 Having discussed structured proposition accounts in a general way, the best way to further illuminate these accounts of propositions is to discuss some recent work on structured propositions. In so doing, we shall see various respects in which accounts of structured propositions can differ. Three caveats before proceeding. First, as was mentioned above, structured proposition accounts, unlike possible world accounts of propositions, allow for distinct necessarily equivalent propositions, and thus individuate propositions more finely than possible worlds accounts. There are other accounts of propositions, or things that are intended to do the work of propositions, as in the previously mentioned example of Bealer [1993], that are not structured proposition accounts (given the way that term is used here), but that allow for distinct necessarily equivalent propositions or things that are to do the work of propositions. Another example is the interpreted logical form account defended by Larson and Ludlow [1993]. Though such accounts will not be discussed here, the reader should be aware of them and that they are motivated by many of the considerations that motivate structured proposition theorists. In particular, they attempt to individuate propositions (or things that do the work of propositions) more finely than possible worlds accounts of propositions. Second, discussing a sampling of recent work on the view that propositions are structured will not (and is not intended to) exhaust the versions of structured proposition approaches that there are. Rather, only some of the main issues and current approaches will be highlighted. To that end, three broad approaches to structured propositions will be discussed; these are the Neo-Russellian Approach, the Structured Intensions Approach, and the Algebraic Approach. In discussing each approach, a number of authors who adopt the approach will be mentioned, but for definiteness, only a representative of each approach will be highlighted in explaining it. The reader should be aware that these groupings are somewhat loose, and that there may be important differences among authors who are grouped together. Third, though questions will be raised here and there, criticisms of the various approaches discussed will be left aside. The task at hand is simply that of introducing the reader to approaches to structured propositions; criticizing the various approaches is a task for another day.