Abstract
A study of forty current business/technical/professional writing textbooks suggests that little disciplinary agreement exists about what proposals are and how they differ from some kinds of reports; how the various types of proposals should be classified; and what structural features characterize the genre. Though many texts blur the distinction between proposals and internal recommendation reports, the two are never the same. The textbooks present a bewildering array of classification systems, often failing to distinguish between situation and function. A function-based system could divide all proposals into two categories-analytic (research proposals, R&D proposals, and consulting proposals) and service/product, with bids representing a special case. The lack of disciplinary agreement also makes it difficult for textbook users to internalize a generic structure that will serve for all proposal-writing tasks. Such a structure would include the following: situation, objectives, methods, qualifications, costs, and benefits. The major advantages of such a generic structure are its slots, which make it like a schema; its event sequence, which makes it like a script; and its ability to help writers and teachers understand the relationship among the macropropositions that exist explicitly or implicitly in all proposals.