 After Soames’ (1987) attack against unstructured accounts of propositions as sets of truth-supporting circumstances, structured propositions accounts (King 1995) have become the main rivals to SPWS views. Roughly: propositions are taken as structures, composed of the entities which are the semantic values of the corresponding sentences’ syntactic constituents. Take “Robin loves Batman”. It’s composed of a noun, “Robin”, and a verb phrase, “loves Batman”, itself made of a verb and a noun. Let the semantic values of the lexical items be: [Robin], [Batman], [loving]. Then the corresponding proposition can be taken as an ordered triple \(\langle\)[Robin], [loving], [Batman]\(\rangle\). Ordering is important: Batman may not return the feeling, and “Batman loves Robin” expresses a different proposition: \(\langle\)[Batman], [loving], [Robin]\(\rangle\). (A proposition is not just an ordered list, but we leave aside the difficult metaphysical issue of what ties its constituents together: see Gaskin 2008.)