[Lingtyp] What is propositional content?

Sat Oct 25 11:15:41 UTC 2025

Dear Vladimir,

Thanks for an interesting question.

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.
Thus if I say (1) *The supermarket might even be open on Sundays*, one can
propose to mentally separate:

   - the propositional content X:
   <the supermarket being open on Sundays>
   - the modal comment about that content X:
   <X might be true> = <it is possible for X to be true>

Now if we compare (1) with

(2) *There is no way the supermarket would be open on Sundays*,

we may say that both utterances share the exact same *propositional content*
X, but they include a different modal stance about it.
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>.
________
The first author, I believe, to have formalised similar concepts is Thomas
Aquinas ~ Tommaso d'Aquino (13th century), in his short *De propositionibus
modalibus* ['On modal propositions'] (which might be apocryphal).  I found
the original text here <https://www.corpusthomisticum.org/dpp.html> in
Latin;  a French translation here
<http://docteurangelique.free.fr/bibliotheque/opuscules/39lespropositionsmodales.htm>;
Uckelman (2009: 157-9)
<https://eprints.illc.uva.nl/id/eprint/2074/1/DS-2009-04.text.pdf#page=173>
has an English translation.

Aquinas contrasted the *dictum* ["what is said" ≈propositional content]
from the *modus* [the 'manner', i.e. what is said about the dictum]. His
examples included:
(3) *Necesse est Socratem currere. *“For Socrates to run is necessarily
true.”
(4) *Possibile est Socratem currere.* “For Socrates to run is possible.”,
etc.

In a passage which I find incredibly modern, Aquinas notes that polarity
can affect sometimes the dictum, sometimes the modus:
In (5) *Possibile est Socratem non currere* “It is possible for Socrates
not to run”, the negation is internal to the dictum.
In (6) *Non possibile est Socratem currere* “It is not possible for
Socrates to run”, the negation is a property of the modus.

(Orig. quote: *Item sciendum est quod propositio modalis dicitur
affirmativa vel negativa secundum affirmationem vel negationem modi, et non
dicti.* which could be rendered: "Importantly, the modality will be said
affirmative vs. negative depending on the polarity of the modus, not of the
dictum.")
________
Aquinas' proposals have played a major role in formal logic;
they were also introduced to linguistics by French linguist Charles Bally
in 1932 (cf. Gosselin 2015 <https://hal.science/hal-02310043v1/>).

The word *modus* is the source of our later concepts of *mood* and
*modality*.
________
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?” (2003
<https://pml.flu.cas.cz/uploads/PML-Geneva19Dec03.pdf>) In this table, he
compares Bally's contrast *modus* vs. *dictum* [actually from Aquinas] with
proposals by other logicians and linguists:
[image: image.png]

Löf here proposes that the term “propositional content” was mostly used by
John Searle. I guess this refers to Searle's 1969 *Speech acts*, though Löf
does not elaborate.
Admittedly, "illocutionary force" is different from "modus", but there is
indeed a filiation across these different notional couples.
Other people on this list will be able to point to specific passages in
Searle's works.
_______
Finally, another attempt to adapt similar ideas to linguistics was Simon
Dik's Functional grammar:

Dik, Simon. (1989). *The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part I: The
Structure of the Clause* (Vol. 9). Foris.

At first glance, Dik's equivalent to the *dictum* is what he calls the
"state of affairs" (SoA), which he defines p.51:
[image: image.png]

That said, Dik is worth reading because, rather than a mere binary contrast
(such as *dictum* vs. *modus*) he proposes to distinguish different logical
/ semantic levels of the utterance, organised in a fine-grained hierarchy
(see his p.50):
[image: image.png]
Dik carefully distinguishes between SoA, possible fact, predication,
proposition, clause...
Different operators π (e.g. Tense, Aspect, Modality, Polarity, Truth value,
Illocutionary act...), and also what he calls "satellites" σ (syntactic
adjuncts etc), attach to different layers among these.
Interestingly, Dik describes one of his layers as “propositional content”,
which he equates with “possible fact” (p.52):
[image: image.png]

See also pp.294 ff.
Dik's concept of prop. content is more specific than the same term used by
Searle or the *dictum* of other authors;
In his terms, propositional content is of a "higher-order structure" than
the core state-of-affairs.
________
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 (2003
<https://marama.huma-num.fr/AFpub_books_e.htm#hide3:~:text=La%20S%C3%A9mantique%20du%20Pr%C3%A9dicat%20en%20Mwotlap>,
f/c c <https://marama.huma-num.fr/AFpub_articles_e.htm#fcc>), the Aorist in
NV languages (2009a <https://marama.huma-num.fr/AFpub_articles_e.htm#2009a>),
the Subjunctive in Hiw & Lo-Toga (2010b
<https://marama.huma-num.fr/AFpub_articles_e.htm#2010b>), etc.
________

I hope this is useful.

best
Alex
------------------------------

Alex François
LaTTiCe <http://www.lattice.cnrs.fr/en/alexandre-francois/> — CNRS
<https://www.cnrs.fr/en> — <https://www.cnrs.fr/en> ENS
<https://www.ens.fr/laboratoire/lattice-langues-textes-traitements-informatiques-et-cognition-umr-8094>
–PSL <https://www.psl.eu/en> — Sorbonne nouvelle
<http://www.sorbonne-nouvelle.fr/lattice-langues-textes-traitements-informatiques-cognition-umr-8094-3458.kjsp>
<http://www.sorbonne-nouvelle.fr/lattice-langues-textes-traitements-informatiques-cognition-umr-8094-3458.kjsp>
<http://www.sorbonne-nouvelle.fr/lattice-langues-textes-traitements-informatiques-cognition-umr-8094-3458.kjsp>
Australian National University
<https://researchportalplus.anu.edu.au/en/persons/alex-francois>
Personal homepage <http://alex.francois.online.fr/>
_________________________________________

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Vladimir Panov via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2025 at 03:00
Subject: [Lingtyp] What is propositional content?
To: <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>

Dear typologists,

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.

Are you aware of any relatively up-to-date and possibly typllogy-friendly
literature which discusses this problem?

Thank you,
Vladimir
_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20251025/9213855e/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 446345 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20251025/9213855e/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 159499 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20251025/9213855e/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 300071 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20251025/9213855e/attachment-0006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 61337 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20251025/9213855e/attachment-0007.png>