Abstract

In his book, The Concept of Logical Consequence, Etchemendy claims that the currently standard model-theoretic account of logical consequence is "the interpretational semantics" and does not capture logicality. The purpose of this paper is to defend the model-theoretic account from Etchemendy's criticisms. Through comparison with Sher's "Tarskian logic" and her model-theoretic definition of logical constants, I aim to demonstrate that the basis of Etchemendy's arguments are mistaken. I then explain that the model-theoretic account of logical consequence guarantees its logicality by the semantic functions of logical constants.