edits

[lambda.git] / topics / _week6_plexy.mdwn

diff --git a/topics/_week6_plexy.mdwn b/topics/_week6_plexy.mdwn
index caf3e69..79d081e 100644 (file)
--- a/topics/_week6_plexy.mdwn
+++ b/topics/_week6_plexy.mdwn
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
-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
 
 In [[a long footnote discussing Russell|readings/kaplan-plexy.pdf]],
 Kaplan 1989:496 poses a problem for the interaction of structured


@@ -47,8 +47,10 @@ meaning.
 more complicated expression that, he argues, refers to Plexy, but this
 nicety is not crucial to our discussion here.)
 
 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
 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 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,


@@ -65,6 +67,8 @@ class of objects that a directly referential term can refer to, and
 the class of objects that can serve as the complex structure
 corresponding to a DP that is not directly referential.
 
 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
 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


@@ -88,8 +92,8 @@ directly-referential expressions:
     {}   if there is no object that E refers to, or else
     {P}  if E refers to P
 
     {}   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)."
 (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481-563)."