<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:DengXian;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji";
panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 2 4 2 2 3;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Trebuchet MS";
panose-1:2 11 6 3 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@DengXian";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.gmaildefault
{mso-style-name:gmail_default;}
span.E-postmall22
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:11.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:60371302;
mso-list-template-ids:-1068569352;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:72.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:108.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:144.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:180.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:216.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:252.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:288.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:324.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:646133556;
mso-list-template-ids:622350642;}
@list l2
{mso-list-id:1719352937;
mso-list-template-ids:374122562;}
@list l2:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:72.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l2:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:108.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:144.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:180.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:216.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:252.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:288.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:324.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3
{mso-list-id:1954362763;
mso-list-template-ids:-1302445706;}
@list l3:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l3:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:72.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l3:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:108.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:144.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:180.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:216.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:252.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:288.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l3:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:324.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
--></style>
</head>
<body link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="SV" style="font-size:11.0pt">Dear all,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="SV" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt">Notice that if we choose to separate propositional content from what Alex calls “DMP” in order to make it a context-free property of a sentence, it can no longer be seen as something that is true
or false or is what “propositional attitudes” such as belief are about. So we probably need another term than “proposition” for that.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt">Östen <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="SV" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Från:</span></b><span lang="SV" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Alex Francois <alex.francois.cnrs@gmail.com>
<br>
<b>Skickat:</b> den 26 oktober 2025 13:33<br>
<b>Till:</b> Vladimir Panov <panovmeister@gmail.com><br>
<b>Kopia:</b> Juergen Bohnemeyer <jb77@buffalo.edu>; Wiemer, Bjoern <wiemerb@uni-mainz.de>; Östen Dahl <oesten@ling.su.se>; LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
<b>Ämne:</b> Re: [Lingtyp] What is propositional content?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Dear Vladimir,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Thanks for clarifying what you had in mind.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">The way you formulate your question apparently rests on the assumption (which you rightfully challenge) that "propositional content" has been claimed -- or is generally understood -- to be
the core of a sentence, the part that remains stable when a sentence is translated from lg A to lg B. In case anybody has claimed that, I think they would be using the notion of "propositional content" wrongly.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Besides propositional content [PC], let us also call, for the time being, "deixis, modality and pragmatics" [DMP] the various operators that attach to a PC to turn it into a valid utterance.
While the traditional view has been to reduce the DMP to a single concept (Aquinas'
<i>modus</i>, Searle's <i>illocutionary force</i>, Antoine Culioli's <i>opérateurs énonciatifs</i>, etc.), the situation is in fact more complex, and Dik was surely correct to posit several levels. But since this discussion is about "propositional content",
we can temporarily use a single "DMP" label for <i>whatever is not the PC</i> in an utterance.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">(Incidentally, I agree with Östen that the boundary between the dictum and the modus, or between the PC and the DMP, is often not as clear as logicians seem to put it, because the structure
is in fact recursive: as soon as the modus is made lexically explicit, it becomes part of the dictum. But this is a separate discussion.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Most of the time, translational equivalents across languages will share the same PC and the same DMP.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">However, just like you suggest, there are many cases when translational equivalents actually differ in their propositional contents.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">This is especially true if we define the PC based on a literal representation of the semantic content of the clause. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Take the example of experiential expressions of emotions like fear. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Imagine a situation involving a sharp-toothed, large shark and a group of swimmers --- which the speaker retrospectively reports on.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">English would encode part of the scene as <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">(1) <i>They were scared</i>,<i> <br>
</i>where the grammatical subject of the predicate 'be scared' is the experiencer;
<br>
