• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.71-109
• /
• 2014

Gila Sher believes that Tarskian definition of logical consequence is a conceptually and extensionally adequate explanation. She has tried to show this on the basis of Mostowskian conceptions of generalized quantifiers as being invariant under isomorphic structures and her own conceptions of models. In this paper I try to show that her attempt to justify the Tarskian definition is only partially successful. I admit that her conceptions of the logical as being invariant under isomorphic structures are enough to show the logical formality of logical consequence relations. But I think that since her conceptions of meanings of terms are quite inadequate for dealing with the problem of empty predicates, she fails to distinguish logically necessary truths from other kinds of truths.