Agent Preference in Chasing Interactions in Guinea Baboons ( Papio papio ): Uncovering the Roots of Subject

Abstract

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.

Keywords

agent–patient thematic roles event cognition language evolution linguistic universal

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abdai

Ferdinandy

Lengyel

Miklósi

. (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

Abdai

Ferdinandy

Terencio

C. B.

Pogány

Á.

Miklósi

. (2017). Perception of animacy in dogs and humans. Biology Letters, 13(6), Article 20170156. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2017.0156

Abdai

Miklósi

. (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

Altman

M. N.

Khislavsky

A. L.

Coverdale

M. E.

Gilger

J. 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

Atsumi

Koda

Masataka

(2017). Goal attribution to inanimate moving objects by Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata). Scientific Reports, 7, Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40033

Atsumi

Nagasaka

(2015). Perception of chasing in squirrel monkeys ( Saimiri sciureus). Animal Cognition, 18(6), 1243–1253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-015-0893-x

Barrett

H. C.

Todd

P. M.

Miller

G. F.

Blythe

P. 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

Bickel

Witzlack-Makarevich

Choudhary

K. K.

Schlesewsky

Bornkessel-Schlesewsky

(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

Bürkner

P.-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.

Bybee

(2006). Language change and universals. In Mairal

Gil

(Eds.), Linguistic universals (pp. 179–212). Cambridge University Press.

11.

Bybee

(2009). Language universals and usage-based theory. In Christiansen

M. H.

Collins

Edelman

(Eds.), Language universals (pp. 17–39). Oxford University Press.

12.

Chomsky

(1957). Syntactic structures. De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110218329

13.

Cohn

Paczynski

(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.

Culbertson

Kirby

(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.

Culbertson

Schouwstra

Kirby

(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.

Davidoff

Fagot

(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.

Deruelle

Fagot

(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 Giorgio

Lunghi

Simion

Vallortigara

. (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 Giorgio

Lunghi

Vallortigara

Simion

. (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

20.

Dobel

Gumnior

Bölte

Zwitserlood

(2007). Describing scenes hardly seen. Acta Psychologica, 125(2), 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.07.004

21.

Dowty

(1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619. https://doi.org/10.2307/415037

22.

Dryer

M. S.

(2013). Order of subject, object and verb. In Dryer

M. S.

Haspelmath

(Eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7385533

23.

Dunn

Greenhill

S. J.

Levinson

S. C.

Gray

R. 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.

Evans

Levinson

S. 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.

Fagot

Boë

L.-J.

Berthomier

Claidière

Malassis

Meguerditchian

Rey

Montant

(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.

Fagot

Paleressompoulle

(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.

Fillmore

C. J.

(1968). Lexical entries for verbs. Foundations of Language, 4(4), 373–393.

28.

Fischer

Higham

J. P.

Alberts

S. C.

Barrett

Beehner

J. C.

Bergman

T. J.

Carter

A. J.

Collins

Elton

Fagot

Ferreira

Silva

M. J.

Hammerschmidt

Henzi

Jolly

C. J.

Knauf

Kopp

G. H.

Rogers

Roos

Ross

. . . Zinner

(2019). Insights into the evolution of social systems and species from baboon studies. eLife, 8, Article e50989. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.50989

29.

Frankenhuis

W. E.

House

Clark Barrett

Johnson

S. P.

(2013). Infants’ perception of chasing. Cognition, 126(2), 224–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.10.001

30.

Galazka

Bakker

Gredebäck

Nyström

(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.

Galazka

Nyström

(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.

Gao

Newman

G. E.

Scholl

B. 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

33.

Gertner

Fisher

(2012). Predicted errors in children’s early sentence comprehension. Cognition, 124(1), 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.010

34.

Gibson

Futrell

Piantadosi

S. P.

Dautriche

Mahowald

Bergen

Levy

(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.

Goto

Lea

S. E.

Dittrich

W. 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.

Greenberg

J. H.

(1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg

J. H.

(Ed.), Universals of language (pp. 40–70). MIT Press.

37.

Hafri

Papafragou

Trueswell

J. 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.

Hafri

Trueswell

J. C.

Strickland

(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.

Hauser

M. 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.

Hofrichter

Rutherford

M. 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

41.

Jackendoff

(1999). Possible stages in the evolution of the language capacity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(7), 272–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01333-9

42.

Jackendoff

(2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford University Press.

43.

Kirby

Cornish

Smith

(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.

Lemaire

B. S.

Rosa-Salva

Fraja

Lorenzi

Vallortigara

(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

45.

Lenth

R. V.

(2022). emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means (Version 1.9.0) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans

46.

MacWhinney

(1977). Starting points. Language, 53(1), 152–168. https://doi.org/10.2307/413059

47.

Martin

Adger

Abels

Kanampiu

Culbertson

(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.

Mathôt

Schreij

Theeuwes

(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.

Meyerhoff

H. S.

Schwan

Huff

(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.

New

Cosmides

Tooby

(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.

New

Schultz

R. T.

Wolf

Niehaus

J. L.

Klin

German

T. C.

Scholl

B. 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.

Papafragou

Grigoroglou

(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.

Papeo

Vettori

Serraille

Odin

Rostami

Hochmann

J.-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-Dunn

Porot

Mandelbaum

(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.

Rensink

R. A.

O’Regan

J. K.

Clark

J. 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.

Rissman

Majid

(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.

Rochat

Morgan

Carpenter

(1997). Young infants’ sensitivity to movement information specifying social causality. Cognitive Development, 12, 537–561.

58.

Rosa-Salva

Grassi

Lorenzi

Regolin

Vallortigara

(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.

Schafroth

J. L.

Basile

B. M.

Martin

Murray

E. 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

60.

Seyfarth

R. M.

Cheney

D. L.

(2014). The evolution of language from social cognition. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 28, 5–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2014.04.003

61.

Shiffman

(2012). Autonomous agents. In The nature of code. Creative Commons. https://natureofcode.com/autonomous-agents

62.

Strickland

(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.

Ünal

Papafragou

(2021). From event representation to linguistic meaning. Topics in Cognitive Science, 13(1), 224–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12475

64.

Ünal

Papafragou

(2016). Interactions between language and mental representations. Language Learning, 66(3), 554–580. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12188

65.

van Rooijen

Ploeger

Kret

M. 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.

Visch

V. T.

Tan

E. 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.

Webb

Knott

MacAskill

M. 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.

Wilson

Papafragou

Bunger

Trueswell

(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.

Wilson

V. A. D.

Sauppe

Brocard

Ringen

Daum

M. M.

Wermelinger

Andrews

Isasi-Isasmendi

Bickel

Zuberbühler

(2023). Primate origins of human event cognition. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.11.23.568086

70.

Wilson

V. A. D.

Zuberbühler

Bickel

(2022). The evolutionary origins of syntax: Event cognition in nonhuman primates. Science Advances, 8(25), Article eabn8464. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abn8464

71.

Yin

Csibra

(2015). Concept-based word learning in human infants. Psychological Science, 26(8), 1316–1324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615588753

72.

Zuberbühler

(2019). Evolutionary roads to syntax. Animal Behaviour, 151, 259–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2019.03.006

73.

Zuberbühler

(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.

Zuberbühler

(2022). Event parsing and the origins of grammar. WIREs Cognitive Science, 13(3), Article e1587. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1587

75.

Zuberbühler

Bickel

(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.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB

Agent Preference in Chasing Interactions in Guinea Baboons ( Papio papio ): Uncovering the Roots of Subject–Object Order in Language

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material