we may propose that the PC here is <they be.scared (<a href="http://by.it">by.it</a>)>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Mwotlap (Oceanic) would encode the same situation as (2):<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">(2) <i>Na-mtēgteg ni-qal kēy.</i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Courier New""> Art-<b>fear </b>3sg:AO-strike 3pl</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> lit. 'Fear struck them' [≈'They were scared']<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> where the grammatical subject is
<i>fear itself</i>, and the experiencer is encoded as an object. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">The stimulus (shark, situation) is left implicit, but can be retrieved from the context (as in English); it may be encoded as an adjunct (<i>Na-mtēgteg ni-qal kēy
<u>aē</u></i>. 'Fear struck them about it').<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Japanese would rather say (3):<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">(3) <i>Kowa-sou datta</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Courier New""> <b>scary</b>-Evid Cop:Past</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> lit. 'It was evidently scary (to them)' [≈'They were scared']<br>
Here the grammatical subject is the stimulus (shark, situation...) even though it is usually not encoded lexically in this construction; yet the only NP that can be encoded with nominative
<i>ga</i> here would be the shark, not the swimmers: this confirms that a literal translation of
<i>kowa(i)</i> is "scary" rather than "scared". The experiencer itself is routinely left implicit in this construction, as usually happens in Japanese; it could be encoded as a topic (using
<i>wa)</i>. The speaker here must use the evidential suffix <i>-sou</i> to report on the experiencer's emotions; this is obligatory in Japanese -- unless the speaker was one of the scared swimmers, and lived to tell the story. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Note that these three sentences:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo1">
<span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">are well-formed & idiomatic in their respective languages<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo1">
<span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">are good translational equivalents, aiming at the same communicative effect<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo1">
<span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">share the same DMP: they share the same illocutionary force (they're all affirmative statements), the same deictic coordinates and pragmatic intent, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Now the question you rightfully ask is: Do these 3 sentences share the same propositional content? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Well, this is where views may differ among us. Some linguists may decide to ignore the differences among cross-linguistic strategies, and decide that "underlyingly" these 3 sentences express
the same propositional content. That shared PC could be captured using an abstract representation, something like</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <i>scare(shark, swimmers)</i></span><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">,
with no commitment as to the final argument structure.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Other linguists may propose to express the PC using a clausal structure, e.g. based on the English construction <they be.scared (<a href="http://by.it">by.it</a>)> (but why take English as
the reference?). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Alternatively, we may want to take cross-linguistic differences seriously, and propose that each of these translational equivalents has in fact a different propositional content:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2">
<span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">English <they be.scared><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2">
<span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Mwotlap <fear strike them><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2">
<span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Japanese <(it) be.scary (evidently)><o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">If we follow this route, then the answer to your question will be positive: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">> </span><i><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#741B47">Is it not the case that our idea of propositional content is biased by the structure of certain languages, as is often
the case in linguistics?</span></i><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Indeed, sentences in different languages can be translational equivalents, and yet differ in propositional content --- if we agree to define the latter based on the (literal) organisation of
each language's grammar. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">In this sense, propositional content is probably what varies the most in translation, and best reflects cross-linguistic idiosyncrasies. What I called DMP (the modus ~ modality + illocutionary
force, etc.) tends to be more stable than PC, which has a greater potential for cross-linguistic variation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">__________<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">I will just finish with another example, which shows that translational equivalents can involve a change both in PC
<u>and</u> in DMP.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">If I watch a group of swimmers and suddenly see a shark approaching, in English I could say<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">(4) <i>Beware!</i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">using a [+control] verb in the active voice and in the imperative, endowed with a directive illocutionary force.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Mwotlap would basically do the same, using an imperative verb, preceded by an imperative pronoun:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">(5) <i>Ami egoy!</i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Courier New""> Imper:2pl beware </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> “Beware!”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">As for Japanese, it would not use a verb in the imperative, but resort to what is literally a statement, involving a predicative adjective:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">(6) <i>Abuna-i!</i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Courier New""> dangerous-Adj:Present </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> lit. '(it's) dangerous!' (≈“Beware!”)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">If we take (6) literally, we see that Japanese here encodes not only a different propositional content <it be.dangerous>, but also a different illocutionary force: it's a statement rather
