X-Git-Url: http://lambda.jimpryor.net/git/gitweb.cgi?a=blobdiff_plain;ds=sidebyside;f=topics%2F_week5_system_F.mdwn;h=a80cc58e340154930fc4114cb61e1eb62d3028ee;hb=5cab83962241676d710c788561ac107a3563a3e8;hp=150794e56f74ec4f0e3f3227cc00a7b5aae92938;hpb=c5af457bdb867070ee60cfc6994114c5d25dfb27;p=lambda.git
diff --git a/topics/_week5_system_F.mdwn b/topics/_week5_system_F.mdwn
index 150794e5..a80cc58e 100644
--- a/topics/_week5_system_F.mdwn
+++ b/topics/_week5_system_F.mdwn
@@ -39,22 +39,22 @@ match up with usage in O'Caml, whose type system is based on System F):
System F:
---------
- types Ï ::= c | 'a | Ï1 -> Ï2 | â'a. Ï
- expressions e ::= x | λx:Ï. e | e1 e2 | Î'a. e | e [Ï]
+ types Ï ::= c | α | Ï1 -> Ï2 | â'a. Ï
+ expressions e ::= x | λx:Ï. e | e1 e2 | Îα. e | e [Ï]
In the definition of the types, "`c`" is a type constant. Type
constants play the role in System F that base types play in the
simply-typed lambda calculus. So in a lingusitics context, type
-constants might include `e` and `t`. "`'a`" is a type variable. The
+constants might include `e` and `t`. "α" is a type variable. The
tick mark just indicates that the variable ranges over types rather
than over values; in various discussion below and later, type variable
can be distinguished by using letters from the greek alphabet
(α, β, etc.), or by using capital roman letters (X, Y,
etc.). "`Ï1 -> Ï2`" is the type of a function from expressions of
-type `Ï1` to expressions of type `Ï2`. And "`â'a. Ï`" is called a
+type `Ï1` to expressions of type `Ï2`. And "`âα. Ï`" is called a
universal type, since it universally quantifies over the type variable
-`'a`. You can expect that in `â'a. Ï`, the type `Ï` will usually
-have at least one free occurrence of `'a` somewhere inside of it.
+`'a`. You can expect that in `âα. Ï`, the type `Ï` will usually
+have at least one free occurrence of `α` somewhere inside of it.
In the definition of the expressions, we have variables "`x`" as usual.
Abstracts "`λx:Ï. e`" are similar to abstracts in the simply-typed lambda
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ calculus, except that they have their shrug variable annotated with a
type. Applications "`e1 e2`" are just like in the simply-typed lambda calculus.
In addition to variables, abstracts, and applications, we have two
-additional ways of forming expressions: "`Î'a. e`" is called a *type
+additional ways of forming expressions: "`Îα. e`" is called a *type
abstraction*, and "`e [Ï]`" is called a *type application*. The idea
is that Λ
is a capital λ
: just
like the lower-case λ
, Λ
binds
@@ -70,9 +70,9 @@ variables in its body, except that unlike λ
,
Λ
binds type variables instead of expression
variables. So in the expression
-Λ 'a (λ x:'a . x)
+Λ Î± (λ x:α . x)
-the Λ
binds the type variable `'a` that occurs in
+the Λ
binds the type variable `α` that occurs in
the λ
abstract. Of course, as long as type
variables are carefully distinguished from expression variables (by
tick marks, Grecification, or capitalization), there is no need to
@@ -85,27 +85,27 @@ be adapted for use with expressions of any type. In order to get it
ready to apply this identity function to, say, a variable of type
boolean, just do this:
-(Λ 'a (λ x:'a . x)) [t]
+(Λ Î± (λ x:α . x)) [t]
This type application (where `t` is a type constant for Boolean truth
-values) specifies the value of the type variable `'a`. Not
+values) specifies the value of the type variable `α`. Not
surprisingly, the type of this type application is a function from
Booleans to Booleans:
-((Λ 'a (λ x:'a . x)) [t]): (b -> b)
+((Λ Î± (λ x:α . x)) [t]): (b -> b)
Likewise, if we had instantiated the type variable as an entity (base
type `e`), the resulting identity function would have been a function
of type `e -> e`:
-((Λ 'a (λ x:'a . x)) [e]): (e -> e)
+((Λ Î± (λ x:α . x)) [e]): (e -> e)
-Clearly, for any choice of a type `'a`, the identity function can be
-instantiated as a function from expresions of type `'a` to expressions
-of type `'a`. In general, then, the type of the uninstantiated
+Clearly, for any choice of a type `α`, the identity function can be
+instantiated as a function from expresions of type `α` to expressions
+of type `α`. In general, then, the type of the uninstantiated
(polymorphic) identity function is
-(Λ 'a (λ x:'a . x)): (∀ 'a . 'a -> 'a)
+(Λ Î± (λ x:α . x)): (∀ α . α -> α)
Pred in System F
----------------
@@ -200,8 +200,91 @@ be strongly normalizing, from which it follows that System F is not
Turing complete.
