(The `T` combinator in the derivations above is given by `T x <~~> \f. f x`;
it handles situations in which English word order reverses
-the usual function/argument order.)
+the usual function/argument order. `T` is what Curry and Steedman call this
+combinator. Jacobson calls it "lift", but it shouldn't be confused with the
+`mid` and `map` operations that lift values into the Reader monad we're focusing
+on here. It does lift values into a *different* monad, that we'll consider in
+a few weeks.)
In other words,
Jacobson's variable-free semantics is essentially a Reader monad.
worlds, the meaning of *leave* must depend on the world in which it is
being evaluated:
- let left (x:e) (w:s) = match (x, w) with ('c', 2) -> false | _ -> true
+ let left (x : e) (w : s) = match (x, w) with ('c', 2) -> false | _ -> true
left ann 1 (* true: Ann left in world 1 *)
left cam 2 (* false: Cam didn't leave in world 2 *)
(mid cam >>= left) 2 (* false: Cam didn't leave in world 2 *)
As usual, `>>=` takes a monadic box containing Ann, extracts Ann, and
-feeds her to the extensional *left*. In linguistic terms, we take the
+feeds her to the function *left*. In linguistic terms, we take the
individual concept `mid ann`, apply it to the world of evaluation in
order to get hold of an individual (`'a'`), then feed that individual
-to the extensional predicate *left*.
+to the predicate *left*.
We can arrange for a transitive verb that is extensional in both of
its arguments to take intensional arguments:
- let map2' f xx yy = xx >>= (fun x -> yy >>= (fun y -> f x y))
+<pre>
+let map2' f xx yy = xx >>= (fun x -> yy >>= (fun y -> <span class=ul>f x y</span>))
+</pre>
This is almost the same `map2` predicate we defined in order to allow
-addition in our division monad example. The difference is that this
+addition in our division monad example. The *difference* is that this
variant operates on verb meanings that take extensional arguments but
returns an intensional result. Thus the original `map2` predicate
-has `mid (f x y)` where we have just `f x y` here.
+has `mid (f x y)` where we have just <code><span class=ul>f x y</span></code> here.
The use of `>>=` here to combine *left* with an individual concept,
and the use of `map2'` to combine *see* with two intensional
Ann did see Bill in world 1, but Ann didn't see Bill in world 2.
Finally, we can define our intensional verb *thinks*. *Think* is
-intensional with respect to its sentential complement, though still extensional
-with respect to its subject. (As Montague noticed, almost all verbs
+intensional with respect to its sentential complement (it takes complements of type `s -> t`), though still extensional
+with respect to its subject (type `e`). (As Montague noticed, almost all verbs
in English are extensional with respect to their subject; a possible
exception is *appear*.)
- let thinks (p:s->t) (x:e) (w:s) =
+ let thinks (p : s->t) (x : e) (w : s) =
match (x, p 2) with ('a', false) -> false | _ -> p w
In every world, Ann fails to believe any proposition that is false in world 2.
(using `mbind`), and the non-intersective adjectives will take
intensional arguments.
+**Connections with variable binding**: the rigid individual concepts generated by `mid ann` and the like correspond to the numerical constants, that don't interact with the environment in any way, in the variable binding examples we considered earlier on the page. If we had any non-contingent predicates that were wholly insensitive to intensional effects, they would be modeled using `map2` and would correspond to the operations like `map2 (+)` in the earlier examples. As it is, our predicates *lift* and *saw*, though only sensitive to the *extension* of their arguments, nonetheless *are* sensitive to the world of evaluation for their `bool` output. So these are somewhat akin, at the predicate level, to expressions like `var_n`, at the singular term level, in the variable bindings examples. Our predicate *thinks* shows yet a further kind of interaction with the intensional structures we introduced: namely, its output can depend upon evaluating its complement relative to other possible worlds. We didn't discuss analogues of this in the variable binding case, but they exist: namely, they are expressions like `let x = 2 in ...` and `forall x ...`, that have the effect of supplying their arguments with an environment or assignment function that is shifted from the one they are themselves being evaluated with.
+
notes: cascade, general env