than an imperative. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">What is crucial is that (4) and (6) share the same communicative intent, and aim at the same
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perlocutionary_act">perlocutionary effect</a> (Austin 1962) --- i.e. they form the most idiomatic way to efficiently warn the addressee of an imminent danger, and have them act in consequence. One could also say that,
in terms of illocutionary force, (6) is literally a statement, but it is interpreted as a directive ("Swim away!") through an indirect speech act (Searle 1975).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">So in short, Vladimir, I agree with you.<span class="gmaildefault"> </span>In order to achieve the same communicative goal, languages can differ in their strategies, both in terms of propositional
content and of illocutionary force.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">best<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Alex</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<hr size="1" width="70" style="width:52.5pt" noshade="" style="color:black" align="left">
</div>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#45818E">Alex François</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><a href="http://www.lattice.cnrs.fr/en/alexandre-francois/" target="_blank"><span style="text-decoration:none">LaTTiCe</span></a> — <a href="https://www.cnrs.fr/en" target="_blank" title="ENS"><span style="color:#3366CC;text-decoration:none">CNRS</span></a>
</span><a href="https://www.cnrs.fr/en" target="_blank" title="ENS"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#3366CC;text-decoration:none">—</span></a><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
<a href="https://www.ens.fr/laboratoire/lattice-langues-textes-traitements-informatiques-et-cognition-umr-8094" target="_blank" title="ENS">
<span style="color:#3366CC;text-decoration:none">ENS</span></a>–<a href="https://www.psl.eu/en" target="_blank" title="ENS"><span style="color:#3366CC;text-decoration:none">PSL</span></a> —
<a href="http://www.sorbonne-nouvelle.fr/lattice-langues-textes-traitements-informatiques-cognition-umr-8094-3458.kjsp" target="_blank" title="ENS">
<span style="color:#3366CC;text-decoration:none">Sorbonne nouvelle</span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><a href="https://researchportalplus.anu.edu.au/en/persons/alex-francois" target="_blank"><span style="color:#3366CC;text-decoration:none">Australian National University</span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><a href="http://alex.francois.online.fr/" target="_blank"><span style="color:#3366CC;text-decoration:none">Personal homepage</span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt">_________________________________________</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">---------- Forwarded message ---------<br>
From: <strong><span style="font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif">Vladimir Panov</span></strong> <<a href="mailto:panovmeister@gmail.com">panovmeister@gmail.com</a>><br>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2025 at 08:10<br>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] What is propositional content?<br>
To: Juergen Bohnemeyer <<a href="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu">jb77@buffalo.edu</a>><br>
Cc: Wiemer, Bjoern <<a href="mailto:wiemerb@uni-mainz.de">wiemerb@uni-mainz.de</a>>, Östen Dahl <<a href="mailto:oesten@ling.su.se">oesten@ling.su.se</a>>, Alex Francois <<a href="mailto:alex.francois.cnrs@gmail.com">alex.francois.cnrs@gmail.com</a>>,
<a href="mailto:LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org">LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org</a> <<a href="mailto:LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org">LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Dear colleagues,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Thank you for your very interesting and detailed responses.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">I will now specify a little bit more why I asked my question and what aspects seem contorversial to me. In may original email, I stressed the importance of cross-linguistic diversity. I wonder
whether propositional content, if we assume its existence, is a langauge-specific or a cross-linguistic phenomenon. As we know, different languages have different structures and tend to obligatorily express different semantic features. For example, does the
Italian utterance (1) and the Russian uttrance (2) have the same propositional content, or, in other words, do they describe the same state of affairs?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">(1) </span>
<i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Me lo dar-ai?</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> 1sg.dat 3sg.acc give-fut.2sg</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">(2)
</span><i><span lang="LT" style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Da-š?</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="LT" style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> give.pfv-prs.2sg</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="LT" style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="LT" style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> 'Will you give it to me?'</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="LT" style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="LT" style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">I am not sure this example is an ideal one, one can probably find semething more illustrative. It illustrates that utterances which could be naturally uttered in almost identical speach
situations differ drammatically across languages in what elements they consist of. While theme and recipient referential phrases are obligatory in Italian, one can perfectly do without them in Russian. One can also think of „radical pro-drop“ languages like
those of East and Southeast Asia where it is likely that no argument at all is overtly expressed either as a referential phrase or as a bound marker. In Italian, the future tense is used, whereas in Russian the perfective present form has a default future