-Types in OCaml
---------------
+## Polymorphism in natural language
+
+Is the simply-typed lambda calclus enough for analyzing natural
+language, or do we need polymorphic types? Or something even more expressive?
+
+The classic case study motivating polymorphism in natural language
+comes from coordination. (The locus classicus is Partee and Rooth
+1983.)
+
+ Ann left and Bill left.
+ Ann left and slept.
+ Ann and Bill left.
+ Ann read and reviewed the book.
+
+In English (likewise, many other languages), *and* can coordinate
+clauses, verb phrases, determiner phrases, transitive verbs, and many
+other phrase types. In a garden-variety simply-typed grammar, each
+kind of conjunct has a different semantic type, and so we would need
+an independent rule for each one. Yet there is a strong intuition
+that the contribution of *and* remains constant across all of these
+uses. Can we capture this using polymorphic types?
+
+ Ann, Bill e
+ left, slept e -> t
+ read, reviewed e -> e -> t
+
+With these basic types, we want to say something like this:
+
+ and:t->t->t = lambda l:t . lambda r:t . l r false
+ and = lambda 'a . lambda 'b .
+ lambda l:'a->'b . lambda r:'a->'b .
+ lambda x:'a . and:'b (l x) (r x)
+
+The idea is that the basic *and* conjoins expressions of type `t`, and
+when *and* conjoins functional types, it builds a function that
+distributes its argument across the two conjuncts and conjoins the two
+results. So `Ann left and slept` will evaluate to `(\x.and(left
+x)(slept x)) ann`. Following the terminology of Partee and Rooth, the
+strategy of defining the coordination of expressions with complex
+types in terms of the coordination of expressions with less complex
+types is known as Generalized Coordination.
+
+But the definitions just given are not well-formed expressions in
+System F. There are three problems. The first is that we have two
+definitions of the same word. The intention is for one of the
+definitions to be operative when the type of its arguments is type
+`t`, but we have no way of conditioning evaluation on the *type* of an
+argument. The second is that for the polymorphic definition, the term
+*and* occurs inside of the definition. System F does not have
+recursion.
+
+The third problem is more subtle. The defintion as given takes two
+types as parameters: the type of the first argument expected by each
+conjunct, and the type of the result of applying each conjunct to an
+argument of that type. We would like to instantiate the recursive use
+of *and* in the definition by using the result type. But fully
+instantiating the definition as given requires type application to a
+pair of types, not to just a single type. We want to somehow
+guarantee that 'b will always itself be a complex type.
+
+So conjunction and disjunction provide a compelling motivation for
+polymorphism in natural language, but we don't yet have the ability to
+build the polymorphism into a formal system.
+
+And in fact, discussions of generalized coordination in the
+linguistics literature are almost always left as a meta-level
+generalizations over a basic simply-typed grammar. For instance, in
+Hendriks' 1992:74 dissertation, generalized coordination is
+implemented as a method for generating a suitable set of translation
+rules, which are in turn expressed in a simply-typed grammar.
+
+Not incidentally, we're not aware of any programming language that
+makes generalized coordination available, despite is naturalness and
+ubiquity in natural language. That is, coordination in programming
+languages is always at the sentential level. You might be able to
+evaluate `(delete file1) and (delete file2)`, but never `delete (file1
+and file2)`.
+
+We'll return to thinking about generalized coordination as we get
+deeper into types. There will be an analysis in term of continuations
+that will be particularly satisfying.
+
+
+#Types in OCaml
+
OCaml has type inference: the system can often infer what the type of
an expression must be, based on the type of other known expressions.