<!doctype html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="default-style">
<div class="default-style">Dear Vladimir,</div>
<div class="default-style"> </div>
<div class="default-style">Thank you for raising this question, I think your observation is exactly right and similarly applies to notions like 'scope', 'sentence', or even many examples of grammatical categories.</div>
<div class="default-style"> </div>
<div class="default-style">The most serious attempt at placing 'proposition' within a framework for typological description I know is Amsterdam Functional Grammar and its current incarnation of Functional Discourse Grammmar, which at least prompts you to find language-internal arguments for calling a unit a proposition (or assign it to some other semantic/structural level). Will be happy to send more specific references if this sounds like what you are after.</div>
<div class="default-style"> </div>
<div class="default-style">The bigger issue for why these situations continue to arise, I'd say, is because much of the time in descriptive linguistics and typology we either hope that the reader will have an adequate theory for the respective term (or be content to believe that the author has one), we believe that developing careful methodological solutions to theoretical questions is sufficient, or simply ignore the situation (I am not sure if this is a bigger sin than ignoring data to accommodate your theory, but I'd still say it is one).</div>
<div class="default-style"> </div>
<div class="default-style">
Best,
<br>
Stef
</div>
<div class="default-style">
<div class="default-style" style="font-family: terminal, monaco; font-size: 10pt; color: #000000;"> </div>
<div style="font-family: terminal, monaco; font-size: 10pt; color: #000000;">---</div>
<div style="font-family: terminal, monaco; font-size: 10pt; color: #000000;">Dr. Stef Spronck,</div>
<div style="font-family: terminal, monaco; font-size: 10pt; color: #000000;">Lecturer in Communication, Argumentation & Rhetoric at the University of Amsterdam,</div>
<div style="font-family: terminal, monaco; font-size: 10pt; color: #000000;">
Research affiliate in Indigenous studies and <em><a class="x_OWAAutoLink" href="https://dosenttiliitto.fi/lisatietoa.html">dosentti</a> </em>in General linguistics at the University of Helsinki,
</div>
<div style="font-family: terminal, monaco; font-size: 10pt; color: #000000;">
<a class="x_OWAAutoLink" href="https://participationgrammar.net/">https://participationgrammar.net</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="default-style">On 25/10/2025 02:59 CEST Vladimir Panov via Lingtyp <lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org> wrote:</div>
<div class="default-style"> </div>
<div class="default-style"> </div>
<div dir="ltr">
Dear typologists,
<div> </div>
<div>In various traditions of linguistics, both "formal" and "functional", there is a habit to speak of "propositional content". I have a feeling that this term is very difficult to define, especially if one takes cross-linguistic variation seriously. In practice, many linguistis tend to use the term as if the reader knew exactly what it means. Needles to say, the term has a long and complex history.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Are you aware of any relatively up-to-date and possibly typllogy-friendly literature which discusses this problem?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thank you,</div>
<div>Vladimir</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Lingtyp mailing list
<br>
Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org
<br>
https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>