interpretation. Nevertheless, (1) is an adequate translation of (2). Do these utterances „describe“ the same „state of affairs“? After all, does a „state of affairs“ have clear boundaries? Where does it end and where does its „packaging“ begin, having in mind
that different languages highlight very different aspects and features of seemingly „the same“ situation? Where is the propositional content here?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Is it not the case that our idea of propositional content is biased by the structure of certain languages, as is often the case in linguistics? It looks like sometimes what is assumed to be the
propositional content is a typical European clause minus modal, epistemic or evidential markers. Needless to say, the hierarchies of obligatorily of most frequently expressed categories can be very different from the typical European ones.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Thank you,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Vladimir</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sun, Oct 26, 2025 at 3:24<span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span>AM Juergen Bohnemeyer <<a href="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu" target="_blank">jb77@buffalo.edu</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Dear Björn — As you know, a propositional analysis of illocutionary forces was attempted by the early Generative Semanticists. If memory serves (no, I wasn’t around then; I mean, if memory serves from stuff I’ve
read about the GS days), this approach was known as the ‘performative’ analysis. So under this style of analysis, a question like
<i>Is it raining?</i> would be derived (literally syntactically derived, mind you) from an underlying
<i>I ask you whether it is raining</i>. The problem with that is of course that the “surface” sentence
<i>I ask you whether it is raining </i></span>is in fact an assertion, so has a different illocutionary force. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">What is the tl;dr here? Illocutionary forces - speech act meanings in the sense of Austin and Searle - are apparently
<i>not</i> of propositional nature. To understand this, compare them to, say, honorifics: it’s not that you could roughly paraphrase the meaning of an honorific propositionally; it’s that doing so wouldn’t have the same
<i>effect</i> as using the honorific. That effect - the expression of respect or solidarity or what have you - is precisely the non-propositional meaning. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">It’s the same with speech acts: you can paraphrase them propositionally, GS-style or otherwise; but the result doesn’t have the same effect - precisely the illocutionary point, which is itself not a propositional meaning. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">HTH! — Juergen<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="m_3494783054539996412m_2058131200431203098ms-outlook-mobile-signature">
<p style="margin:0cm"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)<br>
Professor, Department of Linguistics<br>
University at Buffalo <br>
<br>
Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus<br>
Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260 <br>
Phone: (716) 645 0127 <br>
Fax: (716) 645 3825<br>
Email: </span><u><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#0078D4"><a href="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu" target="_blank" title="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu"><span style="color:#0078D4">jb77@buffalo.edu</span></a></span></u><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><br>
Web: </span><u><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#0563C1"><a href="http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/" target="_blank" title="http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/"><span style="color:#0563C1">http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/</span></a></span></u><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"> <br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Office hours Tu/Th 3:30-4:30pm in 642 Baldy or via Zoom (Meeting ID 585 520 2411; Passcode Hoorheh) </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><br>
<br>
There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In <br>
(Leonard Cohen) </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin:0cm"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin:0cm"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="m_3494783054539996412m_2058131200431203098mail-editor-reference-message-container">
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm;border-color:currentcolor currentcolor">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="color:black">Wiemer, Bjoern <<a href="mailto:wiemerb@uni-mainz.de" target="_blank">wiemerb@uni-mainz.de</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Saturday, October 25, 2025 at 14:11<br>
<b>To: </b>Östen Dahl <<a href="mailto:oesten@ling.su.se" target="_blank">oesten@ling.su.se</a>>, Juergen Bohnemeyer <<a href="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu" target="_blank">jb77@buffalo.edu</a>>, Alex Francois <<a href="mailto:alex.francois.cnrs@gmail.com" target="_blank">alex.francois.cnrs@gmail.com</a>>,
Vladimir Panov <<a href="mailto:panovmeister@gmail.com" target="_blank">panovmeister@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc: </b><a href="mailto:LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org</a> <<a href="mailto:LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>RE: [Lingtyp] What is propositional content?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Dear Östen, Dear All,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">thanks for this making it more precise! However, then we seem to arrive at the question whether modal (more precisely: epistemic) operators are parts of propositions or operate on them. If you argue for the
latter, then your (or logicians’) point of view is justified: it is the epistemic operators which take scope over one another (and thus create recursiveness). However, since the operators scope over propositional content (and there may be only “one” such content
per clause), this anyway amounts to the possibility of chaining clauses with recursively inserted propositional content (which these operators comment on, or restrict if you like).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> I don’t know whether this helps Vladimir. It seems that these problems (and their possible “diagnosis”) exist everywhere and are rather independent of the structure of particular languages.
