Abstract

This paper is formal and quite difficult for readers untrained in modal logic; I have no illusions about this and I apologize in advance if I fail to make things as clear and simple as I should. I do believe, however, that much of the complexity in this paper is unavoidable and anything that is simpler will be so at the cost of precision. Almost everything will be defined here, so that the discussion will on the whole be self-contained. But this is really not to say much when it come to mathematical topics. The reader who is seriously interested should perhaps read an introductory book on modal logic and the lucid survey article [ Bull and Segerberg, 1984 ] to get enough background. I can also recommend [ Blackburn, 1993 ] as an introduction into modal logic in connection with avms. It is impossible to go through all technical proofs in great detail; this would be tantamount to writing a book on this topic. But, I hope, the line of argumentation can be understood even without a proper understanding of the technical points. For the message is of wider importance. If I am right, then modal logic, where it fails, fails necessarily Is there a genuine modal perspective on feature structures? 3 -- and no other framework I know of will not under these circumstances. Secondly, it provides enough technical apparatus to allow to prove significant results. To those who remain unimpressed I can only appeal to their sense of beauty and naturalness. Among the persons who have quite generally helped to shape my views on syntax and logic I wish to thank explicitly those who have contributed to the present paper. These are Mark Ellison and two anonymous referees, who had the questionable pleasure of reading an earlier version of this paper. Moreover, the results on modal feature logic...

Citations