X-Git-Url: http://lambda.jimpryor.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=lambda.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=topics%2F_manipulating_trees_with_monads.mdwn;h=1a4a1dd1bba534ade11e010bd6394611a65771da;hp=0d9e33df3425822ec12e1b4b8aab11fa2594475c;hb=5c25429aa8ed3c65ab1cb67a244a3b21919f079c;hpb=c6cd98eb0d91c5bd5c53efc037a34a41f08eb738

diff --git a/topics/_manipulating_trees_with_monads.mdwn b/topics/_manipulating_trees_with_monads.mdwn
index 0d9e33df..1a4a1dd1 100644
--- a/topics/_manipulating_trees_with_monads.mdwn
+++ b/topics/_manipulating_trees_with_monads.mdwn
@@ -375,87 +375,6 @@ able to simulate any other monad (Google for "mother of all monads").
 
 If you want to see how to parameterize the definition of the `tree_monadize` function, so that you don't have to keep rewriting it for each new monad, see [this code](/code/tree_monadize.ml).
 
-The idea of using continuations to characterize natural language meaning
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-We might a philosopher or a linguist be interested in continuations,
-especially if efficiency of computation is usually not an issue?
-Well, the application of continuations to the same-fringe problem
-shows that continuations can manage order of evaluation in a
-well-controlled manner.  In a series of papers, one of us (Barker) and
-Ken Shan have argued that a number of phenomena in natural langauge
-semantics are sensitive to the order of evaluation.  We can't
-reproduce all of the intricate arguments here, but we can give a sense
-of how the analyses use continuations to achieve an analysis of
-natural language meaning.
-
-**Quantification and default quantifier scope construal**.  
-
-We saw in the copy-string example ("abSd") and in the same-fringe example that
-local properties of a structure (whether a character is `'S'` or not, which
-integer occurs at some leaf position) can control global properties of
-the computation (whether the preceeding string is copied or not,
-whether the computation halts or proceeds).  Local control of
-surrounding context is a reasonable description of in-situ
-quantification.
-
-    (1) John saw everyone yesterday.
-
-This sentence means (roughly)
-
-    forall x . yesterday(saw x) john
-
-That is, the quantifier *everyone* contributes a variable in the
-direct object position, and a universal quantifier that takes scope
-over the whole sentence.  If we have a lexical meaning function like
-the following:
-
-	let lex (s:string) k = match s with 
-	  | "everyone" -> Node (Leaf "forall x", k "x")
-	  | "someone" -> Node (Leaf "exists y", k "y")
-	  | _ -> k s;;
-
-Then we can crudely approximate quantification as follows:
-
-	# let sentence1 = Node (Leaf "John", 
-						  Node (Node (Leaf "saw", 
-									  Leaf "everyone"), 
-								Leaf "yesterday"));;
-
-	# tree_monadize lex sentence1 (fun x -> x);;
-	- : string tree =
-	Node
-	 (Leaf "forall x",
-	  Node (Leaf "John", Node (Node (Leaf "saw", Leaf "x"), Leaf "yesterday")))
-
-In order to see the effects of evaluation order, 
-observe what happens when we combine two quantifiers in the same
-sentence:
-
-	# let sentence2 = Node (Leaf "everyone", Node (Leaf "saw", Leaf "someone"));;
-	# tree_monadize lex sentence2 (fun x -> x);;
-	- : string tree =
-	Node
-	 (Leaf "forall x",
-	  Node (Leaf "exists y", Node (Leaf "x", Node (Leaf "saw", Leaf "y"))))
-
-The universal takes scope over the existential.  If, however, we
-replace the usual `tree_monadizer` with `tree_monadizer_rev`, we get
-inverse scope:
-
-	# tree_monadize_rev lex sentence2 (fun x -> x);;
-	- : string tree =
-	Node
-	 (Leaf "exists y",
-	  Node (Leaf "forall x", Node (Leaf "x", Node (Leaf "saw", Leaf "y"))))
-
-There are many crucially important details about quantification that
-are being simplified here, and the continuation treatment used here is not
-scalable for a number of reasons.  Nevertheless, it will serve to give
-an idea of how continuations can provide insight into the behavior of
-quantifiers.
-
-
 The Tree monad
 ==============