That is, which criteria might there be for crosslinguistic variation, to be tested on empirical grounds?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Notably, it is intriguing that your example concerning possible recursivity of illocutionary force (“Björn commented on Östen’s comment on Alex’s comment on Vladimir’s posting.”) is based on assertive speech
acts; these contain propositions (or at least imply them in the hidden content of the nouns/NPs “comment” and “posting”). What about other speech acts, e.g., commands or wishes (which do not contain propositions)? Would that be something like “Tell him that
he posts a message for her to finally submit her paper”, or “I wish you longed for your friends to want you all the best”?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> Are there any patterns for morphosyntactic coding of such things that may used to classify constructions and to compare languages?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Best,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Björn.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm;border-color:currentcolor currentcolor">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Östen Dahl <<a href="mailto:oesten@ling.su.se" target="_blank">oesten@ling.su.se</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, October 25, 2025 4:59 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Wiemer, Bjoern <<a href="mailto:wiemerb@uni-mainz.de" target="_blank">wiemerb@uni-mainz.de</a>>; Juergen Bohnemeyer <<a href="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu" target="_blank">jb77@buffalo.edu</a>>; Alex Francois <<a href="mailto:alex.francois.cnrs@gmail.com" target="_blank">alex.francois.cnrs@gmail.com</a>>;
Vladimir Panov <<a href="mailto:panovmeister@gmail.com" target="_blank">panovmeister@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Sv: [Lingtyp] What is propositional content?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Dear all,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I think it is not propositional content that is recursive, it’s rather modal operators that are (in modal logic) functions from propositions to propositions and thus can be recursive. And illocutionary forces
are not operators in that sense but rather properties of speech acts. But if you imagine an operator that takes you from one speech act to another you could get something more like modal operators. Try “comment”. “Björn commented on Östen’s comment on Alex’s
comment on Vladimir’s posting”.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Östen</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm;border-color:currentcolor currentcolor">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Från:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Wiemer, Bjoern <<u><span style="color:blue"><a href="mailto:wiemerb@uni-mainz.de" target="_blank">wiemerb@uni-mainz.de</a></span></u>><br>
<b>Skickat:</b> den 25 oktober 2025 16:42<br>
<b>Till:</b> Juergen Bohnemeyer <<u><span style="color:blue"><a href="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu" target="_blank">jb77@buffalo.edu</a></span></u>>; Östen Dahl <<u><span style="color:blue"><a href="mailto:oesten@ling.su.se" target="_blank">oesten@ling.su.se</a></span></u>>;
Alex Francois <<u><span style="color:blue"><a href="mailto:alex.francois.cnrs@gmail.com" target="_blank">alex.francois.cnrs@gmail.com</a></span></u>>; Vladimir Panov <<u><span style="color:blue"><a href="mailto:panovmeister@gmail.com" target="_blank">panovmeister@gmail.com</a></span></u>><br>
<b>Kopia:</b> <u><span style="color:blue"><a href="mailto:LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org</a></span></u><br>
<b>Ämne:</b> RE: [Lingtyp] What is propositional content?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Dear All,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">just a small comment on Östen’s and Jürgen’s remarks. Don’t they lead to the conclusion that propositional content is recursive (just like embedding may be recursive)? That is, there is, then, a theoretically
infinite inclusion of propositions in propositions (as “objects” of mental acts, and of speech acts reporting on mental acts):</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">It is probable [that it is likely [that x said [that presumably [y claimed [that … ]]]]]</span><o:p></o:p></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I wonder whether the same could be done with illocutionary force. I guess that it cannot. And if not I wonder why this might be so.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> Does anybody know why this might be so?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Best,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Björn.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm;border-color:currentcolor currentcolor">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Lingtyp <<u><span style="color:blue"><a href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org</a></span></u>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Juergen Bohnemeyer via Lingtyp<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, October 25, 2025 4:25 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Östen Dahl <<u><span style="color:blue"><a href="mailto:oesten@ling.su.se" target="_blank">oesten@ling.su.se</a></span></u>>; Alex Francois <<u><span style="color:blue"><a href="mailto:alex.francois.cnrs@gmail.com" target="_blank">alex.francois.cnrs@gmail.com</a></span></u>>;
Vladimir Panov <<u><span style="color:blue"><a href="mailto:panovmeister@gmail.com" target="_blank">panovmeister@gmail.com</a></span></u>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <u><span style="color:blue"><a href="mailto:LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org</a></span></u><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Lingtyp] What is propositional content?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Dear all — I had the same reaction as Östen - for me, the meaning of modal operators is also ‘propositional’, although it is of course distinct from that of their prejacent propositions. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">So what, then, is propositional content (if anything)? I think the term has its uses primarily in contexts in which we contrast meanings that can be spelled out in terms of propositions (i.e., representations of
states of affairs that can be true or false and may be objects of propositional attitudes such as belief and doubt) against meanings that cannot be spelled out in this manner. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Take the meaning of color terms. According to the theory of color semantics developed by Paul Kay and collaborators, the literal meaning (as opposed to associated metaphors) of the word
