.
CulbertsonJ.SchouwstraM.KirbyS. (2020). From the world to word order: Deriving biases in noun phrase order from statistical properties of the world. Language, 96(3), 696–717.
16.
DavidoffJ.FagotJ. (2010). Cross-species assessment of the linguistic origins of color categories. Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews, 5, 100–116. https://doi.org/10.3819/ccbr.2010.50005
17.
DeruelleC.FagotJ. (1998). Visual search for global/local stimulus features in humans and baboons. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(3), 476–481. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208825
18.
Di GiorgioE.LunghiM.SimionF.VallortigaraG. (2017). Visual cues of motion that trigger animacy perception at birth: The case of self-propulsion. Developmental Science, 20(4), Article e12394. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12394
19.
Di GiorgioE.LunghiM.VallortigaraG.SimionF. (2021). Newborns’ sensitivity to speed changes as a building block for animacy perception. Scientific Reports, 11(1), Article 542. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79451-3
DryerM. S. (2013). Order of subject, object and verb. In DryerM. S.HaspelmathM. (Eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7385533
23.
DunnM.GreenhillS. J.LevinsonS. C.GrayR. D. (2011). Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals. Nature, 473(7345), 79–82. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09923
24.
EvansN.LevinsonS. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(5), 429–448. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999094X
25.
FagotJ.BoëL.-J.BerthomierF.ClaidièreN.MalassisR.MeguerditchianA.ReyA.MontantM. (2019). The baboon: A model for the study of language evolution. Journal of Human Evolution, 126, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2018.10.006
26.
FagotJ.PaleressompoulleD. (2009). Automatic testing of cognitive performance in baboons maintained in social groups. Behavior Research Methods, 41(2), 396–404. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.396
27.
FillmoreC. J. (1968). Lexical entries for verbs. Foundations of Language, 4(4), 373–393.
28.
FischerJ.HighamJ. P.AlbertsS. C.BarrettL.BeehnerJ. C.BergmanT. J.CarterA. J.CollinsA.EltonS.FagotJ.FerreiradaSilvaM. J.HammerschmidtK.HenziP.JollyC. J.KnaufS.KoppG. H.RogersJ.RoosC.RossC.. . . ZinnerD. (2019). Insights into the evolution of social systems and species from baboon studies. eLife, 8, Article e50989. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.50989
GalazkaM.BakkerM.GredebäckG.NyströmP. (2016). How social is the chaser? Neural correlates of chasing perception in 9-month-old infants. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 270–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2016.05.005
31.
GalazkaM.NyströmP. (2016). Infants’ preference for individual agents within chasing interactions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 147, 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.02.010
32.
GaoT.NewmanG. E.SchollB. J. (2009). The psychophysics of chasing: A case study in the perception of animacy. Cognitive Psychology, 59(2), 154–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.03.001
GibsonE.FutrellR.PiantadosiS. P.DautricheI.MahowaldK.BergenL.LevyR. (2019). How efficiency shapes human language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.02.003
35.
GotoK.LeaS. E.DittrichW. H. (2002). Discrimination of intentional and random motion paths by pigeons. Animal Cognition, 5(3), 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-002-0139-6
36.
GreenbergJ. H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In GreenbergJ. H. (Ed.), Universals of language (pp. 40–70). MIT Press.
37.
HafriA.PapafragouA.TrueswellJ. C. (2013). Getting the gist of events: Recognition of two-participant actions from brief displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(3), 880–905. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030045
38.
HafriA.TrueswellJ. C.StricklandB. (2018). Encoding of event roles from visual scenes is rapid, spontaneous, and interacts with higher-level visual processing. Cognition, 175, 36–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.02.011
39.
HauserM. D. (1998). A nonhuman primate’s expectations about object motion and destination: The importance of self-propelled movement and animacy. Developmental Science, 1(1), 31–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00009
40.
HofrichterR.RutherfordM. D. (2019). Early attentional capture of animate motion: 4-year-olds show a pop-out effect for chasing stimuli. Perception, 48(3), 228–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006619828256
JackendoffR. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford University Press.
43.
KirbyS.CornishH.SmithK. (2008). Cumulative cultural evolution in the laboratory: An experimental approach to the origins of structure in human language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 105(31), 10681–10686. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707835105
44.
