@article {39712,
	title = {Model theory and validity},
	journal = {Synthese},
	volume = {123},
	year = {2000},
	pages = {165-193},
	abstract = {Take a formula of first-order logic which is a logical consequence of some other formulae according to model theory, and in all those formulae replace schematic letters with English expressions. Is the argument resulting from the replacement valid in the sense that the premisses could not have been true without the conclusion also being true? Can we reason from the model-theoretic concept of logical consequence to the modal concept of validity? Yes, if the model theory is the standard one for sentential logic; no, if it is the standard one for the predicate calculus; and yes, if it is a certain model theory for free logic. These conclusions rely<em> inter alia</em> on some assumptions about possible worlds, which are mapped into the models of model theory. Plural quantification is used in the last section, while part of the reasoning is relegated to an appendix that includes a proof of completeness for a version of free logic.},
	author = {Yannis Stephanou}
}