<i>green</i> is a sensory quality with a prototype ('focal green’) that is neurophysiologically encoded. We can certainly express propositions about green things, and even focal green (I just did) - but these propositions can never accurately capture or define
the meaning of <i>green</i>.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Now, some are strongly invested in the view that
<i>all</i> meaning is propositional content. Perhaps the most prominent scholar of this persuasion is Anna Wierzbicka. Here is Wierzbicka’s (1996: 306) analysis of green:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> X is green. =</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> in some places many things grow out of the ground</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> when one sees things like X one can think of this.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">I think everybody can judge for themselves whether they find this analysis convincing. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">In my view, there is quite a range of linguistic meanings that cannot adequately be captured in propositional terms. Aside from color terms and other expressions of sensory perception, I would add for example ideophones
(not necessarily all of them, especially not when you take ‘ideophone’ as the label of a language-specific category of expressions), expressives, honorifics and other social deictics, and so on. I would go as far as to suggest that even manner of motion verbs
such as <i>walk</i> and <i>run</i> have meanings that we understand because our motor system knows how to engage in these activities, not because we can define them propositionally.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Where to draw the boundary between propositional and non-propositional content has long been a fascinating question to me. There’s much more I could say about this, but I’ll stop here as I’m sure people have stopped
reading a while ago </span><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif;color:black">😉</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best — Juergen<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div id="m_3494783054539996412m_2058131200431203098ms-outlook-mobile-signature">
<p style="margin:0cm"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)<br>
Professor, Department of Linguistics<br>
University at Buffalo <br>
<br>
Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus<br>
Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260 <br>
Phone: (716) 645 0127 <br>
Fax: (716) 645 3825<br>
Email: </span><u><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#0078D4"><a href="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu" target="_blank" title="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu"><span style="color:#0078D4">jb77@buffalo.edu</span></a></span></u><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><br>
Web: </span><u><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#0563C1"><a href="http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/" target="_blank" title="http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/"><span style="color:#0563C1">http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/</span></a></span></u><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"> <br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Office hours Tu/Th 3:30-4:30pm in 642 Baldy or via Zoom (Meeting ID 585 520 2411; Passcode Hoorheh) </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><br>
<br>
There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In <br>
(Leonard Cohen) </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0cm"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0cm"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="m_3494783054539996412m_2058131200431203098mail-editor-reference-message-container">
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm;border-color:currentcolor">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">From: </span></b><span style="color:black">Lingtyp <</span><u><span style="color:blue"><a href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org</a></span></u><span style="color:black">>
on behalf of Östen Dahl via Lingtyp <</span><u><span style="color:blue"><a href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a></span></u><span style="color:black">><br>
<b>Date: </b>Saturday, October 25, 2025 at 09:26<br>
<b>To: </b>Alex Francois <</span><u><span style="color:blue"><a href="mailto:alex.francois.cnrs@gmail.com" target="_blank">alex.francois.cnrs@gmail.com</a></span></u><span style="color:black">>, Vladimir Panov <</span><u><span style="color:blue"><a href="mailto:panovmeister@gmail.com" target="_blank">panovmeister@gmail.com</a></span></u><span style="color:black">><br>
<b>Cc: </b></span><u><span style="color:blue"><a href="mailto:LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org</a></span></u><span style="color:black"> <</span><u><span style="color:blue"><a href="mailto:LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org</a></span></u><span style="color:black">><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Lingtyp] What is propositional content?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Dear Vladimir, Alex, and all others,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I think a logician would say that a sentence with “a modal comment” like (1) in Alex’s posting contains not one proposition but two: (i) the proposition that the supermarket is open on Sundays, (ii) the proposition
that (i) might be true. Both (i) and (ii) are entities that can be true or false. But this means that the propositional content of (1) is (ii) rather than (i), since that is what is expressed by the whole sentence and what the speaker claims is true.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">There is a tradition in linguistics to do things the way Alex proposes. I don’t know where it originally came from, but Fillmore in his 1968 paper “The Case for Case” divides the basic structure of sentence
into a “proposition” and a “modality constituent”. The difference between logicians and linguists may be that logicians tend to think of modal notions as objective while linguists regard them as subjective. The problem is that modalities may differ in this
regard. This could be a long discussion, but I will stop here.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Best,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Östen</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm;border-color:currentcolor">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Från:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Lingtyp <<u><span style="color:blue"><a href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org</a></span></u>>