LemaireB. S.Rosa-SalvaO.FrajaM.LorenziE.VallortigaraG. (2022). Spontaneous preference for unpredictability in the temporal contingencies between agents’ motion in naïve domestic chicks. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 289, Article 20221622. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2022.1622
MartinA.AdgerD.AbelsK.KanampiuP.CulbertsonJ. (2024). A universal cognitive bias in word order: Evidence from speakers whose language goes against it. Psychological Science, 35(3), 304–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976231222836
48.
MathôtS.SchreijD.TheeuwesJ. (2012). OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0168-7
49.
MeyerhoffH. S.SchwanS.HuffM. (2014). Perceptual animacy: Visual search for chasing objects among distractors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(2), 702–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034846
50.
NewJ.CosmidesL.ToobyJ. (2007). Category-specific attention for animals reflects ancestral priorities, not expertise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 104(42), 16598–16603. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0703913104
51.
NewJ.SchultzR. T.WolfJ.NiehausJ. L.KlinA.GermanT. C.SchollB. J. (2010). The scope of social attention deficits in autism: Prioritized orienting to people and animals in static natural scenes. Neuropsychologia, 48(1), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.08.008
52.
PapafragouA.GrigoroglouM. (2019). The role of conceptualization during language production: Evidence from event encoding. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(9), 1117–1128. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1589540
53.
PapeoL.VettoriS.SerrailleE.OdinC.RostamiF.HochmannJ.-R. (2024). Abstract thematic roles in infants’ representation of social events. Current Biology, 34(18), 4294–4300.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2024.07.081
54.
Quilty-DunnJ.PorotN.MandelbaumE. (2023). The best game in town: The reemergence of the language-of-thought hypothesis across the cognitive sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 46, Article e261. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X22002849
55.
RensinkR. A.O’ReganJ. K.ClarkJ. J. (1997). To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science, 8(5), 368–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00427.x
56.
RissmanL.MajidA. (2019). Thematic roles: Core knowledge or linguistic construct?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(6), 1850–1869. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01634-5
57.
RochatP.MorganR.CarpenterM. (1997). Young infants’ sensitivity to movement information specifying social causality. Cognitive Development, 12, 537–561.
58.
Rosa-SalvaO.GrassiM.LorenziE.RegolinL.VallortigaraG. (2016). Spontaneous preference for visual cues of animacy in naïve domestic chicks: The case of speed changes. Cognition, 157, 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.08.014
59.
SchafrothJ. L.BasileB. M.MartinA.MurrayE. A. (2021). No evidence that monkeys attribute mental states to animated shapes in the Heider–Simmel videos. Scientific Reports, 11, Article 3050. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82702-6
StricklandB. (2017). Language reflects “core” cognition: A new theory about the origin of cross-linguistic regularities. Cognitive Science, 41(1), 70–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12332
63.
ÜnalE.JiY.PapafragouA. (2021). From event representation to linguistic meaning. Topics in Cognitive Science, 13(1), 224–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12475
64.
ÜnalE.PapafragouA. (2016). Interactions between language and mental representations. Language Learning, 66(3), 554–580. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12188
65.
van RooijenR.PloegerA.KretM. E. (2017). The dot-probe task to measure emotional attention: A suitable measure in comparative studies?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(6), 1686–1717. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1224-1
66.
VischV. T.TanE. S. (2009). Categorizing moving objects into film genres: The effect of animacy attribution, emotional response, and the deviation from non-fiction. Cognition, 110(2), 265–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.10.018
67.
WebbA.KnottA.MacAskillM. R. (2010). Eye movements during transitive action observation have sequential structure. Acta Psychologica, 133(1), 51–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.09.001
68.
WilsonF.PapafragouA.BungerA.TrueswellJ. (2011). Rapid extraction of event participants in caused motion events. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 33. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1z6685vb
69.
WilsonV. A. D.SauppeS.BrocardS.RingenE.DaumM. M.WermelingerS.GuN.AndrewsC.Isasi-IsasmendiA.BickelB.ZuberbühlerK. (2023). Primate origins of human event cognition. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.11.23.568086
70.
WilsonV. A. D.ZuberbühlerK.BickelB. (2022). The evolutionary origins of syntax: Event cognition in nonhuman primates. Science Advances, 8(25), Article eabn8464. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abn8464
ZuberbühlerK. (2020). Syntax and compositionality in animal communication. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375(1789), Article 20190062. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0062
74.
ZuberbühlerK. (2022). Event parsing and the origins of grammar. WIREs Cognitive Science, 13(3), Article e1587. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1587
75.
ZuberbühlerK.BickelB. (2022). Transition to language: From agent perception to event representation. WIREs Cognitive Science, 13(6), Article e1594. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1594
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
