-Motivating types; motivating the Maybe monad
-============================================
+Motivating types; our first glimpse of the Maybe monad
+======================================================
In [[a long footnote discussing Russell|readings/kaplan-plexy.pdf]],
Kaplan 1989:496 poses a problem for the interaction of structured
more complicated expression that, he argues, refers to Plexy, but this
nicety is not crucial to our discussion here.)
+## Types to the rescue
+
Kaplan's solution is, in effect, to impose a type system on his
-grammar in such a way that structured meanings cannot be confused with
+grammar in such a way that complex structured meanings cannot be confused with
the referent of a directly-referential term. He suggests that the
meaning of a directly referential term always be marked by a special
bit of structure that is unique to direct reference. More concretely,
the class of objects that can serve as the complex structure
corresponding to a DP that is not directly referential.
+## Motivating Maybe
+
Kaplan goes on to use this solution to attack a different problem, the
problem of non-referring names. Russell supposed that if a name had
no referent (e.g., *Santa*), a sentence containing that name would
{} if there is no object that E refers to, or else
{P} if E refers to P
-In later weeks, we will call this technique the Maybe monad.
+In later weeks, we will call the general form of this technique the Maybe type, and the general strategy for deploying this type the Maybe monad.
-Kaplan, D. 1989. "Demonstratives. InJ. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein
+Kaplan, D. 1989. "Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein
(Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481-563)."