<b>För </b>Alex Francois via Lingtyp<br>
<b>Skickat:</b> den 25 oktober 2025 13:16<br>
<b>Till:</b> Vladimir Panov <<u><span style="color:blue"><a href="mailto:panovmeister@gmail.com" target="_blank">panovmeister@gmail.com</a></span></u>><br>
<b>Kopia:</b> <u><span style="color:blue"><a href="mailto:LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org</a></span></u><br>
<b>Ämne:</b> Re: [Lingtyp] What is propositional content?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Dear Vladimir,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Thanks for an interesting question.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">In my understanding, the notion of "propositional content" stems from the logical analysis of language. It reflects the attempt to isolate, in an utterance, the reported state-of-affairs from
what the speaker says about it.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Thus if I say (1)
<i>The supermarket might even be open on Sundays</i>, one can propose to mentally separate:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0cm" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">the propositional content X: <br>
<the supermarket being open on Sundays></span><o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">the modal comment about that content X:<br>
<X might be true> = <it is possible for X to be true></span><o:p></o:p></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Now if we compare (1) with </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">(2) <i>There is no way the supermarket would be open on Sundays</i>,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">we may say that both utterances share the exact same
<i>propositional content</i> X, but they include a different modal stance about it.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">In the case of (2), the modal comment would be <there's no way that X is true> = <it is necessary for X to be false>.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">________</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">The first author, I believe, to have formalised similar concepts is Thomas Aquinas ~ Tommaso d'Aquino (13th century), in his short
<i>De propositionibus modalibus</i> ['On modal propositions'] (which might be apocryphal). I found the original text
<u><span style="color:blue"><a href="https://www.corpusthomisticum.org/dpp.html" target="_blank">here</a></span></u> in Latin; a French translation
<u><span style="color:blue"><a href="http://docteurangelique.free.fr/bibliotheque/opuscules/39lespropositionsmodales.htm" target="_blank">here</a></span></u>;
<u><span style="color:blue"><a href="https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/2074/1/DS-2009-04.text.pdf#page=173" target="_blank">Uckelman (2009: 157-9)</a></span></u> has an English translation. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Aquinas contrasted the
<i>dictum</i> ["what is said" ≈propositional content]<br>
from the <i>modus</i> [the 'manner', i.e. what is said about the dictum]. His examples included:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">(3) <i>Necesse est Socratem currere.
</i>“For Socrates to run is necessarily true.”</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">(4) <i>Possibile est Socratem currere.
</i>“For Socrates to run is possible.”, </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">etc.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">In a passage which I find incredibly modern, Aquinas notes that polarity can affect sometimes the dictum, sometimes the modus:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">In (5) <i>Possibile est Socratem non currere</i> “It is possible for Socrates not to run”, the negation is internal to the dictum.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">In (6) <i>Non possibile est Socratem currere</i> “It is not possible for Socrates to run”, the negation is a property of the modus.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">(Orig. quote:
<i>Item sciendum est quod propositio modalis dicitur affirmativa vel negativa secundum affirmationem vel negationem modi, et non dicti.</i> which could be rendered: "Importantly, the modality will be said affirmative vs. negative depending on the polarity of
the modus, not of the dictum.")</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">________</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Aquinas' proposals have played a major role in formal logic; <br>
they were also introduced to linguistics by French linguist Charles Bally in 1932 (cf.
<u><span style="color:blue"><a href="https://hal.science/hal-02310043v1/" target="_blank">Gosselin 2015</a></span></u>).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">The word <i>modus</i> is the source of our later concepts of
<i>mood</i> and <i>modality</i>.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">________</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">I just found an interesting paper by Per Martin-Löf “Are the objects of propositional attitudes propositions in the sense of propositional and predicate logic?” (<u><span style="color:blue"><a href="https://pml.flu.cas.cz/uploads/PML-Geneva19Dec03.pdf" target="_blank">2003</a></span></u>)
In this table, he compares Bally's contrast <i>modus</i> vs. <i>dictum</i> [actually from Aquinas] with proposals by other logicians and linguists:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><img border="0" width="442" height="271" style="width:4.6041in;height:2.8229in" id="m_3494783054539996412m_2058131200431203098Bild_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.png@01DC467F.30FA4050"></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Löf here proposes that the term “propositional content” was mostly used by John Searle. I guess this refers to Searle's 1969
<i>Speech acts</i>, though Löf does not elaborate.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Admittedly, "illocutionary force" is different from "modus", but there is indeed a filiation across these different notional couples.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Other people on this list will be able to point to specific passages in Searle's works.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">_______</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Finally, another attempt to adapt similar ideas to linguistics was Simon Dik's Functional grammar:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif">Dik, Simon. (1989).
