-[[!toc]]
+[[!toc levels=2]]
# System F and recursive types
System F:
---------
- types τ ::= c | 'a | τ1 -> τ2 | ∀'a. τ
- expressions e ::= x | λx:τ. e | e1 e2 | Λ'a. e | e [τ]
+ types τ ::= c | α | τ1 -> τ2 | ∀'a. τ
+ expressions e ::= x | λx:τ. e | e1 e2 | Λα. e | e [τ]
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.). "`τ1 -> τ2`" is the type of a function from expressions of
-type `τ1` to expressions of type `τ2`. And "`∀'a. τ`" is called a
+type `τ1` to expressions of type `τ2`. And "`∀α. τ`" is called a
universal type, since it universally quantifies over the type variable
-`'a`. You can expect that in `∀'a. τ`, the type `τ` will usually
-have at least one free occurrence of `'a` somewhere inside of it.
+`'a`. You can expect that in `∀α. τ`, the type `τ` 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:τ. e`" are similar to abstracts in the simply-typed lambda
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: "`Λ'a. e`" is called a *type
+additional ways of forming expressions: "`Λα. e`" is called a *type
abstraction*, and "`e [τ]`" is called a *type application*. The idea
is that <code>Λ</code> is a capital <code>λ</code>: just
like the lower-case <code>λ</code>, <code>Λ</code> binds
<code>Λ</code> binds type variables instead of expression
variables. So in the expression
-<code>Λ 'a (λ x:'a . x)</code>
+<code>Λ α (λ x:α . x)</code>
-the <code>Λ</code> binds the type variable `'a` that occurs in
+the <code>Λ</code> binds the type variable `α` that occurs in
the <code>λ</code> 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
ready to apply this identity function to, say, a variable of type
boolean, just do this:
-<code>(Λ 'a (λ x:'a . x)) [t]</code>
+<code>(Λ α (λ x:α . x)) [t]</code>
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:
-<code>((Λ 'a (λ x:'a . x)) [t]): (b -> b)</code>
+<code>((Λ α (λ x:α . x)) [t]): (b -> b)</code>
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`:
-<code>((Λ 'a (λ x:'a . x)) [e]): (e -> e)</code>
+<code>((Λ α (λ x:α . x)) [e]): (e -> e)</code>
-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
-<code>(Λ 'a (λ x:'a . x)): (∀ 'a . 'a -> 'a)</code>
+<code>(Λ α (λ x:α . x)): (∀ α . α -> α)</code>
Pred in System F
----------------
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.