How we interpret words in a grammatical structure is an interesting question in its own right, but the reason I chose statements is that they are the language correspondent of knowledge. The idea was to say that all knowledge is praxeological knowledge, and statements are - basically by definition - utterances aimed at conveying knowledge. (A word is part of an utterance, but I can interpret “blue” alone by seeing the color blue, without having it suggest anything to me like, “If I do X, Y will result.”)
There being no knowledge that is not praxeological, or not understood in terms of satisfactory/dissatisfactory outcome “trees,” was the deeper thing I wanted to lead toward. The statements are kind of peripheral to the thoughts, but I thought starting with statements would be a better lead-in. It’s like all meaning is just pain and pleasure…and sometimes this is even reflected in English, where it is not too strange to say something like, “Going to the dentist means a great deal of pain.” For that speaker, that is the primary significance/import/meaning of the idea of going to the dentist.