<i>The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part I: The Structure of the Clause</i> (Vol. 9). Foris.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">At first glance, Dik's equivalent to the
<i>dictum</i> is what he calls the "state of affairs" (SoA), which he defines p.51:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><img border="0" width="471" height="392" style="width:4.9062in;height:4.0833in" id="m_3494783054539996412m_2058131200431203098Bild_x0020_2" src="cid:image002.png@01DC467F.30FA4050"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">That said, Dik is worth reading because, rather than a mere binary contrast (such as
<i>dictum</i> vs. <i>modus</i>) he proposes to distinguish different logical / semantic levels of the utterance, organised in a fine-grained hierarchy (see his p.50):</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><img border="0" width="366" height="408" style="width:3.8125in;height:4.25in" id="m_3494783054539996412m_2058131200431203098Bild_x0020_3" src="cid:image003.png@01DC467F.30FA4050"></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Dik carefully distinguishes between SoA, possible fact, predication, proposition, clause... </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Different operators
</span><span style="font-family:"Courier New"">π</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> (e.g. Tense, Aspect, Modality, Polarity, Truth value, Illocutionary act...), and also what he calls "satellites"
</span><span style="font-family:"Courier New"">σ</span><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> (syntactic adjuncts etc), attach to different layers among these. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Interestingly, Dik describes one of his layers as “propositional content”, which he equates with “possible fact” (p.52):</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><img border="0" width="456" height="283" style="width:4.75in;height:2.9479in" id="m_3494783054539996412m_2058131200431203098Bild_x0020_4" src="cid:image004.png@01DC467F.30FA4050"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">See also pp.294 ff. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Dik's concept of prop. content is more specific than the same term used by Searle or the
<i>dictum</i> of other authors;</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">In his terms, propositional content is of a "higher-order structure" than the core state-of-affairs.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">________</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">In my publications describing the Oceanic languages of northern Vanuatu, I have found such analytical tools (under the same or similar names) quite useful, particularly when describing tense,
aspect, modality or illocutionary force in different languages -- whether TAMP in Mwotlap (<u><span style="color:blue"><a href="https://marama.huma-num.fr/AFpub_books_e.htm#hide3:~:text=La%20S%C3%A9mantique%20du%20Pr%C3%A9dicat%20en%20Mwotlap" target="_blank">2003</a></span></u>,
<u><span style="color:blue"><a href="https://marama.huma-num.fr/AFpub_articles_e.htm#fcc" target="_blank">f/c c</a></span></u>), the Aorist in NV languages (<u><span style="color:blue"><a href="https://marama.huma-num.fr/AFpub_articles_e.htm#2009a" target="_blank">2009a</a></span></u>),
the Subjunctive in Hiw & Lo-Toga (<u><span style="color:blue"><a href="https://marama.huma-num.fr/AFpub_articles_e.htm#2010b" target="_blank">2010b</a></span></u>), etc.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">________</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">I hope this is useful.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">best</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Alex</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<hr size="2" width="70" style="width:52.5pt" align="left">
</div>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#45818E">Alex François</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:blue"><a href="http://www.lattice.cnrs.fr/en/alexandre-francois/" target="_blank">LaTTiCe</a></span></u><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> —
<u><span style="color:#3366CC"><a href="https://www.cnrs.fr/en" target="_blank" title="ENS"><span style="color:#3366CC">CNRS</span></a></span></u>
<u><span style="color:#3366CC"><a href="https://www.cnrs.fr/en" target="_blank" title="ENS"><span style="color:#3366CC">—</span></a></span></u>
<u><span style="color:#3366CC"><a href="https://www.ens.fr/laboratoire/lattice-langues-textes-traitements-informatiques-et-cognition-umr-8094" target="_blank" title="ENS"><span style="color:#3366CC">ENS</span></a></span></u>–<u><span style="color:#3366CC"><a href="https://www.psl.eu/en" target="_blank" title="ENS"><span style="color:#3366CC">PSL</span></a></span></u> —
<u><span style="color:#3366CC"><a href="http://www.sorbonne-nouvelle.fr/lattice-langues-textes-traitements-informatiques-cognition-umr-8094-3458.kjsp" target="_blank" title="ENS"><span style="color:#3366CC">Sorbonne nouvelle</span></a></span></u></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#3366CC"><a href="https://researchportalplus.anu.edu.au/en/persons/alex-francois" target="_blank"><span style="color:#3366CC">Australian National University</span></a></span></u><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#3366CC"><a href="http://alex.francois.online.fr/" target="_blank"><span style="color:#3366CC">Personal homepage</span></a></span></u><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt">_________________________________________</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">---------- Forwarded message ---------<br>
From: <b>Vladimir Panov via Lingtyp</b> <<u><span style="color:blue"><a href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a></span></u>><br>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2025 at 03:00<br>
Subject: [Lingtyp] What is propositional content?<br>
To: <<u><span style="color:blue"><a href="mailto:LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">LINGTYP@listserv.linguistlist.org</a></span></u>><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear typologists,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Are you aware of any relatively up-to-date and possibly typllogy-friendly literature which discusses this problem?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Vladimir<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<u><span style="color:blue"><a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a></span></u><br>
<u><span style="color:blue"><a href="https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank">https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a></span></u><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>